Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The early 20th century witnessed a surge in Indian nationalism, fueled by socio-economic grievances and a desire for political representation. In response to this growing unrest and as a consequence of wartime promises, the British government enacted the Government of India Act, 1919, introducing the system of Dyarchy. This system aimed to provide limited self-governance at the provincial level by dividing executive council responsibilities between Indian elected ministers and British appointed executive councillors. However, the question remains whether this carefully calibrated concession could genuinely satisfy the burgeoning national sentiments of the Indian people, who were increasingly demanding complete self-rule.
The Political Context and Rise of Nationalism
Prior to 1919, Indian nationalism had evolved from moderate demands for administrative reforms to assertive calls for self-government. The Swadeshi movement (1905-1911), the formation of the Muslim League (1906), and the increasing influence of extremist ideologies demonstrated the growing political consciousness. World War I further intensified these demands, as India contributed significantly to the British war effort with the expectation of greater political autonomy. The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, while introducing limited Indian participation in legislative councils, were deemed insufficient by many nationalists.
Understanding Dyarchy: Structure and Implementation
The Government of India Act, 1919, introduced Dyarchy at the provincial level. This meant:
- Reserved Subjects: Subjects like Finance, Police, and Revenue were placed under the control of British executive councillors, who were non-elected and directly responsible to the Governor.
- Transferred Subjects: Subjects like Education, Public Health, and Agriculture were assigned to Indian ministers, who were elected by legislative councils and were responsible to the legislature.
- Central Level: At the central level, a similar division was attempted with the introduction of the Indian Legislative Council, but the Governor-General retained significant powers.
The intention was to provide Indians with practical experience in governance while retaining British control over crucial areas. However, the implementation faced several challenges. The division of subjects was often arbitrary, and the Governor retained overriding powers even in transferred subjects through his discretionary authority.
Reasons Why Dyarchy Failed to Satisfy National Sentiments
Limited Transfer of Power
The core issue was that Dyarchy did not grant substantial political power to Indians. The reserved subjects, which were the most important, remained firmly under British control. This meant that Indians had limited influence over the administration of the country. The principle of ‘responsible government’ was only partially implemented, as Indian ministers were not fully accountable to the legislature.
Financial Constraints
Indian ministers in charge of transferred subjects often lacked adequate financial resources. The British retained control over the finance department, making it difficult for Indian ministers to effectively implement their policies. This financial dependence undermined their authority and effectiveness.
Discord and Lack of Coordination
The dual system of governance often led to discord and lack of coordination between the Indian ministers and British executive councillors. Differences in approach and priorities hampered effective administration. The Governor-General’s discretionary powers were frequently used to override the decisions of Indian ministers, further fueling resentment.
Rise of the Non-Cooperation Movement
The perceived inadequacies of Dyarchy, coupled with the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, led to widespread disillusionment with constitutional methods. Mahatma Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, advocating for complete independence from British rule. This movement demonstrated that Indians were no longer willing to settle for limited reforms and demanded full self-governance.
Separate Electorates and Communalism
The continuation of separate electorates for Muslims, introduced by the Morley-Minto Reforms, further exacerbated communal tensions and hindered the development of a unified national identity. This system was seen as divisive and undermined the principle of equal representation.
Differing Perspectives
While most nationalists rejected Dyarchy, some moderate leaders initially saw it as a step in the right direction. They believed that it provided an opportunity for Indians to gain experience in governance and gradually move towards self-rule. However, this view was quickly overshadowed by the growing demand for complete independence.
| Feature | Dyarchy (1919) | Nationalist Demand |
|---|---|---|
| Extent of Self-Governance | Limited, partial transfer of power | Complete self-rule |
| Control over Key Subjects | British control over finance, police, etc. | Indian control over all subjects |
| Accountability | Indian ministers partially accountable to legislature | Fully responsible government |
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dyarchy, despite its intention to appease Indian nationalist sentiments, ultimately failed to satisfy them. The limited transfer of power, financial constraints, lack of coordination, and the continuation of divisive policies like separate electorates proved to be insurmountable obstacles. The system was perceived as a half-hearted attempt at reform and fueled the demand for complete independence, culminating in the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement. Dyarchy, therefore, stands as a testament to the growing political awareness and determination of the Indian people to achieve self-determination, rather than a successful attempt at reconciliation.
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.