1

Introduction

After the failure of the Third Round Table Conference, the British government tasked the Joint
Select Committee, chaired by Lord Linlithgow, with drafting a new Act for India. The Committee
included members from the House of Commons, House of Lords, British India, and princely states.
After 18 months of deliberation, the Committee presented a draft Bill on February 5, 1935. The Bill
was debated for 43 days in the House of Commons and 13 days in the House of Lords, finally
receiving royal assent on August 2, 1935. The Government of India Act, 1935, with 451 clauses and
15 schedules, was the longest Act passed by the British Parliament 1. It introduced provincial
autonomy starting April 1, 1937, and included the Government of Burma Act, 1935. This Act was a
crucial step towards a responsible government in India.

Historical Context

British Colonial Rule in India and Burma

British colonization in India began in the mid-18th century, following the decline of the Mughal
Empire. The British East India Company, which initially engaged in trade, gradually took control of
large territories through wars and treaties. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 marked a turning point,
leading to the dissolution of the East India Company and the establishment of direct rule by the
British Crown in 1858 2.

Burma came under British control in stages through three Anglo-Burmese wars. The first war (1824-
1826) resulted in the annexation of Assam, Manipur, and Arakan. The second war (1852) led to the
annexation of Lower Burma, and the third war (1885) culminated in the complete annexation of
Upper Burma, making it a province of British India by 1886.

Prelude to the Government of India Act 1935

The Government Act of 1919 failed to provide adequate self-government for India, frustrating
Indian leaders. The Simon Commission was tasked with reviewing the situation, but its report was
unsatisfactory. This led to consultations with Indian representatives at the Round Table
Conferences in 1930, 1931, and 1932 3.

The Third Round Table Conference led to a 1934 White Paper, which became the Government of
India Act of 1935, based on:

- Simon Commission Report

1
Dr. Deepti Tiwari,Government Of India Act 1935:Main Features,(Magadh,Mahila College,Patna University), p 2,
http://magadhmahilacollege.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Government-of-India-Act-1935-converted-1.pdf

2
John F. Riddick, The History Of British India,(Westport:Greenwood Press,2006), pp 210-215

3
Bipan Chandra, India’s Struggle For Independence,(New Delhi:Pengiun Books,1989),P 251
 2

- 1933 White Paper

Salient Features of Government of India Act 1935

The Government of India Act of 1935 introduced several notable features to increase Indian self-
governance:
1. A Federation of India was promised for, comprising both provinces and states. The
provisions of the Act establishing the federal central government were not to go into
operation until a specified number of rulers of states had signed Instruments of
Accession. Since, this did not happen, the central government continued to function
in accordance with the 1919 Act and only the part of the 1935 Act dealing with the
provincial governments went into operation 4.
2. The Governor General remained the head of the central administration and
enjoyed wide powers concerning administration, legislation and finance.
3. No finance bill could be placed in the Central Legislature without the consent of
the Governor General.
4. The Federal Legislature was to consist of two houses, the Council of State (Upper
House) and the Federal Assembly (Lower House).
5. The Council of State was to consist of 260 members, out of whom 156 were to be
elected from the British India and 104 to be nominated by the rulers of princely
states.
6. The Federal Assembly was to consist of 375 members; out of which 250 were to be elected by
the Legislative Assemblies of the British Indian provinces while 125 were to be nominated by the
rulers of princely states.
7. The Central Legislature had the right to pass any bill, but the bill required the
approval of the Governor General before it became Law. On the other hand Governor General had
the power to frame ordinances.
8. The Indian Council was abolished. In its place, few advisers were nominated to
help the Secretary of State for India .
9. The Secretary of State was not expected to interfere in matters that the Governor
dealt with, with the help of Indian Ministers.
10. The provinces were given autonomy with respect to subjects delegated to them.
11. Diarchy, which had been established in the provinces by the Act of 1919, was to
be established at the Center. However it came to an end in the provinces.
12. Two new provinces Sindh and Orissa were created.
13. Reforms were introduced in N. W. F. P. as were in the other provinces.
14. Separate electorates were continued as before.
15. One-third Muslim representation in the Central Legislature was guaranteed.
16. Autonomous provincial governments in 11 provinces, under ministries responsible to
legislatures, would be setup.
17. Burma and Aden were separated from India5.
18. The Federal Court was established in the Center.
19. The Reserve Bank of India was established.

4
Scribd.com/document/348300942/Government of India Act, 1935 ,pp 1-2

5
ibid
 3

Importance
This Act advanced the concept of Dominion status, stirring aspirations for independence. By
decentralizing power to provincial governments, it initiated a shift towards greater autonomy. The
Act also introduced separate electorates for women and workers, enhancing their participation in
governance. It expanded voting rights and influenced the structure of India's future governance,
providing the foundation for features like the federal legislature and provincial autonomy in the
independent Indian Constitution.

Criticism
The Government of India Act of 1935 faced significant criticism in Indian political circles. Firstly, it
centralized power with Governors and the Governor-General, undermining promised provincial
autonomy and democratic principles. Secondly, its flawed federation structure forced provinces to
join while allowing princely states to opt out, with their representation controlled by rulers'
nominees, not elected representatives, exacerbating concerns of democratic deficit. Thirdly,
extending communal electorates was seen as divisive, perpetuating caste divisions and
undermining nationalist unity. Additionally, British control through the Secretary of State and
Parliament until 1947 stifled genuine self-rule aspirations. Finally, the Act's lack of flexibility in
constitutional amendments marginalized Indian influence, deepening discontent among Indian
leaders seeking meaningful autonomy and constitutional reform.

The First Partition: Separation of Burma

Burma's separation from India was a result of administrative and strategic considerations by the
British government 6. Burma, with its distinct ethnic, cultural, and geographical identity, posed
administrative challenges when governed as a province of British India. The rise of Burmese
nationalism and the desire for separate representation also contributed to the push for separation.

Simon Commission (1927)

The Simon Commission, composed entirely of British members, was formed to review the
functioning of the Government of India Act 1919. It faced significant opposition in India due to the
absence of Indian representation, leading to widespread protests. Burmese representatives used
this platform to highlight the administrative difficulties and cultural differences between Burma and
the rest of India, advocating strongly for Burma's separate governance 7.

Round Table Conferences (1930-1932)

Convened by the British government to discuss further constitutional reforms in India, the Round
Table Conferences included diverse representation from Indian political parties, princely states, and
minority groups. Burmese delegates actively participated, emphasizing Burma's distinct cultural
6
BÉRÉNICE GUYOT-RÉCHARD,”Tangled Lands: Burma and India’s Unfinished Separation, 1937–1948”,The Journal of Asian Studies ,©
The Association for Asian Studies, Inc., 2020 doi:10.1017/S0021911820000017, p 1

7
Bipan Chandra, India’s Struggle For Independence, pp 252-253
 4

identity and administrative challenges within British India. Their advocacy laid the groundwork for
formal discussions on Burma's separation.

White Paper (1933)

Following the Round Table Conferences, the British government issued a White Paper in 1933. This
document acknowledged the administrative complexities of managing Burma as part of British India
and proposed the separation of Burma. It served as a formal recognition of Burma's unique
circumstances and paved the way for legislative action to establish Burma's autonomy.

Government of Burma Act 1935

Enacted based on the recommendations from the Simon Commission and agreements reached at
the Round Table Conferences, the Government of Burma Act 1935 provided for the separation of
Burma from British India. It established Burma as a separate administrative entity with its own
government, legislature (consisting of a Legislative Council and House of Representatives), and
judiciary. This act officially came into effect on April 1, 1937, marking Burma's transition towards
independence and autonomy.

The Separation:Impact and Legacy

The separation of Burma from India on April 1, 1937, was a significant event that underscored both
the distinct national identity of the Burmese people and the complex realities of colonial rule.
Before this separation, Burma had been integrated into British India since the East India Company's
conquest of the Burmese kingdom of Ava in 1885. The integration was always contentious, as
Burman nationalists viewed their culture, centered around Buddhism and the Irrawaddy River, as
fundamentally different from India's predominantly Hindu and Muslim societies .

The movement for separation gained strength after World War I, particularly as nationalist
sentiments surged. The limited power devolution in India did little to satisfy Burmese aspirations
for self-governance. This culminated in the Government of Burma Act of 1935, which laid the
groundwork for Burma to become a separate colony in 1937, with Rangoon as its capital 8.
Headlines at the time, such as “Burma divorces India,” highlighted the sense of a long-awaited
separation.

Despite the formal separation, the demarcation of boundaries between India and Burma was
fraught with complexities. The Patkai hills, a region with diverse ethnic groups such as the Zos and
Nagas, remained a particularly contentious area. These groups maintained intricate cross-border
relations that defied the neat territorial divisions imposed by colonial authorities. Early British
administrators and visitors debated whether Burma should be considered part of India or as a
separate cultural entity. This ambiguity was compounded by historical ties, as French orientalists
and South Asian nationalists saw Burma as part of a "Greater Indian" civilization shaped by shared
religious and cultural influences 9.

8
BÉRÉNICE GUYOT-RÉCHARD,”Tangled Lands: Burma and India’s Unfinished Separation, 1937–1948”,p 7
9
Ibid
 5

The British colonial administration faced significant challenges in consolidating control over these
highlands. The colonial presence in the region was uneven and often indirect. For example, the
boundary between Burma’s Chin Hills and Assam’s Lushai Hills District was neither clearly
demarcated nor manned, allowing for continued cross-border interactions 10. The separation did
little to change this, as trade, migration, family ties, and alliances persisted across the supposed
boundary.

The Act allowed His Majesty to declare certain territories as ‘Excluded Areas’ or ‘Partially Excluded
Areas’. The Governor of Assam gained significant authority over these areas, including the power to
extend provincial and federal laws and to draft regulations for their administration. In 1937, J.P.
Mills was appointed as the Secretary for Tribal Affairs, and Balipara Frontier Tract was designated
an ‘Excluded Area’, coming under direct administration from April 1, 1937 11.

In 1938, the Government of India sanctioned the formation of a ‘Control Area’ north of Pasighat to
abolish slavery, which expanded in 1941. That same year, reports of Tibetan officials collecting
taxes in Memba and Abor villages south of the McMahon Line led to an expedition by Godfrey and
Williams in early 1939. They discovered Tibetan influence extended 70 miles south of the McMahon
Line, with villages like Shimong and Karko paying tribute to Tibet. Consequently, outposts were
recommended at Karko and Riga in March 1941.

In 1940, Godfrey toured the Siyom Valley to resolve a land dispute between the Minyong and
Galong Abors, establishing a boundary and restoring peace. On May 20, 1941, the control area of
the political officer in the Sadiya Frontier Tract was extended to the McMahon Line in the Siang
Valley to curb Tibetan influence, with potential for more outposts if incursions continued 12.

World War II temporarily halted further administrative expansions, highlighting the challenges in
defining and controlling borderlands. Incidents like the 1940 raid by Kawn on a Burmese settlement
exemplified jurisdictional confusion13. The designation of ‘Excluded’ or ‘Tribal Areas’ demonstrated
the colonial state's struggle to govern these highlands, resulting in fragmented control.

In 1943, the Tirap Frontier Tract was created from parts of the Lakhimpur and Sadiya Frontier Tracts,
with its headquarters at Margherita. N.K. Rustomji was appointed Advisor to the Governor of
Assam, overseeing the North East Frontier Tracts, including the Naga Hills and Lushai Hill districts.
Postcolonial India and Burma faced continued challenges in consolidating borders, with
independence movements among ethnic groups like the Nagas and Mizos, and ongoing cross-
border tensions in regions like Patkai .

10
Ibid,pp 8-9
11
Dr. A.R Parhi,Dr. Ashan Riddi,History Of North East India (1228-1947),(Noida:Vikas® publishing House PVT Ltd,2016), p 130
12
Ibid,p 131
13
BÉRÉNICE GUYOT-RÉCHARD,”Tangled Lands: Burma and India’s Unfinished Separation, 1937–1948”,p 17
 6

Conclusion

The Government of India Act of 1935, despite its intent to advance Indian self-governance, fell
short in many respects. The intricate administrative measures and the extensive powers granted to
the Governor of Assam over tribal areas exposed the British colonial administration's persistent
paternalism. These measures highlighted the lack of genuine self-rule and the colonial
government's reluctance to relinquish control.

The administrative complexities and jurisdictional confusion, exacerbated by incidents like Tibetan
incursions and local raids, underscored the colonial authorities' inability to effectively manage and
integrate the diverse and remote regions of India and Burma. The creation of new administrative
divisions and the appointment of advisors reflected the ongoing struggles rather than genuine
progress.

The separation of Burma from India further revealed the arbitrary nature of colonial boundaries
and the administrative difficulties they entailed. It illustrated the colonial administration's failure to
understand and respect the cultural and ethnic intricacies of the regions they governed.

Even after the war, the continuation of fragmented control and cross-border tensions in regions like
Patkai emphasized the flawed legacy of colonial policies. The persistent marginalization of ethnic
groups such as the Nagas and Mizos, and their subsequent independence movements, highlighted
the deep-seated issues that colonial administrative strategies failed to address, ultimately leaving a
complex and divided landscape for postcolonial India and Burma.