Daily Static Quiz Prelims Practice 2027
- AIntroducing dyarchy at the provincial level
- BIntroducing separate electorates for Muslims
- CGranting Indians a majority in the Imperial Council
- DIntroducing direct elections for provincial legislatures
The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for Muslims, a provision that deepened communal divisions and laid the groundwork for eventual partition.
- The 1919 Act introduced dyarchy at the provincial level, dividing subjects into reserved and transferred.
- The 1935 Act abolished dyarchy at the Centre and introduced full responsible government there.
- AStatement 1 is correct but Statement 2 is incorrect.
- BStatement 2 is correct but Statement 1 is incorrect.
- CBoth statements are correct.
- DBoth statements are incorrect.
Statement 1 is correct — the 1919 Act introduced provincial dyarchy, with reserved subjects held by the Governor and transferred subjects handled by Indian ministers. Statement 2 is incorrect, since this is reversed: the 1935 Act actually introduced dyarchy at the Centre, and full central responsible government never came into operation at all.
- AIt proposed a three-tier federal structure to keep India united.
- BBoth Congress and the Muslim League accepted it without any reservations.
- CIt rejected the demand for a separate sovereign Pakistan.
- DThe Constituent Assembly was to be formed by indirect election from provincial assemblies.
Option (b) is incorrect — neither party actually accepted the Plan without reservations: Congress accepted it with reservations about the grouping provisions, and the Muslim League later withdrew its acceptance altogether. Options (a), (c), and (d) are all correct — the Plan did propose a three-tier federal structure to keep India united, rejected a separate sovereign Pakistan, and provided for the Constituent Assembly to be formed by indirect election from provincial assemblies.
- Assertion (A): The Simon Commission was boycotted by both the Congress and the Muslim League.
- Reason (R): The Commission had no Indian member, seen as a denial of India's right to shape its own constitutional future.
- ABoth A and R are correct, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- BBoth A and R are correct, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
- CA is correct, but R is incorrect.
- DA is incorrect, but R is correct.
Assertion A is correct — the Simon Commission faced a rare united boycott from both major parties, with widespread "Simon Go Back" protests. Reason R is correct and directly explains A, since the Commission's all-white composition, with no Indian member at all, was the direct trigger for this unprecedented unified opposition.
- Indian Councils Act, 1861 — introduced the portfolio system and nominated Indians to the Executive Council.
- Indian Councils Act, 1892 — introduced indirect election and allowed budget discussion in councils.
- Communal Award (1932) — modified by the Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar.
- Wavell Plan (1945) — failed as the Muslim League demanded exclusive nomination of all Muslim members.
- AOnly one
- BOnly two
- COnly three
- DAll four
All four pairs are correctly matched. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 introduced the portfolio system and first nominated Indians to the Executive Council. The Indian Councils Act of 1892 introduced indirect election and allowed councils to discuss budget estimates. The Communal Award of 1932 was modified by the Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar, replacing separate electorates with reserved seats. The Wavell Plan of 1945 failed as the Muslim League demanded sole nomination rights for all Muslim members.


