Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 49

Book Reference: Page 49 Line 25 till para ends

My Preamble: The Author after narrating the events leading to a deputation of prominent Muslims to meet Lord Minto at Simla ( 1 Octbr 1906) and the response of Minto, questions whether the British encouraged the tendency of separatism amongst Muslims or the existing situation of the time was the cause.

Author’s Views: The Author concludes that there will always be two differing views on the above as above.

Comments: Thank God, to some extent the learned author has questioned the divisive decision of Lord Minto. There is no ambiguity as far as the British intents are concerned. That is why Mahatma Gandhi always maintained that Minto- Morley were the architects for the division of India. That Mr. Jinnah wrote a letter to the editor of the ‘ Gujarati’ was due to the fact he was still in Congress and more so because none of the delegates who went to meet Minto was a true elected representatives of the Muslims. The British, through Minto had thus achieved “ pulling back of 62 millions (read Muslims) of people from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition (read Congress)”. The author himself in page 51 quotes Ramsay McDonald as saying that Montford Reforms were the cause for communal franchise to get embedded and the British Official mindset was biased favourably to the Muslim community as a counter to the nationalism. As the author points out in page 54, the British would always cover themselves by pointing that the differences were not their making and were already in existence. Any impartial reader who has followed the sequence of events leading to the passage of Indian Councils Act 1909 will definitely discern that it was the British who devised the means of separate electorate to divide the country on communal lines. The Simla Delegation of 1906 sowed the seeds of separation and Lord Minto nurtured the saplings.
Still the author feels that there will be two differing opinions. Still he feels that the British cannot be blamed(refere previous  post). Is it not obvious that the author is trying to exonerate the British at least partially, in order to put the blame on the Congress door steps?