
'Iran's Grand Strategy': Understanding the Islamic Republic
Iran's modern history is complicated. The rule of the authoritarian Reza Shah was ended in 1941by an allied invasion to secure Iranian oil fields and a major route for Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union. In 1943, the Allied Tehran Declaration guaranteed Iran's post-war independence and sought to create a constitutional monarchy under young Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Political instability followed. In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq's popular nationalization of the British-owned oil industry triggered the Abadan Crisis culminating in a joint US and UK orchestrated coup in 1953, managed by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt. Mosaddeq, who was arrested and tried for treason, was replaced by the Shah who returned from a brief exile.
Under the Shah, Iran evolved into an autocracy aligning itself with American and the West. The SAVAK, the notorious Iranian secret police, relied on arbitrary arrests, torture and killings to maintain the Shah's reign in the face of increasing opposition, led by the clergy, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had been exiled in 1964. The 1978 Revolution overthrew the absolute monarchy replacing it with the current Islamic Republic.
Vali Nasr's Iran's Grand Strategy examines the evolution of Iran since the 1979 revolution. It follows books such as Michael Axworthy's 2014 Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic and Laura Secor's 2016 Children of Paradise: The Struggle for the Soul of Iran.
Axworthy's meticulous history revealed the Republic's surprising modernity. It showed the country's highly educated workforce and technological capabilities, despite sanctions, in weapons manufacture, including its nuclear program, and for political manipulation and surveillance. Secor's coverage of religious thinkers, politicians, activists and writers provided an affecting picture of Iranians. It showed the competing forces of Westoxication, a term coined by Jalal Al-e-Ahmad signifying self-loathing worship of the West, and national pride in the values of the Revolution. The books revealed the Iranian clerics' unexpected wide reading including Marx, the Frankfurt School and French de-constructivists. The late Ayatollah Khomeini once defended his repressive rule in terms of Greek political philosophy: 'As Aristotle and Plato argued some men are born to govern, others to be governed, a few are aware, and the rest are sheep'.
Nasr argues that Iranian geopolitics is less driven by ideology than assumed. Instead, policy is shaped by the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq, which killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions and nearly destroyed the economy consuming two-thirds of the country's income. Khomeini likened his acceptance of the ceasefire with Iraq to being forced to drink poison.
The war confirmed the regime's mistrust of America, which supported Iraq in the war. It reinforced the fear of US-led regime change replacing the Islamic Republic with the Shah's descendants or other system. Vali Nasr downplays the role of Western powers in Prime Minister Mossadegh's overthrow. Other historians have argued that most Iranians saw the Shah as a Western puppet and resented the contribution of the US and the UK in returning the Shah to power after the coup. Iranian concern about a repetition of 1953 was one factor behind the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 which has colored the relationship between the two countries since.
These pressures underlie Iran's calculated and pragmatic 'grand strategy of resistance'. Khomeini and his successor Ali Khamenei understood Iran's weakness especially its lack of conventional military capabilities which was difficult to overcome due to a weak economy and international isolation. Rather than exporting revolution, Iran sought to oppose American hegemony and, optimistically, outlast and exhaust the US and its allies in order to preserve the Republic.
The strategy relied on rallying Iranians with a mixture of nationalist and revolutionary ideas alongside a careful military strategy, mainly devised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The latter involved forward defense and creating Iran's 'Axis of Resistance'. It involved sponsoring state and non-state actors in the Middle East, such as Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian Alawite regime, the Houthis in Yemen as well as engaging opportunistically with other often short-lived groups. The idea was that these elements, aligned with Iran but simultaneously pursuing their own domestic aims, would distract and occupy its enemies and assist with its defense if needed.
In parallel, Iran began building up its military capacity including drones, missiles and cyber warfare. The controversial nuclear program was designed to secure deterrence and strategic leverage through ambiguity. Institutions like the military and defense scientists became crucial to Iran.
The strategy was flexible. Iran's agreement to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action allowed it to maintain its missile program and preserve strategic gains with the ultimately failed objective of obtaining relief from Western economic pressures. They pursued diplomatic initiatives such as the reconciliation with Saudi Arabia in 2023 and growing links with Russia and China.
The approach faced rising pressure after President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and increased sanctions. Israel with the support of the US and Gulf states assassinated key military officers (most notably General Qasem Soleimani in 2020), scientists and influential figures as well as launching cyber-attacks on its nuclear facilities.
Iran's Grand Strategy covers events up to November 2024 and ends before the 2025 Iran war.[1] Israel attacked Iran on 13 June 2025 marking a significant escalation. Subsequently, the US joined the hostilities using its B2 stealth aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran suffered civilian casualties as well as the death of key Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists. Nuclear facilities were damaged although the extent is unclear. The fate of Iran's highly enriched uranium is unknown. The subsequent ceasefire, imposed by the US, is predicated on the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities and remains fragile. Israel and the US have not renounced a resumption of attacks.
The attacks confirmed Iranian perceptions. There were suspicions that the US used sham negotiations and manipulated a crucial report by the IAEA, the UN nuclear oversight body, to provide cover for the attacks. It highlighted Western hypocrisy on nuclear weapons given Israel's well-known atomic arsenal. It reinforced the view that American policy sought to maintain the Jewish state's military advantage and, at a minimum, cripple Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made no secret of his desire for regime change in Tehran. US willingness to deploy its military assets on the side of Israel in support of its territorial and hegemonic ambitions was noted.
Iran's future approach remains uncertain. The Republic and its proxies are weakened. Even before the 2025 attacks, the Gaza war had already degraded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime fell in December 2024.The Iranian leadership has limited options but the basic tenets of its strategy, which are linked to the survival of the Republic, are unlikely to change.
Iran, which retains nuclear expertise despite the targeted killings of its scientists, has not indicated abandonment of its programs. Given the continuing threats it faces and the knowledge that the US and Israel would not have dared attack if it possessed nuclear armaments, it might now be tempted to weaponize. It is likely to move its program underground. Iran has stopped cooperation with the IAEA and may withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The '12-day war' illustrated that the Jewish state is vulnerable to Iranian missiles and needed extensive US support and intervention. Tel-Aviv cannot, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted, sustain a war of attrition. Iran may seek patiently to rebuild its capabilities and proxies. It might seek to garner support, both political and military, from China, Russia and its Gulf neighbours who increasingly mistrust the US and Israel.
The risk is that the US and Israel back Iran into a corner. Military strategist Sun-Tzu cautioned against pushing an opponent to the point of no return: "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard." The West arrogantly ignores that a desperate enemy is a dangerous one. Suffering and martyrdom based around the persecution of believers is a key theme of Shiite Islam shaping its theology and political visions. In the war with Iraq, Iran sent children to walk across minefields to clear paths for their soldiers.
Nasr's makes the point that the West's understanding of Iran is inadequate and outdated. Sun-Tzu stressed the need for knowledge: 'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.' As US and its allies' interventions from Vietnam onwards have demonstrated, there is an inability to see the world other than from a Western perspective and a tendency to underestimate under-equipped, weak and determined opponents.
The confrontation with Iran began seven decades ago and is not over. Iran remains a complex challenge which unless a negotiated modus vivendi can be reached will cause a major conflagration.
[1]For an update on the developments see Vali Nasr's article for Foreign Affairs https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/new-balance-power-middle-east-iran
This piece draws on material first published at The New Indian Express and nakedcapitalism.com.
Satyajit Das is a former banker. He is the author of numerous works on derivatives and several general title: Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006 and 2010), Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (2011), A Banquet of Consequences RELOADED, and Fortune's Fool: Australia's Choices (2022)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
Direct Action Day: Spark That Triggered Communal Violence During Partition
The streets of Calcutta (now Kolkata) witnessed one of the bloodiest communal riots in India's pre-independence era. On August 16, 1946, a day now remembered as Direct Action Day or the Great Calcutta Killings, Bengal descended into days of brutal bloodshed, shattering hopes of unity and plunging the province into chaos. The violence was the result of a volatile political atmosphere at the time. Direct Action Day Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League, demanding a separate homeland for Muslims called Pakistan, declared August 16 as Direct Action Day. Their goal was to increase pressure on the British colonial rulers to concede to their demand for a religiously divided India. The call urged Muslims to suspend all business and show their collective strength. Bengal was a particularly sensitive region. It had a Muslim majority but was also a hotbed of political rivalry, with a Hindu-dominated National Congress, the Communist Party of India, and the Hindu Mahasabha vying for influence. The communal divide deepened further as notions of nationalism became entangled with religion. Indian identity began to be equated largely with Hinduism, and Muslims felt alienated. The Great Calcutta Killings 1946 The morning of August 16 carried ominous sentiments. Voices like " Larke lenge Pakistan" (We'll fight to get Pakistan) and calls for brutal retaliation were heard. The violence was savage and indiscriminate. Members of both communities, armed with swords, knives, cleavers, guns, and metal rods, murdered each other in cold blood. Scores of innocent people were killed, and many more were wounded. Hundreds of Muslims bore the brunt of the killings, but the brutality affected both sides. Eyewitness accounts would later reveal the horrific nature of the violence. Gopal Pantha, a contested figure in history, recounted, "... if we heard one murder has taken place, we committed ten more... the ratio should be one to ten, that was the order to my boys," as per The Quint. Another witness, Jugal Chandra Ghosh, described seeing four trucks loaded with dead bodies stacked three feet high, with blood and brains oozing out. The Idea Of Pakistan The roots of this violence trace back decades. The 1905 Partition of Bengal had already sown seeds of division by creating a Muslim-majority province, which sparked a joint Hindu-Muslim protest but also laid the foundation for communal politics. The formation of the Muslim League in 1906 further politicised religion, while continuous riots in Calcutta between 1918 and 1930 worsened tensions. The idea of Pakistan took shape over decades before the Partition, beginning with the Muslim League's formation to protect Muslim political interests. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal proposed a self-governing Muslim-majority region, and in 1933, Cambridge student Choudhry Rahmat Ali coined the name "Pakistan" in his pamphlet 'Now or Never'. It was an acronym for - P unjab A fghania (NWFP) K ashmir I ndus-Sindh Balochi stan. The demand became a political goal with the Lahore Resolution of 1940, calling for independent Muslim-majority states, ultimately leading to the Partition in 1947. The British government's Communal Award in 1932, which granted separate electorates to minorities, worsened divisions. Mahatma Gandhi opposed this move, fearing it would fracture Indian society irreparably. In the 1946 provincial elections, the Muslim League secured 114 seats while the Congress got 86, cementing the call for Partition.


The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Military biographies: a matter of heroes and overlapping history
V.K. Krishna Menon, India's defence minister before and during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, was not a popular figure with the service chiefs, who nicknamed him 'God Almighty' for his overbearing ways. Not particularly fond of Gen. Thimayya (Timmy), Menon sought the opinion of Major General Sam Manekshaw on Thimayya. Sam, outspoken and articulate, replied, 'Sir, as a junior officer, we are not permitted to express an opinion on a superior officer. We respect our seniors and we have no two opinions on it.' In his book on Thimayya, An Amazing Life (KW Publishers), Brigadier C.B. Khanduri writes about this innocuous but pivotal conversation that kickstarted a political storm leading to Thimayya's resignation, which he later retracted. Biographies on Indian military leaders from different eras reveal overlapping spaces in history. For instance, Khanduri's book mentions how Timmy's recommendations on China were ignored by Menon, leading to India's debacle in 1962. On the other hand, Arjun Subramanian's book Shooting Straight (HarperCollins) begins the career story of Lt. Gen. Rostum (Rusty) Nanavatty after the 1962 conflict. Nanavatty was commissioned at the end of the war, a few years after Timmy's career ended and at a time when a demoralised national leadership was undergoing a catharsis. Subramaniam highlights a letter written by the young Lieutenant Nanavatty who is remarkably unsparing in his criticism of the leadership for its foibles in the war. Inflection point The author deftly uses the letter to bring out the fearlessness in the young officer's thinking. In a way, Subramaniam's narrative in Shooting Straight is a consequential document about the war's impact on young Indians. The stories of Timmy and Rusty are from different Indias — separated by the war of 1962 as the inflection point. Wedged between the two eras is the post-war decade after 1971. On one hand, the wars of the 1960s were over and on the other, the insurgencies of Punjab and Kashmir of the 1980s hadn't yet arrived. Air Chief Marshal Idris Latif was an Air Force Chief during this period in the late 1970s. His wife, Bilkees Latif, in her book on her husband The Ladder of His Life (KW Publishers), reminisces about an important dimension of the question of choice during Partition in 1947. Soon after the Partition was announced, Latif, then a young air force officer, was goaded by another Muslim officer leaving for Pakistan to join him. To the officer's opinion that Pakistan was a land for Muslims, Latif replied, 'You must be joking; what has religion got to do with nationality? I'm an Indian, born in Hyderabad, you know — and not the Hyderabad in Pakistan!' He even advised the departing officer to stay, insisting that the Indian Air Force would be a better choice. Latif followed in the footsteps of Brigadier Mohd Usman who chose India over Pakistan. The story of Latif, who rose to become India's first Muslim Air Chief, is emblematic of the secular culture of India's military. Past, present, future Typically, biographies provide a framework to situate events in the context of a nation's journey. Military biographies assign signposts on the time-trajectory in a country's history, especially in India, where the journey post-independence has been a progression from early existential struggles to assertions of identity. By exploring the paths of these protagonists, the biographies seek to capture the cultural impressions, personalities, choices, and help contextualise judgements on these characters. In the case of Nanavatty, peeling away his personality helps reveal his versatility. Like the tenure in Sri Lanka in the 1980s, when para commando units were sceptical of Nanavatty's role as a commander but grew to respect his initiative, wholeheartedness and an ability to lead from the front. Subramaniam's writing, lucid and accessible, aided by the protagonist's painstaking notes, brings out the clarity in Nanavatty's thinking, which underpinned his career philosophy. Khanduri writes about Timmy as a committed and vocal personality who commanded a larger than life presence. He carried the legacy and impressions of a colonial army, and oversaw the transition during post-independence nation-building, before the era of wars in the 1960s. Nanavatty, on the other hand, was the archetypal infantryman who believed that victory is measured by the proverbial 'foot', and whose spartan measures set a high bar in tackling 'dirty' insurgencies of the 1990s. Complex journeys The biographies of Timmy, Latif and Nanavatty help us understand the personalities and the road taken by each. While Timmy's life is set in a time of tussles within the government, Latif played a key role in the modernisation following the 1971 war, including the replacement of old Canberra aircraft and the induction of Jaguars, all the while working with two different Prime Ministers of different political parties. Subramaniam's work on Nanavatty reveals the general's approach in more complex security challenges than the other two — which involved the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka and the insurgency in Kashmir. The three narratives collectively depict how the Indian armed forces have evolved since independence to the nineties. The three books delve into the nuances of military leadership, particularly with the stakeholders — political or military. All three were straight shooters in their approach, but differed on their styles. While Timmy could be vocal and confrontational, Latif managed the political leadership adroitly, while Nanavatty, by the 1990s, had adopted a pragmatic approach. Despite these three eminently readable books and a recently republished biography of Gen. Srinagesh (Commanded by Destiny/Penguin Books), military biographies are rare in India. Many belong to an era of World Wars, when accounts were documented and information was archived better. Sadly, within this thin historiography, several books suffer from abysmal writing or hagiographical accounts. One wishes to see more critique of the protagonist in accounts. In his book, Subramaniam reminds us that objective biographies of military leaders, especially those whose careers reached a pinnacle in the 1980s and 1990s, are rare, which makes Lt. Gen. Nanavatty's book both relevant and unusual. At the level of perceptions, military biographies in India run the risk of being mistakenly assumed to be technical accounts of a closed community. In a country where the military has had a major role to play in its history, a diminished understanding robs readers of an essential part of history defined by its characters. India needs more biographies that provide a lens to understand people and past events, and their influence upon the present. Probal DasGupta is a columnist and author of Watershed 1967. He is working on his next book, to be published this year.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
How a British judge divided India and Pakistan in just 5 weeks
In 1947, India and Pakistan were split by a man who had never seen the subcontinent before. Sir Cyril Radcliffe had just five weeks to draw borders that would change millions of lives forever. The result? A rushed line that caused mass migration, bloodshed and decades of conflict Refugees crowd onto a train as they try to flee India near New Delhi in September 1947. Some 15 million people crossed new borders during the violent partition of British-ruled India. At times, mobs targeted and killed passengers travelling in either direction; the trains carrying their corpses became known as "ghost trains." File Image/AP Seventy-eight years ago, on August 15, 1947, British India was split into two new sovereign nations — India and Pakistan — marking the end of over three centuries of colonial rule. But independence did not come with clarity. Instead, it came with confusion, panic, and heartbreak, as the land was hastily through a boundary whose foundations were drawn up in less than six weeks by a man who had never visited the region before. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The border that would divide one of the most diverse and densely populated regions in the world, affecting millions of lives, came to be known as the Radcliffe Line. It marked the end of British India and the beginning of two new nations: a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan (which later split into Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1971). But the hurried nature of this division continue to define the politics in the region nearly eight decades later. Why was the partition of India rushed? By the end of World War II, Britain was financially and militarily depleted. The colonial administration in India was becoming increasingly untenable amid growing nationalist unrest. Large-scale violence during the August 1946 communal riots had raised fears of a civil war. While the British had initially set a deadline of July 1948 for their withdrawal, the urgency to leave escalated. Map speculating on a possible division of India from The Daily Herald newspaper, June 4, 1947. Image/Wikimedia Commons The timeline was advanced by a full year, and Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India, announced in June 1947 that independence would be granted in August of that same year. Mountbatten's announcement of partition into two dominions — India and Pakistan — did not come with clarity on where the dividing lines would lie. The task of determining those borders fell to an English judge who had never studied, written about, or even visited India: Sir Cyril Radcliffe. Who was Cyril Radcliffe, why was he chosen? Radcliffe was a barrister with no prior connection to India. On July 8, 1947, he arrived in the country for the first time — just over a month before the date set for independence. He was assigned to chair two boundary commissions, one each for the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, which were to be divided due to their mixed religious demographics. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Cyril Radcliffe also served as the first chancellor of the University of Warwick from its 1965 foundation until 1977. Image/National Portrait Gallery, London The reasoning behind his selection was based on his presumed impartiality. His lack of familiarity with Indian politics and geography was seen as a virtue, under the logic that someone with no personal or political bias could be trusted with an even-handed decision. However, his lack of local knowledge quickly became a liability. Radcliffe himself acknowledged the limits of his capabilities and the near-impossible task at hand. In a 1971 interview with journalist Kuldip Nayar, Radcliffe recalled how close he had come to assigning Lahore to India before being warned that Pakistan would be left without any major urban centre if that were to happen. He told Nayar, 'The time at my disposal was so short that I could not do a better job. However, if I had two to three years, I might have improved on what I did.' Despite recognising the enormity of the task and his unsuitability, Radcliffe accepted the assignment out of a sense of duty. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By August 12, just five weeks after he began, he submitted his recommendations to Mountbatten. He departed India the very next day and never returned. Notably, he refused to accept payment for his work after learning about the communal violence that erupted. How were the India-Pakistan borders decided? Radcliffe was instructed to draw the borders based on religious demographics — primarily the distribution of Hindus and Muslims — but was also told to factor in 'other considerations.' These additional variables were never clearly defined but are believed to have included infrastructure, such as irrigation networks and railway systems, as well as economic and administrative viability. Map 'Prevailing Religions of the British Indian Empire, 1909' Key: Pink Hindu Green Muslim Diagonal lines Sikh (small area in Punjab) Yellow Buddhist (Burma and Chittagong Hill Tracts) Blue Christian (Goa) Purple Animist (several inland hilly areas) The Andaman islands are not mapped. Image/John George Bartholomew - The Imperial Gazetteer of India, Oxford University Press, 1909. The ambiguity surrounding these considerations meant that Radcliffe had immense discretionary power. He was not only tasked with dividing land but with drawing a line through the hearts of communities, districts, and even families. His decisions, although aided by local legal advisers — two each from the Congress and the Muslim League — were ultimately final. With Radcliffe holding the deciding vote in each commission, his judgement became the basis for the creation of two nations. The job was made more difficult by the complex demography of the subcontinent. In provinces like Punjab and Bengal, there was no overwhelming religious majority. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Populations were mixed at various administrative levels — districts, tehsils, towns, and even villages. The Punjab Boundary Commission saw conflicting claims. The Muslim League insisted on the inclusion of Lahore, Multan, and Rawalpindi, and laid claim to areas such as Ferozepur, Jullundur, Amritsar, Ambala, and Hoshiarpur based on the principle of contiguous Muslim-majority regions. The Congress, meanwhile, argued that Hindu and Sikh economic dominance in certain areas like Lahore and Gurdaspur should tilt the decision in India's favour. The Akali Dal, representing the Sikhs, also lobbied hard, focusing on control over canal systems vital to agriculture. A discussion on the partition of India involving (from left) Jawaharlal Nehru, vice president of the interim government; Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, counsellor to Lord Mountbatten; Lord Mountbatten, India's viceroy; and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, president of the All India Muslim League. In Bengal, the challenge was even greater. The border here was nearly six times longer than in Punjab. Religious and political loyalties were deeply entwined with economic and cultural realities. The Hindu Mahasabha also added its own voice. Radcliffe was so pressed for time that he could not even attend key public hearings in Lahore, remaining instead in Bengal to complete his assignment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Ultimately, Punjab was split into East Punjab (India) and West Punjab (Pakistan), while Bengal was divided into West Bengal (India) and East Bengal (Pakistan, later Bangladesh). The provinces of Sindh and Balochistan, being Muslim-majority, were awarded entirely to Pakistan with minimal contestation. What happened after the partition? The consequences of Radcliffe's lines were immediate and catastrophic. Over 10 million people were displaced in the months that followed, as Hindus and Sikhs fled Pakistan and Muslims moved toward Pakistan from India. This migration, unlike any before it, was marked by brutal violence, massacres, and sexual violence on a horrifying scale. Indian soldiers walking through the debris of a building in the Chowk Bijli Wala area of Amristar, Punjab, during unrest following the partition. File Image/AFP Estimates suggest that between 200,000 and one million people were killed during the mass movement. Thousands more died from disease and starvation in refugee camps. Women were especially vulnerable; tens of thousands were raped, abducted, or mutilated, regardless of religious identity. Families were torn apart, homes were abandoned, and entire towns were emptied of their original populations. The postal services, military divisions, currency systems, and civil administrations of what had been a unified colony had to be split almost overnight. While Punjab saw much of the immediate bloodshed, the consequences of partition in Bengal were drawn out over decades. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Waves of refugees from East Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, continued arriving in West Bengal well into the late 20th century. By 1981, it was estimated that one in every six people in West Bengal was a refugee, significantly impacting the state's population density, economy, and political dynamics. A refugee special train at Ambala Station during the Partition of India. Image/Govt of India The issues faced by these displaced populations — landlessness, job insecurity, communal tensions—continue to affect the region today. In many ways, the legacy of Radcliffe's border-drawing still dictates the demographic and political challenges of the eastern part of India. In the words of Lord Mountbatten, 'For more than hundred years you have lived together… My great hope was that communal differences would not destroy all of this…' But communal differences did indeed fracture the unity. The line drawn by the English judge with little knowledge of the subcontinent created a wound that has never fully healed. What happened to Kashmir? While the Radcliffe Line dealt primarily with British provinces, princely states — semi-autonomous regions under local rulers — were allowed to choose which nation to join. Among them, Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region ruled by a Hindu Maharaja, became the most contentious. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Maharaja's decision to accede to India after independence was met with outrage in Pakistan. This triggered the first India-Pakistan war in 1947-48 and sowed the seeds for a dispute that continues more than seven decades later. A battery of Indian army artillery guns fire at the positions of Islamic guerillas in the Dras sector of Kashmir, June 1, 1999. File Image/AP Four wars, multiple skirmishes, and enduring political hostility between the two countries all stem from the unresolved status of Kashmir, a region whose fate was influenced by the same hasty decisions that defined partition. What is Radcliffe's legacy? Radcliffe returned to Britain after submitting his report and remained largely silent about the partition for the rest of his life. He passed away in April 1977, having never revisited India. He knew the consequences of his work were tragic, and he was reportedly deeply affected by the human cost that followed. In this September, 27, 1947 file photo, Muslim refugees crowd onto a train bound for Pakistan, as it leaves the New Delhi, India. File Image/AP According to a poem written about him and countless historical analyses, Radcliffe's line has been seen as a tool of fate, determining the identity and destiny of people with clinical indifference. "…He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect, But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect…" - an excerpt from British-American poet Wystan Hugh Auden's 'Partition'. His decisions have been the subject of intense historical scrutiny. Many scholars argue that the Radcliffe Line is among the most arbitrary and unscientific international borders ever drawn. To understand the borders of India and Pakistan is to confront one of the most tragic chapters in the history of the subcontinent. As generations grow up hearing tales of the freedom struggle, it is equally important to remember the stories of those who lost homes, families, and lives because of a line. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies