Talk:Radcliffe Line: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radcliffe Line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 300 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

To-do list for Radcliffe Line: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-08-21 There are no active tasks for this page Edit for uniform terminology. "the Punjab" (the Punjab region, geographically) vs. "Punjab" (either Punjab Province in the British Raj or Punjab state in the Republic of India) Clarify distinction between Radcliffe Line, Radcliffe Award, and process (Boundary Commission). Add information and citations from books in the Further Reading List. 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. Find fair-use maps of Radcliffe Line. Find fair-use maps of areas of dispute. Verify page citations from Read for sentences not properly cited. See March 2010 list of uncited sentences by Crisco. Obtain citations for things marked "citation needed" Add citations explaining how the Radcliffe Award contributed to the creation of Bangladesh Add citations explaining how the Radcliffe Line is used to demarcate boundaries between India and Bangladesh. Find and cite memorandum by the CHT delegate to the Boundary Commission hearings in 1947. [Excerpt]. Obtain guidance and precedents on unresolved disputes about scope of article. removal of S.Talapati Island. effects/ outcomes of Radcliffe award for minority populations

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2011, August 17, 2014, and August 17, 2017.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1]. 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)[reply]

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.^[2]

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....^[3]

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

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)[reply]

I have removed this passage from the body:

I have been able to verify that Lawrence Ziring is a political scientist, and he is considered an authority on Pakistani politics. However, he is not a historian, and nothing indicates that his expertise extended to the developments in New Delhi before the creation of Pakistan. What is more problematice is that the statement attributed to him is entirely speculative. There is absolutely no evidence given either in the cited article or in his full length book, where again a similarly unsupported statement appears:

In Punjab, it was the Muslim majority districts of Gurdaspur and Batala that were given to eastern Punjab and thus awarded to India. The latter determination, however, had little to do with Sikh demands but had much more to do with providing India a road link to Jammu and Kashmir.^[1]

On the other hand, our article provides considerable evidence of Sikh concerns regarding the Gurdaspur district, the fact that it was only marginally Muslim-majority, even that fact being contested, and that its allocation to India had been proposed even by viceroy Wavell before the final partition plan came into being.

Basically, these statements appear to me to be basically commentaries on Pakistani politics, and have no historical validity. If anybody can provide some better evidenced statements from Ziring, we might consider those. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So to clarify, this has been removed because (a) it contains factual analysis which is unverifiable and (b) Pakistani politics are not relevant to the article? Dysklyver 14:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) mostly. I have no problem with Pakistani politics, provided it is evidenced and properly attributed. The two sections were added by user Samm19 [2] and suffer from intense POV problems. I was debating them with the user when he got topic-banned. I am just getting around to cleaning it up. This is the first of the installments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]