Prof. Michael Copeland considered the Government of India Act, 1935 as, “A great success of a constructive political thought.” According to his opinion, the Act of 1935 transferred the Indian fate from British hands to Indians. This transfer could be only done by this act. After a deep study of the Act, no one could agree with Copeland. Many Indian leaders gave their reaction on this Act.
The Congress leaders, fighting for the freedom of India, were not satisfied with this Act. They considered that the Act opposed the Indian aspirations. According to Madan Mohan Malviya, “The Act has been imposed over us externally, it seems to be a democratic system, but it is absolutely hollow internally.” C. Rajagopalachari considered the Act worse than the diarchy system. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru declared it, “A Manifesto of Slavery”. Due to the reservation and tutelage system provided in the act, British political scholar Alali said, “It is a symbol of distrust.”
1. Criticism in England:
The British moderates thought that the rights and responsibilities which were being provided to Indians through the Act of 1935, were not in their favor.
2. Preposterous Act:
According to Indian viewpoint, there was neither a provision of autonomy in this act nor colonial self governance was mentioned. It was a meaningless and useless act.
3. The act was only a betrayal and mere show:
The Indian critics considered that, in the Act, no real power was provided to the Indians, so it was a betrayal for the common Indian people, and a mere show.
4. No solution to Indian problem:
The British intellectuals and the leaders of labor party considered that the Act provided no solutions to the problems of India.
5. No participation of Indians in the formation of the Act:
There was no role of Indians or their representatives in the formation of the Act. Jawaharlal Nehru declared it a “Manifesto of Slavery.”
6. Faulty federal system:
Although, planning of all Indian federation proposed in the act of 1935 had many features of federal system such as power sharing, written and strong constitution, free and just governance and bicameral system, yet it had many serious deficiencies in it. There was an effort to combine the opposite units in federation.
7. Provincial autonomy a myth:
The Act of 1935 made provisions of provincial autonomy, and the members of provincial assembly were to be elected. The executive council was responsible before the assembly, but central governance had such powers by which it could interfere in the matters of the provinces. After the declaration of emergency, governor could put a full-stop on provincial autonomy.
8. The faulty system of reservation and tutelage:
The reservation and tutelage system provided in the Act of 1935 was a per-plan to render the responsible governance in India a failure. In fact, these provision were nothing, but a device of promoting British imperialism in India.
9. Expansion of communal electorate system:
The communal electoral system was expanded even more by this Act. Separate electorates were provided to Anglo-Indians, Europeans, Indian Christians and Harijans. As a result, the Indian political scene became bitter.
10. Lack of the right of self determination:
The Indians had no right to decide their fate under this Act. There was no reduction in the control of British parliament or India secretary over India. So, there was no programmer for development of India in this Act.
