Dickie Bird Plan

The Dickie Bird Plan, also informally known as the Ismay Plan or Plan Balkan, was a preliminary proposal considered in 1947 during the final stages of British rule in India. It suggested that the provinces of British India should first become independent successor states and then decide whether to join a larger union or remain separate. Though never implemented, it represents an important transitional phase in the political negotiations leading to India’s independence.

Background

By early 1947, the British government faced increasing urgency to transfer power to Indian leadership. Communal tensions between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League had intensified, and the earlier Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) had failed to achieve consensus. In this context, Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, along with his advisors Sir Hastings Ismay and Sir George Abell, prepared an initial proposal that came to be popularly known as the Dickie Bird Plan.
The term “Dickie Bird” derived from Mountbatten’s nickname “Dickie,” while “Plan Balkan” was used informally to reflect concerns that the proposal would lead to the fragmentation of India into several small states, similar to the political divisions of the Balkan Peninsula.

Main Provisions of the Plan

The Dickie Bird Plan aimed to provide a quick and flexible solution to the constitutional deadlock. Its principal provisions included:

• Each province of British India—including Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Punjab, the United Provinces, and the North-West Frontier Province—would become an independent successor state immediately after British withdrawal.
• These provinces would be free to choose whether to join a Constituent Assembly for a future Indian Union, merge with another province, or remain completely independent.
• The plan did not make a clear distinction between British provinces and princely states, effectively allowing them similar autonomy in determining their political future.
• The British government would withdraw sovereignty without imposing a single constitutional framework for the subcontinent.

This structure granted maximum self-determination to regional units but raised fears of political disintegration.

Reactions and Rejection

When the proposal was presented to Indian leaders in April 1947, it met strong resistance. Jawaharlal Nehru, representing the Congress, rejected it outright, warning that it would lead to the “Balkanisation of India” by creating multiple weak and unstable states vulnerable to conflict and external influence.
The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, viewed it more favourably as it offered flexibility for Muslim-majority provinces to choose independence or union with Pakistan. However, overall political consensus could not be achieved.
Mountbatten, realising the lack of support and the potential for chaos, withdrew the plan before it was formally submitted to the British Cabinet.

Replacement by the Mountbatten Plan

Following the rejection of the Dickie Bird Plan, Mountbatten quickly developed a new and more practical proposal known as the Mountbatten Plan, which was announced on 3 June 1947. This plan directly addressed the issue of partition by providing for the creation of two dominions—India and Pakistan—along with guidelines for the division of assets, territories, and governance.
The Indian Independence Act of 1947, passed by the British Parliament, was based on this subsequent plan, which led to independence and partition on 15 August 1947.

Significance of the Dickie Bird Plan

Although the plan was never implemented, it holds historical importance as an early indicator of the challenges faced in decolonising India. It revealed the depth of political division and the difficulty of maintaining unity under diverse religious and regional pressures.
The plan is also significant for illustrating:

• The extent of British willingness to devolve power quickly.
• The apprehension among Indian leaders regarding political fragmentation.
• The evolution of Mountbatten’s thinking from decentralised independence to the structured two-nation solution.

Criticism and Limitations

The Dickie Bird Plan was criticised for several reasons:

• Risk of Fragmentation: It would have led to multiple small, potentially unstable successor states.
• Lack of Clarity: The proposal did not adequately define administrative continuity, defence arrangements, or economic integration.
• Absence of Consensus: It ignored the Indian National Congress’s insistence on national unity and a strong central government.
• Weak Governance Framework: The absence of a central authority would likely have resulted in civil unrest and disorder.