Assertion (A) : According to the Wavell Plan, the number of Hindu and Muslim members in the Executive Council were to be equal. Reason (R) : Wavell thought that this arrangement would have avoided the partition of India.

Assertion (A) is correct: the Wavell Plan proposed a reconstructed Executive Council composed almost entirely of Indians (except the Viceroy and Commander‑in‑Chief) with equal representation for caste Hindus and Muslims [2]. Reason (R) is not a correct statement to explain A. While parity was intended to make the council more representative and to break the political deadlock, the sources record disputes—especially over who would nominate Muslim members—which scuttled the Simla talks [1], and contemporary accounts only suggest the conference might have been a last viable chance for a united India rather than recording that Wavell explicitly claimed parity would prevent partition [3]. Hence A is true but R is false as an explanation.

Sources

1. [1] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 7: Last Phase of Indian National Movement > Wavell Plan > p. 92
2. [2] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 23: Quit India Movement, Demand for Pakistan, and the INA > The Plan > p. 455
3. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Conference