What's new

In 1947 two muslim countries should have been created!

I just became a member of the Indian Defence Forum and am amazed at the restrictions placed on discussion and debate there. There are no Pakistani contributors there and it is likely that I will soon get thrown out of that forum for simply criticizing India. I think Indians on this forum get too much scope to write moronic comments without any reasoning. Flintlocks last contribution neatly fits that description. The Indians here and on IDF appear to fear open discussion and debate. So much for your democratic credentials.
 
I just became a member of the Indian Defence Forum and am amazed at the restrictions placed on discussion and debate there. There are no Pakistani contributors there and it is likely that I will soon get thrown out of that forum for simply criticizing India. I think Indians on this forum get too much scope to write moronic comments without any reasoning. Flintlocks last contribution neatly fits that description. The Indians here and on IDF appear to fear open discussion and debate. So much for your democratic credentials.

Please, do explain why Chittagong Hill Tracts is an "Integral" part of B'desh.

I am not responsible for IDF and the IDF is not responsible for anything on this forum. I fail to understand the relation between my comment, and the policies of IDF towards its members.
 
Last edited:
I take from your comments Flint that you agree then that the districts of Guradspur and Ferozepur were awarded incorrectly to India.

However you argue that the award was offset by the CHT award in Bengal to East Pakistan. I disagree with the connection, since the partition of Bengal had its own complexities and political and religious dynamics, but there were reasons behind the award that cannot be justified in the case of Gurdaspur and Ferozepur.

Some information on the award of CHT to East Pakistan - the most notable argument made in favor of the award is the condition of contiguity - with CHT not being contiguous with West Bengal. Also note that the status of CHT as part of Bengal (ignoring partition) was and is undisputed by both sides, hence the necessity of remaining with Bengal (East or West), with the contiguity condition resulting in its award to East Pakistan.

I am not familiar if any other Muslim districts were adjusted similarly, perhaps Munshi sahib can enlighten.
However, the Tracts were regarded as having an intimate physical and economic association with East Bengal and no proper communication links with Assam, thus Sir Radcliffe awarded them to Pakistan (see document 22). The Punjab was another area of dispute. Sikhs made up a large proportion of the population in this area and had important historical and religious associations with it. Tara Singh, a leader of the Sikhs, demanded a separate Sikh state if partition was to go ahead. This came to nothing and the Punjab was divided on the basis of majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims as well as other factors like administrative viability, natural boundaries, and communication, water and irrigation systems (see document 23). Sikhs migrated into the Indian Punjab where the claim for a separate Sikh state was to be renewed immediately after partition.

Confidential
The Awards of the Boundary Commissions

Minutes of a meeting held at Government House, New Delhi at 5 p.m. on Saturday, 16th August.

Present

Viscount Mountbatten of Burma - Governor-General, India. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru - Prime Minister, India. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan - Prime Minister, Pakistan. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - Home Minister, India. Mr. Fazlur Rahman - Minister of the Interior, Pakistan. Sardar Baldev Singh - Defence Minister, India. Mr. Mohammed Ali - Cabinet Secretary, Pakistan. Rao Bahadur V.P. Menon - Secretary of the States Department, India. Lt. Col. V.F. Erakine-Crum - Conference Secretary to the Governor-General of India.

1. The meeting considered the awards of the Boundary Commissions, copies of which had been given to the Ministers after the Joint Defence Council meeting that morning.

Bengal

2. Pandit Nehru said that he had never considered that the allocation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to East Bengal was possible under the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission. Eminent lawyers had confirmed this point of view. These Tracts were an excluded area, and were not represented in the Bengal Council. He and his colleagues had given assurances to petty chiefs from the Chittagong Hill Tracts who had come to see them, that there was no question of the territory being included in Pakistan. The population of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, though small (approximately ¼ million) was 97% Buddhist and Hindu. There was not the least doubt that the people themselves would prefer to form part of India. On religious and cultural grounds, the Chittagong Hill Tracts should form part of India. Sir Cyril Radcliffe had had no business to touch them.

3. The Governor-General explained the reasons why Sir Cyril Radcliffe had included the Chittagong Hill Tracts in East Bengal. He emphasised particularly the economic ties which bound Chittagong District and the Hill Tracts together. He stressed the importance to Chittagong Port of the proper supervision of the Kannaphuli Ariver, which ran through the Hill Tracts.

4. Mr. Fazlur Rahman gave his opinion that the Chittagong Hill Tracts could not exist if separated from Chittagong District. In his view, the allocation of these Tracts to East Bengal was unquestionably permissible under the terms of reference. In fact the "contiguity" clause of the terms of reference would not have permitted their allocation to West Bengal.

5. The Governor-General said that it had been Sir Frederick Burrow's view that the whole economy of the Chittagong Hill Tract would be upset if they were not left with East Bengal. However, he had confirmed that Sir Frederick had not expressed any view on this matter to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, so he could not be said to have influenced the decision.

6. The Governor-General suggested the possibility of a compromise whereby the upper waters of the Karnaphuli would be protected through the allocation of a strip of territory on either side of the river to East Bengal, while the administration of the rest of the Hill Tracts would be undertaken by India.

7. This was not considered a satisfactory solution by either party. Pandit Nehru's view was that India should undertake the administration of the whole territory; a strip on either side of the river allocated to Pakistan would cut the territory in two. If the Chittagong Hill Tracts were given to India, an agreement between the two Dominion Governments, whereby Pakistan would obtain all desired facilities, could well be made.

8. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan said that he could not consider any suggestion of an adjustment in this territory alone. The awards of both Commissions must be looked at as a whole. If this was done, it would be found that Sir Cyril Radcliffe had completely ignored the fundamental basis of his terms of reference. Moreover, the Chittagong Hill Tracts were the only source of hydro-electric power in East Bengal.

9. The Governor-General then suggested that the two Governments might agree on an exchange of territory, whereby the Chittagong Hill Tracts would go to India and some predominantly Muslim area which had been allotted by the Commission to India would go to Pakistan.

10. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan emphasised that the awards of the Commissions, taken as a whole, had been so unfavourable to Pakistan, that he could not consider any minor modification only, such as had been suggested.

11. Mr. Fazlur-Rahman protested strongly against the allocation of the Districts of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri to India. In his view, Sir Cyril Radcliffe had violated the basic principle of his terms of reference in making this decision.
 
Another excellent posting by Agnostic Muslim. My own clarification on the issue can be found in the second edition of The India Doctrine. I do not want to give away too much on its contents right now.

I just discovered that I have been banned from IDF after only 1 day of posting on that forum. The Indians on PDF have it really easy.
 
Another excellent posting by Agnostic Muslim. My own clarification on the issue can be found in the second edition of The India Doctrine. I do not want to give away too much on its contents right now.

I just discovered that I have been banned from IDF after only 1 day of posting on that forum. The Indians on PDF have it really easy.

Don't Pat yourself on the back Mr. Munshi. I am well aware of the circumstances of the transfer of CHT to B'desh. I was expecting you to justify it, but instead you chose to rhetorically claim that it was an "integral part of Bangladesh."
This indicates clearly that it is you who is unwilling to engage in meaningful debate on this forum.
 
If it going to cause so much anguish & acrimony, why are we discussing all this ?

In any case it is not going to change anything. I feel that this forum helps to bring people from both sides a little closer mentally with a few jibes exchanged here & there which is natural given our past.

There is no need , I feel to take any comments so personally so as to come to " blows". None of us are school boys fighting for points for our house.

Having said your piece, we should withdraw. It isn't necessary to always have the last word.
 
Pretty much confirms that the awarding of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur was done in violation of the instrument of partition.

Nope....it explains the circumstances as well as the suspicions of the Pakistanis and Indians. It doesn't prove any foul play.
 
Nope....it explains the circumstances as well as the suspicions of the Pakistanis and Indians. It doesn't prove any foul play.

The author attempts to be an apologist for Mountbatten, and somehow gloss over his influence in changing the award by suggesting 'other factors', and how Pakistan should have just accepted these 'other factors', instead of being so 'sensitive' about the lack of adherence to the rules laid out for the partition line.

Coupled with Owen Bennet Jones's account of what transpired between Mountbatten and Sir Cyril, it is clear that the award was incorrect.

Cactus:

I agree with you that what is done is done. Pakistan is not arguing for a return of this territory or any such thing, but the errors made by those determining the history of the two countries need to be pointed out nonetheless.
 
The author attempts to be an apologist for Mountbatten, and somehow gloss over his influence in changing the award by suggesting 'other factors', and how Pakistan should have just accepted these 'other factors', instead of being so 'sensitive' about the lack of adherence to the rules laid out for the partition line.

Coupled with Owen Bennet Jones's account of what transpired between Mountbatten and Sir Cyril, it is clear that the award was incorrect.

Well certain territories which strictly should have gone to India, were awarded to Pakistan, so both sides had to compromise in some way or the other.
 
Well certain territories which strictly should have gone to India, were awarded to Pakistan, so both sides had to compromise in some way or the other.

Certainly possible, but in this case the 'factors' being considered, despite the main conditions being met (contiguity and Muslim majority), are weak.

Take for example the argument that the Maharajah of Buner threatened to accede to Pakistan if the head-works were awarded to Pakistan - why should that have played a part in awarding the area? It indicates that Mountbaten was fine with the Maharaja acceding to India, but was willing to violate the rules he was involved in formulating in order to ensure he did not accede to Pakistan.

However in the case of Kashmir, awarding Gurdaspur to India was essential o ensure that India had a 'link' to Kashmir, allowing for the Maharaja there to have a 'choice'.
 
The author attempts to be an apologist for Mountbatten, and somehow gloss over his influence in changing the award by suggesting 'other factors', and how Pakistan should have just accepted these 'other factors', instead of being so 'sensitive' about the lack of adherence to the rules laid out for the partition line.

Coupled with Owen Bennet Jones's account of what transpired between Mountbatten and Sir Cyril, it is clear that the award was incorrect.

Cactus:

I agree with you that what is done is done. Pakistan is not arguing for a return of this territory or any such thing, but the errors made by those determining the history of the two countries need to be pointed out nonetheless.

AM,

It is possible that what we refer to as errors made by those at the helm in '47 were a part of a deal / package that may have been agreed to by the parties involved. Lets just give the devil his due since he / they are not around to explain and move on.

Moreover, what happened then is important but what I feel is of greater relevance is what we are doing now & how prepared are we as nations of the Sub Continent for the days ahead.

We as a generation have lived a life of animosity & distrust in our region as did our fathers. Must the next generations also go thru the same ?
 
To Quote Goethe:

America, you are luckier
Than this old continent of ours;
You have no ruined castles
And no volcanic earth.
You do not suffer
In hours of intensity
From futile memories
And pointless battles.
Concentrate on the present joyfully!
And when your children write books
May a good destiny keep them
From knight, robber, and ghost-stories.
 
I think if the British wished to partition South Asia in a just manner and wanted to leave behind them a truly peaceful settlement they should have granted Gurdaspur and Ferozepur to West Pakistan. To East Pakistan they should have granted all the muslim majority areas to East Pakistan. Then comes the matter of princely states. For that they should have considered the populations of the princely states. If Hindu majority, their maharajas or nawabs should only have the options to either join India or remain independent. If Muslim majority, their nawabs should only have the options to either join Pakistan or remain independent. For example Hyderabad state was completely landlocked and surrounded by India and had a Hindu majority so it was not feasible that it joined Pakistan, similar was the case with Junagadh with one exception that it was not landlocked and very close to West Pakistan. But Kashmir must have joined Pakistan. Also the British should have taken into account the other minorities as well like Sikhs and Christians. The Punjab which they were giving to India must have been divided between the Hindus and Sikhs. And the Punjab given to the Sikhs should also have been made a seperate Sikh country. Similarly the Christian populations in the East of India should have been granted a homeland of their own. That would have been a very just partition of South Asia.:)
 

Back
Top Bottom