Apparently a new book by Stanley Wolpert pushes the case that a sovereign, and undivided Bengal would have been far preferable to the eastern partition of 1947. Wolpert's book has been quoted by news sources to the effect that "[h]ad Mountbatten followed the advice of Gandhi, Jinnah or Suhrawardy, instead of listening only to Nehru, Punjab and Bengal might have been spared the deadly horrors, and a richly united Bengal, with its capital in Calcutta, would have emerged instead of the fragmented, impoverished Bangladesh born from its eastern half a quarter of a century later."
Is Wolpert really that dense? That is, the same logic whereby Bengal's Hindu minority should be deemed to form part of a sovereign Bengal because, from the perspective of the Muslim League, Bengal's Muslim majority could not have been expected to remain part of India, inevitably suggests that the partition itself was a bad idea to begin with. In short: if, per the Muslim League, Muslims in India's Muslim-majority regions could not and should not have been expected to remain part of India, why should Bengal's Hindus (and Punjab's Hindus and Sikhs) have been expected to form part of any Muslim-majority nation-states?
The mendacity is breathtaking.