One of the bitterest and most enduring controversies surrounding the partition is the Radcliffe Award.Viceroy Linlithgow had ruthlessly smashed the Quit India movement, but his successor Viceroy Wavell believed that it would not be possible to control another wave of protests and, therefore, preparations had to be made to pull out of India if such an emergency arose. In a top-secret communication of 27 December 1945 he sent a “Breakdown Plan” to the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in which he noted:
We should base ourselves on two points of principle:
If the Muslims insist on self-determination in genuinely Muslim areas this must be conceded.
On the other hand there can be no question of compelling large non-Muslim populations to remain in Pakistan against their will (Ahmed 2012: 73-75; TOP, Vol. VI: 700).
On 7 February 1946, Wavell submitted to Pethick-Lawrence a “Breakdown Plan”. His idea was that if compelled to give an award, the demarcation of ‘genuinely Muslim areas’ (ibid: 912) should include:
1. Sind, North West Frontier Province, British Baluchistan and Rawalpindi, Multan and Lahore divisions of Punjab; minus Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts.
(b) In Bengal, the Chittagong and Dacca divisions, the Rajshahi division (minus Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling), the Nadia, Murshidabad and Jessore districts of Presidency division; and in Assam, the Sylhet district.
2. In the Punjab, the only Moslem-majority district that would not go into Pakistan under this demarcation is Gurdaspur (51-per cent Moslem). Gurdaspur must be attached to Amritsar for geographical reasons and Amritsar, being sacred city of Sikhs, must stay out of Pakistan. But for this case of importance of Amritsar, demarcation in the Punjab could have been on divisional boundaries. 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.
With regard to Calcutta (23 per cent Muslim population) in Bengal, it should also remain in India or be made into a free port if negotiations between the parties could successfully reach such an arrangement (ibid: 913).
The Partition Plan of 3 June 1947
The final drama in the partition saga began with the arrival of Lord Louis Mountbatten as the last viceroy. His negotiations with Indian leaders led nowhere. From 19 May onwards, Mountbatten was in the UK for consultations with the British Cabinet and the India Office and did not return to India until 30 May. He met the Indian leaders on 2 June. They were handed copies of his partition plan at 10 a.m. with the request that they give their replies and comments by midnight, but that the statement was final. Much of the text had in fact been shared with the Indian leaders in various revised forms, but the early date of the transfer of power had not been mentioned. Both India and Pakistan were to be accorded dominion status.
Nehru and Patel had already been taken into confidence about an early British withdrawal from the subcontinent and were themselves in favour of it. However, the exact day of withdrawal being brought forward from June 1948 to mid-August 1947 may not have been intimated to them. There is no doubt that the Muslim League, the Sikhs and possibly other Congress leaders learnt about it only on 2 June. The Viceroy remarked: ‘The severe shock that this gave to everyone present would have been amusing if it was not rather tragic’ (Ahmed 2012: 214; TOP, Vol. XI 163).
Announcement of the Partition Plan
Mountbatten announced the Partition Plan over All-India Radio in the evening of 3 June 1947. The British government also issued a statement from London on 3 June. It stipulated among other things:
5. The Provincial Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab (excluding European Members) will … each be asked to meet in two parts, one representing the Muslim majority districts and the other the rest of the Province. For the purpose of determining the population of districts, the 1941 census figures will be taken as authoritative.
9. For the immediate purpose of deciding on the issue of partition, the members of the Legislative Assemblies of Bengal and the Punjab will sit in two parts according to Muslim majority districts (as laid down in the Appendix) and non-Muslim majority districts. This is only a preliminary step of a purely temporary nature (emphasis added) as it is evident that for the purposes of a final partition of these provinces, a detailed investigation of the boundary question will be needed and, as soon as a decision involving partition has been taken for either province, a Boundary Commission will be set up by the Governor-General, the membership and terms of reference of which will be settled in consultation with those concerned. It will be 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. It will also be instructed to take into account other factors. Similar instructions will be given to the Bengal Boundary Commission. Until the report of a Boundary Commission has been put into effect, the provisional boundaries indicated in the Appendix will be used (Ahmed 2012: 216-217; TOP Vol. XI:90-1).
The Appendix was based on district-wise majorities as recorded in the 1941 census. It showed that Muslims were in the majority in three of the five administrative divisions of the Punjab:
1. Rawalpindi Division: Attock, Gujarat, Jhelum, Mianwali, Rawalpindi, Shahpur.
2. Multan Division: Dera Ghazi Khan, Jhang, Lyallpur, Montgomery, Multan, Muzaffargarh.
3. Lahore Division: Gujranwala, Gurdaspur, Lahore, Sheikhupura and Sialkot districts (Ibid: 94).
Amritsar, which belonged to Lahore division, had a non-Muslim majority (emphasis added) and was, therefore, not included among the Muslim majority areas in the appendix. Besides Amritsar district, Hindus and Sikhs were in a majority in the following division and their districts:
4. Jullundur Division: Ludhiana, Ferozepore, Jullundur, Hoshiarpur, Kangra.
5. Ambala Division: Gurgaon, Rothak, Hissar, Karnal, Ambala, Simla.
The Partition Plan stipulated that the members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, organised separately into a western and an eastern bloc, would vote on the issue of partitioning the Punjab. Accordingly, members of the Western Section of the Assembly (presided over by the Speaker Diwanm Bahadur S.P.Singha) and that of the Eastern Section (presided over by the Deputy Speaker Sardar Kapur Singh) voted on 23 June 1947 (Ahmed 2012: 219)
With regard to the voting, 72 members from East Punjab met in a separate session. They rejected by 50 votes to 22, a motion by the Muslim League leader the Khan of Mamdot that the province should remain united. On the other hand, in the West Punjab section a motion to partition the Punjab was rejected by 69 votes to 27. In communal terms, 88 Muslims, including Khizr Tiwana and seven other members of the Unionist Party, two Indian Christians (Diwan S. P. Singha and Fazl Elahi) and one Anglo-Indian (Mr Gibbon) voted for a united Punjab; Hindus, Sikhs and representatives of the scheduled castes, numbering altogether 77, voted for partitioning the Punjab (Ibid: 567). With regard to Bengal, the voting took place on 20 June. The Muslim majority eastern bloc voted 106 against the partition of the province and 35 for it; the non-Muslim majority western bloc voted 58 for partition and 21 against it.
[quote]A British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who had never stepped on Indian soil before was appointed as chairman of the Boundary Commission[/quote]
A British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who had never stepped on Indian soil before was appointed as chairman of the Boundary Commission. Four more members, two nominated by Congress (of which one was to be a Sikh) and two by the Muslim League were added. It heard the arguments of the counsels representing the disputing parties: the Muslim League, the Congress, the Sikhs as well as a number of minor groups. The Commission met in Lahore during 21 July -31 July 1947. The counsels representing the two main adversarial blocs – the Muslim League, on the one hand, and, the Congress-Sikhs, on the other, put forth maximalist claims. The four nominated judges took equally partisan positions. The Muslim League’s stand was that contiguous Muslim and non-Muslim areas were the main term of reference and “other factors” applied only to extraordinary situations demanding deviation from it. Arguing that the tahsil should be used as the unit to determine contiguity the Muslim League counsel could claim that such contiguity continued as far in the east as the Sutlej River in the vicinity of Ludhiana.
On the other hand, Congress and Sikhs insisted that “other factors” were equally important. The other factors, according to them, referred to greater ownership of land and other forms of property (75 per cent agricultural land and other types of property belonged to the Hindus and Sikhs). Both sides stuck to their respective stances. The Sikh counsel insisted on the zail (a revenue unit of 12 villages) as the correct unit for determining contiguity. With such an approach he could claim contiguity right up to Lyallpur in the west. The Congress supported the Sikhs. Therefore an agreed formula of partitioning Punjab could not be agreed upon. The same happened at the Bengal Boundary Commission’s hearings in Calcutta. Consequently, instead of an agreed settlement a government award became necessary (Ahmed 2012: 253-273).
[quote]The Radcliffe Award was ready on 13 August but was revealed to political leaders two days after India and Pakistan had celebrated their independence[/quote]
The Radcliffe Award
The Radcliffe Award was ready on 13 August but was revealed to the political leaders on 16 August and made public on 17 August – two days after India and Pakistan had celebrated their independence! The most controversial aspect of the boundary award was that three of the four tahsils of Gurdaspur district on the eastern bank of the Ujh river (which joined the Ravi a little further down) – the tahsils of Gurdaspur, Batala and Pathankot – were awarded to India and only one, Shakargarh, was assigned to Pakistan. Curiously enough, however, instead of choosing the Ujh-Ravi rivers as the cut-off point for the border, ‘The tahsil boundary and not the actual course of the Ujh river shall constitute the boundary between the East and West Punjab’ (ibid). Such an arrangement gave both India and Pakistan some foothold on the other side thus making the border quite erratic.
[quote]There is considerable literature available alleging that Mountbatten had the original text altered[/quote]
There is considerable literature available alleging that Mountbatten had the original text altered so that the whole of Gurdaspur in which Muslims formed a very slim majority would not be awarded to Pakistan. The reason he did so, it is alleged, was to provide a land route for India into Kashmir through Pathankot. Notwithstanding the controversies, the Radcliffe Award relied essentially upon the principle of Muslim and non-Muslim majority contiguity and did not recognize claims to property as a valid basis for awarding territory. Therefore, these areas in which Sikhs in particular owned much of the land, and Hindus and Sikhs together owned most of the urban property, went to Pakistan. In this sense, then, the Radcliffe Award was more sympathetic to the claims of the Muslim League than to those of Congress and the Sikhs.
Had the tahsil been used as the unit of contiguity Pathankot tahsil of Gurdaspur, which had a 60 per cent Hindu-Sikh majority would have been awarded to India even if Gurdaspur and Batala tahsils which had Muslim majority would have been given to Pakistan. Wavell’s reasons for giving the three tahsils of Gurdaspur to India was to protect Amritsar from being surrounded on all sides except the east by Pakistani territory. This is easily understood by looking at the maps. The most interesting point to note is that the Radcliffe Award was almost identical to Wavell’s Boundary-Demarcation Plan of 7 February 1946. Only a very tiny portion of Kasur tahsil of Lahore district was given to India to make the international border equidistant between India and Pakistan.
There is no doubt that the Congress Party was determined that if India is divided so must Bengal and Punjab. Therefore it had on 8 March 1947 came out in support of the Sikh demand for a partition of the Punjab. Similarly it exerted its influence to have Bengal partitioned as well. The main consideration was defence and security. The international border that was drawn in Bengal and Punjab was far away from Delhi. Had Bengal and Punjab, as a whole, been given to Pakistan, as Jinnah wanted, Delhi would have become a frontier city.
Herein lies the security problem that beset Pakistan from the very onset. With Lahore, Sialkot and other major towns in West Pakistan bang on the border and East Pakistan lacking any military infrastructure worth the name, Pakistan was a security nightmare.
(to be continued)
One must give credit where it is due. This article is the only article in the entire series that is not based on hyperbole but something substantial.
Good going Ishtiaq sb. Wish you could write impartially in this manner all the time.
I am sure that the this article by the esteemed author agrees with your pre-conceived ‘truth’ has nothing to do with your overdue appreciation for this scholarly essays.
Scholarly articles? Read Ishtiaq Ahmed’s own admission in Splitting India IV that he left his books in Stockholm – hence the mistakes.
Pre-conceived truth? I have merely pointed out the gaping holes. Some of those holes Ishtiaq Ahmed has already admitted. So I am not interested in your “truth” or Ishtiaq Ahmed’s “truth” but simply factual accuracy.
I am sorry but I do not agree that Ishtiaq Ahmed’s articles are scholarly. This article is a narration of facts and not of personal opinions – for the most part.
The Muslim League wanted a separate Nation comprising the whole of Punjab; Bengal & Kashmir.
It is a historical fact that the Sikhs prospered immensely under Maharaja Ranjit Singh from 1799 to 1839. This resulted in the blossoming of Sikh Nationalism and they considered themselves to be another ruling class. With close to 10 % population, they ruled over the whole Punjab.
Subsequently, the West Punjab was given great importance by the British and irrigation facilities were built in the second half of the Nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century and it compared with the best in the world .
Sikhs were invited from the Eastern districts of Punjab to acquire and till the land. The Jat Sikhs worked immensely hard to boost the agricultural productivity. These colonial Sikhs were too reluctant to give up their land. Also, the Sikhs’ religious places including the Nankana Sahib would fall in Pakistan. The Akalis (and Sikhs) wanted Punjab upto Jhelum.
So, the Sikhs supported Congress which advocated partitioning the Punjab, in case India was to be partitioned. In the end, Muslims got 62% of Punjab and they were 53.2% in Punjab in 1941 and Hindus & Sikhs got 38% while they constituted 44.0% including 14.9% Sikhs.
Quite fair, I suppose !
The Boundary Commission had pretty little time to go through all technicalities of partitioning which included communities, religions, waterways, rivulets, tehsils and districts etc.
The bitterness,acrimony and bickering was at it’s worst and a civil war like situation existed and each community was trying to root out the other from their areas . Politicians, landowners comprising the political parties flourished by grabbing the lands of the evacuees.
Close to 1 million people died.
Punjabi Hindus and Sikh Refugees settled down all over India and have again prospered.
Thanks for your interest Mr Gurprit Singh the reality is being hidden from the
Common people and with Media Propaganda people end up making their opinion.
Based on Media hype and negative information promulgated by both sides/
The Muslim members of the East Punjab Assembly voted in favor of keeping Punjab united while the Hindus and Sikhs voted for the Punjab to be partitioned. By an overwhelming majority it voted in favor of the partition of the province.
Time and again it is observed Indian Punjabis blaming Pakistani Punjabis for
Partition of Punjab but reality is while Hindus Sikhs memebers voted in favor of
PARTITION of Punjab ,Muslims members of Punjab Legislative Assembly
Voted against Partition of Punjab but due to lack of authentic information then
Wrongfully Muslim members of Punjab Legislative Assembly are blamed,Please Correct this BLUNDER from minds of the people for IndoPak Punjab and make
It noted for the sake of historical record.Punajb has same Culture,Music,Food
Language and traditions it is our responsibility to tell the Truth for the future
Generations to come so they can judge the facts on the merit.
With all due respect, the options given to the hindus and sikhs were a) partition or b) assimilation into pakistan. Given these choices, and given that the muslims were the ones demanding an independent nation outside of India, what real option was left for the hindus and sikhs? Thus your putting the onus of partition on hindus and sikhs seems specious.
You are confusing 2 separate issues. The Hindu/Sikh members of the East Punjab assembly didn’t vote for “partition of Punjab” from India. That was a foregone conclusion by the time this assembly vote took place.
If Muslim argument was that they were a separate nation that would not prosper as a minority in India, then it made sense that the Hindus/Sikhs of Punjab and Bengal would not want to be a minority in Pakistan. They did the most rational thing which is to apply the logic of partition of the nation to the partition of the states.
The Muslim League argument to partition the nation but insist on not partitioning the provinces smacked of hypocrisy. The condition of minorities in Pakistan today and the travails of East Pakistan through 1971 prove without a doubt that Hindus & Sikhs in Punjab and Bengal saw through this hypocrisy and acted in their own best interests.
Yasser Pai,
I was expecting your response and on pretty much the same lines….
Regards
If the recomendations of cabnit commission were accepted by congress, mthere will be no partition, if am wrong, plz correct me
It is heartening to note that some one like the author has appeared on Pakistani side to shine light on the true story of Partition of India. It is unfortunate that history has been murdered in Pakistan in schools and colleges .. So carry on, Ishtiaq with your good work.
Great work by Prof Ishtiaq Ahmed ,It was not all of a sudden Goras decided
To leave India ,Many reasons and secret high level meetings were concluded
Years ago before the RadCliffe LINE OF BLOOD was drawn on the map of
Sub Continent.As for I see the Goras were well disciplined and well prepared
To leave the whole region of South Asia.Dont forget there was no Jinnah,Nehru
,Gandhi or Patel who were struggling in Sri Lanka & Burma but got independence
In Few Months after IndoPak partition of Aug 1947
The Goras had already executed Partition of Bengal many decades before finally
Dividing IndoPak.They started segregrating muslims from Hindus long time ago by introducing separate Electoral System for Muslims in many parts of India.
Their cunning and shrewd policies created and promoted New Sects of Islam
In Saudi Arabia ( Wahabi)as well as in India to bring more differences among Muslims .Before the British Empire Muslims were ruling the half world,So Goras tried to disintegrate Muslims all over the world including IndoPak where
They were forced to be deported from their homeland into undeveloped,barren
And tribal parts of country which lacked any economic opportunity for them.
The results are infront of us even after 67 years Pakistan is totally under control
Of Foreign Countries who under disguise of financial aid openly interfere in the
Country as much as the Electicity & Petroelum Rates are dictated from the
Lenders and common people pay the price for the mistakes of political leaders.
It is never too late to understand the Super Power mockery and find the path
Of Peace and prosperity for the future generations of IndoPak.
Sadly, there is not much that is true or factual in this piece either. It will take too much space to comment on every misstatement contained in it. Radcliffe did not leave any record behind. He said he destroyed all of it for reasons that make no sense.
The secretary to the Radcliffe Commission, an ICS officer of great integrity named Christopher Beaumont, subsequently deposited an affidavit to the effect that the line in Punjab had been drawn dishonestly at the behest of Mountbatten.
Christopher Beaumont was a personal acquaintance of mine. I had numerous discussions and correspondence with him on the subject. He also introduced me to others including Sir Ian Scott, Deputy Private Secretary to Mountbatten and Lord Listowel, the Secretary of State for India in the Attlee cabinet. What I was able to put together from all the research is recorded in detail for anyone interested in the last chapter of my book ‘PAKISTAN: ROOTS, PERSPECTIVE AND GENESIS’.
This is an excerpt from Christopher Beaumont’s affidavit: ‘This was the first time, however, that Radcliffe and I had been separated on any sort of function. That evening, the Punjab line was changed —- Ferozepur going to India. No change, as was subsequently rumoured, was made in the northern (Gurdaspur) part of the line; nor in the Bengal line. So Mountbatten cheated and Radcliffe allowed himself to be overborne’
“Sadly, there is not much that is true or factual in this piece either. It will take too much space to comment on every misstatement contained in it. Radcliffe did not leave any record behind. He said he destroyed all of it for reasons that make no sense.
“The secretary to the Radcliffe Commission, an ICS officer of great integrity named Christopher Beaumont, subsequently deposited an affidavit to the effect that the line in Punjab had been drawn dishonestly at the behest of Mountbatten.
“Christopher Beaumont was a personal acquaintance of mine. I had numerous discussions and correspondence with him on the subject. He also introduced me to others including Sir Ian Scott, Deputy Private Secretary to Mountbatten and Lord Listowel, the Secretary of State for India in the Attlee cabinet. What I was able to put together from all the research is recorded in detail for anyone interested in the last chapter of my book ‘PAKISTAN: ROOTS, PERSPECTIVE AND GENESIS’. ”
“This is an excerpt from Christopher Beaumont’s affidavit: ‘This was the first time, however, that Radcliffe and I had been separated on any sort of function. That evening, the Punjab line was changed —- Ferozepur going to India. No change, as was subsequently rumoured, was made in the northern (Gurdaspur) part of the line; nor in the Bengal line. So Mountbatten cheated and Radcliffe allowed himself to be overborne’
The above comment on Dr Ishtiaq’s article is not mine but from Khan Zia, who
at one time was our Naval Attache with the High Commission in London and now lives with his children in Mississauga (Ontario-Canada). I copy the FT articles
to him and he sent me this comment. It was a regrettable omission not to
mention his name. Mehmud Ahmed, (Brampton-Canada)
Yeah right. Amazing to see people sticking to the well established conspiracy theories and choosing to look away even when facts are staring them in the face. And what can be more reliable as a source than quoting a Pakistani establishment bureaucrat from an era when the murder of history took place.
A story we are all familiar with . two cats fought over for good share of bread piece. A clever monkey volunteered to arbitrate. cats bargained for a bigger piece. finally Monkey ran away with all. something like this had happened in 1947. In this case British did not run away with our land. but they made such a mess, the dispute is continuing for ever. As good as the bread piece lost.
India was partitioned as jinnah wanted separate identity, and growth . He believed and made others to believe that majority will swallow the minority. That did not happen in the major portion of the bread. all minorities are living and progressing under one constitutional guarantee. on the other hand minorities have been wiped out on the smaller part of the bread piece. And lo the majority is under perpetual threat from handful of mountainous guerrillas . two piece splintered into three. the fourth one is being torn . thus partition had not bestowed permanent peace progress and happiness.
The British foolishly pre poned the running away from 1948 to august 1947
this caused the halo cast. they should have used the Army in 1947 to supervise the movements and declared independence in mid 1948. they were in a hurry to leave. we were in a hurry to grab. the innocent human beings were sacrificed in thousands.
let us rule properly what we have. we do not deserve anything more. Beware monkeys are waiting
Khizer Hayat Tiwana was Premier of Punjab from 1942-1947.He was a
Visionary politician who understood the Conspiracy behind Partition of
India was based on strategic game plan of British Raj and the whole
Scheme was hatched by the British Empire policy makers to gain control
Of the region as well to prepare a military tactical force to fight with Russia
( As for the British plan of the partition to fight Communist Russia came
True when Russia attacked Afganistan in 1979 creating war zone )
While safeguarding British Raj interests in Oil rich Persian Gulf region.
Jinnah and his gang acted on the orders of Gora Masters and implemented
The British Plan of Partition of Sub Continent causing astronomical damage to
The life and property of IndoPak people;The hypocritical approach by then
Leaders towards division of Sub Continent was based on pure hunger of power
By ignoring the miseries,homelessness,rapes,kidnappings,rioting,looting &
Lawlessness which occurred as a direct result of Partition of 1947.
You can only understand the Goras conspiracy if you read the comments
And historical facts of then Muslim Leaders like Mr Sikander Hayat Tiwana
Khizer assumed that partition would split the stuff of Punjabi society and extinguish a whole way of life. He observed the Muslim League’s demand as based on the hatred of the non- Muslim. He maintained that there was nothing in the Koran that made the creation of Pakistan a sacred act.
On the contrary, the demand of the partition was profoundly un-Islamic in the true sense of words of Khizer’s personal distaste for Jinnah arose from what he saw as the latter’s hypocrisy in using religion for his own political interests, when he possessed only a fundamental knowledge of Islam himself and did not practice it
A true but shameful aspect of those dummy leaders were kept top secret from the common people and a HYPE was created to give the Goras puppets/puppies
Highest respect in the society.The title of Quaid Azam(It is a sin to call some one Quaid Azam as for Muslim scholars agree only Muhammed SAW is our Quaid Azam and only his instrutcions and teaching be followed ) and`Mahatama Gandhi means the most Supreme Leader of Soul the level of hype and lies you
Can depict the level of propaganda created by Goras Raj. These so called Goras
Appointed national leaders were insulting their own religions by not practicing ,
For example Nehru a Hindu leader was a BEEF Eater as well Jinnah a Muslim
Leader was a PORK Eater/Wine Drinker, Gandhi was sleeping with young girls
Openly defying Hindu religious teachings.History was distorted and people of
IndoPak were kept ignorant about the EVIL character of Political leaders who
Caused the Biggest Blunder of Humanity in the history by 1947 PARTITION.
\
Partition of Punjab on communal lines was particularly cruel to a section of citizens of Lahore. Nearly 3.5 lakh culturally most advanced Hindus and Sikhs of the city of Lahore were displaced from not only their homes and hearths in Lahore, but also from the province (now state) of Punjab. Some voluntarily moved to Bombay for joining the film industry over there. Others were forced to settle in far off places like Lucknow, Kanpur, Meerut, Agra, Allahabad, Delhi, Jaipur, Calcutta and elsewhere far away from the boundaries of Punjab. Their first generation stuck to their culture, but the second generation could not keep its culture alive. Amritsar accommodated about 50000 Lahoris, Jullundur got 10000, Kapurthala got 5000, Ferozepore got 10000 Lahoris. These are the cities, where their culture is still intact. On the other hand all displaced persons from Amritsar were given the option to settle in Lahore, where their language and culture both thrived. In Pakistan, I have heard that the urban elite is abondoning its culture.