Latest news with #LouisMountbatten
Mint
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
Congress, BJP lock horns over NCERT's New 'Partition' module: What is it and why the clash? EXPLAINED in 5 points
Delhi: Sparks flew between Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday over NCERT's new Partition module, which squarely points fingers at the Grand Old Party, Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and India's last Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, holding them responsible for the partition. While Congress fumed, demanding the module be scrapped—and even 'burnt'—the BJP shot back, and said that the "Rahul-Jinnah" party was upset about the truth coming out. NCERT's new modules about the India's Partition – one for the middle stage (Classes 6-8) and another for the secondary stage (Classes 9-12) – were released in August to mark Partition Remembrance Day. The material underscores that 'the Partition of India and the creation of Pakistan were by no means inevitable,' attributing responsibility to 'Jinnah, who demanded it; the Congress, which accepted it; and Mountbatten, who formalised and implemented it,' as per ANI. The secondary stage module notes, "None of the Indian leaders had experience in running national or even provincial administration, the army, police, etc. Hence, they had no idea of the massive problems that would naturally arise... Otherwise, such haste would not have been made." Congress leader Pawan Khera refuted the claims made in the book, further stating that the modules be 'burnt'. He further went on to say that 'if history has the biggest villain, it is the RSS," claiming that India's partition was because of the 'collaboration between the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League.' The BJP hit back at Congress for objecting to NCERT's new Partition module, accusing the opposition of being rattled because, as per him, the 'truth' has been brought out. BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia labelled the Congress as 'Rahul-Jinnah party' and alleged that Rahul Gandhi's worldview mirrors that of Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, mentioned a report by news wire ANI. Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) member secretary, Dr Om Jee Upadhyay in a video statement said, '..Partition was not a normal incident, but it is one of the most tragic incidents of history where 1.5 crore people were forced to cross boundaries...12-15 lakh people were brutally new generation should know the truth so that they can learn from it and ensure that such incidents don't happen in the future...I do not think that there is any factual mistake in the modules and nobody has pointed out any factual mistakes," reported HT. Seventy-nine years ago, when Britain withdrew from the subcontinent, its colony, India, was split into two nations—India and Pakistan, with East Pakistan later emerging as Bangladesh. The event which came along with India's independence, on August 15, 1947, also unleashed one of the largest upheavals in history, forcing around 15 million people from their homes and leaving nearly a million dead in waves of communal violence.
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Indian Independence Act 1947: The Final Step In Transfer Of Power
With India's 79th Independence Day just around the corner, it's a good time to revisit one of the most defining chapters in modern history: the Mountbatten Plan and the Indian Independence Act 1947. Together, these events reshaped the subcontinent and set the course for its future. The Mountbatten Plan was the final blueprint for the transfer of power from the British to the people of the subcontinent. Proposed by Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy, it sought to hasten the end of colonial rule in British India. Mountbatten arrived in India in March 1947. He announced the Partition Plan on June 3, stating that the British would transfer power to the Indian and Pakistani governments by mid-August that year. The announcement intensified violence, as uncertainty over the future triggered the largest forced migration in history. This plan became the foundation for the Indian Independence Act 1947, passed by the British Parliament on July 5, 1947, and granted Royal Assent on July 18, 1947. An official document dated July 18, 1947, called it, "An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for, other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those Dominions." The legislation provided for the creation of two independent dominions, India and Pakistan, effective from August 15, 1947. "As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan," the Act declared. Under the terms of the Indian Independence Act, the provinces of Bengal and Punjab were to be divided, creating East Bengal (later Bangladesh) and West Bengal, as well as West Punjab in Pakistan and East Punjab in India. "The Province of Bengal, as constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, shall cease to exist, and there shall be constituted in lieu thereof two new Provinces, to be known respectively as East Bengal and West Bengal," the legislation stated. While it heralded freedom, the plan was overshadowed by the immense human cost. The partition plan of 1947 triggered the largest mass migration in recorded history outside of war or famine, displacing millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and leaving a deep scar on the region. Today, the history of the Indian constitution traces its roots to this legislation, which formally dismantled the British and set the stage for the sovereign republics we know today.
India Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Jinnah's escape, Gandhi's struggle, Nehru's tryst: The last 24 hours of British Raj
It was August 14, 1947. The sun baked Karachi with a festive fury, casting long shadows across the thronging crowds as Lord Louis Mountbatten's plane touched down. The last Viceroy of India, sweating under his impeccable uniform, had a schedule tighter than a busy filmstar: swear in Muhammad Ali Jinnah as Pakistan's first Governor-General, deliver a congratulatory speech, and bolt back to Delhi before the clock struck midnight. But his pulse was racing faster than the clock because of a last-minute input: a plot to assassinate August 15British Prime Minister Clement Attlee intended to transfer power by June 30, 1948. But sensing the growing unrest and the real threat of violence between communities, Mountbatten decided the handover had to happen much sooner. When pressed for a date at a press conference, Mountbatten made a spontaneous decision. 'The date I chose came out of the blue,' he later admitted in his own words, as quoted in Freedom at Midnight. He wanted the act to feel decisive and under his control, showcasing he was 'master of the whole event.' As the dates whirred through his mind 'like numbers on a spinning roulette wheel,' he landed on August 15 was intensely personal: it was the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II, a pivotal moment linked to Mountbatten's own triumph as Supreme Allied Commander in Southeast Asia. The Allied victory and the announcement of peace was broadcast on August 15, 1945, just two years earlier. He felt this resonated as a symbol of a 'new birth in Asia,' transforming a military victory into a political Inauspicious Day August 15, 1947, was considered deeply inauspicious by Indian astrologers, a concern widely acknowledged in both historical accounts. The astrologers declared that August 15 fell on a Friday, which, according to their calculations, was a particularly unlucky day for significant new beginnings. That date coincided with the dark lunar fortnight (Krishna Paksha Chaturdashi) and was immediately followed by Amavasya, the new moon day, traditionally viewed as highly inauspicious for auspicious events like the birth of a warned that starting independent India's journey on August 15 could invite calamities. One prominent astrologer, as quoted by Lapierre and Collins in Freedom at Midnight, wrote to Mountbatten: 'For the love of God, do not give India her independence on August 15. If floods, famine and massacres follow, it will be because free India was born on a day cursed by the stars.'To address these strong sentiments, the Indian leaders devised a compromise: the official transfer of power took place at the stroke of midnight between August 14 and 15. This timing was symbolically and technically significant—while the Western calendar marked it as the beginning of August 15, in the Hindu calendar the new day (and thus, its inauspiciousness) began only at sunrise. As a result, holding the ceremony at midnight was seen as a way to sidestep the astrological dangers associated with the sunrise of August 15, accommodating both Mountbatten's chosen date and the astrologers' warnings.9:00 AM KarachiadvertisementA day before his arrival in Karachi, a CID officer had sent a chilling warning to the Viceroy: 'Sir, the plot is on.' According to the intelligence report, at least one and probably several bombs would be thrown at the open car scheduled to carry him and Jinnah through Karachi's streets the following morning (Freedom at Midnight).In Karachi's Constituent Assembly Hall, the air buzzed with electric anticipation. Mountbatten administered the oath to Jinnah, the gaunt, chain-smoking barrister who had carved a Muslim homeland from the Raj's crumbling empire. Jinnah, frail from tuberculosis but iron-willed, responded with a vision of unity: 'You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan.' But even as fireworks lit the Karachi sky and a 31-gun salute thundered, the jubilation masked the brewing the blood-soaked plains of Punjab, the narrative turned savage. As refugees fled in opposite directions–Hindus and Sikhs east to India, Muslims west to Pakistan–the roads became killing fields. Trains arrived at stations packed with corpses, throats slit, bodies mutilated in a frenzy of revenge. Canals in Lahore flowed crimson with blood and floating limbs, as bandits and extremists preyed on the vulnerable. The partition's toll? Up to two million dead, 15 million displaced—one of history's greatest forced Plot to Kill JinnahAs he sat through the speeches in Karachi, Mountbatten's heart raced: he feared risking his life for Jinnah, who had refused to cancel the 'victory parade' despite warnings of a plot to assassinate him.'A heart-stopping 31-gun viceregal salute followed them down the drive out into Karachi's streets. There, the crowds were waiting, the enormous happy, exulting crowds, a sea of anonymous faces concealing somewhere, on some street corner, at some turning, at some window ledge or rooftop, the face of the man who wanted to kill them. To Louis Mountbatten, it would seem in later years as though that 30-minute ride had lasted 24 hours.' (Freedom at Midnight)The motive behind the would-be assassination remained murky–religious extremists, political rivals, or factional enemies–but the threat underscored the fragility of Pakistan's birth. Jinnah's health, already precarious from tuberculosis, was burdened now by unseen foes lurking in jubilant The Mahatma's Desperate BattleFar from the pomp, in the sweltering slums of Calcutta, Mahatma Gandhi waged his own desperate battle. He had refused invitations to celebrations, sensing his place was not among politicians, but in the shattered city where Hindu and Muslim mobs had butchered neighbours frail frame leaned into the humid morning, his steps guided by prayer — slivers of hope in a city drowning in grief. Fasting once again, he occupied a modest Muslim friend's home, a quiet act of defiance and solidarity in a city scarred by August 14, as mobs bayed outside his residence, Gandhi stood at the window, one hand on his granddaughter's shoulder, the other on the unlikely ally Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Bengal's former chief minister and a past critic.'We must work until every Hindu and Muslim in Calcutta can return safely to their homes,' Gandhi implored the crowd. 'Our efforts will continue until our last breath.' Miraculously, the violence ebbed; for a fleeting moment, his moral force quelled the storm, proving that one man's hunger strike could starve out hatred where armies 3:45 PMThe Rolls Royce carrying Jinnah and Mountbatten meandered through a large crowd. On the balcony of an overhanging building, a CID officer watched, his hand tightening around a Colt.'A Hindu neighbourhood," Mountbatten told himself, this is where it will happen. For five agonising minutes, the cortege crept through those muted crowds along Elphinstone Street, Karachi's principal commercial thoroughfare. Almost all its shops and markets belonged to Hindus–embittered and frightened by the event their Moslem neighbours were celebrating. Nothing most harrowing drive of Louis Mountbatten's life was over.' (Freedom at Midnight)The plot, according to Collins and Lapierre, failed because the man assigned to throw a grenade as a signal developed cold feet at the last Delhi: 9 PMMonsoon clouds hung over Delhi with the patience of visitors expecting a spectacle. Inside 17, York Road, Jawaharlal Nehru gave final touches to his speech that was to become part of India's lore.A small religious procession, led by two seers, announced its arrival. The visitors were carrying holy water from the rivers of Tanjore, prasadam offered at a Nataraja temple in Madras, and a five-foot inside Nehru's bungalow, they sprinkled him with holy water, smeared his forehead with sacred ash, laid their sceptre on his arms and draped him in the Cloth of Nehru's mood quickly turned to despair. He had just been informed that Lahore was burning and water to the Hindu and Sikh quarters had been cut off in a dozen parts of the city.'Stunned, his voice barely a whisper, he said: 'How am I going to talk tonight? How am I going to pretend there's joy in my heart for India's independence when I know Lahore, our beautiful Lahore is burning?''(Freedom at Midnight)11:00 PM: The Tryst With DestinyNehru's car snaked through barricaded streets as sporadic gunfire cracked the tense night air. His British escorts scanned the shadows, and a whirlwind of emotions churned inside him. Memories of his rebellious youth, life in prison, and the relentless struggle against the British Raj flashed. His chest swelled with pride, and eyes brimmed with he stepped into the Constituent Assembly hall, Nehru could feel the excitement: flags fluttering, conch shells blaring like ancient trumpets. Back from Karachi, Mountbatten waited for the final ceremony marking the end of the British Raj in 11 PM, Nehru rose, his voice steady but laced with the weight of destiny: 'Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom.'Cheers erupted as the clock hit zero, the Union Jack lowered, and the Tricolour ascended the flagstaff. Fireworks exploded over the Red Fort, and crowds surged in ecstatic waves around the India Gate. Across India, temples came alive with prayers, chimes of bells. Freedom had arrived, raw and Nehru proclaimed: 'A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.'- EndsTune InMust Watch
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Why Pakistan's Independence Day Is Before India's: Story Behind The Dates
India is not the only country that celebrates its independence from British rule in August. While India commemorates independence on August 15, Pakistan, born out of the 1947 Partition, celebrates its Independence Day on August 14. History and circumstances are the reasons for the difference. The date of the Independence Day celebration was not always set in stone. Early in 1947, the Labour government of Britain appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten as the last Viceroy of India. He was charged with the responsibility of overseeing the transfer of power from British control to Indian hands. The transition was initially fixed for not later than June 1948. But increasing communal violence and worsening law and order compelled Mountbatten to advance the date to August 1947 with a view to hastening the British withdrawal. The British Parliament legislated on July 4, 1947, the Indian Independence Act, and it ordered that British rule would end on August 15, 1947. Two new nations, India and Pakistan, were born on this day. However, the exact borders between these two countries were not disclosed until August 17 to avoid unrest. Mountbatten later revealed that he selected August 15 in part simply because it happened to be the second anniversary of Japan's surrender at the end of World War II, a date which represented the conclusion of imperial conflict and not nationalist jubilation. Why, then, does Pakistan hold its celebrations on August 14? Pakistan's official papers and its founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, originally used the date August 15 to refer to the day of independence. But by 1948, Pakistan had moved its celebrations to August 14 for practical and symbolic reasons. The primary reason was based on the timing of the formal transfer of power ceremonies. In Karachi, the transfer occurred during the day on August 14, 1947. Mountbatten officiated the ceremony there before proceeding to New Delhi to officiate over the midnight ritual commemorating India's independence on August 15. Another rationale is that August 14, 1947, also coincided with the 27th day of Ramadan, a holy time in the Islamic calendar, and thus gave religious importance to Pakistan's selection. Pakistan has since celebrated August 14 as its Independence Day, though India retains August 15 as the date of freedom.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- 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
