Constitutional Developments in the Colonial India between 1858 and 1935.
PYQs: Constitutional Developments in the Colonial India between 1858 and 1935 [1985-2026]
- What changes did the British attitude undergo towards the Princely states after 1858? Was the Government of India Act of 1858 intended to introduce direct relations between the Princes and the Crown? (1985)
- “Dyarchy was introduced with high hopes and it must be said that, on a theoretical analysis and if worked under ideal conditions, it is not without merits.” Comment in about 200 words. (1988)
- ‘The relations of the Native States, however conducted are essentially with the British Crown and not with the Indian Government.’ Comment. (1991)
- ‘No native state should be left to exist in India which is not upheld by the British power or the political conduct of which is not under the absolute control.’ Comment. (1992)
- ‘Please remember, in granting separate electorates, we are sowing dragon’s teeth the harvest will be bitter.’ Comment. (1992)
- The Government of India from Canning to Curzon was regarded ‘‘as a white man’s burden rather than as a call to creative effort or the preparation for a new era.” Comment. (1995)
- The Diarchy provided by the Montford reforms “certainly created suspicion without and frictions within.” Comment. (1995)
- The Montague Declaration (20 August 1917) was observed more closely in the “realm of imperial relations” than anything else. Comment. (1998)
- Explain the attitude of the Indian National Congress towards the constitutional changes of 1909, 1919 and 1935. (1998)
- “Please remember, in granting separate electorates we are sowing the dragon’s teeth and the harvest will be bitter.” (Morley). Comment. (2009)
- “Though the Act of 1919 was superseded by that of 1935, the preamble to the former was not repealed- the preservation of the smile of the Cheshire cat after its disappearance, and the latter said nothing about Dominion Status.” Elucidate. (2013)
- “Montague-Chelmsford reform proposals introduced ‘dyarchy’, but blurred the lines of responsibility.” Critically examine in 150 words. (2014)
- “Although the Government of India Act of 1935 replaced dyarchy with Provincial Autonomy, the overriding powers of the Governor diluted the spirit autonomy.” Elucidate. (2015)
- Critically examine: “An ideology of paternalistic benevolence, occasionally combined with talk of trusteeship and training towards self-government, thinly veiled the realities of a Raj uncompromisingly white and despotic.” (2018)
- Could Dyarchy (1919) satisfy the national sentiments of the Indians? (2018)
- Is it justified to say that the Government of India Act of 1935 had all brakes, but no engine? (2019)
- Discuss the major constitutional developments in India after 1858 and their impact on society and polity. (2021)
- While introducing the Indian Councils Bill of 1861, the British thought that the only Government suitable for India ‘is a despotism controlled from home’. Comment. (2023)
- The federal provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935 foundered on the rock of princely intransigence. (2024)
- Why did the British Crown assume direct control over the Indian Government in 1858? Mention the new administrative arrangements. (2026)
