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.
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):
List
Number of Items
Description
Federal List
59
Subjects of all-India interest and requiring uniform treatment
Provincial List
54
Subjects mainly of local interest and within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures
Concurrent List
36
Subjects primarily of Provincial interest but requiring uniformity of treatment across the country
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: The 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).
Conclusion
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.
FAQs
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?
A:
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.
