Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Government of India Act of 1935, while retaining ultimate authority with the British Crown, introduced a degree of provincial autonomy and proposed a federal structure for India. This federal scheme aimed to unite British India with the princely states under a common governance framework. However, the Act’s federal provisions ultimately faltered, not due to opposition from the Indian National Congress (which largely boycotted the Act), but because of the ‘intransigence’ – stubborn refusal to compromise – displayed by the rulers of the princely states. Their reluctance to cede sovereignty and their demands for safeguards proved insurmountable obstacles to the successful implementation of the federal structure.
The Federal Scheme of the Government of India Act, 1935
The Act envisioned a three-tiered federation:
- British India Provinces: Directly governed by the British.
- Chief Commissioners’ Provinces: Also directly governed, but with a different administrative structure.
- Princely States: Autonomous entities ruled by their own monarchs, expected to join the federation on agreed terms.
The Act stipulated that the federation would come into effect only if a specified number of princely states, representing at least half of the total population of the states and including certain key states, agreed to join. The federal government would have jurisdiction over defense, external affairs, communications, and currency, while states retained internal sovereignty.
Princely States’ Concerns and Intransigence
The princely states were deeply apprehensive about joining the federation for several reasons:
- Loss of Sovereignty: Rulers feared that joining the federation would erode their absolute authority and independence. They were unwilling to cede control over their internal administration.
- Financial Concerns: States were concerned about the financial implications of joining the federation, particularly regarding contributions to the common federal fund. They feared being burdened with disproportionate costs.
- Representation and Safeguards: Rulers demanded adequate representation in the federal legislature and guarantees to protect their rights and privileges. They wanted assurances that their internal autonomy would be respected.
- Fear of Congress Influence: Many rulers were wary of the growing influence of the Indian National Congress and feared that a united India under Congress rule would diminish their power.
Specific Demands and British Response
The princely states put forward a series of demands, including:
- Veto Power: A demand for a veto power in the federal legislature to protect their interests.
- Guaranteed Representation: Assurances of a fixed number of seats in the federal legislature, irrespective of population.
- Financial Safeguards: Clear provisions regarding financial contributions and a guarantee that their revenues would not be adversely affected.
- Protection of Internal Autonomy: Explicit guarantees that the federal government would not interfere in their internal administration.
The British government, while keen to establish a federation, was unwilling to concede to all of these demands. They feared that granting the states too much power would undermine the authority of the federal government and create a fragmented and unworkable system. Negotiations stalled, and the required number of states never agreed to join.
The Failure of the Federal Scheme
By 1939, it became clear that the federal provisions of the 1935 Act were a non-starter. Only a handful of states tentatively agreed to join, far short of the required threshold. The outbreak of World War II in 1939 effectively ended any further attempts to implement the federal scheme. The Act’s provincial autonomy provisions remained in effect, but the vision of a united India under a federal structure remained unrealized until after independence in 1947, and even then, it required a different approach involving integration and accession rather than federation based on the 1935 model.
| Feature | Princely States’ Concern | British Response |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty | Fear of losing absolute rule | Offered internal autonomy, but federal jurisdiction over key areas |
| Financial Burden | Concern over contributions to federal fund | Offered negotiations, but unwilling to fully absorb costs |
| Representation | Demand for guaranteed seats & veto power | Offered representation, but resisted veto power |
Conclusion
The failure of the federal provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935 underscores the complex political landscape of pre-independence India. The princely states’ intransigence, rooted in their desire to preserve their sovereignty and privileges, proved to be a decisive factor. While the British government’s reluctance to fully accommodate their demands also played a role, the states’ unwillingness to compromise ultimately doomed the federal scheme, delaying the creation of a truly unified India until after 1947. The episode highlights the challenges of integrating diverse political entities with conflicting interests.
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.