Introduction

The Government of India Act, 1935, played a pivotal role in the history of British India and served as
a precursor to India's eventual independence in 1947. This landmark legislation was the outcome of
various factors, including the growing demand for selfgovernance within India and the pressing need
to reform the governance structure under British colonial rule. The Act of 1935 was a comprehensive
and intricate piece of legislation that brought about significant changes to the administrative and
constitutional framework of British India. Its significance can be observed in several key aspects,
including its provisions for federalism, provincial autonomy, and representation, and its profound
impact on the political landscape of India.

The Government of India Act, 1935, is particularly notable for its introduction of the concept of
federalism in India. It established a federal structure that distributed legislative powers between the
central government and the provinces. This federal setup included two houses of the Federal
Legislature: the Council of States, representing the provinces, and the Federal Assembly, representing
the princely states and British Indian territories. This represented a notable departure from the
earlier Government of India Act, 1919, which had granted limited provincial autonomy but lacked a
federal structure. The Act of 1935 aimed to provide more substantial authority to both the provinces
and the central government

The Act of 1935 played a significant role in shaping the political landscape of India. It provided a
framework for the development of political parties and the emergence of leaders like Jawaharlal
Nehru, Sardar Patel, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. These leaders gained valuable experience in the
provincial legislatures and utilized the autonomy granted by the Act to strengthen the Indian
National Congress and other political groups, ultimately contributing to the struggle for
independence.

Historical Background

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): These reforms were a response to India's contribution to the
First World War and the expectation of political concessions. They introduced a limited form of self-
government, known as dyarchy, in the provinces and expanded legislative councils with some Indian
representation. However, these reforms fell short of Indian aspirations for full self-rule.

Named after the then-Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, and the Viceroy of India, Lord
Chelmsford, these reforms aimed to address Indian aspirations for greater selfgovernance while
maintaining British control.

Indian nationalist leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, viewed the
reforms as inadequate and a mere token gesture. The lack of genuine autonomy and the
continuation of colonial control led to widespread discontent.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (1919): The brutal massacre of hundreds of unarmed Indian civilians by
British troops in Amritsar, Punjab, deepened anti-British sentiments and galvanized demands for
independence.In April 1919, during the festival of Baisakhi, thousands of Indians gathered at the
Jallianwala Bagh, a public garden in Amritsar, Punjab, to peacefully protest against the arrest of two
nationalist leaders, Dr. Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, and the implementation of repressive laws
like the Rowlatt Act. The atmosphere was charged with a spirit of defiance and discontent against
British rule.

Amid this gathering, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, without warning, ordered his troops to open
fire on the unarmed and unsuspecting crowd trapped within the enclosed space of the garden. The
firing continued for about ten minutes, with soldiers blocking the only exit and shooting at anyone
trying to escape. The indiscriminate firing resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including men, women,
and children, and left thousands injured.

The atrocity was an appalling display of excessive force and cruelty, leaving a lasting scar on India's
struggle for independence. It led to widespread outrage and condemnation not just within India but
also internationally. Rabindranath Tagore famously renounced his knighthood in protest against this
inhuman act.

Non-Cooperation Movement (1920): Mahatma Gandhi's call for non-cooperation with the British
government led to mass protests, boycotts of British goods, and the surrender of titles and honors.
This marked a significant upsurge in the Indian freedom struggle , the movement aimed to unite
Indians across different backgrounds and regions in a nonviolent protest against British rule, urging
them to refuse cooperation with the British government and its institutions.

The movement's primary objectives were to demand swaraj (self-rule) and to assert India's
independence from British colonial control. Gandhi emphasized the principles of nonviolence, civil
disobedience, and non-cooperation as the means to achieve these goals.

The movement saw widespread participation across the country. People boycotted British goods,
institutions, and services. They refused to buy British-manufactured goods, discarded western
clothing in favor of traditional attire, and boycotted educational institutions and law courts
established by the British government.

Civil Disobedience Movement (1930): Gandhi's Salt March and the Civil Disobedience Movement
further intensified the struggle. Indians across the country engaged in acts of civil disobedience,
leading to numerous arrests and confrontations with the authorities.Prompted by the oppressive salt
tax imposed by the British government, Gandhi embarked on a symbolic yet powerful act—the Salt
March. He, along with thousands of supporters, walked a distance of around 240 miles from
Sabarmati Ashram to the coastal village of Dandi, aiming to produce salt from seawater in defiance of
the British salt monopoly.

The movement aimed to challenge various unjust British laws and policies through nonviolent
resistance and civil disobedience. Indians across different regions participated by refusing to pay
taxes, boycotting British goods, and engaging in acts of civil disobedience against the colonial
authorities.

The Salt Satyagraha, as a central part of the Civil Disobedience Movement, drew widespread
attention both nationally and internationally. It symbolized the power of peaceful protest and
noncooperation against oppressive colonial policies.As the movement spread, there were instances
of peaceful protests, boycotts of foreign goods, refusal to pay taxes, and nonviolent resistance across
the country. Indians united in their rejection of British authority and demanded swaraj (self-
governance) and independence

Round Table Conferences (1930-32): The British organized a series of Round Table Conferences to
discuss constitutional reforms with Indian leaders. These conferences exposed the complexities of
communal representation and the varying demands of different groups.The Round Table Conferences
held between 1930 and 1932 were significant gatherings aimed at discussing constitutional reforms
and India's political future within the British Empire. These conferences were a critical attempt by the
British government to address the demands for self-governance and to find a solution to India's
complex political situation.

First Round Table Conference (1930-31): The first conference took place in London and was attended
by various Indian leaders, including representatives from the Indian National Congress, the Muslim
League, and other communities. However, the Congress boycotted the conference initially due to the
imprisonment of its leaders during the Civil Disobedience Movement. The discussions centered
around issues of communal representation, minority rights, and the structure of future governance.

Second Round Table Conference (1931): The British government made efforts to include a broader
spectrum of Indian leaders in the second conference. Mahatma Gandhi was invited as the Congress's
sole representative. During this conference, discussions revolved around a wide range of topics,
including federalism, provincial autonomy, minority rights, and the relationship between the princely
states and the central government.

Third Round Table Conference (1932): This conference aimed to resolve the deadlock that emerged
from the previous meetings. However, it faced challenges due to the absence of the Congress, which
was the leading political force in India. The British government implemented the Government of
India Act 1935 based on the discussions and agreements reached during these conferences.

Despite the efforts made during these conferences to address India's political issues, several factors
hindered their success. The absence of a united representation due to Congress's initial boycott and
the failure to reach a consensus among various parties, especially on the issue of separate
electorates and minority rights, limited the effectiveness of these gatherings.

Simon Commission (1927): The appointment of an all-British Simon Commission to review

constitutional reforms without any Indian representation was met with vehement protests.

This event underscored the Indian demand for "Swaraj" (self-rule).

The cumulative impact of these events led to the Government of India Act, 1935. The commission's
failure to include Indian members and the subsequent protests underscored the growing discontent
among Indians regarding British colonial rule and their demand for a more inclusive and participatory
approach to governance. The events surrounding the Simon Commission also set the stage for the
demand for complete independence and played a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of India's
struggle for freedom

Main procisions of the act

Main Provisions of the Act:-

The Government of India Act of 1935 was a pivotal legislative framework that significantly altered the
constitutional and administrative structure of British India. Enacted during a period of heightened
political unrest and demands for greater Indian representation, the act was an attempt by the British
government to introduce constitutional reforms and address various socio-political issues. This
discussion will comprehensively explore the main provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935,
examining its key features and implications.

1. Federal Structure:

The Act introduced a federal structure, dividing India into provinces and princely states. The goal was
to distribute legislative powers between the central government and the provinces, aiming to strike a
balance between central authority and regional autonomy.

2. Diarchy in Provinces:

It abolished diarchy in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ in its place. This involved
the division of powers between the Governor and ministers. While certain subjects, known as
"reserved" subjects (such as defense and finance), remained under the control of the Governor. The
reserved subjects were controlled by the Governor-General who administered them with the help of
three counsellors appointed by him. They were not responsible to the legislature. These subjects
included defence, ecclesiastical affairs (church-related), external affairs, press, police, taxation,
justice, power resources and tribal affairs, others, labeled as "transferred" subjects, were under the
control of elected ministers.However, the Governor-General had ‘special powers’ to interfere in the
transferred subjects also. This diarchic system attempted to provide a gradual devolution of power to
Indians while retaining British control over crucial matters.

The transferred subjects were administered by the Governor-General with his Council of Ministers
(not more than 10). The Council had to act in confidence with the legislature. The subjects in this list
included local government, forests, education, health, etc.

3. Expansion of Provincial Autonomy:

The Act aimed to increase provincial autonomy by transferring certain powers from the central
government to the provinces. This move was intended to address the growing demand for self-
governance and greater Indian participation in the administration of local

affairs

4. Bicameralism:

The Act introduced bicameralism in six out of eleven provinces.

Thus, the legislatures of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces were made
bicameral consisting of a legislative council (Upper House) and a legislative assembly (Lower House)
with certain restrictions on them

Also, the Central Legislature was bicameral, consisting of Federal Assembly and Council of States.

The term of the assembly was five years but it could be dissolved earlier also.

5. Reorganization:

 The Government of India Act 1935 included provisions for the separation of Burma from
British India, establishing it as a separate colony. This separation recognized the distinct identity and
aspirations of the Burmese people.

 Sindh was carved out of Bombay Presidency.

 Bihar and Orissa were split.

 Aden was also separated from India and made into a Crown colony

6. Representation of Minorities:

Acknowledging the diverse religious and ethnic composition of India, the Act incorporated provisions
for the representation of minorities. Separate electorates were retained, allowing religious and caste-
based groups to elect their own representatives. While intended to safeguard the interests of
minority communities, this provision also contributed to the communal tensions between Hindus
and Muslims.

Under the Act the Muslims got 33 percent (1/3 of the seats) in the Federal Legislature.

7. Federal Court:

The Act established a Federal Court at the center, endowed with the power of judicial review , set up
in 1937, which continued to function till the establishment of the Supreme Court of India after the
attainment of independence (1950).. The Federal Court had jurisdiction over disputes between
provinces, between a province and the center, and cases referred by the King. This institution played
a crucial role in the legal framework of British India.

It was to have 1 Chief Justice and not more than 6 judges.

8. Financial Provisions:

The Act outlined the financial relationship between the center and the provinces. While the central
government had the power to levy and collect taxes, provisions were made for financial grants to
provinces. This financial arrangement aimed to strike a balance between the economic needs of the
center and the autonomy of the provinces.

9. Emergency Provisions:

In times of emergencies, the Act provided for the suspension of provincial autonomy. The Governor-
General could take over the provincial government, exercising powers that would otherwise be
under the purview of elected representatives. This provision, though designed to address crisis
situations, was criticized for providing excessive powers to the central government.

10. Other features:

 It provided for the establishment of a Reserve Bank of India to control the regulation of
currency and credits of the country.

 The franchise (voting rights) was extended further from 3% to 14% of the total population.

 It provided for the establishment of not only a Federal Public Service Commission, Provincial
Public Service Commission and Joint Public Service Commission for two or more provinces.

 This Act gave the authority and command of the railways in India in the hands of a newly
established authority called “Federal Railway” consisting of seven members who were free from the
control of councillors and ministers. The authority directly reported to the Governor-General of India

Reaction and Responses

Reaction and Responses-

The Government of India Act of 1935 generated diverse reactions and responses from key figures in
Indian society, reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of the nationalist movement during
that period. It's important to note that due to the historical nature of the topic, direct quotes and
citations from the individuals may not be available. However, the perspectives provided here are
based on historical accounts and analyses.

1. Mahatma Gandhi:
Mahatma Gandhi, the towering figure in the Indian independence movement, expressed deep
skepticism and disappointment regarding the Government of India Act of 1935. Gandhi believed
that the Act did not go far enough in addressing India's demand for complete independence. His
critique was centered on the retention of certain British powers and the communal provisions,
which he saw as divisive. Gandhi's commitment to non-violent resistance and his vision of a united,
inclusive India were at odds with the Act's provisions, leading him to reject it as inadequate in
achieving true self-rule.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru:

Jawaharlal Nehru, a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress and India's first Prime
Minister, had a nuanced reaction to the Government of India Act of 1935. While acknowledging
some positive aspects, such as the introduction of provincial autonomy and the federal structure,
Nehru remained critical. He argued that the Act fell short of meeting the aspirations of the Indian
people for complete independence. Nehru believed that the British government retained too much
control, limiting the scope of genuine selfgovernance.Further, Nehru called it “a machine with
strong brakes but no engine”. He also called it a “Charter of Slavery”.

3. Muhammad Ali Jinnah:

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All-India Muslim League, adopted a strategic response to
the Government of India Act of 1935. Jinnah recognized certain provisions, such as separate
electorates, as addressing the concerns of the Muslim minority. However, he also expressed
reservations about the Act's overall efficacy in safeguarding Muslim interests. Jinnah's approach
reflected his commitment to securing political rights for Muslims while negotiating within the
constitutional framework.

4. B.R. Ambedkar:
B.R. Ambedkar, a prominent advocate for Dalit rights and a key architect of the Indian Constitution,
had a mixed response to the Government of India Act of 1935. While he appreciated certain
provisions related to minority representation, Ambedkar criticized the Act for its failure to
adequately address the socio-economic concerns of the Dalits. His response foreshadowed his later
efforts in framing the Indian Constitution, which would include affirmative action and reservations
to uplift marginalized communities.

5. Subhas Chandra Bose:

Subhas Chandra Bose, a charismatic leader within the Indian National Congress and later the
founder of the Forward Bloc, had a vehemently critical stance towards the Government of India Act
of 1935. Bose dismissed the Act as a 'charter of Slavery' and rejected its incremental approach. His
response was indicative of a more radical segment within the nationalist movement that sought a
direct and assertive confrontation against British rule.

6. Dr. Rajendra Prasad:

Dr. Rajendra Prasad, a key figure in the Indian National Congress and later the first President of
independent India, expressed reservations about the communal provisions of the Government of
India Act of 1935. Prasad was concerned that these provisions might exacerbate religious tensions
and hinder the creation of a united, inclusive nation. His response reflected a commitment to the
idea of a secular and harmonious India.

While direct citations from these figures may be limited due to the historical context, their reactions
and responses have been documented in various historical records, biographies, and academic
analyses. These perspectives collectively contributed to the discourse around the Act, shaping
subsequent negotiations, movements, and the eventual trajectory toward India's independence in
1947.