Irish, Ann Bahnsen, Transition to ‘Swaraj’: Problems of Provincial Autonomy Under the Government of India Act of 1935, PhD thesis, University of Washington, 1985. Brief summary.

Irish, Ann Bahnsen, Transition to ‘Swaraj’: Problems of Provincial Autonomy Under the Government of India Act of 1935, PhD thesis, University of Washington, 1985. Brief summary.

“The Raj saw provincial autonomy in the Government of India Act of 1935 as a genuine step on the road to swaraj. Despite Congress suspicions of the Act, it became a primary vehicle by which Congress asserted its power. Study of the recently available papers of the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, and other Raj officials indicates the fruitfulness of analyzing administrative history during the provincial autonomy period. A number of controversies arose between center and provinces. Congress ministries used the precedent of the office acceptance debate to guard their autonomy. Two ministries resigned when the Viceroy disallowed political prisoner releases. After a compromise, the resignations were withdrawn, but in subsequent controversies between Congress provinces and the center, the Viceroy hesitated to take steps that might precipitate Congress resignations. Later controversies involved additional political prisoner releases, return to the original owners of lands lost in a Gujarat civil disobedience campaign in 1930, popular discontent with government in some Orissa states, appointment of an acting governor in Orissa, protection of the settled districts of the North-West Frontier Province from tribal raiders under central jurisdiction, financial responsibility for a major irrigation project in Sind, and a proposal by the government of the United Provinces for an 'employments tax.' The resignations of the Congress ministries which followed the outbreak of World War II were related to the office acceptance debate and the series of controversies between provinces and center. The resignations were precipitated when Lord Linlithgow promulgated an ordinance giving the center emergency powers over the provinces, thus essentially negating the provincial autonomy…. In the devastating Bengal famine of 1943, which caused three million deaths, the inability of provinces and center to cooperate greatly exacerbated the catastrophe, given Lord Linlithgow's hesitancy to impose central direction on the provinces despite available emergency powers. Provincial power under the 1935 Act clearly created political and administrative problems for the central government. Constitution-makers for independent India later created a government with a strong center.” From the abstract.