Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian constitutional journey in the early 20th century was marked by a series of legislative reforms aimed at gradually introducing representative governance while retaining ultimate control with the British Crown. The Government of India Act, 1919, introduced the principle of ‘responsible government’ and a limited form of provincial autonomy. However, it fell short of granting full self-governance. This was followed by the Government of India Act, 1935, a more comprehensive legislation. The statement, “Though the Act of 1919 was superseded by that of 1935, the preamble to the former was not repealed the preservation of the smile of the Cheshire cat after its disappearance, and the latter said nothing about Dominion Status,” encapsulates the complex and incomplete nature of these reforms, highlighting the lingering colonial framework and unfulfilled aspirations for self-rule.
The Government of India Act, 1919: A Limited Step
The Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, was a response to the growing nationalist movement in India. It introduced the system of dyarchy at the provincial level, dividing subjects between reserved (under the control of British officials) and transferred (under the control of Indian ministers accountable to the legislative council) lists. Central subjects remained largely under the control of the Governor-General and his Executive Council.
- Preamble: The preamble of the 1919 Act explicitly stated the goal of increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the progressive realization of responsible government in India.
- Limitations: The franchise remained restricted, and the Governor-General retained significant veto powers. The Act also introduced repressive measures like Rowlatt Act, fueling further discontent.
The Government of India Act, 1935: A Comprehensive but Incomplete Reform
The Government of India Act, 1935, was a more elaborate attempt at constitutional reform, stemming from the recommendations of the Simon Commission (1927-1930). It abolished dyarchy and introduced provincial autonomy, granting greater powers to provincial governments. It also provided for the establishment of a Federal Court and a Reserve Bank of India.
- Federal Structure (Unrealized): The Act envisioned a federal structure for India, but it was never fully implemented due to the opposition from various political groups and the outbreak of World War II.
- Provincial Autonomy: Provinces were granted greater autonomy, with elected representatives forming the government. However, the Governor retained significant emergency powers.
- No Mention of Dominion Status: Critically, the Act of 1935 did not explicitly mention the grant of Dominion Status to India. This was a significant omission, as Dominion Status – self-governance within the British Empire – was a key demand of the Indian National Congress.
The Paradox: Preamble of 1919 and Silence of 1935
The persistence of the 1919 Act’s preamble despite the enactment of the 1935 Act is a striking anomaly. The 1935 Act, while superseding many provisions of the 1919 Act, did not repeal the preamble. This can be interpreted as a symbolic gesture, a ‘smile of the Cheshire cat’ as the question suggests – a lingering reminder of the initial promise of responsible government, even as the substance of that promise remained largely unfulfilled. The British government, while enacting more comprehensive legislation, was hesitant to explicitly commit to full self-governance.
Why the Omission of Dominion Status?
The omission of Dominion Status from the 1935 Act reflects the British government’s strategic calculations. Several factors contributed to this decision:
- Fear of Losing Control: Granting Dominion Status would have meant relinquishing significant control over India, a crucial component of the British Empire.
- Communal Concerns: The British government was wary of granting self-governance without adequate safeguards for minority communities, fearing communal unrest.
- Political Divisions: The Indian political landscape was fragmented, with differing views on the future constitutional framework. The British government sought to maintain a balance between various interests.
Comparative Analysis: 1919 vs. 1935
| Feature | Government of India Act, 1919 | Government of India Act, 1935 |
|---|---|---|
| System of Governance | Dyarchy at Provincial Level | Provincial Autonomy; Federal Structure (not implemented) |
| Franchise | Restricted | Expanded, but still limited |
| Central Control | Significant control by Governor-General | Governor-General retained emergency powers |
| Dominion Status | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Preamble | Explicitly stated goal of responsible government | Adopted preamble of 1919 Act |
Conclusion
The Acts of 1919 and 1935 represent incremental steps towards constitutional reform in India, but they were ultimately constrained by the British government’s reluctance to relinquish complete control. The preservation of the 1919 Act’s preamble, despite the enactment of the 1935 Act, and the latter’s silence on Dominion Status, symbolize the incomplete nature of these reforms and the unfulfilled aspirations of the Indian people. These Acts, while laying the groundwork for future constitutional development, ultimately failed to address the core demand for self-governance, paving the way for intensified nationalist movements and eventual independence in 1947.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.