Question map
In the context of Indian history, the principle of 'Dyarchy (diarchy)' refers to
Explanation
The correct answer is option D. The principle of Dyarchy was introduced at the level of provincial government, where it meant rule of twoâexecutive councillors and popular ministers[1]. This system involved dividing provincial subjects into two categories: 'reserved' subjects (such as law and order, finance, land revenue, police, administration of justice) and 'transferred' subjects (such as education, health, local government, agriculture, public health)[2]. The reserved subjects were administered by the Governor with his executive councillors, while transferred subjects were administered by ministers responsible to the legislature. This division of subjects delegated to provinces into two categories is the defining feature of Dyarchy. Options A, B, and C are incorrect as they refer to bicameral legislature, federal structure, and colonial dual control respectively, none of which capture the essence of Dyarchy as a system of dual administration within provincial governments.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial GovernmentâIntroduction of > p. 308
- [2] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 6
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis is a foundational 'Sitter' question. It tests the most distinct feature of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919). If you confuse 'Bicameralism' (Legislature) with 'Dyarchy' (Executive), you lose easy marks. This comes straight from the first chapter of Laxmikanth or the Constitutional Developments chapter in Spectrum.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: In Indian history, did the principle of Dyarchy (diarchy) mean the division of the central legislature into two houses?
- Statement 2: In Indian history, did the principle of Dyarchy (diarchy) mean the introduction of a double government (separate Central and State governments)?
- Statement 3: In Indian history, did the principle of Dyarchy (diarchy) mean having two sets of rulers, one in London and another in Delhi?
- Statement 4: In Indian history, did the principle of Dyarchy (diarchy) mean dividing the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories (reserved and transferred)?
- Defines dyarchy as a form of government problem related to administrative responsibility, not a change in legislative structure.
- States dyarchy is opposed to collective responsibility and concerns the impartibility of governmental work â implying division of functions, not creation of two legislative chambers.
- Discusses differences in constitution and procedure between the Central and Provincial Governments and their legislatures, indicating the issues relate to composition and procedure rather than a split of the central legislature into two houses.
- Mentions provincial legislative arrangements (no standing majority of official members) contrasting with the Central Legislature â context about governance structure rather than bicameral division of the central body.
Explicitly defines Dyarchy in the provincial context as 'rule of two' for the executive, with subjects divided into 'reserved' and 'transferred'.
A student could use this to infer dyarchy concerned division of executive subjects at provincial level, so check whether that concept was used for central legislature instead.
States that the Government of India Act, 1919 introduced 'Dyarchy' or dual government in provinces and describes subject-division and administration by ministers responsible to the Legislative Council.
Use this rule-pattern (dyarchy = dual executive government in provinces) to contrast with any claim that dyarchy referred to dividing the central legislature into houses.
Notes again that the Act introduced dyarchy in the provinces and that the provincial legislature was to consist of one house only (legislative council).
A student can combine this with the fact that provinces had a single legislative house to argue dyarchy did not mean creating two legislative houses at centre.
Defines the modern Indian Parliament as having two houses (bicameral) and names the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha â the standard term for two legislative chambers.
A student could contrast the explicit term 'bicameral' for two houses with 'dyarchy' to test if dyarchy was ever used to mean bicameralism at the centre.
Also defines the Parliament as composed of two houses and explains the meaning of 'bicameral' ('bi' = two).
Use this clear definition of bicameral legislature to distinguish it from dyarchy; a student should check historical sources to see which term applied to which institution.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.