Constitutional development & the transfer of power

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

Answer (b): statements 2 and 3 are correct. The Nehru Report (1928) asked for dominion status, not complete independence, so statement 1 is wrong. It proposed joint electorates with seats reserved for minorities, and it included a bill of fundamental rights.

• ✗ 1. The Motilal Nehru Report called for dominion status. Complete independence (Purna Swaraj) became the Congress goal only at the Lahore session in December 1929, a year after the report.
• ✓ 2. The report rejected separate electorates. It proposed joint electorates with seats reserved for minorities: for Muslims at the Centre and in provinces where they were a minority.
• ✓ 3. The Motilal Nehru committee demanded a bill of rights in 1928. Its list of nineteen fundamental rights anticipated the Fundamental Rights later placed in India's Constitution.
• ✗ (d) This option is tempting because the report is remembered as a draft constitution. But it did not demand full independence, so statement 1 rules it out.

Remember · Nehru Report 1928 = dominion status (not Purna Swaraj) + bill of rights + joint electorates with reserved minority seats. Younger Congress leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose opposed the dominion goal. Jinnah rejected the report over Muslim representation and answered it with his Fourteen Points (1929).

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 11 Indian Constitution at Work, Ch 2 (practise this chapter) · Class 8 Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part 2), Ch 2 (practise this chapter)

Question: UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) 2011, General Studies Paper I. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 25 Oct 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error

Answer: (d) None of the (a), (b) and (c) above

After 1793 the zamindars lost their troops and their control over local justice, so they could not easily make ryots pay rent. Their only remedy was to sue defaulters in court, where the process was long drawn, and suits piled up. In Burdwan alone more than 30,000 suits for rent arrears were pending in 1798. None of (a), (b) or (c) states this cause. The settlement did not strengthen the zamindar against the ryot, and it did not make the courts more efficient.

• ✗ (a) This is the reverse of what happened. At first, the Permanent Settlement limited the zamindar's power to collect rent from the ryot. Because he could not force payment himself, he had to go to court, and that is where the suits came from.
• ✗ (b) The Company did control and regulate the zamindars. For example, a zamindari could be auctioned if its revenue was not paid on time. But the mass of court cases is not traced to this. It came from rent disputes between zamindars and ryots that had to be settled in court.
• ✗ (c) The courts did not become more efficient. The judicial process was long drawn and cases piled up. In 1795 a Bengal Regulation imposed high court fees to put a stop to groundless, frivolous and speculative suits.
• ✓ (d) The rise in litigation came from zamindars losing their own coercive and judicial powers, so every rent default became a lawsuit. None of the three listed provisions describes this.

Remember · Permanent Settlement (1793): zamindars lost their troops and control of local justice, so they had to sue defaulting ryots. Over 30,000 rent-arrears suits were pending in Burdwan in 1798. In 1795 high court fees were imposed to curb groundless suits.

📘 Read it in NCERT: Class 12 Themes in Indian History, Part III, Ch 1 (practise this chapter) · Class 12 Themes in Indian History, Part III, Ch 1 (practise this chapter)

Question: UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) 2011, General Studies Paper I. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 25 Oct 2026 (how we verify). Permalink · Report an error