Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks

of the Partition Wounds Between

India and Pakistan
Samta Jain* and Sangeeta Loonker**

The partition of India is one among the top ten tragedies in the homo-sapien
history. Partition of India wobbled from communal to economic edges, translated
itself into geographical boundaries from geographical distances, moved from
sensitive to the strategic factors. It divided not only the Hindus and Muslims
living together for ages, not only struck the cultures and caused the greatest
migration ever, but this ‘divide and relinquish’ policy led to the endless boundary
disputes. The Radcliffe Line devised by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, which equitably divided
175,000 sq miles of territory among 88 million people, became the border between
India and Pakistan. It managed to provide international entity to the two
countries—India and Pakistan, but it failed to draw a geo-politically sound line,
though it made a perfect line as a political cover, it had long lasting repercussions
with regard to mass violence and frequent conflicts. Apart from the tremendous
dislocation of inhabitants of the two nations, there is a watermark of dispute in
the partition history. Since the boundaries were made without any understanding
of impact of resource partition, this led to the fact that water issue has stoked
tensions between the two nations. The watermarks of partition are too deep and
intense to remove the conflict between the two nations and so it is essential to
understand all linkages with water. The paper aims at understanding the footprints
of the past and suggesting the strategies for future.

Introd uction
Indian agricultural production is more dependent on monsoon. The agriculture in India is
highly correlated with the prevalent water management practices. In India, as the monsoon
is only confined to a few monsoon months, the water storage and water conservation
practices become all the more important. It has been noticed that the erratic nature of
monsoon on this subcontinent while is paving the way for drought and famines in some
areas, leads to floods in other areas. It is only the intelligent and strategic water
management practices that can lead to the development of the social, economic and
demographic frontiers of the country. In the yesteryears, there were agricultural taxes which
were levied by the kings to construct and maintain the structures for water diversion and
water storage. In the ancient history, there are evidences of mass migration due to lack of
pure drinking water. There are also stories of revolts and rebellions when the rulers
overtaxed the masses. With the colonial rule of the British, a club of parasitic intermediaries
was introduced between the states and the tax-paying masses. This paved the way for
* Professor and Program Coordinator, IBS, Mumbai, India. E-mail: samtajain@ibsindia.org
* * Assistant Professor, D epartment of Chemistry, JNV University, Jodhpur, I nd ia.
E-mail: sangeetag@hotmail.com

©
82 2010 IUP. All Rights Reserved. The IUP Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IV, No. 3, 2010
dilution of knowledge about the traditional water structures and also withered the
community approach to integrated water management practices. The water structures were
at colonial dispensation and soon they were damaged to a great extent.

Colonization led to a catastrophic movement to curb urbanization and industrialization

and, therefore, it aimed at destruction of trade and industry in the country. There was an
imposed restriction on the usage of inland waterways, and this obstructed the fishing, inland
waterways and transportation.

Water, being the most important source of living, has always been in the limelight, but
the Radcliffe Line that demarcates between India and Pakistan has only left the watermarks
of water. Apart from the natural spatial distribution of water which has always existed, there
has been a geographical imbalance created because of the Radcliffe Line.

Methodology
This is a conceptual paper which is written after a thorough research in the area and is built
on the understanding of the subject. Comparative analysis is made wherever possible and
conclusions are drawn thereafter.

The Undivided India

There was no divided India and no twin brother to it. It was just a rich civilized culture
flourishing in 3000 BC, situated along the shores of Indus and its tributaries. The credit of
sanitary engineering and drainage system goes to Indus Valley Civilization. The civilization
was spread over 1,300,000 sq km, highest for any ancient civilization known so far. Then
the most illustrious group, the Aryans, occupied some parts of Punjab from 1500 BC and
named it Sapt-Sindhu, the land of seven rivers. The undivided India hosted the Indus, the
Sutlej, the Ravi, the Beas, the Chenab, the Jhelum and the Saraswati. The Aryans settled in
the Gangetic valley registering in the history a period called ‘the later Vedic Age’.

The traces of kingdoms and republics are found in 600 BC when the inhabitants occupied
specific areas and created a geographic identity for themselves. Bimbisar, one of the Kings
in the Magadha, is renowned for his efficient administration. The subcontinent experienced
Arab invasion in 712 AD, and there is enough mentioning of Mughal Period and the
Maratha Era. The last day of 1600 changed the history of Indian terrain with the formation
of the East India Company. India came under the clutches of the British rule. The first seed
of revolt against the British was in 1857 and the struggles continued against the
imperialistic attitude of the British till the time India attained Independence. Revolutions
for independence were made by all religions and India subsequently managed to force the
British out of the country. But with Independence, India came half way to freedom with a
dual reality of ‘freedom with partition’.

Halfway to Freedom
The plan to make a partition of the country was announced on June 3, 1947 and there were
14 million people, who were making movements across the borders by August, 1947. It is

Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks of the Partition Wounds Between India and Pakistan 83
called the ‘year of the lion’ by some and ‘the year of the rats’ by others. The effects of the
partition were so evident in all the areas, i.e., economic, geographical, political and social
that the wounds still pain. The insistence of many to divide the country on communal lines
led to a disintegrated resource division to both India and Pakistan and it is still casting the
shadow on the relationship between India and Pakistan. Frictions between the two nations
are carved on the western and eastern flanks of the undivided subcontinent. There can be
no question to the division of India and Pakistan on religious lines, but there are still no
answers to the division on the Radcliffe Line as well, which was simply an arbitrary border
between the two nations. The line was so illogical that at times it not only divided one
village into two halves but there are incidences when the line cut through one house to
divide into two. The Radcliffe Line was a line drawn halfway to freedom and we are still
paying the price for it.

Radcliffe certainly made his name in the creation of the international boundary but what
has internalized underneath is creation of an internationalized conflict. The freedom called
upon people to tag themselves as Hindus and Muslims to adhere to the religious partition
made by Radcliffe by the name of Sir Radcliffe who chaired the two boundary commissions,
one of Punjab and another of Bengal. The persisting tendentious relationships between
Hindu and Muslim leaders made difficult for Sir Radcliffe to gather information and which
aggravated the political maneuvering and the result of haste and indifferent decision led
to ‘half freedom and half division’. The Radcliffe award was published on August 17, which
placed the salient east of Sutlej domain under India, in spite of the fact that it hosted half
a million Muslims in two of its tehsils and the Chittagong hill with 98% of non-Muslim
population went to Pakistan. Not only the several princely states fumbled but also the
complex riverine systems of Indus, Ganges and Bhramaputra were divided. This resulted in
a series of conflicts which led to the wars in 1948, 1965 and 1971 and is still on.

An Overview of Indus Basin

Indus and its tributaries reign in the northwestern part of India. The Indus River originates
about 17,000 feet above the sea level in the Mt. Kailash and then transverses a distance of
1800 miles through India, Tibet, Pakistan and then drains into the Arabian Sea. It is enriched
by Tibetan glacial waters and water of several other tributaries. It has rejuvenated the areas
around it and has turned into the world’s largest strip of irrigated land and is around 26
million acres. Indus basin is marked for its man-made irrigation and canal systems which
further increase the complexity of the Indus basin and suggests that the partition of India
in merely 73 days is not justified. This river is also known by several names like the Sengge
or the Lion River by the Tibet, Father of Rivers by Pathans and the Sweet River by the people
in the Sindh is the river that feeds many areas of the two nations. The abrupt partition made
this river sound as the bone of contention between the two nations as both of them are
dependant on its water for irrigation.

The plains in Pakistan enjoy the fertility because of the sediments deposited from time
immemorial by the running flow of Indus from Himalaya-Karakoram-Hindu-Kush (HKH)

84 The IUP Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IV, No. 3, 2010
and in a way the Pakistan’s agrarian economy flourishes on this. With its inception in the
Tibetan plateau and passages through India and Pakistan, it drains the highest mountain
ranges in the world (Figure 1). The Indus Basin, also referred to as ‘The Third Pole’, has
registered itself for the greatest area of Perennial ice outside the Polar regions. The Indus
River Basin gives 60% of the total water used for irrigation system.

Figure 1: Indus River Basin

Source: Wikipedia

Paying the Price for the Missing Links

The world’s most featured cross-border rivers include the Nile, the Tigris, the Euphrates, the
Mekong, the Brahmaputra and the Indus. Radcliffe has made the Indus a very sensitive issue
by diving this water resource into the world’s two most historic and strategic neighboring
nations—India and Pakistan. It is referred to as the world’s most largest and contiguous
irrigation system which has an annual capacity of 12 million hectares and a command area
of 20 million hectares.

The cursory and imperfect partition has divided the water resources between the nations
unevenly. The Indus River Basin was a source of conflict, and it became extremely difficult
for the two nations to demarcate, differentiate and divide the cohesive and intertwined

Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks of the Partition Wounds Between India and Pakistan 85
network of irrigation. The geographical partition puts the source river of Indus Basin under
India, giving the control on the tributaries to Indian subcontinent and the control on the
western rivers to Pakistan. Pakistan was suffering from a sense of insecurity in the context
of water supply and on the other end the Indian vision and ambitions to utilize the basin
profitably were also leading to elated conflicts and frictions. This aggravated the Hindu-
Muslim conflict over the usage of water from the common source for the cultivable land.
The western rivers comprise Indus, Jhelum and Chenab and the eastern rivers comprise the
Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Their initial point is Himalayas and they empty in the Arabian Sea,
south of Karachi, flowing through Punjab and Sindh and converging in Pakistan. The recent
developments and the large network of canals and storage facilities have ranked it as the
largest irrigated area of any one river system, it serves more than 26 million acres.

The misinterpretations and the false geographical partition have created some missing
links and for living and sustenance there is war between the two nations on account of
water. None of the two nations was withdrawing its control over the water resources and
the unitary network of irrigation. With the source river of Indus basin in India, Pakistan felt
more threatened and insecure. The pressure to build on the agricultural economy was there
for both the nations. To remove the bone of contention between them, the Inter-Dominion
Accord of May 4 was generated in 1948 for adequate water release by the Government of
India to the Pakistani regions in return for an annual payment which did not sound
convincing for both the nations and there remains a disjoint between the two.

Chasing the Shadows in Dark

The Dominion Accord, 1948, demanded India to release adequate water to regions of
Pakistan in return of annual payments. But after many series of negotiations held, there was
no solution to the problem, as neither country was convinced with a lose-win solution. Both
India and Pakistan became very rigid on the matter and no conclusion could be drawn.
Efforts of Pakistan to take the water-war to the International Court of Justice were also
hampered as India denied to the same, seeking a bilateral solution.

The two nations chased the shadows in the dark and the hostility between the two
nations aggravated until the year 1951, when David Lilienthal, Chairman, Tennessee Valley
Authority and the US Atomic Energy Commission provided for a settlement solution for the
two nations. It was then that, with the World Bank’s initiative a clear distinction was made
between the functional and political aspects of Indus dispute, but all the efforts were in vain
and negotiations were stretched till 1954 and it was then that the three eastern tributaries
of the basin were given to India and three western tributaries to Pakistan.

This settlement was not acceptable to Pakistan and once again chasing of shadows in
the dark started. With subsequent on-table negotiations over the issue, finally a treaty was
signed between Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Ayub Khan in 1960. It has been recorded that
it is the longest agreement, trustfully implemented between the two nations. This treaty has
outlined the following:

86 The IUP Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IV, No. 3, 2010
 • Ravi, Sutlej and Beas the eastern rivers were given to India.

• Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, the western rivers, were given to Pakistan.

• Replacement works were permitted to Pakistan to meet the requirements of eastern

rivers from western rivers.

• Unrestricted flow of water in the western rivers was also ensured in the treaty.

• The treaty made it mandatory for the regular exchange of ideas, data and
information between the two nations; and

• A permanent Indus Water Commission was constituted to resolve the conflicts

between the two nations.

The agreement takes care of notification of any engineering works, inspection and
exchange of data between the two nations. Many estimates are still suggestive against the
implementation of the treaty. It is assumed that the state of Jammu and Kashmir,
in agriculture and generation of hydroelectricity, loses Rs. 6,500 cr annually as a result of
the treaty. And there is still a long way to go to resolve the water conflict between the two
nations. The tense standoff more with the Indian plans to construct the Swal Kkot dam
which is expected to be 13 times higher than the Baglihar dam. The contemplation made
by India may prove disastrous as it may adversely affect the water table in certain parts of
Pakistan and there is a looming crisis for both the nations.

Feeling the Pulse of the Two Nations

The water has turned to be a weapon of war and the wounds of partition made by the
Radcliffe Line are still well seen in the allegations made by the two nations on each other.
In spite of the fact that there are internal disputes over water within the nations, we can
see the blame getting shifted on the two nations. Come summers and the fight over water
increases and deepens between the province of Sindh and Pakistani Punjab.

Pakistan is an agrarian society and is blessed with 30 feet of topsoil which is best for
the irrigation of cotton and the historical exploitation by invaders and also by the British,
gave way to progressive agriculture in the modern day Pakistan. But, with the intensity and
quantum the population is growing, Pakistan needs to divert its financial resources from
military to irrigation and power generation. They need to take up constructions of new
canals and dams in order to meet the futuristic demands. Though the construction of
Kalabagh and Basha are likely to bridge the shortage, but considering the problem of silting
it is anticipated that there will be a shortage of nearly 18 Million-Acre-Feet (MAF) in the
next ten years.

Similarly for India, the inter-state disputes over water need to be dealt with cautiously
like the River Cauvery, which is the bone of contention in the southern state of India. Once
again we need to rethink about the structure and engineering of the Tulbul Navigation
Project on the Wullar dam as it may have an impact on Rabi crop in Pakistani Punjab, as
there are chances that it may disrupt the flow of water into the Jhelum river. But at the same

Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks of the Partition Wounds Between India and Pakistan 87
time, India need not surrender the hydroelectricity projects on the rivers in Kashmir. After
all, the decision needs to be taken considering the benefit of development of both the
nations. The river politics need to be checked and kept under control.

The spinning conflict has also forced the two nations to get back to the negotiation table
over the water. But the two heads of the nations, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India
and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan are far from being accommodative and the water
problem may just be another wild card to fight the war over the transboundary water
reserves. Radcliffe had already given water a bitter taste for both the nations, but the time
has come to cure the wounds. We must also understand that increase in temperature has
a negative association with the productivity. As depicted in Figure 2, the productivity reduces
with the increase in temperature.

Figure 2 justifies the use of water as it is evident that rise in the temperature will result
in the reduction in agricultural productivity. It must be taken note of that food security is
an important component of integrated water management.

Figure 2: Depiction of Relationship Between Rise

in Temperature and Productivity

1200
Productivity

1000

800

600 Rise in Temperature

Agricultural

Agricultural
400 Productivity

200

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Rise in Temperature

Water No More as a Weapon

In order to reduce the conflict and friction between the two nations, it is essential to develop
and implement integrated water management practices within the nations. It is also
imperative to prevent all kinds of water loss and enhance the usage of best irrigation
practices. They are the most wanted remedies to remove the upstream and downstream
conflicts.

88 The IUP Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IV, No. 3, 2010
 We must understand that the increase in population, sudden changes in the climate and
lack of food security all added together makes the situation worse. With the changing
climate it becomes a challenge to tackle the Indus Basin, as 90% of it is glacial water.
All this is coupled by the deforestation, salination and abstraction of the groundwater. With
all this, both the nations are moving from being water stressed to water scarce nations.
The Build-Neglect-Rebuild (BNR) Philosophy for the water reservoirs and infrastructure has
created more disasters than anticipated.

Pakistan has to make the maximum use of per drop of water for producing jobs, yielding
agricultural crops and for other developmental works. It is worth mentioning here that as
per the statistics available from the World Bank, more benefits were drawn from the Tarbela
than predicted. There is a pressing need to emphasize on the culture of asset rehabilitation
and management. The water reservoir capacity in the two nations has to be enhanced.
Figure 3 shows the comparison between the different nations in terms of the storage
capacity per habitat.

Figure 3 depicts that the storage capacity of India and Pakistan is very low in
comparison to that of the US and Australia. Instead of making water as a weapon of war,
efforts must be made to bridge the gap and utilize the water storage capacity and meet the
existing demands. Particularly for both India and Pakistan it will be beneficial if they
consider joint projects on the construction of reservoirs and dams so that both the nations
can benefit. It is also important to emphasize on the maintenance expenditure along with
the infrastructural cost.

Figure 3: Depicting Comparative Per Capita Storage

in Semi-Arid Nations

8000
Cubic Meter
Per Capita

6000

4000
Meter
2000

0
P a ki s t a n I nd i a A us t r al i a US

Source: World Bank Analysis of ICOLD Data

Conclusion
An arbitrary border parting ostensibly the two nations on the religious line has left the two
nations in grief. Hasty partition decision made on the basis of outdated maps and census
figures used by Radcliffe has paved the way for a geographical partition with simmering

Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks of the Partition Wounds Between India and Pakistan 89
conflicts and soured relations between India and Pakistan. The two-nation theory needs to
be revamped at amicable levels. Both the nations are actually having unexploited water
resources. If we see the land around the Chenab, it is the most fertile land and India has
access to the rivers originating from the Indus Basin, so both the nations have to just utilize
the resources to the maximum.

Annual water flow in Indus is 170 MAF and for Jhelum and Chenab it is 43 MAF. All
rivers in Pakistan manage the annual flow of 300 MAF annually in addition to the rainfall.
Indus has ten times more water than Colorado River in the US and three times more than
Nile in Egypt. All the more so, the demand is for successive treaties over water and to remove
conflicts over water by managing the water potential that lies untapped in these nations.

We must not forget that the total irrigated land pre-independence was 28.2 Mha but with
post-independence it got distributed as 19.4 Mha and 8.8 mha for Pakistan and India,
respectively. This misappropriation needs to be dealt with to remove all frictions between
the two nations. Since water is closely connected to the education, electricity, infrastructure,
both the nations must emphasize on the planned development. It is not crying over the
Radcliffe, but removing the boundaries in the mindset and collaboratively working on water
management, which is required. 

Bibliography

1. Alastair Lamb (1991), Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990, Roxford Books,

pp. 227-231, Hertingfordbury, Herts.

2. Alexander Evans (2001), “Why Peace Won’t Come to Kashmir”, Current History,
Vol. 100, No. 645, pp. 170-175.

3. Andrew Whitehead (2007), A Mission in Kashmir, Penguin, India.

4. Bates B C, Kundzewicz Z W, Wu S and Palutikof J P (2008), “Climate Change and

Water”, Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 210,
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva.

5. Drew Federic (1877), The Northern Barrier of India: A Popular Account of the Jammoo
and Kashmir Territories, 1st Edition, Edward Stanford, London.

6. Hans Köchler (2008), “The Kashmir Problem Between Law and Realpolitik, Reflections
on a Negotiated Settlement”, Keynote Speech Delivered at the ‘Global Discourse on
Kashmir 2008’ European Parliament, Brussels, April 1.

7. Ijaz Hussain (1998), Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective, National

Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

8. Jaspreet Singh (2004), Seventeen Tomatoes: An Unprecedented Look Inside the World
of an Army Camp in Kashmir, Vehicle Press, Montreal, Canada.

90 The IUP Journal of History and Culture, Vol. IV, No. 3, 2010
 9. Kashmir Study Group (1997), 1947-1997: The Kashmir Dispute at Fifty – Charting Paths
to Peace, New York.

10. Manoj Joshi (1999), The Lost Rebellion, Penguin, New Delhi, India.

11. Navnita Behera (2000), State, Identity and Violence: Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh,
Manohar, New Delhi.

12. Prem Shankar Jha (1996), Kashmir 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.

13. Robert Johnson (2005), A Region in Turmoil, Reaktion, London and New York.

14. Shahzad Sharjeel (2006), “Better Management of Indus Basin Waters: Strategic Issues
and Challenges”, World Bank.

15. Sumantra Bose (1997), The Challenge in Kashmir: Democracy, Self-Determination and
a Just Peace, Sage, New Delhi.

16. Sumit Ganguly (1997), The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace,
Cambridge University Press, Washington, D.C.

17. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Secretariat
(2008), p. 210, Geneva.

18. Victoria Schofield (1996), Kashmir in the Crossfire, IB Tauris, London.

19. Victoria Schofield (2000), Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unfinished War,
IB Tauris, London.

20. Younghusband, Francis and Molyneux E (1917), Kashmir, A&C Black, London.

Reference # 52J-2010-07-07-01

Radcliffe Line: The Watermarks of the Partition Wounds Between India and Pakistan 91