Question map
The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to
Explanation
The correct answer is option D because the Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of relationship between the princely states and government[1]. The Butler Committee met at Delhi on January 14, 1928, and submitted their report on the 14th February,[2] 1929[2].
The committee's primary focus was on defining paramountcy and the relationship between the Crown and Indian princely states. Its key recommendations included that paramountcy must remain supreme and adapt according to changing times, and that states should not be handed over to an Indian Government in British India without their consent[1].
Options A, B, and C are incorrect as they do not relate to the Butler Committee's mandate. The committee was specifically concerned with princely states' relations with the British Crown and the Government of India, not with defining central-provincial powers, the Secretary of State's jurisdiction, or press censorship.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
- [2] https://dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/indianconstituti00aiyauoft/indianconstituti00aiyauoft.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a textbook 'Sitter' directly from the 'Indian States' chapter of Spectrum or Bipin Chandra. It rewards the serious aspirant who didn't skip the administrative history chapters. The question is fair, factual, and requires no guesswork if you have covered the standard syllabus.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Was the object of the Butler Committee of 1927 to define the jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Governments?
- Statement 2: Was the object of the Butler Committee of 1927 to define the powers of the Secretary of State for India?
- Statement 3: Was the object of the Butler Committee of 1927 to impose censorship on the national press?
- Statement 4: Was the object of the Butler Committee of 1927 to improve the relationship between the Government of India and the Indian States?
Explicitly states the Butler Committee was set up to examine the nature of the relationship between the princely states and the government (not provincial/central legislative jurisdiction).
A student could contrast this remit with bodies that did deal with centre–province jurisdiction to judge whether Butler's object matched the statement.
Gives a specific finding of the Butler Commission about princely states' status in international relations, indicating its focus on princely-state questions rather than centre–province division of subjects.
A student could use this thematic focus (international/paramountcy issues) to infer the committee's scope did not primarily include defining central vs provincial legislative lists.
Places the 1927 Statutory Commission in the wider reform timeline (Government of India Act, 1919) — a context where centre–province subject division was already addressed by Devolution Rules.
A student could use the fact that centre–province division was already handled by earlier Acts/Rules to doubt that Butler's object was to (re)define those jurisdictions.
Describes the Devolution Rules under the 1919 Act that classified subjects into central and provincial, showing an existing formal mechanism for centre–province jurisdiction before 1927.
A student could compare the existence of these prior rules with Butler's stated focus (princely states) to argue Butler was unlikely charged with defining central/provincial jurisdiction.
Summarises that the 1919 Rules separated subjects into Central and Provincial, indicating the main issue of centre–province division had established legal treatment prior to 1927.
A student might use this to infer that any 1927 commission would more likely address unresolved matters (e.g., princely states/paramountcy) than re-litigate an existing division of subjects.
Explicitly states the Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of the relationship between the princely states and government (paramountcy left undefined).
A student could combine this with the specific phrasing of the statement to infer the committee's remit was about princely-state relations, not about defining Secretary of State powers.
Gives a specific finding of the Butler Commission about the international status of princely states (treating state territory/subjects like British territory/subjects).
Using this example finding, a student could conclude the commission's substantive focus was on inter-state/territorial status rather than administrative powers of a British office-holder.
Refers to the appointment of the 'Harcourt Butler Indian States Commission (1927)', identifying the commission with 'Indian States' in its title.
A student can use the commission's name to argue its remit was Indian States-related (reinforcing that its object likely concerned princely states rather than the Secretary of State's powers).
Shows a pattern that committees (e.g., Hunter Committee) were commonly formed to investigate particular events or relationships at the request of the Secretary of State.
A student could infer that committees typically had focused mandates (here, Hunter investigated disturbances), so one should look for the Butler Committee's stated subject (princely states) rather than assume a general administrative-review remit.
Explains the historical role and responsibilities of the Secretary of State for India (established by the 1858 Act) as a distinct office and policy-maker.
A student could use this background to judge whether a 1927 commission about Indian States would be the proper vehicle to 'define the powers' of this clearly established British office — suggesting a mismatch of typical remit and the posed statement.
- Describes the Butler Committee's activities in relation to Indian States (meeting, questionnaire, state visits).
- Shows the committee investigated and reported on matters concerning the Princes and States, not press censorship.
- Explicitly discusses the Butler Committee's consideration of the position and relations of the States.
- Treats international status and historical subordinations of the States—topics unrelated to press censorship.
- Summarizes a key conclusion of the Butler Committee about 'paramountcy' and the security of the States' independent rights.
- Focus on defining constitutional/paramountcy issues for States indicates the committee's object concerned state relations rather than media censorship.
Explicit description: the Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the relationship between princely states and government and gave recommendations about 'paramountcy'.
A student can note the committee's stated remit (princely-state relations) and check that remit against typical functions that would create press-censorship powers (i.e., lawmaking or executive security orders) to judge plausibility.
The Butler Commission is quoted on the international status of state territory/subjects, again showing a focus on constitutional/international relations of princely states.
Compare this constitutional/international focus with the administrative/legal sources that historically established press censorship to see if the committee's topics overlap with press-control mechanisms.
Shows that press censorship in British India was typically imposed by specific legal instruments (Defence of India Rules, Press Emergency Act, Official Secrets Act) rather than by commissions on princely-state relations.
Map the timeline and legal instruments: if censorship episodes are tied to named laws/rules, a student can check whether the Butler Committee produced or recommended such legislation in 1927.
Describes the Vernacular Press Act and other explicit press-restricting measures—illustrates the pattern that censorship was enacted through specific Acts.
Use this pattern to infer that a committee not charged with drafting press law is an unlikely source of a nationwide censorship imposition; verify by checking the Butler Committee's terms of reference or final report.
Explains that censorship has normally been a constitutional/legal question judged by reasonableness and linked to explicit statutes (e.g., the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act 1976), showing censorship normally arises from legislative/executive acts.
A student can extend this rule by looking for any legislative recommendation in the Butler Committee report—absence would weaken the claim that its object was to impose press censorship.
- Explicitly states the Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of the relationship between the princely states and the government.
- Lists recommendations concerning paramountcy and the consent of states, showing the commission dealt with how the relationship should be defined and managed.
- Records a specific finding of the Butler Commission about the status of state territory and subjects in relation to British territory, showing the commission addressed legal/political relations of states.
- Supports that the commission's remit involved clarifying the position of princely states vis-à-vis the British government.
- Notes the appointment of the Harcourt Butler Indian States Commission in 1927, corroborating the existence and timing of the body referenced.
- Provides contextual confirmation that a commission on Indian states was constituted in 1927.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct lift from Spectrum (Chapter: The Indian States) or Old NCERT. No ambiguity.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The evolution of British Policy towards Princely States (Policy of Ring Fence → Subordinate Isolation → Subordinate Union).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize these specific Commission-Purpose pairs: 1. Lee Commission (1924) - Civil Services 2. Hilton Young Commission (1926) - Currency/Finance 3. Linlithgow Commission (1928) - Agriculture 4. Whitley Commission (1929) - Labour 5. Hartog Committee (1929) - Education growth.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not read history only as a timeline of battles and Congress sessions. Create a dedicated tabular list for 'Commissions & Committees' (1858–1947) with columns: Year, Chairman, and Specific Mandate. UPSC asks one such question every 2-3 years.
References show the Butler Committee (1927) examined the nature of the relationship between princely states and the British government and discussed 'paramountcy'.
High-yield for questions on princely states and colonial constitutional arrangements: explains the legal-political status of princely states, recurring in questions about integration and Crown prerogatives. Connects to studies of treaties, residency system, and post-1947 accession issues; useful for framing answers about sovereignty and indirect rule.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
Several references describe the Devolution Rules and the classification of subjects into Central and Provincial categories under the Government of India Act framework.
Essential for questions on federalism and the evolution of centre–province relations: explains how legislative/administrative jurisdiction was allocated pre-independence and grounds comparisons with later constitutional arrangements. Master this to answer questions on provincial autonomy, reserved vs transferred subjects, and the role of Governors.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 6
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
Evidence mentions a 1927 commission/statutory commission and shows differing focuses (e.g., Butler Committee on princely states), indicating commissions had specific mandates rather than blanket jurisdictional definitions.
Useful for discriminating the scope of various commissions (who they studied and why) — a common UPSC task: identify mandate, findings, and constitutional impact. Helps avoid conflating commissions' purposes (e.g., princely-state relations vs. centre–province jurisdiction).
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION > p. 7
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
References identify the 1927 Butler Committee/Commission as an inquiry into the relationship between the princely states and the government (Indian States Commission).
High-yield: questions often ask about commissions and their scopes; knowing that Butler/Butler Commission focused on princely states (not Secretary of State powers) helps eliminate distractors. Connects to study of princely states, commissions, and constitutional responses in late colonial India; useful for source-based and static syllabus questions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > 2. Governors-General and Viceroys of India: Significant Events in their Rule > p. 822
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
Evidence repeatedly mentions 'paramountcy' being left undefined and Butler Commission recommendations on the states' position vis-à-vis British India.
High-yield: understanding 'paramountcy' is central to questions on princely states, accession, and later integration; links to constitutional provisions and British administrative policy. Master through comparison of commissions' recommendations and Acts affecting princely states.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
Other references describe the Secretary of State's creation under 1858 Act, cabinet responsibility, and administrative functions — showing this is a separate topic from Butler Commission's remit.
High-yield: distinguishes central administrative offices (Secretary of State) from commissions on princely states; useful for questions on colonial administrative structure, statutory powers, and evolution of governance. Learn by mapping key Acts (1858, 1919) to institutional changes.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 9: Administrative Changes After 1858 > Administration > p. 151
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 26: Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments > Central Government > p. 525
- 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
References explicitly describe the Butler Committee as examining relations between princely states and the British government and defining 'paramountcy', not press matters.
High-yield for polity/history questions on princely states and colonial administrative reforms. Understanding the committee's remit prevents conflating separate colonial policies (e.g., press control vs. princely-state policy). Useful for questions on constitutional continuities, paramountcy, and the political status of princely states.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > IV. Policy of Subordinate Union (1857-1935) > p. 605
The 'All India States Peoples' Conference' (AISPC) was founded in December 1927, the same year the Butler Committee was appointed. While Butler looked after the Princes' interests, AISPC represented the people of the states (Praja Mandals).
Use 'Timeline Logic':
Option A (Centre-State jurisdiction) was already handled by the 1919 Act (Devolution Rules) and was a hot topic for the Simon Commission (also 1927).
Option C (Press) is usually dealt with via 'Acts' (e.g., Press Act 1910), not 'Committees'.
Option D is the only one addressing the 'Third Party' (Princes) who were nervous about the rising national movement in 1927.
Links to GS-1 (Post-Independence Consolidation): The Butler Committee asserted that the relationship of the States was with the 'British Crown' and not the 'Government of India'. This legal distinction is exactly why the 'Lapse of Paramountcy' in 1947 created a vacuum, necessitating Sardar Patel's integration efforts.