Book Review: Jammu & Kashmir: Dilemma of Accession

The Book is based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan- the daughter of the then J&K PM Pandit Ramchandra Kak. Her writing in turn is based on the diary writings/notes of her father, and both these writings have been used by the author Radha Rajan, to write this Book, appending some of her own views.

Page 15 to 104, has been so confusing. That part of the Book has the author’s writing, but the it is so messed up that it is not clear what part is the view of the Author, and what part is just she quoting the writings of Lila Bhan (pages 123 onwards). This Book is primarily based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan, and some portion is based on the quotes from VP Menon’s Book (IOIS), and some from the quotes from CWMG (Collected Works of MG).

But the point is, the beginning of the Book is so messed up. 

Part 1 - Part 3 (i.e. Page 15-88) in particular, is so badly written. It quotes 3 different books/writings and mixes those up with author’s own views. And the commentaries are made in jumbled sequence numbering which is so confusing. For example, on page 27 is a section with title “section IV RCK paper”, it had point 38, 40, and it goes to Section I point 18,19 etc. On page 55, is “Section VI”, it has point 4,5,6,7, and after point 7, comes some other content with point 10,11,12….16, and next point is 26!! And lo and behold, “Section VI” point 8, makes it entry NOW on page 64! Now, on page 64, there is point 8,9 and then 12!! Page 65 has two sections titled “Section 1”!! And on page 70, there comes “Section V”, with point 41, 42.

Hope you get that. The writing is so messed up in this section. It is as if the author has taken an oath to play with the minds of readers. These serious stuffs of Historical matters, are anyway a bit difficult to understand, so effort should have been made to write about them in an easy to understand way, in stead, the author has put least effort in that direction.

Now, about the views expressed by the author in this part of the Book (uptil Page 104):- I found it a bit motivated against Gandhi and Nehru and also found it to have completely ignored Patel’s role. 

The Book starts by putting the blame of partition on Gandhi (by alienating Muslims and by his flip-flop stand on the Cabinet Mission plan). It then moves on to putting the blame of the J&K’s delayed accession on Gandhi. The basic premise is that PM of J&K opposed the accession due to Congress and Gandhi’s support and propping of Sheikh Abdullah (termed “Jihadi” Abdullah at times). The author has primarily contested the issue on J&K historically being a Hindu region, even though at the time of partition having over 75% Muslims. The author has also claimed that Sheikh Abdullah actually had his own nefarious intentions, and that was realized by Nehru too in 1953 when he jailed him, by which time it was already too late, in the sense that had Congress not supported Sheikh Abdullah, J&K’s PM would have supported accession to India in 1946 itself.

What I found odd about the author’s views, is that it focusses too much on “India being a Hindu Rashtra” and trying to justify things based on that. The word “Jihadi” has been used so liberally in the Book that I am sure it must be the most repeated word in the book! The author also conveniently gives a free hand to Sardar Patel both on the issue of partition, as well as on the issue of J&K’s accession. The author does question the silence and inaction of Patel, but at one point it justifies it by associating a cause to it and at another, it just questions it but let it slide. So while it just questions Patel’s silence and inaction, it actively criticises and vilifies Gandhi and Nehru. The author also opined that Gandhi came out harshly against Princely states, which I think is an illogical argument. The author actually critiqued the “western ideas of secularism, democracy…” at one point, thereby supporting the Kingdom like rule over Democracy. So all those views of the author has come out so odd and archaic. She doesn’t seem to have analysed it in light of how Congress worked at that time- with thought on secularism, democracy, people’s participation etc.

The real content of the Book lies between page 123 to 158. That part contains “Print copy of the original document received from Smt. Lila Bhan”. That is the part, where Pandit Ramchandra Kak’s daughter has written her views in a sequential manner, and she has put forth her views based on the writings of her father only. That section has the actual content, the real content in understandable way. I wish the author had simply written in the beginning only, to just skip to page 123.

Talking of this section, so many facts come up, and Pandit RCK’s views have been presented via her daughter. The basic argument is that J&K’s ruling was all great, and Sheikh Abdullah just came in between to push his own agenda (to have his own separate “principality”, taking support of Congress). Pandit RCK’s side has been explained really well, though at times, I felt things have been dealt in a bit more simplistic ways. That said, the Book rightly blames Mountbatten for the J&K’s accession issue. Clearly, Mountbatten had his own agenda (British interests), as is clear by reading several other books too. But then Nehru and Patel had hardly any way out. The Book unjustifiable blames Nehru for keeping Mountbatten in India with all the vested power, even after independence. Other books on the matter explains why it was unavoidable.

Nevertheless, this Book throws lots of new facts, gives lot of new insights. 

But the first part of the Book got spoilt by author’s motivated views and bad style of writing. Here are some examples:-

" Islamic separatism and jihad which is organized in Pakistan and launched across national borders into Jammu and Kashmir— in the exact same manner in which Congress-ruled provinces organized the destabilizing mission inside their borders and launched them across borders into the adjoining Princely States. "

"a triumphant Gandhi and the INC instigated civil unrest in several Princely States in the name of civil liberties, temple entry and "responsible government". There was Congress-triggered unrest in Mysore, Travancore, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Rajkot, Talcher and Dhenkanal." 

"Gandhi decried western civilization in the much-touted Hind Swaraj but sought extinction of India's Hindu Princely States for western notions of democracy, secularism, civil liberties and "responsible governance". Hindu nationalists must begin to understand Gandhi's Indian National Congress for what it had become after the passing away of Tilak—a de-Hinduised social reform instrument driven by non-Hindu political ideas." 

If someone reads this book in isolation, it may spread misinformation, it is very important to read this Book only after reading a few other books on India's partition. Just talking from the point of view of the then PM of J&K, the book presents a one-sided picture, since it tries to defend PM Ramchandra Kak so hard. Completely focussed on putting RCK's view, and in attacking Gandhi and Nehru, the Book fails to look at the issue with larger perspective. That said, it does throw some good insights, like how Congress got befooled by Sheikh Abdullah and how his friend Nehru himself ordered to jail him in 1953.

Understanding Partition of India: Some of the Best Books to read

So a few years back, I really got fascinated about the partition saga. I got really curious to know more about the factors leading upto partition. I had always read conflicting theories about partition through online articles and social media debates. Some used to blame Britishers for deliberately partitioning India for their own benefits, some blamed Jawahar Lal Nehru for partition, and some even used to blame Gandhi ji for the partition!! All these talks and online readings made in bits and pieces, gradually made me curious about the partition issue, and I thought to read some books on the matter. So below are some of the books I have read, and some quick review about those books:-

 

1) Pakistan or the Partition of India :

Written by Dr. B.R. Amdekar, I read this book first, fascinated by it's title probably. This book has looked at the partition issue from a sociological perspective. Dr. Ambedkar seems to have had an immense knowledge and awareness of historical and political struggles going on around the world, and he has put forth his arguments on that basis. Dr. Ambedkar has discussed in detail about both pro-Gandhi and anti-Gandhi factions, and interestingly he has criticized both. On one hand he has discussed V.D. Savarkar's orthodox, Hinduism related policies, and on another, he has discussed Mahatma Gandhi's policies of  trying to bridge Hindu-Muslim gap by taking steps favourable to them. He has been a fierce critic of Gandhi ji. He has pointed out that despite Mahatma Gandhi's desperate efforts towards communal harmony, there was no let down in Hindu-Muslim riots. He has discussed the concept of  "Country" and "Nation", and he has thrown light on the concept of the famous "Two Nation theory", i.e. there lived two nations in the country named India. A major part of his book is focussed on discussing the huge sociological divide between Hindus and Muslims in India. He has tried to make his point that since centuries of time, there has been a deep divide between Hindus and Muslims in India, due to several factors. All in all, he has implicitly suggested that partition was a good thing to happen, and it was bound to happen sooner or later, due to the deep, unending differences between Hindus and Muslims.

2) Freedom at Midnight:  

Probably the most famous book on partition, written by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, this book is sometimes criticized to be biased towards the Britishers. But I found this book interesting to read. The book is based on extensive interviews conducted of the last Viceroy Mountbatten, his family members, and several other people. So it does seem to be telling the story from foreign eyes, but still it has thrown great deal of light on the partition issue. It has explained how the Indian politicians (including Jinnah) could never come to an agreement, which led to prolonged discussions. The book also tells the interesting fact about why partition was declared exactly at midnight. It also explains, with how much difficulty the exact partition lines were decided between India and Pakistan by "Cyril Radcliffe". And also, interestingly, the division demarcation was never disclosed till partition day. So on 15th August 1947, no one actually knew whether they were geographically in India or in Pakistan. The book also details about the lavish lives of princes of the princely states. It explains how the individual princely states were convinced to merge into India or Pakistan, leaving their hold on power. All in all a great book to learn about partition. A more detailed review of this book can be read here.

3) India Wins Freedom: 

Probably the best book, and should be must read for anyone trying to learn more about partition, and pre-independence politics. Written by Abul Kalam Azad, this book is special because the author remained Congress President for almost 6 years post 1939, and was involved as a representative of Congress in most talks/negotiations with Britishers- Cripp's Mission, Simla Conference, the British Cabinet Mission resolution etc. So he has given a kind of inside view of the negotiations going on in those times. He has also been pretty impartial about discussing the policies of Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel and Gandhi ji. He has criticized several decisions of Gandhiji and has clearly written that majority of Congress politicians were with Gandhiji NOT because they believed in non-violence, but because they believed that non-violent ways of protest was the best and fastest way to get Independence. In fact there was a moment when many Congress politicians were in favour of going against Britishers taking violent path. Regarding Gandhiji's murder, he has written in very detail how the conspiracy was hatched and multiple assassination attempt were taken. He has criticized Sardar Patel (being Home Minister) for willful negligence about Gandhiji's security. A large part of the book focussed on several political negotiations with Britishers about getting Independence, and that really throws a great deal of light on what all transpired, why those negotiations failed, and why ultimately the Partition had to be conceded. The most painful part he has discussed in the book, is the betrayal done by Congress towards Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, for not supporting their plea of demanding to keep the NWFP region in India. He wrote that Khan brothers had always been loyal supporters of Congress, but Congress and Gandhiji ditched them in such an important moment. After their region went into Pakistan, both the Khan brothers were jailed and tortured in Pakistan. In short, a really great book to read. The Font and Font size/spacing in the hardcover book available, makes the book slightly painful to read, but for it's content, one must not miss it.

4) The Shadow of the Great Game : The Untold Story of India's Partition :  Again a very exhaustive book, writing about things in very detailed manner. The author "Narendra Singh Sarila" had been ADC to the last viceroy Luis Mountbatten. Being ADC to the viceroy he must have seen things from close, hence his account seem very reliable. The Bollywood movie "Partition :1947" is based on this book. In this book, the author has argued that the partition was done by Britishers as part of much larger conspiracy to maintain hold over this part of Asia. The author has discussed things from the ongoing world politics at that time, and has thrown light on the Russian Vs Britishers fight for geographical supremacy. He has also brought in the viewpoint of maintaining control over rich Oilfield regions. The author's main viewpoint has been that Britishers were willing to leave, but wanted to take back a guarantee that the new, independent country will always support Britain in it's pursuit of increasing or maintaining hold over geographical locations through violent means (if it comes to that). Indian politicians were clearly in no mood to support Britain in any of their motives post independence. But the Britishers gauged the fact the Muslim politicians led by Jinnah were willing to give them this kind of logistic support for their military pursuits. The author was also of the view that the northern parts of India (NWFP, and Gilgit regions) were really important to Britishers for strategic reasons of halting Russians advances. This book is also very important to read the Jammu and Kashmir part of the story. The author has written in detail about J&K aspect, how the state was attacked by first Pakistani military led by British army men, and how they had captured some regions of J&K initially. And how the tribal led invasion was later undertaken by Pakistanis, which forced Raja Hari Singh to write a letter giving consent to merging of the state with India, in exchange for protection from Indian Army. The author also details how India made some mistakes of going to UN at wrong time, when they could have actually taken back the area of J&K captured by Pakistanis. United Nations headed by Britishers and Americans, were clearly biased against India's interests, was what the conclusion of author.                                     

5) Guilty Men of India's Partition: 

This book by Mr Rammanohar Lohia is primarily a critique of the Book “India Wins Freedom” (a kind of critical review of that book). This entirely revolves around countering the facts and statements written in that book. As a result this book is very short and should be read only after reading "India Wins Freedom". After reading the book, I  couldn't stop at marvelling what a visionary Rammanohar Lohia was! Many of his views still stands true and will stand true in times to come too. In criticizing the view of Maulana Azad he wrote quite many of his own independent views/assessments too. Primarily in this book, he keeps the focus on Pandit Nehru, tries to prove that Nehru was the main person from Congress side who should take the blame for India’s partition. He also illustrates one incident where Nehru conspires through Jayaprakash Narayan to put the blame of Mahatma Gandhi’s murder on the carelessness of Sardar Patel (Lohia’s own assumption here).  Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his book, had written the opposite. He had put the major blame of partition on Sardar Patel and towards the end he also blamed Sardar Patel's for Gandhi’s murder! So this book of Rammanohar Lohia is a must read for anyone who has read “India Wins Freedom”. It throws its own perspective on the happenings in pre-partition times, and some very interesting and enlightening ones! A few of his conclusions and presumptions seemed over the top and untrue. He hardly wrote anything about Sardar Patel, and he also skipped how/why Gandhi agreed to partition proposal, despite raising the point countering Maulana Azad’s view in his book. Comparatively, Maulana Azad in his book, had written about both Nehru and Patel, how they both had agreed to partition. His assessment had seemed more logical. Lohia’s assessments seem driven by prejudice (one sidedness) against Nehru or against the inaction of Maulana Azad for being inactive in stopping partition. All in all, I think since this book was written as a review of “India Wins Freedom”, it should be taken with a pinch of salt, with a limited purview of  a supplementary book to “India Wins Freedom”.

6) Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire:-

As the cover photo itself suggests, this book heavily focuses on Mountbatten-Edwina-Nehru’s relationships. The author goes to a great extent to prove that Edwina and Nehru were in love. A few instances have also been cited where Edwina was able to influence Nehru’s political decisions. So on that part, it did well. There is a good dedicated chapter on Kashmir issue too. All in all, a very good book with some very interesting facts. What I didn’t like about this book though, is that more than half of the book (370 pages), was dedicated to exploring personal lives and family trees of Mountbatten, Edwina and Nehru. It does it so much, that sometime I felt as if I was reading a fiction novel!! I also felt that the author’s views came a bit biased at times. Being a britisher, she seems to have looked at events and decisions from a British perspective. But that’s not a big issue I feel, every author will be supposed to have some bias which we need to filter out as a reader. But all in all, a very good book to enhance the knowledge of partition. Every new book throws a new perspective on partition, and I am sure this book too does a great job at that! 

7) Midnight's Furies:- The prologue of this book reads-

 

"This book aims to answer a different question- not why the subcontinent was split, or who was to blame for the massacres, but how the experience of partition carved out such a wide gulf between India and Pakistan. How did two nation with so much in common end up such inveterate enemies so quickly"

And I think the book does that task pretty well. This books stands out in the way it throws light on the India-Pakistan conflict post partition, which laid ground for such a long persisting acrimonious relationship between the two nations. Almost the whole of last 4 chapters of the Book, is focused on detailing issues and conflicts revolving around the three contentious regions- Junagadh, Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir. And this was the first book I read, in which their strategic inter-relation is emphasized so well. Essentially, after partition, these three were the states which were undecided ones, and it was a matter of prestige and ego, for Pakistan to have these, and a matter of security concerns for India, to have it made part of India. A lot has been written on this, as to how both countries tried to make all the three their own. Ultimately, India was able to take Junagadh and Hyderabad, and Jammu & Kashmir ended up in stalemate. The matter of Jammu and Kashmir too has been written about in great detail. So this book did this part really well. Apart from that, the Book has also written in detail how Muslim League initiated trouble with call of Direct Action Day, and also about the role played by Hindu extremist organizations like RSSS in the aftermath. The gory detail of rioting and genocide in Punjab region too has been written about in great detail. And lastly, the book has pointed out in great detail the difference between the ideology and working style of Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel. At several points it has contrasted their ideology and working style, basically showing Nehru as more liberal, idealistic person, and Patel as a bit of orthodox, religion centric person. There has been several instances mentioned where Patel had worked sneakily (as Home Minister), keeping Nehru in dark, because he understood Nehru would have never agreed with his actions. So in this aspect too, the author has written so well.    All in all, a great book to read.

8) Remembering Partition:- This Book is not for beginner readers of India's partition. This book focuses almost entirely on the violence surrounding partition times - starting a few months prior to partition, and onwards. The title of the Book is a bit misleading, in the sense that, it doesn't give any information about the cause of partition, or the political events and decisions surrounding partition. It could have been better titled- "Remembering the Violence around Partition". Basically, the author assumes that the reader has already enough knowledge of India's partition, why it happened, how it happened and all the political events surrounding it. And starting from that assumption, this author focuses only the violence around partition and how they have been covered in various historical Books. The author picks up several examples of violence, and mentions several interviews of people who have lived those times, and tries to analyze the sociology and mindset of people during those times. The author also tries to analyse how those violence and the statistics about them have been reported by various Books, committees. As per him, most stats were exaggerated, biased or based on hearsay, rather than based on first person accounts. He also tries to analyse how people who have lived those times, and are alive now, talk about those events. As per him, most people claim that those incidences of violences never happened in their region, and in stead in some other adjacent area! The author also analyses various claims and counter-claims by both sides, and try to analyse who tried to say what, for which reason. More detailed review of this book written by me, can be read on the Book's Goodreads page here. I found it a great Book on India's partition, giving a different and unique perspective into the violence of those times. A great book to read, but not a must read.

9) Partition : The Story of Indian Independence, and the Creation of Pakistan (posted date- 30/11/2023)

This book by the British author Barney White-Spunner, gives a very good picture of the whole partition saga. Bring a britisher, he has mostly relied on British sources, and he has also looked at events from British point of view, but even then, this Book provides a very good insights into the whole set of events surrounding partition.

In particular, the Book manages to treat the subject of Congress Vs Muslim League very well. For ex, it comments on how Nehru and Gandhi were bereft of Ground realities about the religious strifes. 

The author says-

"Nehru's problem, as a highly educated, well-travelled socialist, was that he thought religion was irrelevant. To him India's problems were economic and social, with religion merely an excuse used by various groups to further their own economic position."

And about Mahatma Gandhi, the Book says-

"Gandhi also, although deeply religious, was largely agnostic as to creed and believed that much of India was a like-minded community of small farmers and peasants, meaning that Congress was becoming dangerously ignorant of how deeply religion actually mattered to the vast majority of people. In particular, it meant that they failed to appreciate the depth of belief that Islam engenders, the strong communalism of groups such as the Sikhs and the strength of the Hindu Mahasabha."

This Book also explains in good detail the carnage that followed partition and their causes. Most of all, this Book throws a new fact by claiming that most of the post-partition violence could have been controlled, had British forces been used against the murdering mobs. Indian forces being biased on both the sides, had become unreliable, and British forces were not used against Indians, because they were decided to be kept in reserve only to provide security to Britishers in India. Also, Mountbatten thought that using British forces against Indians post partition (even though they were part of Indian Army), would have caused resentment of Indians against British Govt. For the decision of not using the British forces against the rioters, he primarily blamed- Claude Auchinleck- the British Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army (pre-1947). As per the author-

Yet ultimately Auchinleck allowed sentiment to cloud objectivity. Armies exist to serve the needs of the societies that generate them and the governments that represent those societies.

They do not have, nor should they have, any pretension to being an independent entity. They must also reflect the changes that society undergoes...... He loved India and was loved by Indian soldiers, but as a man who wielded enormous power, power on a scale which few if any British senior officers have exercised since, he could have done so much more to prevent the tragedy of 1947.

The Book also covers the J&K conflict in great detail. It explains well the conflict of Nehru on this, how he thought that Pakistan used Junagadh as a trap (Junagadh, J&K and Hyderabad were the only three regions which still remained independent well past 15 Aug, 1947). Being a military officer himself, the author seems to have taken keen interest in elaborating J&K incident from military angle as well, as to how it was defended by Indian Army. The detail are pretty graphical, and intriguing to read. There are some facts he missed covering on this though. In one other book I read, there was a clear mention of British military officers which were part of Pakistani forces, having been involved in the J&K incursion. He has mentioned only one detail about involvement of a British military officer, that too with very sketchy detail. But I have read about it in two other Books. May be the author handled up that specific aspect in a little biased way. But despite that, the J&K conflict has been discussed in great detail. Must read that part.

All in all, the Book was a great read for me. I got several new facts, and some really nice insights into the pre-1947 situation of Indian polity.

10) Jammu & Kashmir: Dilemma of Accession (posted on 10/12/2023)

This Book primarily focuses on the J&K accession issue, but also talks shortly about the partition issue in the beginning. The basic point of this Book is to discuss why were J&K rulers not willing to accede to India, and why they dithered so much. The Author has primarily blamed Gandhi and Nehru for the issue, and has let go Patel lightly. While many of the views of the author seem motivated and myopic, the Book does throw some great insights. The Book is based on the writings of Smt Lila Bhan- the daughter of the then J&K PM Pandit Ramchandra Kak. Her writing in turn is based on the diary writings/notes of her father, and both these writings have been used by the author Radha Rajan, to write this Book, appending some of her own views. All in all, a good read, gives a new perspective to the J&K issue.

Full Review in a separate blog-post here.

In Fiction

1) Train to Pakistan:- Khushwant Singh has written such a realistic fiction that one gets completely drawn into the story. It seems also quite close to reality, going by the narratives of other non-Fiction books read. Must read to realize the horror of partition through a gripping story.

2) Toba Tek Singh:- Saadat Hasan Manto writes stories so real-life and gripping, that you can relate well to it. He was much ahead of his times. This is a story book containing several short stories based on society and people of pre-partition times. Again a very nice book which gives a quick glimpse into the lives of people in pre-partition times...

Have you read any of these books? Let me know your thoughts. Which else books you have read related to partition, and found to be good? Please let me know in comment section
.     

Freedom at Midnight: Some thoughts on the Book

Image Source:- amazon.in

What went wrong, Mountbatten admitted to us, was this sheer, simultaneous reaction which nobody foresaw. No one predicted millions of people would pull up stakes and change sides. No one. 

Partition has always been an intriguing event for me, probably more intriguing than the freedom struggle. What happened that led to partition despite some prominent leaders opposing it till the end. What went wrong that partition led to loss of lakhs of precious lives, and forever bitterness between people of the two nations? These questions always kept nagging me from time to time. And that was the reason, even though I seldom read non-fiction books, and hardly have any interest in historical books, slowly I started reading partition related books. The first one was, “Pakistan, Or the Partition of India” by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, second one was “Train to Pakistan” by Khushwant Singh (the book is a fact inspired fiction), and the third one is this “Freedom at Midnight” by “Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre”. 

The Book is probably one of the most popular, and one of the most extensive account of the partition, and in a most captivating way. Primary, it has focused on below few issues:-

1. What led to partition? Why did partition become inevitable?
2. Mahatma Gandhi's life, and his efforts in bringing together peace in the pre and post-partition times. Also, why all his efforts failed to stop partition.
3. The efforts and events that went into division of Punjab and Bengal, into Indian and Pakistani area. 
4. The widespread riots and violence in pre and post-partition times and the reasons behind them.
5. The hundreds of princely states of India, and the detail of efforts that went into forcing them unite them into either India or Pakistan.
6. The detail behind the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by Godse and his accomplices.

On Partition

The biggest reason of partition, was the rise of Jinnah as one of the most formidable power among Muslims. Among Muslims, he had as much popularity as probably Mahatma Gandhi had among Indians. But of course he was exact opposite of Gandhi in nature.  He had literally held Indian leaders to ransom, under threat of widespread violence by Muslims under his command.

Quoting from the Book:-

In a tent outside Bombay in August 1946, he had evaluated for his followers in the Moslem League the meaning of Direct  Action Day. If Congress wanted war, he declared, then India’s  Moslems would ‘accept their offer unhesitatingly .

Pale lips pressed into a grim smile, his piercing eyes alight with repressed passion, Jinnah had that day flung down the gauntlet to Congress, to the British. ‘We shall have India divided,’ he vowed, ‘or we shall have India destroyed.’ 

Such was his devilish nature! Why he turned into someone like this, and how he was able to turn a large Muslim population against Hindus, is another matter and that Dr. Ambedkar has dealt with better in his book on partition. But needless to say, Jinnah was the biggest factor for partition. In fact, it has been mentioned in the book that, Jinnah was suffering from a critical illness at the time of partition discussions, and was counting his last days, but this was a top secret. Had this fact be known to them, the last viceroy Mountbatten and Indian leaders, would preferred to wait for him to die, so that partition could have been avoided! 

Apart from Jinnah, another reason was that the patience of Indian leaders was running out. They have had enough, they just wanted freedom from Britishers as soon as possible. And Britishers led by Mountbatten, didn't want to leave without a proper system in place here!! Interesting fact is that, had Mountbatten not been sent to India, there was a chance that partition won't have happened. Because the predecessor of Mountbatten, Lord Wavell, had no plan to put in a system in place before leaving. Funnily enough, he had a plan named "Operation Madhouse". :) Quoting from the Book (Lord Wavell talking to Mountbatten):-

‘This is called “Madhouse”,’ he explained, ‘because it is a problem for a madhouse. Alas, I can see no other way out.’  It called for the British evacuation of India, province by province, women and children first, then civilians, then soldiers, a move likely, in Gandhi’s words, to ‘leave India to chaos’.

One more reason was the lack of time for decision making. During those times, the Hindu-Muslim divide was getting wider. There was widespread violence every now and then. On the "Direct Action Day" call of Jinnah in 1946, there had already been bloodbath in Bengal. Mahatma Gandhi's peace calls used to be temporary and were not effective for longer times. Jinnah was always on lookout for adding fuel to the fire. Leaders were clueless how to put things in control. Everyone agreed that some decision had to be taken, and it had to be done quickly. So in that haste, they went for something, which aggravated the situation rather than pacifying it. Essentially, everyone miscalculated the mood of millions of population. 

On Mahama Gandhi   
A great portion of the book is devoted to Mahatma Gandhi, his life, his ideals, his efforts to keep India united, and why his efforts failed.
Unlike popular perception, Mahatma Gandhi fought till the end to keep India united, and avoid the partition. That he failed in his efforts is another matter.
Quoting from the book:-

So desperate was he to avoid partition that he was prepared for a Solomonic judgment. Give the Moslems the baby instead of cutting it in half. Place three hundred million Hindus under Moslem rule by asking his rival Jinnah and his Moslem League to form a government. Then hand over power to that government. Give Jinnah all India instead of just the part he wanted. He could not budge Nehru and Patel. There was a limit to the price they were prepared to pay to keep India united and handing over power to their foe, Jinnah, transgressed it. They did not share Gandhi’s conviction that partition would inevitably lead to terrible violence. Broken-hearted, Gandhi would have to report to the Viceroy that he had not been able to carry his colleagues with him. 

Finally, Mountbatten held parleys individually with Sardar Patel and Nehru, to convince him on partition, and they agreed. Two of their crucial men going against his opinion, Gandhi was broken and felt helpless. He was also not sure how the common Indians will respond to his calls for opposition to the partition. Mountbatten also tried to convince Gandhi through all means, and was able to somewhat subdue his resistance. But in a nutshell, all Congress leaders turning against his opinion, was the breaking point for Gandhi. Quoting his own words from the book:-

‘They call me a Mahatma,’ he bitterly told a friend later, ‘but I tell you I am not even treated by them as a sweeper.’ 

Another quote deserves a mention in the same regard:-

Walking the streets of Delhi early one morning, one of his workers said to him: ‘In the hour of decision you are not in the picture. You and your ideals have been given the go-by.’

Yes, Gandhi sighed bitterly in reply: ‘Everybody is eager to garland my photos and statues. But nobody wants to follow my advice.’ 

Gandhi's life and ideals have always been controversial. The book also touches upon one major aspect for which Gandhi ji is criticised heavily even now - his views on sexuality, and why he used to sleep on same bed with his 19 yr old great-niece "Manu". The book gives Gandhi's perspective on those practices. (These views were actually views as told by Gandhi's personal secretary Pyarelal, and his Doctor Sushila Nayar). It also touches upon other related aspects like, why he used to get massaged by female followers, why he used to walk hands on shoulders of the two girls Manu and Abha. (All these were related aspects).

Even though I don't agree to his practices on this issue, his rationality behind it did make some sense, although it didn't look a practically possible thing to imbibe. I am quoting the related text from the book:-

As his confidence in the mastery of his desires came back, he gradually extended the range of physical contact he allowed himself with women. He nursed them when they were ill and allowed them to nurse him. He took his bath in full view of his fellow ashramites, male and female. He had his daily massage virtually naked, with young girls most frequently serving as his masseuses. He often gave interviews or consulted the leaders of his Congress Party while the girls massaged him. He wore few clothes and urged his disciples, male and female, to do likewise because clothes he said, only encouraged a false sense of modesty...... For Gandhi, secure in his own conscience, there was nothing improper or even remotely sexual in his relations with Manu. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable that the faintest tremor of sexual arousal passed between them. To the Mahatma, the reasoning which had led him to perform what was, for him, a duty to Manu, was sufficient justification for his action. Perhaps, however, deep in his subconscious, other forces he ignored helped propel him to it. 

Boundary division of Punjab and Bengal by Cyril Radcliffe

This is probably the least discussed issue on partition, but is most crucial in a way. When partition was agreed, exact boundary and which princely states will go to which Nation, were not decided. In fact the surprising fact is, even on the day of India's freedom, the India Pakistan boundary lines were not announced. There were two major tasks, deciding on which princely states will go to which nation, and then deciding the boundary of the two nations in Punjab and Bengal. These two areas were very crucial, because they contained a great mix of population and interdependence on one another. For sake of neutrality, Cyril Radcliffe, was invited from Britain, to decide on the exact boundary. In the end, the partition in Bengal didn't cause any issue, but the boundary division announcement in Punjab, led to great bloodshed. Population transfer took place in millions, and there was immense bloodshed.

The riots and situations surrounding them, have been dealt in great detail in the book. The princely states, the lives of their princes too have been described in great detail. Most of the princely states wanted to get total independence, rather than going with Pakistan or India. How they were forced to merge with either of the Nations, is another aspect dealt in great detail. Some of them were convinced, some were blackmailed, and some like Raja Hari Singh of J&K was conditionally convinced under foreign attack pressure. The Pakistani tribal led attack on J&K too has been explained in detail, explaining how it ended up with the agreement with Raja Hari Singh. The book ends up with devoting another great portion on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. 

If not for anything, one must read the book for the unbelievable real-life love story of Boota Singh and Zenib. A Sikh-Muslim love story leading to marriage, then cross-border run, court cases, suicide and Muslims supporting the Sikh guy's wishes post his death. The story will put even the modern day bollywood Indo-Pak love stories to shame.

**************************************************************
In the end, I would like to put two more quotes from the book on two crucial issues:-

When Sardar Patel and Pundit Nehru turned against Gandhi's idea of United India:- 

Patel had been prepared to concede partition even before Mountbatten’s arrival. He was ageing, he’d suffered two heart attacks, and he wanted to get on with it, to end these ceaseless debates and get down to the task of building an independent India. Give Jinnah his state, he argued, it wouldn’t survive anyway. In five years, the Moslem League would be knocking at their door begging for India’s reunification.
Nehru was a torn and anguished man, caught between his deep love for Gandhi and his new admiration and friendship for the Mountbattens. Gandhi spoke to his heart, Mountbatten to his mind. Instinctively, Nehru detested partition, yet his rational spirit told him it was the only answer. Since reaching his own conclusion that there was no other choice, Mountbatten had been employing all the charm and persuasiveness of Operation Seduction to bring Nehru to his viewpoint. One argument was vital. With Jinnah gone, Hindu India could have the strong central government Nehru would need if he was going to build the socialist state of his dreams. Ultimately, he too stood out against the man he’d followed so long. 

When Nehru, Patel lost control of the Nation after partition, and requested Mountbatten to take complete control again! 

For the next quarter of a century the results of the meeting beginning in Louis Mountbatten ’s study on the morning of Saturday, 6 September 1947 would be the most closely guarded secret of the last Viceroy’s life. Had the decisions taken at it become known, the knowledge could have destroyed the career of the charismatic Indian statesman who would emerge in the years to come as one of the world’s major figures.
Three people were present: Mountbatten, Nehru and Patel. The two Indian leaders were sombre, visibly depressed men; they looked to the Governor-General ‘like a pair of chastened schoolboys’. The situation in the Punjab was out of control. The migration was exceeding their worst fears. Now violence in Delhi threatened to bring down the capital itself.
‘We don’t know how to hold it,’ Nehru admitted.
‘You have to grip it,’ Mountbatten told him.
‘How can we grip it?’ Nehru replied. ‘We have no experience. We’ve spent the best years of our lives in your British jails. Our experience is in the art of agitation, not administration. We can barely manage to run a well-organized government in normal circumstances. We’re just not up to facing an absolute collapse of law and order.’
Nehru then made an almost unbelievable request. That he, the proud Indian who’d devoted his life to the independence stmggle could even articulate it was a measure of both his own greatness and the gravity of the situation. He had long admired Mountbatten’s capacity for organization and swift decision. India, he felt, desperately needed those skills now and Nehru was too great a man to let his pride stand in the way of her having them.
‘While you were exercising the highest command in war, we were in a British prison,’ he said. ‘You are a professional, high-level administrator. You’ve commanded millions of men. You have the experience and knowledge colonialism has denied us. You English can’t just turn this country over to us after being here all our lives and simply walk away. We’re in an emergency and we need help. Will you run the country?‘Yes,’ seconded Patel, the tough realist at Nehru’s side, ‘he’s right. You’ve got to take over.’Mountbatten was aghast. ‘My God,’ he said, I ve just got through giving you the country and here you two are asking me to take it back!’
‘You must understand,’ Nehru said. ‘You’ve got to take it. We’ll pledge ourselves to do whatever you say.’
‘But this is terrible,’ Mountbatten said. ‘If anyone ever finds out you’ve turned the country back to my hands, you’ll be finished politically. The Indians keep the British Viceroy and then put him back in charge? Out of the question.’
‘Well,’ said Nehru, ‘we’ll have to find a way to disguise it, but if you don’t do it, we can’t manage.’ Mountbatten thought a moment. He loved a challenge and this was a formidable one. His personal-esteem for Nehru, his affection for India, his sense of responsibility, left him no way of escape.
‘All right,’ he said, the admiral back on his bridge, ‘I’ll do it, and I can pull the thing together because I do know how to do it. But we must agree that nobody finds out about this. Nobody must know you’ve made this request.