Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which of these were main points of the Mountbatten Plan? I. Punjab and Bengal Legislative Assemblies would meet in two groups, Hindus and Muslims, to vote for Independence with Partition. II. Sindh would be part of Pakistan. III. NWFP will be part of Pakistan while Sylhet district of Bengal will be part of India. IV. In case of partition, two dominions and two constituent assemblies would be created.

Which of these were main points of the Mountbatten Plan? I. Punjab and Bengal Legislative Assemblies would meet in two groups, Hindus and Muslims, to vote for Independence with Partition. II. Sindh would be part of Pakistan. III. NWFP will be part of Pakistan while Sylhet district of Bengal will be part of India. IV. In case of partition, two dominions and two constituent assemblies would be created. Correct Answer Only I and IV

The correct answer is Only I and IV.

Key Points

  • ​Lord Mountbatten came to India as the last Viceroy and was assigned the task of a speedy transfer of power by the then British Prime Minister Clement Atlee.
  • In May 1947, Mountbatten came up with a plan under which he proposed that the provinces be declared independent successor states and then be allowed to choose whether to join the constituent assembly or not. This plan was called the 'Dickie Bird Plan'.
  • Jawaharlal Nehru when apprised of the plan, vehemently opposed it saying it would lead to the Balkanisation of the country.
  • The Viceroy came up with another plan called the June 3 Plan. This plan was the last plan for Indian independence. It is also called Mountbatten Plan.
  • The June 3 Plan included the principles of partition, autonomy, sovereignty to both nations, right to make their own constitution.
  • The Princely States such as Jammu and Kashmir were given a choice to either join India or Pakistan. 
  • This plan was accepted by both Congress and the Muslim league. By then, Congress had also accepted the inevitability of the partition.
  • This plan was put into action by the Indian Independence Act 1947 which was passed in the British Parliament and received royal assent on 18 July 1947.
  • The Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly would not be applicable to the Muslim majority areas. The question of a separate constituent assembly for the Muslim majority areas would be decided by these provinces.
  • As per the plan, the legislative assemblies of Bengal and Punjab met and Voted for the partition. Accordingly, it was decided to partition these two provinces along religious lines.
  • To fix the international boundaries between the two countries, the Boundary Commission was established chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The commission was to demarcate Bengal and Punjab into the two new countries.
  • The princely states were given the choice to either remain independent or accede to Indian or Pakistan. The British suzerainty over these kingdoms was terminated.

Related Questions

In the following question, sentences of a paragraph have been jumbled and labelled as A, B, C and D. You are required to rearrange the jumbled sentences of the paragraph and mark your response accordingly by selecting the correct option. A: The Act received the royal assent on 18 July 1947 and thus India and Pakistan, comprising West (modern-day Pakistan) and East (modern-day Bangladesh) regions, came into being on 15 August. B: The 1947 Indian Independence Act is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan. C: This plan was the last plan for independence. D: The legislature representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community came to an agreement with Lord Mountbatten on what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.
h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. which of the following must vote in favor of Bill 1 ?
h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. If any bill is to be passed,which of the following must be among the legislators who vote in favor of it?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. According to the passage, why FATF did not remove Pakistan from the "grey list"?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. As per the passage, which word can replace CONVICTION grammatically and contextually?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. From the passage, it can be inferred that the author is:
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. What is the meaning of the word SHAMBLES in the passage?
Read the passage and answer the questions that follow. Unsurprisingly, the latest conviction comes a month after the FATF, a global dirty money watchdog, urged Pakistan to complete an internationally agreed action plan to fight terror financing. In February 2018, Pakistan endorsed a UN list of terrorist organizations operating in the country and enforced a nationwide ban on them, including the LeT and the JuD, just before a meeting of the FATF. But the FATF still placed Pakistan on its “grey list” in June 2018, and demanded more actions from Islamabad to avoid being blacklisted, which could invite economic sanctions. Ever since, Pakistan, which cannot afford to be blacklisted, especially when its economy is in shambles, has moved against Saeed. The Anti-Terrorism Department’s FIRs against Saeed and his aides accuse the JuD of financing terrorism from its fund collections in the name of charity through NGOs. While the authorities’ move against Saeed is welcome, the question is whether these are genuine attempts to fight terrorism or half-hearted measures to dodge international pressure. There are doubts because Pakistan had used anti-India and anti-Afghan terrorist networks for strategic advantages. It was this dual policy of fighting terror at home while nurturing terror groups that target its rivals abroad that has been responsible for Pakistan’s predicament. If it is serious about fighting terrorism, Pakistan should crackdown on terror financing and terror infrastructure. The international community and organizations, including the FATF, should keep up the pressure until Islamabad shows tangible outcomes. The purpose of the author in writing this passage seems to be
h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. which of the following cannot be true ?
h,J,K,L,M,N and O are the only legislators eligible to vote on Bills 1,2 and 3, each of which will be passed if at least four legislators eligible vote in favor of it. each legislator must vote on all three bills; on abstentions are possible. The following is known : *H must vote against all three bills; each of the other legislators must vote in favor of at least one bill and against at lest one bill. *j must vote against Bills 1. *O Must vote against Bills 2 and 3. * L must the same way that K dose on all three bills.*N must vote the same way that O dose on all three bills. If M votes the same way that O dose on all three bills, which of the following can be determined ?