[Synopsis] Day 5 – July 07, 2024 – 75 Days Mains Revision Plan 2024 – MODERN INDIA
Kartavya Desk Staff
75 Days Mains Revision Plan 2024 – MODERN INDIA
MODERN INDIA
Q1. “Before 1857 the British were effectively working against the traditional grain of Indian society; afterwards they were working with it”. Comment. 15M
Introduction
The Revolt of 1857 marked a pivotal shift in British policy towards Indian society. Before this watershed moment, various British actions were *perceived as intrusions* by an alien power into the traditions and customs of Indian society.
British interference in Indian traditions and customs:
• Abolition of Sati (1829): The British banned the practice of Sati, largely due to efforts by reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
• Religious Disabilities Act (1856): This act altered Hindu customs by declaring that a change of religion did not prevent a son from inheriting his father’s property.
• Taxation and Widow Remarriage: The British imposed taxes on mosque and temple lands and legalized widow remarriage through the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856.
• Army Regulations: Hindus in the British Indian Army were forced to sign undertakings agreeing to cross the sea, which at the time was considered to cause a loss of caste.
• Cultural Restrictions and Rumours: Restrictions were placed on wearing caste and sectarian marks, and rumours of proselytizing activities by chaplains circulated among Indian sepoys.
• Cartridge Controversy: The use of pig and cow fat in the cartridges of the new Enfield rifles fuelled resentment just before the revolt, and the colonial government took no steps to dispel these rumours.
These actions, perceived as cultural intrusions, contributed to the growing discontent that culminated in the Revolt of 1857. In response, the British adopted a new approach known as the ‘conservative brand of liberalism’, which involved a policy of non-interference in the traditional structure of Indian society and aligning with traditional elements to further their goals.
Post-1857 British approach:
• End of reformist zeal: The initial enthusiasm for reform, inspired by Victorian liberalism, diminished after the revolt. The British, wary of provoking orthodox sections, shifted their focus to protecting their own interests.
• Divide and Rule: This policy was implemented more vigorously after the revolt. The British exploited divisions within Indian society, pitting one class or community against another. They encouraged rivalry between princes and their subjects, regions, provinces, castes, and religious communities.
• They encouraged rivalry between princes and their subjects, regions, provinces, castes, and religious communities.
• Martial and non-martial races: British officials categorized certain castes as martial or non-martial based on their loyalty during the revolt. Punjabis and Gurkhas were classified as martial races, while castes from Bengal and Bihar were labelled non-martial.
• Imperial Legislative Council: Prominent Indians, such as princes and large landlords, were appointed to the Imperial Legislative Council to secure their support against the interests of the broader Indian populace.
• Support for reactionary elements: The British provided backing to individuals and groups like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and the Muslim League to counter rising nationalism led by the Indian National Congress.
Conclusion
The British approach towards Indian society underwent a significant transformation after the Revolt of 1857. Rather than pursuing social reforms, they chose to align with conservative elements within Indian society and employed strategies to deepen internal divisions. This shift aimed to maintain British control by preventing unified opposition from emerging within the diverse Indian population.
Q2. How does Jawaharlal Nehru’s description of the Government of India Act, 1935 as a car with all brakes and no engine reflect its shortcomings? Critically analyse. 15M
Introduction
The Government of India Act 1935, enacted by the British Parliament, was designed to introduce constitutional and administrative reforms in the governance of India. Jawaharlal Nehru famously described the Government of India Act, 1935 as a car with all brakes and no engine. This metaphor reflects his criticism of the Act’s inherent shortcomings, which he believed hindered India’s progress towards self-governance.
Limitations of the GOI, Act 1935:
• Limited Political Autonomy: Dyarchy in Provinces: The Act introduced provincial autonomy but retained dyarchy at the centre. The key departments like defence, finance, and foreign affairs remained under British control, limiting the autonomy of Indian ministers. Governor’s Powers: The Act vested significant powers in the hands of the provincial governors, appointed by the British, including overriding decisions of the elected representatives and dismissing ministries. This significantly curtailed the power of elected Indian representatives. Viceroy’s Veto: The Viceroy retained the authority to veto legislation and ordinances passed by the federal legislature, undermining the legislative powers of elected bodies.
• Dyarchy in Provinces: The Act introduced provincial autonomy but retained dyarchy at the centre. The key departments like defence, finance, and foreign affairs remained under British control, limiting the autonomy of Indian ministers.
• Governor’s Powers: The Act vested significant powers in the hands of the provincial governors, appointed by the British, including overriding decisions of the elected representatives and dismissing ministries. This significantly curtailed the power of elected Indian representatives.
• Viceroy’s Veto: The Viceroy retained the authority to veto legislation and ordinances passed by the federal legislature, undermining the legislative powers of elected bodies.
• Structural and administrative weaknesses: Federal scheme failure: The Act proposed a federation of British India and princely states, but the latter’s reluctance to join rendered the federal scheme ineffective. This resulted in an unbalanced structure where the centre remained under tight British control. Bicameral Legislature: Although the Act established a bicameral legislature at the centre, with the Council of State and the Federal Assembly, the real power remained with the Viceroy and his Executive Council, which was not fully representative of the Indian populace. Limited Franchise: The electorate was limited, with only about 10% of the population eligible to vote. This restriction on the franchise meant that the majority of Indians had no say in the governance, making the legislative bodies less representative and democratic.
• Federal scheme failure: The Act proposed a federation of British India and princely states, but the latter’s reluctance to join rendered the federal scheme ineffective. This resulted in an unbalanced structure where the centre remained under tight British control.
• This resulted in an unbalanced structure where the centre remained under tight British control.
• Bicameral Legislature: Although the Act established a bicameral legislature at the centre, with the Council of State and the Federal Assembly, the real power remained with the Viceroy and his Executive Council, which was not fully representative of the Indian populace.
• Limited Franchise: The electorate was limited, with only about 10% of the population eligible to vote. This restriction on the franchise meant that the majority of Indians had no say in the governance, making the legislative bodies less representative and democratic.
• Economic and Social Constraints: Control Over finances: Financial control was largely retained by the British, with the central government controlling the main sources of revenue. Provincial governments had limited financial autonomy, hindering their ability to implement policies and programs effectively. Social Policies: The Act did not address key social issues such as land reforms and workers’ rights. The economic policies continued to serve British interests, with little focus on alleviating poverty or improving living conditions for the masses.
• Control Over finances: Financial control was largely retained by the British, with the central government controlling the main sources of revenue. Provincial governments had limited financial autonomy, hindering their ability to implement policies and programs effectively.
• Provincial governments had limited financial autonomy, hindering their ability to implement policies and programs effectively.
• Social Policies: The Act did not address key social issues such as land reforms and workers’ rights. The economic policies continued to serve British interests, with little focus on alleviating poverty or improving living conditions for the masses.
The Government of India Act 1935 was never aimed at enabling India to self-govern. On critical analysis of the provisions of the act, it can be concluded that:
• Provincial Focus: The Act sought to divert Congress’s attention to provincial matters while retaining strong imperial control at the centre.
• Dividing Congress: Reforms aimed to convince Congress members of the ineffectiveness of extra-constitutional protests while strengthening constitutionalist and moderate factions, potentially causing internal divisions similar to the 1907 Surat Split.
• Power Dynamics: By allowing Congress leaders to experience office power, the British hoped they would abandon the politics of sacrifice, adhering to the belief that “power tends to corrupt.”
• Communal Electorates: The extension of communal electorates and reservations for different communities aimed to weaken the nationalist movement.
Progressive Provisions: Despite its ulterior motives, the Act introduced several progressive elements that influenced the Indian Constitution:
• Federal Structure: It proposed an Indian Federation with a division of power between the centre and states (separate central, state, and concurrent lists).
• Institutional Foundations: The establishment of the Federal Court (1937), Reserve Bank of India, governor appointments by the centre, and the Public Service Commission were key components.
Conclusion
The Act offered a semblance of autonomy while ensuring that the British retained ultimate control over crucial aspects of governance. This half-hearted approach to self-governance failed to meet the aspirations of the Indian populace for complete independence and democratic self-rule. Consequently, it led to widespread discontent and further galvanized the Indian freedom struggle.
Please subscribe to Our podcast channel HERE
Official Facebook Page HERE
Follow our Twitter Account HERE
Follow our Instagram Account HERE