Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Government of India Act of 1935 was a landmark piece of legislation, the culmination of a series of constitutional experiments undertaken by the British in India. Born out of the recommendations of the Simon Commission (1928) and subsequent Round Table Conferences, it aimed to address the growing demands for Indian participation in governance while preserving British control. The Act introduced provincial autonomy and a federal structure, but it fell short of granting complete independence. The assertion that it possessed “all brakes, but no engine” suggests it was a system designed to control and regulate, rather than empower and propel India towards self-rule. This answer will critically examine the validity of this claim.
The ‘Brakes’ – Provisions for Control and Regulation
The Government of India Act of 1935 incorporated several provisions that acted as ‘brakes’ on Indian aspirations for self-governance, ensuring continued British control:
- Provincial Autonomy with Reservations: While granting autonomy to provinces, the Act retained significant control through the reservation of portfolios (finance, revenue, law & order) to Governors. Governors could also veto legislation and administer reserved portfolios, effectively overriding provincial governments.
- Dyarchy at the Provincial Level: Though abolished at the centre, dyarchy continued in provinces for certain subjects, further limiting the scope of popular control.
- Central Authority: The Act maintained a strong central government with substantial powers, including the power to legislate for all provinces, even in matters within provincial jurisdiction.
- Safeguards for British Interests: The Act included provisions to protect British commercial and political interests, such as the retention of the Burma office and the power to regulate the Indian Civil Service.
- Communal Representation: The Act continued and expanded the system of communal representation, further dividing Indian society and hindering the development of a unified national identity. Separate electorates were extended to depressed classes as well, through the Poona Pact.
The Lack of an ‘Engine’ – Absence of Genuine Self-Governance
The Act lacked the essential elements needed to drive India towards genuine self-governance, hence the ‘no engine’ analogy:
- No Responsible Government at the Centre: The most significant limitation was the absence of responsible government at the central level. The Governor-General retained extensive powers, including the power to veto legislation and appoint ministers who were not responsible to the legislature.
- Limited Franchise: The franchise remained severely restricted, with only about 10-14% of the population eligible to vote. This meant that the elected representatives did not truly represent the will of the people. (Statistic based on knowledge cutoff 2023)
- Federal Structure – Unimplemented: The Act proposed a federal structure with provinces and princely states, but the federal part never came into effect due to the unwillingness of the princely states to join.
- Dominion Status – Not Granted: Despite demands from Indian nationalists, the Act did not grant India Dominion status, leaving it under the direct control of the British Parliament.
- Veto Power of the Governor-General: The Governor-General’s veto power over legislation passed by the central legislature effectively rendered it subservient to British authority.
Justification of the Statement – A Critical Evaluation
The statement “all brakes, but no engine” is largely justified. The Act undeniably prioritized British control and regulation over genuine self-governance. The extensive powers retained by the Governor-General, the limited franchise, and the absence of responsible government at the centre all point to a system designed to maintain British dominance.
However, the characterization is not entirely accurate. The Act did introduce significant reforms, such as provincial autonomy, which provided Indians with valuable experience in governance. It also laid the foundation for the future Constitution of India. The Act’s provisions regarding public service commissions, federal court, and revenue allocation were adopted, with modifications, in the Indian Constitution.
| Feature | Government of India Act 1935 | Indian Constitution (Post-Independence) |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Structure | Proposed, but not implemented | Adopted with modifications |
| Public Service Commission | Established | Constitutional body (Article 315) |
| Federal Court | Established | Supreme Court of India |
| Provincial Autonomy | Granted with reservations | Full autonomy to states |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Government of India Act of 1935 was a complex piece of legislation that reflected the conflicting objectives of British policy – to appease Indian demands for self-governance while preserving imperial control. While it introduced some reforms and provided valuable experience in governance, its fundamental limitations, particularly the absence of responsible government at the centre and the extensive powers retained by the British, justify the characterization of it as having “all brakes, but no engine.” It was a step towards, but not a realization of, Indian self-rule, and ultimately served as a stepping stone to complete 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.