Debate over partition of India

I got disappointed, when recently i read an article over partition of India, written by historian Ramchandra Guha. He termed this partition practically a right initiative. The perception given by him, it seems was not of a neutral historian, rather of A Nehruvian congress follower. Guha said partition was pertinent, because outnumbered Muslim population in united India might have posed a problem. On the other side he was expressing happiness over India's being a secular country. What a convenient and opportunist Nehruvian thinking, this is ! I say that, secularism was alright, but it would have been more meaningful in united India.
In this regard i term Ayesha Zalal, a Pakistani historian more sound, neutral and fact finder historian, who openly proves that partition of India was nothing, rather an outcome of politics among the power seekers politicians. Guha only says that mass scale death in the pre and post partition riots could have averted somehow. Guha must find this facts that it was only identity politics being injected through provincial election, communal electorate system after the coming of India govt. act 1935 paved the slept ambition of Jinnah. Most of Isamic tanzim including JAMATE ISLAMI and JAMATE ULEMA E HIND were dead against partition. Not only that most sacrificing Muslim leaders of partition period, khan Abdul Gaffar kharn (simant gandhi) and Maulana Azad who had spent more than 12 years of life in prison, were opposing partition with their tooth and nail. After all why Congress party did not able to dealt upon with Britishers backed Muslim league with better goodwill strategy rather they became prey to the partition formula of the English. Guha says had we accepted the cabinet mission, the partition would have been averted. This mission was for giving full autonomy to the provinces and Rajgharanas, which Congress did not accept. I think here Congress needed to apply more prudent and potent strategy to malign the motive of partition.