Talk:Radcliffe Line/Archive 1

Untitled

• Bring article up to Wikipedia class B and keep it there
• Restore image Image:Partition-punjab-spate.jpg if fair use explanation can be obtained. It was removed in 2008 due to lack of fair use explanation.
• Add other fair-use images of the Radcliffe Award.
• Find exact page citations from Read for sentences not properly cited. See March 2010 list of uncited sentences by Crisco.
• Get an experienced neutral opinion on unresolved issues. a) removal of S.Talapati Island.

Resolved Topics (to be archived at year end)

NPOV?

Isn't this article against the NPOV principle? Whitehat 06:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made significant additions to the substance and citations in the article. I believe the article is quite neutral now, as the points derive come from neutral & historical sources. I did not really much change the pre-existing stuff on the regions of dispute along the Radcliffe line, but it seems to hav a NPOV. Ajobin 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Partition-punjab-spate.jpg

The image Image:Partition-punjab-spate.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Upper-bari-doab-prevailing-religions1947a.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards

I put a lot of work into bringing this article up to these standards. I will challenge and remove revisions which do not meet the following standards. Ajobin (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Verifiable Information

Sometimes, I do look myself for citations on information others have added, as I just did on the NWFP added anonymously by someone. However, if you are adding information it is your responsibility to add citations for it. If you do not, it will be challenged and removed per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources. It is not that I have reason to doubt the veracity of any particular facts so far, however this article is well-cited and should remain so. Thank you. Ajobin (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about the quality of information in a discussion of motivations

On 12 Novemeber 2009, the following information was added to the Background: "At the beginning of discussions leading to the independence of India, it became apparent to the Moslem participants that a united India would be a Hindu-dominated India. Led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League pressed for a partition of India into a Hindu nation and a Moslem nation, threatening calamity if this were not done, e.g., "India will be divided or destroyed." Numerous problems with such a division were brushed aside and the parties did agree to the idea of a partition." Some concerns: a. This synopsis of the huge process leading to partition is not verifiable, authoritative, and would eventually be found objectionable and non-neutral by someone. I don't want this article to become a battle zone for those who would then add more poorly cited counter-POV of their own. Neutral writing with citations is a difficult thing to do on the subject of partition and is better done in an article dedicated to that. Unless you are going to start out with concise and verifiable information here, it doesn't belong in this article. b. The comments added were not from a strong verifiable source. The article linked as a citation was full of typos, clearly not a reliable or authoritative source. Also the site that was hosting the typo-laden article was founded by an individual "Iranian currently living in Canada. He lived Islam in his initial years and as he started learning more about the religion called Islam in order to seek answers to deeper questions, he realized that Islam was a dangerous cult which not only victimized its adherents but was also a threat to the free world as it could not tolerate free and opposing thoughts." I really don't see how this a non-neutral source for an article that is already very well cited. It just brings down the level of scholarship. I will continue to challenge all such changes. Ajobin (talk)

Current Topics

Should we add a section on motivations for partition?

On 12 Novemer 2009 Piledhigheranddeeper added some comments about the motivations for partition. On 11 December 2009 Ajobin reverted those changes and initiated this discussion.

Arguments in favor of adding a section discussing motivations for partition.

a. Motivations are relevant, but DIFFICULT to discuss in a NEUTRAL AND VERIFIABLE manner. It could fit in if it were done in broad strokes, with authoritative sources and a neutral and balanced POV. Ajobin (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument against adding a section discussing motivations for partition

a. The motivations for partition is a controversial discussion, better discussed in a separate article dedicated to that, rather than rehashed here. That article can be linked from this one. The article on the Partition of India is already linked from here. If there is another then add it to the "See Also" section. Ajobin (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral wording: "Indian Subcontinent" or "South Asia"?

Background

On 12 November 2009, Piledhigheranddeeper changed the phrase ""Indian Subcontinent" to "South Asia". On 10 December 2009 Ajobin reverted that change along with others.

Definition of terms

Please see the article on South Asia for a fuller discussion of the distinctions between these terms. For our purposes the following definitions from Wikipedia will suffice: -- The Indian subcontinent "is a region of the Asian (and, in turn, the Eurasian) continent on the Indian tectonic plate south of the Himalayas, forming a peninsula which extends southward into the Indian Ocean." -- South Asia is "the southern region of the Asian continent, which comprises the sub-Himalayan countries and, for some authorities (see below), also includes the adjoining countries on the west and the east. Topographically, it is dominated by the Indian Plate, which rises above sea level as the Indian subcontinent south of the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush." If you have some other term to use please suggest it. Ajobin (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument in favor of status-quo

It is not constructive to change thing without stating your reasons and adding links for the information you add. The original term "Indian Subcontinent" linked to an informative article about the location. It does not add information to this article to change that to "South Asia". The person who made the change did not even link to an article about South Asia. They just liked the way it sounded? Not informative. Ajobin (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument in favor term "South Asia"

a. "Indian Subcontinent" includes the word India, so it is not liked by some South Asians. South Asia is a more inclusive term. Ajobin (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument in favor term "Indian Subcontinent"

The Radcliffe Award is not inclusive of all of South Asia. Many countries in South Asia were not a part of the Radcliffe Award nor part of the British Empire. The territory that was a part of this document is quite specifically the area in the Indian Subcontinent. Politically some people may not like that the name "Indian Subcontinent" includes the word India, but it is the most specific name for the place affected in the Radcliffe Line. "South Asia" is a more nebulous region and can be taken to include many other countries not involved in the Radcliffe Line. Why use a less specific term instead of a more specific one? Ajobin (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

South Talapati Island: Should it be included?

On 7 Dec 2009 DLinth removed the entire section on the South Talpatti Island. On 11 December Ajobin restored it. Please discuss below.

Arguments in favor of removing all reference to South Talapati Island

a. It is not relevant. (stated by Dlinth as a reason for removing it)

Argument in Favor of keeping some mention of South Talapati Island

a. The emergence of South Talpatti Island is relevant because the Radcliffe Award is referred to in deciding the boundary between India and Bangladesh. How the document was written and what it says has an effect on deciding these kinds of matters. That is one reason for having a boundary demarcation, right? If you read the article on South Talpatti Island, it says "According to the Radcliffe Award (establishing the East Pakistan and India boundary in 1947), the 'mid-channel flow' principle or 'Thalweg Doctrine' is recognized as the international boundary on river boundaries between the two countries." Ajobin (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice format for discussion set up here.

Radcliffe Award is for land boundary only, not maritime. However, I see that the S. Talpatti area falls within land boundary area, as it turns out, so its inclusion is relevant.

More troubling is that most of the article's current "facts" are almost certainly not true. It is not an island "of Bangladesh"...it is disputed. Bangladesh does not "control" the island....there is no settlement or facility on it, and reportedly patrols from both nations frequent the area. And the 1970 silt depostion "birth", while more likely than other non-"facts" below, has no citation....verifiable? Did India ever actually "occupy" the island? Finally, does Bangladesh really (citation?) use the Radcliffe thalweg language as a basis for their claim.....that would work against them, as the deeper channel according to an old but only freely available chart is on the east side of the island.

I'd think replacing the whole passage with the first paragraph and the Radcliffe Award sentence from South Talpatti Island would be most constructive.

South Talpatti Island is a small offshore island of Bangladesh which emerged in the Bay of Bengal in 1970 silt deposition after a cyclone. Bangladesh controls the island, citing its territory per Radcliffe Award. India, however, first occupied the island and disputes Bangladesh's claim. DLinth (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I support any changes which make the summary & language here consistent with the main article on South Talpatti Island. I'd prefer any new information were verifiable. The South Talpatti section in this article currently says that Bangladesh controls the island, however the main article does not say that. The article on South Talpatti Island says the island is uninhabited and contested. In the highlights box under the "Administered by" header, there is nothing written. Personally, I have no knowledge of this, so I would welcome any rewrite which is consistent with wording and facts verifiable in the main article. Ajobin (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sir Creek and Siachen Conflict ends of the India-Pak. line are of course in dispute, as are the 200 enclaves in the Cooch Behar area. Do you have time (think it appropriate) to add those in too, or better than blindly repeating their content here, just link to these three? Just link to Talpatti too? I don't have a strong opinion..whatever you think.DLinth (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My basic agenda is just the article (1) not lose relevant information, (2) gain verifiable information with citations, (3) not gain any unverifiable information of a controversial nature. I don't have time right now to make changes, so I will support anything consistent with the above. I am definitely in favor of the other disputes you mentioned being added to Later Disputes section. However the disputants don't seem to be citing the Radcliffe Award in the disputes, so I suppose the wording should indicate that the disputants don't claim rights per the Radcliffe Award insomuch as these areas were not clearly settled in the award (and may have been avoided by a clearer, more detailed, less rushed award). I would say if I have any intellectual agenda in why the Later Dispute section and examples are relevant and should stay, it is that the award was rushed and these are the consequences. I think that is important and consequential. I did not come to this article with this agenda, and those parts were already there. I knew nothing of the process for how the Indo-Pak border was drawn before I came to this article. At the time, I must have been reading an article about the partition. I came here for more info and found it very poor. After turning to a couple history books, the more I was convinced that this award was a crucial matter of last influence with strong parallels and lessons for contemporary disputes. I don't think it appropriate to draw out those parallels here, but I do think that the consequences should be covered in brief or referred to. It doesn't really matter to me which; Wikipedia is not a place to seek perfection. ;-) Unfortunately, I have not yet informed myself well enough to improve the article on those lines; I just know what anyone with casual acquaintance of the subject knows. I welcome the additions, but I won't be making them myself for some time. I actually keep hoping someone with a stronger knowledge and even stronger sources will come along and adopt the article, as I gave a good foundation. So far, it just seems to attract editors with small points to make and no reliable citations to make them with. :-( Ajobin (talk 21:44,5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dlinth, The changes you made look good -- better information, more representative of both sides, and in-line with the S. Talpatti article. Ajobin (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dlinth, I noticed that you recently deleted the section on the S.Talpatti island because the island is gone underwater. Why should the **history** of the dispute & conflicts go away with it? I think it should be restored and reworded to the past tense. What do you think? Ajobin (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Read

Hi, I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than myself could give this a quick revamp. I see quite a few weasel words, such as "Wanting to preserve the appearance of impartiality, Radcliffe also kept his distance from Viceroy Mountbatten." Even though it is cited, it seems Read may have not been impartial.

Also, a few paragraphs such as this one: "Had the Commission been more careful, gaffes in the division could have been avoided. For example, there were instances where the border was drawn leaving some parts of a village in India and some in Pakistan. Since he had just a month, Radcliffe saw little point in being careful to skirt villages. His border was drawn right through thickly populated areas instead of between them. There were even instances where the dividing line passed through a single house with some rooms in one country and others in the other." aren't cited at all.

Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I keep hoping for the same -- that someone with more knowledge or credible sources to come along. Unfortunately, the article mainly attracts people with a nationalist agenda. I improved this article immensely based upon sources I had which was mainly Read. That last quote "Had the Commission..." is also from Read. I read the entire Read book (very little of it is about Radcliffe) and I don't think his scholarship is biased. What is the bias in stating that Radcliffe kept his distance from his former classmate (Mountbatten) in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality? The fact that they didn't talk much is important. That this was his motivation is unsurprising. Why else would he keep his distance from someone who was a longtime friend/classmate, except because it is not good for appearances? What is so biased about stating that? I agree the language could be less weasely, but that is the quote and I would rather keep the direct quote than get into people who have not read the source rewording the meaning, as they will do if there is no quote marks. I would definitely welcome other authoritative sources on this article! P.S. There is an good bibliography at the end of the article including some authoritative sources, such as Wolpert, that are uncited in the article. Also please keep discussions here in the current questions section, not in the Standards section. Thanks!Ajobin (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what section this would fit in most. Since Wikipedia has a few standards, such as No Weasel Words, I figured it would fit best there. Although the "Commission" line may be from Read, if it is not given in-text citations it can be said to be uncited. As for the "Appearance of Impartiality" line, in the current edit (and in the edit I was commenting on) there are no quotation marks whatsoever. Hence, in my opinion the use of "appearance of impartiality" would be weasely (sic). Thanks! (BTW: Thank you for your well written and logical response). Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the source in my possession right now to see how exactly to cite this, but I will check it in the future. Ajobin (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Radcliffe Line vs Radcliffe award

Radcliffe Line is the present border line between present India and present Paksitan. On the other hand, Radcliffe award was the system under what present Bangaldesh and present India's border were fixed. If this article is about Radcliffe Line then Bangladeh part should be moved. In another, some current disputed conditions are also mentioned here, such as CHT condition which has nothing to do with Radcliffe Line,, If to dicuss present disputing condition, it can be mention in the that place's own site rather then Radcliffe Line explanatory article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.193.169 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Radcliffe line was drawn between India and Pakistan of 1947. Radcliffe was no Nostradamus to have known in advance that Pak would be split in 1971. Therefore the Radcliffe award had left the Indian subcontinent divided into two nation states. Radcliffe's primary duty was the division of punjab and bengal. Pls see Routing borders between territories, discourses, and practices(p.128)By Eiki Berg, Henk van Houtum.

expts: The Radcliffe commission drew up a boundary line across undivided Bengal, which had a total area of 230,027 square kms, to create separate entities: East Bengal which formed the eastern wing of Pakistan and West Bengal which became a province of Independent India.

Now i think its pretty clear; and in that presumption i am taking the freedom to revert. Regards, Arjun^codename024 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Background: The section on the CHT has been in this article since before I ever edited it. I made some major improvements to citations in other sections using the book by Read. I now see myself as a custodian of sorts of the article in absence of any more reliable authority presenting themselves.

Award vs. Line: The Radcliffe Award is the document that set the Radcliffe Line. Perhaps this needs to be better stated in the article, since someone seems to be confused about this point. --Ajobin

Scope of the article: Effects of the Radcliffe Award on Minority Populations

Scope of the article: My major interest in this article is that it accurately convey the HISTORY & SIGNIFICANCE of the Radcliffe Award and that it follow Wikipedia STANDARDS. This scope is consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. A major area of SIGNIFICANCE of the Radcliffe Award was its EFFECT on the lives and citizenship of many people. The point of the award was to divide land and resources in a way to appease different groups. So, its success in doing this is of *primary* significance.

Effects of the Award: Some of the effects of the Radcliffe Award were abrupt, such as mass migrations. Others continue to emerge over a longer period of time, such as the conflicts over disputed territory in Kashmir and the disputes in the CHT. These conflicts exist in no small part because of boundaries and nationality that were decided by the Radcliffe Award. These conflicts would be very different if the award had been done differently, so yes they are relevant to a discussion of the EFFECTS / SIGNIFICANCE of the Radcliffe Award.

Depth into subsequent conflicts: I do agree that (1) the subsequent conflicts are not the main point and that (2) article should not be a forum for detailing the conflicts. That is why it points to the main article for each of the conflicts that it mentions.

Recent conflicts in CHT: The long-term outcome of conflicts pursuant to the Radcliffe Award are relevant. Of course, conflicts which are more immediately pursuant to the award are more germane than details about the present situation. The details of recent conflicts do not need to be treated in depth, but the answer is not to DELETE ALL REFERENCE to them. That rather casts doubt about motives and biases.

Exemplar Articles? Perhaps it will help to look at other articles about disputed territories for models? (As an American, all I can really think of is our Civil War which is sort of the opposite situation, but still a settled conflict with enduring consequences. I'll go take a look at that one. Anyone is welcome to suggest other exemplar articles.)

Rewording / Avoiding edit wars: Anyone is welcome to suggest more succinct & pertinent wording. However to avoid edit wars, please do so HERE in this discussion if your rewrite involves deleting facts and citations provided by other people. If you would like to include a different point of view, you are welcome to ADD information WITH CITATIONS citing who holds this point of view. Please do not continue to engage in edit wars -- deleting other people's work or citations even after someone has reinstated it. If this continues, I suppose we would have to appeal to a higher authority and the article might be locked in some way, as with other such articles which are nationalist battlegrounds.

Bangladesh: Overall, the article is lacking a section where it describes (1) the significance of the Radcliffe Award and Line upon the creation of Bangladesh and (2) how the Line is used to demarcate present day boundaries between India and Bangladesh. However, I will not venture into this subject without reading & citing authoritative sources.

My Plans: I keep hoping someone better read will come along with good citations. Eventually, I will read another authoritative book on this subject and when I do I will improve this section. Ajobin (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring and adding to do list

I am about to refactor this page. Since Wikipedia's major site overhaul, there is a new(?) button to create a "new section". It creates this at the end of the talk page. This article has new topics at the top. I am going to refactor it so that they are at the bottom to be consistent with the button the add a "new section" at the end. Also I am going to add a to do list. To do items should be brief, not for discussion. Any discussion of to do items should be done in other sections. Ajobin (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I refactored the topics chronologically to fit with the "new section" button which adds new topics to the end. Ajobin (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding Futile Edit Wars

A user with anonymous IP keeps deleting the following text about the current situation in one of the areas that was disputed in the Radcliffe Award.

"Since the split of Pakistan creating Bangladesh, the CHT has been the site of some of systematic human rights violations. The "Netherlands based Organizing Committee for CHT Campaign reported 278 cases of Human Rights violations committed between July 1985 to December 1985. The human rights abuses include murders, torture, rape, arson, robbery, abduction and electoral fraud. The policy of the Bangladesh government had been to make the tribal inhabitants minority by encouraging settlements of Bengali Muslims in their place.""

After another user restores it, he deletes it again. I tried to discuss the issue with him here (see Radcliffe Line vs. Radcliffe Award), but he just continues to delete without discussing the matter. This is getting into an Edit War. I am not going to get involved in that, and I would encourage anyone else reading this to avoid it too. I will not tolerate credible information being removed, but this citation above is not worth fighting over because: (1) It does not have an authoritative source. (2) It is a second-hand citation, in this case a less credible source citing a more credible one. (3) There is more credible & pertinent information available. If you want to improve this article, why not take this as an opportunity to address the shortcomings in the article rather than be dragged into an Edit War? If like me, you do not currently have time to cite better sources right now, just take the the time you would spend reverting to instead make notes here of what is being removed, what was valuable in it, what was not, and what can be improved. I have added a to do list up top for this purpose. Thanks to the Anonymous the information will have to be improved. (Thanks also to Anonymous, I now have great interest in an area that I was previously ignorant about! It is very interesting that people come here soley to remove references to the CHT.) If someone repeatedly deletes credible information, then we can rightly appeal for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The current source is not worth bothering a moderator over. There is more authoritative information from Amnesty International and other human rights groups about conflicts in the CHT. See the main CHT article, at least the version as of May 2010. Ajobin (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Testimony of CHT Delegate to Boundary Commission

I was looking over the website with the quote being contested in the recent edit war. In addition to details about conflicts in CHT under Bangladesh govt, that [Angelfire Jumma website] also has one page with [extract of the memorandum of a CHT delegate to the hearings in 1947]. That is very pertinent testimony that I had never seen before. Quotes from that testimony should be added. Does anyone have a better source of the original testimony? Ajobin (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading Sources

The book Arjun023 linked above appears to be credible and interesting. I added it to the Further Reading list. There is one chapter pertaining to the Radcliffe Award and you can read some of it online. Adding citations from that chapter or any other book on the Further Reading list would improve the article in general. Please don't hesitate to add relevant information and citations to the article. Ajobin (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Territories & Conflicts along Radcliffe Line: What level of detail?

Background: There were a number of places disputed during the Boundary Commission for the Radcliffe Award. There continue/d to be conflicts in some of these areas well after 1947. What level of detail about these is appropriate to the scope of this article? Examples of details currently omitted / removed: a) numbers of refugees who have fled across Radcliffe Line from disputed territories to other countries b) population changes: estimates of casualties, landless / homeless c) human rights violations: murders, rapes, torture, abductions d) property disputes / forced evacuation / arson in disputed territories e) government policies toward minorities

Request for examples and guidelines

Are there any exemplar articles on this subject? Are there any guidelines that address this? Ajobin (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Argument in favor of including aggregate information about outcomes

The outcomes in the territories affected by the Radcliffe Award decision are a part of its significance. An overview of outcomes for the local populations in aggregate are necessary and sufficient to impart the significance. Ajobin (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Argument in favor of not including any / some of this information

If this is your viewpoint, please explain it here. Don't forget to sign.

Hindu Sindhis from Sindh

Hindu Sindhis were the worst effected from the Partition of India. Whilst Punjab and Bengal were slit into two. So Muslims and Hindus had a territory. All of Sindh ended up in Pakistan. Most Hindu Sindhis expected to live in Pakistan, however due to violence and new incoming Muslims (from other parts of India), they forced the Hindhi Sindhis out.

The Hindu Sindhis have no homeland and a scattered people.

Much of the history has been forgotten / ommitted. Most Hindus Sindhis were more focussed on survial and putting food on the table, to tell their story. Many Hindu Sindhis never spoke of Partition and his is getting lost in history...

There is a book "Sindh : Stories from a Vanished Homeland", which collects personal accounts.

Radclliffe never considered the fate of Hindu Sindhis, nor was there any provision about Hindu SIndhis i.e. alternative land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.227.221 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Play - Drawing the LIne

A Play called 'Drawing The Line' has been running in London's Hampstead Theatre (last day 11 January 2014). The main character is Radcliffee. The script author was Howard Brenton. It was also streamed live by the Guardian :-

---

Inspired by conversations he had during a visit to India in 2009, Howard Brenton’s sweeping epic Drawing the Line exposes the chaos of the Partition that has shaped the modern world. Howard Brenton and Howard Davies reunite following Hampstead’s critically acclaimed and sell-out hit 55 Days last year.

In 1947 Mr Justice Cyril Radcliffe was summoned by the Prime Minister from the Court where he was presiding and given an extraordinary mission. He was to travel to India, a country he had never visited and of which he had almost no knowledge, and, with limited survey information, no expert support and no knowledge of cartography, to draw the border which would divide the Indian sub-continent into two new Sovereign Dominions: India and Pakistan. And he had only six weeks in which to complete the task.

Wholly unsuited to his role, Radcliffe was unprepared for the dangerous whirlpool of political intrigue and passion into which he is plunged; one of religious and racial turmoil, blood feuds and even an illicit liaison between the Leader of the Congress Party and the Viceroy’s wife. As he began to break under the pressure he came to realise that he held in his hands the fate of millions of people.

.

---

There is also a script of the play available from the theatre.

I put this here for historian or anyone looking to dig deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.227.221 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani view on Award of Gurdaspur to India

To editor Kautilya3: Already on the talk page of Kashmir Issue. Before trying to add/remove anything, please discuss it there. Regards -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samm19 (talk • contribs)

The content of this article should be discussed on this talk page.

I have added a failed verification tag, which you removed without discussion. The tag means that the content is not supported by the source. To contest it, you need to provide a quotation from the source that supports the content. Failing that the content will be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3:,

• "for purposes of administration ad interim" from another source, and 'Gurdaspur had already been "assigned" (words used by the author) to Pakistan'. Not 'repeating' anything here. Samm19 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• well, that newspaper story actually has the picture of "The incumbency board at the office of the District Magistrate" carrying name of Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema; the Pakistani Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur. I quoted an Indian newspaper for a reason. Family of Mushtaq Ahmed Cheema lives in Pakistan. A Pakistani link for you: [1]
• Now, will you please revert the edit you made ? Samm19 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• let me repeat myself, "for purposes of administration ad interim" from another source, and 'Gurdaspur had already been "assigned" (words used by the author) to Pakistan'. Not 'repeating' anything here.
• And sources are given. Please don't remove it again Samm19 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of my edits: Removed all non-Pakistani views from the section labelled Pakistani views, and attributed all non-scholarly opinions to the respective authors. You have re-inserted the non-Pakistani sources, which labelled under Assessments. I also removed some editorialising. But all this content is still hugely WP:UNDUE and very WP:POV, and I still need to check it against the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with you and why are you trying to vandalize, but nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts. I am learning a lot from You. Regards Samm19 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks against editors. You can be blocked for doing so. Thanks for saying you are learning from me. You can actually learn more by reading the Wikipedia policy pages posted on your talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: I haven't made any personal attack against any editor, what are you talking about ? I just asked you to stop vandalizing, because, unfortunately, that's exactly what you are doing now. Don't remove properly referenced content from reliable sources, without discussing it here, just because you don't like it. Did I ask too much ?

To editor Kautilya3: And in case I missed it, thank you for attributing those opinions to Sir Zafarullah Khan. Only if you knew that the man you tried to 'belittle' by declaring his opinions to be 'non-scholarly' had actually been an internationally acclaimed jurist, one of the most influential and skilled diplomats of his time, author of several books, and the first Asian and the only Pakistani to preside over the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice... Have a nice day, mate Samm19 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet Mission Plan

Regarding the acceptance of the CMP, scholars are entitled to their opinions and make judgements, whereas we are committed to WP:NPOV. One cannot cite a single source and claim that it is scholarly consensus. Most scholars hedge the results in various ways. For example, Hodson's The Great Divide says (p.161):

The position when the Cabinet Mission departed was that the ML had accepted the main plan (the statement of 16th May) without qualifications, though with the express intention of continuing to work within it for secession and Pakistan; the Congress had nominally accepted the plan, but with reservations or interpretations which could have nullified its central provision of grouping provinces to form a three-tier system;...

... the CMP ... had in June 1946 been accepted by the Muslim League, and rejected, in effect though not in precise form, by the Congress; whereas when Lord Mountbatten negotiated with the leaders in March and April 1947 it was the League which totally repudiated the CMP, the Congress which would have revived it if they possibly could. The reasons for that change may be apparent from the story of the intervening months. They do not encourage the widely-held view that a last chance of securing a peaceful transfer of power to a united India was missed by the accident of a few political mishaps and personal mistakes in the summer of 1946, particularly the schizophrenic policy of the Congress and the unwise utterances of Pandit Nehru.

I can also produce quotations for the issue of "distrust" if you wish. But you need to be aware of WP:CHEESE in asking for sources for everything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hodson's outdated work from decades ago, failing WP:THIRDPARTY to boot, can not override the major accepted tertiary history works such as Metcalf or Michael Mann. Not all sources and scholars are equal. Fowler&fowler has explained this on other talkpages I believe.

This is also not a matter of 'distrust'. It's a well known fact, there are even direct quotes of Nehru, in the Sialkoti article you have used, which show that the Congress was scheming for partition so that Pakistan would be economically weak. One example is Nehru saying to Gandhi "it is unlikely that Jinnah and the Muslim League will agree to this truncated Pakistan which can never succeed economically or otherwise".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid this is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hodson's book has received rave reviews by experts. Here is one for example:

H.V. Hodson's book could be simply reviewed in one sentence--it is by far the best book yet written on th eevents leading up to the partition of India. The style is crystal clear,the facts are well-marshalled and the judments are balanced, though some of them relate to matters about which there is room for difference of opinion.

You are shooting down a well-respected scholar-commentator while pushing a Pakistani scholar arguing for Pakistani positions. (It is nevertheless a good article, presenting a wealth of information, which is why I have used it as a source. That is not to say that we have to report every view expressed by the author despite evidence to the contrary.)

Since you have claimed that it is an out of date source, here is a contemporary one:

The dispute over the grouping provision, combined with Congress's enthusiastic embrace of the system by which the Assembly's representatives were to be elected, reinforced the League's suspicions about the true intentions of Congress.[54] The League was concerned that the Congress would use its dominance in the Assembly to adopt a constitution which would suppress the rights of the Muslim minority. These concerns were reinforced by the fact that Congress conditioned its agreement to the Mission's plan on acceptance of its own interpretation of the grouping provisions.

From Jinnah's perspective, this conditional approval was effectively a rejection of the entire plan. Consequently, at the end of July, the Muslim League resolved to withdraw its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission's proposals.[57] On August 16, 1946 the League held a Direct Action Day to press its demands for an independent Pakistan....

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. For this Cabinet Mission plan I am not using a Pakistani scholar, even though nationalities do not matter on Wikipedia, but I am reminding you that authors of the high level histories Metcalf and Mann, neither of who are Pakistani, inform us that the Mission failed because of the Congress. And in contested pages the best approach according to our senior editor Fowler&fowler is to summarise the higher level histories. Lerner also seems to agree with Metcalf and Mann despite approaching it in a more distanced way with a slight hesitancy to lay explicit blame on the Congress. But I do not see anything in Lerner about Nehru saying that they were not bound by their words in the Cabinet Mission, the way Mann has taken that into account. Nor can we use Lerner's hesitancy when we have explicit statements to the contrary from Metcalf and Mann. When superior sources are saying something, we give preference to that. My main argument is that not all sources are equal, as Fowler&fowler has taught us. Of course where scholars differ on a matter we include all scholarly opinions as per WP:NPOV. But there is no visible major disagreement here between Lerner and Metcalf/Mann. Lerner has just used their words more "cautiously" while explaining why the League felt concerned over the Congress' behavior. That's not a real scholarly disagreement we need to fuss over.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you are not pushing the Pakistani scholar. So let us leave that aside. I go by Wikipedia policies, not any particular editors' interpretations of them. There is no scholarly consensus on blaming a particular party for the breakdown of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Both the parties gave it half-hearted acceptance, but eventually it was the Muslim League that withdrew its acceptance and launched a 'Direct Action'. So I object to putting the blame on Congress by cherry-picking sources. Moreover, I am afraid both you and the other editor are WP:COATRACKing by adding controversial extraneous material in an article that is supposed to be about Radcliffe Line. There is a separate article on the Cabinet Mission Plan. That is where you can go and add your views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

New addition – 'Moth-eaten Pakistan'

I am copying below a new section that got added today for possible discussion. In my view, this is WP:UNDUE. It is really part of the "Background", which has already been covered in the subsection called "Final negotiations". The purpose is only to explain why the Boundary Commissions became necessary. We cannot possibly cover all the negotations that happened. They are practically endless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

removed content

'Moth-eaten' Pakistan Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab and Bengal clamoured for the division of these two provinces, arguing that if India could be divided along religious lines then so should these provinces because the Muslim majorities in both provinces were small. V.P Menon decided with Sardar Patel to only give Muslims a moth-eaten Pakistan. Nehru then discussed partitioning Punjab and Bengal with Wavell. He told Menon that the partition of Punjab and Bengal would bring the more fertile parts of these two provinces into the Indian Union so that a truncated Pakistan would not be worth having. Nehru told Gandhi that such a Pakistan would not be accepted by Jinnah because it would be economically unviable. Sir Cripps remarked the Pakistan they are likely to get would be very different from what they wanted and it may not be worth their while. On March 8, 1947 the Congress passed a resolution to partition Punjab. In Mountbatten's meetings with Jinnah between April 5 and 11 April he diverted Jinnah's attention to the partition of Punjab and Bengal. Jinnah protested that this would mean a 'moth-eaten Pakistan' but Mountbatten insisted on his refusal of a full Pakistan and only giving half of Punjab and Bengal to the new country. The British officers had been afraid of Jinnah's refusal to partition Punjab and Bengal, although they were not afraid of the Congress and Sikhs. Their 'secret reports' informed them that Hindus and Sikhs were in favour of partition but Muslims were against it and would not accept it unless Jinnah instructed them to do so. When Mountbatten asked Liaquat Ali Khan if they were going to accept the partition of the two provinces, Liaquat Ali Khan replied 'we shall never agree to it, but you may make us bow to inevitable'. Mountbatten informed his staff that the League appeared to accept the Partition plan. When V.P Menon said there would be trouble if the League is not accept it now that Nehru and Patel had done so, Mountbatten told him he had already threatened Jinnah with a transfer of power to the Interim Government if he did not agree. Jinnah then approached Eric Mieville to tell Mountbatten that the partition of Punjab and Bengal would be a great mistake. The Muslim League again reiterated its demand for a full Pakistan although said it would accept a truncated Pakistan if this was forced upon them. When Churchill asked Mountbatten if Jinnah had accepted a Dominion status as Nehru had, Mountbatten told him he had not done so. Churchill then instructed Mountbatten to threaten Jinnah by taking away all British officers to make it clear to him that Pakistan would not be able to survive without British help. Churchill's message shook Jinnah and made it clear to him that England would not support him. Mountbatten then proposed to threaten Jinnah by drawing a line less favourable to Muslims and more favourable to Sikhs. However, Lord Ismay prevailed that he should use 'hurt feelings' rather than threats to persuade Jinnah for partition. They ultimately succeeded in what scholar Sialkoti states was threatening Jinnah with a partition line less favourable to Muslims if he did not agree to the partition of Punjab and Bengal. Mountbatten had claimed that in making his demand of partitioning Punjab and Bengal he was merely using the same principles as Jinnah cited to justify partitioning India, in other words ensuring the safety of Hindu minorities in Punjab and Bengal by separating them from Pakistan. Scholar Akbar Ahmed argues that this reasoning reduces the principle of partition to absurdity since according to this logic Muslim estates in the United Province should also have been separated and given to Pakistan. Akbar Ahmed writes that the province was the basic unit of administration in India whereas Mountbatten insisted on a district-level partition. Jinnah insisted that the partition of provinces would be disastrous, but Mountbatten remained 'deaf' according to Ahmed. On the 2nd of June, Jinnah approached Mountbatten again and asked him to reconsider and not split the provinces to which Mountbatten replied by threatening "You will lose Pakistan probably for good". References

I added this section last week and I tag it is DUE. 'Moth-eaten' Pakistan is a significant term in the scholarly literature about Partition and Radcliffe line and deserves its own section. There is no limit to adding relevant details on Wikipedia.Like everything else except God the negotiations were finite.

I have a concern that the 'Prior ideas of Partition' section in UNDUE and I will erase or move that content soon.

The Congress insistence on Partition in spite of the League's protests resulted in the formation of the Radcliffe Commission and Line in the first place. Also relevant in the article's background is why the Radcliffe Commission and Line became necessary and how it was achieved. The Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal to make Pakistan economically unviable and unattractive to the ML as is how Jinnah and the Muslim League wade threatened into accepting the Partition and thus the Radcliffe Line. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Dilpa kaur, Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia articles have to be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Your idea that "there is no limit to adding relevant details" is not viable and not in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Firstly, you have to note that the section you have added is part of the Background. It is not part of the Radcliffe boundary commissions or their work. The purpose of the background section is to explain how the idea of partitioning Punjab and Bengal came into being and why the boundary commissions became necessary. It is not its purpose to give a detailed coverage of all the negotiations. Secondly, my discussion also deliberately stays from the claims and counterclaims of the Congress and the Muslim League, the disputants, and uses the assessments of the British administrators or third parties like Ambedkar, Panikkar etc. That is because they have heard all the debates between the contending parties and made up their minds about what is feasible. In the end, it is their assessments that carried the day. In particular, Ambedkar's tract Thoughts on Pakistan, which was produced within four months of the Lahore Resolution, was extremely influential. I will look for more material that summarises the Congress and Muslim League positions, but the Sialkoti article is probably not the best place to look for it.

Finally, I should say that your write-up is highly sensationalised. The very title 'Moth-eaten Pakistan', a political slogan, is a prime example. You have absolutely no basis to claim that it is a "significant term in scholarly literature". Even the very source you cite doesn't have a section titled that. Also, statements like V.P.Menon conspired with Patel to give a moth-eaten Pakistan have no place on Wikipedia. This is more like propaganda, not information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I should add that you appear not to have read what has been written. The Cabinet Mission offered Jinnah a larger Pakistan that could be in the Indian Union or a smaller Pakistan that could be independent. This is the assessment they have reached after listening to all the parties. When the Muslim League eventually rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan, for whatever reason, the effect is that they have settled for a smaller Pakistan. Rhetoric cannot undo the inexorable political realities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a scholarly consensus that Cabinet Mission Plan failed due to Congress and not the League. This scholarly consensus is represented in the tertiary high level histories such as Barbara D. Metcalf; Thomas R. Metcalf (2002). A Concise History of India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-0-521-63974-3..

Jinnah neither rejected a smaller Pakistan nor a larger Pakistan within the Indian Union All Jinnah wanted was a viable Pakistan. The Congress could not have that. They and Mountbatten practically bullied the League into accepting Partition by threatening that Muslims would not be allowed a Pakistan at all. Also the British administrators were not neutral but were part of the Congress' bullying tactics in the League. For example it was Mountbatten who threatened Jinnah into accepting the Partition after all.

I certainly have a basis for saying what I said about moth-eaten Pakistan. I can provide heaps of sources but the Sialkoti source should be fine for now. Had the Congress not schemed for giving a moth-eaten and economically unviable Pakistan to the League there would not have been a Radcliffe Comnission set up in the first place. It was set up to divide Punjab and Bengal.

The statement about Patel and Menon scheming are in the same Sialkoti source which you have used quite liberally to write the other sections. Its factual information and not propaganda. It's also made clear with extensive footnotes that this was the Congress reason for demanding Partition and Nehru said the same explicitly. Sialkoti cited 'Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru' and quoted Nehru saying that partitioning Punjab and Bengal would make Pakistan unviable by. bringing the richer and fertile parts of the two provinces into India so a truncated Pakistan would not be worth having. We cannot cherry pick information from sources. Excluding information based on likes and dislikes while using other information from that same source is cherry picking and POV pushing and violates NPOV requirement which demands that different scholarly perspectives should be fairly and proportionately represented without taking any sides, unless of course there is a scholarly consensus. If you have a scholarly level source which contradicts this fact about the Congressi scheme to weaken Pakistan through partitioning Punjab and Bengal then and only then can you have any point. Otherwise your comment is pure personal POV which will not be allowed to belong on Wikipedia.Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any party fully accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Interim Government was dysfunctional. Viceroy Wavell formulated a "break down plan" and asked for the British government's permission for it. Throughout these developments, the Muslim League was fully aware that the Cabinet Mission had told them in unequivocal terms that an independent Pakistan would mean a smaller Pakistan. These are verifiable facts and don't depend on any scholarly consensus, which I don't think exists.

As for the Congress position, it is entirely public, documented in various resolutions and leaders' statements. Congress did not want partition of any kind but, if it became inevitable, they were willing to concede 'genuine Muslim majority areas'. This was made clear in Jinnah-Gandhi talks way before any of the incidents of this article began. The Congress knew that this would mean a weaker Pakistan and they hoped that Muslim League would back down in the face of it. All the British officials also hoped the same. But the Muslim League did not back down. I don't see where there is any "scheming" in any of this. If you believe that the Congress used smaller Pakistan merely as a negotiating ploy and a larger Pakistan was indeed acceptable to them behind the scenes, please produce evidence for it.

Independent of the Congress position, Nehru had his own, viz., the desire for a strong centre. Whether this was feasible in the framework of the Cabinet Mission Plan could have been explored in my opinion, if there was trust on all sides. But trust was totally lacking. It is the lack of trust that generates all this talk of "scheming". Frankly, I don't think it is our business to deal with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Can we still include Dilpa's edits in the article but somewhat re-worded so it would be more acceptable for Kautilya? That would seem more compromising--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is not just wording but the WP:WEIGHT. It is the background to the Radcliffe commissions and I believe that the background section is already as long as it can possibly be. There are also other articles, Partition of India, Cabinet Mission Plan etc., where this could be considered, but once again it is focusing far too much on negotiations and too little on actual substance. So, sadly, even though I quite like the write-up, I don't think this is Wikipedia material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Partition of India is a very extensive article as it is. Putting more stuff there would just over fill it. Why would so much material about the Radcliff Line end up in an article that is not about it? This is the best place to have it in.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also these comments appear to be pure speculation. What about the scholarly commentary to cover it. "I think" certainly looks like speculation to me. It might even be original research for all I know. We should do our job and summarize the scholarly consensus for this issue.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So since the high level scholarly sources, where the consensus position is outlined, tell us that the Cabinet Mission failed because of Nehru not being in favor decentralisation, then that is what should be written.

And since the Sialkoti source which you yourself used offers a commentary on the moth-eaten Pakistan as do other scholarly sources, we also include that.

I think all this material is definitely part of the background if Punjab and Bengal' s partition since they explain why partition became necessary-because Hindus/Sikhs demanded it and Congress wanted Pakistan to become weak- and how the Partition came to be agreed to - by Moutbatten threatening Jinnah that if he did not agree to partition there would be no Pakistan at all.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kautilya, Going through your editing history you have been telling a user that you wish to make a section on this page for 'Sikh concerns'. 'Moth-eaten Pakistan' certainly deserves a section by the same logic. Also familiarise yourself with WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. Dilpa kaur (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Sikh issues come up frequently during the boundary-making process. So, some background to explain why they were important would be necessary. Your addition, on the other hand, is elaborating the issues already covered in the original Final negotiations section. It is not new information. Moreover, it takes no cognisance of the fact that the Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab did not want to be part of an independent Pakistan. So, what the players said to each other is of little consequence. They were basically trying to deliver what the people wanted. On the whole, your contribution does not add any value to the article. I am pinging senior editors RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 to give their views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Final negotiations is not about the boundary making "process" (which has its own section) but about the negotiations which led to the creation of the Conmission, which is why it's in the "Background" section. And 'moth-eaten' Pakistan also comes up very frequently during the final negotiations, in fact the Congress' plan of truncating the future Pakistan and the League's resistance to it was central to the final negotiations. Your reason that what the players did is of 'little consequence' is a weak argument because the actions of players shape the historical events. And that's what belongs in history articles. The way the Partition was agreed to by the Muslim League (by being threatened) also fully belongs in the final negotiations. In fact, without this information, our article and this section is incomplete because the reader does not know the way the negotiations leading to the Radcliffe Commission transpired and 'succeeded'. Hindus and Sikhs not wanting to join Pakistan is no more relevant here than Muslims in Punjab and Bengal not wanting to be in India because they were in the majority in both provinces. Muslims too had 'concerns'. I suppose one could ask about the non-Muslim districts within Punjab but as Akbar Ahmed tells us, what then of Muslim estates in United Provinces? The basic unit of administration in India was the province. So having a 'Sikh concerns' section without a parallel one for Muslims is not right. Dilpa kaur (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I don't mind adding the fact that Mountbatten threatened Muslim League if that does prove to be the case upon further investigation. But I am opposed to doubling the size of the Final negotiations section as you have done.

Secondly, you draw a parallel between 'Sikh concerns' and 'Muslim concerns'. But you haven't discussed any 'Muslim concerns' in your contribution other than their desire for real estate. Is that all they were concerned about? If so, why does that need 3,000 words? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dilpa kaur: Thank you for adding a new section on the Sikh concerns, which we can discuss and review in due course. But, please note that you do not have my agreement for your 3,000 word bloat of the Final negotiations section. Wikipedia is written by WP:CONSENSUS and you cannot bulldoze your way through it, by repeatedly reinstating contested content. If you wish to make further edits to the article, you need to remove the contested content first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your review :) I also wish that you work with me in expanding this section. It's still lacking in details.

In reply to your other concern I still do not understand your objections to the things I have added. Please explain with deeper clarity what you are contesting. I have used the same reliable l source you have used and I have used it to explain how the final negotiations in the background to the Radcliffe Line happened, how they ended and so on. If you have a reliable source which contradicts this information about the threatening to make the Muslim League agree to Partition then please show us and the community here will examine it.

As for your other comment that Muslims were concerned about real estate then so was everyone else. Muslims at least, did not ask for the division of Hindu majority provinces. In comparison, Hindus sought the division of Muslim majority provinces, which is why I have added Akbar Ahmed's comment on this like you have added Ambdedkar's comments about how the Muslims allegedly did not understand their own demand of partition. 223.180.172.49 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My objection has always been that it is WP:UNDUE. It is too long and too detailed for a Background section. But there is something more below.

Akbar Ahmed is no authority on the subject. He is an anthropologist and a civil servant, not a historian or political scientist. I found a dozen reviews of his book, which all uniformly trashed it. But here is an important comment:

The author is certainly right to question the propriety of the close relationship between the Mountbattens and Nehru, but his conclusion--frequently asserted--that the bias of the Viceroy led to a conspiracy against Pakistan, the bloodshed of partition and the ensuing poor relations between the two successor states needs to be argued through in more detail if it is to be convincing.

For instance, the reaosn why Pakistan--as granted--did not contain the undivided provinces of Punjab and Bengal, as Jinnah would have liked, was not only because Mountbatten, under pressure from the Congress, determined that it should not, but also because the Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab and the Hindus of Bengal were opposed to it. Akbar Ahmed correctly points up Jinnah's concern for minorities, most memorably enunciated in his address to the Constituent Assembly, but the Muslim League had done little during the 1940s to reassure the minorities that they would be welcome in Pakistan and the prospect of its emergence unerstandably put them into a panic.

I have reproduced it here because your own contributions suffer from exactly the same problems. The Viceroy bullied Jinnah. Yeah, so what? He was giving the Muslims what they wanted, an independent Pakistan. He was giving the Sikhs and Hindus of the provinces what they wanted, separation from Pakistan. What tactics he used to get there matter little. Your analysis is focused on the players and the play, but not the goals of the play. The big picture is lacking. For that reason, almost nothing that you have put into the Background section belongs there. It is just meaningless vitriole. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And you claim that so was every one else is a cheap shot. It is not evidenced. It was the Muslim League that talked of a 'moth-eaten Pakistan'. Congress never complained that it was getting a 'moth-eaten India'. The Congress position had always been that any province that genuinely wanted to get away from the Union would be allowed to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References