India: 1935 Act and Situation in 1939 (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
India: 1935 Act and situation in 1939
Background: diarchy after the 1919 Act
Following the 1919 Government of India Act, Indians gained limited authority over their own affairs through a system called diarchy, a form of government in which two bodies share power. In 1923, five million Indians participated in elections to choose representatives for expanded provincial councils and the National Legislative Assembly.
Indian politicians exploited their new fiscal powers to introduce protective tariffs designed to support India's textile and iron and steel industries. This demonstrated how even limited powers could be used to advance Indian economic interests, though it fell far short of full self-government.
Congress's internal problems
By the 1920s, Congress had developed into a nation-wide movement with new leaders who connected with ordinary Indians far more effectively than earlier figures. Nevertheless, the leadership fractured over how to respond to India's new constitutional arrangements:
-
Gandhi rejected participation in the newly established councils, preferring instead to build support among Indian peasants, particularly those from the lowest castes. His strategy centred on winning their trust rather than working within British institutions.
-
Motilal Nehru argued that Congress should use the new councils strategically to advance the case for Dominion status. He believed working within the system could bring practical gains.
-
Jawaharlal Nehru advocated adopting more confrontational tactics against the Raj's institutions, moving beyond the moderate approaches of his father and Gandhi.
Congress's divisions extended beyond leadership disagreements. By the late 1920s, most Muslims had departed from Congress, viewing it as an organisation that primarily served Hindu interests. This exodus would have profound consequences for India's future political landscape.
The Simon Commission
Lord Birkenhead, appointed as Secretary of State for India, questioned whether Indians possessed the capacity for self-government. He sought to devise a constitutional framework that would maintain British supremacy whilst appearing to offer progress. The incoming Labour government under Lord Irwin shared this objective. In 1927, Birkenhead ordered a review of the 1919 Act, entrusting this task to a commission led by Sir John Simon.
The commission contained no Indian members, provoking widespread protest across India. This decision reinforced Indian suspicions about British intentions and united various factions in opposition to the commission.
After completing its investigation, the Simon Commission recommended establishing responsible government for India, but only at the provincial level, not nationally.
Constitutional reform discussions
Lord Irwin, a moderate Conservative, accepted that Indian self-determination could not be resisted indefinitely. Communal violence had escalated throughout the 1920s, and Irwin feared a catastrophic social breakdown. After consulting the newly elected Labour government in Britain, Irwin decided a conciliatory approach was required. He announced that Dominion status represented the natural destination of India's constitutional development and proposed a Round Table Conference, with Indian and British representatives, to discuss India's future.
Winston Churchill and other right-wing Conservatives strongly opposed the pledge of Dominion status. Churchill, disagreeing with Baldwin (the Conservative leader), resigned from the shadow Cabinet over this matter, marking the beginning of his decade-long campaign against Indian reform.
Congress leadership demonstrated little confidence in Irwin's proposals. They boycotted the Round Table talks and launched a new civil disobedience campaign.
Gandhi's Salt March (1930)
Gandhi's 241-mile march to the sea in 1930 to manufacture salt (thereby avoiding the unpopular salt tax) attracted substantial attention. Numerous Congress supporters committed themselves to breaking the salt laws. Soon 60,000 individuals were imprisoned. Gandhi's arrest in May merely intensified civil disobedience and triggered serious outbreaks of violence.
This demonstration exemplified Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance combined with dramatic symbolic action that captured public imagination both in India and internationally.
The Round Table Conferences
The first session of the Round Table Conference opened in London in 1930 but achieved minimal progress. In January 1931, after his release from prison, Gandhi entered discussions with Irwin. He eventually agreed to attempt to end the civil disobedience campaign and to attend the next Round Table session. In return, the viceroy would release non-violent prisoners and relax repression.
Many Conservatives opposed what they termed Irwin's deal with Gandhi. Churchill characterised British policy as a disgraceful act of self-mutilation. Indian radicals also expressed criticism, denouncing the pact as a betrayal. Nehru, whilst regretting the compromise, persuaded Congress to ratify it out of loyalty to Gandhi.
The second session of the Round Table Conference (September 1931) accomplished little. Gandhi returned to India to discover a new and less sympathetic viceroy, Lord Willingdon. He soon became involved in another civil disobedience campaign and was re-arrested. Determined government action, including the arrest of 80,000 Congress supporters, resulted in the campaign's collapse.
The Government of India Act 1935
The British government concluded that some progress should be made towards India's Dominion status. After four years of determined right-wing Conservative opposition in Parliament, the Government of India Act finally passed in 1935.
Main provisions
The new act, which separated Burma from India, envisaged an all-India federation that would include the princely states:
-
A national legislature would come into operation when over half of the 565 Indian princes joined the federation.
-
There would be an elected Indian Parliament. One third of this assembly's members would be appointed by the Indian princes, the remainder elected from the provinces, where one third of the seats would be reserved for Muslims.
-
The British Viceroy would continue as head of state, retaining powers over finance, defence and foreign affairs, plus the right to act on his own initiative in an emergency with the authority to veto laws and suspend the constitution.
-
The Act transferred substantial powers to Indian politicians by establishing provincial governments elected by a considerably wider franchise than before, in which ministers responsible to the legislature controlled all aspects of the administration.
British opposition
The 1935 Act faced attacks in Britain for going too far. In Churchill's view, it marked the definite decline and disappearance of British authority in India.
Churchill's opposition to the Act was so fierce that he spent years campaigning against it, even as it represented a compromise that preserved significant British control. His views placed him at odds with the mainstream Conservative Party leadership.
Indian opposition
In India, the Act was criticised for not going far enough. The Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose stated that it was a scheme not for self-government but for maintaining British rule. Gandhi expressed similar criticism, describing India as still a prison, but one where the superintendent allows the prisoners to elect the officers who run the jail.
Provincial elections
Congress, although critical of the Act, permitted party members to contest elections to the eleven provincial legislatures in 1936-7. Congress ministries were formed in most provinces. The Muslim League, by contrast, secured less than one quarter of the seats reserved for Muslims.
Senior British officials accepted the election results. Instead of attempting to divide the nationalists, they began working with them in the provincial governments. Both parties soon discovered they were content with this collaboration. The British appreciated that provincial Congress politicians proved less radical than anticipated. The Congressmen, for their part, finally possessed considerable power.
The situation in 1939
Whilst it now appeared certain that India would advance steadily towards Dominion status, serious problems remained:
-
Muslims resented Hindu dominance. The Muslim League's electoral failure intensified concerns about permanent minority status in an independent India.
-
No progress had been made towards establishing a legislature at the centre because the princes could not agree on terms for joining the federation. The complex negotiations over princely representation and rights stalled the creation of a federal structure.
-
By 1939, Britain had still not reconciled itself to Indian independence. During the late 1930s, it appeared essential that India remain under British control to help counter the threat from Germany and Japan. Strategic and military considerations took precedence over constitutional reform.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The 1935 Government of India Act created a framework for limited self-government but preserved British control over defence, foreign policy and emergency powers.
-
Congress's leadership remained divided throughout the 1930s over strategy, with Gandhi focusing on mass mobilisation, Motilal Nehru advocating working within institutions, and Jawaharlal Nehru favouring confrontation.
-
The Round Table Conferences (1930-31) achieved little concrete progress, though they demonstrated British willingness to negotiate and revealed the depth of divisions within Indian politics.
-
Provincial elections in 1936-7 resulted in Congress forming ministries in most provinces, whilst the Muslim League performed poorly, securing less than one quarter of Muslim-reserved seats.
-
By 1939, three major obstacles blocked India's path to Dominion status: Hindu-Muslim tensions, the princes' failure to join the proposed federation, and Britain's strategic need to retain control given the international situation.