THE Radcliffe Award that partitioned the subcontinent in 1947 continues to be questioned and criticised, long after all the actors of that drama have been laid to rest.

Cyril Radcliffe, the British judge behind the controversy, is the focal point of a brilliant play by Howard Brenton that was performed recently before packed houses at London’s Hampstead Theatre.

Those studying the events of that turbulent period tend to look at the words and actions of the central characters like Mountbatten, Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah.

Radcliffe has tended to be a reviled marginal figure who rushed through the complex task of dissecting the subcontinent in five weeks. In fact, he is viewed as a tool of British imperialism who was largely responsible for the poor deal Pakistan received in the final Award.

I saw Howard Davies’ stirring production of Drawing the Line online here in Sri Lanka, and am grateful to my friend Syra Vahidy for sending me the link, having seen the play in London. Hampstead Theatre made the play available for online viewing as it had sold out for its full run.

This is a trend I would like to see other theatres follow as there is a global audience for many London productions.

And while online plays lose the sense of immediacy, they have the advantage of giving their audience close-up views of expressions and details that you can easily miss, even if sitting a few rows away from the stage.

Brenton’s account of Partition is unexpectedly sympathetic to Jinnah (played by Paul Bazely), making the point that until 1946, he had been willing to accept a federal solution.

Nehru (Silas Carson) comes across as a manipulative figure who uses Lady Edwina Mountbatten (Lucy Black) to win Ferozepur for India by having the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten (Andrew Havill) bully and browbeat Cyril Radcliffe (Tom Board) into changing his mind over the crucial Punjab district at the last moment.

In the midst of this vortex of passions and calculated cunning is the hapless and sympathetic figure of Cyril Radcliffe.

A decent, upright man, he is all too conscious of his complete lack of knowledge about India and maps. In the midst of this critical task, he succumbs to ‘Delhi belly’, and has to rush to the toilet frequently. In his weakened state, he has to decide the fate of millions.

Radcliffe’s moral dilemma comes to a head when he is confronted by Mountbatten over Ferozepur and Calcutta: in Radcliffe’s original award, both were to go to Pakistan.

But the viceroy, told by Edwina that she would leave him unless he changed Radcliffe’s mind, confronts the judge in a tense scene, reminding him that Mountbatten represents the King, and Radcliffe’s Commission, despite its supposed independence, is ultimately answerable to the Crown.

Another intriguing point Brenton throws light on is the short timetable Mountbatten set for Partition. While Prime Minister Attlee gave him two years, he insisted the task could be completed in half that time.

This decision cost hundreds of thousands of lives as a rushed schedule did not allow enough time for proper security arrangements to be put in place.

Brenton speculates that Mountbatten shortened the timetable so that he and his wife could return to England early, thus breaking off her affair with Nehru.

Two other protagonists are Radcliffe’s secretaries, Rao Ayer (Nikesh Patel) and Christopher Beaumont (Brendon Patricks); the former strongly supports Congress, and hence fights for a better deal for post-Partition India, while the latter is a staunch advocate of Jinnah and the Muslim League.

Both constantly badger Radcliffe to agree to their opposing views.

When Radcliffe meets Nehru, he is very impressed by the suave, Anglicised Indian leader who goes out of his way to charm him.

Jinnah, on the other hand, is arrogant and abrasive. Gandhi, played in an oddly camp style by Tanveer Ghani, is adamant in his refusal to accept Partition, or have anything to do with the negotiations. Nehru does his best to persuade him to come down from his moral high horse, to no avail.

In a short, two-hour play, it is impossible to compress all the events into a dramatic narrative, but Brenton has done an excellent job, combining historical facts and fascinating speculation.

His interpretation of Radcliffe’s moral dilemma is supported by his decision to refuse his fees, and to burn all his notes and papers relating to the Award.

Years after the events of 1947, his secretary revealed that one evening, Mountbatten visited Radcliffe and had a one-to-one discussion with him, contrary to protocol.

Details are hazy, but it would appear that Edwina Mountbatten’s affair with Nehru affected more than three lives: millions of Indians were forced from their homes; hundreds of thousands were killed; and the history of two countries was irreversibly changed by the relationship.

Understandably, the Mountbatten family has been reticent about releasing any papers that might exist that throw light on the liaison.

Until that happens, Drawing the Line is probably the closest explanation we are likely to get to what the Radcliffe Award was based on.