Radcliffe Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Movement of refugees upon the Partition of India

The Radcliffe Line was the boundary demarcation line between India and Pakistan published on 17 August 1947 upon the Partition of India. It was named after its architect, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who, as chairman of the Border Commissions, was charged with equitably dividing 175,000 square miles (450,000 km2) of territory with 88 million people.[1] Today its western side still serves as the Indo-Pakistani border and the eastern side serves as the India-Bangladesh border.


Events leading up to the Radcliffe Boundary Commissions[edit]

On 15 July 1947, the Indian Independence Act 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom stipulated that British rule in India would come to an end just one month later, on 15 August 1947. The Act also stipulated the partition of the Provinces of British India into two new sovereign dominions: the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.

The Indian Independence Act, passed by the British parliament, abandoned the suzerainty of the British Crown over the princely states and dissolved the Indian Empire, so that the rulers of the states found themselves fully independent and were free to decide for themselves whether to accede to one of the new dominions or to remain independent.[2]

Pakistan was intended as a Muslim homeland, while the Union of India remained secular. Muslim-majority British provinces in the north were to become the foundation of Pakistan. The provinces of Baluchistan (91.8% Muslim before partition) and Sindh (72.7%) were granted entirely to Pakistan. However, two provinces did not have an overwhelming majority—Bengal in the north-east (54.4% Muslim) and the Punjab in the north-west (55.7% Muslim).[3] The western part of the Punjab became part of West Pakistan and the eastern part became the Indian state of East Punjab, which was later divided between a smaller Punjab State and two other states. Bengal was also partitioned, into East Bengal (in Pakistan) and West Bengal (in India). Following independence, the North-West Frontier Province (whose borders with Afghanistan had earlier been demarcated by the Durand Line) voted in a referendum to join Pakistan.[4] This controversial referendum was boycotted by the most popular Pukhtun movement in the province at that time. The area is now a province in Pakistan called Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The Punjab's population distribution was such that there was no line that could neatly divide Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Likewise, no line could appease the Muslim League, headed by Jinnah, and the Indian National Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, and by the British. Moreover, any division based on religious communities was sure to entail "cutting through road and rail communications, irrigation schemes, electric power systems and even individual landholdings."[5] However, a well-drawn line could minimize the separation of farmers from their fields, and also minimize the numbers of people who might feel forced to relocate.

As it turned out, on "the sub-continent as a whole, some 14 million people left their homes and set out by every means possible—by air, train, and road, in cars and lorries, in buses and bullock carts, but most of all on foot—to seek refuge with their own kind."[6] Many of them were slaughtered by an opposing side, some starved or died of exhaustion, while others were afflicted with "cholera, dysentery, and all those other diseases that afflict undernourished refugees everywhere".[7] Estimates of the number of people who died range between 200,000 (official British estimate at the time) and two million, with the consensus being around one million dead.[7]

Prior ideas of partition[edit]

The idea of partitioning the provinces of Bengal and Punjab had been present since the beginning of the 20th century. Bengal had in fact been partitioned by the then viceroy Lord Curzon in 1905, along with its adjoining regions. The resulting 'Eastern Bengal and Assam' province, with its capital at Dhaka, had a Muslim majority and the 'West Bengal' province, with its capital at Calcutta, had a Hindu majority. However, this partition of Bengal was reversed in 1911 in an effort to mollify Bengali nationalism.[8]

Proposals for partitioning Punjab had been made starting from 1908. Its proponents included the Hindu leader Bhai Parmanand, Congress leader Lala Lajpat Rai, industrialist G. D. Birla, and various Sikh leaders. After the Lahore resolution (1940) of the Muslim League demanding Pakistan, B. R. Ambedkar discussed the boundaries of the Muslim and non-Muslim regions of Punjab. His calculations showed a Muslim majority in 16 western districts of Punjab and non-Muslim majority in 13 eastern districts.[9]

After the breakdown of the 1945 Simla Conference of viceroy Lord Wavell, the idea of Pakistan began to be contemplated seriously. Sir Evan Jenkins, the private secretary of the viceroy (later the governor of Punjab), wrote a memorandum titled "Pakistan and the Punjab", where he discussed the issues surrounding the partition of Punjab. K. M. Panikkar, then prime minister of the Bikaner State, sent a memorandum to the viceroy titled "Next Step in India", wherein he recommended that the British government concede the principle of 'Muslim homeland' but carry out territorial adjustments to the Punjab and Bengal to meet the claims of the Hindus and Sikhs. Based on these discussions, the viceroy sent a note on "Pakistan theory" to the Secretary of State.[10] The viceroy informed the Secretary of State that Jinnah envisaged full provinces of Bengal and Punjab going to Pakistan with only minor adjustments, whereas Congress was expecting almost half of these provinces to remain in India. This essentially framed the problem of partition.[11]

The Secretary of State responded by directing Lord Wavell to send 'actual proposals for defining genuine Muslim areas'. The task fell on V. P. Menon, the Reforms Commissioner, and his colleague Sir B. N. Rau in the Reforms Office. They prepared a note called "Demarcation of Pakistan Areas", where they defined the western zone of Pakistan as consisting of Sindh, N.W.F.P., British Baluchistan and three western divisions of Punjab (Rawalpindi, Multan and Lahore). However, they noted that this allocation would leave 2.2 million Sikhs in the Pakistan area and about 1.5 million in India. Excluding the Amritsar and Gurdaspur distrcts of the Lahore Division from Pakistan would put a majority of Sikhs in India. (Amritsar had a non-Muslim majority and Gurdaspur a marginal Muslim majority.) To compensate for the exclusion of the Gurdaspur district, they included the entire Dinajpur district in the eastern zone of Pakistan, which similarly had a marginal Muslim majority. After receiving comments from John Thorne, member of the Exective Council in charge of Home affairs, Wavell forwarded the proposal to the Secretary of State. He justified the exclusion of the Amritsar district because of its sacredness to the Sikhs and that of Gurdaspur district because it had to go with Amritsar for 'geographical reasons'.[12][13][a] The Secretary of State commended the proposal and forwarded it to the India and Burma Committee, saying, "I do not think that any better division than the one the Viceroy proposes is likely to be found".[14]

Process and key people[edit]

A crude border had already been drawn up by Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India prior to his replacement as Viceroy, in February 1947, by Lord Louis Mountbatten. In order to determine exactly which territories to assign to each country, in June 1947, Britain appointed Sir Cyril Radcliffe to chair two Boundary Commissions—one for Bengal and one for Punjab.[15]

The Commission was instructed to "demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will also take into account other factors."[16] Other factors were undefined, giving Radcliffe leeway, but included decisions regarding "natural boundaries, communications, watercourses and irrigation systems", as well as socio-political consideration.[17] Each commission also had 4 representatives—2 from the Indian National Congress and 2 from the Muslim League. Given the deadlock between the interests of the two sides and their rancorous relationship, the final decision was essentially Radcliffe's.

After arriving in India on 8 July 1947, Radcliffe was given just five weeks to decide on a border.[15] He soon met with his fellow college alumnus Mountbatten and travelled to Lahore and Calcutta to meet with commission members, chiefly Nehru from the Congress and Jinnah, president of the Muslim League.[18] He objected to the short time frame, but all parties were insistent that the line be finished by the 15 August British withdrawal from India. Mountbatten had accepted the post as Viceroy on the condition of an early deadline.[19] The decision was completed just a couple of days before the withdrawal, but due to political manoeuvring, not published until 17 August 1947, two days after the grant of independence to India and Pakistan.[15]

Members of the Commissions[edit]

Each boundary commission consisted of 5 people – a chairman (Radcliffe), 2 members nominated by the Indian National Congress and 2 members nominated by the Muslim League.[20]

The Bengal Boundary Commission consisted of Justices C. C. Biswas, B. K. Mukherji, Abu Saleh Mohamed Akram and S.A.Rahman.[21][22]

The members of the Punjab Commission were Justices Mehr Chand Mahajan, Teja Singh, Din Mohamed and Muhammad Munir.[23]

Problems in the process[edit]

Boundary-making procedures[edit]

The Punjabi section of the Radcliffe Line

All lawyers by trade, Radcliffe and the other commissioners had all of the polish and none of the specialized knowledge needed for the task. They had no advisers to inform them of the well-established procedures and information needed to draw a boundary. Nor was there time to gather the survey and regional information. The absence of some experts and advisers, such as the United Nations, was deliberate, to avoid delay.[24] Britain's new Labour government "deep in wartime debt, simply couldn’t afford to hold on to its increasingly unstable empire."[25] "The absence of outside participants—for example, from the United Nations—also satisfied the British Government's urgent desire to save face by avoiding the appearance that it required outside help to govern—or stop governing—its own empire."[26]

Political representation[edit]

The equal representation given to politicians from Indian National Congress and the Muslim League appeared to provide balance, but instead created deadlock. The relationships were so tendentious that the judges "could hardly bear to speak to each other", and the agendas so at odds that there seemed to be little point anyway. Even worse, "the wife and two children of the Sikh judge in Lahore had been murdered by Muslims in Rawalpindi a few weeks earlier."[27]

In fact, minimizing the numbers of Hindus and Muslims on the wrong side of the line was not the only concern to balance. The Punjab Border Commission was to draw a border through the middle of an area home to the Sikh community.[28] Lord Islay was rueful for the British not to give more consideration to the community who, in his words, had "provided many thousands of splendid recruits for the Indian Army" in its service for the crown in World War I.[29] However, the Sikhs were militant in their opposition to any solution which would put their community in a Muslim ruled state. Moreover, many insisted on their own sovereign state, something no-one else would agree to.[30]

Last of all, were the communities without any representation. The Bengal Border Commission representatives were chiefly concerned with the question of who would get Calcutta. The Buddhist tribes in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bengal had no official representation and were left totally without information to prepare for their situation until two days after the partition.[31]

Perceiving the situation as intractable and urgent, Radcliffe went on to make all the difficult decisions himself. This was impossible from inception, but Radcliffe seems to have had no doubt in himself and raised no official complaint or proposal to change the circumstances.[1]

Local knowledge[edit]

Before his appointment, Radcliffe had never visited India and knew no one there. To the British and the feuding politicians alike, this neutrality was looked upon as an asset; he was considered to be unbiased toward any of the parties, except of course Britain.[1] Only his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, was familiar with the administration and life in the Punjab. Wanting to preserve the appearance of impartiality, Radcliffe also kept his distance from Viceroy Mountbatten.[5]

No amount of knowledge could produce a line that would completely avoid conflict; already, "sectarian riots in Punjab and Bengal dimmed hopes for a quick and dignified British withdrawal".[32] "Many of the seeds of postcolonial disorder in South Asia were sown much earlier, in a century and half of direct and indirect British control of large part of the region, but, as book after book has demonstrated, nothing in the complex tragedy of partition was inevitable."[33]

Haste and indifference[edit]

Radcliffe justified the casual division with the truism that no matter what he did, people would suffer. The thinking behind this justification may never be known since Radcliffe "destroyed all his papers before he left India".[34] He departed on Independence Day itself, before even the boundary awards were distributed. By his own admission, Radcliffe was heavily influenced by his lack of fitness for the Indian climate and his eagerness to depart India.[35]

The implementation was no less hasty than the process of drawing the border. On 16 August 1947 at 5:00 pm, the Indian and Pakistani representatives were given two hours to study copies, before the Radcliffe award was published on August 17.[36]


To avoid disputes and delays, the division was done in secret. The final Awards were ready on 9 August and 12 August, but not published until two days after the partition.

According to Read, there is some circumstantial evidence that Nehru and Patel were secretly informed of the Punjab Award's contents on August 9 or 10, either through Mountbatten or Radcliffe's Indian assistant secretary.[37] Regardless of how it transpired, the award was changed to put a salient east of the Sutlej canal within India's domain instead of Pakistan's. This area consisted of two Muslim-majority tehsils with a combined population of over half a million. There were two apparent reasons for the switch: the area housed an army arms depot, and contained the headwaters of a canal which irrigated the princely state of Bikaner, which would accede to India.[citation needed]


After the partition, the fledgling governments of India and Pakistan were left with all responsibility to implement the border. After visiting Lahore in August, Viceroy Mountbatten hastily arranged a Punjab Boundary Force to keep the peace around Lahore, but 50,000 men was not enough to prevent thousands of killings, 77% of which were in the rural areas. Given the size of the territory, the force amounted to less than one soldier per square mile. This was not enough to protect the cities much less the caravans of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who were fleeing their homes in what would become Pakistan.[38]

Both India and Pakistan were loath to violate the agreement by supporting the rebellions of villages drawn on the wrong side of the border, as this could prompt a loss of face on the international stage and require the British or the UN to intervene. Border conflicts led to three wars, in 1947, 1965, and 1971, and the Kargil conflict of 1999.

Disputes along the Radcliffe Line[edit]

There were disputes regarding the Radcliffe Line's award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and the Gurdaspur district. Disputes also evolved around the districts of Malda, Khulna, and Murshidabad in Bengal and the sub-division of Karimganj of Assam.

In addition to Gurdaspur's Muslim majority tehsils, Radcliffe also gave the Muslim majority tehsils of Ajnala (Amritsar District), Zira, Ferozpur (in Ferozpur District), Nakodar and Jullander (in Jullander District) to India instead of Pakistan.[39]


Ferozpur District[edit]

Indian historians now accept that Mountbatten probably did influence the Ferozpur award in India's favour.[40]

Gurdaspur District[edit]

Under British control, the Gurdaspur district was the northernmost district of the Punjab Province. The district itself was administratively subdivided into four tehsils: Shakargarh and Pathankot tehsils to the north, and Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils to the south. Of the four, only the Shakargarh tehsil, which was separated from the rest of the district by the Ravi river, was awarded to Pakistan. (It was subsequently merged into the Narowal district of West Punjab.[41]) The Gurdaspur, Batala and Pathankot tehsils became part of India's East Punjab state. The division of the district was followed by a population transfer between the two nations, with Muslims leaving for Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs leaving for India.

The entire district of Gurdaspur had a bare majority of 50.2% Muslims.[42] (In the `notional' award attached to the Indian Independence Act, all of Gurdaspur district was marked as Pakistan with 51.14% Muslim majority.[43] In the 1901 census, the population of Gurdaspur district was 49% Muslim, 40% Hindu, and 10% Sikh.[44]) The Pathankot tehsil was predominantly Hindu while the other three tehsils were Muslim majority.[45] In the event, only Shakargarh was awarded to Pakistan.

Radcliffe explained that the reason for deviating from the notional award in case of Gurdaspur was that the headwaters of the canals that irrigated the Amritsar district lay in the Gurdaspur district and it was important to keep them under one administration.[43] Lord Wavell had stated in February 1946 that Gurdaspur had to go with the Amritsar district, and the latter could not be in Pakistan due to its Sikh religious shrines.[43] In addition, the railway line from Amritsar to Pathankot passed through the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils.[46]

Pakistanis have alleged that the award of the three tehsils to India was a manipulation of the Award by Lord Mountbatten in an effort to provide a land route for India to Jammu and Kashmir.[42] However, Shereen Ilahi points out that the land route to Kashmir was entirely within the Pathankot tehsil, which had a Hindu majority. The award of the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India did not affect Kashmir.[47]

Pakistani View on the Award of Gurdaspur to India[edit]

Pakistan maintains that the Radcliffe Award was altered by Mountbatten; Gurdaspur was handed over to India and thus was manipulated the accession of Kashmir to India.[48][not in citation given] As per the `notional' award that had already been put into effect for purposes of administration ad interim, all of Gurdaspur district, owing to its Muslim majority, was assigned to Pakistan.[49] From August 14th to 17th, Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema acted as the Deputy Commissioner of the Gurdaspur District, but when, after a delay of two days, it was announced that the major portion of the district had been awarded to India instead of Pakistan, Cheema left for Pakistan.[50] The major part of Gurdaspur district, i.e. three of the four sub-districts and a small part of the fourth, had been handed over to India giving India practical land access to Kashmir, thus making the Indian intervention in Kashmir possible.[51] It came as a great blow to Pakistan. Jinnah and other leaders of Pakistan, and particularly its officials, criticized the Award as ‘extremely unjust and unfair’.[52][need quotation to verify]

Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, who represented the Muslim League in July 1947 before the Radcliffe Boundary Commission, stated that the Boundary Commission was a farce. A secret deal between Mountbatten and Congress leaders had already been struck.[53] Mehr Chand Mahajan, one of the two Non Muslim members of the Boundary Commission, in his autobiography, has acknowledged that when he was selected for the boundary commission, he was not inclined to accept the invitation as he believed that the commission was just a farce and that decisions were actually to be taken by Mountbatten himself.[54]It was only under British pressure that the charges against Mountbatten of last minute alterations in the Radcliffe Award were not officially brought forward by Pakistani Government in the UN Security Council while presenting its case on Kashmir.[55]

Zafrullah Khan states that, in actual fact, adopting the tehsil as a unit would have given Pakistan the Ferozepur and Zira tehsils of the Ferozpur District, the Jullundur and Rahon tehsils of Jullundur district and the Dasuya tehsil of the Hoshiarpur district. The line so drawn would also give Pakistan the State of Kapurthala (which had a Muslim majority) and would enclose within Pakistan the whole of the Amritsar district of which only one tehsil, Ajnala, had a Muslim majority. It would also give Pakistan the Shakargarh, Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils of the Gurdaspur district. If the boundary went by Doabs, Pakistan could get not only the 16 districts which had already under the notional partition been put into West Punjab, including the Gurdaspur District, but also get the Kangra District in the mountains, to the north and east of Gurdaspur. Or one could go by Commissioners' divisions. Any of these units being adopted would have been more favourable to Pakistan than the present boundary line. The tehsil was the most favourable unit.[56] But all of the aforementioned Muslim majority tehsils, with the exception of Shakargarh, were handed over to India while Pakistan didn't receive any Non-Muslim majority district or tehsil in Punjab.[39] Zafruallh Khan states that Radcliffe used district, tehsil, thana, and even village boundaries to divide Punjab in such a way that the boundary line was drawn much to the prejudice of Pakistan.[57]

According to Zafrullah Khan, the assertion that the award of the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India did not 'affect' Kashmir is far-fetched. If Batala and Gurdaspur had gone to Pakistan, Pathankot tehsil would have been isolated and blocked. Even though it would have been possible for India to get access to Pathankot through the Hoshiarpur district, it would have taken quite long time to construct the roads, bridges and communications that would have been necessary for military movements.[58]

Assessments on the 'Controversial Award of Gurdaspur to India and the Kashmir Dispute'[edit]

Stanley Wolpert writes that Radcliffe in his initial maps awarded Gurdaspur district to Pakistan but one of Nehru’s and Mountbatten’s greatest concerns over the new Punjab border line was to make sure that Gurdaspur should not go to Pakistan, since that would have deprived India of direct road access to Kashmir.[59] As per “The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture”, a part of UNESCO’s Histories flagship project, recently disclosed documents of the history of the partition reveal British complicity with the top Indian leadership to wrest Kashmir from Pakistan. Alastair Lamb, based on the study of recently declassified documents, has convincingly proved that Mountbatten, in league with Nehru, was instrumental in pressurizing Radcliff to award the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur in East Punjab to India which could provide India with the only possible access to Kashmir.[60] Andrew Roberts believes that Mountbatten cheated over India-Pak frontier [61] and states that If gerrymandering took place in case of Ferozepur, it is not too hard to believe that Mountbatten also pressurised Radcliffe to ensure that Gurdaspur wound up in India giving India a road access to Kashmir. [62][63] Perry Anderson states that Mountbatten, officially supposed neither to exercise any influence on Radcliffe, nor to have any knowledge of his findings, intervened behind the scenes – probably at Nehru’s behest – to alter the award. He had little difficulty getting Radcliffe change his boundaries to allot the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur to India rather than to Pakistan thus giving India the only access road from Delhi to Kashmir[64] Professor Lawrence Ziring, considered an authority on Pakistan's political development,[65] writes that the Gurdaspur district of the Punjab, a Muslim-dominant area, had been demarcated for India not Pakistan in order to provide New Delhi with direct land access to Kashmir. Jinnah's effort to prevent this geopolitical strategizing provide futile, and indeed the granting of Gurdaspur to India by Britain signaled India's intention to occupy the mountain kingdom with British acquiescence.[66]

However some British works suggest contrary to that 'Kashmir State was not in anybody's mind'[67] when the Award was being drawn and that even the Pakistanis themselves had not realized the importance of Gurdaspur to Kashmir until the Indian forces actually entered Kashmir.[68] Both Mountbatten and Radcliffe, of course, have strongly denied these charges. It is impossible to accurately quantify the personal responsibility for the tragedy of Kashmir as the Mountbatten papers relating to the issue at the India Office Library and records are closed to scholars for an indefinite period.[69]


Chittagong Hill Tracts[edit]

Chittagong Hill Tracts had a majority non-Muslim population of 97% (most of them Buddhists), but was given to Pakistan. The Chittagong Hill Tracts People's Association (CHTPA) petitioned the Bengal Boundary Commission that, since the CHTs were inhabited largely by non-Muslims, they should remain within India. Since they had no official representation, there was no official discussion on the matter, and many on the Indian side assumed the CHT would be awarded to India.

On 15 August 1947, many of the tribes did not know to which side of the border they belonged. On 17 August, the publication of the Radcliffe Award put the CHTs in Pakistan. The rationale of giving the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan was that they were inaccessible to India and to provide a substantial rural buffer to support Chittagong (now in Bangladesh), a major city and port; advocates for Pakistan forcefully argued to the Bengal Boundary Commission that the only approach was through Chittagong.

Two days later, the CHTPA resolved not to abide by the award and hoisted the Indian flag. The Pakistani army dealt with the protest but its polemic somewhat remains with some of its non-Muslim majority arguing for its secession.[70]

Malda District[edit]

Another disputed decision made by Radcliffe was division of the Malda district of Bengal. The district overall had a slight Muslim majority, but was divided and most of it, including Malda town, went to India. The district remained under East Pakistan administration for 3–4 days after 15 August 1947. It was only when the award was made public that the Pakistani flag was replaced by the Indian flag in Malda.

Khulna and Murshidabad Districts[edit]

The entire Khulna District with a marginal Hindu majority of 51% was also given to East Pakistan in lieu of a smaller Murshidabad district with a 70% Muslim majority, which went to India.


Sylhet district of Assam joined Pakistan in accordance with a referendum.[71] However, the Karimganj sub-division with a Muslim majority was severed from Sylhet and given to India. As of the 2001 Indian Census, Karimganj now has a Muslim majority of 52.3%.


Legacy and historiography[edit]

The Partition of India is one of the central events in the collective memory in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. On his motivation to write Drawing the Line, playwright Howard Brenton said he first became interested in the story of the Radcliffe Line while vacationing in India and hearing stories from people whose families had fled across the new line.[72]

Artistic depictions[edit]

As a crucial determiner in the outcomes of the partition, the Radcliffe Line and award process has been referred to in many films, books, and other artistic depictions of the partition of India. The specific commemoration of the award or the recounting of the story of the process and the people involved in it has been comparatively rare.

One notable depiction is Drawing the Line, written by British playwright Howard Brenton. Defending his portrayal of Cyril Radcliffe as a man who struggled with his conscience, Brenton said, "There were clues that Radcliffe had a dark night of the soul in the bungalow: he refused to accept his fee, he did collect all the papers and draft maps, took them home to England and burnt them. And he refused to say a word, even to his family, about what happened. My playwright's brain went into overdrive when I discovered these details."[72]

Indian Filmmaker Ram Madhvani created a nine-minute short film where he explored the plausible scenario of Radcliffe regretting the line he drew. The film was inspired by WH Auden’s poem on the Partition. [73] [74]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict (2003, p. 35): Wavell, however, had made a more significant political judgement in his plan, submitted to the secretary of state, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in February 1946: 'Gurdaspur must go with Amritsar for geographical reasons and Amritsar being sacred city of Sikhs must stay out of Pakistan... Fact that much of Lahore district is irrigated from upper Bari Doab canal with headworks in Gurdaspur district is awkward but there is no solution that avoids all such difficulties.'


  1. ^ a b c Read, p. 482
  2. ^ Ishtiaq Ahmed, State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia (London & New York, 1998), p. 99: "On 15 August 1947 India achieved independence... The several hundred princely states which came within Indian territory could in principle remain independent but were advised by both the British government and the Congress Party to join India."
  3. ^ Smitha, Independence section, para. 7.
  4. ^ See North-West Frontier Province and "North-West Frontier Province" from the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008, at Encyclopedia.com, accessed 10 September 2009
  5. ^ a b Read, p.483
  6. ^ Read, p. 497: "Ten million of them were in the central Punjab. In an area measuring about 200 miles (320 km) by 150 miles (240 km), roughly the size of Scotland, with some 17,000 towns and villages, five million Muslims were trekking from east to west, and five million Hindus and Sikhs trekking in the opposite direction. Many of them never made it to their destinations."
  7. ^ a b Read, p. 499
  8. ^ Tan & Kudaisya 2000, p. 162–163.
  9. ^ Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 73–76.
  10. ^ Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 82.
  11. ^ Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 84–85.
  12. ^ Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 85–86.
  13. ^ Datta, The Punjab Boundary Commission Award 1998, p. 858.
  14. ^ Sialkoti, Punjab Boundary Line Issue 2014, p. 86.
  15. ^ a b c Frank Jacobs (July 3, 2012). "Peacocks at Sunset". Opinionator: Borderlines. The New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2012. 
  16. ^ Mansergy
  17. ^ Read, p. 483
  18. ^ Read, p. 482-3
  19. ^ Read, p. 418: "He wrote to then Prime Minister Clement Attlee, "It makes all the difference to me to know that you propose to make a statement in the House, terminating the British 'Raj' on a definite and specified date; or earlier than this date, if the Indian Parties can agree a constitution and form a Government before this.""
  20. ^ "Minutes of the award meeting : Held on 16 August 1947". Retrieved 11 December 2013. 
  21. ^ Chester, Lucy (2002). The 1947 partition : Drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundary. Pittsboro: American Diplomacy. 
  22. ^ Chester, Lucy (2009). Borders and Conflicts in South Asia: The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Partition of Punjab. Manchester: Manchester university Press. ISBN 9780719078996. 
  23. ^ "The Boundary Commission". 
  24. ^ Read, p.482: "After the obligatory wrangles, with Jinnah playing for time by suggesting calling in the United Nations, which could have delayed things for months if not years, it was decided to set up two boundary commissions, each with an independent chairman and four High Court judges, two nominated by Congress and two by the League."
  25. ^ Mishra, para. 19: "Irrevocably enfeebled by the Second World War, the British belatedly realized that they had to leave the subcontinent, which had spiraled out of their control through the nineteen-forties. ... But in the British elections at the end of the war, the reactionaries unexpectedly lost to the Labour Party, and a new era in British politics began. As von Tunzelmann writes, 'By 1946, the subcontinent was a mess, with British civil and military officers desperate to leave, and a growing hostility to their presence among Indians.' ... The British could not now rely on brute force without imperiling their own sense of legitimacy. Besides, however much they 'preferred the illusion of imperial might to the admission of imperial failure,' as von Tunzelmann puts it, the country, deep in wartime debt, simply couldn’t afford to hold on to its increasingly unstable empire. Imperial disengagement appeared not just inevitable but urgent."
  26. ^ Chester, Boundary Commission Format and Procedure section, para. 5
  27. ^ Read, p. 483, para. 1.
  28. ^ population?
  29. ^ Read, p. 485
  30. ^ Read, p. 484-485. "After the 3 June 1947 plan had been announced, the main Sikh organization, the Shiromani Akali Dal, had distributed a circular saying that 'Pakistan means total death to the Sikh Panth [community] and the Sikhs are determined on a free sovereign state with the [rivers] Chenab and the Jamna as its borders, and it calls on all Sikhs to fight for their ideal under the flag of the Dal.'"
  31. ^ Read, p. 481
  32. ^ Mishra, para. 4
  33. ^ Mishra, para. 5.
  34. ^ Heward, 45. As cited in Chester, Methodology section, para. 1
  35. ^ Read, p.484: Years later, he told Leonard Mosley, "The heat is so appalling, that at noon it looks like the blackest night and feels like the mouth of hell. After a few days of it, I seriously began to wonder whether I would come out of it alive. I have thought ever since that the greatest achievement which I made as Chairman of the Boundary Commission was a physical one, in surviving."
  36. ^ Read, p.494
  37. ^ Read p. 490
  38. ^ Read, p. 487-488
  39. ^ a b Pervaiz I Cheema; Manuel Riemer (22 August 1990). Pakistan's Defence Policy 1947–58. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-1-349-20942-2. 
  40. ^ Owen Bennett Jones (2003). Pakistan: Eye of the Storm. Yale University Press. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-8. 
  41. ^ Narowal – Punjab Portal
  42. ^ a b Tan & Kudaisya 2000, p. 91.
  43. ^ a b c Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, p. 35.
  44. ^ Gurdāspur District – Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 12, p. 395.
  45. ^ Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, p. 38.
  46. ^ Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 33–34.
  47. ^ Ilahi, Shereen (2003). "The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Fate of Kashmir". India Review. 2 (1): 77–102. ISSN 1473-6489. doi:10.1080/714002326. 
  48. ^ Zaidi, Z. H. (2001), Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August-30 September 1947, p. 379, ISBN 9789698156091 
  49. ^ The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 155 
  50. ^ "Gurdaspur – the dist that almost went to Pak". The Tribune India. 15 August 2015. 
  51. ^ The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 158 
  52. ^ Zaidi, Z. H. (2001), Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August-30 September 1947, p. 380, ISBN 9789698156091 
  53. ^ Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Tahdith-i-Ni‘mat, Pakistan Printing Press, 1982, p. 515 
  54. ^ Mehr Chand Mahajan, Looking Back: The Autobiography Bombay, 1963, p. 113 
  55. ^ Sohail, Massarat (1991), Partition and Anglo-Pakistan relations, 1947–51, Vanguard, p. 76-77 
  56. ^ The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 155 
  57. ^ The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 155 
  58. ^ The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University, 2004, p. 158 
  59. ^ Wolpert, Stanley (2009), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford University Press, USA, p. 167 
  60. ^ The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture (PDF), 2016, p. 355 
  61. ^ Author's Review, Eminent Churchillians 
  62. ^ Robert, Andrew (1994), Eminent Chruchillians 
  63. ^ Sher Muhammad Garewal,“Mountbatten and Kashmir Issue”, Journal of Research Society of Pakistan, XXXIV (April 1997), pp.9–10
  64. ^ Anderson, Perry, Why Partition? 
  65. ^ Book Review, Lawrence Ziring: Pakistan in the twentieth century: a political history 
  66. ^ Ziring, Lawrence (July–December 2001), "Quaid-i-Azam on the Kashmir Issue as Governor-General" (PDF), Pakistan Journal of History & Culture, XXII (2 (Quaid-i-Azam Number)): 37–50 
  67. ^ Hodson, H. V. (1969), The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan, London: Hutchinson, p. 355 
  68. ^ Tinker, Hugh (August 1977), "Pressure, Persuasion, Decision: Factors in the Partition of the Punjab, August 1947", Journal of Asian Studies, XXXVI (4): 701, JSTOR 2054436 
  69. ^ Robert, Andrew (1994), Eminent Churchillians, p. 105 
  70. ^ Calcutta Research group
  71. ^ "Sylhet (Assam) to join East Pakistan". Keesing's Record of World Events. July 1947. p. 8722. 
  72. ^ a b "Web Chat with Howard Brenton". Retrieved 14 July 2014. 
  73. ^ "This Bloody Line". 
  74. ^ "Watch: This Bloody Line, Ram Madhvani's short film on India-Pak divide". 


Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]