I find that the article seems to be operating under a single assumption: Nehru was obstinate and Congress was the problem. IMO this oversimplifies issues- Jinnah was equally intransient when it came to getting what he wanted. It is just about feasible that a united India could have been achieved post-war (though personally I think it's very much pushing it), but you'll need to remove Jinnah as well as Nehru and get moderates on both sides. Indeed the article even seems to grudgingly half-acknowledge this in the comment about what would have happened had Mountbatten delayed the date of independence (no matter how impossible that would have been for the British government to do by this point) considering that Jinnah died only 13 months after partition.
It's notable that the whole 'Lady Mountbatten-Nehru affair' matter forms the centerpiece of the articles attack on Nehru-as-partitioner, as despite the fact that several liasons have been acknowledged in what was a very open marriage, everyone from Mountbatten's daughter (the same who according to this article has confirmed the affair) and family to most biographers and historians have stated that the relationship was one of multual, but platonic, attraction.
The article presents some interesting ideas, but seems to be relying far too much on wishful thinking and the author's (admittedly quite justifiable) dislike of Nehru than on facts. The reasons given for India's pro-western foreign policy have little grounding in domestic politics, Afghanistan is practically handwaved into a contuining monarchy with no consideration as to what caused the ruling family to be deposed, and it's just assumed that the Lisence Raj is avoided without any reasons given.
In all, the article just feels hollow, there's little substance to the ideas presented.
