MAINS QUESTIONS:
7. Trace the course of the people’s movement in Indian States after 1937. How did the Congress leadership react to it? [1996, 60m] |
13.”The developments during 1937-39 greatly undermined (कम आंका) the ability of the Indian National Congress to push through the agenda of national unity.” Comment. [2010, 20m] |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of relations between the British authority and states can be traced under the following broad stages:
I. East India Company’s Struggle for Equality with Indian States from a Position of Subordination (1740-1765):
Starting with Anglo-French rivalry with the coming of Dupleix in 1751, the East India Company asserted political identity with capture of Arcot (1751). With the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the East India Company acquired political power next only to the Bengal Nawabs. In 1765 with the acquisition of the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, the East India Company became a significant political power.
“The British endeavoured as far as possible to live within a Ring-Fence and beyond that they avoided intercourse with the chiefs.” Comment. [1987, 20m]
II. Policy of Ring Fence (1765-1813):
Above comment was made by Lee Warner about the British during this period as the English Company was not yet strong enough to interfere in the internal affairs of the Indian states. More specifically the English Company neither had the strength nor the resources to defeat the Indian states. It was in fact only one of the important powers in India; the Marathas, the Nizams, the French, etc. being the other powers
This Ring Fence policy was reflected in Warren Hastings’ wars against the Marathas and Mysore, and aimed at creating buffer zones to defend the Company’s frontiers. The main threat was from the Marathas and Afghan invaders (the Company undertook to organise Avvadh’s defence to safeguard Bengal’s security).
The Pitt’s India Act of 1784 had even laid down that the Home Government should not approve of the intervention of her officers in India in the internal affairs of the Indian states. After the battle of Buxar, Avadh lay at the mercy of the British but they did not annex it.
After the Rohilla war, Warren Hastings conferred the conquered territories on the Nawab of Avadh instead of retaining them; the First Ango- Maratha war ended in the restoration of the status quo by the Treaty of Salbai and the four Mysore wars benefited the allies of the British (Marathas and Nizam) more than the British themselves at least in the short term. Yet it cannot be denied that during this period the Company did intervene in the affairs of the Indian states on a number of occasions. Warren Hastings, for instance, fought the First Martha War (1775-1782) and the Second Mysore War (1780-1784) without any justifiable reason. Similarly, Lord Cornwallis fought the Third Mysore War (1790-1792) and annexed half of its territory.
Lord Wellesley fought the Fourth Mysore War (1798-1799) and the Second Maratha War and his policy of subsidiary alliance was an extension of ring fence. —which sought to reduce states to a position of dependence on British Government in India. Major Powers such as Hyderabad, Awadh and the Marathas accepted subsidiary alliance.
Lord Minto not only concluded the Treaty of Amritsar with Ranjit Singh but also granted protection of the Cis-Sutlej states whose very existence was being endangered by Ranjit Singh.
“No native state should be left to exist in India which is not upheld by the British power or the political conduct of which is not under the absolute control.” [1992, 20m]
“The British policy towards Indian States in 1818-1858 was one of isolation and non-interference tempered by annexation.” Comment. [1996, 20m]
III. Policy of Subordinate Isolation (1813-1857):
Now, the imperial idea grew and the theory of Paramountcy began to develop—Indian states were supposed to act in subordinate cooperation with the British Government and acknowledge its supremacy.
States surrendered all forms of external sovereignty and retained full sovereignty in internal administration. British Residents were transformed from diplomatic agents of a foreign power to executive and controlling officers of a superior government.
These states had virtually no armed forces of their own, nor did they have any independent foreign relations. They paid heavily for the British forces stationed in their territories to control them. They were autonomous in their internal affairs, but even in this respect they acknowledge British authority wielded through a Resident. They were on perpetual probation. Lord Dalhousie came out to India as the Governor-General in 1848. He was from the beginning determined to extend direct British rule over as large an area as possible.
In 1833, the Charter Act ended the Company’s commercial functions while it retained political functions. It adopted the practice of insisting on prior approval/sanction for all matters of succession. In 1834, the Board of Directors issued guidelines to annex states wherever and whenever possible. This policy of annexation culminated in usurpation of six states by Dalhousie including some big states such as Satara and Nagpur.
The chief instrument through which Lord Dalhousie implemented his policy of annexation was the 'Doctrine of Lapse'. Under this Doctrine, when the ruler of a protected stated died without a natural heir, his state was not to pass to an adopted heir as sanctioned by the age-old tradition of the country.
The British completed the task of conquering the whole of India from 1818 to 1857 Sindh and the Punjab was conquered and Awadh, the Central Provinces and a large number of other petty states were annexed.
“Dalhousie changed the map of India with speed and thoroughness no campaign could equal.” Comment. [2001, 20m]
Within a span of eight year (1848-1856) Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India, brought into harmony the work of his predecessors and consolidated the scattered territories under the company's direct rule.
In the north-west the British became the warden of the passes, in the north the boundaries of the British India became contagious to Tibet and the Chinese empire, and in the south-east the British controlled the entire coast line on both sides of the Bay of Bengal.
His annexations - which added between a third and a half to the territorial size of British India of 1848 were both of 'war' and 'peace'. His annexations of war based on the right to conquest' were those of Punjab, Pegu and Sikkim. The revolt of Mul Raj, the Governor of Multan, gave a reason to fulfil his imperialistic instinct. On November 16, 1948, the British army's under Lord Gough crossed the frontier.
The Sikh cause collapsed in the battles at Ramnagar, Chilianwala and Gujarat. By the proclamation of 29 March 1949, the Punjab was annexed. Maharaja Dalip Singh was pensioned off and the British took over the administration of the Punjab.
Two British captains, shepherd and Lewis were heavily fined by the Burma Government. This provided the desired opportunity for Dalhousie. He deputed Commodore Lambert to negotiate for redressed of grievances and demand compensation. Lambert's provocative line of action ensued war in which the Burmese were defeated. Dalhousie, who had already made up his mind to annex lower Burma on account of the threatening advance of America and France in the Eastern seas, issued a proclamation on December 20, 1852, annexing Pegu.
The Raja of Sikkim was charged with the offence of maltreating and imprisonment of two English doctors. In 1950, it was annexed by Dalhousie.
Dalhousie's annexation of peace came by the application of the Doctrine of lapses and included among others Satara (1848), Jaitpur and Sambalpur (1849), Bhaghat (1850), Udaipur (1852), Nagpur (1853) and Jhansi (1854). Nawab Wajid Ali Shah, the Nawab of Avadh had many heirs and could not therefore be covered by the Doctrine of lapse. Dalhousie accused him of misgoverning his state and of refusing to? Introduce reforms. His state was therefore annexed in 1856.
The Nizam of Hyderabad was in arrears with the payment of British contingent, which he was not actually obliged to maintain by the terms of his treaty with the British. Dalhousie nevertheless coerced him into making territorial cessions for the regular payment of the "Hyderabad Contingent". By an agreement made: in May 1853, the cotton producing province of Berar was given to the company in lieu of the subsidy.
Although in India demands were always raised for the abolition of the Company rule, earlier the British government was not so sure about such a measure. The Charter of 1833 was renewed in 1853 but this time not for another 20 years, like earlier. The company was allowed to retain Indian possessions "in trust for her majesty, her heirs and successors until Parliament shall otherwise provide", thus keeping the door open for a future takeover.
The Company's control over appointments was curtailed by the introduction of competition for the recruitment of the Indian Civil Service. Already deprived of its commercial privileges, the Company hereafter hardly ever controlled policies in India.
Since the act did not give it right to govern for next 20 years, the house of commons with greater ease could formally abolish Company administration in India in 1858, the immediate occasion for this final stroke was of course provided by the revolt of 1857. The revolt made the English people more aware of the Indian situation and generated popular support for the perpetuation (स्थायीकरण) as well as reorganisation of British rule there. Since 1833, many English traders and settlers had also developed a vested interest in India and their persistent complaint was that the company had been neglecting their interests. In other words, both at home and in India there had been now considerable pressure for the abolition of the Company and the establishment of Crown rule.
“If the paramount power cast its imperial cloak over the princes, it was also entitled to see that what was sheltered was in the main creditable.” Comment.
The princely states as a body proved remarkably helpful for the British to crush the revolt [of 1857]. So the princes were in a way the cause of the revolt as well as the agents of its suppression. This made the British realize the importance of harnessing the surviving Indian princes to meet any future eventuality. This realization called for a change of British policy towards the princely order. The policy of outright annexation gave way to value the states as imperial clients and they were incorporated into the imperial framework as collaborators. In this changed scenario, the princely states enjoyed the protection of a paramount colonial power which came in the form of Queen's Proclamation of 1858.
“1858 is the Great Divide in modern Indian history, as the policy, practice and ideals of the government that followed differed fundamentally from the government of the Company which it displaced.” Discuss. [1979, 60m]
"In terms of administrative structure, the Government of India act of 1858, … meant more continuation than change." Do you agree? Substantiate. [2010,20m]
The government of India Act 1858 ended the East India Company's rule in India and brought it directly under the British crown. However, in terms of the administrative structure, the government of India Act of 1858, which followed the pacification of the revolt, meant more continuation than change:
The general administration remained intact except few policy changes as the rule of East India Company, long before its final removal, was already in great control of the British government.
Starting with Regulating Act of 1773 and 1784 and coupled with series of Charter Acts, the company was already made subservient to the British Parliament and hence the administrative policies were also being dictated from London long before its final take over.
For example, the Charter Act of 1833, apart from abolishing all trading privileges of the Company in India and China, cleared the path of Centralized government with the governor general of Bengal at the helm of affairs. Uniform laws such as IPC and Civil Procedure code were also coded at this time. The education policies also trace their origin with this Act.
The Act of 1858 replaced the President of the Board of Control with a secretary of state for India, who became insubordination to the cabinet, the fountain of authority as well as the director of policy in India. He was to be advised by a Council of India, consisting of 15 members, 7 of whom were to be selected from the now superseded Court of Directors. Hence there was only modification of existing system.
The GG of India who would henceforth be known as viceroy, would retain all his powers, but instead of a dual control, he would be answerable only to the SoS. Hence, there was mere change in name of GG to Viceroy, but his functions remained the same.
Continuity was also maintained in the structure of civil service, and the same recruitment exam introduced in 1853 was carried on.
There was mere name change of Governor General's council to imperial legislative council.
However, the administration after the Act of 1858 was significantly different in certain areas with the respect of policy changes towards Indian rajas and Z, along with changes in civil and army organizations (on the basis of caste, religion and creed).
Another administrative change was the favour meted out to people based on the lines of caste while providing jobs in the government. Initially Muslims were suppressed and the Hindus were encouraged. Later the policy was reversed. Hence, the seeds of religious fanaticism were sown here.
Hence, even though the general administration was changed after 1858 Act and it merely culminated into changing the affairs from one hand to another, significant changes were made in civil and army.
"Towards the Princes, Canning adopted a policy of “punishing resistance and rewarding obedience." Comment. [2000, 20m]
“If we could States without political power, but as royal instruments, we should exist in India as long as our naval supremacy was maintained.” Comment. [1984, 20m]
The Revolt of 1857 led the British to reverse their policy towards the Indian States. Before 1857, they had availed themselves of every opportunity to annex princely states.
This policy was now abandoned. Most of the Indian princes had not only remained loyal to the British but had actively aided the latter in suppressing the Revolt.
As Lord Canning, the Viceroy, put it, they had acted as "breakwaters in the storm". Their loyalty was now rewarded with the announcement that their right to adopt heirs would be respected and the integrity of their territories guaranteed against future annexation.
Moreover, the experience of the Revolt had convinced the British authorities that the princely states could serve as useful allies and supporters in case of popular opposition or revolt.
Canning wrote in 1860: It was long ago said by Sir John Malcolm that if we made All India into Zillahs (districts), it was not in the nature of things that our Empire should last 50 years: but that if we could keep up a number of Native States without political power, but as royal instruments, we should exist in India as long as our naval supremacy was maintained. [this proved in Revolt of 1857].
It was, therefore, decided to use the princely states as firm props of British rule in India.
The Doctrine of Lapse was abolished and made it clear that British Government will interfere only in case of misgovernance and would withdraw when situation turns normal. Due to his mild and tolerant policy, he was called Clemency Canning.
“It is sometimes asked by Ruling Chiefs, as well as by the public in India and in Europe what our policy towards Native States is. I can tell you that the basis of the policy was laid in Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 and repeated in the Coronation message of His Majesty the King Emperor.” Comment. [1986, 20m]
What changes did the British attitude undergo towards the Princely states after 1858? Was the Government of India Act of 1858 intended to introduce direct relations between the Princes and the Crown? [1985, 60m]
Explain the British policy of ‘Subordinate union’ of Indian States with British India from 1858 to 1905. How did the Government of India implement this policy during this period? [1993, 60m]
Review the relations of the Government of India with Indian States in the period 1858-1918 with particular reference to the cases where the doctrine of paramount was asserted by the Government. [1983, 60m]
IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935):
The year 1858 saw the assumption of direct responsibility by the Crown. Because of the states’ loyalty during the 1857 revolt and their potential use as breakwaters in political storms of the future, the policy of annexation was abandoned. The new policy was to punish or depose but not to annex.
1858 till Curzon | Curzon’s Approach: | Post-1905: |
After 1858, the fiction of authority of the Mughal emperor ended; sanction for all matters of succession was required from the Crown since the Crown stood forth as the unquestioned ruler and the paramount power. Now the ruler inherited the gaddi not as a matter of right but as a gift from the paramount power, because the fiction of Indian states standing in a status of equality with the Crown as independent, sovereign states ended with the Queen adopting the title of “Kaiser-i-Hind” (Queen Empress of India). The paramount supremacy of the Crown presupposed and implied the subordination of states. The British Government exercised the right to interfere in the internal spheres of states—partly in the interest of the princes, partly in the interest of people’s welfare, partly to secure proper conditions for British subjects and foreigners and partly in the interest of the whole of India. The British Government was further helped in this encroachment by modern developments in communication— railways, roads, telegraph, canals, post offices, press and public opinion. The Government of India exercised complete and undisputed control in international affairs—it could declare war, peace or neutrality for states. According to the Butler Commission in 1927, “For the purpose of international relations, state territory is in the same position as British territory and state subjects in the same position as British subjects.” | Curzon stretched the interpretation of old treaties to mean that the princes, in their capacity as servants of people, were supposed to work side-by-side with the governor-general in the scheme of Indian Government. He adopted a policy of patronage and “intrusive surveillance”. He thought the relation between the states and Government was neither feudal nor federal, a type not based on a treaty but consisting of a series of relationships having grown under different historical conditions that, in the course of time, gradually conformed to a single line. The new trend seemed to reduce all states to a single type—uniformly dependent on the British Government and considered as an integral part of Indian political system. | A policy of cordial cooperation began to counter progressive and revolutionary developments in face of large-scale political unrests. According to the recommendations of Montford Reforms (1921), a Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal) was set up as a consultative and advisory body having no say in the internal affairs of individual states and having no powers to discuss matters concerning existing rights and freedoms. For the purpose of the chamber the Indian states were divided into three categories: Directly represented—109; Represented through representatives—127; Recognised as feudal holdings or jagirs. The question of extent of sovereignty and Paramountcy was still undefined. The Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of relationship between the states and Government. It gave the following recommendations: Paramountcy must remain supreme and must fulfil its obligations, adopting and defining itself according to the shifting necessities of time and progressive development of states. States should not be handed over to an Indian Government in British India, responsible to an Indian legislature, without the consent of states. Thus, “Paramountcy” was left undefined and this hydra- headed creature was left to feed on usage, Crown’s prerogative and the princes’ implied consent. |
“The relations of the Native States, however conducted are essentially relations with the British Crown and not with the Indian Government.” Comment. [1991, 20m]
Though this responsive government [by Act of 1919] was not a true, responsible government, the Governor General being vested with immense discretionary powers, yet there were some responsible elements in it ; and the Government of India was responsible, at least nominally, to the Indian Legislature instead of British Parliament. This created a problem regarding the Native States.
According to the new Act, powers were transferred to the Governor General who became all in all regarding Indian affairs. Did that mean that the relations of the Indian Princes with the Crown had also been transferred to the Governor General? The Princes of India opined that according to the Montagu Chelmsford Reform, their relations were direct with the Crown and not with the Government of India, and as such they were against any transfer of their relations to the Governor General.
Tukoji Rao Holker III of Indore first pronounced the ’’theory of direct relations with the Crown" and as a result he was deposed. But the controversy was not over. Opinion in favour of direct relation began to emerge. Professor A.B. Keith wrote "It is important to note that the relations of the native states, however conducted, are essentially relations with the British Crown and not with Indian Government ....... it is not possible for the Crown to transfer its rights under a treaty without the assent of the native States to the Government of India under responsible government.
The Viceroy held a conference of political officers at Simla and chalked out a plan for appointing a committee of enquiry arid accordingly the secretary of State for India appointed a committee on 16th December 1927. One of the terms of reference was to establish direct relations with the Crown.
Butler Committee expressed the same view.
The Simon Commission also accepted the theory of direct relation in principle and remarked "But we must at once emphasise its recommendations that the Viceroy and the Governor General in Council should be the agent of the paramount Power in its relation with the Princes.
The design of Indian Police was to subjugate the Indian People in the aftermath of 1857. Analyse in context of Indian Police Act of 1861.
After 1857 the colonial police organization was based on the Police Act of 1861 – a policy instrument obviously inspired by the great revolt and designed to pre-empt anti British rebellions in future. It gave sweeping powers to the police over the colonial Indian subjects while keeping the service subordinate to the ICS.
Though this act was revised later, its fundamentals remained unchanged and experts opine that the police in post-colonial India has remained anchored to its provisions. That is one reason why the Indian police shows scant respect for the democratic rights of Indian citizens and is popularly known as the most ‘colonial’ of the government services in independent India. To professionalize the police, an officer service called the Indian Police was created in the 1890s. This service was modelled on the celebrated ICS and, to begin with, excluded Indians. However, the Second Police Commission of 1902 “recommended the opening up of recruitment at the officer level, confined hitherto to Europeans, to qualified Indians as part of the Indianization drive.”
The Reforms of 1909 introduced ‘a cardinal problem and ground of controversy at every revision of the Indian electoral system.’ Comment. [1982, 20m]
In the beginning of 20th century the discontent among the Indian people against the British government was rising. The Act of 1892 had failed to satisfy even the moderates. The rise of extremism led to further dissatisfaction towards the reform. Thus, the British government came out with the Act of 1909.
The act of 1909 had many provisions like –
It increased the number of members in the legislative council at the centre and even in the provincial legislatures,
But most of the elected members were elected indirectly, by the provincial councils in the case of the Imperial Council and by municipal committees and district boards in the case of provincial councils. Some of the elected seats were reserved for landlords and British capitalists in India.
not designed to democratize Indian administration, the real purpose was to confuse the moderate nationalists to divide the nationalist's ranks, and to check the growth of unity among Indians.
in the provinces non-official members were kept in majority,
the members of the legislative council were permitted to discuss the budget and suggest amendments.
But the most important provision of the Act of 1909 was the introduction of ‘separate electorates for Muslims’.
Instead of removing the educational and economic backwardness of the middle class Muslims and thus integrating them into the mainstream of Indian nationalism, the system of separate electorates tended to perpetuate their isolation from the developing nationalist movement. It encouraged separatist tendencies. It became a potent factor in the growth of communalism-both Muslim and Hindus - in the country.
The Congress missed to anticipate the effect of separate electorates on the unity of Indian people. Thus, it accepted it during the Lucknow pact of 1916.
In 1919, separate electorate was further extended to the Sikhs, the Anglo-Indians, the Indian Christians and the Europeans. Thus, the British continued with the policy of divide and rule. A controversy arose when the separate electorate was extended to ‘untouchables’. The British PM, declared the Communal award in 1932. Gandhi opposed this and hence Poona Pact was signed between Gandhi and Ambedkar which abandoned the idea of separate electorates for the depressed classes but reserved seats for them in the legislature.
Thus, the issue of separate electorates kept on rising since its introduction in 1909. The beginning of Communalism can be traced from the introduction of separate electorates for Muslims. It tried to prove that the secular needs of Muslims like political and economic demands were different from the Hindus and hence they need their own leaders. This is one of the main principles of communalism that the two different communities have different secular goals and these goals can even be contradictory to the goals of other community.
Thus, through separate electorates the British tried to create feud between the H & M, telling them that their objectives are different and hence they need their separate leaders. This did a great harm to the unity and integrity of our country.
“Dyarchy was Introduced with high hopes and it must be said that, oil a theoretical analysis and if worked under ideal conditions, it is not without merits.” Comment. [1988, 20m]
“Diarchy provided by the Mont-Ford Reforms‚ certainly created suspicion without the frictions within.” Comment. [1995, 20m]
“Montague-Chelmsford reform proposals introduced `dyarchy’, but blurred the lines of responsibility.” (10) (2014)
Montague-Chelmsford reform which ultimately culminated into Government of India Act, 1919 introduced ‘Dyarchy’ with much fanfare in order to achieve the British Govt. objective of ‘Gradual development of self-governing institutions, and progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire’.
The diarchy, considered as the most innovative feature of 1919 Act, meant that certain functions of the provincial governments were to be transferred to the ministers responsible to the legislative assembly, while other subjects were to be kept ‘reserved’ for firm official control.
Hence the elected Indian representative would be in control of certain departments such as education, health, agriculture, local bodies etc.
However, it was an ill-conceived notion as only the non-important departments were transferred to the ministers chosen by the masses. Even then the viceroy and provincial governor had veto on everything. Even the bills rejected by the majority could be passed with ‘certificate’ from the viceroy/governor.
Hence, though the concept of diarchy was to de-centralize and devolve the govt. duties, it actually further eroded the responsibility of the govt. by not providing the autonomy (financial and administrative) to the ministers concerned.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT of 1935
Originally passed in August 1935 it was the longest British Act of Parliament ever enacted by that time. The Government of Burma Act 1935 was also included in it.
Background to the Act:
Indians had been increasingly demanding a greater role in the government of their country since the late 19th Century. The Indian contribution to British war effort during the 1st WW meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political establishment felt the need for constitutional change, resulting in the GoI Act of 1919. That Act introduced a novel system of government known as provincial "dyarchy".
After the release and publication of Simon Commission Report when the new Labour government succeeded in office, it declared that the Report was not final and in order to resolve the Constitutional deadlock, the matter would finally be considered after consulting representatives of all Indian Communities. This would be done at a Round Table Conference in London.
After holding three sessions of RTC in 1930, 1931, 1932 respectively, their recommendations were embodied in white paper published in 1933, which was considered by a Joint Select Committee of the British Parliament chaired by Lord Linlithgow. (However, division between Congress and Muslim representatives proved to be a major factor in preventing agreement as to much of the important detail of how federation would work in practice. So, the new Conservative-dominated National Government in London decided to go ahead with drafting its own proposals "the white paper").
The government also constituted a committee of 20 representatives from British India and 7 from Indian States including 5 Muslims. The committee went in session from April 1933 to December 1934 for deliberation and submitted its report to Parliament in the end of 1934. The Parliament debated the report and passed a bill in February 1935, which got a royal assent on July 24th 1935, and it was enforced on April 1, 1937 with the name of Government of India Act 1935.
Although the Government of India Act 1935 was intended to go some way towards meeting Indian demands, both the detail of the bill and the lack of Indian involvement in drafting its contents meant that the Act met with a lukewarm response at best in India, while still proving too radical for a significant element in Britain.
Provisions of the Act:
The GoI Act 1935 contained 32 Sections 14 Parts and 10 Schedules and consisted of 2 Major Parts. The Act introduced federal system in the centre.
Provincial Part of the Act - Introduction of Provincial Autonomy:
Provincial part of the Act basically followed the recommendations of the Simon Commission.
In the provinces Dyarchy was abolished. There was no Reserve Subjects and no Executive Council in the provinces. The Council of Ministers was to administer all the provincial subjects except in certain matters like law and orders etc. for which government had special responsibilities.
The ministers were chosen from among the elected member of the provincial legislature and were collectively responsible to it.
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 peace or tranquillity of a province, the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities, rights of civil servants, etc.
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 untrammelled (बेरोक) control than any British official had enjoyed in the history of the Raj. After the resignation of 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 on 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.
Federal Part of the Act - All India Federation:
GoI Act 1935 proposed to set up All India Federation comprising of the British Indian provinces and princely states. The constituent units of the Federation were 11 Governor's provinces, 6 Chief Commissioner's provinces and all those states that agreed to join it. The states were absolutely free to join or not join the proposed Federation.
At the time of joining the Federation the ruler of the state was to execute an Instrument of Accession in favour of the Crown. On acceptance of that instrument, the state would become a unit of Federation. The ruler was however authorized to extend the functions of the federal authority in respect of his state by executing another instrument in its internal affairs.
The Act proposed that federation of India could come into existence only if as many princely states were entitled to one-half of the state's seats in the upper house of the federal legislature.
The terms offered to the Princes included:
Each Prince would select his state's representative in the Federal legislature. There would be no pressure for Princes to democratize their administrations or allow elections for state representatives in the Federal legislature.
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.
Unlike the provisional 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 due to opposition from rulers of the Princely States and the establishment of Federation was indefinitely postponed after the outbreak of the 2nd WW. The remaining parts of the Act came into force in 1937, when the first elections under the act were also held.
Division of Federal Subjects:
The scheme of federation and the provincial autonomy necessitated proper division of subjects between the centre and the provinces.
The division under 1919 Act was revised and the 1935 Act contained three lists i.e. (1) Federal (2) Provincial (3) Concurrent Legislative Lists.
Introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre:
The India Act 1935 introduced Dyarchy at the centre. The Federal Subjects were divided into two categories, the Reserved and the Transferred. The reserved subjects were to be administered by the Governor-General on the advice of executive councilors, while transferred subjects were to be administered on the advice of the ministers.
The Reserved included defence, ecclesiastical affairs (चर्च संबंधी), external affairs and administration of Tribal Areas. These were to be administered by the Governor General with the help of executive councilors not exceeding three in number.
The rest of the subjects were Transferred ones. These were to be administered by the Governor General with the help of Council of Ministers, the number of which was not to exceed 10. The Governor General by his special powers and responsibilities could dominate the ministers.
The British Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for India, through the Governor-general of India (Viceroy), 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 and Railway Board.
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 obligation (eg. Loan repayments, pensions), at least 80% of the federal expenditures, would be non-votable and be taken off the top before and claims could be considered for 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.
Protection of Minorities:
A very significant provision was the safeguards and protective armours for the minorities. It was argued that the minorities needed protection from the dominance of the majority community. But the so-called provisions in the Act relating to safeguards were merely a trick to empower the Governor General and the Governors to override the ministers and the legislators.
Bicameral Legislature:
The proposed federal legislature was bicameral body consisting of the Council of States (Upper House) and the Federal Assembly (Lower House).
The strength of the Upper House (Council of States) was 260 out of which 104 nominated by the rulers were to represent the Indian States. 6 by the Governor General and 150 were to be elected.
Out of the 156 which were to represent the provinces, 150 were to be elected on communal basis. Seats reserved for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs were to be filled by direct elections and Seats reserved for Indian Christians, Anglo Indians and Europeans was to be filled by indirect method of electoral college consisting of their representative members.
The lower House was to consist of 375 members, out of which 250 were to be the representatives of the British India and 125 of the Indian States. The members from the British India were to be indirectly elected who were composed of the members of the Lower Houses of the provincial Legislatures but were to be nominated by rulers in case of the Indian States. Its life was 5 years unless dissolved earlier by the Governor General.
6 out of 11 provinces were given bicameral system of legislature. The Act not only enlarged the size of legislature, it also extended the franchise i.e. the number of voters was increased and special seats were allocated to women in legislature.
Membership of the provincial assemblies was altered so as to include more elected Indian representatives, who were not able to form majorities and be appointed to form governments.
Establishment of a Federal Court, Federal Railway Authority and Reserve Bank:
The India Act 1935 also provided for the establishment of a Federal Court to adjudicate inter-states disputes and matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
It was however, not the final court of appeal. In certain cases the appeals could be made to the Privy Council in England.
A federal court was established which began its functioning from October 1, 1937. The Chief Justice of the Federal court was Sir Maurice Gwyer. It consisted of One Chief Justice and not more than 6 Judges.
Federal Railway Authority: The Government of India Act 1935 vested the control of the railways in federal railway authority, a new 7 member body. This authority was kept free from the control of ministers and councillors. The idea was to assure the British Stakeholders of the railways that their investment was safe.
Reserve Bank of India was established.
Communal and Separate Electorate and Reservations:
The Act not only retained the separate electorate (of previous Act of 1919) but also enlarged its scope. The Anglo-Indians and the Indo-Christians were also given separate electorate.
Women were granted reservation in 41 seats in provincial legislatures as well as limited reservations in central legislature. But women reservation was subdivided in religious lines.
The reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes was incorporated into the Act.
Supremacy of the British Parliament:
The supremacy of the British Parliament remained intact under the GoI Act 1935. No Indian legislature whether federal or provincial was authorized to modify or amend the constitution. The British Parliament alone was given the authority to amend it.
Burma Separation from India:
Another important feature of the Act was that Burma was separated from India with effect from April 1937.
Aden was also transferred from the administrative control of the Government of India to that of the colonial offices. Thus, Aden became a Crown Colony.
Abolition of the Indian Council of the Secretary of State:
The GoI Act 1935 abolished the Council of Secretary of State for India which was created in 1858. The Secretary of State was to have advisors on its place.
With the introduction of the provincial autonomy the control of the Secretary of State over Transferred Subjects was greatly diminished. His control, however, remained intact over the powers of Governor General and Governors.
Reorganisation of Provinces and Creation of Two New Provinces:
A partial reorganization of the provinces:
Sindh was separated from Bombay.
Bihar and Orissa was split.
Hence, the Act provided for the creation of two new provinces of Sindh and Orissa. The new provinces together with the NWFP formed the Governor provinces making 11 in all.
Analysis of the Act:
The basic conception of the Act of 1935 was that the GoI was the Govt of the Crown, conducted by authorities deriving functions directly from the crown, in so far as the crown did not itself retain executive functions. This conception, familiar in dominion constitutions, was absent in earlier Acts passed for India.
The experiment of provincial autonomy under the Act of 1935, definitely served some useful purposes, thus we can say that the GoI Act 1935 marks a point of no return in the history of Constitutional development in India.
No preamble: the ambiguity of British commitment to dominion status:
While it had become uncommon for British Acts of Parliament to contain a preamble, the absence of one from the GoI Act 1935 contrasts sharply with the 1919 Act, which set out the broad philosophy of that Act's aims in relation to Indian political development.
The 1919 Act's preamble quoted, and centred on, the statement of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu (1917-1922) to the House of Commons on 20 August 1917, which had pledged: "..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."
Indians demands were by now centring on British India achieving constitutional parity with the existing Dominions such as Canada and Australia, which would have meant complete autonomy within the British Commonwealth. A significant element in British political circles doubted that Indians were capable of running their country on this basis, and saw Dominion status as something that might, perhaps, be aimed for after a long period of gradual constitutional development.
This tension between and within Indian and British views resulted in the clumsy compromise of the 1935 Act having no preamble of its own, but keeping in place the 1919 Act's preamble. This was seen in India as yet more mixed messages from the British, suggesting at best a lukewarm attitude towards satisfying Indian desires.
No "Bill of Rights / Fundamental Rights":
In Contrast with most modern constitutions, but in common with Commonwealth constitutional legislation of the time, the Act does not include a "bill of rights" or "fundamental rights" within the new system that it aimed to establish as the draft outline constitution in the Nehru Report included such a bill of rights.
However, in the case of the proposed Federation of India there was a further complication in incorporating such a set of rights, as the new entity would have included nominally sovereign (and generally autocratic) princely states.
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 GoI, 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.
Reality of Responsible Government Under the Act - Is the Cup half-full or half-empty?
A close reading of the Act 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 that act was aimed at securing.
Contrasting view of Lord Lothian, in a talk lasting 45 minutes, came straight out with his view on the Bill: "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."
False Equivalences:
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 (Like: 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 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.
British Political Needs vs. Indian Constitutional Needs - the Ongoing Dysfunction:
From the moment of 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.
There is evidence that Montagu would have backed something of this sort but his cabinet colleagues would not have considered it. Considering the balance of power in the Conservative party at the time, the passing of a Bill more liberal that which was enacted in 1935 is inconceivable.
Relationship to a Dominion Constitution:
In 1947, a relatively few amendments in the Act made it the functioning interim constitutions of India and Pakistan.
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 and right-wing Hindus which would be well disposed to place itself under the guidance and protection of the United Kingdom.
The Act aimed to:
Win the support of moderate nationalists since its formal aim was to lead eventually to a Dominion of India which, as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931 virtually equalled independence.
Retain British control of the Indian Army, Indian finances, and India's foreign relations for another generation;
Win Muslim support by conceding most of Jinnah's 14 Points;
Ensuring that the Congress would never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government. This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every possible minority the right to separately vote for candidates belonging to their respective communities (separate electorate), and by making the executive theoretically, but not practically, removable by the legislature.
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. But 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.
Convince the Princes to join the Federation by giving the Princes conditions for entry never likely to be equalled. It was expected that enough would join to allow the establishment of the Federation. The Federation, as planned in the Act, was not viable and would have rapidly broken down with the British left to pick up the pieces without any viable alternative.
Why Princes did not join Federation:
It was hoped 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 the following:
They did not have the foresight to realize that this was their only chance for a future.
They were not a cohesive group and probably realized that they would never act as one.
Each Prince seemed consumed by the desire to gain the best deal for himself were his state to join the Federation: the most money, the most autonomy.
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.
Indian Reaction to the Proposed Federation:
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.
No significant group in India accepted the Federal portion of the Act. 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; © 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.
But under the Act, external affairs, defence, currency and exchange were all under Governor General effectively. 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.
However, the Liberals and even elements in the Congress were tepidly willing to give it a go. 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.
Birla said that it was not ideal but at this stage it was the only thing. He thought that Congress was moving towards acceptance of Federation. He said that Gandhi was not over-worried by the reservation of defence and external affairs to the centre, but was concentrating on the methods 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.
The Working of the Act:
The British government sent out Lord Linlithgow as the new viceroy with the remit of bringing the Act into effect. Linlithgow was intelligent, extremely hardworking, honest, serious and determined to make a success out of the Act. However, he was also unimaginative, stolid, legalistic and found it very difficult to "get on terms" with people outside his immediate circle.
In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commence. 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. Though Linlithgow's behaviour was constitutionally correct it was also offensive to much of Indian opinion that the Viceroy had not consulted the elected representatives of the Indian people before taking such a momentous decision. This led directly to the resignation of the Congress provincial ministries.
From 1939, Linlithgow concentrated on supporting the war effort.
The Montague Declaration (20 August 1917) was observed more closely in the “realm of imperial relations” than anything else. Comment. [1998, 20m]
Explain the main features of Mont-Ford Reforms. How far did they implement the policy of administrative devolution? [1983, 60m]
What circumstances led to enactment of the Government of India Acts 1919 and 1935? Compare and contrast their salient features.
Circumstances that led to these acts –
|
|
The Govt. of India Acts 1919 and 1935 are milestones towards setting up responsible Govt. in the British India.
In line with the government policy contained in Montagu’s statement (August 1917), the Government announced further constitutional reforms in July 1918, known as Montagu-Chelmsford or Mont-ford Reforms. To introduce self-governing institutions gradually to India.
Comparing Features of Acts 1919 and 1935 –
1919 Act / MONT-FORD Reforms | 1935 ACT |
Separate subjects for Centre and Provinces, however the Government remained Unitary in Nature. Central government was still without responsible government. It had no control over GG and his executive council. GG could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by Central Legislature, issue Ordinances. | All-India-Federation with powers divided as Federal List and Provincial List but the federation never came into existence. |
Dyarchy (Reserved and Transferred Subjects – Double rule) was introduced in provinces. | Dyarchy abolished in provinces and was introduced at Centre but it did not come into Force. |
Reserved subjects = law and order, finance, land-revenue, irrigation etc. Admin by governor through bureaucrats. Transferred subjects = Education, Health, Local Government, Agriculture, etc. Admin by ministers nominated from elected members of LC. Provincial ministers had no control over finances and over bureaucrats. Constant friction between two. Ministers were not consulted and could be overruled by governor. | “Although the Government of India Act of 1935 replaced diarchy with Provincial, the overriding powers of the Governor diluted the spirit of autonomy.” Elucidate. [2015, 10m] |
Bicameral legislature in Centre with Upper & Lower House. Collective Responsibility of Ministers introduced. Council of State had only male members. Allocation of seats for Central Legislature to Provinces were based on 'importance' for provinces, for instance, Punjab's military importance and Bombay's commercial importance. | Bicameralism introduced in provinces (in six out of eleven provinces). Provincial Autonomy was introduced. Responsible Govt at Provinces.
|
Extended Communal representation to Sikh, Indian Christians, Anglo Indians and Europeans. | Extended separate electorate for depressed classes, women and labour (workers). |
Granted limited franchise (based on property, tax and education). Franchise was very limited. | Extended it to 10% of the total population. [Direct elections to legislatures were introduced by this act.] |
1st time – separated provincial budget from Central budget. |
|
Establishment of Central Public Service Commission. | Both Federal and Provincial PSC were allowed to be established along with establishment of RBI and Federal Court. |
1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on Press, and on movement were re-enacted in the Rowlatts Act intro in 1919. |
|
Explain the attitude of the Indian National Congress towards the constitutional changes of 1909, 1919 and 1935. [1998, 60m]
The moderate nationalists did not fully support the Morley-Minto Reforms. They soon realised that the Reforms had not really granted much. But they decided to cooperate with the government in working the reforms. This cooperation with the government and their opposition to the programme of the militant nationalists proved very costly to them. They gradually lost the respect and support of the public and were reduced to a small political group.
The Indian National Congress met in a special session at Bombay in August 1918 under the president ship of Hasan Imam to consider the Mont-Ford reform proposals. It condemned them as 'disappointing and unsatisfactory' and demanded effective self- government instead. Some of the veteran congress leaders led by Surendranath Banerjee were in favour of accepting the government proposals. They left the Congress at this time and founded the Indian Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals and played a minor role in Indian politics hereafter.
The Act could not satisfy the nationalist aspiration for both political and economic power continued to the 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 1935, 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 Gandhi did not address a single election meeting.
V. Policy of Equal Federation (1935-1947):
The Government of India Act, 1935 proposed a Federal Assembly with 125 out of 375 seats for the princes and the Council of States with 104 out of 160 seats for the princes, under its scheme of an all-India federation, which was subject to ratification by states representing more than half of the population and entitled to more than half of the seats in the Council of States.
This scheme never came into existence and after the outbreak of World War II (September 1939) it was dropped altogether.
“Though the Act of 1919 was supersede by that of 1935, the preamble to the former was not repealed- the preservation of the smile of Cheshire cat after its disappearance, and the latter said nothing about dominion status.” Comment. [2013, 25m]
The Government of India Act 1935 contains no Preamble.
A rather bitter controversy was waged over the question…… to include in the Bill a definite reference to Dominion Status as the goal of Indian government. The government adopted a curious attitude. It definitely accepted the pledge contained in the Preamble of the Act of 1919 of the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire, and the interpretation put thereon by the Governor-General in 1929 with the authority of the government of the day: “The natural issue of India’s progress as there contemplated is the attainment of Dominion Status”. But it refused to put anything of this kind in a preamble, and instead insisted on preserving the preamble to the Act of 1919, when repealing the measure under the new ACT. The preservation of the ‘smile of the Cheshire cat’ (grinning broadly) after its disappearance was justly adduced by the critics as the best parallel to this legislative monstrosity, and the omission of any reference to Dominion Status, following on the complete silence of the Joint Committee, inevitably caused a painful feeling in India, and annoyance to those quarters of the ministry who realised that its action was certain to be interpreted in India as in some way seeking to evade frank acceptance of Dominion Status as the final goal.
“Why did the British finally quit India on 15th August 1947 ? The Imperialist answer is that independence was simply the fulfilment of British self-appointed mission to assist the Indian people to self-government.” Examine. 20 marks
The historiography of decolonization in India is often polarized on the issue of why the British finally quit India and whether freedom was seized by the Indians or power was transferred voluntarily by the British as ‘an act of positive statesmanship’.
The imperialist answer is, that there was a consistent policy of devolution of power which came to its logical conclusion in August 1947 through the granting of self-government in India. The partition, they mentioned, was due to the age old conflict between Hindus and Muslims.
However, it is difficult to accept the imperial view. The myth of the policy of self-government was busted with the constitutional arrangement of 1919 and 1935 where all efforts were made to secure British hegemony over the Indian Empire through consolidation of control over the central government, rather than making Indians master of their own affair.
Another explanation against the imperial view is that, when World War two broke out, India was considered to be the most important strategic point for the defense of British Empire in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Hence, instead of giving them the control to Indian hands, they resorted to most brutal suppression of the Quit India Movement.
Hence, a concrete reason for why the British left in 1947, may be asserted as the impossibility of governing India with the massive mass uprising in the guidance of the Congress and its leaders.
VI. Integration and Merger:
After World War II began and a position of non- cooperation was adopted by the Congress, the British Government tried to break the deadlock through the Cripps Mission (1942), Wavell Plan (1945), Cabinet Mission (1946) and Attlee’s statement (February 1947).
Cripps held that the British Government did not contemplate transferring Paramountcy of Crown to any other party in India. The states tried various schemes to forge a union of their own, envisaging themselves as sovereign in status or as a third force in the Indian political scene.
The June 3rd Plan and Attlee’s statement made it clear that the states were free to join either of the two dominions, and Mountbatten refused to give a sovereign status to the states.
Sardar Patel, who was in charge of states’ ministry in the interim cabinet, helped by V.P. Menon, the secretary in the ministry, appealed to the patriotic feeling of rulers to join the Indian dominion in matters of defence, communication and external affairs—the three areas which had been part of the Paramountcy of the Crown and over which the states had anyway no control.
0 Comments