government of india act 1935 essay

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Government Of India Act 1935

Government of India Act 1935 - Modern Indian History NCERT Notes for UPSC

The Government of India Act was passed by the British Parliament in August 1935. It was the longest act enacted by the British Parliament at that time. It was divided into two separate acts namely, the Government of India Act 1935 and the Government of Burma Act 1935. 

Government of India Act 1935 (UPSC Notes) Download PDF Here

The topic comes under Modern Indian History which is an important subject in IAS Exam . This article will provide you with relevant facts about the Government of India Act 1935. Aspirants can also download the notes PDF from the link provided in the article.

Government of India Act, 1935 – Overview

A cursory detail of the Govt of India Act 1935 is given in the table below:

Read about other important Government of India Acts under British Rule important from IAS Prelims perspective, from the links below:

Government of India Act, 1935 – Background

• There was a growing demand for constitutional reforms in India by Indian leaders.
• India’s support to Britain in the First World War also aided in British acknowledgement of the need for the inclusion of more Indians in the administration of their own country.
• Simon Commission Report
• The recommendations of the Round Table Conferences
• The White Paper published by the British government in 1933 (based on the Third Round Table Conference )
• Report of the Joint Select Committees.

Read about related terms below:

• Simon Commission
• First Round Table Conference 

To know more about the legislation passed in British India , click on the linked article.

Creation of an All India Federation

• This federation was to consist of British India and the princely states.
• The provinces in British India would have to join the federation but this was not compulsory for the princely states.
• This federation never materialised because of the lack of support from the required number of princely states.

Read about the integration of princely states  post India’s independence in the linked article.

How Government of India Act 1935 divided powers?

• This Act divided powers between the centre and the provinces.
• Federal List (Centre)
• Provincial List (Provinces)
• Concurrent List (Both)
• The Viceroy was vested with residual powers.

To know more about the Governor Generals of Bengal and India , visit the linked article.

Certain changes that were brought through the Government of India Act, 1935 are mentioned in the table below, followed by details:

Govt of India Act 1935 – Provincial autonomy

• The Act gave more autonomy to the provinces.
• Diarchy was abolished at the provincial levels.
• The Governor was the head of the executive.
• There was a Council of Ministers to advise him. The ministers were responsible to the provincial legislatures who controlled them. The legislature could also remove the ministers.
• However, the governors still retained special reserve powers.
• The British authorities could still suspend a provincial government.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Diarchy at the centre

• The subjects under the Federal List were divided into two: Reserved and Transferred.
• The reserved subjects were controlled by the Governor-General who administered them with the help of three counsellors appointed by him. They were not responsible to the legislature. These subjects included defence, ecclesiastical affairs (church-related), external affairs, press, police, taxation, justice, power resources and tribal affairs.
• The transferred subjects were administered by the Governor-General with his Council of Ministers (not more than 10). The Council had to act in confidence with the legislature. The subjects in this list included local government, forests, education, health, etc.
• However, the Governor-General had ‘special powers’ to interfere in the transferred subjects also.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Bicameral Legislature

• A bicameral federal legislature would be established.
• The two houses were the Federal Assembly (lower house) and the Council of States (upper house).
• The federal assembly had a term of five years.
• Both houses had representatives from the princely states also. The representatives of the princely states were to be nominated by the rulers and not elected. The representatives of British India were to be elected. Some were to be nominated by the Governor-General.
• Bicameral legislatures were introduced in some provinces also like Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Federal Court

• A federal court was established at Delhi for the resolution of disputes between provinces and also between the centre and the provinces.
• It was to have 1 Chief Justice and not more than 6 judges.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Indian Council

• The Indian Council was abolished.
• The Secretary of State for India would instead have a team of advisors.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Franchise

• This Act introduced direct elections in India for the first time.

Govt of India Act 1935 – Reorganisation

• Sindh was carved out of Bombay Presidency.
• Bihar and Orissa were split.
• Burma was severed off from India.
• Aden was also separated from India and made into a Crown colony.

Other points

• The British Parliament retained its supremacy over the Indian legislatures both provincial and federal.
• A Federal Railway Authority was set up to control Indian railways.
• The act provided for the establishment of Reserve Bank of India.
• The Act also provided for the establishment of federal, provincial and joint Public Service Commissions.
• The Act was a milestone in the development of a responsible constitutional government in India.
• The Government of India Act 1935 was replaced by the Constitution of India after independence.
• The Indian leaders were not enthusiastic about the Act since despite granting provincial autonomy the governors and the viceroy had considerable ‘special powers’.
• Separate communal electorates were a measure through which the British wanted to ensure the Congress Party could never rule on its own. It was also a way to keep the people divided.

Also read, Constitutional Experiments under the British Crown between 1857-1947

Read other Modern History of India related articles linked in the table below:

Frequently Asked Questions on Government of India Act 1935

Q 1. what are the main attributes of government of india act 1935, q 2. under whose supervision was the government of india act 1935 passed, q 3. what were the key features of the government of india act 1935, q 4. what was the cause for the failure of the government of india act 1935, q 5. what was the all india federation.

Candidates who opt for History as their optional subject in UPSC can check the following links for reference:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

GoI Act 1935: Features and Limitations

Last updated on January 10, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

The third RTC was held again without the participation of Congress. The British parliament enacted the GoI Act in 1935, and it went into effect in 1937.

It was based on a report by a Joint Select Committee that established the two houses of the British parliament and was chaired by Lord Linlithgow.

At that time, it was the longest legislation passed by the British Parliament.

Table of Contents

Main Features of the GoI Act, 1935

The Government of India Act of 1935 was a significant piece of legislation that marked a crucial phase in the constitutional development of British India. The Act was enacted by the British Parliament and came into effect in 1937. It replaced the Government of India Act of 1919 and remained in force until India gained independence in 1947.

The legislation was passed by the British Parliament in August 1935 and its main provisions were as follows:

Federal Level

Changes made at the federal level are:

• Reserved subjects were exclusively administered by the governor-general on the advice of executive councilors and included subjects like foreign affairs, tribal affairs, defense, etc.
• Note that, executive councilors were not responsible to the central legislature.
• Transferred Subjects were to be administered by the governor-general on the advice of ministers elected by the legislature.
• Here, Ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and are subject to resignation on losing the confidence of the body.
• On discharge of his special responsibilities, the governor-general could act at his discretion for the security and tranquillity of India.

Legislature – The Bicameral legislature was to have an upper house (council of states) and a lower house (Federal Assembly).

• Oddly, the election of the upper house (council of states) was direct and that of the lower house was indirect.
• The Council of State was made a permanent body and made a provision that one-third of the members will be retired every third year.
• As per the provision, the duration of the assembly was to be 05 years.
• Federal List
• Provincial List
• Concurrent List
• Members of the legislative assembly were given the power to move a vote of no-confidence against ministers. Such power to move a no-confidence motion was not given to the Council.
• Further expansion of religion-based and class-based electorate.
• 80% of the budget was still non-votable.
• restore cut in grants
• restore and certify bills rejected by the legislature
• can issue ordinances
• can exercise his veto.

Provincial Level

Changes made at the provincial level are-

• Provinces were made free from the directions of the Secretary of State and Governor General. Hence, provinces started deriving their authority directly from the British Crown.
• Dyarchy was replaced by provincial autonomy and a separate legal system was also granted to the provinces.
• Provinces were granted independent financial powers and resources. As per the Act, the Provincial government could borrow money for its security.
• The governor was to be the crown’s nominee.
• Governor holds special power regarding minorities, law, and order, rights of civil servants, British interests related to business, princely states, etc.

Legislature

• The separate electorate that was introduced under communal award was to be made operational.
• The franchise was extended and women were given the same rights as men.
• A provision was made that all the members were to be directly elected.
• Ministers were made answerable and removable by the vote of the legislature.
• The provincial legislature was given the power to legislate on subjects that fall under the provincial list as well as the concurrent list.
• 40% of the budget was still non-votable.
• he could refuse to assent to a bill
• he can promulgate ordinances.
• can enact governor’s acts.

Other Points:

• Dyarchy, which was rejected by the Simon Commission was provided in the federal executive.
• Whereas, Dyarchy in the province was abolished and given provincial autonomy.
• In case of deadlock between the houses, there was a provision for joint sitting.
• The residuary list falls under the discretion of the Governor-General.
• The provincial legislature was further expanded.
• The communal electorate was further extended to depressed classes, women, and labor.
• The franchise was further expanded and about 10% of the total population was given the right to vote.
• The Indian Council of the Secretary of State was abolished.

Limitations of GoI Act 1935

The governor still enjoyed several extensive powers in provinces.

Various safeguards and special responsibilities of the governor-general disrupted the proper functioning of the act.

Separatist tendencies were further extended with the extension of the system of communal electorates which culminated in the partition of India.

The act provided a rigid constitution with no possibility of internal growth. Moreover, the right to amend was reserved by the British Parliament.

Nationalists’ Response

Nearly all the sections and Congress unanimously condemned the GoI Act of 1935. However, the Hindu Mahasabha and the National Liberal Foundation declared themselves in favor of the 1935 Act.

Instead, Congress demanded the formation of a constituent assembly elected by the adult franchise to create a constitution for independent India.

Debate Over Office Acceptance after the GoI Act

Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, and Congress Socialists and Communists were against the official acceptance and thereby in the working of the 1935 Act because they argued that office acceptance would negate the rejection of the Act.

A counter strategy was proposed by the leftists that suggested entry into the council with the only aim of creating deadlocks and thus making the working of the Act impossible.

Gandhi opposed the idea of office acceptance at the beginning but was willing to give a trial to the formation of congress ministries.

In 1936 at Lucknow Session and in 1937 at Faizpur Session, Congress decided to fight the election but postponed the decision of official acceptance to the post-election phase.

In its election manifesto, Congress reaffirmed the total rejection of the GoI Act of 1935.

Significance of the GoI Act of 1935 in the Journey of Indian Administration

Increased Provincial Autonomy:

• The Act represented a move towards greater provincial autonomy, giving Indian leaders more control over local administration. However, the diarchy system remained complex and was criticized for being cumbersome.

Foundation for Post-Independence Governance:

• The Act laid the foundation for the administrative structure that India would adopt after gaining independence in 1947. Many features of the Act influenced the design of the Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950.

Communalization of Politics:

• The continuation of separate electorates and the reservation of seats for various religious and social groups contributed to the communalization of Indian politics. This had lasting implications for post-independence India, leading to the demand for a separate Muslim state and the eventual partition in 1947.

Legal Framework:

• The establishment of the Federal Court provided a legal framework for adjudicating constitutional matters. This experience contributed to the development of the judicial system in post-independence India.

Emergency Powers:

• The emergency provisions in the Act foreshadowed similar provisions in the post-independence Indian Constitution. The lessons learned from the use of emergency powers during British rule influenced the drafting of constitutional provisions related to emergencies.

Representation of Minorities:

• While the Act attempted to address the representation of minorities, the communal approach to political representation persisted and continued to influence Indian politics even after independence.

Princely States and Federal Structure:

• The inability to fully integrate princely states into the federal structure outlined in the Act had implications for India’s post-independence territorial integrity. The issue of integrating princely states was resolved during the integration process that followed independence.

The Government of India Act, of 1935, played a crucial role in shaping the administrative and constitutional trajectory of India. While it fell short of fully addressing the aspirations of Indian leaders for self-governance, it provided important lessons and experiences that contributed to the development of independent India’s administrative and constitutional framework.

Article Written By: Priti Raj

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

• UPSC IAS Exam Pattern
• UPSC IAS Prelims
• UPSC IAS Mains
• UPSC IAS Interview
• UPSC IAS Optionals
• UPSC Notification
• UPSC Eligibility Criteria
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Admit Card
• UPSC Results
• UPSC Cut-Off
• UPSC Calendar
• Documents Required for UPSC IAS Exam
• UPSC IAS Prelims Syllabus
• General Studies 1
• General Studies 2
• General Studies 3
• General Studies 4
• UPSC IAS Interview Syllabus
• UPSC IAS Optional Syllabus

The Government of India Act 1935 – UPSC Modern History Notes

The Government of India Act of 1935, which holds the distinction of being the longest legislation ever passed by the British Parliament, was divided into two separate acts: the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Government of Burma Act of 1935. Its main aim was to grant Indians a form of government that carried responsibilities.

Table of Contents

The Government of India Act (1935) – Historical Background

• The Government Act of 1919 proved to be inadequate and fell short in its provisions for implementing self-government in India. This caused frustration among Indian politicians, who believed that British officials still retained full control over the areas under their jurisdiction. To address this issue, the Simon Commission was assigned the task of reviewing the situation and suggesting changes.
• However, when the Simon Commission Report was released, it was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to consultations with Indian Community Representatives at the Round Table Conference in London. Unfortunately, the Round Table Conferences failed to achieve their intended goals.
• Nevertheless, in 1933, a white paper was issued based on the recommendations of the Round Table Conferences, marking the beginning of work on India’s constitution. Under the leadership of Lord Linlithgow, the viceroy of India, a committee was established to consider the white paper’s recommendations.
• In 1934, the committee published its report, which included a draft bill. Subsequently, the report and the bill were passed in the British Parliament. After receiving Royal assent, the Government of India Act 1935 was implemented in the country.
• The Government of India Act (1935) introduced a federal form of government for India. It drew material from four primary sources: the Report of the Simon Commission, discussions at the Third Round Table Conference, the White Paper of 1933, and the reports of the Joint Select Committees.
• As the British rule in India progressed, the demand for constitutional reforms by Indian leaders grew stronger. In response to these demands and the evolving administrative arrangements, the British government started considering the establishment of a more accountable form of government in India, with a greater representation of Indians.
• India’s support to Britain during the First World War played a significant role in convincing the British of the need to involve more Indians in the administration of their own country.
• These factors laid the groundwork for the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935 by the British Parliament. This act stood as the longest legislation enacted by the British Parliament after it gained administrative control over India.

The Government of India Act, of 1935 took into account various factors and experiences, including:

• The Simon Commission Report: This report, which was not considered satisfactory, prompted the British government to consult Indian Community Representatives at the Round Table Conference.
• Recommendations of the Round Table Conferences: The series of Round Table Conferences held in London aimed to discuss constitutional reforms in India but ultimately failed to achieve their objectives.
• The White Paper of 1933: Based on the discussions at the Third Round Table Conference, the British government published a white paper that provided recommendations for India’s constitutional framework.
• The Report of the Joint Select Committees: This report, along with the aforementioned sources, influenced the drafting and content of the Government of India Act, of 1935.

Prelude to the Reforms: 

The simon commission (1927).

• The Government of India Act of 1919 included provisions for the appointment of a commission to review the Act and assess the level of responsibility of the government in India. According to the Act, this commission was scheduled to be appointed in 1929. However, due to various political reasons, it was appointed in 1927 with Sir John Simon as its Chairman. The fact that the commission consisted entirely of Europeans was seen as an insult to Indian nationalism.
• In response, the Indian National Congress decided to boycott the commission at every stage and in every form. The slogan “Simon Go Back” became a rallying cry and had a significant impact. There was also a resurgence of terrorist activities, which reflected the anger of the people, particularly regarding the mistreatment of national leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai by the police.
• Despite the opposition, the Simon Commission completed its work. Its recommendations were further examined by the Joint Select Committee of the Parliament. The Simon Commission’s report proposed discontinuing the dyarchy and entrusting the provincial government to ministers accountable to provincial legislatures. However, certain safeguards were retained to protect the interests of minorities by granting special powers to the Governor.
• The report also recommended a federal-like structure at the centre, known as the “Council of Greater India,” which would represent both British India and the princely states. The political atmosphere in India at the time was hostile to accepting the report. Nevertheless, some of the recommendations made by the Simon Commission, if implemented, could have expedited the process of establishing a fully responsible government in the provinces and at the centre.

The Nehru Scheme

• Instead of solely boycotting the Simon Commission, Indian leaders recognized the need for a constructive response by formulating a proposal for constitutional reforms that could gain acceptance from all parties involved. To achieve this, an All-Party Conference was convened in Delhi in February 1928, and within six months (by August 1928), they produced a report known as the Nehru Report, named after its chairman, Pandit Motilal Nehru.
• The Nehru Report was subsequently ratified by the Indian National Congress during its Calcutta session in December 1928. The report put forward recommendations for the establishment of responsible governments at both the provincial and central levels. The central government was proposed to have a bicameral legislature, with the lower house (House of Representatives) being directly elected from joint non-communal constituencies.
• The distribution of powers between the provinces and the centre was based on federal principles, with residual powers remaining with the centre. The report also suggested the creation of a defence committee with advisory functions and the inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
• Additionally, the Nehru Report recommended the reorganization of provinces, including the creation of Sindh and elevating the status of the North-West Frontier Province, to ensure that Muslims would have a majority in four provinces. It further urged princely states to expedite the introduction of similar reforms.
• The Nehru Report aimed to present a comprehensive and inclusive proposal for constitutional reforms that could garner broad support and address the concerns and aspirations of various communities in India.

The key provisions of the Government of India Act (1935) regarding the All India Federation and Provincial Autonomy, presented in a pointwise manner:

All india federation:.

• The Act established an All-India Federation, comprising British Indian Provinces and Indian States.
• The conditions for a state to join the federation were specified in the Instrument of Accession.
• It was at the discretion of each state to decide whether or not to join the federation.
• For the federation to be formed, a minimum of 50% of the Indian states needed to opt to join.
• However, the provisions for the federation were not fully implemented due to a lack of participation from the required number of princely states.

Provincial Autonomy:

• The Government of India Act (1935) marked the beginning of Provincial Autonomy.
• Provinces were allowed to function as autonomous units of administration within their defined spheres.
• The Act established responsible governments in the provinces.
• Governors were obliged to act on the advice of ministers who were accountable to the provincial legislature.
• The implementation of provincial autonomy began in 1937 but was discontinued in 1939.
• However, the Act did not grant full-fledged responsible government in the provinces.
• Ministers did not have complete control over their departments.
• Governors retained a range of overriding powers, although they were rarely utilized.

Division of Subjects:

• The Government of India Act (1935) introduced a division of subjects between the Centre and the Provinces.
• The Act revised and expanded the subjects that were listed in the Government of India Act, 1919, by creating three lists: Federal list, Provincial list, and Concurrent list.
• The Federal list consisted of 59 items, which included subjects of all-India interest and required uniform treatment. Only the Federal Legislature had the authority to make laws on these subjects.
• The Provincial list consisted of 54 items, which mainly comprised subjects of local interest. The Provincial Legislatures had exclusive jurisdiction over legislation related to these subjects.
• The Concurrent list contained 36 items. These subjects were primarily of Provincial interest but also required uniformity of treatment across the country. Both the federal and provincial legislatures had the power to enact legislation on these subjects.
• In case of a disagreement between federal and provincial laws on the same subject, federal law would prevail.
• To resolve conflicts arising from subjects not included in the lists, the Act empowered the Governor General to allocate the right to legislate on such subjects either to the Centre or to the provinces, at his discretion.
• This division of subjects aimed to delineate the areas of legislative authority and provide clarity on which level of government had jurisdiction over different matters.
• Here’s a table showcasing the three lists under the Government of India Act (1935):
• The division of subjects into these three lists provided a framework for legislative authority and determined which level of government (federal or provincial) had the power to enact laws on specific matters.

Dyarchy at the Centre:

• Under the Government of India Act (1935), dyarchy (shared responsibility) was abolished at the provincial level and introduced at the Centre. At the Centre, there were two categories of federal subjects: Reserved Subjects and Transferred Subjects.

Reserved Subjects:

• The Reserved Subjects category included subjects that were to be administered by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Councillors.
• The Executive Council was limited to a maximum of three members.
• Examples of reserved subjects included religious affairs, defence, administration of tribal areas, and external affairs.
• The Governor-General retained ultimate authority over the administration of these subjects.

Transferred Subjects:

• The Transferred Subjects category encompassed subjects that were to be administered by ministers.
• The number of ministers handling these subjects was limited to a maximum of ten.
• Subjects other than those listed as reserved were dealt with under the Transferred Subjects category.
• The Governor-General maintained overall control over both the Reserved and Transferred subjects.
• The introduction of dyarchy at the Centre aimed to divide administrative responsibilities between the Governor-General and the ministers, providing a system of shared governance.

Bicameral Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935:

Central legislature:.

• The Central Legislature established under the Government of India Act, 1935, was bicameral, consisting of two houses: the Federal Assembly and the Council of States.
• The Council of States served as the upper house and was designed to be a permanent body, with one-third of its members retiring every third year.
• The Council of States comprised a total of 260 members, with 156 representatives from British India and 104 representatives from the Indian states.
• The Federal Assembly, functioning as the lower house, had a tenure of five years.
• The Federal Assembly consisted of 375 members, with 250 representatives from British India and a maximum of 125 members from the princely states.
• Nominated members filled the seats designated for princely states, while the provinces were allotted varying numbers of seats.
• The members of the Federal Assembly were elected indirectly.
• The term of the assembly was five years, but it could be dissolved earlier if necessary.

Provincial Legislatures:

• Bicameralism was also implemented in six out of the eleven provinces.
• The provinces of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam, and the United Seven Provinces had bicameral legislatures.
• Each province had a legislative council (upper chamber) and a legislative assembly (lower house).

Restrictions:

• Despite the implementation of bicameral legislatures, they were subject to several restrictions.
• The powers and authority of the provincial legislatures were limited, and certain aspects were still under the control of the Governor and the British government.
• The legislatures operated within the framework defined by the Government of India Act, of 1935, and had to adhere to its provisions and limitations.

Retention of Communal Electorate:

• The Government of India Act, of 1935 extended the principle of communal representation by providing separate electorates for depressed classes (scheduled castes), women, and labour (workers).
• Muslims were allotted 33 1/3 per cent of seats in the Federal Legislature, even though their population was less than one-third of the total population of British India.
• Separate representation was also given to workers and women, even though they had not requested it.

Federal Court:

• The Act established a Federal Court with one Chief Justice and a maximum of eighty-six judges.
• The Federal Court was responsible for interpreting the Act and settling disputes related to federal matters.
• It had exclusive original jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between the Centre and member Units.
• Appeals from High Courts to the Federal Court and from the Federal Court to the Privy Council were made possible.
• The Federal Court had the authority to issue Special Leave to Appeal, subject to obtaining a certificate from the High Court.

Reorganization of Provinces:

• The Act led to the reorganization of provinces. Sindh was separated from Bombay and became a separate province.
• Bihar and Orissa were split to form two separate individual provinces of Bihar and Orissa.

Separation of Burma:

• The Simon Commission proposed the separation of Burma from India, and this proposal was accepted through the Government of India Act, of 1935.
• The Burma Act was passed in 1935, two years after the Government of India Act, and Burma became a separate colony.

Supremacy of the Parliament:

• The 1935 Act was rigid and could not be changed or amended by any Indian legislature, whether federal or temporary.
• The British Government alone had the authority to make modifications to the Act.
• The Indian legislature could submit a resolution for a constitutional amendment but had limited power to influence changes. The Act was imposed on India by the British Parliament.

Abolition of the Indian Council of the Secretary of State:

• The Government of India Act, of 1935 abolished the Council of the Secretary of State for India, which was originally established in 1858.
• Instead of the Council, the Secretary of State was provided with advisers. However, with the introduction of provincial autonomy, the Secretary of State’s control over Transferred Subjects was greatly diminished.
• The Secretary of State’s control over the powers of the Governor General and Governors remained intact.

Federal Railway Authority:

• The Act established the Federal Railway Authority, which assumed control over the railways.
• The authority consisted of seven members and was independent of councillors or ministers.
• The Governor-General received direct reports from the authority.
• The establishment of this authority aimed to assure British stakeholders that their investments in the railways would be safeguarded.

Other Provisions:

• The Act provided for the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India to regulate the country’s currency and credit.
• It also established not only a Federal Public Service Commission but also Provincial Public Service Commissions and Joint Public Service Commissions for two or more provinces.
• Separate electorates for women were introduced, allowing for their representation and participation in the decision-making process, which was seen as a positive step towards women’s empowerment.

The Government of India Act (1935) had significant implications and influences on the political landscape of India:

• Power Distribution: T he Act decentralized power by reducing the concentration of authority in the Central Government and granting more autonomy to the provinces. It aimed to establish a more balanced and decentralized form of governance.
• Women’s Representation: The Act introduced separate electorates for women, despite their not explicitly requesting it. This provision was significant in promoting women’s participation and advancement in the decision-making process.
• Representation for Workers: The Act also provided separate representation for workers, recognizing their importance and facilitating their progress as a distinct group.
• Provincial Autonomy: The Act aimed to give provinces more autonomy and freedom from external interference, allowing them to govern within their defined spheres.
• Expanded Voting Rights: The Act extended voting rights to a larger portion of the population compared to the Government of India Act, of 1919, ensuring broader participation in the political process.
• Inclusion of Princes: The Act proposed the establishment of a federal government that would involve the participation of princely states in India’s political activities, recognizing their significance in the overall governance structure.
• Influence on the Indian Constitution: The framers of the Indian Constitution took inspiration from the Government of India Act, of 1935, incorporating some of its characteristics and provisions into the constitutional framework. For example, the concept of having a Governor for each state, elected by the Central Government, was borrowed from the Act. Additionally, the establishment of Public Service Commissions, as outlined in Article 315 of the Indian Constitution, was also influenced by the Act.
• Overall, the Government of India Act, of 1935 played a significant role in shaping India’s political landscape, and its provisions had lasting effects on subsequent constitutional developments in the country.

The Government of India Act (1935) faced significant criticism for several reasons:

• Reduction of Provincial Autonomy: Critics argued that the Act granted excessive discretionary powers to the Governors and Governor-General, effectively diminishing the autonomy of the provinces.
• Flawed Federation Formation: The proposed formation of the Federation was seen as flawed. Provinces were compelled to join the Federation, while the Princely States had the option to join voluntarily. Moreover, the representation of the States in the Federal Legislature was criticized as their nominees, rather than elected representatives, would hold the positions.
• Lack of Proper Federal Structure: The Act was criticized for not providing a well-defined federal structure. Power was heavily concentrated with the Governor-General, undermining the authority and autonomy of other governing bodies.
• Retention and Extension of Communal Electorate: The Act maintained and extended the system of Communal Electorate, which was deemed divisive. Critics objected to its continuation and expansion, particularly with the inclusion of separate electorates for Harijans, labour, and women.
• Concentration of Powers: The Act granted broad powers to the Governor-General and Governors in the name of protecting minority rights, which was viewed by critics as excessive and undemocratic.
• Continued British Control: Until 1947, the British Parliament and the Secretary of State for India retained de facto control over the country. This lack of genuine self-governance generated disdain and resentment towards the Act.
• Lack of Constitutional Flexibility: The legislation failed to provide individuals with sufficient constitutional flexibility to amend their rights. The British government possessed the authority to modify or alter any right, while Indian demands for changes were not adequately addressed.
• Overall, the Government of India Act (1935) faced substantial criticism for its perceived erosion of provincial autonomy, flawed federation formation, retention of divisive practices, concentration of power, continued British control, and limited flexibility for constitutional amendments.

The Britishers gave these concessions in the Government of India Act (1935) due to several strategic considerations:

• Consolidation of Power: The British hoped that by allowing Congress leaders to taste power and distribute patronage, they would become reluctant to return to the politics of sacrifice. This was an attempt to consolidate British control over the political landscape.
• Promotion of Divisions: The reforms were intended to exploit the divisions within the Congress. By promoting dissension and splits based on different ideological factions (constitutionalist vs. non-constitutionalist, Right vs. Left), the British aimed to weaken the Congress further. They anticipated that the Left and radical elements would view the concessions as compromises with imperialism and abandonment of mass politics, leading to more strident demands. This would either result in a breakaway of the leftists from the Congress or the expulsion of radical elements by the right wing, thereby splitting and weakening the Congress.
• Creation of Provincial Leaders: Granting provincial autonomy was a strategy to create powerful provincial leaders within the Congress. By allowing them to wield administrative power and gradually learn to safeguard their prerogatives, the British hoped that these provincial leaders would become autonomous centres of political power. This would serve to decentralize authority and potentially reduce the influence of the centralized Congress leadership.
• Princely States’ Representation: The inclusion of nominated members from the princes in the Bicameral Central Legislature aimed to permanently prevent a Congress majority. By allocating a significant portion of the seats to princes’ nominees (30 to 40 per cent), the British effectively eliminated the possibility of Congress dominating the legislature. This safeguarded the interests of the princes and ensured their cooperation with British rule.
• Overall, the concessions granted in the Government of India Act (1935) were part of the British strategy to consolidate their power, exploit divisions within the Congress, create provincial power centres, and maintain control over the political landscape.

The analysis of the Government of India Act (1935) highlights several important points:

• Distortion of Federal Character: The provisions of safeguards and special responsibilities granted extraordinary powers to the executive heads at the Centre and the Provinces, which seriously distorted the federal character of the Act. Additionally, fully responsible government was not introduced at the Centre, indicating a lack of true decentralization of power.
• Provincial Government Powers: The Act replaced the Dyarchy system with responsible government in all departments at the provincial level. However, this was balanced by the wide discretionary powers given to the governors in summoning legislatures, giving assent to bills, administering tribal regions, and even taking over provincial administration indefinitely under a special provision. This curtailed the autonomy of provincial governments.
• Limited Enfranchisement: Although the electorate was expanded to 30 million, the high property qualifications resulted in only 10 per cent of the Indian population being enfranchised. This primarily benefited the rich and middle peasants in rural areas, who were seen as the main constituency for Congress politics. This led to suspicions that the Act was designed to undermine Congress by tying these important classes to British rule.
• Prince Nominees in the Legislature: In the bicameral central legislature, members nominated by the princes held a significant percentage (30 to 40 per cent) of the seats, effectively preventing a Congress majority. This was a deliberate move to maintain British control and influence over the legislative process.
• Absence of Dominion Status: The Act did not explicitly mention the granting of dominion status to India. While some conservatives viewed it as Britain’s abdication of empire, the Act was consciously designed to protect British interests rather than relinquishing control. The federal structure diverted Congress’ attention to the provinces while maintaining strong imperial control at the centre.
• Condemnation and Rejection: The Act of 1935 faced widespread condemnation from various sections of Indian society and was unanimously rejected by the Congress. The Congress demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly elected through adult franchise to draft a constitution for an independent India, reflecting the dissatisfaction with the Act’s provisions.
• In summary, the Government of India Act (1935) was criticized for distorting federalism, limiting provincial autonomy, restricting enfranchisement, maintaining British control through prince nominees, and failing to explicitly grant dominion status. It faced widespread opposition and calls for a more democratic and independent constitutional process.

The Federation scheme proposed in the Government of India Act (1935) ultimately failed to materialize due to several factors:

• Princely States’ Reluctance: The Princes were hesitant to join the federation primarily because the Act did not adequately address the issue of paramountcy. As the paramount power, the British government had the authority to intervene in the affairs of the Princely States or even remove them from power if necessary. This uncertainty and potential loss of autonomy made the Princes reluctant to join the federation.
• Fear of Democratized Central Government: The Princes also had concerns about joining a central government that would be democratized. They feared that the elected leaders from British India would not sympathize with their autocratic rule and might even support democratic movements within their territories. This apprehension further deterred their participation in the federation.
• Fiscal Autonomy and Representation: Larger states were unwilling to surrender their fiscal autonomy within the federation. They did not want to give up control over their own finances and resources. On the other hand, smaller states felt that they were inadequately represented in the legislature, which created a sense of inequality within the proposed federation.
• Congress and Muslim Leaders’ Concerns: Both the Congress and Muslim leaders had reservations about the federation. Muslim leaders were concerned about Hindu domination within a federal structure that they viewed as still leaning towards a unitary system. They felt that the proposed representation in the central legislature would not adequately protect the interests of Muslim minorities. The Congress also opposed the inclusion of Princes in the federation, as it tied the fate of democratic India to the whims of autocratic rulers.
• These various factors, including the reluctance of the Princely States, and concerns about democratic governance, fiscal autonomy, and representation, contributed to the failure of the federation proposed under the Government of India Act (1935).
• In conclusion, the Government of India Act (1935) introduced significant provisions aimed at enhancing the rights and powers of Indian provinces. It represented a step towards addressing the deplorable conditions prevailing in the country at the time. The Act also played a crucial role in shaping the understanding of what a Constitution or Act should encompass, providing a foundation for Indian leaders to draft their own Constitution after independence.
• However, the Act had its shortcomings. It granted extensive discretionary powers to the Governors and Governor-General, limiting the true autonomy of the provinces. The Act failed to establish a proper federal structure, with the governor-general retaining a majority of the power. These factors undermined the desired decentralization of authority.
• Overall, while the Government of India Act (1935) had its merits in introducing certain reforms, it fell short in fully achieving its intended goals of empowering the provinces and establishing a balanced federal structure. Its limitations and the discontent it generated among various sections of Indian society ultimately led to its rejection and the demand for a more comprehensive and inclusive Constitution.

Q: What was the Government of India Act 1935?

A: The Government of India Act 1935 was a significant piece of legislation enacted by the British Parliament to reform the constitutional structure of British India. It aimed to introduce provincial autonomy and establish a federal system of government in India.

Q: What were the key features of the Government of India Act 1935?

A: The Act proposed to establish a federal structure with separate powers allocated to the central (federal) and provincial governments.

• It introduced bicameral legislatures at both the federal and provincial levels.
• The Act expanded the electorate significantly, allowing a larger segment of the population to vote, although it maintained significant limitations based on income, education, and property.
• It also proposed the establishment of a Federal Court to interpret the Act and adjudicate disputes between the federal and provincial governments.

Q: Why did the Government of India Act 1935 fail to meet Indian nationalist demands?

A: Indian nationalists rejected the Act primarily because it did not grant India the level of autonomy and self-governance they demanded. The Act retained significant powers in the hands of the British authorities and the Governor-General, who was appointed by the British Crown.

The Act also retained the communal electorate system, which allocated seats based on religious communities, exacerbating communal tensions rather than promoting unity.

Q: How did the Government of India Act 1935 contribute to the eventual independence of India?

A: Despite its limitations, the Act played a crucial role in shaping the political landscape of British India. It laid the groundwork for the subsequent constitutional developments and provided the framework upon which independent India’s constitution was later built.

The Act served as a stepping stone towards greater self-governance and helped mobilize Indian political forces, setting the stage for the eventual demand for complete independence from British rule.

Q: What was the impact of the Government of India Act 1935 on British India’s political landscape?

• The Act marked a significant shift towards decentralization and provincial autonomy, granting greater powers to the provinces.
• It also formalized the existence of separate electorates for religious communities, a policy that deepened communal divisions.
• The Act’s failure to fully satisfy Indian nationalist demands contributed to the growing momentum of the independence movement, leading to increased agitation and demands for complete self-rule.

In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.  

For UPSC Prelims Resources,  Click here

For Daily Updates and Study Material:

Join our Telegram Channel –  Edukemy for IAS

• 1. Learn through Videos –  here
• 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs –  here
• 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered –  here
• 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice –  here

Visit our YouTube Channel –  here

• Weaknesses of People’s Uprisings – UPSC Modern History Notes
• The Socialist Phase of Indian Freedom Struggle (1928-1947) – UPSC Modern History Notes
• Workers Movement in India – UPSC Modern History Notes
• Lucknow Session of Indian National Congress (1916) – UPSC Modern History Notes

Edukemy Team

Khilafat movement & the non-cooperation movement – upsc modern history..., quit india movement (1942) – upsc modern history notes, the sylhet referendum and boundaries commission – modern history notes, eka movement (1921) – upsc modern history notes, hindu-muslim unity factor – upsc modern history notes, british conquest of bengal – upsc modern history notes, rediscovery of india’s past – upsc modern history notes, mahadev govind ranade – modern history notes, bhagat singh – modern history notes, first world war and nationalist response – upsc modern history..., leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Our website uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies Got it

Keep me signed in until I sign out

Forgot your password?

A new password will be emailed to you.

Have received a new password? Login here

UPSC All India Mock Test – Edukemy Open Mock

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology
• How to Study Art & Culture?
• What is Art and Culture? What is the difference between the two?
• Indus Civilization
• Evolution of rock-cut architecture in India
• Important rock-cut caves
• The contribution of Pallavas to Rock-cut architecture
• Comparision of art form found at Ellora and Mahabalipuram
• Buddhist Architecture
• Early Temples in India
• Basic form of Hindu temple
• Dravida style of temple architecture
• Nagara Style or North India Temple style
• Vesara style of temple architecture
• Characteristic features of Indo-Islamic form of architecture
• Styles of Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Types of buildings in Islamic architecture in the Indian subcontinent
• Evolution of this form of architecture during the medieval period
• Modern Architecture
• Post-Independence architecture
• Indus Civilization Sculpture
• Bharhut Sculptures
• Sanchi Sculptures
• Gandhara School of Sculpture
• Mathura School of Sculpture
• Amaravati School of Sculpture
• Gupta Sculpture
• Medieval School of Sculpture
• Modern Indian Sculpture
• Pre Historic Painting
• Mural Paintings & Cave Paintings
• Pala School
• Mughal Paintings
• Bundi School of Painting
• Malwa School
• Mewar School
• Basohli School
• Kangra School
• Decanni School of Painting
• Madhubani Paintings or Mithila paintings
• Pattachitra
• Kalighat Painting
• Modern Indian Paintings
• Personalities Associated to Paintings
• Christianity
• Zoroastrianism
• Six Schools of Philosophy
• Lokayata / Charvaka
• Hindustani Music
• Carnatic Music
• Folk Music Tradition
• Modern Music
• Personalities associated with Music
• Bharatanatyam
• Mohiniattam
• Folk Dances
• Modern Dance in India
• Sanskrit Theatre
• Folk Theatre
• Modern Theatre
• Personalities associated with Theatre
• History of Puppetry
• String Puppetry
• Shadow Puppetry
• Rod Puppetry
• Glove Puppetry
• Indian Cinema and Circus
• Shankaracharya
• Ramanujacharya (1017-1137AD)
• Madhvacharya
• Vallabhacharya
• Kabir (1440-1510 AD)
• Guru Nanak (1469-1538 AD)
• Chaitanya Mahaprabhu
• Shankar Dev
• Purandaradasa
• Samard Ramdas
• Classical Languages
• Scheduled Languages
• Literature in Ancient India
• Buddhist and Jain Literature
• Tamil (Sangam) Literature
• Malayalam Literature
• Telugu Literature
• Medieval Literature
• Modern Literature
• Important characteristics of Fairs and Festivals of India
• Some of the major festivals that are celebrated in India
• Art & Crafts
• Ancient Science & Technology
• Medieval Science & Technology
• Famous Personalities in Science & Technology
• Tangible Cultural Heritage
• Intangible Cultural Heritage
• Cultural Heritage Sites
• Natural Heritage Sites
• Important Institutions
• Important programmes related to promotion and preservation of Indian heritage
• Ochre Colored Pottery (OCP)
• Black and Red Ware (BRW)
• Painted Grey-Ware (PGW)
• Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW)
• Origin of Martial arts in India
• Various forms of Martial arts in India
• Company Rule (1773-1858)
• GOI act 1858
• Indian Councils Act (1861, 1892)
• Minto-Morley Reforms, 1909
• Government of India Act of 1919

Government of India Act of 1935

• Indian Independence Act of 1947
• Constituent Assembly
• Salient features of Indian Constitution
• Amendments of the Constitution
• Basic Structure Doctrine
• Characteristic features of fundamental rights
• Rights to equality
• Rights to freedom
• Right against exploitation
• Right to freedom of religion
• Culture and educational rights
• Right to constitutional remedies
• Armed forces and FR
• Martial law and FR
• Effecting certain fundamental rights
• Exceptions to FR
• Significance of FR
• Criticisms of FRs
• Features of DPSP:
• Classification of DPSPs
• Criticism of DPSPs
• Implementation of DPSPs
• Conflict between DPSPs and FRs
• Fundamental Duties
• National Emergency
• President’s rule
• Financial emergency
• Criticism of emergency provisions
• 7th Schedule
• Federal System of government
• Federal system of India- federalism with tilt towards centre
• Cooperative federalism
• Competitive Federalism
• Legislative Relations
• Administrative Relations
• Financial Relations
• GST Council (Centre state relations)
• Important Recommends on Centre-state relations
• Inter-state water disputes
• Inter-State Council
• Inter-state trade and commerce
• Zonal Councils
• Governors Role
• Commissions on Centre state relations
• NITI Aayog (issue and challenges)
• Evolution of Panchayati Raj
• Constitutionalisation of PRI
• Compulsory and voluntary provisions of the act
• PESA act, 1996
• Historical perspective of local bodies in India
• Salient features of 74th amendment act
• Types of urban governments in India
• Significance of ULB
• Present status of urban local bodies
• Challenges faced by ULBs
• Measures required in addressing these challenges
• Finance Commission (Devolution of Power)
• Evolution of devolution of powers and finances
• Special Provisions to some states
• Doctrine of Separation of Power
• Constitutional Status of Separation of Power in India
• Few Judiciary decisions which upheld the Separation of Powers Doctrine
• Comparison of Separation of Powers in USA
• Judiciary – SC, HC
• Tribunals SC,HC
• Election commission (Dispute Redressal Mechanisms and Institutions)
• NITI Aayog (Dispute Redressal)
• Borrowed features
• Presidential vs parliamentary form of government
• Comparison with countries – USA, UK, French, Canada etc
• Functioning
• Conduct of Business
• Powers & Privileges
• Role of speaker
• Leader of opposition
• Anti-Defection law
• Criminalisation of politics
• Union: President, PM, Council of Ministers, Cabinet, Cabinet Committees, Cabinet Secretariat
• State: Governor, Chief Minister, State Council of Ministers
• Appointment of judges
• Evolution of collegium system
• Qualification, Oath, Tenure and Salary of judges
• Acting Chief Justice
• Seat of the Supreme Court
• Ad hoc judges and retired judges of Supreme Court
• Independence of the Supreme Court
• Jurisdictions and powers of Supreme Court
• Sub-ordinate courts
• Independence of Judiciary
• Judicial review
• Judicial activism and Judicial Over-reach
• Cabinet Ministries
• Other Important ministries
• Characteristics of Pressure Groups
• Types of Pressure Groups (Polity)
• Functions, Role & Importance of Pressure Groups
• Techniques/Methods applied by Pressure Groups
• Pressure Groups in India
• Challenges faced by Pressure Groups
• Recent amendments to RP act
• Electoral reforms
• Political parties
• Election and Election laws
• Election Commission
• GST Council
• UPSC (Polity)
• State Public Service Commission
• Finance Commission (App)
• National Commission for SCs
• National Commission for STs
• National Commission for BCs
• Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India
• Attorney General of India
• Advocate General of the State
• Tribunals – CAT, SAT
• NITI Aayog (Statutory)
• National Human Rights Commission
• Central Information Commission
• State Information Commission
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Central Bureau of Investigation
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas
• National Commission for Women
• National Commission for Minorities
• National Disaster Management Authority
• National Investigation Agency
• Central Pollution Control Board
• National Green Tribunal
• Competition Appellate Tribunal

Home » Indian Polity » Indian Constitution » Historical Underpinnings and Evolution » Crown Rule (1858-1947) » Government of India Act of 1935

• It provided for the establishment of an All India federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units.
• It divided the powers between the centre and units in terms of three lists- Federal list, provincial list and the concurrent list. Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy. However, this federation never fructified since princely states did not join it.
• It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ in its place
• The act introduced responsible government in provinces, that is, the governor was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature
• It provided for the adoption of dyarchy at the centre. However, this provision did not come into effect at all
• Bicameralism was introduced in six provinces- Bengal, Bombay Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces
• Separate electorates was further extended to depressed classes, women and labour
• Council of India which was established as per the 1858 act was abolished The secretary of state was instead provided with a team of advisors.
• The act provided for setting up- Federal public service commission, provincial public service commission, joint public service commission, federal court, Reserve Bank of India

Practice question:

It would have been difficult for the Constituent Assembly to complete its historic task of drafting the Constitution for Independent India in just three years but for the experience gained with the Government of India Act, 1935. Discuss.(250 words)

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

A Brand of CLT Technologies & Edu-Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Forgot password

If you haven’t created your account yet, please SIGN UP HERE

Quick Links Testimonials FAQ

Hybrid Classes

We provide offline, online and recorded lectures in the same amount.

Personalised Mentoring

Every aspirant is unique and the mentoring is customised according to the strengths and weaknesses of the aspirant

Topicwise Mindmaps

In every Lecture. Director Sir will provide conceptual understanding with around 800 Mindmaps.

Quality Content

We provide you the best and Comprehensive content which comes directly or indirectly in UPSC Exam.

If you haven’t created your account yet, please SIGNUP HERE

UPSC Courses

IAS Foundation 2024

• C2U-NCERT 2024
• Newspaper Analysis Program
• Basic Daily Answer Writing

Optional Classes

• Geography Crash Course

Current Affairs

• Daily Newspaper Analysis - DNA
• UPSC Facts & Data
• GS Prelims PT Pointers
• Press Information Bureau - PIB
• Good Morning Times - Subject Wise
• EASY TO PICK MONTHLY CURRENT
• GS Paper Wise Current Affairs
• Daily Question Practice (PT-Mains)

Test Series

• RAW Live MCQ
• Oral Test Session By Director Sir

Others Links

• Testimonials

UPSC Prelims Classes 2024

Crash Course

• Sanjeevani @ 60Days
• Morden History
• Science & Technology

Regular Modules 2024

• Mapping & Geography
• Environment
• Economics Basic To Advance
• Polity & History
• News Paper Analysis Programme
• Prelims Test Series
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus & Strategy
• UPSC Previous Years Paper
• Prelims Modular Batches
• UPSC Prelims - PT Pointers
• Exclusive Test Series - Mock
• CSAT Classes
• Prelims Sanjeevani 2024 Crash Course

Mains Classes 2024

• RAW GS Crash Course
• Target 50 Program
• Ethics & Case Studies
• Editorial & Current Affairs – QIP
• Writing Skill Development Program

Mains & Interview

• Mains Syllabus & Strategy
• Daily UPSC Answer Writing
• Target 50 For Mains Batch
• Personality Test
• Mains Crash Course
• MAINS Previous Papers
• Optionals Previous Papers

Mains Material

• Mains Kunji
• Prelims (Live-MCQ)
• Prelims PT Tricks-2024
• Daily Answer Writing

Free Study Material

• Important Video Lectures
• Previous Years Papers
• Newspaper Analysis & ENY Notes
• UPSC GS Mains Notes
• 2 nd ARC Report Summary
• Aspire IAS Notes
• Free Download - UPSC Content
• Paid Material(SLP)
• UPSC Optional Notes

The Government Of India Act 1935

• 07 December, 2021
• 13 min read
• Download PDF

The Government of India Act 1935 

• After the 3rd Round Table Conferences, a White Paper on the new Constitution of India was prepared in 1933 . It contained 3 major proposals (a) Federation. (b) Provincial Autonomy. and (c) Safeguards which vested special powers in Central and Provincial Executives. This White Paper was submitted to Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Parliament.
• Sources : (1) Simon Commission Report. (2) Report of All Parties Conference (Nehru Report) (3) White Paper (4) Joint  Select Committee Report (5) Lothian Report which determined the electoral provisions of the Act.

Provisions of Government of India Act 1935

The Act consciously chose federal structure because  it would act primarily to protect £ interests rather than hand over the control in the vital areas / The Act only proposed to protect £ interests in India by sharing power with the loyalist elements / If any change happened at all, the apex of the system moved from London to Delhi.

• It never came into being . The Central govt continued to be governed on the lines of Montform Reforms, 1919 .
• It was to comprise of Governor’s provinces + Chief Commissioner’s provinces + the Indian Princely States.
• Accession to federation was optional to states and conditional.
• The federation would come into existence only if > 50% of the princely states formally acceded to it by signing the Instruments of Accession which would override their previous treaties w £.
• But it established a federation and gave provinces autonomy in their sphere of legis lation.
• The 3 lists were created . There were also emergency provisions .
• They were no longer delegates of the center.
• Governor now derived his powers from the crown and not Governor-General .
• Even though the Federation was not there, Federal Bank (RBI, 1935) + Federal Court (1937) were established .
• Governor-General was the pivot of the entire constitution .
• Subjects were divided into Transferred and Reserved (internal security, foreign affairs, defense, etc.) subjects.
• On Reserved, Governor General (GG) acted solely in his discretion . On the transferred subjects, he was to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM) who were responsible to the legis. But even here, the GG could act contrary to the advice tendered by the CoM if it affected his 'special responsibilities' .
• In practice, even CoM was never appointed .
• Council of State (Upper House like Rajya Sabha ) = Direct Election.
• Legislative Assembly (Lower House like Lok Sabha) = Indirect Election.
• It can make laws for the whole or any part of India.
• For Federal and Provincial laws, there were 3 lists – Federal, Provincial and Concurrent. Residuary power was vested w Governor-General .
• 80% of the budget was non-votable .
• They were broadly freed from superintendence, direction, and control.
• They were to derive their power directly from the crown .
• The distinction between Transferred and Reserved subjects was abolished .
• Full responsible govt was established in provinces subject to certain safeguards.
• The Governor in Province was now required to act on the advice of the CoM who was responsible to the council.
• But this was balanced by giving  special executive powers (discretion)  to the governors on matters like law and order, administering tribal regions, safeguarding minority rights, privileges of civil servants, and £ business interests. And finally, they could take over and run the administration of a province indefinitely.
• Bicameral in 6 provinces .
• There was to be a separatist system of representation by religious communities and groups.
• Seats were reserved for Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, SCs, and AI.
• There were separate constituencies for labor,  landholders, commerce, and industry, etc.
• Powers of councils: GG (and governor in provinces) could veto, suspend proceedings/discussion on a bill, needed to give assent for the introduction of the bill. 
• The governors in provinces were invested with special executive powers. They could exercise discretion in matters like law and order, interests of minorities and the people of backward areas, the protection of the British commercial interests, and those of the rulers of states.
• London - Delhi relations : There was to be a transfer of financial control from London to Delhi in response to the long-standing demand of the GoI for fiscal autonomy .
• Electorate : The electorate was enlarged to 30 mm but high property qualifications meant only 10% could vote. In rural India, thus, voting rights were given to the rich and the middle peasants who were staunch supporters of the congress. + communal electorates to everybody.
• Federal Court w original and appellate powers to be established (in 1937). Also Federal Bank (RBI in 1935).
• The new constitution could be amended only by the British govt .
• The Indian council was abolished and instead, SoS was given advisors.

The Government of India Act 1935 was an arrangement for the interim period of transition from  responsible government to complete independence .

• The Government of India Act 1935 was based on two basic principles, namely, the  federation and the parliamentary system .
• Although the federation principle was introduced with a built-in unitary bias yet the provinces were invested with a coordinate and not a subordinate authority. 
• No doubt, the federal character was seriously distorted by the provisions of safeguards and special responsibility which gave extraordinary powers to the executive head at the center and the provinces. 
• An important point to be noted is that a  fully responsible government was not introduced at the center . 
• The provincial autonomy envisaged under the Government of India Act 1935 was also placed under serious limitations .
• The Dominion Status for India was still a distant dream .
• The incorporation of safeguards was a clever constitutional device to delay the introduction of a fully responsible governmen t. 
• Although these provisions were made for the transition period, the extent of the period of transition was not defined .

The Government of India Act 1935 could hardly satisfy anybody.

• It was afraid of Hindu domination and feared that the proposed federal structure would be very unitary.
• All the representatives of £ India to the central legislature were to be elected by the provincial assemblies (without any provision for proportional representation) and this would go against the Muslims who were minorities in all but 4 provinces.
• So although they didn't oppose the federation in public they preferred to allow more autonomy to the provincial governments.
• They rejected the provision of safeguards and repudiated the idea of transition.
• They didn't like the proposed federation because ~33 - 40% of seats would be filled in by the princes.
• Criticized the grounds that in formulating it, the people of India were never consulted, hence not representing their will.
• Voting provisions, property criteria, separate electorates were undemocratic in nature.
• The Liberals criticized but were willing to work the reforms as a step towards responsible govt.
• Their main objection to federation was that the Act still left the question of paramountcy unsettled.
• Despite the lapse of all treaties with the crown, £ were not willing to give away their paramountcy over the princes.
• And thus as the paramount power £ still retained the right to interfere in their internal matters and to even overthrow them if necessary. So for the princes there was nothing to be gained in joining the federation.
• The 1827 Butler Committee too didn't provide any solution to the paramountcy issue. The only concession it gave to the states was that paramountcy would not be transferred without their consent to any democratically elected government in £ India but there was no dilution of £ paramountcy.
• The princes supported the idea of the federation in the Nehru report of 1928 hoping to get rid of the £ paramountcy problem. But in the GoI Act, 1935 £ made it clear that their paramountcy will not lapse despite the princes joining the federation. So joining the federation became meaningless .
• Their second fear was that the democratic government at the center would have little sympathy for their autocratic causes and thus would encourage democratic forces in their territories as well .

The Government of India Act 1935 was thus to corrode the support base of the congress.

• The government had curbed CDM by using force. But it knew force can work only for so long. So it decided to divide the INM by drawing the moderates out with the lure of reforms. This would accentuate the differences between left and right wings as the left would be opposed to the constitutional process. Once separated, the left could be crushed. The right-wing once in power would be cut off from the masses and lose popularity.
• Gandhiji had been persuaded by the £ to participate in the 2nd RTC on the basis of 3 promises - federation, a responsible government, reservations, and safeguards.
• Provincial autonomy would weaken the central leadership and create strong provincial leaders. Thus Congress organization would be weakened @ all-India level. 
• In rural India, voting rights were given to the rich and the middle peasants who were staunch supporters of the congress. 
• Thus, Congress participated in the elections in 1937 and formed provincial ministries.

Newsletter Subscription

Important links.

• Economic Issues
• International Relations
• Miscellaneous
• Human Geography
• Modern History
• Indian Society
• Art and Culture
• Government policies and interventions
• Biodiversity & Environment
• Bilateral Relations
• Important Bills
• Internal security
• Important reports
• Social issues
• Various acts
• International organisation
• International treaties and conventions
• Disaster and Disaster management
• Indian Polity
• World History
• Indian Geography
• Physical Geography
• Developmental Issues
• Indian Economy
• Government Policies & Reports
• Tolerance and Intolerance
• Ancient History

Challenge UPSC 2024 - PT Tricks

Update Info

• Prelims Sanjeevani 2021 Crash Course

Mains & Interview

• Mains Sanjeevani 7Days Batch (coming soon)
• MAINS Test Series By Toppers
• RAW Prelims Live MCQ 2021

UPSC Resource

• General Studies Notes
• SLP - Paid Notes

Sept 1, 2005

The government of india act 1935.

David Steinberg

[email protected]

Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/

Note - I originally posted this small essay on Wikipedia.

1. Introduction

2. Genesis of the Act

3. some features of the act, 4. provincial part of the act, 5. federal part of the act, 6. gambles taken by the british government, 7. indian reaction to the proposed federation, 8. the working of the act, 9. postscript.

Bibliography

1. Intro duction

The Government of India Act 1935 was the last pre-independence constitution of the British Raj .

The Government of India Act 1935 was the outcome of a long constitutional development of which the mains stages were:

Government of India Act 1858 , under which India became a formal Crown colony and the British government took over administrative functions from the British East India Company , following the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857;

Government of India Act 1909 which introduced the elective principle;

Government of India Act 1919 which introduced provincial dyarchy i.e. some “nation building” subjects, such as education, would be in the hands of ministers commanding support in the provincial legislature while the core subjects e.g. law and order and finance, were in the charge of officials appointed by, and responsible to, the governor and ultimately to the British Parliament;

Simon Commission which proposed almost fully responsible government in the provinces;

Indian Round Table Conferences 1931-1933 which agreed that both Bitish India and the Princely States would be integrated into a eventual federated Dominion of India. However, Congress and the Muslims were not able to reach any agreement on how this federation should be structured i.e. how power was to be shared and how the minority Mulsims were to be protected from Hindu persecution. This lack of agreement left the Conservative -dominated British government free to draft legislative proposals (the white paper ) in line with its own views;

A joint select committee , chaired by Lord Linlithgow, which reviewed the white paper proposals at great length. On the basis of this white paper, the Government of India Act, 1935 was framed. At the committee stage and later, to appease the diehards , the “safeguards” were strengthened and indirect elections, were reinstated for the Federal Assembly (Lower House). Among other things, the Act continued to deny Indians the right to draft, or modify, their own constitution .

No Preamble – The Ambiguity of Parliament’s Commitment to Dominion Status

The Government of India Act 1919 had a Preamble explaining the overarching aim and philosophy of the Act. The Preamble quoted, and centered on, the statement of Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu (July 17, 1917 - March 19, 1922) to the House of Commons on 20 August 1917 which pledged

”…the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral Part of the British Empire .”

Had there been a Preamble, it would have had to have included the Viceroy Lord Irwin’s statement of 31 October 1929 (see Gwyer & Appadorai pp. 224-225 )-

”The goal of British policy was stated in the declaration of August 1917 to be that of providing for the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire…. I am authorized on behalf of His Majesty's Government to state clearly that in their judgement it is implicit in the declaration of 1917 that the natural issue of India's constitutional progress, as there contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status.”

Once the new Act had been passed Irwin’s statement would have become Parliament’s commitment. However, many Conservative backbenchers, not only the diehards, opposed granting India dominion status. To avoid a confrontation, i.e. to fudge the issue, Sam Hoare, the Secretary of State for India made the following statement to Parliament on 6 February 1935 [1]

The House will observe that the Bill, like most modern Bills, contains no Preamble. There have, it is true, been important Acts in the past, among them the Government of India Act, 1919, to which a statement of policy and intentions was prefixed. There is, however, no need for a Preamble in this case, as no new pronouncement of policy or intentions is required. The Preamble to the Act of 1919 was described by the Joint Committee in their Report as ‘having set out finally and definitely the ultimate aims of British rule in India'. The Committee, after full consideration, further asserted that 'subsequent statements of policy have added nothing to the substance of this declaration', which they then proceed to quote in full in their Report as, in their own words, ‘settling once and for all the attitude of the British Parliament and people towards the political aspirations' of India…. Moreover, in government, and above all in the government of the Indian Empire, continuity of policy is of the first importance. No Government and no Parliament can treat lightly any statement issued under the authority of their predecessors…. The position of the Government therefore, is this: They stand firmly by the pledge contained in the 1919 Preamble, which it is not part of their plan to repeal, and by the interpretation put by the Viceroy in 1929, on the authority of the Government of the day, on that Preamble that 'the natural issue of India's progress as there contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status'. The declaration of 1929 was made to remove doubts which had been felt as to the meaning of the Preamble of 1919. There is, therefore, no need to enshrine in an Act words and phrases which would add nothing new to the declaration of the Preamble.

Hoare’s statement asserted his Government’s support for the Irwin declaration but did not submit it to Parliament to receive parliamentary approval for its contents.

No Bill of Rights – Since the Federation, to be established under the Act, would include autocratic princely States, no meaningful bill of rights could be formulated. N.b. the draft outline constitution in the Nehru Report did include a bill of rights.

Length – The Government of India Act 1935 was the longest bill ever passed by Parliament. A good constitution should clearly set out overarching principles, not lawyers’ small print. The most successful constitution ever, that of the USA, is only a few pages long. The reason for this length was Parliament’s lack of trust of Indians and particularly Indian politicians.

Relationship to a Dominion Constitution – In 1947, a relatively few amendments in the Act made it the functioning interim constitutions of India and Pakistan.

Safeguards – The Act was not only extremely detailed, but it was riddled with ‘safeguards’ designed to enable the British Government to intervene whenever it saw the need in order to maintain British responsibilities and interests . To achieve this, in the face of a gradually increasing Indianization of the institutions of the Government of India, the Act concentrated the decision for the use and the actual administration of the safeguards in the hands of the British-appointed Viceroy and provincial governors who were subject to the control of the Secretary of State for India .

In view of the enormous powers and responsibilities which the Governor-General must exercise in his discretion or according to his individual judgment, it is obvious that he (the Viceroy) is expected to be a kind of superman. He must have tact, courage, and ability and be endowed with an infinite capacity for hard work. "We have put into this Bill many safeguards," said Sir Robert Horne … "but all of those safeguards revolve about a single individual, and that is the Viceroy. He is the lynch-pin of the whole system…. If the Viceroy fails, nothing can save the system you have set up." This speech reflected the point of view of the die-hard Tories who were horrified by the prospect that some day there might be a Viceroy appointed by a Labor government. ( Smith )

Reality of Responsible Government Under the Act – Is the cup Half-full or Half-Empty?

A close reading of the Act ( see Shah 1937 ) reveals that the British Government equipped itself with the legal instruments to take back total control at any time they considered this to be desirable . However, doing so without good reason would totally sink their credibility with . groups in India whose support the act was aimed at securing . Some contrasting views -

“In the federal government … the semblance of responsible government is presented. But the reality is lacking, for the powers in defence and external affairs necessarily, as matters stand, given to the governor-general limit vitally the scope of ministerial activity, and the measure of representation given to the rulers of the Indian States negatives any possibility of even the beginings of democratic control . It will be a matter of the utmost interest to watch the development of a form of government so unique; certainly, if it operates successfully, the 'highest credit will be due to the political capacity of Indian leaders, who have infinitely more serious difficulties to face than had the colonial statesmen who evolved the system of self-government which has now culminated in Dominion status.” [2]

“ Lord Lothian , in a talk lasting forty-five minutes, came straight out with his view on the Bill [3] :

I agree with the diehards that it has been a surrender. You who are not used to any constitution cannot realise what great power you are going to wield. If you look at the constitution it looks as if all the powers are vested in the Governor-General and the Governor. But is not every power here vested in the King? Everything is done in the name of the King but does the King ever interfere? Once the power passes into the hands of the legislature, the Governor or the Governor-General is never going to interfere. . . . The Civil Service will be helpful. You too will realise this. Once a policy is laid down they will carry it out loyally and faithfully….

We could not help it. We had to fight the diehards here. You could not realise what great courage has been shown by Mr. Baldwin and Sir Samuel Hoare. We did not want to spare the diehards as we had to talk in a different language….

These various meetings - and in due course G.D. (Birla), before his return in September, met virtually everyone of importance in Anglo-Indian affairs - confirmed G.D.'s original opinion that the differences between the two countries were largely psychological, the same proposals open to diametrically opposed interpretations. He had not, probably, taken in before his visit how considerable, in the eyes of British conservatives, the concessions had been…. If nothing else, successive conversations made clear to G.D. that the agents of the Bill had at least as heavy odds against them at home as they had in India.

False Equivalences - "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from Anatole France in The Red Lily , 1894)

Ø                                            Under the Act, British citizens resident in the UK and British companies registered in the UK must be treated on the same basis as Indian citizens and Indian registered companies unless UK law denies reciprocal treatment. The unfairness of this arrangement is clear when one considers the dominant position of British capital in much of the Indian modern sector and the complete dominance, maintained through unfair commercial practices, of UK shipping interests in both India’s international and coastal shipping traffic and the utter insignificance of Indian capital in Britain and the non-existence of Indian involvement in shipping to or within the UK. There are very detailed provisions requiring the Viceroy to intervene if, in his unappealable view, any India law or regulation is intended to, or will in fact, discriminate against UK resident British subjects, British registered companies and, particularly, British shipping interests.

“The Joint Committee considered a suggestion that trade with foreign countries should be made by the Minister of Commerce, but it decided that all negotiations with foreign countries should be conducted by the Foreign Office or Department of External Affairs as they are in the United Kingdom. In concluding agreements of this character, the Foreign Secretary always consults the Board of Trade and it was assumed that the Governor-General would in like manner consult the Minister of Commerce in India. This may be true, but the analogy itself is false. In the United Kingdom, both departments are subject to the same legislative control, whereas in India one is responsible to the federal legislature and the other to the Imperial Parliament.” ( Smith )

British Political Needs vs. Indian Constitutional Needs – the Ongoing Dysfunction

From the Montagu statement of 1917, it was vital that the reform process stay ahead of the curve if the British were to hold the strategic initiative. However, imperialist sentiment, and a lack of realism, in British political circles made this impossible. Thus the grudging conditional concessions of power in the Acts of 1919 and 1935 caused more resentment and signally failed to win the Raj the backing of influential groups in India which it desperately needed. In 1919 the Act of 1935, or even the Simon Commission plan would have been well received. There is evidence that Montagu would have backed something of this sort but his cabinet colleagues would not have considered it. By 1935, a constitution establishing a Dominion of India, comprising the British Indian provinces might have been acceptable in India though it would not have passed the British Parliament. As Moore wrote [4] -

“Considering the balance of power in the Conservative party at the time, the passing of a Bill more liberal than that which was enacted in 1935 is inconceivable.”

The provincial part of the Act, which went into effect automatically, basically followed the recommendations of the Simon Commission . Provincial dyarchy was abolished; i.e. all provincial portfolios were to be placed in charge of ministers enjoying the support of the provincial legislatures. The British-appointed provincial governors, who were responsible to the British Government via the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India , were to accept the recommendations of the ministers unless, in their view, they negatively affected his areas of statutory “special responsibilities” such as the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquility of a province and the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities. In the event of political breakdown, the governor, under the supervision of the Viceroy, could take over total control of the provincial government. This, in fact, allowed the governors a more untrammeled control than any British official had enjoyed in the history of the Raj . After the resignation of the congress provincial ministries in 1939, the governors did directly rule the ex-Congress provinces throughout the war.

It was generally recognized, that the provincial part of the Act conferred a great deal of power and patronage to provincial politicians as long as both British officials and Indian politicians played by the rules. However, the paternalistic threat of the intervention by the British governor rankled.

Unlike the provincial portion of the Act, the Federal portion was to go into effect only when half the States by weight agreed to federate. This never happened

a. Terms of the Act

The Act provided for Dyarchy at the Centre. The British Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for India , through the Governor-General of India – Viceroy of India , would continue to control India’s financial obligations, defence, foreign affairs and the British Indian Army and would make the key appointments to the Reserve Bank of India (exchange rates) and Railway Board and the Act stipulated that no finance bill could be placed in the Central Legislature without the consent of the Governor General. The funding for the British responsibilities and foreign obligations (eg. loan repayments, pensions), at least 80 percent of the federal expenditures, would be non-votable and be taken off the top before any claims could be considered for e.g. social or economic development programs. The Viceroy, under the supervision of the Secretary of State for India, was provided with overriding and certifying powers that could, theoretically have allowed him to rule autocratically.

b. Objectives of the British Government

The federal part of the Act was designed to meet the aims of the Conservative Party. Over the very long term, the Conservative leadership expected the Act to lead to a nominally dominion status India, conservative in outlook, dominated by an alliance of Hindu princes, Muslims and right-wing Hindus which would be well disposed to place itself under the guidance and protection of Great Britain. In the medium-term, the Act was expected to (in rough order of importance):

·                      win the support of moderate nationalists since it’s formal aim was to eventually lead to an Dominion of India which, as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931, virtually equaled independence;

·                      retain British of control of the Indian Army, Indian finances and India’s foreign relations for another generation;

win Muslim support by conceding most of Jinnah's Fourteen Points ;

·                      convince the Princes to join the Federation by giving the Princes conditions for entry never likely to be equaled. It was expected that enough would join to allow the establishment of the Federation. The terms offered to the Princes included:

o                                             The Princes would select their state’s representatives in the Federal Legislature. There would be no pressure for them to democratize their administrations or allow elections for state’s representatives in the Federal Legislature;

o                                             The Princes would enjoy heavy weightage. The Princely States represented about a quarter of the population of India and produced well under a quarter of its wealth. Under the Act:

o                                             The Upper House of the Federal Legislature, the Council of State, would consist of 260 members (156 (60%) elected from the British India and 104 (40%) nominated by the rulers of the princely states) and,

o                                             The Lower House, the Federal Assembly, would consist of 375 members (250 (67%) elected by the Legislative Assemblies of the British Indian provinces; 125 (33%) nominated by the rulers of the princely states.)

ensure that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government . This was done by over-representing the Princes, the Muslims and every possible minority and by making the executive theoretically, but not practically, removable by the legislature;

·                      weaken electoral support for Congress by increasing the electorate. It was hoped that elements of the “true India” would be enfranchised which would see their interests in stability and cooperation with the British and so would reject the westernized nationalist extremists;

induce the disintegration of Congress as a cohesive national party . This would be accomplished by giving Indian politicians a great deal of power at the provincial level, while denying them, responsibility at the Centre, it was hoped that Congress, the only national party, would disintegrate into a series of provincial fiefdoms and thus cease to threaten the Raj at the Centre.

Viability of the proposed Federation. It was hoped that the gerrymandered federation, encompassing units of such hugely different sizes, sophistication and varying in forms of government from autocratic Princely States to democratic provinces, could provide the basis for a viable state. However, this was not a realistic possiblity (see eg. The Making of India’s Paper Federation, 1927-35 in Moore 1988 ). In reality, the Federation, as planned in the Act, almost certainly was not viable and would have rapidly broken down with the British left to pick up the pieces without any viable alternative.

·                      That the Princes would see that their best hope for a future would lie in rapidly joining and becoming a united block without which no group could hope, mathematically, to wield power. However, the princes did not join, and thus exercising the veto provided by the Act, prevented the Federation from coming into existence. Among the reasons for the Princes staying out were:

o        They did not have the foresight to realize that this was their only chance for a future;

Congress had begun, and would continue, agitating for democratic reforms within the Princely States. Since the one common concern of the 600 or so Princes was their desire to continue to rule their states without interference, this was indeed a mortal threat. It was on the cards that this would lead eventually to more democratic state regimes and the election of states’ representatives in the Federal Legislature. In all likelihood these representatives would be largely Congressmen. Had the Federation been established, the election of states’ representatives in the Federal Legislature would amount to a Congress coup from the inside. Thus, contrary to their official position that the British would look favorably on the democratization of the Princely States, their plan required that the States remain autocratic. This reflects a deep contradiction on British views of India and its future. Cell (p 210) wrote –

At a banquet in the princely state of Benares Hailey observed that although the new federal constitution would protect their position in the central government, the internal evolution of the states themselves remained uncertain. Most people seemed to expect them to develop representative institutions. Whether those alien grafts from Westminster would succeed in British India, however, itself remained in doubt. Autocracy was "a principle which is firmly seated in the Indian States," he pointed out; "round it burn the sacred fires of an age-long tradition," and it should be given a fair chance first. Autocratic rule, "informed by wisdom, exercised in moderation, and vitalized by a spirit of service to the interests of the subject, may well prove that it can make an appeal in India as strong as that of representative and responsible institutions." This spirited defense brings to mind Nehru's classic paradox of how the representatives of the advanced, dynamic West allied themselves with the most reactionary forces of the backward, stagnant East.

Under the Act,

”There are a number of restrictions on the freedom of discussion in the federal legislature. For example the act forbids ... any discussion of, or the asking of questions about, a matter connected with an Indian State, other than a matter with respect to which the federal legislature has power to make laws for that state, unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects federal interests or affects a British subject, and has given his consent to the matter being discussed or the question being asked.” ( Smith )

o                                             They were not a cohesive group and probably realized that they would never act as one.

o                                             Each state seemed consumed by the desire to gain the best deal for itself were it to join the Federation – the most money, the most autonomy.

That enough was being offered at the Centre to win the support of moderate nationalist Hindu and Muslim support. In fact, so little was offered that all significant groups in British India rejected and denounced the proposed Federation. A major contributing factor was the continuing distrust of British intentions for which there was considerable basis in fact . In this vital area the Act failed Irwin’s test [5] -

"I don't believe that...it is impossible to present the problem in such a form as would make the shop window look respectable from an Indian point of view, which is really what they care about, while keeping your hand pretty firmly on the things that matter."

·                      That the wider electorate would turn against the Congress. In fact, the 1937 elections showed overwhelming support for Congress among the Hindu electorate.

·                      That by giving Indian politicians a great deal of power at the provincial level, while denying them, responsibility at the Centre, it was hoped that Congress, the only national party, would disintegrate into a series of provincial fiefdoms. In fact, the congress High Command was able to control the provincial ministries and to force their resignation in 1939. The Act showed the strength and cohesion of Congress and probably strengthened it. This does not imply that Congress was not made up of, and found its support in, various sometimes competing interests and groups. Rather, it recognizes the ability of Congress, unlike the British Raj, to maintain the cooperation and support of most of these groups even if, e.g. in the forced resignation of Congress provincial ministries in 1939 and the rejection of the Cripps Offer in 1942, this required a negative policy harmful, in the long-run, to the prospects for an independent India which would be both united and democratic.

No significant group in India accepted the Federal portion of the Act. A typical response was [6] -

”After all, there are five aspects of every Government worth the name: (a) The right of external and internal defence and all measures for that purpose; (b) The right to control our external relations; (c) The right to control our currency and exchange; (d) The right to control our fiscal policy; (e) the day-to-day administration of the land…. (Under the Act) You shall have nothing to do with external affairs. You shall have nothing to do with defence. You shall have nothing to do, or, for all practical purposes in future, you shall have nothing to do with your currency and exchange, for indeed the Reserve Bank Bill just passed has a further reservation in the Constitution that no legislation may be undertaken with a view to substantially alter the provisions of that Act except with the consent of the Governor-General…. there is no real power conferred in the Centre.” (SPEECH BY MR BHULABHAI DESAI ON THE REPORT OF THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM, 4 FEBRUARY 1935.

However, the Liberals, and even elements in the Congress were tepidly willing to give it a go [7] -

“Linlithgow asked Sapru whether he thought there was a satisfactory alternative to the scheme of the 1935 Act. Sapru replied that they should stand fast on the Act and the federal plan embodied in it. It was not ideal but at this stage it was the only thing …. A few days after Sapru's visit Birla came to see the Viceroy. He thought that Congress was moving towards acceptance of Federation. Gandhi was not over-worried, said Birla, by the reservation of defence and external affairs to the centre, but was concentrating on the method of choosing the States' representatives. Birla wanted the Viceroy to help Gandhi by persuading a number of Princes to move towards democratic election of representatives. … Birla then said that the only chance for Federation lay in agreement between Government and Congress and the best hope of this lay in discussion between the Viceroy and Gandhi.”

The British government sent out Lord Linlithgow as the new viceroy with the remit of bringing the Act into effect. This was an unfortuante choice dictated by British politics rather than by any assessment of Indian needs. On the plus side, Linlithgow was intelligent, extremely hard working, honest, serious and determined to make a success out of the Act. On the negative side, he was unimaginative, stolid, legalistic and found it very difficult to "get on terms" with people outside his immediate circle. This legalistic approach, unfortunately, reinforced the extremely legalsitic Act of which he was one of the main authors.

When under pressure, which was most of the time, Linlithgow retreated into the details of administration while going immobile on the strategic level. This contrasts with Gandhi's tendency to retreat into a unrealistic idealistic, semi-mystical pronouncements adn Nehru's tendency under pressure to retreat into dogmatic socialism. if you throw in Jinnah's stubborn, legalistic pursuit of Muslim maximum goals the combination did not make for the finding of practical compromise solutions to massive problems.

In 1937, after a great deal of confrontation, Provincial Autonomy was launched. From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Linlithgow tirelessly tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. In this he received only the weakest backing from the home government and in the end the Princes rejected the Federation en masse. In September 1939, Linlithgow simply declared that India was at war with Germany. A more imaginative and flexible viceroy, such as Irwin, might have tried to consult with Indian leaders and obtain a resolution fo support from the Central Legislative Assembly. Though Linlithgow's behaviour was constitutionally correct it was also offensive to much of Indian opinion. This led directly to the resignation of the congress provincial ministries which drove another nail into the coffin of Indian Unity.

From 1939, Linlithgow concentrated on supporting the war effort.

Two quotes:

For Brown the 1930s are the "critical decade," where change for once ovrrwhelmed continuity (pp. 242-43). Here too, however, as before, political negotiations, and the ensuing constitutional reforms, take center stage. Individual congressmen, she insists, had but a "fleeting commitment" to civil disobedience. Instead, drawn by the "magnetism" of the new political institutions, and anxious at the same time to extricate themselves from "fruitless conflict," they embedded "Western-style" dem­ ocratic politics at the heart of India's political life (pp. 277-78). This "transplan­ tation" of Western forms, embodied above all in the 1935 Government of India Act—a "resounding success"—thus becomes the sheet anchor of India's later stability and testifies, by implication, to the triumph of the Raj in preparing the way for its own demise…. Brown … focusses on the critical importance of the "weakening of the network of collaboration" (p. 314)…. Both agree that India emerged into independent existence as a "broadly" democratic and capitalist society and that it has remained ever since committed to this "path of development." For Brown this outcome was, and is, a product of processes of ac­ commodation and adaptation in an inherently stable society, where "traditional be­ liefs" remain powerful, and the government has but "a limited capacity to engineer change" (pp. 377-78). [8]

  The 1935 Government of India Act proved to be a landmark in the development of India. For all its 'ifs' and 'buts', its complications and hesitations, it marked a point of no-return in constitutional development, which the Montford reforms did not. They had left the ultimate goal hazy and with their periodic inquiry, the next step uncertain. Dominion status was now the accepted goal, federalism the accepted framework, and parliamentary institutions the accepted form of government. Provision was made for changing the constitution from within. In many ways the Act was a blueprint for independence, a fact to which the retention of its general shape and the lifting of whole seed of the text into the Constitution of 1950 testifies.

  In Britain the Act represented a new consensus on India in a way the 1919 Act can hardly be said to have done. Then there was general agreement that an experiment should be made in the direction of self-government, but no agreement as to its ultimate outcome or future policy to be followed. In the sixteen intervening years there was, in fact, a revolution in British opinion about India. The successful working of the Montford reforms in several provinces, in spite of setbacks in others and the rapid development of the country, had had their effect. But, above all, the strength and discipline of the Civil disobedience movement of 1930-31, and the skill of its direction, together with the new attitude of the princes, had convinced the mass of Conservative opinion that the national movement was not only a reality, but a paramount reality. Terms must be made with it, and, that being the case, a Conservative government should seek to guide the movement along its own lines rather than put up futile barriers to be swept away one by one by an ever rising nationalist flood. The Act thus represented not only a consensus of British political opinion but also a considered attempt to provide a conservative form for ultimate Indian independence. Britain would go into partnership with an independent India, but she would see to it, if she could, that the new India was one in which the conservative interests predominated. The Act is thus not only significant as a British political compromise, or as a step towards meeting Congress demands, but also as a deliberate plan for the conservative political evolution of India. These conservative political features are to be seen specially in the federal structure, in the treatment of the princes, and in various constitutional devices. If pursued to its logical conclusion this policy would have seen an India independent indeed in ten to twenty years' time, but so weighted on the side of existing vested interests that its shape would have been quite different from that which we know today. [9]

Related articles

British Empire

British Raj

Secretary of State for India

India Office

Governor-General of India

Indian Civil Service

Government of India Act

Nehru Report

Simon Commission

History of Bangladesh

History of India

History of Pakistan

[1] Gwyer & Appadorai pp. 322-323

[2] Keith 1937 p. viii

[3] Ross p. 99 ff

[4] Moore 1988 p. 63

[5] Irwin to Stonehaven, 12 November 1928

[6] Gwyer & Appadorai p. 320

[7] Viceroy at Bay pp. 87-88 see also also Gangulee The making of federal India, p. 165

[8] Quoted from Thomas R. Metcalf’s joint review of this book and Modern India, 1885-1947 by Sumit Sarkar in The Journal of Asian Studies , Vol. 45, No. 5. (Nov., 1986), pp. 1095-1098.

[9] Quoted from Spear pp. 206-207.

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

The Government Of India Act 1935

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.35417

dc.contributor.author: Govt. Of India dc.date.accessioned: 2015-06-25T18:37:57Z dc.date.available: 2015-06-25T18:37:57Z dc.date.digitalpublicationdate: 2009-09-10 dc.date.citation: 1935 dc.identifier.barcode: 99999990229535 dc.identifier.origpath: /data3/upload/0083/766 dc.identifier.copyno: 1 dc.identifier.uri: http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/35417 dc.description.scanningcentre: Banasthali University dc.description.main: 1 dc.description.tagged: 0 dc.description.totalpages: 462 dc.format.mimetype: application/pdf dc.language.iso: English dc.publisher.digitalrepublisher: Digital Library Of India dc.publisher: Manager Of Publications, Delhi dc.rights: Copyright Permitted dc.source.library: Central Library, University Of Rajasthan dc.subject.classification: Act - India - 1935 dc.subject.keywords: Act Of 1935 Government Of India dc.title: The Government Of India Act 1935

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options.

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by Public Resource on January 18, 2017

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Essay on the Government of India Act, 1935

While the Congress was in the thick of battle, the Third Round Table Conference met in London in November 1932, once again without the leaders of the Congress.

Its discussions eventually led to the passing of the Government of India Act of 1935. The Act provided for the establishment of an All India Federation and a new system of government for the provinces on the basis of provincial autonomy.

The federation was to be based on union ofthe provinces of British India and the princely states. There was to be a bicameral federal legislature in which the states were given disproportionate weight age. Moreover, the representatives of the states were not to be elected by the people, but appointed directly by the rulers.

Only 14 per cent of the total population in British India was given the right to vote. Even this legislature, in which the princes were once again to be used to check and counter the nationalist elements, was denied any real Power.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Defense and foreign affairs remained outside its control, while the Governor-General retained special control over the other subjects.

The Governor-General and the Governors were to be appointed by the British government and were to be responsible to it. In the provinces, local power was increased. Ministers responsible to the provincial assemblies were to control all departments of provincial administration.

But the Governors were given special powers. They could veto legislative action and legislate on their own. Moreover, they retained full control over the civil service and the police.

The Act could not satisfy the nationalist aspiration for both political and economic power continued to be concentrated in the hands of the British government.

Foreign rule was to continue as before; only a few popularly elected ministers were to be added to the structure of British administration in India. The Congress condemned the Act as “totally disappointing”.

The federal part of the Act was never introduced but the provincial part was soon put into operation. Bitterly opposed to the Act though the Congress was, it decided to contest the elections under the new Act of 193 5, though with the declared aim of showing how unpopular the Act was.

The whirlwind election campaign of the Congress met with massive popular response, even though Gandhiji did not address a single election meeting.

The elections, held in February 1937, conclusively demonstrated that a large majority of Indian people supported the Congress which swept the polls in most of the provinces.

Congress ministries were formed in July 1937 in seven out of eleven provinces. Later, Congress formed coalition governments in two others.

Only Bengal and Punjab had non-Congress ministries. Punjab was ruled by the Unionist Party and Bengal by a coalition of the Krishak Praja Party and the Muslim League.

Related Articles:

• Write a short note on Government of India Act of 1935
• Brief notes on the Government of India Act 1935
• Notes on The Government of India Act, 1935
• How the State becomes a Federal & enjoys the dominion status?

Essay on Government of India (G.O.I) Act,1935

Essay on Government of India Act 1935

We must first briefly trace the administrative changes through the Government of India (GOI) Act of 1935, until the Indian Independence Act of 1947 was passed.

The Labor party came into power in Britain in January 1924. Earlier, when it was out of office, it had raised the hopes of Indians, hinting at dominion status for India as the essential condition for imperial unity. But when it assumed office, the policy adopted was a continuation of that of the Conservatives, namely to follow the status quo. Everyone, no matter which party he belonged to, stated that Great Britain would not relinquish her ‘responsibility’ to India. But again, it was not clear what the responsibility was and how and when it would be relinquished. The return of the Conservative government saw the continuation of the traditional policy.

In 1929, the British government suddenly appointed the Simon Commission to review, ostensibly, the working of the 1919 Reforms, but, according to some, it was to preempt the incoming government (possibly the Labor party which was more pro-India than the Conservatives) from being sympathetic to India’s aspirations for self-government. Indians were excluded from this Commission because as Viceroy Lord Irwin justified it, they could not be expected to be “unbiased and unprejudiced”. The Indians boycotted it, stating that no Constitution framed by the British would be acceptable. The Simon Commission proposed a unitary and federal type of government to embrace all of India, and recommended that diarchy in the provinces should be abolished.

In the Madras Session of the Indian National Congress, a Report (known as the Nehru Report) was adopted, envisaging a sovereign Parliament with an Upper and Lower House with powers like that in other Dominions of the British Empire, and a federal system and joint mixed electorates throughout India for the central and provincial legislatures. M.A. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, brought in amendments regarding representation of Muslims in the legislature, but these were not accepted. This blue print may be said to be the harbinger of the Constitution of India as finally drawn up. But at that time, it created division of opinion with regard to what should be demanded from the British – nothing short of independence, or purna swaraj, was the view of the younger groups.

Several events and developments followed from here. The Civil Disobedience Movement and the Dandi March; the Salt Satyagraha launched by Mahatma Gandhi on 12 March 1930, to oppose the salt tax by violating the salt laws; the Press Ordinance passed by the government reproducing the stringent provisions of the repealed Press Act of 1910; wholesale arrests of satyagrahis including leaders and the subsequent reign of repression; the Round Table Conference (and its several sub-committees) discussed the Simon Commission Report; Mahatma Gandhi’s Pact with the Viceroy Lord Irwin (it was quoted as an event more than any other to show how seriously the

British took the Indian National Congress and its spokesman, Mahatma Gandhi; communal riots at Kanpur; Bhagat Singh’s execution soon after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact; and the Second Round Table Conference, which exposed the inability of the government to solve the communal question of representation and which discussed inter alia the mode of accession of the states to the Federation.

As nothing much happened at the Conference, Gandhiji returned to India with empty hands. The Poona Pact (1932) modified the government’s ‘Communal Award’, relating to reservation of seats for depressed classes. The Third Round Table Conference (an extension of the first two) took place; the last phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement began. The other events were the great Bihar Earthquake of 1934 (which, in a way, made the Disobedience Movement pale into insignificance), the issue of a White paper in 1933 which outlined the new Indian Constitution with diarchy at the Centre and a responsible government in the provinces. Chaired by Lord Linlithgow, the group which drew up the White paper consisted of 16 members. It invited persons from British India and the Indian states to give their viewpoints.

The Government of India Act, 1935

The culmination of all this was the Government of India Act 1935. This Act provided for an All India Federation. It envisaged that the provinces would join the federation automatically, and provided for voluntary entry by the prince of each state executing an Instrument of Accession in favor of the Crown.

The princely states could send 125 members to the Federal Assembly and 104 to the Council of States; the provinces, 250 to the Assembly and 156 to the Council of States. In the case of provinces, election was on communal lines. The Act provided for a federal list, provincial list and concurrent list of subjects.

It provided for ‘diarchy’ at the Centre (that is, defense, external affairs, ecclesiastical affairs and administration of tribal areas were to be handled by the Governor-General with the assistance of three counselors appointed by him. In the other federal subjects, the Governor-General was to be aided and advised by a council of ministers not exceeding 10 in number). The federal ministry was to be formed on the usual cabinet lines, and in addition, was to include the representation of important minorities. The Governor-General had an Instrument of Instructions to secure the best representation. Collective responsibility, with the ministry being responsible to the federal legislature, was its essential feature. The Government of India Act provided for a Federal Court of India to interpret the Constitution, with jurisdiction over the states and provinces.

The Secretary of State’s India Council was replaced by an advisory body of three to six people. Just like the Governor-General the governor of a state had three-pronged powers. He could act 1) in consultation with his ministers as a constitutional head, 2) in his individual judgment though he was required to consult his ministers, or 3) at his own discretion, depending on the subject, the urgency, and the context.

The position of the ministers in terms of real responsibility was better under the 1935 Act than ever before; however it was not ideal, considering the enormous powers of the governor.

Seats were reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Separate representation on communal lines was given to Muslims, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Indian Christians. Seats were also reserved for the representatives of commerce, industry, mining, plantations, labor, universities, and landholders.

The first general elections were held in 1937. One had to be 25 years of age to contest for the provincial legislative assembly and 30 for the legislative council. Residence in the constituency for a certain minimum number of days in the year was necessary for franchise. Although, the 1935 Act was many steps ahead, the Congress party decided to accept office only under conditions where the Congress would command a majority in the legislature, and provided there was an assurance that the governor would not interfere with the minister’s role and responsibility. Upon Lord Linlithgow’s assurance, the challenge was accepted. The Congress wanted the cooperation of all the communal groups and stated that they must come under the control of the Congress High Command. The Muslim League refused to do so.

Several beneficial results took place after the implementation of the Government of India Act, 1935. Many laws dealing with prohibition, education, rural indebtedness and land relations were passed.

But the Govenrnment of India Act was still half-hearted. There was remote control from London. The princely states were unwilling to join the federation particularly as, they were already assured a privileged position. The Indian princes could make nominations, to the Assembly while those from the provinces had to be elected. Indirect elections to the federal assembly went against the spirit of democracy. Control of the Secretary of State over the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police was not liked. Indians did not control the ‘defense’ part of administration though they contributed men and materials for the war effort. The communal award governing filling up of seats in the legislature was also not popular. The British still dominated the federal legislature and the federal executive like a colossus, and provincial autonomy seemed a farce. There was a yawning hiatus between the provisions of the Act and the ‘dominion status’ that was being dangled like a carrot all the time. The Government of India Act 1935 was called the anti-India Act. All, including Jinnah, found it unacceptable.

The Government of India Act 1935, however, had introduced several features which form the nucleus of our Constitution. Provision was made for amendments after frequent reviews.

The Partition of Bengal and Swadeshi Movement

British Administration in India

Social Stratification: 12 Major Characteristics of Social Stratification

Remembering Dr. Vikram Sarabhai: A Visionary Pioneer of India’s Space Journey

Exploring the Advantages and Disadvantages of Tourism

Emperor Akbar: Architect of Harmony and Conquest

Adolf Hitler: A Dark Journey Through History

The promise in India’s National Quantum Mission

Tracking SDG progress the Bhopal way

India as a Quad-led biomanufacturing hub

Bare New World

What is financial independence and how can you achieve it?

Comments are closed.

Welcome, Login to your account.

Recover your password.

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Brief notes on the Government of India Act 1935

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.