There was already a plan for Akhand Bharat in 1946 – and India's

founding fathers rejected it

Shoaib Daniyal

Transfer of Power

If Akhand Bharat was as desirable as BJP’s General Secretary Ram Madhav

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

1/8
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.

2/8
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.

3/8
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.

Support our journalism by contributing to Scroll Ground Reporting Fund. We welcome your comments at
[email protected].

Respond to this article with a post

Create a post
Photo
Video
Audio

startup culture

As India’s tech startups boom, so does its venture capital industry

With bets paying off, domestic investors’ risk appetite is increasing.

4/8
 Money Sharma/AFP

The growth of India’s tech startup has not only mainstreamed entrepreneurship but also led to a boom in
the local venture capital industry.

The top 10 Indian venture capitalists have participated in nearly 600 funding rounds and backed over 420
ventures in just the last 30 months.

The most active among the bunch has been Mumbai-based Blume Ventures, which participated in 91
rounds between 2019 till July this year, data from market intelligence platform Tracxn show. The 10-year-
old firm – launched by Karthik Reddy and Sanjay Nath, both consulting professionals who were former
members of the angel investing network Mumbai Angels – currently has 57 companies in its portfolio,
ranging from sectors such as e-grocery, online pharmacy, logistics and ed-tech.

Considering Blume Ventures has backed around 145 startups in its lifetime, the majority of these have
been in the last two years.

Matrix Partners India, founded in 2006, follows Blume Ventures in the Indian venture capital industry with
86 deals and 55 portfolio companies, according to Tracxn. Matrix’s investing experience dates decades
back though since it’s the Indian arm of an American venture capital founded in 1977....

Read More

Respond to this article with a post

Create a post
Photo

5/8
 Video
Audio

Video

LITERARY TRIBUTE

Why those who believe in the ancient civilisations of South Asia must read
Robert Calasso’s books

Writer, scholar and publisher Roberto Calasso died in Milan on July 28.

Roberto Calasso | Screenshot via Vimeo / Tracce.tv

“Between the conquering Aryas and the Buddha: a thousand years and not a single object. Not a
stone, not a seal, not a city wall. Wood: burned, rotted, decayed. Yet the texts speak of paintings
and jewels. Immensely complex metrics – and the void. One thousand and twenty-eight hymns
collected in the Rig Veda. Not a trace of dwelling. Rites described in the most meticulous detail. Not
a single ritual object that has survived. Those who glorified the leftover left nothing over
themselves, except what was filtered through the word.”

— From 'Ka', by Roberto Calasso.

What distinguished Roberto Calasso, the rare writer-scholar, was not his infinite knowledge of myth and
history, but how his sight cut through to what is centric in them, indicating the constellations that form a
civilisation’s way of seeing. Ka is a monumental accomplishment, a retelling of the Hindu myths of origin

6/8
and more, passing through stories, the Vedas and arriving finally at the Buddha. A compressed and
illuminated book....

Read More

Respond to this article with a post

Create a post
Photo
Video
Audio

The Daily Fix

At 75, will India return to the divisive logic of Partition? Plus six other Sunday
reads

Seven must-read pieces for the weekend.

Shipping containers are stacked at the Red Fort ahead of Independence Day to prevent the possibility of infiltration. |
Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters

At 75, will India embrace the logic of freedom or partition?

7/8
For some time now, the Narendra Modi government has attempted to mine the 1947 Partition for political
gain. In recent years, it has backed the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens,
promising to settle outstanding business from the time British India was divided into two countries.

In this vein, on Saturday, Modi announced that August 14 would be observed as Partition Horrors
Remembrance Day. In the Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that India can today remember
August 15, 1947, either as the moment of Partition – trapping Indians in “compulsary identities” – or as
the liberation of Independence, which lets Indians define themselves.

More here.

Each state making OBC list will mean a recipe for turmoil

For some decades now, the Other Backwards Classes, who comprise more than half of India’s
population, have driven electoral politics in India. In fact, the Bharatiya Janata Party owes its rise greatly
to its courting of Hindu OBCs. So it isn’t surprising that the just concluded Monsoon session of Parliament
unanimously passed the Constitution (127th Amendment) Bill, 2021, transferring the right to identify
OBCs to the states....

Read More

Respond to this article with a post

Create a post
Photo
Video
Audio

8/8