Well, I'm no expert on the matter -- the partition of India is a hugely complex issue -- but I do know the basics, and that is that Jinnah, who was the popular leader of the Indian Muslim league, was adamant that Muslims in the Indian subcontinent should get their own state. In the elections immediately after the end of WW2, the Muslim League won the majority of Muslim seats, giving them the political clout to push for Jinnah's dream.

When negotiations for the ending of the British Raj and Indian independence began, the Indian Congress and the Muslim League couldn't agree on a power-sharing deal for the country...mostly due to Jinnah's hardline beliefs and unwillingness to compromise. Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhi and the English Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, were all utterly opposed to the breaking up of the country. But although they tried their hardest to avoid it, they reluctantly came to realise that Jinnah and the Muslim League were immovable on the matter. So, reluctantly, partitioning was the only option.

I always felt particularly sorry for Mountbatten; he was quite a moderate among the British and certainly a humanitarian. It was his job to oversee the handing back of the subcontinent and, as it turned out, the dividing up of the country into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. It's a shame because he was utterly opposed to partition and ultimately the whole process bore his name, as The Mountbatten Plan. He always felt ashamed of that, apparently, and as I say, it was never something he wanted.

There's plenty of legitimate criticisms to level at the British Empire in India, without rewriting history to insinuate that partition was the British's idea.

It seems that after the 'hard-ass old goat who redeemed himself into a jolly old man' characterization of Capaldi, they've decided to have JW play the Doctor as some hybrid of David Tennant and Matt Smith's 'childlike giddiness', and I've also seen some make comparisons to Davison, for this Doctor's moments of 'adult' clarity. That 'Tsuranga Conundrum' one seemed to return to the 'let's run through corridors on a spaceship and SHOUT!' era of exposition...and that's made me wary about watching this episode, which seems a bit 'bad Colin Baker' in tone, based on the 'Children in Need' clip I saw on Youtube.

There are now some fairly strong rumours going around that both Chris Chibnall and Jodie Whittaker will be leaving after the next series. Supposedly, Chibnall isn't happy with his workload or with the fact that the BBC want a full series every year.

How exactly do you sign on to what everyone knows is a yearly series (for the most part) and then dare to complain about the workload? Did some folks not do their research properly before hand?!? 

It has been a bit of a mixed bag with scheduling though. New Who started with four seasons/series over a four year period between Eccleston and Tennant. But then Tennant ended with a handful of specials over a period of a year and a half. Smith started with two series in two years, but then his third series was split over two calendar years. And Capaldi had two series over two years, before taking a year off before his final season.

So if Chibnall and Whittaker wanted to do, for example, half a series in 2020 and the other half of the series in 2021, that wouldn't really be a departure from how things have been with New Who. I'm just glad to read (in the Wikipedia article), that Jodie second series/season has started production and will air in 2019. I remember somehow upthread passing along a rumor that there wouldn't even be a season in 2019. That would've been a bit much.

I wish they could work something out. Or maybe a new showrunner could agree to do a third season with Jodie. Because if Jodie's total episode count (including specials) only ends up at 21 or 22, she may not leave her stamp as much as the last three Doctors.

Good grief, more 'show-runner drama'? it seems like, where 'Doctor Who' is concerned, 'show-running' means 'run the show into the ground', or 'run FROM the show'. Can't they change show-runners(I'm tired of typing that expression now) without changing Doctors?
I was fed up with Moffat trying to 'work out his issues' by taking a year off from 'Doctor Who' and putting on PJs because it was SO hard to work on that and 'Sherlock' in the same year. If Chibnall is pulling the same nonsense, then the alternatives are, find someone who isn't so 'fragile' to run it, or else...er...'Kerblam!'
Speaking of which, despite some rather cartoonish moments that were 'conveyed'(see what I did there?) at certain times, it wasn't a bad episode. Likeable guest characters in an 'alien' setting, for a change. And, also for a change, we actually find out what happens to the 'baddie'.
On a more worrisome note, the TV audience has continued to drop each week, with this one falling just below 6 million viewers. Some of that was due to, yes, scheduling, as the episode aird a half hour earlier than normal, to make room for a documentary, which drew a slightly larger audience.
It will be interesting to see the trend for th last three weeks. Since audiences haven't taken to the more 'science fiction-oriented' episodes as much as they have to the historical dramas...and since it appears that there will be no sign of any monsters/villains from previous series, there may not be anything really 'eventful' to prop up the numbers.
With any luck, no more 'special one-off' schedule changes, and they can come up with something with a bit more 'oomph' to finish the season.