Talk:1946 Cabinet Mission to India

Very confusing

@Anupam and LearnIndology: I need your help. This article is very confusing. I came here to understand what a neutral platform like Wikipedia states about Cabinet Mission, compared to what I learned growing up. However, lots of things are unanswered here.

1. What was gonna happen to the princely states?
2. Why the Hindus in the Congress thought partition was a better option? Rather than have the mission succeed?
3. What powers did the groups had?
4. How would the 3 groups interact with each other?
5. How would the group be beneficial to the common man?
6. Did the provinces have the power to leave the Indian union?
7. Would a united subcontinent been able to last with a government that had a weak center?
8. Pros and cons of the mission plan, etc.

Lots of things are unanswered, I want to hear your thoughts and guidance before I research and expand this article. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this page is essentially a stub. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say anywhere that "Hindus in the Congress thought partition was a better option". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I was using common sense and ground reality. The partition happened, but the mission plan did not. Also tbh, I was making the assumption based on the fact the Hindus in Congress clearly took the partition over the mission plan. The existence of the partition and the failure of the mission plan shows they might have had a higher degree of preference, IMO. So, my question was based on that. Also, if you have references on why the partition was taken and mission plan rejected, I would appreciate it. I want to use it for future expansion of the article. So others are not confused as I was. Also, when you have time, if you have sources and opinions on my other questions I listed, so we can improve this article for future readers, I would be sincerely grateful (the lack of any talk page discussion on this very important page is very concerning). Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The Mission Plan was never firmly rejected. But after the Direct Action Day, the communal violence reached such endemic proportions that the Mission Plan became impractical and irrelevant. All the top bosses thought, naively, that partition would cure the communal problem. Little did they know! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue of provinces

There are many interconnected issues entangled in the Cabinet Mission Plan. But perhaps it is best to focus one key element of it, viz., the issue of which provinces would go where. The CMP had stated clearly which provinces would go where: the present day Pakistan provinces (with undivided Punjab) would go to Group A. Bengal and Assam would go to Group C, and the remaining provinces would go to Group B.

Congress called it "compulsory grouping" and was opposed to it. In their view, Assam did not want to go into Group C and NWFP did not want to go into Group A.

So the Mountbatten version of the plan, which was called 'Plan Balkan' by his own staff, said there would be no compulsory grouping. All the provinces would initially become "independent" and then they would be free to join whichever group they wanted to, or even to remain outside them. Kulke and Rothermund called it 'opting in' rather than 'opting out'. Evidently the result of this could have been Balkanisation. Mountbatten's Plan Balkan also envisaged that Punjab and Bengal would decide in two halves how to 'opt in' or not. (In fact, Mountbatten anticipated that Bengal might decide to stay joint and 'opt out' of grouping.) So it is unlikely to have please Jinnah either.

According to Luscombe & Fernando, V. P. Menon had opposed the Plan Balkan. "He particularly opposed the notion that the provinces should initially become independent. If the plan were finally accepted, he said that he would resign." (Menon was a big shot in Wavell administration, but he appears to have been sidelined by Mountbatten.) Lady Mountbatten had heard about it, and arranged for him to go to Simla where it was expected that Nehru and Mountbatten would discuss the Plan Balkan in some form.

Menon had formulated a separate plan on the basis of Dominion status. It seems to have meant, "transfer power to two 'interim governments'; two constituent assemblies could carry on their work, but have a kind of 'super-government' in the shape of a common governor-general, with joint control of defence, external affairs and communications, and parity of representation between the Muslim League and the Congress and its allies in the committee which took decisions on these three subjects."

Neither the Plan Balkan nor the Menon Plan was fully published. We only have bits and pieces from here ane there. But it gives you an idea of the amount of juggling that was involved.

What became of the Menon Plan in Simla is what we finally have. He might have planned for one Dominion with two governments. But we ended up with two Dominions. He thought defence, external affairs and communications would be centralised, but they got devolved. Mountbatten did think there should be a common governor general till the constitutions were formulated. But Jinnah vetoed that later on.

But what nobody expected is that Colonels Akbar Khan and Sher Khan would soon launch invasion of Kashmir and everything would fall apart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Continuing discussion

Kautilya3, these are some fantastic sources and content. I can't thank you enough. My the questions are:

1. What powers for the groupings does the Muslim League wanted?
2. What was to happen to the princly states?
3. Would a united subcontinent been able to last with a government that had a weak center?
4. How would the 3 groups interact with each other?
5. How would the group be beneficial to the common man?
6. Did the provinces have the power to leave the Indian union?

After, I plan to add this information based on what you provided to me with your guidance. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that I didn't really write much about the Cabinet Mission Plan, only about what happened in 1947 (more than a year later) to cause the decision for partition. But to write about the Cabinet Mission Plan itself, Kulke and Rothermund would be an excellent source. An old edition of the whole book is available online somewhere.

My impression is that the Muslim League didn't seriously negotiate on grouping. Their demand had always been for 'Pakistan' with five full provinces. If there were enough concessions made, they might reluctanty say yes, but they would only try to wreck it from the inside. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I might add that Ayesha Jalal disagrees with this view. She believes that Jinnah only used 'Pakistan' as a negotiating ploy, but his main objective was to achieve parity of power for Muslims at the Centre. But she doesn't say that the group level was regarded as the 'Centre' by Jinnah at any time. I think that in the Muslim League view, which ever level controlled the Army was the 'Centre'. That is where parity was needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that info Kautilya3, I am busy with work, since we have a certain pandemic going around the world. But, I will use this info you provided me to expand this article hopefully soon. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, your mass revert of my addition in mainspace was uncalled for. I would have been more than willing to work with you as explained in the comment above and my edit summary. But you mass reverted me once again. You did this before in Hunza, and now you did it again. You could have informed me to correct myself here on talk page by tagging me if there were issues, and those could have been worked out. You even reverted an edit of mine done weeks ago which was just a minor correction.[1] This is not acceptable. You go from being reasonable and collaborative to aggressive and uncooperative at the drop of a hat. Next time explain your issues on the talk page, I am within reason, I am not abusive or arrogant towards you. I have been nothing but respectful to you. Please cooperate and it doesn't hurt being kind to a newer editor. Kindly restore this edit at least.[2] If you have an issue with that small edit, explain yourself. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave 3 reasons in my edit summary, which it looks you haven't read. But the text you added was almost verbatim what I wrote above. So, please don't act like you have been hard done. It sounds silly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Sources

• Gupta, Partha Sarathi; Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (2002), Power, Politics and the People: Studies in British Imperialism and Indian Nationalism, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-067-9
• Jalal, Ayesha (1994) [first published 1985], The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4
• Jalal, Ayesha (2002), Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-134-59937-0
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India (Fourth ed.), Routledge
  • Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998), A History of India (Third ed.), Routledge
• Luscombe, Stephen; Fernando, R. P. (2012). "V. P. Menon - The Forgotten Architect of Modern India". britishempire.co.uk. Retrieved 21 January 2019.

History

Their main members 182.189.62.180 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Abandone gabinete osion forma de soldier de stores.com buldin 186.2.159.94 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sst

Cabinet mission 37.111.189.238 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)