Question map
The plan of Sir Stafford Cripps envisaged that after the Second World War
Explanation
Cripps promised Dominion Status and a constitution-making body after the war.[1] The offer Cripps made was of dominion status, and not freedom.[3] This is why option D is correct.
Option A is incorrect because the proposal was for dominion status, not complete independence. Option B is misleading—while the draft spelt out the prospect of Pakistan by allowing any province not prepared to accept the new constitution to enter into a separate agreement with Britain[1], partition before independence was not the primary envisaged outcome. Option C is not supported by the sources; the proposal was specifically for dominion status, not necessarily a republic within the Commonwealth. Congress and the Muslim League rejected the proposals as vague and unsatisfactory[2], highlighting why the mission ultimately failed.
Sources- [1] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement > Cripps Proposals > p. 86
- [3] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-how-quit-india-movement-gave-a-new-direction-to-indias-freedom-struggle-6547701/
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a foundational 'Sitter' question found in every standard Modern History text (Spectrum, NCERT, Laxmikanth). It tests the core distinction between 'Dominion Status' (the British offer) and 'Purna Swaraj' (the Congress demand). Missing this indicates a gap in basic syllabus coverage.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did Sir Stafford Cripps's 1942 plan (Cripps Mission) envisage that after the Second World War India should be granted complete independence?
- Statement 2: Did Sir Stafford Cripps's 1942 plan envisage that after the Second World War India should be partitioned into two before granting independence?
- Statement 3: Did Sir Stafford Cripps's 1942 plan envisage that after the Second World War India should be made a republic with the condition that it would join the Commonwealth?
- Statement 4: Did Sir Stafford Cripps's 1942 plan envisage that after the Second World War India should be given Dominion status?
- Explicitly states the Cripps offer was for dominion status, not full independence.
- Notes the Mission's failure increased demands for complete independence, implying the plan did not grant it.
- States the Cripps offer promised 'the earliest possible realisation of self-government' but was 'of dominion status, and not freedom'.
- Shows Congress rejected the offer because it was not full independence.
- Describes the Cripps Mission as offering post-war self-determination in the form of dominion status rather than full independence.
- Notes conditions (e.g., provinces seceding) that show it was not unconditional complete independence.
Explicitly states Cripps announced aim of 'earliest possible realisation of self-government' but that his draft declaration 'fell far short of independence'.
A student could compare the phrase 'fell far short of independence' with standard definitions of 'complete independence' (sovereignty and end of Crown paramountcy) to judge whether the plan envisaged full independence.
Says Cripps brought a draft proposal on framing 'an independent Constitution to be adopted after World War II'.
A student could reconcile 'independent Constitution' with other snippets on Crown paramountcy (e.g., check if 'independent constitution' meant full sovereignty or limited self-government under the Crown).
States Cripps held the British government did not contemplate transferring paramountcy of the Crown to any other party in India.
Using the concept that 'paramountcy' implies ultimate sovereignty, a student could infer that absence of transfer of paramountcy argues against granting complete independence.
Notes Cripps' plan was confined to settling political destinies of British India and left princely states free to retain separate status.
A student could test whether a plan that excludes princely states from a united sovereign transfer could be consistent with 'complete independence' for a single Indian polity.
Records that the failure of the Cripps Mission prompted the Quit India demand for immediate transfer of power, implying Cripps' proposals did not meet demands for immediate/full independence.
A student could use timing (Cripps 1942 → Quit India call for immediate transfer) to judge whether Cripps envisaged immediate full independence or a post-war/limited solution.
Says Cripps presented a draft declaration that 'fell far short of independence' — indicating the proposals were limited and did not offer immediate full transfer of power.
A student could combine this with knowledge of what 'falling short of independence' typically implies (e.g., interim dominion status vs. outright partition) to test whether Cripps explicitly proposed partition.
States the Cripps Plan was 'confined to settling the political destinies of British India' and that the Indian States (princely states) would be left free to retain separate status.
Using a map of British India vs. princely states, a student could check whether confining proposals to British India implies Cripps envisaged reorganization/partition within British provinces or left separate entities intact rather than creating two dominions covering all territories.
Notes Cripps held Britain did not contemplate transferring paramountcy of the Crown to any other party in India — implying a limited or conditional transfer rather than an unconditional breakup into two sovereign dominions.
A student could use the legal concept of 'paramountcy' and compare it to later plans that explicitly transferred sovereignty to two dominions to judge whether Cripps's language matches a partition plan.
Claims that 'During Cripps Mission (1942), autonomy of Muslim majority provinces was accepted' — showing the mission allowed provincial autonomy for Muslim-majority areas, a step that could be extended toward separate political units.
By mapping which provinces were Muslim-majority, a student could assess whether granting provincial autonomy in 1942 could plausibly be read as an early endorsement of partition into two states.
Describes Cripps bringing a draft proposal on framing an independent constitution after WWII — indicating the mission focused on constitutional arrangements to follow the war, not necessarily on immediate creation of two separate states.
A student could contrast the nature of a 'draft proposal for a constitution' with explicit plans to partition territory to see which description fits Cripps's proposals better.
States explicitly that Cripps came with a draft proposal for framing an independent Constitution to be adopted after World War II.
A student could check whether that draft specified 'republic' or 'dominion' status by comparing the draft's language with standard definitions of republic vs dominion.
Gives a clear itemised expectation that a post‑war Constitution should give India 'Dominion Status — equal partnership of the British Commonwealth of Nations.'
Using the standard fact that 'Dominion status' implies membership in the Commonwealth, a student could use this as a baseline to test if Cripps' plan sought dominion (not republic) status.
Says Cripps held the British government did not contemplate transferring paramountcy of the Crown to any other party in India.
A student can infer that retention of Crown paramountcy aligns more with dominion/monarchical links than with immediate republic status, so they should examine if Cripps' proposal retained Crown links.
Notes Cripps' Plan was confined to British India and left Indian States free to retain separate status; it contrasts with later proposals (Cabinet Mission) for a Union including States.
A student could use this to question whether Cripps envisaged a full sovereign republic for a united India after the war, or a more limited constitutional change for British provinces only.
Records that Cripps announced policy aimed at 'earliest possible realisation of self‑government' but his draft fell far short of independence.
A student might extend this by comparing 'self‑government' language with the formal attributes of a republic versus dominion to see which status the draft likely implied.
- Directly states that Cripps promised Dominion Status and a constitution‑making body after the war.
- Specifies the post‑war timing and the institutional mechanism (constituent body) tied to that promise.
- Confirms Cripps headed a 1942 mission carrying constitutional proposals to secure Indian support for the war.
- Supports the context that Cripps's proposals involved post‑war constitutional arrangements (consistent with offering Dominion status).
- Explains the Cripps Plan was framed to settle the political destinies of British India (i.e., post‑war constitutional settlement).
- Clarifies the Plan's scope (British India only), providing context for understanding the nature of the post‑war status proposed.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly solvable from Spectrum (Chapter: Nationalist Response in the Wake of WWII) or Laxmikanth (Chapter: Historical Background).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Constitutional Offers' timeline (1940-1947)—specifically the transition from August Offer to Mountbatten Plan.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Offer vs. Rejection' matrix: August Offer (1940) -> Dominion Status (rejected); Cripps (1942) -> Dominion + Right of Secession (rejected as 'post-dated cheque'); Wavell (1945) -> Caste Hindu/Muslim parity (deadlock); Cabinet Mission (1946) -> Rejected Pakistan, Grouping system (accepted then rejected).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Focus on the *legal terms* used. The British clung to 'Dominion Status' until the very end. 'Complete Independence' was only conceded in the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Always map the 'British Offer' against the 'Nationalist Demand' for each year.
The question hinges on whether Cripps's draft actually offered full independence or only limited proposals; several references describe the mission and its draft proposals.
High-yield for UPSC: understanding the exact content and limits of British wartime offers (Cripps, August Offer, Wavell, Cabinet Mission) is frequently tested. Mastering this helps answer questions on constitutional offers, why nationalists rejected them, and the sequence leading to Quit India and later negotiations. Prepare by comparing the wording and outcomes of each offer and noting nationalist reactions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 22: Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II > Cripps Mission > p. 442
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement > Arrival of Cripps > p. 86
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 2: Making of the Constitution > DEMAND FOR A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY > p. 11
Several references state that the British did not intend to transfer paramountcy and that princely states were to retain separate status under the Cripps proposals.
Crucial for questions about the political structure envisaged before 1947 and the problems of integration/partition. It links to the later Cabinet Mission, Mountbatten Plan and the Indian Independence Act. Study the legal/political status of princely states and how British wording (paramouncy) constrained 'independence' claims.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 4: OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > Incidents of Paramountey. > p. 51
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > VI. Integration and Merger > p. 607
Evidence ties the mission's failure to widespread discontent and the launch of the Quit India movement, showing perception that the offer fell short of demands.
Useful for cause–effect questions on movements and negotiations; links constitutional offers to mass politics and later transfer of power. Revision strategy: timeline-based summaries showing offer → reaction → subsequent plans.
- India and the Contemporary World – II. History-Class X . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 2: Nationalism in India > Quit India Movement > p. 49
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 15: Struggle for Swaraj > NATIONAL MOVEMENT DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR > p. 298
The references describe the Cripps Mission (March 1942) as presenting a draft declaration and a proposal for framing an independent constitution after WWII, which is central to the statement's focus.
High-yield for Modern India: understanding what the Cripps proposals actually offered (a post-war constitution, limited concessions) helps answer many UPSC questions about constitutional developments and nationalist responses during WWII. Connects to later plans (Cabinet Mission, Mountbatten) and to reasons for Congress/League reactions. Prepare by comparing the text and consequences of each 1940s constitutional proposal and noting why Cripps failed.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement > Arrival of Cripps > p. 86
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 2: Making of the Constitution > DEMAND FOR A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY > p. 11
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 22: Nationalist Response in the Wake of World War II > Cripps Mission > p. 442
One reference explicitly notes the Cripps plan confined itself to British India and left princely states free to retain separate status — a distinction directly relevant to claims about a pre-independence partition of British India into two dominions.
Frequent exam theme: the different treatment of British provinces and princely states recurs in questions on integration, paramountcy and the Cabinet Mission. Mastering this helps evaluate proposals' territorial implications (e.g., whether plans envisaged partition of provinces or separate statuses). Study by listing each plan's stance on princely states and comparing outcomes.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 4: OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION > Incidents of Paramountey. > p. 51
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > VI. Integration and Merger > p. 607
A reference indicates that during the Cripps Mission autonomy for Muslim-majority provinces was accepted — a detail often cited when assessing whether early proposals paved the way to partition.
Concept links communal politics to constitutional mechanisms: knowing which proposals allowed provincial self-determination or separate assemblies helps trace the evolution toward partition. Useful for questions on causes of Partition and Congress–League negotiations. Prepare by tracking how provisions for Muslim-majority provinces changed across 1942–1946 plans.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 25: Independence with Partition > Why Congress Accepted Partition > p. 499
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement > Arrival of Cripps > p. 86
D. D. Basu's reference links the Cripps Mission to the proposal that India be given Dominion Status—an 'equal partnership of the British Commonwealth'—rather than immediate republican status.
High-yield for constitutional history questions: distinguishes 'Dominion Status' from 'Republic' (critical for understanding continuity of Crown/Commonwealth ties). Useful for questions on stages of Indian independence and constitutional evolution. Prepare by comparing primary proposals (Cripps, August Offer, Cabinet Mission) and noting terminology and implications.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 2: THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION > THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION > p. 15
The 'Backdoor to Pakistan': While Cripps didn't explicitly propose Partition (Option B), he introduced the 'Right of Non-Accession' for provinces. This was the first time the British officially accepted the principle of partition in a constitutional proposal, paving the way for the League's demand.
Timeline Logic: The British were fighting WWII to save their Empire, not dismantle it. Option A (Complete Independence) is impossible for 1942. Option B (Partition) was a last resort in 1947, not the plan in 1942 (British wanted a united defense). Option C mentions 'Republic'—the British would never propose removing the Crown in 1942. Option D is the only bureaucratic compromise fitting the era.
Mains (Polity - Sovereignty): Connect 'Dominion Status' to the 'Commonwealth' debate. A Dominion (like Canada/Australia) has the British Monarch as Head of State. India became a Republic to have an elected Head of State, rendering Option C (Republic + Commonwealth condition) historically anachronistic for 1942.