The Radcliffe Award

In the words of Quaid-i-Azam, the Radcliff Award was an unjust, incomprehensible and even
perverse award.

Background
The partition plan of June 3, 1947, under the Indian Independence Act, inter-alia, envisaged the
division of Punjab and Bengal which made it necessary to set up a Boundary Commission to
demarcate the boundaries of the parts of each of these provinces into Hindu and Muslim majority
districts, to be assigned to India and Pakistan, respectively.

Role of Radcliff
The genesis and history of the Kashmir dispute will remain incomplete unless the perfidious role
played by Sir Cyril Radcliff, apparently at Mountbatten’s behest, is recalled. Incontrovertible
evidence is available that Mountbatten was very keen to see that the whole Gurdaspur district,
which had a Muslim majority, should not be assigned to Pakistan. Mountbatten’s strategy was
that Punjab may be divided in such a manner that the state of Jammu and Kashmir could join
either India or Pakistan.

The renowned British writer, Aalstair Lamb in his book, ‘Kashmir, a disputed legacy’, has also
established a sinister collusion between Mountbatten and the Indian Congress leadership as a
result of which the Boundary Commission awarded Gurdaspur to India which culminated in the
Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir on October 27, 1947. In the words of Quaid-i-Azam,
the Radcliff Award was an unjust, incomprehensible and even perverse award.

Members
Partition committee proposed that Sir Cyrill Radcliffe should be invited to serve as chairman of
the Punjab and Bengal Boundary Commission. Radcliffe was a renowned barrister who came
from England. The League and the Congress nominated two High Court judges.

The genesis and history of the Kashmir dispute will remain incomplete unless the perfidious role
played by Sir Cyril Radcliff, apparently at Mountbatten’s behest, is recalled.
The members of Punjab Boundary Commission were Din Muhammad and Muhammad Munir on
behalf of Pakistan and Mehr Chand Mahajan and Tej Singh on behalf of India while members of
Bengal Boundary Commission were Abu Saleh and S.A. Rahman on behalf of Pakistan and C.C
Biswas and B.K. Mukherji on behalf of India.

Controversy in division of Punjab

In the division of Punjab, the award was unfair and awarded a number of Muslim majority areas
to India. In Gurdaspur district two contiguous Muslim majority Tehsils of Gurdaspur and Batala
were given to India along with Pathankot tehsil to provide a link between India and the Stat of
Jammu and Kashmir. The Muslim majority tehsil Ajnala in the Amritsar district was also handed
over to India. In Jullundur district the Muslim majority areas of Zira and Ferozepur in the
Ferozepur distirct, were also given to India.

Controversy in division of Bengal

Similarly, in Bengal the most important question related to the future of Calcutta. It was the
capital of the province. Although the Muslims formed only a quarter of the population of
Calcutta, a large section of its population consisted scheduled castes that were allied with the
Muslim League. In any case, for more than two hundred years the Muslims of Bengal had
contributed to make Calcutta what it was in 1947 a centre of commerce and industry.

The city of Calcutta, the capital of the province, was the biggest industrial, commerce and
educational centre. The entire development of Calcutta was based on the toil of Muslim
peasantry of Bengal. East Bengal produced most of the raw material which had to be sent to
Calcutta because all factories and mills were in Calcutta. The Congress leaders were determined
to get Calcutta by all foul or fair means. Eventually, Calcutta was awarded to India ignoring the
claim of the Muslim.

Ch. Muhammad Ali’s remarks

Chaudhry Muhammad Ali has mentioned in his book that Liaqat Ali Khan told him that Quiad-i-
Azam had received very disturbing reports about the likely decision of the demarcation,
particularly in Gurdaspur district, and asked him to see Lord Ismay, a senior staffer of
Mountbatten to convey to him from Quaid-i-Azam that “if the boundary actually turned out to be
what these reports foreshadowed, this would have a most serious impact on relations between
Pakistan and the United Kingdom whose good faith and honour were involved in this question”.

Sardar Patel, in his speech in Calcutta on January 15, 1950, had disclosed that the Congress had
made a condition that it would agree to the partition of India only if they did not lose Calcutta.
Sardar Patel had also once disclosed that Mountbatten had entered into a secret agreement with
the Congress leaders to have Calcutta assigned to India.

Ch. Muhammad Ali’s Apprehensions

Accordingly, Chaudhry Muhammad Ali went to see Lord Ismay who was closeted with Sir Cyril
Radcliff. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, therefore, decided to wait. When Chaudhry Muhammad Ali
conveyed Quaid-i-Azam’s message to him, Lord Ismay “professed complete ignorance of
Radcliff’s idea about the boundary and stated categories that neither Mountbatten nor he himself
had ever discussed the question with him. It was entirely for Radcliff to decide; and no
suggestion of any kind had been or would ever be made to him”.

Sardar Patail’s Remarks

Sardar Patel, in his speech in Calcutta on January 15, 1950, had disclosed that the Congress had
made a condition that it would agree to the partition of India only if they did not lose Calcutta.
Sardar Patel had also once disclosed that Mountbatten had entered into a secret agreement with
the Congress leaders to have Calcutta assigned to India.

Thus, no less a person than Sardar Patel himself exposed the myth of impartiality of Mountbatten
and Radcliff. These are hard facts relating to the ‘Radcliff Award’ and have been re-stated for
the benefit of our people and to keep the record straight.

Perfidious Award
At the time of the creation, Pakistan had already been squeezed as much as possible as a result of
an unholy collusion between Mountbatten and the Indian Congress leaders. However, the
Radcliff award was the meanest cut. This perfidious award paved the way for India’s military
intervention in Kashmir.

The inhabitants of Kashmir, a valley of indescribable beauty, are unfortunately still locked in a
life and death struggle for their survival and their inalienable right to self-determination. They
have been facing naked brutality and inhumanity during the last over fifty years. It is, therefore,
the moral obligation of the international community to extend all possible help to the oppressed
people of Kashmir who are still waiting for liberation from terror and injustice.