The Radcliffe Line: A Border Drawn in Five Weeks

Bölüm metni

One man was given a room, a map, and five weeks. Millions of people did not know which country they would wake up in before they saw the line he drew. When the work was done he refused his fee, burned his notes, and never set foot on that soil again.

On the evening of the third of June, nineteen forty-seven, when the radio microphones went live in Delhi, a single sentence from the mouth of India's last Viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, abruptly compressed the calendar of a land where four hundred million people lived. In February, the British government had announced in Parliament that power would be transferred no later than June nineteen forty-eight. That left sixteen months, then, to plan the splitting of a country in two. That evening, Mountbatten erased that timeline and put a new date in its place: the fifteenth of August, nineteen forty-seven. The difference between the two was seventy-three days. In seventy-three days, two states would be founded, an army divided, a treasury split, a railway network parcelled out between two flags — and, hardest of all, something nobody yet possessed would have to be invented: a border.

To understand this haste, you have to look at the Punjab and Bengal of that year. Across the rest of the Indian subcontinent, partition was largely a matter of administrative cartography; provinces would be assigned to one side or the other according to their majorities. But two provinces resisted that logic. According to the nineteen forty-one census, roughly fifty-three percent of the Punjab's population was Muslim, close to thirty percent Hindu, and about fifteen percent Sikh. In Bengal, Muslims again held a narrow majority. In these two provinces the majorities shifted district by district, town by town, even street by street. Nearly half of Lahore's population was Muslim, yet most of the city's shops, printing houses, and grand residences were in the hands of Hindu and Sikh families. Amritsar was the holy city of the Sikhs, but the composition of the villages around it was disputed. Calcutta was the subcontinent's largest port and its industrial heart; almost all of the jute fields that fed it lay in the Muslim-majority districts to the east. Drawing a line, in other words, meant dividing not only people but canals, railways, power stations, factories, and the fields that supplied them.

Mountbatten, who took office at the end of March, had been repeating one thing from the day he arrived in Delhi: there was no time. The wave of violence that began in Calcutta in August nineteen forty-six had spread to Bihar, to Noakhali, to the United Provinces, and by March nineteen forty-seven had reached the Sikh villages around Rawalpindi. Mountbatten's calculation was this: the longer partition was delayed, the less there would be of a state left to hand over. His critics' calculation was precisely the opposite: in a country partitioned this fast, nobody would be able to protect anybody. History would furnish ammunition to both sides — but on the evening of the third of June, it was clear which side had won.

The Indian Independence Act received royal assent on the eighteenth of July. The Act created two dominions, and it also set out how the borders were to be determined: two Boundary Commissions would be established, one for the Punjab, one for Bengal. Each commission would have four high court judges; the Indian National Congress would nominate two, and the All-India Muslim League the other two. On the Punjab commission, Mehr Chand Mahajan and Teja Singh would sit on one side, Din Muhammad and Muhammad Munir on the other. Bengal had a similar quartet. The design itself was a deadlock: two of the four judges would always represent one side and two the other, and on no question would a three-quarters majority ever emerge. And so each commission was given a chairman who belonged to neither side — and with him, a casting vote.

It is this fine detail that explains everything that followed. If the four judges could not agree — and that they would not agree was obvious from the start — the decision would rest with a single man. The pages the four judges signed would amount to little more than appendices recording the positions of the parties. In practice, the line dividing the Punjab and Bengal would be drawn not by a panel of five, but by a single pen.

The owner of that pen was announced on the thirtieth of June. In London, agreement had been reached on the one name both sides could accept: a lawyer with no ties to India, no history there, not a single acquaintance. Congress and the Muslim League alike consented to the choice, because neither side wanted the other side's man. Ignorance was taken to be the safest measure of impartiality. The man who stepped off the plane in Delhi in early July would, six weeks later, determine which state ninety million people would be citizens of — and he would never have spent a single day on the land he had come to divide.

Cyril John Radcliffe was born in eighteen ninety-nine in the north of Wales, educated at Haileybury and at Oxford. In the final year of the First World War, a problem with his eyes kept him off the front line and sent him instead to the ambulance service; after the war he returned to the law. He rose quickly at the bar; in nineteen thirty-five, at the age of thirty-six, he was made King's Counsel. He was one of the most expensive names in tax law and corporate litigation. During the Second World War he served as Director General of the Ministry of Information — which is to say, he sat at the top of the bureaucracy that managed Britain's wartime propaganda and the flow of its news. He had a reputation as a cool mind, a man who read files fast and could grasp and summarise a tangled question in a matter of hours. He was also a man who read literature, loved poetry, and turned Latin phrases over in the evenings.

He had never been trained in cartography. He had never carried out a land survey. He did not know the canal system of the Punjab, or how the riverbeds of Bengal shifted from year to year, or what it meant for one village's grazing land to lie inside the boundaries of the next. And until the age of forty-eight, he had never seen India.

On the eighth of July, nineteen forty-seven, he landed in Delhi. The city was in the heaviest season of the year, scorched by the humidity that comes before the monsoon. He was given a government house set in a garden; he worked under the ceiling fans, fell ill, lost his appetite, lost weight. With him was his private secretary, Christopher Beaumont, a colonial officer who had served for years in the Punjab — it would not be wrong to say he was the only man there who genuinely knew the region. The terms of reference placed in Radcliffe's hands were, astonishingly, very short. The commissions were to determine the boundary by identifying the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. At the end of the sentence there was an addition: in doing so, he would also take into account other factors.

Those three words were the door to the entire argument. Which factors? Rivers, roads, the irrigation of fields, a city's tax revenue, a port's hinterland, a temple held sacred? The terms of reference did not say. Radcliffe had been handed the authority to settle everything London could not bring itself to decide — and he had five weeks to do it.

The commissions began work in the middle of July. The Bengal commission held open hearings in Calcutta, the Punjab commission in Lahore; the Lahore hearings were squeezed into the last ten days of July. In both cities the halls were packed to the walls. Lawyers, communal associations, chambers of commerce, farmers' unions, religious institutions and municipalities piled up petitions. The Congress side wanted the commission to look beyond the census figures, the Muslim League side wanted the census applied to the letter; on some questions the positions were exactly reversed. Sikh representatives made their own separate case: their community formed a majority in no large district, yet their lands, their shrines and the most fertile of their farms were scattered right across the middle of the Punjab. They argued that the boundary should run much further west, along the river Chenab. There was nothing in the arithmetic of population that could support this demand, and it was refused.

Radcliffe listened to all of it, but he did his real work in Delhi, behind closed doors. He never went out to the countryside the line would cross. He never laid eyes on a village that would be split, a canal that would be cut in two, or a farm that within a week would be stranded between two countries. Years later his secretary would write plainly that his employer had never seen the ground and that his knowledge of the region was close to nothing.

What did Radcliffe himself think? The clearest trace of it sits in a letter he wrote to his stepson on the eve of partition. He wrote that nobody in India would love him for the Punjab and Bengal decision, that roughly eighty million people would start looking for him with a grievance. And he added: I do not want them to find me.

Twenty years later, W. H. Auden wrote a short and merciless poem with Radcliffe at its centre. The idea it opens with is a simple one: because he had never seen the land he was summoned to divide, he was at least impartial. Auden's mockery was aimed at precisely that — at the treating of impartiality and ignorance as one and the same thing.

What was the raw material on Radcliffe's desk? Three things: the nineteen forty-one census, the maps printed by the Survey of India, and thousands of pages of petitions.

The nineteen forty-one census was the most fragile part of the whole business. It had been carried out in the middle of a war, with limited staff. More importantly, from the end of the nineteen thirties onwards the census in India had turned into a political instrument; communal organisations ran campaigns urging their members to declare themselves correctly to the enumerators, because everyone knew the numbers meant representation and quotas. So the tables in his hands were not neutral documents showing the religious composition of a village; they were the remains of a tally taken six years earlier that was itself disputed. The maps were a separate matter. Some had been printed decades before. In Bengal the rivers had shifted their beds, and a branch that flowed from the north on paper had in reality slipped to the south. In the Punjab, the canals dug in the last twenty years, the towns founded, the railway lines extended, had all made it onto the sheets incompletely.

The line was drawn from this data. In the Punjab, the first great knot was Lahore and Amritsar. The two cities lay fifty kilometres apart, and each was a city neither side could bear to give up. Radcliffe gave Lahore to Pakistan and Amritsar to India. Years later, at his home in London, the answer he gave to an Indian journalist who asked him about that decision lays the logic of the whole business bare: he said he had very nearly given Lahore to India, until he realised that Pakistan would then be left without a single major city — because he had already assigned Calcutta to India. In other words, the reasoning behind a decision in the Punjab was another decision, taken two thousand kilometres away in Bengal.

The second knot was Gurdaspur. In this district of four subdivisions, Muslims held the slimmest of majorities; on pure arithmetic, it would have been expected to go to Pakistan. Radcliffe gave the subdivisions east of the Ujh river — Gurdaspur, Batala and Pathankot — to India, and only Shakargarh to Pakistan. The consequence of that decision was something nobody spoke of aloud in those days, but which would shortly change everything: India now held the only corridor by which it could reach Jammu and Kashmir overland. When the war over Kashmir began in October, Indian troops used that corridor. There is no evidence that Radcliffe decided as he did with Kashmir in mind; but there is no doubt whatsoever that his decision made Kashmir possible.

The third knot became the most disputed episode in this whole story: Firozpur. In Radcliffe's first draft, several subdivisions of this district on the bank of the Sutlej river stood on the Pakistani side. The draft came up in the second week of August, over a lunch in Delhi at the home of Mountbatten's chief of staff; also at the table were Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the Governor-General's adviser, V. P. Menon. After that lunch Radcliffe altered his draft, and Firozpur, along with two neighbouring subdivisions, passed to India. After Radcliffe's death, his secretary Beaumont set down a note about that meeting, arguing that the boundary had been redrawn in the final days to Pakistan's detriment, and that Mountbatten had intervened. Mountbatten's defenders rejected this; because of the gaps in the documentary record, the argument remains unsettled to this day. What is certain is this: in the closing days of a five-week process, outside any formal session, a detail discussed over a lunch table changed the citizenship of hundreds of thousands of people.

In Bengal the equation was different. Calcutta went to India; and in order to secure the upper basin of the Hooghly river, the city's lifeline, Murshidabad — with its Muslim majority — was also assigned to India. In exchange, Khulna, with its Hindu majority, was left to Pakistan. So two districts changed hands in precisely the opposite direction from what their populations dictated; the reason was the flow of a river. The fiercest objection came over the Chittagong Hill Tracts. This region, almost none of whose inhabitants were Muslim, home to hill peoples who were largely Buddhist, was given to East Pakistan on the grounds of its economic ties to the port and to the Karnaphuli river. The people of the region protested, Nehru objected, and the decision did not change.

And beneath all these great headlines lay the map's real victims, the ones never discussed: the villages. In places the line ran straight through the middle of a settlement. A family's house ended up in one state, its field in the other. The irrigation network of the Punjab was one of the most advanced canal systems in the world, and that network was cut in two; the water of the Upper Bari Doab Canal was drawn from the Madhopur headworks inside India, and it watered fields inside Pakistan. A hydrological whole that engineers had built up over decades was split into two pieces under the stroke of a pen.

Radcliffe signed both awards on the twelfth of August. The sealed envelopes reached the Governor-General's residence a day later, and were placed in a safe.

And then that safe was not opened.

Mountbatten decided that the award must not be announced before the independence ceremonies. His reasoning was this: if the boundary were made public, the celebrations of the fifteenth of August would drown in blood. Years later he offered a blunter explanation as well; he said that if the award were proclaimed before independence, the responsibility for enforcing it would have rested on the British. On the sixteenth of August, in Delhi, he gathered Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Liaquat Ali Khan and Abdur Rab Nishtar for the Muslim League, and Baldev Singh representing the Sikhs, and handed them the envelopes. The text was made public on the seventeenth of August.

So when Pakistan came into being on the fourteenth of August, and India on the fifteenth, neither country had a border. Or rather, the border existed — it had been drawn, it had been signed — but it was inside a safe in Delhi.

Those two days are worth dwelling on. In hundreds of towns across the middle of Punjab and Bengal, mayors, police station commanders, railway stationmasters, teachers and postal clerks did not know which state they were servants of. In some towns two flags were raised over the main square at once. In others a single flag went up, and came down two days later. In Lahore and in Amritsar, people were living under the smoke of fires that had been burning for days, living on rumours about which side of the line their own city would end up on. The rumours spread faster than the decision itself, and every rumour set off a new wave of flight, a new attack, a new act of revenge. Not knowing which state a village had fallen to meant being unable to decide whether to stay or to run; and those who could not decide were very often forced to decide at the worst possible moment, in the worst possible way.

The force expected to keep order was the Punjab Boundary Force, which went into service on the first of August. Under the command of Major General Thomas Wynford Rees, this combined force had a total strength of around fifty thousand, of which only about half were fighting troops. It had been assembled out of units of the Indian Army that had not yet been divided along communal lines; which is to say, in the very same company there were men who, within a few weeks, would be soldiers of two separate countries, and in some units troops were deployed against their own communities. This force was charged with protecting a region that stretched for hundreds of kilometres from one end to the other and contained tens of thousands of villages. It was not enough. The massacres reached their fiercest point in precisely these weeks. The force was dissolved on the first of September, and responsibility was handed to the two new armies.

Then began the largest movement of human beings the subcontinent has ever seen. In Punjab alone, close to ten million people were displaced within a few months. On the roads running east and west, columns formed that stretched for kilometres; ox carts, loaded backs, elderly people who could no longer walk, children born along the way. Trains filled up in both directions, and some pulled into their destination stations carrying nothing but the dead. The figures reflected in the nineteen fifty-one census put the number of post-partition refugees at more than fourteen million. For the number of dead there is no reliable record at all; estimates range from two hundred thousand to two million, and most historians speak of a figure somewhere around one million. None of these numbers fully accounts for the women who vanished, the children who were abducted, the families who could never return.

The direct cause of all this was not a line; the causes lay in years of politics, incitement, arming, and a collapsing apparatus of state. But the line being two days late added one more thing on top of those causes: ignorance. People became independent in a country where they did not know where they belonged.

By the time the award was published, Radcliffe was no longer in Delhi. The two things he did before he left became the two most talked-about gestures in this whole story.

The first: he burned all of his working papers. Draft maps, marginal notes, calculations, the reasoning he had written out in his own hand — all of it gone. What remained were only the signed official texts and the dissenting notes the judges had appended. The second: he refused to accept the forty thousand rupees he was owed for his services. There is no detailed explanation in his own words as to why he did this. And no one ever learned what lay behind those burned notes — which village he had hesitated over, which draft he had changed and why, whose particular sentence had nudged his pencil.

Radcliffe never returned to India. He went on to a distinguished career in Britain; in nineteen forty-nine he was appointed to the judicial side of the House of Lords, and in the years that followed he chaired commissions of inquiry on the most sensitive questions facing the British state, and was made a viscount. When he died in nineteen seventy-seven, he was remembered not for the judgments he handed down as a judge, but for a line he had drawn on a map. He was conscious of this himself; he is said to have remarked that the award could have been better, that the time he was given made that impossible, and that with more of it he would have done the job differently.

But the real final chapter of this story did not end even with Radcliffe's death, because that line went on living a life of its own.

The crisis that erupted fastest was water. In April nineteen forty-eight, India shut off the canal water flowing to Pakistan from headworks on its own territory; the crops of Pakistani Punjab were left dry at harvest time. A provisional agreement signed in May restored the water, but the problem stayed on the table for twelve years. Finally, in nineteen sixty, with the World Bank acting as mediator, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in Karachi; the rivers were divided between the two countries. To solve a single technical problem created by a border drawn in five weeks in nineteen forty-seven, it took the two governments thirteen years and an international arbiter. That treaty remains, to this day, one of the most strained files between the two countries.

The oddities the line left behind did not end there. On the Bengal side, hundreds of small parcels of land, inherited from the old princely boundaries, were turned overnight into international enclaves: villages belonging to one country but sitting inside the other, completely surrounded. In some of them, people had to cross a foreign country just to reach the territory of their own state; they had no access to schools, to hospitals, to courts. That problem was resolved in twenty fifteen, through a border agreement ratified between India and Bangladesh; more than one hundred and sixty enclaves were exchanged, and roughly fifty thousand people learned at last, with certainty, sixty-eight years on, which country they were citizens of. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, meanwhile, the tension the line left behind lasted for decades; the region emerged from a long period of armed conflict only with a peace accord signed in nineteen ninety-seven.

On the Punjab side, the line came to symbolise something entirely different. Kartarpur, where Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, spent the final years of his life, ended up on the Pakistani side of the border, only a few kilometres in from the line. For decades, pilgrims on the Indian side came to the frontier to look at the white dome of the shrine through binoculars; they could see it, but they could not go. In November of twenty nineteen, the two countries opened a visa-free walking corridor. Nankana Sahib, where Guru Nanak was born, also remained on that same side, in Pakistan.

Today the border between India and Bangladesh runs for more than four thousand kilometres, much of it strung with barbed wire; it is one of the longest border fences in the world. Some stretches of the India–Pakistan border are floodlit brightly enough at night to be seen from space. All of these installations, these watchtowers, these floodlights follow a line drawn in the summer of nineteen forty-seven by a lawyer sitting under an electric fan in Delhi, a man who had never seen the region, working from old maps and a disputed census.

Radcliffe himself, I think, offered the sharpest criticism of the outcome: when he said the time he had been given was not enough to do the job properly, he was in fact describing the real legacy an empire leaves behind as it withdraws. The line was drawn in five weeks. But living with it has stretched across eighty years for hundreds of millions of people, and it goes on still.

Nöron History'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.