Previous Year Question

In the context of Indian history, the principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’ refers to

Division of the central legislature into two houses.

Introduction of double government i.e., Central and State governments.

Having two sets of rulers; one in London and another in Delhi.

Division of the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories.

Correct Answer: D

Detailed Solution

Option (d) is correct. The Government of India Act, 1919 introduced Dyarchy at the provincial level. It did not mean merely having two governments in the form of the Centre and Provinces; rather, it involved dividing the subjects of provincial administration into two categories—Reserved and Transferred. The original Act expressly provided for certain provincial subjects to become “transferred subjects” to be administered by the Governor acting with Ministers.

Reserved Subjects were administered by the Governor in Council. The Governor acted with his Executive Council in this sphere, which was not responsible to the provincial legislature in the same manner as ministers on the transferred side.

In contrast, Transferred Subjects were administered by the Governor acting with Ministers. These Ministers were connected with provincial political representation and an element of responsibility to the Legislative Council was introduced on this side. The original Government of India Act expressly provided that Governors' Provinces would be governed in relation to reserved subjects by the Governor in Council, and in relation to transferred subjects by the Governor acting with Ministers.

Thus, Dyarchy was essentially a dual structure of authority and responsibility within the same Provincial Government. This distinction is important.

Option (a) is incorrect. The 1919 Act did introduce a bicameral legislature at the Centre—the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly—but dividing a legislature into two chambers is bicameralism, not Dyarchy.

Option (b) is incorrect. The division of subjects between Central and Provincial Governments was also a feature of the 1919 Act, but that itself was not called Dyarchy. Dyarchy represented a further and separate division within provincial subjects into Reserved and Transferred categories.

Option (c) is incorrect. The existence of different colonial authorities in London and India was part of the structure of British imperial administration, but it was not the constitutional definition of Dyarchy.

One further useful distinction is that the Government of India Act, 1935 abolished Dyarchy in the Provinces and introduced Provincial Autonomy, while proposing Dyarchy at the Centre. However, the federal part of the 1935 Act never became fully operational, and therefore central Dyarchy was never actually implemented.

Continue practicing free PYQs with your JAGTIV account.