Well I always thought about asking this question and kept forgetting. So was Radcliffe as innocent as he claimed or devious in his role as the one to draw the line partitioning India and Pakistan. Punjab was partitioned in a manner that the line passed though houses. One may forgive that but fertile areas and Sikh religious places were put on the other side. Major water and irrigation systems went there. I think the thought was that Kashmir would be taken by force later and the entire Indus water system would come to Pak control. No wonder the British army officers were integral part of the planning and execution of the first war. Ever since Britain was supportive of Pak position for a very long time. The other real thorny issue for me is the Chittagong Hill Tract. It never was a Muslim area but went to Pakistan. No logic or innocence there. It was a careful and well thought out plan. It cut of Indian eastern sector from the sea and left only a chickens neck as connectivity for India for its eastern region. If india had that area under its control, our north east would have been far better developed and strategically we could have a big naval base there as well as strategic depth against China. Add to this, India would have had claims on large oil and gas reserves in the area. My thought is that Radcliffe was not as innocent as he pretended and was well mandated to come up with a line with strategic calculations.