Why do I find this constant harping on the idea of 'partition in general'? There was no general agreement. One side forced its stand on the colonial rulers and the other side; the other side, the Congress, gave in because they had found the League impossible partners when the two parties formed a coalition government in the UP.
Instead of this correct understanding of what happened, and was copiously recorded, we encounter this constant refrain of some sort of general agreement on an idea of partition, implying that one side got a Muslim state, the other got a Hindu state. This is factually incorrect, and is a lie spread by the Sangh Parivar.
However, in the end 1945 general election and 1946 provincial election made it clear what people wanted. Majority of muslims clearly saw partition necessary to 'secure' their future. Is there any other explanation to account for this massive shift that occurEd in 1946 election from 1937 election? If so, I am keen to hear it.