1.2.3 - Modern Indian History Notes 35

Elaborate Notes

Government of India Act, 1935

The Government of India Act, 1935, was the longest Act passed by the British Parliament for India. It was a culmination of various preceding events, including the Simon Commission report (1930), the deliberations of the Round Table Conferences (1930-32), and the subsequent White Paper of 1933.

• Provincial Autonomy:

  • This was the most significant feature of the Act. It abolished the system of Dyarchy (division of provincial subjects into ‘Reserved’ and ‘Transferred’) that was introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919.
  • All provincial subjects were now placed under the control of responsible ministers who were members of and accountable to the Provincial Legislative Assembly (PLA). This theoretically established a ‘fully responsible government’ at the provincial level.
  • Provinces were granted a separate legal identity and were freed from the “superintendence, direction and control” of the Secretary of State and the Governor-General in the provincial sphere.
  • Economic autonomy, initiated with the separation of the provincial budget in the 1919 Act, was conceptually completed. However, for UPSC exam purposes, the introduction of ‘Provincial Autonomy’ is definitively attributed to the 1935 Act.
  • The head of the provincial executive was the Governor, and the administration was carried on by a Council of Ministers, headed by a ‘Premier’ (the term used for Chief Minister then).

• Limitations on Provincial Autonomy (The Governor’s Powers):

  • The ‘autonomy’ was heavily circumscribed by the extensive and overriding powers of the Governor, who remained an appointee of the British Crown.
  • Discretionary Powers: The Governor could act in his ‘discretion’ in matters like summoning and proroguing the legislature, and appointing or dismissing ministers.
  • Special Responsibilities: The Governor had ‘special responsibilities’ which allowed him to act against the advice of his ministers. These included safeguarding the rights of minorities, protecting the privileges of civil servants, preventing any grave menace to the peace and tranquility of the province, and protecting British business interests. This was a significant check on the power of the elected government.
  • Legislative Powers: The Governor possessed the power to issue Ordinances, and could veto bills passed by the legislature or reserve them for the consideration of the Governor-General. Furthermore, around 40% of the provincial budget was still non-votable.
  • Administration of Tribal Regions: The Governor had direct administrative control over ‘Excluded’ and ‘Partially Excluded Areas’ (tribal regions), a provision that finds an echo in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the present Indian Constitution [Article 244(1)].
  • Emergency Powers (Section 93): In case of a perceived failure of the constitutional machinery, the Governor could take over the entire administration of the province and run it indefinitely, suspending the provincial government.

• Proposed All-India Federation and Central Dyarchy:

  • The Act proposed the establishment of an All-India Federation comprising British Indian provinces and the Princely States. However, this federal part of the Act never came into operation because the requisite number of Princely States never consented to join.
  • It proposed to introduce Dyarchy at the Centre, where federal subjects would be divided into ‘Reserved’ (like Defence, External Affairs) under the Governor-General, and ‘Transferred’ under Indian ministers.

• Reactions and British Strategy:

  • Absence of Dominion Status: The Act made no mention of Dominion Status, which was a key demand of the Indian National Congress (INC) since the Irwin Declaration of 1929.
  • British Strategy: The British objective, as analyzed by historians like Bipan Chandra, was to create a constitutional framework that would divert nationalist energies. By granting power in the provinces, they hoped to get the INC “busy running the government,” thereby weakening the central command. They also envisioned that powerful regional leaders (Premiers) would emerge as autonomous power centres, potentially challenging the all-India leadership of the INC and thus fragmenting the nationalist movement—a classic ‘divide and rule’ tactic.
  • INC Opposition: The INC rejected the Act, terming it “thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad, and totally unacceptable.” Jawaharlal Nehru called it a “charter of slavery.” The INC’s main objections were the lack of Dominion Status, the overriding powers of the Governor, and the method of representation for Princely States in the proposed federation (nominees of the Princes, not elected representatives). Instead, the INC reiterated its demand for a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise.
  • Muslim League’s Stance: The Muslim League (ML) also criticized the Act but was willing to work with it. Its primary fear was the potential for a Hindu majority at the federal centre, given the number of Hindu-majority provinces.

Congress Ministries - The 28-Month Rule (1937-1939)

Despite rejecting the Act, the INC decided to contest the provincial elections held in 1937.

• Rationale for Contesting Elections: The logic was similar to that of the ‘Pro-Changers’ (Swarajists) in 1923. The primary goal was to enter the legislatures to prevent reactionary and pro-British political forces from capturing power and using the state machinery against the national movement. Additionally, holding office would provide a platform to promote constructive work on a larger scale.
• Election Results: The INC achieved a landslide victory. It secured a clear majority in Madras, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa. It emerged as the single largest party in Bombay, Assam, and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). It eventually formed ministries, either alone or in coalition, in eight out of the eleven provinces (Bombay, Madras, UP, Bihar, Central Provinces, Orissa, Assam, and NWFP).
• Work and Impact:
  • The formation of Congress ministries was a major psychological boost for the masses. The sight of nationalist leaders in positions of power enhanced the prestige of the Congress and strengthened the morale of peasants, workers, and students, who saw the government as ‘their own’. This led to a surge in their respective movements.
  • The ministries undertook significant work in civil liberties (lifting bans on organizations, repealing repressive laws) and agrarian reform (passing tenancy legislations).
  • Internal Tensions: The period was not without friction. Some right-wing Congress leaders, like K.M. Munshi (Home Minister of Bombay), used state power, including the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), to monitor the activities of left-wing leaders and communists within the Congress, creating significant internal discord.
  • Gaining Experience: The 28-month rule provided invaluable administrative and legislative experience to Indian leaders, which proved crucial in the governance of independent India post-1947.

World War II and the Indian National Movement (1939-1945)

The outbreak of WWII in September 1939 drastically altered the political landscape.

• The Nationalist Dilemma: The war against the fascist Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) created a complex dilemma for the Indian leadership.
  • Mahatma Gandhi: Initially advocated for unconditional moral support to the Allies, as he believed that justice was on their side and did not wish to exploit Britain’s vulnerability.
  • Subhas Chandra Bose: Argued for taking full advantage of Britain’s difficulty by launching an immediate mass Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) to achieve independence.
  • Jawaharlal Nehru: Had deep ideological antipathy towards fascism but was adamant that India could not support an imperialist war effort without being granted freedom first. He opposed taking advantage of the war but also opposed cooperation without independence.
  • Official INC Stance: The Congress Working Committee (CWC) adopted a middle path. They offered to cooperate in the war effort in return for two main demands:
    1. Immediate establishment of a responsible government at the Centre.
    2. A post-war commitment to form a Constituent Assembly to determine India’s political future and a declaration of Britain’s war aims concerning India’s independence.
• British Response and Resignation of Ministries:
  • Viceroy Lord Linlithgow unilaterally declared India a belligerent party in the war without consulting any Indian leaders.
  • He rejected the INC’s demands, offering instead to set up a consultative committee.
  • In protest, the CWC, at its meeting in Wardha in October 1939, called upon all Congress ministries to resign. By November 1939, all eight Congress ministries had resigned.
  • This created a political vacuum that the Muslim League, under Jinnah, skillfully exploited. The League observed a “Day of Deliverance” on 22 December 1939, to celebrate the end of ‘Congress tyranny’.

The August Offer, 1940

With the fall of France in June 1940 and the intensification of the Battle of Britain, the British government grew desperate for Indian support.

• Provisions (offered by Viceroy Linlithgow):
  • Immediate Measures: Expansion of the Viceroy’s Executive Council to include more Indians and the establishment of a War Advisory Council.
  • Post-War Constitution: For the first time, the British government explicitly recognized the right of Indians to frame their own constitution. A Constituent Assembly would be set up after the war, where “mainly Indians” would decide the constitution.
  • Dominion Status: For the first time, Dominion Status was explicitly promised as the objective for India with a clear post-war timeline (unlike the vague Irwin Declaration of 1929).
  • The Veto to Minorities: Crucially, the offer stated that the British government “could not contemplate the transfer of their present responsibilities… to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India’s national life.” This implicitly gave a veto power to the Muslim League on any future constitutional arrangement, effectively legitimizing the demand for Pakistan which had been formally articulated in the Lahore Resolution of March 1940.
• Rejection:
  • INC: Rejected the offer at its Wardha session. Accepting it would mean accepting the minority veto, which was seen as a step towards the partition of India. The offer also fell far short of the demand for Purna Swaraj (complete independence).
  • Muslim League: While the veto provision was a major victory, the League also rejected the offer because it did not explicitly mention the creation of Pakistan or two separate Constituent Assemblies.

Individual Satyagraha, 1940-41

Under pressure from the Congress rank-and-file to launch a mass movement, Gandhi, still hesitant to hamper the war effort, devised a limited, symbolic protest.

• Objective: The goal was not to seek independence but to assert the right to freedom of speech, specifically the freedom to preach against participation in the war.
• Methodology: A designated satyagrahi would deliver an anti-war speech at a chosen location after notifying the authorities. If arrested, they would go to jail. If not, they would repeat the act and begin a march towards Delhi (the ‘Delhi Chalo Movement’), creating a ‘Jail Bharo’ situation.
• Satyagrahis: The first satyagrahi chosen by Gandhi was Vinoba Bhave (started on 17 October 1940). He was followed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Brahma Dutt. The movement saw the participation of thousands of local leaders and activists.

Cripps Mission, 1942

The international context worsened for Britain in late 1941 and early 1942.

• Background:
  • Germany attacked the USSR in June 1941, bringing the Soviet Union into the Allied camp.
  • Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, bringing the USA into the war.
  • Japan’s swift conquest of Southeast Asia, including the fall of Singapore (a major British naval base) and the occupation of Burma, brought the war to India’s doorstep.
  • There was immense pressure on the British government from its allies, particularly US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, to secure genuine Indian cooperation.
  • In response, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched a mission to India headed by Sir Stafford Cripps, a left-wing Labour minister known to be sympathetic to Indian aspirations.
• Provisions:
  • Post-War Dominion Status: India would be granted Dominion Status with the right to secede from the Commonwealth.
  • Constituent Assembly: A Constituent Assembly would be convened immediately after the war, consisting of members elected by provincial assemblies and nominees from Princely States. For the first time, it was proposed that this body would be comprised solely of Indians.
  • Right to Secede (Provincial Option): Any province or Princely State unwilling to accept the new constitution would have the right to not join the Indian Union and could frame its own constitution, effectively receiving the same status as the Indian Union. This was a direct concession to the Muslim League’s demand and provided a clear blueprint for partition.
  • Immediate Transfer of Power: During the war, the defence of India would remain in British hands, and the Viceroy’s powers would remain undiluted.
• Failure and Rejection:
  • The mission failed because it could not satisfy any of the major political groups.
  • INC’s Objections:
    1. The offer of Dominion Status instead of Purna Swaraj.
    2. The representation of Princely States by nominees, not elected representatives.
    3. The ‘right to secede’ clause, which they saw as a threat to national unity.
    4. The talks ultimately broke down on the issue of immediate transfer of power. The INC demanded that the Viceroy’s Executive Council function like a national cabinet with the Viceroy as a constitutional head, which the British were unwilling to concede.
  • Muslim League’s Objections: They opposed the plan as it did not explicitly provide for the creation of Pakistan and envisioned only one Constituent Assembly initially.
  • Mahatma Gandhi famously described the Cripps’ offer as “a post-dated cheque on a failing bank.”

Quit India Movement, 1942

The failure of the Cripps Mission created a sense of deep frustration and foreboding.

• Reasons for Launch:
  • Failure of Cripps Mission: It showed that Britain was not serious about transferring power and was only making promises for the future.
  • Threat of Japanese Invasion: There was a widespread belief that the British were incapable of defending India, as evidenced by their collapses in Malaya and Burma. Gandhi feared that if the Japanese invaded, a demoralized Indian populace might not resist. He wanted to instill a spirit of nationalism and self-reliance.
  • Economic Hardship: The war led to severe inflation and shortages of essential goods, causing widespread popular discontent.
• The Resolution and Gandhi’s Speech:
  • The Congress Working Committee passed the ‘Quit India’ resolution at a special session in Bombay (now Mumbai) on 8 August 1942.
  • At the Gowalia Tank Maidan, Gandhi delivered his famous “Do or Die” speech, giving a call for an immediate, non-violent mass struggle.
  • His instructions were clear: Government servants and soldiers were not to resign but to declare their allegiance to the Congress; students were to leave their studies; Princes were to support their people and accept their sovereignty.
  • New Directions for Peasants: In a radical departure, the uncirculated QIM resolution (as leaders were arrested before it could be publicized) called upon peasants to refuse to pay land revenue. It asked tenants to pay fair rent only if the Zamindar was anti-British, otherwise to launch a ‘No Rent’ campaign. It also declared for the first time that “land belongs to the actual cultivator.”
• Nature of the Movement:
  • Leaderless but not Unorganized: On the morning of 9th August, under ‘Operation Zero Hour’, the British arrested the entire top leadership of the Congress. This made the movement ‘leaderless’ at the national level. However, years of Gandhian constructive work and mass movements had created a strong base of local leaders and trained cadres who took charge.
  • Phases of the Movement:
    1. First Phase: An initial six-week period of mass urban and rural struggle, involving processions, hartals, and attacks on symbols of British authority like railway stations, post offices, and police stations.
    2. Second Phase: A prolonged period of underground revolutionary activity, sabotage, and running of parallel governments.
• Participation:
  • Peasants: They formed the backbone of the movement. Their anger was directed solely against the British state, and there was a remarkable absence of violence against Indian Zamindars.
  • Students and Youth: Acted as the vanguard, leading processions in the first phase and serving as couriers and organizers in the second.
  • Women: Played a heroic role. Aruna Asaf Ali and Sucheta Kripalani were prominent underground organizers. Usha Mehta famously operated the underground ‘Congress Radio’ to disseminate information.
  • Workers: Despite the Communist Party of India (CPI) officially opposing the movement (since the USSR had joined the Allies), workers participated in strikes across the country.
  • Muslims: Participation was low as the Muslim League had called for them to stay away, fearing the establishment of ‘Hindu Raj’. However, many ordinary Muslims provided shelter and support to underground activists and did not act as police informers. The movement was marked by a complete absence of communal violence.
  • Socialist Leaders: Leaders of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) like Jayaprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, and Achyut Patwardhan provided crucial leadership during the underground phase.

---

Prelims Pointers

• The Government of India Act, 1935, introduced Provincial Autonomy and abolished Dyarchy in the provinces.
• Dyarchy was proposed at the Centre by the 1935 Act but was never implemented.
• The All-India Federation proposed by the 1935 Act never came into being.
• The 1935 Act gave the Governor special powers and responsibilities, including the power to take over provincial administration under Section 93.
• The term ‘Premier’ was used for the head of the Council of Ministers in the provinces under the 1935 Act.
• The Congress Ministries’ rule lasted for 28 months, from 1937 to 1939.
• Congress resigned from its ministries in October-November 1939 to protest India’s forced entry into World War II.
• The Muslim League observed the ‘Day of Deliverance’ on December 22, 1939, after the resignation of Congress ministries.
• The August Offer (1940) was proposed by Viceroy Lord Linlithgow.
• The August Offer was the first time the British recognized the right of Indians to frame their own constitution.
• The August Offer explicitly promised Dominion Status for the first time with a post-war timeline.
• The August Offer contained a ‘minority veto’ clause, stating no constitution would be adopted without the consent of minorities.
• Individual Satyagraha was launched in October 1940.

1. First Satyagrahi: Vinoba Bhave
2. Second Satyagrahi: Jawaharlal Nehru
3. Third Satyagrahi: Brahma Dutt

• The slogan associated with Individual Satyagraha was ‘Delhi Chalo’.
• The Cripps Mission arrived in India in March 1942, headed by Sir Stafford Cripps.
• The Cripps Mission proposed Dominion Status and a Constituent Assembly post-war.
• A key feature of the Cripps proposal was the ‘provincial option’ or the right for provinces to secede from the Indian Union.
• Mahatma Gandhi described the Cripps offer as “a post-dated cheque on a failing bank.”
• The Quit India Movement resolution was passed in Bombay on August 8, 1942.
• The slogan for the Quit India Movement was “Do or Die,” given by Mahatma Gandhi.
• The movement was launched from the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay.
• Key women leaders in the Quit India Movement included Aruna Asaf Ali, Sucheta Kripalani, and Usha Mehta.
• Usha Mehta was famous for running the underground ‘Congress Radio’.
• Jayaprakash Narayan was a prominent leader of the underground activities during the Quit India Movement.

---

Mains Insights

1. Government of India Act, 1935: A Paradox of Autonomy and Control

• Cause-Effect Relationship: The Act was a direct consequence of sustained nationalist pressure (Civil Disobedience Movement) and British attempts to co-opt moderate nationalist elements. However, its effect was to create a constitutional structure that appeared democratic at the provincial level but retained ultimate control in British hands through the Governor’s overriding powers.
• Debate: Was Provincial Autonomy genuine?
  • Argument for: It transferred significant administrative power to elected Indian representatives, provided valuable experience in governance, and allowed for the implementation of nationalist policies in areas like agrarian reform and civil liberties.
  • Argument against: The autonomy was a facade. The Governor’s discretionary powers, special responsibilities, and emergency powers (Section 93) meant that the British could intervene at any time. It was a strategic move to weaken the national movement by creating regional power centres and diverting Congress’s energy from the central struggle for independence.
• Historiographical Viewpoint: Historians like Bipan Chandra argue that the 1935 Act was not about transferring power but about creating a new, more complex legislative framework to prolong British rule.

2. Congress Ministries (1937-39): A Test of Governance and Ideology

• Significance: This period served as a crucial rehearsal for independence. It demonstrated that Congress could govern effectively and manage complex administrative challenges. It also boosted the morale of the masses.
• Challenges and Criticisms:
  • Internal Ideological Conflict: The use of state power by right-wing Congress leaders (like K.M. Munshi) against left-wing and communist activists exposed deep ideological fissures within the party.
  • Alienation of the Muslim League: The Congress’s decision not to form coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like the UP is seen by some historians (like Ayesha Jalal) as a critical political misstep that pushed the League further towards separatism. The League used this period to launch a massive propaganda campaign against ‘Congress tyranny’ (e.g., the Pirpur Report), radicalizing its base.

3. The Evolution of British Proposals (1940-42): A Story of “Too Little, Too Late”

• Pattern of Concessions: The August Offer (1940) and the Cripps Mission (1942) show a clear pattern. The British only made constitutional concessions under duress (the threat of Nazi victory, Japanese invasion, Allied pressure). Each offer was an advance on the previous one, but it always fell short of what the Congress demanded at that time.
• Implicit Acceptance of Partition:
  • August Offer: The ‘minority veto’ clause gave the Muslim League a powerful tool to stall any constitutional progress that did not meet its approval.
  • Cripps Mission: The ‘provincial option’ or right to secede gave a constitutional blueprint for the creation of Pakistan. This marked a significant shift in British policy, moving from seeing India as a single unit to accepting the possibility of its division.
• Cause of Failure: The primary reason for the failure of these missions was the deep-seated mistrust between the two sides and the British unwillingness to transfer real power, especially control over Defence, during the war.

4. Quit India Movement: A Spontaneous Uprising or a Planned Revolution?

• Debate on its Nature:
  • Spontaneous Uprising View: The British government and some early historians argued that with the arrest of all leaders, the movement devolved into spontaneous, uncoordinated, and violent mob action.
  • Organized Movement View: Modern historians (e.g., Gyanendra Pandey) argue that while it was leaderless at the top, years of Congress organization had created a structure of command at local levels. The intensity and similarity of actions across the country suggest a pre-conceived plan of action, even if the formal resolution was not circulated. Gandhi’s “Do or Die” speech itself was a clear call to action that set the tone.
• Significance: It was the final and most decisive mass movement of the freedom struggle. The scale of repression and the determination of the people made it unequivocally clear to the British that their rule in India was no longer tenable. It shattered the myth of British benevolence and demonstrated the depth of the Indian people’s desire for freedom.

---

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

1. With reference to the proposals of Cripps Mission, consider the following statements: (UPSC 2022)

   1. The Constituent Assembly would have members nominated by the Provincial Assemblies as well as the Princely States.
   2. Any Province, which is not prepared to accept the new Constitution would have the right to sign a separate agreement with Britain regarding its future status. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: (b) Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect because members from Provincial Assemblies were to be elected, not nominated. Members from Princely States were to be nominated by the rulers. Statement 2 is correct, as it refers to the ‘provincial option’ to secede.

2. The Government of India Act of 1919 clearly defined: (UPSC 2021) (a) the separation of power between the judiciary and the legislature (b) the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments (c) the powers of the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy (d) None of the above Answer: (b) Explanation: The GoI Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) demarcated and separated the central and provincial subjects for the first time, defining their respective jurisdictions for legislation and administration.

3. In the context of Indian history, the principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’ refers to: (UPSC 2017) (a) Division of the central legislature into two houses. (b) Introduction of double government i.e., Central and State governments. (c) Having two sets of rulers; one in London and another in Delhi. (d) Division of the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories. Answer: (d) Explanation: Dyarchy, introduced in the provinces by the GoI Act 1919, meant the division of provincial subjects into two categories: ‘Transferred’ subjects administered by the Governor with the aid of ministers responsible to the legislative council, and ‘Reserved’ subjects administered by the Governor and his executive council without responsibility to the legislature.

4. The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to? (UPSC 2017) (a) Define the jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Governments. (b) Define the powers of the Secretary of State for India. (c) Impose censorship on national press. (d) Improve the relationship between the Government of India and the Indian States. Answer: (d) Explanation: The Butler Committee was appointed to investigate and clarify the relationship between the paramount power (the British Government of India) and the rulers of the Princely States.

5. With reference to the Indian freedom struggle, consider the following events: (UPSC 2017)

   1. Mutiny in Royal Indian Navy
   2. Quit India Movement launched
   3. Second Round Table Conference What is the correct chronological sequence of the above events? (a) 1-2-3 (b) 2-1-3 (c) 3-2-1 (d) 3-1-2 Answer: (c) Explanation: Second Round Table Conference (1931), Quit India Movement (1942), RIN Mutiny (1946).

Mains

1. The Quit India Movement was a watershed moment in India’s struggle for independence. Elucidate. (UPSC 2023, Not a direct question but theme is relevant) Answer: The Quit India Movement of 1942 was a watershed moment for several reasons:

   • Demonstrated Unwavering Resolve: It was the most forceful and widespread movement, launched at a time of global crisis. The ‘Do or Die’ slogan signified a shift towards a final, decisive struggle, marking the end of phased, negotiated politics.
   • Emergence of New Leadership: The arrest of the entire top leadership led to the emergence of a new, second-tier leadership at the local level (e.g., Jayaprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali). This demonstrated the deep organizational strength of the Congress and the political consciousness of the masses.
   • Mass Participation without Top Leaders: The spontaneous participation of peasants, students, and workers across the nation, even in the absence of central command, showed that the desire for freedom had permeated all sections of society.
   • Shattered British Legitimacy: The sheer scale of the movement and the brutal repression required to crush it made it clear to the British that their moral and administrative authority to rule India was gone. It became a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’ they would leave.
   • Shifted the Political Agenda: After the movement, the political discourse shifted from demanding concessions to negotiating the transfer of power, as seen in the subsequent Wavell Plan and Cabinet Mission. It was the final nail in the coffin of British rule.

2. To what extent did the Government of India Act, 1935 lay down the foundation for the Constitution of India? (UPSC 2022, Paraphrased from themes asked) Answer: The Government of India Act, 1935, significantly influenced the Constitution of independent India, serving as a blueprint for several of its features.

   • Federal Structure: The Act’s proposal for an All-India Federation, though never implemented, provided the basic framework for the federal structure of the Indian Union with a division of powers. The three lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution (Union, State, and Concurrent) are drawn directly from the 1-935 Act.
   • Provincial Autonomy: The concept of responsible government in the provinces with an executive accountable to the legislature became the model for state governments in independent India.
   • Parliamentary and Administrative Details: Many procedural and administrative details, such as the office of the Governor, the functioning of a bicameral legislature, and the establishment of a Federal Court (which became the Supreme Court), were adopted from the 1935 Act.
   • Emergency Provisions: The discretionary powers of the Governor, especially the power to take over provincial administration (Section 93), are seen as a precursor to the emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 356 (President’s Rule).
   • Public Service Commissions: The Act provided for the establishment of a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions, a structure that was retained in the form of the UPSC and State PSCs. However, the Indian Constitution departed from the 1935 Act in its core principles, by introducing a sovereign, democratic, republic framework, universal adult franchise, and a charter of fundamental rights, which were absent in the colonial Act.

3. Many voices had strengthened and enriched the nationalist movement during the Gandhian phase. Elaborate. (UPSC 2019) Answer: While Mahatma Gandhi was the pre-eminent figure of the nationalist movement from 1919 onwards, its strength lay in its diversity of ideologies and leaders who worked both in concert and in creative tension with him.

   • The Socialists: Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, Jayaprakash Narayan, and Achyut Patwardhan, through the Congress Socialist Party (1934), infused the movement with a radical socio-economic agenda. They emphasized the rights of peasants and workers, advocating for land reforms and state-led economic planning, which broadened the movement’s appeal beyond political freedom.
   • The Swarajists: Figures like C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru, though earlier, demonstrated the strategy of using legislative councils to obstruct the colonial government from within, a tactic that kept the political momentum going between mass movements.
   • The Revolutionaries: Revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad, through their acts of self-sacrifice, provided a powerful, alternative stream of nationalism that inspired the youth and kept the spirit of resistance alive, even if their methods differed from Gandhi’s non-violence.
   • The Communists: Despite their ideological differences with the Congress, communists played a crucial role in organizing the industrial working class and peasantry, leading powerful strikes and agrarian movements that challenged the economic foundations of the colonial state.
   • Women Leaders: Figures like Sarojini Naidu, Aruna Asaf Ali, and Usha Mehta went beyond symbolic participation. They were key strategists, organizers, and leaders in their own right, especially prominent during the Civil Disobedience and Quit India Movements, ensuring the movement was inclusive. These diverse voices, while sometimes at odds with Gandhian strategy, collectively enriched the nationalist movement by broadening its social base, diversifying its tactics, and deepening its ideological content.

4. Why did the ‘Quit India’ Movement become the most significant movement in the struggle for India’s freedom? (UPSC 2021, Thematic) Answer: The Quit India Movement became the most significant for the following reasons:

   • It marked a transition from demanding self-government to demanding an immediate British withdrawal. The slogan “Quit India” was direct and uncompromising, leaving no room for negotiation or partial concessions.
   • It showcased the immense power and initiative of the Indian masses. With the entire leadership in jail from day one, the movement was sustained by ordinary people and local leaders, demonstrating a high degree of political consciousness and organizational capacity at the grassroots.
   • It completely eroded the authority of the British Raj. The establishment of parallel governments (e.g., in Satara, Midnapore) and widespread sabotage of communications and infrastructure demonstrated that British control was tenuous and could be overthrown.
   • The scale of British repression was unprecedented. The use of machine guns, aerial bombing, and mass detentions revealed the coercive foundation of the Raj. This brutality destroyed any remaining moral claim Britain had to rule India and hardened international opinion against it.
   • It made the transfer of power inevitable. After the movement, the British realized that holding onto India would require a massive and permanent military commitment, which a post-WWII Britain could not afford. The movement ensured that the post-war negotiations would be about the modalities of independence, not about whether to grant it.

5. Assess the role of the British imperial power in complicating the process of transfer of power during the 1940s. (UPSC 2019) Answer: The British imperial power played a significant and often deliberate role in complicating the transfer of power in the 1940s through its policies of ‘divide and rule’ and strategic delays.

   • Legitimizing Communal Demands: The British consistently used the ‘minority problem’ as a reason to delay independence. The August Offer’s (1940) ‘minority veto’ gave the Muslim League a powerful tool to reject any constitutional proposal not to its liking. This elevated Jinnah and the League to a status equal to that of the Congress, which represented a much larger section of the population.
   • Ambiguous Constitutional Proposals: The Cripps Mission (1942) further complicated matters by introducing the principle of provincial secession. This gave a constitutional and legal pathway to the idea of partition, moving it from a political demand to a viable administrative option in the eyes of the British.
   • Encouraging Intransigence: By treating the Muslim League as the sole representative of Indian Muslims and engaging in separate negotiations, the British encouraged Jinnah’s intransigence. This policy weakened the nationalist forces that stood for a united India and made a political settlement between the Congress and the League nearly impossible.
   • Wartime Priorities: Throughout the war, Britain’s primary goal was to secure Indian cooperation, not to facilitate a smooth transfer of power. This led them to make conflicting promises to different groups, further muddying the political waters.
   • Lack of a Clear Roadmap: Instead of taking a firm stance and laying out a clear, non-negotiable path to a united, independent India, British policy was reactive and piecemeal. This created a political vacuum filled by competing claims and communal bitterness, ultimately leading to the tragedy of Partition.