Change set

Pick exam & year, then Go.

Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q26 (IAS/2017) History & Culture › National Movement (1857–1947) › British policies and administration Official Key

The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: D
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. [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
  2. [2] https://dn790002.ca.archive.org/0/items/indianconstituti00aiyauoft/indianconstituti00aiyauoft.pdf
How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
59%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest preview
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. The object of the Butler Committee of 1927 was to [A] Define the jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Governments. [B] Define the…
At a glance
Origin: Books + Current Affairs Fairness: Low / Borderline fairness Books / CA: 2.5/10 · 2.5/10
You're seeing a guest preview. The Verdict and first statement analysis are open. Login with Google to unlock all tabs.

This 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.

How this question is built

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?
Origin: Weak / unclear Fairness: Borderline / guessy
Indirect textbook clues
Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 34: The Indian States > Butler Committee > p. 606
Strength: 5/5
“The question of extent of sovereignty and paramountcy was still undefined. The Butler Committee (1927) was set up to examine the nature of relationship between the princely states and government. It gave the following recommendations— 1. Paramountcy must remain supreme and must fulfil its obligations, adopting and defining itself according to the shifting necessities of time and progressive development of states. 2. States should not be handed over to an Indian Government in British India, responsible to an Indian legislature, without the consent of states. Thus, "paramountcy" was left undefined and this hydra-headed creature was left to feed on usage, Crown's prerogative and the princes' implied consent.”
Why relevant

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).

How to extend

A student could contrast this remit with bodies that did deal with centre–province jurisdiction to judge whether Butler's object matched the statement.

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
Strength: 4/5
“According to the Butler Commission in 1927, "For the purpose of international relations, state territory is in the same position as British territory and state subjects in the same position as British subjects."”
Why relevant

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.

How to extend

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.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION > p. 7
Strength: 4/5
“8 INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. [CHAP. 1 departments. The impracticability of a division of the administration into two water-tight compartments was manifested beyond doubt. The main defect of the system from the Indian standpoint was the control of the purse. Finance being a reserved subject, was placed in charge of a member of the Executive Council and not a Minister. It is no wonder, therefore, that the introduction of ministerial government over a part of the Provincial sphere proved ineffective and failed to satisfy Indian aspirations. Session. The persistent demand for further reforms attended with the dislocation caused by the Non-cooperation movement led the British Government in 1927 to appoint a Statutory Commission as envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1919 itself (section 84A).”
Why relevant

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.

How to extend

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.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 1: Historical Background > The features of this Act were as follows: > p. 6
Strength: 4/5
“1. It provided for the classification of all the subjects of administration into two categories, namely, the central subjects and the provincial subjects. This classification was done by the "Devolution Rules" framed under the Act. These rules facilitated the delegation of authority from the centre to the provinces. way, the Act relaxed the central control over the provinces. The central and provincial legislatures were authorised to make laws on their respective list of subjects. However, the structure of government continued to be centralised and unitary. • 2. It further divided the provincial subjects into two parts—transferred and reserved. The transferred subjects included public health, education, local self-government, agriculture etc., while the reserved subjects included police, administration of justice, prisons, land revenue, finance etc.”
Why relevant

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.

How to extend

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.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 1: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND > Utility of a Historical Retrospect. > p. 5
Strength: 3/5
“The foundation of responsive government was thus laid down in the narrow sphere of 'transferred' subjects. The 'reserved u~j ec s', all the othe r h a nd , were to be ;ldm in istered by th e Goven101" and his Executive Counci l with out any responsibility to the Legislature. II. Relaxation of CelltraL control over the Provinces. As stated already, the Rules made under the Government of India Act, 1919, known as the Devolution Rules, made a separation of the subjects of administration into two categories: Central and Provincial. Broadly speaking, subjects of all-India importance were brought under the category 'Central', while matters primarily relating to the administration of the provinces were classified as 'Provincial'.”
Why relevant

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.

How to extend

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.

How to study

This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.

Login with Google to unlock study guidance.

Micro-concepts

Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.

Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.

The Vault

Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.

Login with Google to unlock The Vault.

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

5 Cross-Linked PYQs

UPSC repeats concepts across years. Login to see how this question connects to 5 others.

Login with Google