The partition of India was not “an ahistorical aberration”; it was the logical culmination of the process that started with the Muslim conquest of Northern India in the Eighth century.

When the British, in the early Eighteenth century, arrived on the scene, the civilisational conflict between the Hindus and Muslims had reached a stalemate, with neither of them strong enough to dominate India as a whole.

The British Raj, however, because of its non-proselytising nature, provided the Hindus with a breathing space, thereby enabling them to initiate a process of self-discovery and self-renewal. It helped to create a self-confident Hindu elite, the like of which had not existed before.

The partition of India was a logical corollary to the rise of the Hindus against the background of a civilisational conflict that began with the arrival of Islam. The real aberration, albeit a welcoming one from India ’s point of views, was not the partition, but the British Raj.

Randhir Singh Bains, Gants Hill, UK

Whatever our views on partition, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc., have to live next door to to each other. The "west" loves to partition other countries (Cyprus, Palestine, India and now Iraq) while keeping for itself the great idea of creating alliances with erstwhile enemies - as in EU or the American states which "united". A South Asian assembly of democratically elected representatives, which gives a "third" reading to bills from national parliaments would go a long way to ease tensions and create trust between the South Asian neighbours. Perhaps, each country should have equal representation in this assembly - the US senate has equal representaion for each state - would alley the fears that smaller countries harbour of India. Such an assembly would allow citizens of South Asian nations to air their concerns without being unpatriotic to their countries. It would also strengthen democracy because the assembly members wuld not be a threat to the national governments.

Dnyanesh Mathur, Fremont, USA

It was the Congress Party that rejected the Cabinet Mission plan which proposed a united India that was accepted by the Muslim League. So it is incorrect to say that Jinnah was determined to partition India.

Asad, London, UK

Jinnah did prove one thing for certain: Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. This is now illustrated in states like Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Malaysia and probably Turkey where only the Army keeps the clerics from ruling and even that system is about to change with Erdogan.
Koranic fundamentalism is clearly part and parcel of Islam and that enjoins full social, economic and political expression of Mohammedan law for full Muslim piety to be possible.
Today's celebrations also raise the sharpest global question: how can political Islam undergo a reformation so that Islam can be 'privatised' and so withdraw its political threat to the West?

Blackstone, Witney, UK

Urdu-speaking east? Surely you meant Bengali speaking east! Seems in your eagerness to call India "Bangladesh’s eager midwife" you got your facts mixed up.

The US (in cohorts with ISI of Pakistan) was the “eager midwife” in the creation of the Mujahedin, predecessor of the Taliban, to fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan. The US is now fighting the Taliban, its own creation. No prizes for guessing who their bed-fellow and principal ally in this fight is!!

India has never shrugged off the Islamist menace as a "Pakistani problem". It has been at the receiving end of Islamist terrorism well before 9/11. The problem made all the more worse due to the training, arming and funding of the Mujahedin/Taliban provided by the US and its “ally”.

Khurram, London,

In all the articles about the partition, Ali Jinnah seems not to get the recognition he actually deserves for the catastrophe that followed. His position was that "I will have my Pakistan or Insha Allah (by God) I will destroy India." The British did everything they could to persuade him otherwise as did Nehru and Gandhi but he was determined that the Moslems would have their way. I think we ought to be aware that they are still prepared to destroy anything it takes to get their way.

Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,

Two blatant factual mistakes: Pakistan's current population is estimated to be 160 million while the population of Indian Muslims is about 130 million. And secondly, the eastern half of Pakistan that seceded from the rest of the country in 1971 spoke Bengali, not Urdu.

How on earth could you get it wrong!

Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan

Pakistan's creator Jinnah know that India was for Hindus and Paksitan is for Muslims. I think both nations can now learn to live together and even form a Eu type union to give their people freedom to move and join their seperated families. Congratulation to both contries for ending foreign occupation. What a success story.

Z Hussain, Rochdale, UK

In typically American fashion, I am profooundly ignoraant of much that transpires in the world. My wife subscribes to your paper in an effort to keep me better informed. It usually succeeds. I had no idea that the Muslim population in India was so high. I would add that though my family departed Britain in 1630. I am proud of my heritage and of the courage of a noble people whose frendship has always been there for us Yanks, Earl Dewey Wallingford, CT USA

Earl Dewey, wallingford, CT/USA

I agree partition should never have happened but Pakistan especially has moved too far away from India to be integrated again into an united nation.

Deepan, London, U.K

It was not the urdu speaking east that broke away in 1971, it was bengali speaking. that's why it is called bangladesh. Get it !!!

Sajjad Tariq, winnipeg, canada

Did Britain really disengage in 1947 ? It seems as if this country is now integrated into the Subcontinent and still fighting on the Northwest Frontier

TomTom, Leeds, England