Editing Radcliffe Line (section)

===Punjab===
==== Firozpur District ====
{{See also|Firozpur district#Religion}}
Indian historians now accept that Mountbatten probably did influence the Firozpur award in India's favour.<ref name="Jones2003">{{cite book|author=Owen Bennett Jones|title=Pakistan: Eye of the Storm|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t8iYEgPYG_EC&pg=PA60|year=2003|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-10147-8|pages=60–|access-date=29 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730140644/https://books.google.com/books?id=t8iYEgPYG_EC&pg=PA60|archive-date=30 July 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The headworks of River Beas, which later joins River Sutlej flowing into Pakistan, were located in Firozpur. Congress leader Nehru and Viceroy Mountbatten had lobbied Radcliffe that headworks should not go to Pakistan.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Khan |first=Ansar Hussain |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XRpFol4AnO0C&pg=PA332 |title=The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent |publisher=Orient Longman |year=1999 |isbn=9788125015956 |page=332 |chapter=The Truth of the Partition of the Punjab in August 1947: Statement by Christopher Beaumont |access-date=8 April 2022}}</ref>

==== Gurdaspur District ====
{{See also|Gurdaspur district#Religion}}
[[File: Population of Muslims and Non-Muslims in Gurdaspur District, 1891-1941.svg|thumb|Populations of Muslim and Non-Muslims in Gurdaspur District, based on Census Data. In the 1881 Census, Non-Muslims were in majority, at 52.49%. The proportion of the Muslim population increased in the following decades, turning them into a majority by the 1930s.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Singh |first1=Kirpal |title=Select Documents on Partition of Punjab – 1947: India and Pakistan: Punjab, Haryana and Himachal-India and Punjab-Pakistan |date=2005 |publisher=National Book Shop |location=Delhi |isbn=9788171164455 |page=212 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/select-documents-on-partition-of-punjab-1947/page/212/mode/2up?view=theater |access-date=17 March 2022 |chapter=Memorandum Submitted to the Punjab Boundary Commission by the Indian National Congress}}</ref>|251x251px]]
The Gurdaspur district was divided geographically by the [[Ravi River]], with the [[Shakargarh Tehsil|Shakargarh tehsil]] on its west bank, and [[Pathankot district|Pathankot]], [[Gurdaspur district|Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils]] on its east bank. The Shakargarh tehsil, the biggest in size, was awarded to Pakistan. (It was subsequently merged into the [[Narowal District|Narowal district]] of [[West Punjab]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://pportal.punjab.gov.pk/portal/portal/media-type/html/group/323;jsessionid=0a00000230d7fa0dd249920547b9befeba50fa09d3af.e34Ma3iPcheLci0Lc3iPah8RbN0Te6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy/page/default.psml?nav=home |title=Narowal – Punjab Portal |access-date=28 June 2011 |archive-date=1 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001201945/http://pportal.punjab.gov.pk/portal/portal/media-type/html/group/323;jsessionid=0a00000230d7fa0dd249920547b9befeba50fa09d3af.e34Ma3iPcheLci0Lc3iPah8RbN0Te6fznA5Pp7ftolbGmkTy/page/default.psml?nav=home |url-status=dead }}</ref>) The three eastern tehsils were awarded to India. (Pathankot was eventually made a separate district in [[East Punjab (state)|East Punjab]].) The division of the district was followed by a population transfer between the two nations, with Muslims leaving for Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs arriving from there.

The entire district of Gurdaspur had a bare majority of 50.2% Muslims.{{sfn|Tan|Kudaisya|2000|p=91}} (In the `notional' award attached to the Indian Independence Act, all of Gurdaspur district was marked as Pakistan with a 51.14% Muslim majority.{{sfn|Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict|2003|p=35}} In the 1901 census, the population of Gurdaspur district was 49% Muslim, 40% Hindu, and 10% Sikh.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V12_401.gif |title=Gurdāspur District – Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 12, p. 395 |access-date=25 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080408210547/http://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/gazetteer/pager.html?objectid=DS405.1.I34_V12_401.gif |archive-date=8 April 2008 |url-status=live  }}</ref>) The Pathankot tehsil was predominantly Hindu while the other three tehsils were Muslim majority.{{sfn|Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict|2003|p=38}} In the event, only Shakargarh was awarded to Pakistan.

Radcliffe explained that the reason for deviating from the notional award in the case of Gurdaspur was that the [[Marala Headworks|headwaters]] of the [[Upper Bari Doab Canal|canals]] that irrigated the Amritsar district lay in the Gurdaspur district and it was important to keep them under one administration.{{sfn|Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict|2003|p=35}} Radcliffe might have sided with Lord Wavell's reasoning from 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.{{sfn|Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict|2003|p=35}}{{sfn|Ahmed, Pakistan: The Garrison State|2013|loc=pp. 65–66: "The final border was almost a ditto copy of Viceroy Lord Wavell's top secret Demarcation Plan of February 1946, which was an auxiliary to the Demarcation Plan of February 1946..."}} In addition, the railway line from Amritsar to Pathankot passed through the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils.{{sfn|Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict|2003|pp=33–34}} He further claimed that to compensate for the exclusion of the Gurdaspur district, they included the entire [[Dinajpur District, Bangladesh|Dinajpur district]] in the eastern zone of Pakistan, which similarly had a marginal Muslim majority.

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 (princely state)|Jammu and Kashmir]].{{sfn|Tan|Kudaisya|2000|p=91}} However, Shereen Ilahi points out that the land route to Kashmir was entirely within the Hindu-majority Pathankot tehsil. The award of the Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India did not affect the Kashmir land route.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ilahi |first1=Shereen |title=The Radcliffe Boundary Commission and the Fate of Kashmir |journal=India Review |volume=2 |issue=1 |year=2003 |pages=77–102 |issn=1473-6489 |doi=10.1080/714002326|s2cid=153890196 }}</ref>

====Pakistani view on the award of Gurdaspur to India====

Pakistan maintains that the Radcliffe Award was altered by [[Louis Mountbatten|Mountbatten]]; Gurdaspur was handed over to India and thus was manipulated the accession of Kashmir to India.<ref>{{citation |last=Zaidi |first=Z. H. |title=Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August–30 September 1947 |url=https://archive.org/details/05-pakistan-pangs-of-birth-19470815-19470930/page/379/mode/2up?view=theater |pages=378–379 |year=2001 |publisher=Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, National Archives of Pakistan |isbn=9789698156091 |access-date=17 March 2022 |archive-date= }}</ref> In support of this view, some scholars claim the award to India "had little to do with Sikh demands but had much more to do with providing India a road link to Jammu and Kashmir."<ref>{{citation |last=Ziring |first=Lawrence |title=Pakistan in the Twentieth Century: A Political History |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bONtAAAAMAAJ |year=1997 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Karachi |isbn=978-0-19-577816-8 |ref={{sfnref|Ziring, Pakistan in the Twentieth Century|1997}}|page=62}}</ref>

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.<ref name="archive.org">{{citation |title=The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University |url=https://archive.org/details/SirZafrullaKhanInterviews |year=2004 |page=155 |access-date=20 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730140644/https://archive.org/details/SirZafrullaKhanInterviews |archive-date=30 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> From 14 to 17 August, Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema acted as the [[Deputy commissioner#India and Pakistan|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.<ref>{{cite news |title=Gurdaspur – the dist that almost went to Pak |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/community/gurdaspur-the-dist-that-almost-went-to-pak/120526.html |date=15 August 2015 |newspaper=The Tribune India |access-date=21 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170726205717/http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/community/gurdaspur-the-dist-that-almost-went-to-pak/120526.html |archive-date=26 July 2017 |url-status=live  }}</ref> The major part of Gurdaspur district, i.e. three of the four sub-districts had been handed over to India giving India practical land access to Kashmir.<ref name="https">{{citation |title=The Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan by Columbia University |url=https://archive.org/details/SirZafrullaKhanInterviews |year=2004 |page=158 |access-date=20 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730140644/https://archive.org/details/SirZafrullaKhanInterviews |archive-date=30 July 2018 |url-status=live  }}</ref> 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'.<ref>{{citation |last=Zaidi |first=Z. H. |title=Pakistan Pangs of Birth, 15 August-30 September 1947 |url=https://archive.org/details/05-pakistan-pangs-of-birth-19470815-19470930/page/379/mode/2up&view=theaterH-Zaidi/9789698156091 |page=380 |year=2001 |publisher=Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project, National Archives of Pakistan |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170728213824/https://www.bookdepository.com/Quaid-I-Azam-Mohammed-Ali-Jinnah-Papers-Pakistan-Pangs-Birth-15-August-30-September-1947-Z-H-Zaidi/9789698156091 |isbn=9789698156091 |quote=The division of India is now finally and irrevocably effected. No doubt we feel that the carving out of this great independent Muslim State has suffered injustices. We have been squeezed in as much it was possible, and the latest blow that we have received was the award of the Boundary Commission. It is an unjust, incomprehensible and even perverse award. |access-date=20 July 2017 |archive-date=28 July 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[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.<ref>{{citation |title=Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Tahdith-i-Ni'mat |year=1982 |publisher=Pakistan Printing Press |page=515}}</ref> [[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.<ref>{{citation |title=Mehr Chand Mahajan, Looking Back: The Autobiography Bombay |url=https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.119631/2015.119631.Looking-Back#page/n113/mode/2up |year=1963 |page=113 |access-date=21 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730140644/https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.119631/2015.119631.Looking-Back#page/n113/mode/2up |archive-date=30 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{citation |last=Sohail |first=Massarat |title=Partition and Anglo-Pakistan relations, 1947–51 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7jBuAAAAMAAJ |year=1991 |publisher=Vanguard |pages=76–77|isbn=9789694020570 }}</ref>

Zafrullah Khan states that, in fact, adopting the tehsil as a unit would have given Pakistan the Firozepur and Zira tehsils of the Firozpur District, the Jullundur and Nakodar tehsils of Jullundur district and the Dasuya tehsil of the Hoshiarpur district. The line so drawn would also give Pakistan the princely state of Kapurthala{{efn|Princely States were given the option of either acceding to one of the two countries (India and Pakistan) or declaring independence. The ruler of Kapurthala acceded to India.}} (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, which was about 93% Hindu and was located 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.<ref name="archive.org"/> 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.<ref name="CheemaRiemer1990"/> 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.<ref name="archive.org"/> However, while Muslims formed about 53% of the total population of Punjab in 1941, Pakistan received around 58% of the total area of the Punjab, including more of the most fertile parts.

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.<ref name="https"/>

====Assessments on the 'Controversial Award of Gurdaspur to India and the Kashmir Dispute'====
[[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 was to make sure that Gurdaspur would not go to Pakistan, since that would have deprived India of direct road access to Kashmir.<ref>{{citation|last=Wolpert|first=Stanley|title=Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zuoMsBWCTBUC&pg=PA167|year=2009|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA|page=167|access-date=18 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140925092249/http://books.google.com/books?id=zuoMsBWCTBUC|archive-date=25 September 2014|url-status=live|isbn=9780195393941}}</ref> 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{{citation needed|date=June 2021}} proven that Mountbatten, in league with Nehru, was instrumental in pressurizing Radcliffe to award the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur in East Punjab to India which could provide India with the only possible access to Kashmir.<ref>{{citation |title=The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture |url=http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002449/244974e.pdf |date=2016 |page=355 |access-date=9 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170811222452/http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002449/244974e.pdf |archive-date=11 August 2017 |url-status=live  }}</ref> [[Andrew Roberts (historian)|Andrew Roberts]] believes that Mountbatten cheated over India-Pak frontier<ref>{{citation |title=Author's Review, Eminent Churchillians | url=http://www.andrew-roberts.net/books/eminent-churchillians/}}</ref> and states that if gerrymandering took place in the case of Firozepur, it is not too hard to believe that Mountbatten also pressurized Radcliffe to ensure that Gurdaspur wound up in India to give India road access to Kashmir.<ref name="Roberts2010">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fvLlDfbyrzoC&pg=PT128 |title=Eminent Churchillians |author=Andrew Roberts |date= 2010 |publisher=Orion |isbn=978-0-297-86527-8 |pages=128– |access-date=18 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730140644/https://books.google.com/books?id=fvLlDfbyrzoC&pg=PT128 |archive-date=30 July 2018 |url-status=live  }}</ref><ref>{{citation |last=Robert |first=Andrew |title=Eminent Chruchillians |url=https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.indian/hgJ_1X5nQoQ |year=1994 |access-date=16 May 2007 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20110122130054/https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.indian/hgJ_1X5nQoQ |archive-date=22 January 2011 |url-status=live  }}</ref><ref>Sher Muhammad Garewal, "Mountbatten and Kashmir Issue", ''Journal of Research Society of Pakistan'', XXXIV (April 1997), pp. 9–10</ref>

[[Perry Anderson]] states that Mountbatten, who was officially supposed to neither 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 in getting Radcliffe to change his boundaries to allot the Muslim-majority district of Gurdaspur to India instead of Pakistan, thus giving India the only road access from Delhi to Kashmir.<ref>{{citation |last=Anderson |first=Perry |title=Why Partition? |journal=London Review of Books |date=19 July 2012 |volume=34 |issue=14 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition |access-date=20 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170721172022/https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition |archive-date=21 July 2017 |url-status=live  }}</ref>

However, some British works suggest that the 'Kashmir State was not in anybody's mind'<ref>{{citation |last=Hodson |first=H. V. |title=The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MC2UoAEACAAJ |year=1969 |publisher=Hutchinson |location=London |page=355|isbn=9780090971503 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{citation |last=Tinker |first=Hugh |date=August 1977 |title=Pressure, Persuasion, Decision: Factors in the Partition of the Punjab, August 1947 |journal=Journal of Asian Studies |volume=XXXVI |issue=4 |page=701 |doi=10.2307/2054436 |jstor=2054436 |s2cid=162322698 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Both Mountbatten and Radcliffe, of course, have strongly denied those 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.<ref>{{citation |last=Robert |first=Andrew |title=Eminent Churchillians |url=https://www.abebooks.com/9781857992137/Eminent-Churchillians-Andrew-Roberts-185799213X/plp |year=1994 |page=105}}</ref>