Lord Mountbatten came to India as Viceroy along with specific instructions to

1. The Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946 (basic)

By early 1946, the British realized that their time in India was coming to an end. The Cabinet Mission Plan was the last serious attempt by the British to transfer power to a united India and avoid partition. On March 24, 1946, a high-level delegation arrived in Delhi consisting of three British Cabinet members: Lord Pethick-Lawrence (Secretary of State), Sir Stafford Cripps, and A.V. Alexander. Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Post-War National Scenario, p.472

The Mission faced a massive challenge: the Congress wanted a strong center and a united India, while the Muslim League demanded a separate state of Pakistan. To bridge this gap, the Mission rejected the idea of a full-fledged Pakistan but proposed a unique three-tier federation. Under this structure, the Central Government would be very weak, limited only to Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications. All other subjects (residuary powers) would belong to the provinces. History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.80

The most distinctive feature of the plan was the Grouping of Provinces. The provinces were to be divided into three sections to satisfy the League's demand for autonomy in Muslim-majority areas:

Group	Composition	Nature
Group A	Madras, Bombay, Central Provinces, United Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa	Hindu-majority provinces
Group B	Punjab, NWFP, and Sind	Muslim-majority provinces (West)
Group C	Bengal and Assam	Muslim-majority provinces (East)

The plan also provided for the setting up of an Interim Government and a Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, which eventually drafted India's Constitution, was formed in November 1946 based on the scheme formulated by this Mission. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Making of the Constitution, p.11 Although both the Congress and the League initially accepted the plan, it ultimately collapsed due to disagreements over whether this "grouping" was compulsory or optional, paving the way for the eventual partition. History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.93

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Post-War National Scenario, p.472; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.80; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Making of the Constitution, p.11; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.93

2. Clement Attlee's Statement (February 1947) (intermediate)

By early 1947, the British Raj was facing an administrative and political deadlock. The communal violence following 'Direct Action Day' and the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan meant that the British could no longer effectively govern India. To break this impasse and force Indian leaders to come to an agreement, Prime Minister Clement Attlee made a historic announcement in the British House of Commons on February 20, 1947. Think of this as the British government setting an 'expiry date' on their empire to shock the Indian parties into cooperation Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Chapter 25, p.491.

The statement contained three revolutionary pillars that fundamentally changed the trajectory of the freedom struggle:

• The Deadline: A clear date of June 30, 1948, was fixed for the final transfer of power. This was intended to show that the British were serious about leaving Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 1, p.8.
• The Power Recipient: If a fully representative Constituent Assembly (one including the Muslim League) was not formed, the British reserved the right to transfer power either to a central government or, in some areas, to existing provincial governments. This was a crucial 'Plan B' that hinted at the possibility of partition Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Chapter 25, p.491.
• Princely States: British paramountcy over the 565 princely states would lapse, but significantly, this power would not be transferred to any successor government in India, leaving the states in a legal vacuum Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Chapter 25, p.491.

To oversee this delicate and urgent withdrawal, Attlee announced that Lord Mountbatten would replace Lord Wavell as the Viceroy TN State Board, Chapter 7, p.95. While the statement was meant to encourage unity, it had the opposite effect: the Muslim League saw the 'provincial transfer' clause as a signal that they could get Pakistan by making the central government unworkable, leading to intensified agitations across the country Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 1, p.8.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Independence with Partition, p.491; Indian Polity (Laxmikanth), Historical Background, p.8; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.95

3. The Interim Government and Communal Deadlock (basic)

The Interim Government, formed on September 2, 1946, was intended to be a transitional bridge between British colonial rule and a fully independent India. Led by Jawaharlal Nehru as the Vice-President of the Executive Council, it was essentially a cabinet that exercised executive powers, though technically it remained an extension of the Viceroy’s Council Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Post-War National Scenario, p.476. While the Congress initially formed the government alone, Viceroy Wavell was keen to include the Muslim League to prevent a complete civil breakdown. On October 26, 1946, the League joined the government, but with a strategy of "fighting for Pakistan from within" rather than cooperating for a united India.

The functioning of this coalition was characterized by a communal deadlock. The Muslim League entered the government without withdrawing its call for 'Direct Action' or accepting the Cabinet Mission's long-term plan Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Post-War National Scenario, p.476. This meant the two parties were working at cross-purposes. The informal cabinet meetings—designed to resolve differences before formal sessions—stopped happening because of deep-seated animosity History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.95. This atmosphere made administration nearly impossible, as the League members often refused to recognize Nehru’s leadership as the head of the cabinet.

Key Portfolio	Minister	Party Affiliation
External Affairs & Commonwealth Relations	Jawaharlal Nehru	Congress
Home, Information & Broadcasting	Vallabhbhai Patel	Congress
Finance	Liaquat Ali Khan	Muslim League
Defence	Baldev Singh	Sikh Representative

The breaking point, often called the "proverbial last straw," was the Budget of March 1947 presented by Finance Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Dubbed the 'Poor Man’s Budget,' it proposed heavy taxes on industry and trade and an inquiry into tax evasion by big business houses History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.95. Since many of these businesses supported the Congress, the party saw this as a calculated political attack rather than genuine economic reform. This financial paralysis convinced many Congress leaders that a joint government with the League was unworkable and that partition might be the only way to ensure a functional administration.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Post-War National Scenario, p.476; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.95

4. The Role of Princely States and Integration (intermediate)

To understand the integration of India, we must first realize that in 1947, the subcontinent was a patchwork of two distinct entities: British India (provinces ruled directly by the British) and the Princely States (over 560 states ruled by local princes). The relationship between these princes and the British Crown was governed by the concept of Paramountcy. Under this system, the British Crown was the 'Paramount' power, meaning the states enjoyed internal autonomy but surrendered their external sovereignty, defense, and communications to the British Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.606. This relationship was historically built through mechanisms like Wellesley’s Subsidiary Alliance and Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.119.

The real crisis arrived with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act declared that the 'suzerainty' or Paramountcy of the Crown would lapse on August 15, 1947 D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Outstanding Features of Our Constitution, p.51. Crucially, the British did not transfer this paramountcy to the new Indian government. Instead, they let it expire, technically leaving these hundreds of states as independent entities. This created a 'geographical and political vacuum' that threatened to 'Balkanize' India into dozens of tiny, hostile countries.

The task of stitching this patchwork into a unified nation fell to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (the 'Iron Man of India') and his able secretary, V.P. Menon. Patel used a masterful combination of patriotism, persuasion, and veiled pressure. He appealed to the rulers' sense of duty, arguing that they should accede to the Indian Dominion in just three essential areas: Defense, External Affairs, and Communications—matters they hadn't controlled under the British anyway Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.607. By Independence Day, the vast majority had signed the Instrument of Accession, though a few notable exceptions like Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir would require more complex interventions.

The integration wasn't just about signing a paper; it was a three-fold process often called the 'Patel Scheme': merging smaller states into neighboring provinces, grouping them into unions (like Rajasthan), and eventually fitting them into the constitutional structure of a democratic India D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Outstanding Features of Our Constitution, p.51.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, The Indian States, p.606-607; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Outstanding Features of Our Constitution, p.51; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Expansion and Consolidation of British Power in India, p.119

5. Radcliffe Commission and Boundary Delimitation (intermediate)

Once the decision to partition India was finalized under the Mountbatten Plan, the monumental task of physically dividing the provinces of Punjab and Bengal fell to the Boundary Commissions. Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer with no prior experience in India or expertise in cartography, was appointed chairman of two separate commissions—one for each province History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.101. The British logic for choosing an outsider was his perceived 'impartiality,' yet this lack of local knowledge became a significant handicap. Each commission consisted of four judges—two nominated by the Congress and two by the Muslim League—but because these members were deeply divided along communal lines, the final decisions ultimately rested on Radcliffe’s shoulders, leading to what is known as the Radcliffe Award Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Challenges Before the New-born Nation, p.593.

The delimitation process was marred by 'absurd hurry' and technical limitations. Radcliffe arrived in India on July 8, 1947, and was given a mere six weeks to redraw the map of a subcontinent. He relied on outdated maps and 1941 census data that did not reflect the mass migrations already underway. While religious demography (identifying Muslim-majority vs. non-Muslim majority areas) was the primary criterion, the commission was also tasked with considering 'other factors.' These included natural boundaries like rivers, administrative units, and vital infrastructure such as railway connectivity and canal systems—the latter being especially critical for the agrarian economy of Punjab Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India, Challenges Before the New-born Nation, p.593.

The human cost of this hurried exercise was staggering. The final boundary lines were not made public until August 17, 1947—two days after independence. This delay was a strategic choice by Lord Mountbatten to avoid disrupting the independence celebrations and to shift the responsibility for the resulting communal violence onto the new dominion governments History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.101. Consequently, millions of people found themselves on the 'wrong' side of a border they didn't know existed, sparking one of the largest and most violent migrations in human history.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Challenges Before the New-born Nation, p.593; History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Reconstruction of Post-colonial India, p.101; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Independence with Partition, p.495

6. Mountbatten's Mandate and 'Plan Balkan' (exam-level)

When Lord Mountbatten arrived as the last Viceroy in March 1947, his mandate was clear but incredibly difficult: to oversee a prompt and orderly British withdrawal. According to the policy set by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, the British intended to leave by June 30, 1948, even if Indian leaders hadn't reached an agreement Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 25, p. 491. Initially, Mountbatten was instructed to preserve a United India if possible, but he soon realized that the communal deadlock between the Congress and the Muslim League made this goal nearly impossible. To break the stalemate, he first floated a proposal that came to be known as 'Plan Balkan' (or the Ismay Plan).

'Plan Balkan' was a highly controversial scheme. It proposed that power should be transferred to the individual provinces rather than a central government. Under this plan, provinces like Punjab and Bengal would be given the choice to become independent or join a federation. Crucially, it also implied that Princely States would not be forced to join any union, potentially remaining independent Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 25, p. 607. When Mountbatten showed this plan to Jawaharlal Nehru in May 1947, Nehru was horrified. He realized it would lead to the 'Balkanization' of the subcontinent—a term derived from the ethnic fragmentation and constant conflict seen in Europe's Balkan Peninsula NCERT Class X, The Rise of Nationalism in Europe, p. 26. Nehru argued this would weaken India, encourage secession, and create hundreds of 'Ulsters' across the map.

Realizing that Plan Balkan would meet fierce resistance from the Congress, Mountbatten quickly pivoted. He abandoned the idea of provincial independence and instead moved toward a plan for Partition into two Dominions (India and Pakistan). This shift was designed to maintain some form of unity within the two new nations while satisfying the League’s demand for a separate state. This tactical shift eventually culminated in the June 3rd Plan, which accelerated the transfer of power and forced a final decision on the division of the country History, Class XII Tamil Nadu State Board, Chapter 7, p. 95.

Feature	Plan Balkan (Initial Idea)	June 3rd Plan (Final Outcome)
Unit of Power	Individual Provinces / States	Two Central Dominions
Sovereignty	Possibility of many independent units	India and Pakistan only
Outcome	Rejected due to risk of fragmentation	Accepted as the basis for Independence

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 25: Independence with Partition, p.491, 493, 607; History, Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement, p.95; NCERT Class X, India and the Contemporary World – II, The Rise of Nationalism in Europe, p.26

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the building blocks of the Transfer of Power—specifically the failure of the Cabinet Mission and Clement Attlee’s Statement of February 1947—you can see how this question tests your ability to distinguish between a diplomat's initial mandate and the final historical outcome. While we remember Lord Mountbatten as the architect of Partition, his specific instructions from the British government were to seek a solution that would keep India united if possible. As highlighted in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir, the British preferred a united India that could remain a strong strategic ally in the Commonwealth and maintain regional stability during the Cold War era.

To arrive at the correct answer, (B), you must think like a strategist: Mountbatten was sent to facilitate a smooth and rapid withdrawal. His primary brief was to explore every avenue for a unitary government before conceding to division. It was only after he realized the Muslim League would not budge on the demand for Pakistan and that communal violence was spiraling out of control that he pivoted toward the 3rd June Plan. Reasoning through the timeline is key here—do not let the eventual reality of August 15th cloud your understanding of the instructions he carried in March.

UPSC frequently uses chronological traps, which is why options (C) and (D) are so tempting. Option (D) persuade the Congress to accept partition was the method he eventually used to break the deadlock, but it was not his original objective. Similarly, (A) balkanize the Indian sub-continent refers to the infamous "Plan Balkan" (which suggested letting provinces choose their own future), but this was a contingency plan that was actually discarded after Jawaharlal Nehru vehemently opposed it. Always remember: in UPSC Modern History, intent, mandate, and outcome are three different layers—never confuse the destination with the starting orders.