Question 3

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2015). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [1-2] Sir John Simon chaired a commission in 1927 to consider further political reforms in India.
2. [1-2] No Indian representation on the commission and this was opposed especially as its membership had been carefully selected to oppose self-government.
3. [1-2] Congress and ML boycotted it.
4. [1-2] SC reported in 1930.
5. [1-2] Main points were federal system with more powers to provinces, diarchy ended with provincial government in hands of ministers responsible to elected legislatures.
6. [1-2] Governors to choose all ministers from parties that had majority support.
7. [1-2] Provincial Prime Ministers would be free from control by the governor or central government.
8. [1-2] NWFP to be given a legislative council but no government.
9. [1-2] No change in central executive and Council of Greater India to be set up representing India and the individual provinces to discuss matters of all-India concern.
10. [1-2] Unacceptable to both Congress and ML.
11. [1] LEVEL 1: Simplistic statement/describes reforms.
12. [1] They didn't like them.
13. [2-4] LEVEL 2: Identifies reasons.
14. [2-4] The reforms were limited and kept power in British hands.
15. [5-7] LEVEL 3: Explains reasons.
16. [5-7] The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law and order, finance, justice and administration and the civil service.
17. [5-7] The Indians only received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy (appointed by the British government) could veto any decision made and introduce any law that was deemed necessary.
18. [5-7] Congress in particular were bitterly against the proposals since they felt they had supported Britain during the war had lost 000s of men but was being short changed in receiving anything resembling real power in their government.
19. [5-7] Although separate electorates had been given to Muslims, other minorities such as Sikhs were not and thus these began to demand access to power.
20. [1-2] LEVEL 1: Simplistic statement.
21. [1-2] Bengal wanted freedom.
22. [3-6] LEVEL 2: Describes Partition/Reversal or identifies successes/failures.
23. [3-6] It was too large and Hindus were in the majority and they didn't want it.
24. [7-10] LEVEL 3: Explains successes OR failures.
25. [9-13] LEVEL 4: Explains successes AND failures.
26. [9-13] Successes: Of the 54 million people in Bengal 42 million were Hindus. It seemed sensible to divide up the province on religious grounds and also because it was becoming very large and producing significant administrative problems. By doing this the British felt that the province would be easier to administer especially at the time of a new British government in power.
27. [9-13] The Muslims believed that partition would bring an end to Hindu oppression and that they would enjoy true recognition in a province in which they were in a majority.
28. [14] LEVEL 5: As Level 4 – also produces a judgement or evaluation.
29. [14] Failures: The Hindus believed that the partition would come about as part of the British ‘divide and rule’ policy which would weaken Hindu unity and its influence in the new East Bengal.
30. [14] The Hindus objection to Partition was so great that it caused the British to reconsider it. The Hindus opposed it by holding meetings and mass rallies which put pressure on the British government. They thought it was a deliberate attempt to 'divide and rule' on the part of the British. The Hindus were so angry that they attempted to assassinate Lord Minto and started their boycott of British goods under the ‘Swadeshi Movement’. There was also an outbreak of terrorist activities.