PM Modi says Congress would have let ‘Assam go to East Pakistan’: What was the 1946 plan; what Nehru, Gandhi said then

The statement by Prime Minister Modi regarding Congress's alleged willingness to let Assam go to East Pakistan during the Partition era points to a critical, yet often overlooked, juncture in India's struggle for independence and nation-building. This historical episode revolves around the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, a final British attempt to transfer power to a united India while addressing the demands of the Muslim League for a separate state.

**Background Context: The Fissures of Partition and the Cabinet Mission Plan**

By 1946, the demand for 'Pakistan' by the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had gained significant momentum. The British government, exhausted by World War II and facing increasing pressure from Indian nationalist movements, dispatched the Cabinet Mission to India in March 1946. Comprising Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Stafford Cripps, and A.V. Alexander, its primary objective was to devise a constitutional framework for India's independence, attempting to reconcile the Congress's vision of a united India with the League's demand for Pakistan. The Mission proposed a three-tier federal structure: a weak center responsible for defense, foreign affairs, and communications; provinces with full autonomy in other subjects; and an intermediate layer of 'groups' of provinces.

**What Happened: The Grouping Clause and Assam's Predicament**

The Cabinet Mission Plan, unveiled on May 16, 1946, stipulated that provinces would be initially grouped into three sections:

* **Section A:** Hindu-majority provinces (Madras, Bombay, UP, Bihar, Central Provinces, Orissa).

* **Section B:** Muslim-majority provinces in the North-West (Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, Baluchistan).

* **Section C:** Muslim-majority provinces in the North-East (Bengal and Assam).

The controversial 'grouping clause' mandated that provinces would first join these groups and then, after the constitution for the group was framed, have the option to opt out. This 'compulsory grouping' was the crux of the controversy. Assam, despite having a Hindu majority (around 57% in 1941), was placed in Group C with Bengal, which had a significant Muslim majority. The fear in Assam was profound: being grouped with Bengal would mean its distinct cultural, linguistic, and ethnic identity would be submerged under Bengali dominance, and its political future might be irrevocably tied to a Muslim-majority bloc that could eventually align with East Pakistan.

**Key Stakeholders and Their Stances**

* **Assam Provincial Congress Committee (APCC):** Led by Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi, the APCC vehemently opposed the grouping clause. They saw it as an existential threat to Assam's identity and territorial integrity. Bordoloi appealed directly to the Congress Working Committee and Mahatma Gandhi, arguing that compulsory grouping violated the principle of self-determination and would force Assam into a constitutional arrangement against its will.

* **Mahatma Gandhi:** A staunch advocate for Assam's right to self-determination, Gandhi strongly supported Assam's stand. He declared that Assam should not be forced into any group against its wishes, even if it meant risking the entire Cabinet Mission Plan. His moral authority provided significant backing to Assam's resistance.

* **Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian National Congress:** Initially, the Congress accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, albeit with reservations. However, Nehru's interpretation, articulated in July 1946, stated that provinces could opt out of groups *after* the Constituent Assembly had framed the constitution, effectively implying that the grouping was optional from the outset. This interpretation contradicted the Muslim League's understanding that grouping was compulsory at first. While Nehru's stance aimed to safeguard provincial autonomy, it was seen by the Muslim League as a repudiation of the plan's core.

* **Muslim League:** Jinnah and the Muslim League initially accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan as they saw the grouping clause as a stepping stone towards Pakistan, particularly with Section B and C forming large Muslim-majority blocs. They insisted that grouping was compulsory and that provinces could only opt out after a group constitution was framed. Nehru's clarification led the League to withdraw its acceptance of the plan, paving the way for 'Direct Action Day' and further communal violence.

**Why This Mattered for India and Future Implications**

The controversy over Assam's grouping was a microcosm of the larger challenges facing India's unity and federal structure. It highlighted the deep anxieties of smaller linguistic and ethnic groups about being dominated by larger ones, a theme that would recur in post-independence India (e.g., linguistic reorganization of states). The failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan due to differing interpretations on grouping ultimately led to the Mountbatten Plan and the Partition of India on August 15, 1947, creating India and Pakistan. Assam's steadfast resistance, supported by Gandhi, played a crucial role in preventing its forced inclusion into a predominantly Muslim bloc, thereby safeguarding its place within the Indian Union and its distinct identity.

Constitutionally, this episode underscores the importance of provincial autonomy and the principles of federalism. While the event predates the Indian Constitution (adopted on January 26, 1950), the debates around provincial rights and territorial integrity directly influenced the framers. Articles 3 and 4 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with the formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states, implicitly reflect the sensitivity surrounding state boundaries and identities that was so evident during the grouping controversy. The Indian Independence Act, 1947, ultimately formalized the division of British India, but the Cabinet Mission Plan's failure demonstrated the impossibility of a united India under the proposed federal scheme, largely due to the grouping dispute. This historical struggle for Assam's identity serves as a powerful reminder of the complex interplay of politics, demographics, and regional aspirations in shaping India's destiny.