NDA (II) 2018 General Ability Test · Question 53 of 146

Correct — B, Both the statements are individually true but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I. Both statements describe real provisions of the Act, but of different parts of it. Statement I is true: the Act of 1935 provided for dyarchy at the Centre, splitting federal subjects into reserved ones — defence, external affairs, ecclesiastical affairs and the tribal areas — to be administered by the Governor-General with counsellors he appointed, and transferred ones to be handled by ministers answerable to the federal legislature. Statement II is true too: the same Act abolished the dyarchy that the 1919 Act had run in the provinces and replaced it with provincial autonomy, under which a province's whole administration was placed with ministers responsible to an elected provincial legislature. Now the explanation test. Provincial autonomy is not the reason dyarchy appeared at the Centre. The Act simply moved the device up one level while removing it below — two parallel provisions of one statute, not cause and effect — and that is what option (b) is for.

• (a)Both the statements are individually true and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I — Granting the provinces autonomy did not cause or require dyarchy at the Centre. British thinking in 1935 was that responsible government could be conceded in the provinces while defence and external affairs were kept out of Indian hands at the Centre — a political choice, not a consequence of provincial autonomy.
• (c)Statement I is true but Statement II is false — Statement II is one of the best-known features of the Act. Provincial autonomy was introduced in 1935, the elections were held in 1936-37, and Congress ministries took office in most provinces in 1937.
• (d)Statement I is false but Statement II is true — Statement I is true as a description of what the Act provided. Dyarchy at the Centre is exactly what the 1935 Act laid down, in place of the provincial dyarchy of 1919.

Dyarchy means a dual executive — the subjects of government are divided into two lists, one administered by ministers drawn from and answerable to an elected legislature, the other reserved to an official executive answerable only to the British authorities. The Government of India Act, 1919 applied that device to the provinces. The Government of India Act, 1935 reversed the arrangement: it ended dyarchy in the provinces and gave them autonomy, and it introduced dyarchy at the Centre as part of the proposed All-India Federation of British Indian provinces and princely states.

There is one honest qualification worth carrying, and it does not change the answer. The federal half of the Act never came into force. The All-India Federation depended on enough princely states acceding, and they did not, so central dyarchy stayed on paper and the central arrangements of 1919 continued until 1947. Provincial autonomy, by contrast, actually began in 1937. The statement is true as a description of what the Act provided, which is how every examiner reads it — but a student who knows only that 'dyarchy at the Centre never operated' can talk himself into (d) and lose the mark. Judge the statement against the text of the Act, not against what history did with it.

• The 1935 Act abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced provincial autonomy with ministries responsible to elected legislatures.
• It provided for dyarchy at the Centre, reserving defence, external affairs and ecclesiastical affairs to the Governor-General.
• It proposed an All-India Federation of British Indian provinces and princely states, which never came into being.
• It divided legislative power into Federal, Provincial and Concurrent Lists — the model the Constitution's Seventh Schedule follows.
• Residuary legislative powers were vested in the Governor-General, and the Act also established a Federal Court, which began work in 1937.

• Swapping the two Acts — dyarchy in the provinces belongs to 1919, dyarchy at the Centre to 1935.
• Concluding that Statement I is false because central dyarchy never actually operated.
• Assuming the Act abolished separate communal electorates; it retained and extended them.

UPSC and NDA both work this Act hard — as 'which is not a feature', as a statement-pair, or through one of its legacies such as the three legislative lists or the Instrument of Instructions.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the Government of India Act, 1935, which of the following was a 'reserved' subject at the Centre, to be administered by the Governor-General?

  • (a)Education
  • (b)Defence
  • (c)Local self-government
  • (d)Public health

  Answer(b) Defence — defence, external affairs, ecclesiastical affairs and the tribal areas were reserved to the Governor-General under the Act's scheme of central dyarchy.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Provincial autonomy under the Government of India Act, 1935 came into actual operation in

  • (a)1935
  • (b)1937
  • (c)1939
  • (d)1946

  Answer(b) 1937 — elections were held in 1936-37 and the new provincial ministries, mostly Congress, took office in 1937.