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 two—executive 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 Government—Introduction 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
Full viewThis 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 — 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 — 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 — 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.
- Explicitly states dyarchy was introduced within provincial governments, not as a separate central vs state governments arrangement.
- Says provincial governments were 'split into two sections', indicating an internal division of provincial administration rather than creation of separate Central and State governments.
- Notes a division of functions between Central and Provincial Governments existed but had 'no sanction in law' and provinces bore no legal responsibility.
- Says 'The entire responsibility by law rested on the shoulders of the Imperial Government', implying dyarchy did not create legally separate, responsible state governments.
- Criticizes dyarchy as a flawed form of government because it violated collective responsibility, supporting that it was an internal/administrative division rather than establishment of two independent governments.
- Emphasizes dyarchy's administrative problems, consistent with it being a split within provincial administration rather than separate central/state governments.
Explicitly defines 'Dyarchy' as a device of 'dual government' introduced in the provinces, dividing subjects into categories and creating responsible provincial governments alongside the Governor-General's responsibility.
A student could use this to check whether 'dual government' referred to two levels (centre vs province) or two sets of authorities within a province by comparing with other snippets about where dyarchy was applied.
Describes dyarchy as applying to the provincial executive: 'rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers' and gives reserved vs transferred subject lists.
A student could extend this by noting dyarchy operated within provinces (reserved vs transferred) rather than creating a separate central government, so check whether the Centre–State separation is the same thing.
States the Act introduced dyarchy in the provinces and also separated provincial and central budgets, signalling institutional differentiation between provincial and central functions.
A student might use the budget separation to assess whether dyarchy implied a full separate government at centre and province or a step toward provincial autonomy limited to certain subjects.
Discusses the strong role of the Centre in the overall constitutional scheme and the ability to suspend state governments, indicating central paramountcy despite devolved arrangements.
A student can combine this central-superiority pattern with the provincial focus of dyarchy to infer dyarchy did not create an equal 'double' Centre–State government.
Notes that prior to 1935 provincial governments were agents of the Centre, implying that federal/central–state separations were limited and that dyarchy was a provincial reform rather than creation of two independent governments.
A student could use this example of centralised control to argue dyarchy was a constrained sharing of power at provincial level, not establishment of wholly separate central and state governments.
Explicitly defines provincial 'Dyarchy' as 'rule of two' at the provincial level, dividing subjects into 'reserved' and 'transferred' with the governor as provincial executive head.
A student could extend this by noting that this description places dyarchy within provincial administration (not as a London–Delhi dual government) and then check whether London/Delhi fit 'provincial' roles.
Says 'dyarchy' was evolved to make the executive partly responsible to elected assemblies rather than only to the imperial government in London.
One could use this to test whether dyarchy aimed at splitting authority between local (Indian assemblies) and London, by checking if the split was internal to provinces or between imperial and local centers.
States the Government of India Act 1919 'introduced dyarchy in the provinces' and also mentions a High Commissioner for India 'to hold his office in London'.
A student can combine this: dyarchy is tied to provincial government while a High Commissioner in London shows imperial links — use a map/chronology to judge whether dyarchy implied separate rulers in London vs Delhi or a provincial-local division.
Notes that dyarchy was also contemplated at the federal executive in the Government of India Act 1935 (dyarchy provided for in the Federal Executive).
This indicates dyarchy is a constitutional arrangement applied to different levels (provincial, federal); a student could compare where authority was divided at each level to see if it corresponds to a London–Delhi duality.
Explains there were 'two India' politically — British India (direct Crown rule) and Princely States under their rulers with British paramountcy.
Combining this with dyarchy items, a student might distinguish the separate concept of 'two Indias' (geopolitical division) from dyarchy (administrative division) to judge whether dyarchy meant two seats of sovereign government (London vs Delhi).
- Explicitly states the Act introduced dyarchy and that provincial subjects were divided into 'reserved' and 'transferred' lists.
- Gives examples of reserved (law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation) and transferred (education, health, local government, industry).
- Says the Act divided provincial subjects into two parts—transferred and reserved.
- Lists typical transferred subjects (public health, education, local self-government, agriculture) and reserved subjects (police, administration of justice, prisons, land revenue, finance).
- Repeats the feature that provincial subjects were split into transferred and reserved categories under the Act.
- Supports delegation of authority to provinces via Devolution Rules, clarifying the dyarchy arrangement.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct lift from standard texts like Spectrum (Ch: Constitutional Developments) or Laxmikanth (Ch: Historical Background).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Evolution of Indian Constitution > Government of India Act, 1919 (Mont-Ford Reforms).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Swap' Trap: (1) 1919 Act = Dyarchy in Provinces + Bicameralism at Centre. (2) 1935 Act = Abolished Provincial Dyarchy (Provincial Autonomy) + Proposed Dyarchy at Centre. (3) 1909 Act = Introduction of non-official majority in provinces (Morley-Minto).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not read Acts in isolation. Create a 3-column table (1909 vs 1919 vs 1935) comparing three specific verticals: Executive changes, Legislative changes, and Electorate expansion. The examiner creates options by mixing features from different columns.
References identify 'Dyarchy' as a system introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919 applied to provincial executive functions, dividing subjects into 'reserved' and 'transferred'.
High-yield for Modern India and Constitutional history: explains a key intermediate step in transfer of power and provincial autonomy, links to later reforms (e.g., Government of India Act, 1935) and debates on decentralisation. Mastering this helps answer questions on constitutional evolution, comparisons of administrative arrangements, and causes/consequences of reforms.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial Government—Introduction of > p. 308
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 510
Several references define the Parliament as consisting of two Houses (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), i.e., bicameral legislature — a legislative structure distinct from 'dyarchy'.
Essential for Polity: clarifies institutional structure of Centre and some States; connects to questions on federalism, legislative powers, and differences between central and state legislatures. Knowing bicameralism avoids conflating legislative structure with administrative/ executive arrangements like dyarchy.
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: LEGISLATURE > WHY DO WE NEED TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT? > p. 102
- Exploring Society:India and Beyond ,Social Science, Class VIII . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 6: The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive > Composition of the Parliament of India > p. 142
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 12: The Union Legislature > THE UNION LEGISLATURE . > p. 242
Evidence shows dyarchy refers to division of executive responsibilities at provincial level, while bicameralism refers to two legislative chambers at the Centre (or some states) — they are not the same.
Conceptual clarity prevents common mistakes in answer-writing and MCQs. Useful for comparative questions (administrative vs legislative reforms), and for tracing continuity between 1919 Act provisions and later Acts. Helps frame direct-contrast answers and identify which Act introduced which change.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial Government—Introduction of > p. 308
- Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: LEGISLATURE > WHY DO WE NEED TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT? > p. 102
References describe dyarchy as a 'dual government' introduced in the provinces under the Government of India Act, 1919, operating within provincial administration.
High-yield for UPSC: explains a key constitutional reform (Act of 1919) and the limited nature of 'transfer of power' before 1935. Mastery helps answer questions on constitutional development, provincial autonomy and reforms between 1919–1935.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial Government—Introduction of > p. 308
Evidence explicitly shows dyarchy divided provincial subjects into two lists (reserved and transferred), with different executive control for each.
Crucial for questions on the mechanics of dyarchy and administrative control; connects to discussions on who held real power at provincial level and to later comparisons with the 1935 Act and modern federal subjects.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial Government—Introduction of > p. 308
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
Sources indicate dyarchy was an intra‑provincial division of executive functions, not the creation of fully separate central and state governments (and the period remained highly centralised).
Important to avoid conceptual errors in answers: distinguishes dyarchy from true federalism. Useful across polity and modern Indian history topics (centralisation, President's Rule, evolution from 1919→1935).
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 66
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 5: NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > NATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM > p. 60
Several references define dyarchy as a 'rule of two' introduced at the provincial level, not as a split between London and Delhi.
High-yield for questions on constitutional reforms (Government of India Act 1919/1935). Explains the basic institutional design sought by the British to share limited power with Indians; helps answer questions on limits of self-government and evolution of provincial autonomy. Links to topics on colonial constitutional measures and nationalist responses.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 15: Emergence of Gandhi > Provincial Government—Introduction of > p. 308
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Government of India Act, 1919 > p. 510
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 14: First World War and Nationalist Response > Montagu's Statement of August 1917 > p. 303
The 1919 Act created the office of the 'High Commissioner for India' in London to take over some functions of the Secretary of State. While Dyarchy is the famous feature, the High Commissioner is the 'Shadow Fact' often asked in statement-based questions.
Use the 'Etymology vs. Function' hack. 'Dyarchy' (Di-archy) means 'Rule of Two'. Rule implies *Executive* power (Governance). Option A describes the *Legislature* (Law-making bodies/Houses). Option B describes *Federalism* (Levels of Govt). Option C describes *Hierarchy*. Only Option D discusses the actual division of 'subjects' (power to rule) within a province, fitting the 'Rule of Two' definition.
Mains GS-2 (Federalism): The 'Reserved' and 'Transferred' subjects of 1919 are the ancestors of the modern Seventh Schedule (Union, State, Concurrent Lists). Dyarchy was the first clumsy attempt at the 'Division of Power' which evolved into the federal scheme of the 1935 Act and finally the Constitution of India.