The point was that British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win. If it was full referendum in the country Congress would have won against the partition.
It was not a free democratic election. British controlled and ensured what they wanted was the end result.
In a Representative Democracy (unlike as in a Direct Democracy), there are certain inalienable rights of minority, and the majority cannot impose its will on minority. Representative democracies are much more common than Direct democracies.
Reserved Political Positions are used to protect the rights of minorities in many Representative Democracies (including India)
As for your claim that
British had reserved seats for Muslims to ensure that Muslim league would win , the demand of 'Separate Electorate' was first conceded by the British in 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms).
Though formed in 1906, Until 1930's, the Muslim League was not a mass organisation but represented the landed and commercial Muslim interests of the United Provinces (today's Uttar Pradesh) only and it had less than 2 thousand members.
In the 1937 Indian Provincial Elections, the Muslim League performed very poorly and failed to form the government in any province.
But in 1945/1946 Elections the Muslim League captured approximately 95 percent of the Muslim seats and it managed to win all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims in the center.
What made Muslim League rise to become the sole representative of millions of Indian Muslims from a regional political party with less than 2 thousand members (in less than ten years) ??
You blame Muslims, You blame the British but you have no one but yourselves to blame for the partition. The Indian National Congress emerged victorious in the 1937 Elections and they formed government in 8 (out of 11) provinces. The way they conducted the business of government was what antagonized the Muslims and rendered the League's claims valid.
If Jinnah had really wanted to divide the country, Lahore Resolution would have been more firm in its structural parameters in the 1940's, and he would not have given up his demand for a separate homeland and accepted the Cabinet mission plan as late as 1946. ...
Maulana Azad (who served on the Congress Working Committee and in the offices of general secretary and president many times) said :
" Looking back after ten years, I concede that there was force in what Mr.Jinnah said. The Congress and the League were both parties to the agreement, and it was on the basis of distribution among the center, the provinces and the groups that the League had accepted the plan. Congress was neither wise nor right in raising doubts. It should have accepted the Plan unequivocally if it stood for the unity of India. Vacillation would give Mr.Jinnah the opportunity to divide India."
The truth is that the proclaimed advocates of United India were not sincere in keeping India united. Jinnah was probably using the Pakistan demand as a bargaining counter. All he wanted was to safeguard the rights of Indian Muslims.
The
bloodshed could have been avoided ...History could have been different ... But the Congressi leaders like Nehru were neither
sincere nor competent enough ..
But that's past ... The generation that went through those horrific times and carried all the "emotional baggage" has passed on... It's about time we forgot the past and worked together for a better future .