BPSC 70th CCE Prelims General Studies · Question 113 of 143

Correct — D, Appraisal of the Act of 1935. The decisive point is a category distinction rather than a historical one: an appraisal is a judgement passed on the Act, not a provision contained in it. Every other option names something the statute did or proposed to do; 'Appraisal of the Act of 1935' names what historians and politicians afterwards said about it. The option set reads exactly like the sub-headings of a textbook chapter on the Act, with the evaluative section listed last, and it is that last section which the stem is asking you to spot. Two of the remaining three can be ruled out on external authority. UPSC set the same negative question about this Act in its 2000 prelims — 'Which one of the following is not a feature of the Government of India Act of 1935?' — and its published key marks 'Diarchy at the Centre as well as in the provinces', which means the Commission treated a bicameral legislature, provincial autonomy and an All-India Federation as genuine features. Both of those map onto this paper: provincial autonomy is Part III of the Act, which came into force on 1 April 1937, abolished dyarchy in the provinces and put every provincial portfolio in the hands of ministers answerable to elected legislatures; and the Federation of India is Part II, a proposed union of the British provinces with such princely states as chose to accede, which never came into operation because the rulers refused. Note the careful wording of option (c) — 'Proposal for Federation of India'. It is exactly right: the federation was proposed and never achieved, so the proposal is the feature. Be honest about the strength of this answer. This is a derived answer of medium confidence, and option (b) is a live alternative rather than a dead one — see the note in the background below, which sets out the case for it. What is not in doubt is that (a) and (c) are real features of the Act.

• (a)Provincial Autonomy — The Act's most consequential and most fully implemented feature, so it cannot be the non-feature. Part III came into force on 1 April 1937, abolished provincial dyarchy, and made every provincial subject the responsibility of ministers commanding a legislative majority — though governors kept 'special responsibilities' and could take over a province outright, which they did in the Congress provinces after the 1939 resignations.
• (b)Reconstruction of the Governor-General’s Executive Council — The genuinely contestable option. The Act's federal chapter did reconstitute the central executive on paper — a Council of Ministers for transferred federal subjects alongside counsellors for the reserved subjects of defence, external affairs and ecclesiastical affairs — so a reader treating that as a feature has a case. It is being rejected here as the weaker candidate, not as an absurd one; the reasoning is set out honestly in the background.
• (c)Proposal for Federation of India — A feature beyond argument, and the option's own wording protects it. Part II of the Act proposed an All-India Federation of the provinces and acceding princely states, with powers split across a federal, a provincial and a concurrent list. The princes withheld their accession and the federal part never came into operation — but a proposal that failed is still a proposal the Act contained.

The Government of India Act 1935 was the longest statute the British Parliament had then passed, and it worked in two halves that met very different fates. The provincial half abolished dyarchy, transferred all provincial subjects to responsible ministers and took effect on 1 April 1937, producing the elections of 1937 and the Congress ministries that followed. The federal half proposed an All-India Federation joining the British provinces to those princely states that acceded, distributed powers across federal, provincial and concurrent lists, and introduced dyarchy at the Centre — reserving defence, external affairs and ecclesiastical affairs to the Governor-General while other federal subjects went to ministers. That half never came into being. Around these two halves sat a set of institutional changes that did happen: the Federal Court was created, the Reserve Bank of India — set up on 1 April 1935 under its own Act of 1934 — took over currency and credit management, public service commissions were set up at federal and provincial level, Sind was separated from Bombay, Bihar and Orissa were split into two provinces, and Burma and Aden were detached as separate Crown colonies. Direct elections were introduced and the franchise widened from about five million to about thirty-five million, while separate electorates were not merely retained but extended under the Communal Award.

Where the residual doubt on this card sits, stated plainly. Option (b) is defensible in two ways. First, the Act's federal executive scheme really did reconstitute the Governor-General's establishment, so the phrase describes something in the statute; and second, since the federal part never came into force, the Governor-General's Executive Council in fact carried on unchanged under the 1919 arrangements right through to 1947 — so on a strict reading nothing was reconstructed. The phrase is in any case most famous from a later moment altogether: the Wavell Plan and the Simla Conference of 1945 proposed reconstructing the Viceroy's Executive Council with equal Caste Hindu and Muslim representation, and a candidate who recognises the phrase from there will mark (b) with confidence. The case for (d) rests on a different and, on balance, stronger ground: it is not that an appraisal is historically false, but that it is not the same kind of thing as the other three. Provincial autonomy, a reconstructed executive and a proposed federation are all arrangements the Act made or attempted; an appraisal is what came afterwards. Given a negative stem, the option that fails the category test fails more completely than the option that is merely disputed on its facts, and that is the reasoning the answer rests on. It is worth knowing that this reasoning is a judgement about how the question was built rather than a fact about 1935.

• Part III of the Act, providing provincial autonomy, commenced on 1 April 1937; provincial dyarchy was abolished and all provincial portfolios placed with ministers responsible to the legislatures
• The federal part — an All-India Federation of provinces and acceding princely states, with federal, provincial and concurrent lists — never came into operation, because the rulers of the princely states withheld accession
• Dyarchy was introduced at the Centre, with defence, external affairs and ecclesiastical affairs reserved to the Governor-General; UPSC's 2000 prelims key treats 'diarchy at the Centre as well as in the provinces' as the statement that is not a feature
• Institutions created or reorganised by the Act: the Federal Court, the Reserve Bank of India, federal and provincial public service commissions, and the new province of Sind
• Territorial changes: Bihar and Orissa were split into separate provinces of Bihar and Orissa, and Burma and Aden were made separate Crown colonies
• Direct elections were introduced and the franchise widened from about five million to about thirty-five million, while separate electorates were extended under the Communal Award

• Assuming a proposal that never took effect is not a feature; the Act's federation is a feature of the Act even though it never came into being
• Confusing the 1935 Act's dyarchy at the Centre with the 1919 Act's dyarchy in the provinces — the 1935 Act abolished the latter and introduced the former
• Reading 'reconstruction of the Governor-General's Executive Council' as the Wavell Plan of 1945, which is where that exact phrase is most often met

BPSC asks constitutional history through the negative stem — which item is not a feature — and mixes provisions with headings, so the first move is to check whether each option is even the same kind of thing as the others. UPSC uses the same Act far more often but almost always positively and in multi-statement form: whether provincial autonomy, a Federal Court and an All-India Federation were all provided for, or whether the governors could veto and legislate on their own, so the provisions have to be known individually rather than as a list of chapter titles.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the Government of India Act, 1935, provincial autonomy came into force with effect from

  • (a)1 April 1935
  • (b)1 April 1937
  • (c)1 January 1936
  • (d)1 April 1939

  Answer(b) 1 April 1937 — Part III of the Act commenced on that date, after which the 1937 provincial elections produced ministries responsible to the legislatures.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which of the following was NOT created or provided for by the Government of India Act, 1935 ?

  • (a)The Federal Court
  • (b)The Reserve Bank of India
  • (c)The province of Sind
  • (d)Universal adult franchise

  Answer(d) Universal adult franchise — the Act widened the electorate from about five million to about thirty-five million but kept property and other qualifications; the Federal Court, the Reserve Bank and the province of Sind all came from the Act.