Administrative Changes after 1857: UPSC Previous Year Questions (Modern History)

Explanation

Statement (1) is incorrect: The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 introduced a diarchy system in provincial governments, where key areas like finance and law & order remained under British control, while other departments were transferred to Indian ministers. It also paved the way for the creation of a bicameral legislature at the centre. It recommended the voting rights to women in limited numbers to be extended on the basis of property, tax or education.

Statement (2) is correct: Government of India Act, 1935 divided the powers between the Centre and provinces. It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ in its place, while adopting the dyarchy at the Centre. It further extended the principle of communal representation to the depressed classes (Scheduled Castes), women and labour (workers).

Explanation

The Charter Act of 1813 renewed the East India Company’s charter for another 20 years, ending its monopoly on trade with India (except for trade in tea and opium with China). It also allocated funds for promoting education in India and acknowledged the need for social and economic reforms. It gave missionaries permission to travel to India was one of the key components of this law.

Statement 1 is correct: The Charter Act 1813 ended the trade monopoly of the East India Company except for the trade in tea, opium, and with China.

Statement 2 is correct: company’s territories in India came under the sovereignty of the British Government through this Act.

Statement 3 is incorrect: The revenue of India was controlled by the British parliament through Pitt’s India Act 1784.

Explanation

The Government of India Act, 1935 divided powers between the Centre and provinces into three lists: Federal (59 items), Provincial (54 items), and Concurrent (36 items). It granted residuary powers to the Governor-General, who could authorize either legislature to legislate on such matters.

Explanation

The Government of India Act, 1919 introduced dyarchy at the provincial level, dividing executive powers between the Governor and elected ministers. The system increased provincial authority, with the Governor as the chief executive. Subjects were divided into two lists: reserved and transferred. The reserved list (e.g., law and order, finance) was managed by the Governor and his executive council. The transferred list (e.g., education, health) was administered by ministers from the elected legislative council. This dual scheme of governance was known as ‘dyarchy’.

Explanation

The Butler Committee, chaired by Sir Harcourt Butler in 1927, investigated the relationship between British India and the princely states. Its 1929 report reaffirmed the doctrine of paramountcy, clarifying that the British Raj’s control over the princely states was not just contractual but a dynamic, evolving relationship shaped by history and policy. The committee recommended that the financial relationship between the Raj and the states should be fair.

Explanation

Montague-Chelmsford Proposals had the scheme of constitutional reforms, known as the Montagu-Chelmsford (or Mont-Ford) Reforms, which led to the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1919. It introduced diarchy (rule of two individuals/parties) at the provincial government level. The diarchy was implemented in eight provinces: Assam, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Central Provinces, United Provinces, Bombay, Madras and Punjab.

Explanation

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms which became the Government of India Act in 1919, defined the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments. It introduced dyarchy in eight provinces, where executive powers were shared between the Governor and elected ministers. Subjects were divided into ‘reserved’ (e.g., law, finance) managed by the Governor and his council, and ‘transferred’ (e.g., education, health) handled by ministers from the legislative council, increasing provincial authority.

Explanation

Queen Victoria’s Proclamation (1858) ended East India Company rule, bringing India directly under British Crown control. Lord Canning became the first Viceroy and Governor-General.

Statement 1 is correct: The proclamation was read out by Lord Canning at a durbar held on November 1, 1858 at Allahabad. The proclamation put an end to the era of further expansion of the British Empire in India.

Statement 2 is correct: Queen Victoria’s proclamation of 1858 aimed at ending the rule of the company and transferring all the powers to the British crown after the 1857 revolt. It also promised non- interference in the religious affairs of the people, grant of equal protection of law and respect for ancient rights and customs of the people.

Statement 3 is incorrect: Queen Victoria’s Proclamation (1858) is aimed at improving the administrative machinery of supervision and control over the Indian government.

Explanation

The Ilbert Bill Controversy (1883) arose from Lord Ripon’s attempt to reform India’s legal system. Under the existing laws, a European could be tried only by a European judge or magistrate, which was seen as discriminatory against Indian judges. To end this injustice, C.P. Ilbert proposed a bill in 1883 that would allow Indian judges to try Europeans. The proposal faced strong opposition from the European community in India. The Ilbert Bill controversy made educated Indians aware of the need of an all Indian organisation, resulting in the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885.

Explanation

Statements 1 and 3 are correct: GoI Act 1919 introduced the dual scheme of governance known as ‘dyarchy’ in the executive government of the provinces. By demarcating and separating the central and provincial subjects, it relaxed the central control over the provinces. It introduced bicameralism and direct elections in the country. The devolution of legislative authority by the center to the provinces was done in the Government of India Act, 1919.

Statement 2 is incorrect: The Indian Council Act, 1909 or the Morley-Minto Reforms introduced separate communal electorates for Muslims. It was put into place to appease the moderates (in Congress) and introduces separate electorates based on religion. Lord Minto came to be known as "Father of the Communal Electorate in India".