Cabinet Mission Plan

Cabinet Mission Plan

The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 was a crucial proposal by the British Government to discuss and finalise India’s constitutional future and to facilitate the transfer of power from British rule to Indian leadership. It represented one of the final and most significant attempts to maintain Indian unity while granting the country full self-government. The plan sought to reconcile the conflicting demands of the Indian National Congress, which desired a strong central government, and the Muslim League, which demanded a separate state for Muslims, ultimately leading to the formation of Pakistan.

Background and Context

By 1945–46, post-war Britain was under economic strain and facing strong Indian demands for independence. The failure of earlier initiatives such as the Cripps Mission (1942) and the Simla Conference (1945) had demonstrated the deep divisions between Congress and the Muslim League.
The Labour Government in Britain, led by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, decided to send a high-level delegation known as the Cabinet Mission to India to negotiate a constitutional framework acceptable to all major political parties.
The mission consisted of three senior British ministers:

  • Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India.
  • Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade.
  • A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty.

They arrived in India in March 1946 with the dual objective of maintaining India’s unity and ensuring a smooth transfer of power.

Objectives of the Mission

The Cabinet Mission aimed to achieve the following goals:

  1. To devise a constitutional framework for the transfer of power to Indian leadership.
  2. To maintain the unity of India while providing adequate safeguards for minorities, particularly Muslims.
  3. To establish a Constituent Assembly for drafting a new constitution.
  4. To form an interim government until the constitution came into effect.
  5. To find a compromise between the Congress Party’s demand for a strong central government and the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.

Proposals of the Cabinet Mission Plan

The plan, announced on 16 May 1946, outlined a constitutional arrangement that aimed to preserve Indian unity while recognising the country’s diversity.
The major provisions included:

  1. Formation of a Constituent Assembly
    • A Constituent Assembly would be set up to frame the Constitution of India.
    • The Assembly would consist of 389 members, of whom 292 would be elected from British Indian provinces and 93 from Indian princely states.
    • Members from provinces were to be elected indirectly by the provincial legislatures through proportional representation.
  2. Grouping of Provinces
    • The plan proposed the formation of three groups (sections) of provinces based on religious and geographical considerations:
      • Group A: Hindu-majority provinces – Madras, Bombay, United Provinces, Bihar, Central Provinces, and Orissa.
      • Group B: Muslim-majority provinces in the northwest – Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier Province, and Baluchistan.
      • Group C: Muslim-majority provinces in the east – Bengal and Assam.
    • Each group would frame its own constitution for its provinces and decide on subjects of common interest.
  3. Federal Union
    • India would remain a federation, with a weak central government controlling only foreign affairs, defence, and communications.
    • All other powers would rest with the provinces and groups, granting them substantial autonomy.
  4. Option to Join or Secede from Groups
    • Provinces were free to join or opt out of any group after the first elections and constitutional settlements.
  5. Interim Government
    • An interim government would be formed at the centre, comprising representatives from major political parties, to function until the new constitution was adopted.
  6. Union and Dominion Status
    • The Union would remain part of the British Commonwealth, and provisions for Dominion status were to be included.

Response of Political Parties

1. The Indian National Congress:

  • The Congress initially accepted the plan, viewing it as a step towards national unity and independence.
  • However, it objected to the grouping of provinces, fearing it could lead to fragmentation and eventual partition.
  • The Congress wanted provinces to have the freedom to decide their association with the groups.

2. The Muslim League:

  • The League, under Muhammad Ali Jinnah, first accepted the plan since it provided for groupings that could later lead to a federation with strong Muslim-majority blocs.
  • However, when the Congress rejected the compulsory grouping and insisted on provincial autonomy, Jinnah withdrew support and demanded Pakistan outright.
  • The League launched “Direct Action Day” on 16 August 1946 to press for Pakistan, leading to widespread communal violence.

3. The Princely States:

  • The princely states, though invited to join the Constituent Assembly, were cautious and non-committal, as they valued their autonomy and had no immediate desire to join either Congress or the League.

The Interim Government

Following the partial acceptance of the plan, an Interim Government was formed in September 1946 with Jawaharlal Nehru as Vice President of the Executive Council and Liaquat Ali Khan of the Muslim League as Finance Member. However, mutual distrust between Congress and League members rendered the government ineffective.

Failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan

Despite its balanced structure, the Cabinet Mission Plan failed to achieve its primary objective of maintaining India’s unity. The reasons for its failure included:

  • Irreconcilable differences between Congress and the Muslim League over the issue of grouping and the nature of the central government.
  • Distrust and communal polarisation, aggravated by the League’s Direct Action campaign and ensuing riots.
  • Ambiguities in the plan, especially regarding the powers of the groups and provinces.
  • Lack of enforcement mechanism by the British government, which was unwilling to impose a settlement on either party.

Ultimately, the plan’s failure led Britain to acknowledge that partition had become inevitable.

Consequences and Significance

The Cabinet Mission Plan holds immense historical importance as it represented the last major British effort to preserve Indian unity before partition. Its outcomes included:

  • The formation of the Constituent Assembly, which later drafted the Constitution of independent India (excluding Pakistan).
  • The collapse of negotiations between Congress and the Muslim League, accelerating the demand for partition.
  • The emergence of the Interim Government, marking the final phase of British rule.
  • The realisation of British withdrawal, leading to the Mountbatten Plan (1947) and the eventual partition of India and Pakistan.

Historical Evaluation

The Cabinet Mission Plan was a well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the conflicting national aspirations of Hindus and Muslims within a single Indian federation. While it offered a pragmatic approach to maintaining unity, deep political mistrust and communal divisions rendered it unworkable.
Historians view it as the turning point in India’s freedom struggle, where the failure of constitutional compromise sealed the path to partition. It nevertheless laid the groundwork for India’s democratic institutions by introducing the concept of a Constituent Assembly, which became instrumental in shaping the Republic of India.

Originally written on October 30, 2011 and last modified on November 5, 2025.

13 Comments

  1. Siddhartha

    July 25, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Very good work. there is no substitution for this. Thank you

    Reply
  2. [email protected]

    March 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    d

    Reply
  3. Rahul

    May 20, 2014 at 3:33 am

    Awesome work by gktoday. The best site for GK prep..!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  4. hristian

    June 14, 2014 at 12:39 am

    In some other references I found the total members in constituent assembly is 389. Out of the total 296 represent British India where 292 is elected by provincial legislature and 4 representing chief commissioner…
    This is little different then what is given in article. Please justify which one is the correct numbers of members representing the British India.
    As this is hot zone for the competitive exam, better take care.
    Thanks

    Reply
  5. suman

    November 5, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Total no in constitution assembly?
    No. From provinces?
    No. From British India?
    Union territories?
    Plz clarify………………..

    Reply
    • hristian

      January 15, 2015 at 6:52 pm

      Total – 389
      British India – 296 Out of which 292 members were
      . elected by the provincial Legislature
      . and 4 members represent Chief
      . Commissioner’s provinces.
      Princely State – 93 reserved.

      Reply
  6. Neeraj Karande

    January 18, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    Has anyone read 12th std history ncert(themes in Indian history part 3)?
    If yes, in the chapter 14-understanding partition, this mission is discussed on pg.389 and they hve mentioned the grouping to be compulsory, what does compulsory grouping means here? Does it mean that if permanently grouped, one cannot opt out of a particular section? Thanks in advance :)

    Reply
    • Shashwat Chopra

      June 21, 2016 at 8:08 am

      It means that there would be 3 groups irrespective of the fact that how many province join them. That is why it says grouping to be compulsory but provinces would have right to opt out. So a group starting with 6 province can go either way. It can have 6+ or 6- or 6 province at the end. As some province may end up leaving the group other may end up joining it.Also it goes further and says After first general election a province can come out of a group.After ten years a province can call for a reconsideration of group and union constitution.

      Reply
    • Shashwat Chopra

      June 21, 2016 at 8:49 am

      Sorry 3 sections ,not group. There would be 3 sections.

      Reply
  7. sdamre

    July 24, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    This article has errors. Finance was not named as an initial Union subject. Also, British Baluchistan was a Chief Commissioner’s Province with one to be named representative. It was not part of Group B. Why did the writer include it?

    “Thus, the Cabinet Mission plan proposed a weak Centre. We can realize what would have been of the country if this plan was approved and implemented.”

    No…you cannot realize because over time such a government would evolve and become stronger at the Center. It is not as though the Provinces could not or would not eventually cede more subjects to the Center. Subjects such as currency would have been ceded to the center. Nobody believes that each province would have had their own currency. The Indian National Congress and Nehru were just plain stubborn. No government can be perfect and strong from day 1. Those things evolve. And, in any event, you can bet that Group B would have ceded many subjects to the Center so Nehru would have got the same India as today plus in the worst case scenario the Muslim majority provinces would have been part of the country even if it was with autonomy. Better than three wars and the problems in J & K plus all of the bad blood and animosity. A common defense, common transportation, external affairs..Cabinet Mission Plan was fine…INC was the problem…not the Muslim league.

    Reply
    • anitesh

      January 7, 2017 at 9:27 pm

      Hey dude.why you are blaming INC.The idea of common centre was first introduced in rajagopalachari plan (Congress leader)where they actually put forward proposal of comon center between India and Pakistan for defence,ext.affairs,and communication.but Jinnah turned out this plan.He was a problem.Have you know about it ? Have confirm knowledge then give your opinion.

      Reply
  8. sanyam jain

    August 28, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    whats is the difference between province and state..when we are talking about different govt of india acts..

    Reply
  9. Ahmad khan

    July 29, 2019 at 9:25 pm

    plx if anyone tell me what was the openion of INC and ML over the proposals of cabinet mission, there is confusion
    one said that ML league accepted the statements and INC partially accepted plx help me

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *