Revisiting the Government of India Act, 1935: A Historical Perspective

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Background and Rationale
3. Key Provisions of the Act
   • Provincial Autonomy and the End of Dyarchy
   • The Federal Scheme and the Elusive All-India Federation
   • Diarchy at the Centre
   • Bicameral Legislatures
   • Expanded Franchise and Communal Representation
   • Establishment of Institutional Mechanisms
4. Criticisms and Limitations
   • Retention of British Control
   • Flawed Federal Structure
   • Communal Divisions and Limited Franchise
   • Constitutional Rigidity
5. The Strategic Considerations Behind the Act
6. Legacy and Influence on Post-Independence India
7. Conclusion

Introduction

The Government of India Act, 1935 remains one of the most significant legislative milestones of the British colonial era in India. Enacted at a time when calls for self-governance were growing louder, the Act sought to introduce a federal structure, grant provincial autonomy, and expand the electoral base-all while preserving crucial safeguards for British imperial interests. Although it fell short of fulfilling the aspirations of Indian nationalists, its complex provisions and institutional innovations laid the groundwork for many features that would later be adopted in independent India’s Constitution. This article revisits the Act, exploring its origins, key provisions, criticisms, and its enduring impact on the evolution of Indian democracy.

Background and Rationale

For decades, Indian nationalists had clamored for an increased role in the administration of their country. The economic contributions during World War I and growing agitation for self-rule forced the British establishment to reconsider its colonial policies. The earlier Government of India Act, 1919-also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms-introduced the system of dyarchy in provinces, granting limited ministerial responsibility while retaining significant control with British-appointed governors. However, the dyarchic system quickly proved inadequate and was deeply resented by Indian political leaders.

The need for a more comprehensive reform led to the convening of the Simon Commission in 1927, followed by the Round Table Conferences in the early 1930s. Although these consultations did not lead to immediate self-rule, they set the stage for a dramatic constitutional experiment. The 1933 White Paper and the subsequent Joint Select Committee Report provided the blueprint for what would eventually become the Government of India Act, 1935. Enacted by the British Parliament in August 1935 and coming into effect on April 1, 1937, the Act was designed to create a federal structure and introduce provincial autonomy while maintaining key safeguards for British interests.

Key Provisions of the Act

1. Provincial Autonomy and the End of Dyarchy

One of the Act’s most celebrated features was the abolition of dyarchy at the provincial level. Unlike the previous system, where control over critical subjects like finance and law and order was firmly in the hands of the British, the 1935 Act granted the provinces a degree of self-governance. Elected provincial legislatures were empowered to run most day-to-day affairs. However, it was not a complete transfer of power-provincial governors still retained “special reserve powers” to intervene if necessary. This balance was intended to build trust with Indian political leaders while ensuring that British interests would not be completely sidelined.

2. The Federal Scheme and the Elusive All-India Federation

The Act was also ambitious in its attempt to establish an All-India Federation, which would unite both British India and the princely states under a central authority. In theory, this federation was to have three distinct lists demarcating legislative powers:

• Federal List: Containing subjects of national importance such as defense, foreign affairs, and communications.
• Provincial List: Encompassing matters of local concern like agriculture, health, and public order.
• Concurrent List: Covering subjects on which both levels could legislate, such as criminal law and marriage.

Unfortunately, the federation never materialized. The princely states, wary of losing their autonomy, hesitated to join, and without their participation, the central federal structure remained only a theoretical framework. Despite this shortfall, many of the administrative innovations envisioned in the federal scheme later influenced the framing of India’s post-independence constitution.

3. Diarchy at the Centre

While the provinces experienced a move towards responsible government, the central (or federal) system introduced a form of diarchy. The subjects were divided into:

• Reserved Subjects: Administered directly by the Governor-General on the advice of a small Executive Council (limited to three members). These included critical areas such as defense, external affairs, and administration of tribal areas.
• Transferred Subjects: Handled by ministers who were responsible to the legislature, though with the overarching authority of the Governor-General still intact.

This arrangement was meant to ensure a gradual transition to self-rule, but it also meant that central power remained firmly under British control-a point that would later provoke severe criticism.

4. Bicameral Legislatures

To foster a more representative system of governance, the Act provided for bicameral legislatures both at the provincial and (in theory) the federal level. In provinces such as Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Bihar, Assam, and the United Provinces, legislatures were divided into a Legislative Assembly (lower house) and a Legislative Council (upper house). At the center, the proposed federal legislature was also to be bicameral, comprising:

• The Federal Assembly (lower house), whose members were to be elected indirectly.
• The Council of States (upper house), which included nominated representatives from the princely states.

Although these institutions signified a step toward a more democratic process, they were designed with multiple safeguards that curtailed genuine autonomy, as further detailed below.

5. Expanded Franchise and Communal Representation

For the first time, the Act extended the electoral franchise to a larger segment of the Indian population. While earlier reforms had limited voting rights to a mere 3% of the populace, the 1935 Act increased this figure to about 10% by introducing specific property, education, and income qualifications. Additionally, the Act reinforced the system of communal electorates by allotting separate seats for various communities-including Muslims, scheduled castes, women, and laborers. For instance, Muslims were guaranteed roughly one-third of the seats in the proposed federal legislature, a measure that later played a role in shaping communal politics in the subcontinent.

6. Establishment of Institutional Mechanisms

Beyond the reorganization of political power, the Government of India Act, 1935 laid the groundwork for several key institutions:

• Federal Court: Established in 1937, this court was tasked with resolving disputes between the Centre and the provinces. Although it functioned until the Supreme Court was set up after independence, it provided an early mechanism for judicial review.
• Public Service Commissions: It also envisaged the formation of federal, provincial, and joint public service commissions to oversee the recruitment and administration of the civil services.
• Federal Railway Authority: With railways being the backbone of the colonial economy, the Act transferred control over this crucial sector to a newly established authority that reported directly to the Governor-General.

Criticisms and Limitations

Despite its progressive elements, the Government of India Act, 1935 was met with widespread criticism from Indian political leaders and nationalist movements.

1. Retention of British Control

Perhaps the most significant critique was that the Act did not go far enough in transferring power. The extensive “special reserve powers” retained by the Governor-General and the provincial governors meant that ultimate authority remained in British hands. The central government’s diarchic system, with its reserved and transferred subjects, effectively ensured that vital areas like defense and foreign affairs were not truly in Indian control. Leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru famously derided the Act as a “Charter of Slavery,” highlighting its failure to meet Indian aspirations for complete self-rule.

2. Flawed Federal Structure

The promise of an All-India Federation was one of the Act’s boldest proposals, yet it was also its Achilles’ heel. The requirement that at least half of the princely states must accede for the federation to become operative proved insurmountable. Fearing a loss of autonomy and the eventual erosion of their traditional authority, most princely rulers refused to join the federation. Consequently, the central framework designed for national integration remained largely unimplemented.

3. Communal Divisions and Limited Franchise

Although the Act extended the right to vote to a larger population, the franchise was still limited by strict qualifications, benefiting only around 10% of the people. Furthermore, the system of separate electorates-originally introduced to safeguard minority interests-ultimately deepened communal divisions. This feature not only alienated many Indian leaders but also set the stage for the communal politics that contributed to the partition of India in 1947.

4. Constitutional Rigidity

Another point of contention was the Act’s inflexibility. It reserved the power to amend its provisions solely for the British Parliament, leaving little room for Indian legislators to adapt or improve the system based on evolving local conditions. This rigidity was perceived as a deliberate measure to maintain imperial control and suppress any meaningful move toward independence.

The Strategic Considerations Behind the Act

In the eyes of the British, the Government of India Act, 1935 was not merely a gesture toward reform but a carefully calculated measure to safeguard their imperial interests. By allowing limited self-governance, they hoped to placate moderate Indian leaders and create a buffer against the growing nationalist sentiment. Key strategic considerations included:

• Consolidation of Power: By extending administrative responsibilities to Indian provincial leaders, the British believed they could dilute the momentum of the independence movement, making Indian politicians more amenable to continued British oversight.
• Exploitation of Divisions: The Act’s emphasis on communal electorates and separate representation was designed to create and exacerbate divisions among different religious and social groups. This, in turn, was expected to weaken the unified nationalist struggle spearheaded by the Indian National Congress.
• Preservation of Princely Interests: Including princely states in the federal scheme was a double-edged sword. While it theoretically integrated these traditional powers into the modern political system, it also ensured that they retained significant influence—thus preventing a complete transfer of power to elected representatives.

Legacy and Influence on Post-Independence India

Despite its shortcomings, the Government of India Act, 1935 left an indelible mark on India’s constitutional and political landscape. Many of its provisions, albeit with significant modifications, found their way into the Constitution of India, which was adopted on January 26, 1950. For example:

• Federalism and Division of Powers: The threefold classification of subjects into federal, provincial, and concurrent lists laid the conceptual groundwork for the federal structure enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
• Institutional Frameworks: The establishment of institutions like the Reserve Bank of India and public service commissions under the Act set precedents for their roles in independent India.
• Judicial Review: Although the Federal Court was a colonial institution, its role in adjudicating conflicts between different levels of government influenced the later development of judicial review in India.

In retrospect, while the Government of India Act, 1935 was far from perfect and was widely criticized for its inability to fully empower Indians, it nonetheless served as a critical transitional instrument. It provided a framework-albeit a compromised one-that bridged the gap between direct colonial rule and the fully sovereign, democratic state that India would eventually become.

Conclusion

The Government of India Act, 1935 is a study in contrasts. On one hand, it introduced progressive measures such as provincial autonomy, an expanded electorate, and institutional reforms that hinted at the possibility of self-governance. On the other hand, its many safeguards, retention of extensive British powers, and a flawed federal design ensured that true independence remained out of reach. The Act was both a concession to growing Indian demands and a tool for preserving imperial interests-a duality that would fuel further demands for complete independence.

For modern India, the Act’s legacy is complex. It laid down some of the administrative and constitutional foundations that would later be reformed and enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Yet, its inherent limitations and the controversies it generated serve as a reminder of the struggle that preceded independence-a struggle marked by the desire for self-determination and the painful negotiation between aspiration and reality.

As we revisit the Government of India Act, 1935 today, we see it not merely as a relic of colonial rule, but as a pivotal moment that shaped the contours of Indian democracy. Its lessons continue to resonate in debates on federalism, minority rights, and the evolution of constitutional governance in India.