Talk:Radcliffe Line

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)

• 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)

(a) mostly. I have no problem with Pakistani politics, provided it is evidenced and properly attributed. The two sections were added by user Samm19 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)

There is a lot of speculation in this section from British works about their consensus / range of opinion on this. How about appending a single line conveying what Pakistani scholars generally believe? For example writing this: Scholars of Pakistan, such as Lawrence Ziring 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.^[1] DaoDeDunce (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, no. We don't want to go through this all over again. There is a whole section on the Pakistani views. Please feel free to add it there, given that Ziring really gives us a summary of Pakistani views no matter what their validity.

If you are trying to insinuate that the "British works" are covering for the British official(s), then you are welcome to read Lucy Chester's thorough study of the Radcliffe partition. A quick summary:

Lucy Chester's study[38: On the Edge, 2008] demonstrates that the Pakistan claims over Gurdaspur are unfounded. She supports the view however, despite the absence of direct evidence, that Mountbatten may have influenced the Ferozepore award to India.^[2]

And, Ishtiaq Ahmed gives us a proper political science viewpoint:

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... ^[3]

So, trying to argue that Radcliffe did something or Mountbatten or whoever is quite pointless.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I came to the article to add a new short video to to the list of references. I have no personal view on this dispute. I do believe the entire award process & timeline was reckless. So no, I don't trust denials which consist of "there is no proof for that". Radcliffe destroyed his documents for some reason. That leaves plenty of room for speculation on all sides. In reviewing the Talk page & History, I saw that a source for the Pakistani view had been removed. The Pakistani academic view on the dispute seems relevant.

I don't know that Zehring himself need be mentioned. It's just the citation that is relevant as evidence of the Pakistani academic view. Something like this would also be fine: 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."

As far as format, yes I suppose it belongs in the section on Pakistani views. Shouldn't that section and the next section be subsections of the section on the Gurdaspur District? Also in Assessments section, do you know why there are quote marks around 'Controversial Award of Gurdaspur to India and the Kashmir Dispute'? Perhaps (as a subsection), a better title would be Relevance of the Gurdaspur Award to the Kashmir Dispute? DaoDeDunce (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You say that you have "no personal view", but also state that the process was reckless. That is in fact a view. And, scholarly research does not support it. (There is plenty of study of the process: the public hearings of the boundary commission, and the four separate awards made by the native judges on the commission, none of which agreed with each other. I have it on stack to write a section about it when I get time.)

The relevant policies for including Ziring's view are WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:FRINGE. Lucy Chester has done a PhD on the Radcliffe Line, and her work is published as a book. Ian Talbot, himself a highly respected historian of partition as well as Pakistani history, has endorsed her analysis and said that she demonstrated that the Gurdaspur award was not manipulated. Ziring's view is in the nature of a political opinion, and he is entitled to it. But he does not support it by any analysis, citations or evidence. So it is WP:UNDUE to be included here. Much more thorough analyses of the subject contradict it.

It is ok to include it in the Pakistani views section, sort of as a scholarly endorsement of their views. Personally, I think Ziring's view may have merit, but since he doesn't provide any analysis for it, I can't say one way or another. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please desist from making this personal. I have no stake or nationality in this. I could say more about my interest in this subject, but you have already been unduly hostile. Even Chester herself said that the British departure was "hasty, ill-planned and extremely bloody."

It is inappropriate for you to make this about my views or your views. I am merely advocating for an accurate presentation of the spectrum of relevant views with due weight & emphasis. Nothing more. All I asked for was a single sentence acknowledging scholarly divergence of views. That is the point of having different sections for diverging views. Chester's views are not above disagreement and are just as susceptible to bias as anyone else's. They do have more weight since she produced a book based on research that has gained some citation, but that in itself doesn't make any views impartial. You quoted Talbot saying "Pakistan claims over Gurdaspur are unfounded." That is not the same as demonstrating zero manipulation. What is the citation for that?

Do you agree that the sections on views should be subsections (subheadings) of the Gurdaspur section? DaoDeDunce (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think I have been hostile, you are welcome to raise it at WP:ANI. This is not the place to discuss it.

Ian Talbot's statement, in the context where it is stated, does indeed mean that there was no manipulation of the Gurdaspur award. You are welcome to read the book.

In the face of all this, Ziring's unsubstantiated view doesn't measure up and counts as FRINGE.

On the second issue you have raised, no, I do not agree that the Pakistani views section should be integrated into the Gurdaspur section. It is an WP:OR summary of the arguments of lawyers, politicians and diplomats. It should be rewritten using scholarly sources. Only then can we consider it for inclusion in the Gurdaspur section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of enough consensus on this topic to call Ziring's statement FRINGE. All of the scholarly opinions are based on speculation as there are no reliable records. As we agree it belongs in the section on Pakistani views as a scholarly endorsement of their views, I will put it there. DaoDeDunce (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Dilpa kaur as i mentioned in my edit summary, can you clarify why you are engaging in edit warring behavior to spoil the ref improvements done to this article ? --DBigXray 08:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Team, If the issue here is too much of encyclopedic content for one article then you can always create new pages with the content and add a redirect on top of the section. There is no need to delete content. You can refer WP:SPLITTING and WP:PROPERSPLIT for the details. There is no need to delete encyclopedic content. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The immediate following of this line with "As a result of these partitions, some 14 million people left their homes..." implies that the line was drawn poorly. Are there any actual sources arguing alternative routes for the border, or is this essentially violating NPOV? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the line as well as the paragraph following it. Unfortunately, the page overlies on a book by a couple of journalists, for whom the partition appears to have been a drama. There are plenty of intelligent-sounding commentaries that are just sensationalising the issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Radcliffe Line between West and East Bengal, 1947.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Religious demography was the basis behind where the Radcliffe Line was drawn across the former Punjab Province.

There existed many areas in contention and this article specifically has dedicated sections for Lahore, Firozpur, and Gurdaspur - delving into the claims of all the concerned parties regarding which region would ultimately end up on the west and east of the line.

However, there is a near complete dearth of actual census data which was the most important basis by which the line was drawn. I would propose removing the 1901, 1911, 1921 and 1931 census breakdowns from tables which I earlier added, but keeping the 1941 census breakdowns.

The 1941 census was most pertinent to the Radcliffe Line in Punjab and the subsequent contentious and controversial boundary award regions as detailed in various sections in the article and already highlighted above. Van00220 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid that is WP:OR. Whatever demographic data is needed to understand this article has been already included in it, as covered in RS. Adding anything more would be WP:UNDUE. You can only add background info covered in RS dealing with the subject, viz., Radcliffe Line, not what you decide for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite follow how adding census data with a source could be interpreted as original research? The sections in question already cite some census data (see claims re. Firozpur, Lahore, and Gurdaspur). By that same measure, all sections that reference census data in this article must be removed.

Regardless, adding tables breaking down the 1941 census figures is pertinent to the sections in question. This was the main contention with all the concerned parties and does not contribute undue weight to the article as a whole.

The crearion of the line was premised on religious demography across the region. Adding tables which break down the demography of the regions in question can not contribute undue weight as it was the main reason for the existence of the line. Van00220 (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The present content presents the census data where the WP:RS do so. The map with green and pink districts has already been included to give an overview of the "religious demography". It is crystal clear and nobody ever contested it. Your concerns are entirely misplaced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Raw census data should be added in addition to the maps. How should this be rectified?

Further, the 1941 census is not cited in the Firozpur District section despite being a contested region as per the article. Van00220 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

When you say "Raw census data should be added", that is a quintessential WP:OR argument. That means that you know better than WP:RS. The Firozepur District section has not been written yet. It is Pakistani WP:POV at the moment. You are welcome to expand section using WP:RS. Mind you,

I shouldn't have to keep repeating 'WP:RS" so many times. It is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. If you don't respect the principles of Wikipedia, you shouldn't be here. That is my last post on this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your reason is behind arguing semantics here.

Regardless, when I mentioned "Raw census data should be added", it was with the understanding that it would be sourced and posted verbatim as per the source -- exactly as the graph under the Gurdaspur District section has been.

No original research and non-reliable sources are needed for that as I previously added the census source in the earlier edit. Van00220 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be sourced, but it may be irrelevant. Unless your sources are on the topic being discussed. adding such material constitutes "original research" (or WP:UNDUE). Since you haven't read any of the real sources, you don't even know what the issues were, and you are simply imagining that the issues were about data.But all the key players in the saga had all the data that you have. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is wholly relevant, as previously mentioned, the main premise behind the creation of line the religious demography (i.e. which community was in majority or not as seen on the map in the other section of the article) in granular regions (in this case, districts) across the province. The sections highlighting the concerned parties in the article delve into this issue -- refer to the claims regarding Lahore and Firozpur, for example.

At the time, the most recent data to draw from was the 1941 census. If adding a table breaking down the census results to each contested district in the section in question is not possible, I will instead add a "see also" wikilink at the top of each subsection covering the contested districts -- for readers to see a breakdown of the religious demography at the time that exists on each respective article should they wish. Van00220 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The Radcliffe Line#Pakistani view on the award of Gurdaspur to India sub-section contains three paragraphs talking about the views of Zafarullah Khan. In an article as condensed as this, three paragraphs (incl. one long and one long-ish) on a single individual seem heavily inflated and highly WP:UNDUE. Please trim down to one of medium length, at most. UnpetitproleX (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it is WP:UNDUE. Please feel free to condense it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have condensed it. But the "assessments" subsection right after it also needs work. It is badly written, unencyclopedic language ("Both Mountbatten and Radcliffe, of course, have strongly denied those charges") and some very dubious wordings in wikivoice ("tragedy of Kashmir"?) My guess is also that this might be a copyvio, but I haven't checked the source. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

tbh, much of this article is badly written. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Keep going! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The article is poor because most of the literature is made up of journalistic and pop-history books, which are all sensationalised. They say stuff like, Radcliffe knew nothing about India, he never visited any of the places he was dividing, he had impossibly little time to do his work, he locked uphimself in a cabin and talked to no one, etc. etc., all of which are fake claims. Radcliffe had worked in the India Office for a long time, he had a very good idea of what the issues were, and he already had Wavell's partition line in hand. There were two boundary commissions with four judges each, which held public hearings over several weeks, all of whose proceedings Radcliffe had studied. Moreover, he also gave detailed explanations of his reasoning in his report, which most of the commentators never even looked at. Even Read & Fisher, the leading source used in the article is quite wishy-washy.

This can only be fixed by removing all content sourced to journalistic and pop-history commentaries and relying on peer-reviewed sources only. But peer-reviewed sources on this topic are hard to come by. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)