× Close
Transfer of Power

There was already a plan for Akhand Bharat in 1946 – and India's founding fathers rejected it

If Akhand Bharat was as desirable as BJP’s General Secretary Ram Madhav claimed in a recent interview, why did the Congress reject the united India promised in the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan?

Of the many controversies Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ram Madhav sparked with his interview to Al Jazeera on December 26, the least unexpected was his statement that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh believed that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should unify into a super state. “The RSS still believes that one day these parts which have, for historical reasons, separated only 60 years ago will again through popular goodwill come together and Akhand (united) Bharat will be created,” Madhav said..

Politically uniting the subcontinent into one entity has long been a cherished goal of the Hindutva movement. Even Vinayak Savarkar, who was an explicit supporter of the Two Nation Theory never, unlike Jinnah, spoke of Partition (although his conception of India had Muslims “play the part of German Jews”). Nevertheless, any practical conception of a united subcontinent has eluded its supporters. In fact, in the summer of 1946, a year before the British transferred power, a constitutional scheme for a united subcontinent was keenly pushed by the Raj and hotly debated by politicians ­– but in the end was firmly rejected by India’s founding fathers.

The Cabinet Mission Plan 

This constitutional scheme is known to history as the Cabinet Mission Plan, uninspiringly named so because it was led and drafted by three members of the British cabinet. After two centuries of holding onto India, the British, greatly diminished by World War II, were desperately looking to get out. This three-member team was, therefore, entrusted to find a way to transfer power into Indian hands. The delegation arrived in India in March 1946 and set about talking to Indian politicians of all stripes. After a grueling month of discussions, the Mission was ready to make some suggestions.

The way it saw things, there were only two options to transfer power. The first was to partition British India into a sovereign India and Pakistan (which – spoiler alert – was what happened eventually). Partition, however, was much disliked by the British, who wanted to keep India united and preferably in the Commonwealth in order to best maintain its influence even after its formal exit. It was obviously disliked by the Congress, which was still opposed to splitting British India. Somewhat surprisingly, given his strident demands for “Pakistan”, the partition plan was also rejected by Jinnah, who called it “definitely unacceptable”. Consequently, Partition as an option, was dropped by the Cabinet Mission.

Three-tiered federation of united India

That left the other option, which was a united India. Declared on May 16 1946, the final scheme proposed by the Cabinet Mission took great care to explicitly point out that is was rejecting a sovereign Pakistan. It proposed a three-tiered federation, with British India’s provinces split into three groups which correspond roughly to present day India, Pakistan and a combination of Bengal and Assam. The plan was very close to what the Congress had wanted from the Cabinet Mission during its negotiations, rejecting Muslim League proposals which wanted “parity” (or equal representation) between Hindu and Muslim provinces at the Centre. The Congress had bitterly opposed this – Gandhi has called parity “worse than Pakistan” – and the Cabinet Mission had agreed, simply dividing seats in the central legislature by population.

The one point in the Cabinet Mission Plan which went against the demands of the Congress was the concept of grouping provinces. The Plan had included it as a concession to Jinnah, since in the Eastern and Western groups, the Muslim League could dominate, which would, to some extent, balance the domination of the Centre by the Congress. Groups would come together and frame separate constitutions. These constitutions could be reviewed after a decade and a province could even leave a group if it so desired, after its group constitution had been framed. This was important in one particular case, Assam, a Congress-ruled province which feared domination by Bengal, which had a Muslim League government. This rule meant that Assam could opt out of its group. And while provinces had the right to leave a group, they did not have the powers to secede from the union, thus strengthening the Centre.

Tug o’ war

Initially the Congress accepted the plan, as did the League. In spite of the formal acceptance, the Congress was, however, displeased at how little power the Centre would have. Limited by the terms of the plan, the Centre only had jurisdiction over defence, foreign affairs and communications. Moreover, the grouping of the provinces provided a hard limit to the powers of the Centre.

On July 10, 1946 these concerns of the Congress emerged publicly in the form of a press conference by Jawaharlal Nehru, the newly elected President of the party. Dropping a bombshell, he announced that the Congress did not think it was bound by the terms of the plan and especially spoke against the idea of grouping provinces. As a response, the League also withdrew its earlier acceptance.

United India in the balance

Any conception of a united India now lay on life support. United India was always going to be a fine balancing act but this almost open war between the Congress and the League had already made it a very unlikely proposition.

For the next six months, there was bitter legal battle over the comatose body of united India. The Congress argued that grouping was not necessary in the Cabinet Mission Plan’s scheme. The League disagreed – it contended that grouping was vital, the “very guts” of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan, according to Jinnah. In the end, on December 6, 1946, the British came down on the side of the League and announced that grouping was indeed a core part of the Cabinet Mission Plan.

Congress chooses Partition

Faced with an ultimatum, the Congress had to make a choice. It could either accept the Plan as a whole, with grouping and a weak Centre – and keep India united. Or it could press for Partition. After vacillating for a few months, as anarchy mounted all around, the Congress chose Partition.

On March 8, 1947, the Congress for the first time formally asked that the Punjab be divided along communal lines. The Congress also supported the Hindu Mahasabha’s demand for a partitioning of Bengal. Given the Congress’ long history of batting for a united India, there was obviously opposition to this. The tallest Congressman in Bengal, Sarat Chandra Bose (Subhas Bose's elder brother) opposed the partition of Bengal. In a letter to Valabhbhai Patel, sent on May 27, 1947, Sarat Bose wrote, “Future generations will, I am afraid, condemn us for conceding division of India and partition of Bengal and the Punjab”. Bose disagreed with the Congress’ reading that the masses wanted Partition. “It is not a fact that Bengali Hindus unanimously demand partition,” he argued. “The demand for partition is more or less confined to the middle classes”.

Regardless of Bose’s opinion, at this stage, though, the Congress high command was convinced that Partition was the only way out. The final Partition plan was drawn up by a Malayali civil servant close to Valabhbhai Patel, VP Menon, and was accepted by the Raj, who, at this stage, didn’t really care what happened to India, as long as they got out immediately.  Jinnah was opposed to this Partition plan and legally argued that since the Cabinet Mission Plan was dead, technically an earlier 1942 constitutional plan, called the Cripps’ Mission, now be activated (which envisaged a transfer of power to the provinces and no Centre at all). The Viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, however, brushed aside Jinnah’s objections and went ahead and announced the Partition plan on June 3.

The right thing

Did the Congress do the right thing? Should it have given up the Cabinet Mission Plan and, with it, a dream for a united India? Some historians as well as, notably, Indian constitutional law expert HM Seervai have argued that the Congress acted in bad faith in rejecting the Plan.

While the intricacies of that historical debate are relevant, also pertinent is to look at what impelled the Congress' actions. One reason is obvious: the Congress' urge to gain power, which is often cited as some terrible flaw, but is simply the raison d'être of a political party. In 1960, Nehru told Leonard Mosely, "We were tired men and we were getting on in years too...the plan for partition offered a way out."

The other more relevant issue here is for us to consider whether the Cabinet Mission Plan and its intricate system of three-tiered federalism would have been workable, or would simply have been a source of constant conflict after the British left. An Akhand Bharat of Ram Madhav’s dream would be the largest country on Earth with a population almost 20% more than China’s today. How feasible would administering this mega population be? How much of energy would simply be spent in managing the issues that would arise out of this sheer size and how much time would remain to ensure that the people of the subcontinent develop?

Akhand Bharat is impractical

Right now India itself is struggling to offer the basics of existence to its current population. India’s infant mortality is worse than Kenya’s and Botswana’s.  In 2008, 43% of Indian children under the age of five were underweight. The corresponding figure for Somalia was 32% and for Rwanda it was 11%.

If in 1946, India’s founding fathers thought that grouping provinces of British India would be too chaotic then how anarchic would getting three sovereign nations into an “Akhand Bharat” be? Can India even afford such fanciful thinking given that it is yet to offer even a basic quality of life to its people? Akhand Bharat is fine, as long as its existence is limited to Saffron-coloured maps that the RSS pastes on its walls. In the real world, Akhand Bharat is simply too impractical to even consider.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BULLETIN BY 

45% consumers purchase financial products online according to our survey. Here’s why

How one of the last bastions of offline transactions is rapidly moving online.

With flight bookings, shopping and buying movie tickets all moving online, it was only a matter of time before purchasing financial products followed suit. In fact, with greater safety, better user interfaces, simpler processes and of course, busier lives, many Indians are opting to buy financial products like insurance and bank deposits online and on-the-go rather than at a bank branch.

We conducted a survey among 150 consumers in 4 metro cities (Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore and Ahmedabad) and 2 tier-II cities (Indore and Bhopal) to understand the financial products Indians are buying online and their needs.

The market for financial products still has huge potential for growth with 29% respondents reporting that they owned no financial instruments. Insurance is without a doubt the most widely owned financial instrument for Indians. Nearly half the sample—45% of the respondents—reported investing in insurance. Apart from that, around 27% invested in bank deposits like Fixed and Recurring Deposits and only 13% opted for mutual funds, 13% bought stocks, and just 10% took home loans. While many people still consume financial products only at their bank branches, a large number have started seeking financial information and buying financial instruments online.

The shifting tide

We found that 45% of the survey respondents bought financial products online, indicating that a large chunk of Indians is trusting the internet to manage something as sensitive as their financial investments. It is clear that Indians value the distinct advantages of transacting online. Convenience is an integral part of the experience—60% of those who bought financial products online felt that convenience played an important role in choosing to purchase online. Multiple aspects of convenience resonate with buyers—over 40% felt that the availability of 24/7 services and the ease of comparing different products from drove them to buy online.

However, findings also reveal some concerns that even tech-savvy Indians have with the online medium.

Security is king

Understandably, security is a key factor for buyers of financial products. Even among the 45% who purchased financial products online, almost half felt that the lack of security prevented them from buying more financial products online. Tellingly, the most commonly bought financial product online is general insurance. It has to be bought (in the case of travel) or renewed (in the case of car insurance) regularly and quickly, which is easier done online. It also doesn’t require the submission of too many personal documents—another­ factor reported by many as a barrier to online purchase of financial products.

To overcome these security concerns, many companies are taking concrete steps to improve the online security of their portals. They are setting up SSL security systems that encrypt and protect the user’s data and payments and are educating customers on how to recognize online payment scams. Thus, people are slowly moving towards buying high involvement financial items like life insurance as well online.

The human factor

Research is a crucial part of the buying process, and most buyers seek information from multiple sources. While research for several consumer products like electronics and furniture has moved online even if purchase is offline, financial products have been slower to move, especially due to the need for expertise. From the sample, 55% rated talking to financial consultants and advisors as very important. Similarly, 55% rated advice from friends and family as very important.

As is evident, while the world is going online, there is something to be said for the familiarity and comfort of human interaction. Even online buyers value non-digital channels of communication. Of those who bought financial products online, 25% felt that visiting bank branches was important, 30% felt that recommendations from friends and family was important, and 33% felt that discussing it with financial advisors was important.

However, we find that online forums and aggregators are also gaining in terms of people using them to research products. According to a BCG report, search queries on life and health insurance have grown 4.5 times from 2008 to 2013, showing that digital is certainly influencing the research part of the buying cycle. Many life insurance companies and banks have caught on to this trend and are finding ways of making customer service executives available online through chat facilities on their portals. Additionally, companies are also investing in a better online user experience by designing their websites to be simple, attractive and easy-to-understand, so that the process of purchase becomes easier for customers.

When it comes to buying insurance, finding an appropriate plan is not an easy process. Life insurance companies are using technology and algorithms to overcome these human biases with innovative products like life insurance calculators. An example of this is the HDFC Life insurance profiler which simplifies the process of choosing an insurance plan. A person can enter five to six parameters and get an objective opinion on the best insurance plan suited to his or her time and status in life.

HDFC Life Insurance has also taken detailed note of its customers’ requirements as they move towards the digital age. Its product website has been designed to ensure consumers feel secure and well attended to when transacting online. All payment gateways have SSL security and are ISO 27001 certified to ensure optimum security. Additionally, to facilitate easy query resolution, it offers an online chat function along with co-browsing where a user can give control of her or her system to the chat executive so that details can be filled in for them. To solve for the barrier of document submission, HDFC Life even allows users to submit documents through e-mail or upload files on Google drive in place of hard copies. Easy e-KYC facilities allow for the Aadhar card and address proof to be uploaded online to quickly verify identity. To find the right insurance plan for yourself and experience the innovative services that the organization has to proffer head to their insurance profiler to start your journey towards buying a life insurance plan.


This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of HDFC Life and not by the Scroll editorial team.

× Close