The Government of India Act, 1935 and Congress Rule in Provinces

A major debate on strategy occurred among the nationalists in the period following the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement. In the first stage of the debate, during 1934-35, the issue was what course the national movement should take in the immediate future, that is, during its phase of non-mass struggle. How was the political paralysis that it had sunk into to be overcome? There were two traditional responses.

Gandhiji emphasized constructive work in the villages, especially the revival of village crafts. Constructive work, said Gandhiji, would lead to the consolidation of people’s power, and open the way to the mobilization of millions in the next phase of mass struggle.

Another section of Congressmen advocated the revival of the constitutional method of struggle and participation in the elections to the Central Legislative Assembly to be held in 1934. Led this time by Dr. M.A. Ansari, Asaf Ali, etc., the new Swarajists argued that in a period of political apathy and depression, when the Congress was no longer in a position to sustain a mass movement, it was necessary to utilize elections and work in the legislative councils to keep up the political interest and morale of the people. This did not amount, they said, to having faith in the capacity of constitutional politics to achieve freedom. It only meant opening up another political front which would help build up the Congress, organizationally extend its influence, and prepare the people for the next mass struggle.

The First Stage Debate

Three perspectives were put forward on what the nationalists should work on immediately after the end of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The first two were traditional responses, while the third one represented the rise of a strong leftist trend within the Congress. The three perspectives were as follows:

1. There should be constructive work on Gandhian lines.

2. There should be a constitutional struggle and participation in elections to the Central Legislature (due in 1934) as advocated by M.A. Ansari, Asaf Ali, Bhulabhai Desai, S. Satyamurthy and B.C. Roy among others. They argued that: in a period of political apathy, elections and council work could be utilised to keep up the political interest and morale of the people; 

• participation in elections and council work did not amount to faith in constitutional politics; 
• another political front would help build up Congress and prepare the masses for the next phase; 
• this approach would give the Congress a certain amount of prestige and confidence, and a strong presence in councils would serve as an equivalent to the movement.

3. A strong leftist trend within the Congress, represented by Nehru, was critical of both constructive work and council entry in place of the suspended civil disobedience movement as that would side track political mass action and divert attention from the main issue of the struggle against colonialism. Instead, this section favoured resumption and continuation of non-constitutionalist mass struggle because the situation was still revolutionary owing to continued economic crisis and the readiness of the masses to fight. 

Nehru said, “The basic goal before Indian people as before people of the world is abolition of capitalism and establishment of socialism.” He considered the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement and council entry “a spiritual defeat”, “a surrender of ideals” and “a retreat from revolutionary to reformist mentality”. He suggested that the vested interests be revised in favour of the masses by taking up the economic and class demands of peasants and workers, and landlords and capitalists, organising masses in their class organisations—Kisan Sabhas and trade unions. He argued that these class organisations should be allowed to affiliate with the Congress, thus influencing its policies and activities. There could be no genuine antiimperialist struggle, he said, without incorporating the class struggle of the masses.

Opposition to Struggle-Truce-Struggle Strategy of Gandhi

A large number of Congressmen led by Gandhi believed that a mass phase of movement (struggle phase) had to be followed by a phase of reprieve (truce phase) before the next stage of mass struggle could be taken up.

• The truce period, it was argued, would enable the masses to recoup their strength to fight and also give the government a chance to respond to the demands of the nationalists.
• The masses could not go on sacrificing indefinitely.
• If the government did not respond positively, the movement could be resumed again with the participation of the masses.
• This was the struggle-truce-struggle or S-T-S strategy.

Criticising the S-T-S strategy, Nehru argued that the Indian national movement had reached a stage, after the Lahore Congress call for Purna Swaraj programme, in which there should be a continuous confrontation and conflict with imperialism till it was overthrown.

He advocated maintenance of a “continuous direct action” policy by the Congress and without the interposition of a constitutionalist phase. Real power, he said, cannot be won by two annas and four annas. Against an S-T-S strategy, he suggested a Struggle-Victory (S-V) strategy.

Agreement Over Council Entry

Nationalists with apprehension and British officials with hope expected a split in the Congress on Surat lines sooner or later, but Gandhi conciliated the proponents of council entry by acceding to their basic demand of permission to enter the legislatures. He said, “Parliamentary politics cannot lead to freedom but those

Congressmen who could not, for some reason, offer satyagraha or devote themselves to constructive work should not remain unoccupied and could express their patriotic energies through council work provided they are not sucked into constitutionalism or self-serving.”

• Assuring the leftists, Gandhi said that the withdrawal of the Civil Disobedience Movement did not mean bowing down before opportunists or compromising with imperialism.
• In May 1934, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) met at Patna to set up a Parliamentary Board to fight elections under the aegis of the Congress itself.
• Gandhi was aware that he was out of tune with powerful trends in the Congress. A large section of the intelligentsia favoured parliamentary politics with which he was in fundamental disagreement.
• Another section was estranged from the Congress because of Gandhi’s emphasis on the spinning wheel as the “second lung of the nation”. The socialists led by Nehru also had differences with Gandhi.
• In October 1934, Gandhi announced his resignation from the Congress to serve it better in thought, word and deed.
• Nehru and the socialists thought that the British must first be expelled before the struggle for socialism could be waged, and in an anti-imperialist struggle unity around the Congress, still the only anti-imperialist mass organisation, was indispensable.
• Thus it was better, they felt, to gradually radicalise the Congress than to get isolated from the masses. The right wing was no less accommodating.

In the elections to the Central Legislative Assembly held in November 1934, the Congress won 45 out of 75 seats reserved for Indians.

Government of India Act, 1935

Background

Third Round Table Conference happened in 1932, and no Congress leader participated. However, its discussion and discussions of earlier Round Tables and Simon Commission recommendations led to the enactment of 1935 Act.

The Act provided for an all India federal structure as a union of Princely States and Provinces. Inclusion of Princely States was an idea to act as a balance against the rising nationalism in the provinces.

Features of the Act

The Government of India Act was passed by the British Parliament in August 1935. Its main provisions were as follows:

1. An All India Federation

• It was to comprise all British Indian provinces, all chief commissioner’s provinces and the Indian states (princely states).
• The federation’s formation was conditional on the fulfilment of: (i) states with allotment of 52 seats in the proposed Council of States should agree to join the federation; and (ii) aggregate population of states in the above category should be 50 per cent of the total population of all Indian states.
• Since these conditions were not fulfilled, the proposed federation never came up.
• The central government carried on up to 1946 as per the provisions of Government of India Act, 1919.

2. Federal Level

Executive

• The governor-general was the pivot of the entire Constitution.
• Subjects to be administered were divided into reserved and transferred subjects. Reserved subjects—foreign affairs, defence, tribal areas and ecclesiastical affairs—were to be exclusively administered by the governor-general on the advice of executive councilors. Executive councilors were not to be responsible to the central legislature.
• Transferred subjects included all other subjects and were to be administered by the governor-general on the advice of ministers elected by the legislature. These ministers were to be responsible to the federal legislature and were to resign on losing the confidence of the body.
• Governor-general could act in his individual judgement in the discharge of his special responsibilities for the security and tranquility of India.

Legislature

• The bicameral legislature was to have an upper house (Council of States) and a lower house (Federal Assembly). The Council of States was to be a 260-member house, partly directly elected from British Indian provinces and partly (40 per cent) nominated by the princes. The Federal Assembly was to be a 375-member house, partly indirectly elected from British Indian provinces and partly (one-third) nominated by the princes.
• Oddly enough, election to the Council of States was direct and that to the Federal Assembly, indirect.
• Council of States was to be a permanent body with one-third members retiring every third year. The duration of the assembly was to be 5 years.
• The three lists for legislation purposes were to be federal, provincial and concurrent.
• Members of Federal Assembly could move a vote of no-confidence against ministers. Council of States could not move a vote of no-confidence.
• The system of religion-based and class-based electorates was further extended.
• 80 per cent of the budget was non-votable.
• Governor-general had residuary powers. He could: (a) restore cuts in grants, (b) certify bills rejected by the legislature, (c) issue ordinances and (d) exercise his veto.

3. Provincial Autonomy

• Provincial autonomy replaced dyarchy.
• Provinces were granted autonomy and separate legal identity. 
• Provinces were freed from “the superintendence, direction” of the secretary of state and governorgeneral. Provinces henceforth derived their legal authority directly from the British Crown.
• Provinces were given independent financial powers and resources. Provincial governments could borrow money on their own security.

Executive

• Governor was to be the Crown’s nominee and representative to exercise authority on the king’s behalf in a province.
• Governor was to have special powers regarding minorities, rights of civil servants, law and order, British business interests, partially excluded areas, princely states, etc.
• Governor could take over and indefinitely run administration.

Legislature

• Separate electorates based on Communal Award were to be made operational.
• All members were to be directly elected. Franchise was extended; women got the right on the same basis as men.
• Ministers were to administer all provincial subjects in a council of ministers headed by a premier.
• Ministers were made answerable to and removable by the adverse vote of the legislature.
• Provincial legislature could legislate on subjects in provincial and concurrent lists.
• 40 per cent of the budget was still not voteable.
• Governor could: (a) refuse assent to a bill, (b) promulgate ordinances, (c) enact governor’s Acts.

There were also other features of the act like – Establishment of a Fedearl Court, A Federal Bank (RBI), Federal Public Service Commission etc.

Foreign rule was to continue as before; only a few popularly elected ministers were to be added to the structure and the Congress condemned the Act as ‘totally disappointing’. The act was condemned by one and all. Jawaharlal Nehru termed this Act as – ‘The Act is a car without engines, but all brakes’.

It didn’t mention the Dominion Status as was promised by Simon Commission. It also carried on provision of separate electorate which would also lead to further communal divide. Separate electorate was long opposed by Congress.

• Numerous ‘safeguards’ and ‘special responsibilities’ of the governor-general worked as brakesin the proper functioning of the Act.
• In provinces, the governor still had extensive powers.
• The Act enfranchised 14 per cent of British Indian population.
• The extension of the system of communal electorates and representation of various interests
• promoted separatist tendencies which culminated in partition of India.
• The Act provided a rigid constitution with no possibility of internal growth. Right of amendment was reserved with the British Parliament.

British Strategy

• Suppression could only be a short-term tactic. In the long run, the strategy was to weaken the national movement and integrate large segments of the movement into colonial, constitutional and administrative structure.
• Reforms would revive the political standing of constitutionalist liberals and moderates who had lost public support during the Civil Disobedience Movement.
• Repression earlier and reforms now would convince a large section of Congressmen of the ineffectiveness of an extra-legal struggle.
• Once Congressmen tasted power, they would be reluctant to go back to politics of sacrifice.
• Reforms could be used to create dissensions within Congress—right wing to be placated through constitutional concessions and radical leftists to be crushed through police measures.
• Provincial autonomy would create powerful provincial leaders who would gradually become autonomous centres of political power. Congress would thus be provincialised and the central leadership would get weakened.

Indian Nationalists’ Response

The 1935 Act was condemned by nearly all sections and unanimously rejected by the Congress.

• The Hindu Mahasabha and the National Liberal Foundation, however, declared themselves in favour of the working of the 1935 Act in the central as well as at the provincial level.
• The Congress for the first time officially demanded the convening of a Constituent Assembly in its 1935 session elected on the basis of adult franchise to frame a constitution for independent India.

On the basis of the Act, the first ‘provincial elections’ were held in February 1937 and they conclusively demonstrated that a large majority of Indian people supported the Congress and it recorded majority in 8 out of 11 provinces. Congress ministries were formed in July 1937 in seven out of eleven provinces. However they had to work under supervision of governor.

Despite the criticism of the Act at that time, many of the provisions of the Act were adopted by the government of India after Independence and this act was landmark in terms of concessions provided to Indians and the changes that it proposed in the governing system. This is the reason that it is termed as ‘Point of no return to freedom’.

The Second Stage Debate

In early 1937, elections to provincial assemblies were announced and once again the debate on the future strategy to be adopted by the nationalists began.

• Everyone in the Congress agreed that the 1935 Act was to be opposed root and branch but it was not clear how it was to be done in a period when a mass movement was not yet possible.
• There was full agreement that the Congress should fight these elections on the basis of a detailed political and economic programme, thus deepening the antiimperialist consciousness of the people.
• But what to do after the elections was not yet clear. If the Congress got majority in a province, was it to agree to form a government?

There were sharp differences over these questions among the nationalists. The two sides of the debate soon got identified with the emerging ideological divide along the left and right lines.

Divided Opinions in Congress

Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Congress socialists and communists were opposed to office acceptance and thereby in the working of the 1935 Act because they argued that it would negate the rejection of the Act by the nationalists. It would be like assuming responsibility without power. Also, it would take away the revolutionary character of the movement as constitutional work would side track the main issues of freedom, economic and social justice, and removal of poverty.

• As a counter-strategy, the leftists proposed entry into the councils with an aim to create deadlocks, thus making the working of the Act impossible (older Swarajist strategy).
• And, as a long-term strategy, they advocated an increased reliance on workers and peasants, integration of their class organisations into the Congress, thus imparting a socialist direction to the Congress and preparing for the resumption of a mass movement.
• The proponents of office acceptance argued that they were equally committed to combating the 1935 Act, but work in legislatures was to be only a short-term tactic since option of a mass movement was not available at the time, and mass struggle alone was capable of winning independence. Capture or rejection of office was not a matter of socialism but of strategy.
• They agreed that there was a danger of being sucked in by wrong tendencies, but the answer was to fight these tendencies and not to abandon office.
• The administrative field should not be left open to pro-government reactionary forces. Despite limited powers, provincial ministries could be used to promote constructive work.

Gandhi’s Position: Gandhi opposed office acceptance in the CWC meetings but by the beginning of 1936, he was willing to give a trial to the formation of Congress ministries.

In its sessions at Lucknow in early 1936 and Faizpur in late 1937, the Congress decided to fight elections and postpone the decision on office acceptance to the post-election phase. The Congress resolution was “not to submitto this constitution or to cooperate with it, but to combat it both inside and outside the legislatures so that it can be ended.”

In February 1937, elections to the provincial assemblies were held. Elections were held in eleven provinces—Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, United Provinces, Bombay Presidency, Assam, NWFP, Bengal, Punjab and Sindh. These elections were the first in which a larger number of Indians than ever before were eligible to participate. An estimated 30.1 million persons, including 4.25 million women, had been enfranchised (14 per cent of the total population), and 15.5 million of these, including 917,000 women, actually exercised their franchise, according to reports.

Congress Manifesto for Elections

The Congress manifesto reaffirmed total rejection of the 1935 Act, and promised release of prisoners, removal of disabilities on the basis of gender and caste, radical transformation of the agrarian system, substantial reduction of rent and revenue, scaling down of rural debts, cheap credit and right to form trade unions and to strike. Gandhi did not attend a single election meeting.

1937 Elections

The Congress won 716 out of 1,161 seats it contested. There were 1,585 seats in the legislative assemblies of the eleven provinces.

• It got a majority in all provinces, except in Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP, and emerged as the largest party in Bengal, Assam and the NWFP.
• Because of this performance, the prestige of the Congress rose and Nehru was reconciled to the dominant strategy of S-T-S.
• The elections also had another undesirable outcome. It widened the rift between Congress and the League and it became more communal and more strident in its demand of a separate nation.

The Congress’s failure to mobilise the Muslim masses in the 1930s allowed the League to widen its social support. The Congress’s rejection of the League’s desire to form a joint Congress League government in the United Provinces in 1937 also annoyed the League.

Muslim League and 1937 Election

• The election came as a great disappointment for Muslim League.
• Jinnah was called from London to lead Muslim League in 1935, but despite that it secured only around 100 seats out of the allotted 480 seats.
• This failure left it with no choice but to resort to communalism and it got manifested in the 1937 by elections in UP when it rallied the voters on the name of Allah and Kuran.

Nehru strongly condemned this Act. This was turning point in the history of communalism in India when it took an extreme form which was aggravated in coming years.

Congress Rule in Provinces

Congress ministries were formed in Bombay, Madras, Central Provinces, Orissa, United Provinces, Bihar and later in the NWFP and Assam also. Gandhi advised Congressmen to hold these offices lightly and not tightly. The offices were to be seen as ‘crowns of thorns’ which had been accepted to see if they quickened the pace towards the nationalist goal. Gandhi advised that these offices should be used in a way not expected or intended by the British. Gandhi urged Congressmen to prove that the Congress could rule with least assistance from the police and the Army

Work under Congress Ministries

There was great enthusiasm among the people; suppressed mass energy had got released. There was an increase in the prestige of the Congress as it had showed that it could not only lead people but could also use State power for their benefit.

But the Congress ministries had some basic limitations: they could not, through their administration, change the basic imperialist character of the system and could not introduce a radical era.

In the 28 months of Congress rule in the provinces, there were some efforts made for people’s welfare.

Civil Liberties

The Congress ministries did much to ease curbs on civil liberties:

• Laws giving emergency powers were repealed.
• Ban on illegal organisations, such as the Hindustan Seva Dal and Youth Leagues, and on certain books and journals was lifted.
• Press restrictions were lifted.
• Newspapers were taken out of black lists.
• Confiscated arms and arms licences were restored.
• Police powers were curbed and the CID stopped shadowing politicians.
• Political prisoners and revolutionaries were released, and deportation and internment orders were revoked.
• In Bombay lands confiscated by the government during the Civil Disobedience Movement were restored.
• Pensions of officials associated with the Civil Disobedience Movement were restored. 

But there were certain blemishes in the performance of the Congress ministries regarding civil liberties.

• Yusuf Maherally, a socialist, was arrested by the Madras government for inflammatory speeches and later released.
• S.S. Batliwala, a socialist, was arrested by the Madras government for seditious speech and given a six months’sentence.
• Then, K.M. Munshi, the Bombay home minister, used the CID against communists and leftists.

Agrarian Reforms

There were certain basic constraints due to which the Congress ministries could not undertake a complete overhaul of the agrarian structure by completely abolishing zamindari. These constraints were:

(i) The ministries did not have adequate powers.

(ii) There were inadequate financial resources as a lion’s share was appropriated by the Government of India. 

(iii) Strategy of class adjustments was another hurdle since zamindars, etc., had to be conciliated and neutralised.

(iv) There was constraint of time since the logic of Congress politics was confrontation and not cooperation with colonialism.

(v) War clouds had started hovering around 1938.

(vi) The reactionary second chamber (Legislative Council) dominated by landlords, moneylenders and capitalists in United Provinces, Bihar, Bombay, Madras and Assam had to be conciliated as its support was necessary for legislations.

(vii) The agrarian structure was too complex.

In spite of these constraints, the Congress ministries managed to legislate a number of laws relating to land reforms, debt relief, forest grazing fee, arrears of rent, land tenures, etc. But most of these benefits went to statutory and occupancy tenants while sub-tenants did not gain much. Agricultural labourers did not benefit as they had not been mobilised.

Attitude Towards Labour

The basic approach was to advance workers’ interests while promoting industrial peace.

• This was sought to be achieved by reducing strikes as far as possible and by advocating compulsory arbitration prior to striking before the established conciliation machinery.
• Goodwill was sought to be created between labour and capital with mediation of ministries, while at the same time efforts were made to improve workers’ condition and secure wage increases for them.
• The ministries treated militant trade union protests as law and order problems, and acted as mediators as far as possible. This approach was largely successful but not so in Bombay. Also, leftist critics were not satisfied by this approach. Generally, the ministries took recourse to Section 144 and arrested the leaders.

Nehru was unhappy about these repressive measures, but in public supported the ministries to protect them from petty and petulant criticism. Although Gandhi was against militant and violent methods, he stood for political education of the masses. He felt that the popular base of the Congress should not erode. He appealed to Congressmen against frequent resort to colonial laws and machinery.

Social Welfare Reforms

These included the following:

• Prohibition imposed in certain areas.
• Measures for welfare of Harijans taken—temple entry, use of public facilities, scholarships, an increase in their numbers in government service and police, etc.
• Attention given to primary, technical and higher education and to public health and sanitation.
• Encouragement given to khadi through subsidies and other measures.
• Prison reforms undertaken.
• Encouragement given to indigenous enterprises.
• Efforts taken to develop planning through National Planning Committee set up under Congress president Subhash Bose in 1938.

Extra-Parliamentary Mass Activity of Congress

Such activities included:

• launching of mass literacy campaigns,
• setting up of Congress police stations and panchayats,
• Congress Grievance Committees presenting mass petitions to government, and
• states peoples’ movements.

Congress Rule in Provinces: Analysis

Though by 1939 internal strifes, opportunism and hunger for power had started surfacing among Congressmen, yet they were able to utilise council work to their advantage to a great extent. The 28-month Congress rule was also significant for the following reasons:

• The contention that Indian self-government was necessary for radical social transformation got confirmed.
• Congressmen demonstrated that a movement could use state power to further its ends without being co-opted.
• The ministries were able to control communal riots.
• The morale of the bureaucracy came down.
• Council work helped neutralise many erstwhile hostile elements (landlords, etc).
• People were able to perceive the shape of things to come if independence was won.
• Administrative work by Indians further weakened the myth that Indians were not fit to rule.

The Congress ministries resigned in October 1939 after the outbreak of the Second World War. The huge Congress victory in the elections had aroused the hopes of the industrial working class; there was increased militancy and industrial unrest in Bombay, Gujarat, the United Provinces and Bengal at a time when the Congress was drawn into a closer friendship with Indian capitalists. This resulted in what appeared to be an anti-labour shift in Congress attitudes that led to the Bombay Traders Disputes Act in 1938.

The Congress leadership was also faced with another dilemma: how to react to the situation in the princely states—should the Congress support the Prajamandal movement for greater democracy or not.

In the meanwhile, the All India Muslim League, annoyed with the Congress for not sharing power with them established the Pirpur Committee in 1938 to prepare a detailed report on the atrocities supposedly committed by the Congress ministries. In its report the committee charged the Congress with interference in the religious rites, suppression of Urdu in favour of Hindi, denial of proper representation and of the oppression of Muslims in the economic sphere.

The Congress was forced to realise that being in power and actually running the administration was not easy, and all sections of populations had such high expectations as could not be fulfilled all at once. 

Share

& Comment

Tweet