Which of the following statements about the Ilbert Bill of 1883, a key colonial legal reform, is/are correct?

Introduction / Context:
This question examines your knowledge of the Ilbert Bill of 1883, an important episode in the constitutional and legal history of British India. The Bill proposed changes to the criminal jurisdiction of Indian judges over European British subjects and triggered intense controversy among Europeans in India. Understanding which statements accurately describe its provisions and impact helps you connect legal reforms with emerging Indian nationalism and racial tensions in the colonial period.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- Statement 1 says the Bill proposed limited criminal jurisdiction for native (Indian) officials.
- Statement 2 claims it proposed complete civil and criminal jurisdiction for native officials.
- Statement 3 states that the Bill generated opposition from European subjects in India.
- Statement 4 asserts that the Bill was passed without modifications despite this opposition.
- You must select the combination of statements that correctly describes the Ilbert Bill of 1883.

Concept / Approach:
The Ilbert Bill, introduced by Sir Courtenay Ilbert under Viceroy Lord Ripon, sought to remove the racial bar that prevented senior Indian judges from trying European British subjects in criminal cases. It did not aim to give them unlimited powers in all civil and criminal matters, but rather limited criminal jurisdiction under specified conditions. The proposal sparked fierce opposition from Europeans who felt their privileged position was threatened. The government eventually compromised, diluting the Bill. Thus, we carefully compare each statement to these historical facts to determine which are correct.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that the Ilbert Bill proposed to allow qualified Indian judges to try European British subjects in certain criminal cases, i.e., it granted limited criminal jurisdiction, supporting statement 1. Step 2: It did not propose complete civil and criminal jurisdiction for all native officials, so statement 2 exaggerates the scope and is incorrect. Step 3: The Bill provoked strong protests and racist campaigns from the European community in India, confirming that statement 3 is correct. Step 4: Due to this opposition, the Bill was amended and diluted; it was not passed without modification, so statement 4 is incorrect. Hence, only statements 1 and 3 are correct, corresponding to option C.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify your reasoning by recalling the popular agitation known as the “White mutiny,” where European planters, merchants and officials campaigned against the Bill. The final compromise allowed Europeans to be tried by Indian judges only if at least half the jurors were Europeans or Americans. This clearly shows that the original, more egalitarian proposal was weakened and not passed in its initial form. It also confirms the presence of European opposition, reinforcing that statements 1 and 3 accurately reflect events, while 2 and 4 do not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A (1 and 2) is wrong because statement 2 is incorrect; the Bill did not grant complete civil and criminal jurisdiction to all native officials. Option B (2 only) is wrong because statement 2 itself is false and ignores the well-documented opposition. Option D (3 and 4) is incorrect as statement 4 misrepresents the outcome of the controversy; the Bill was modified before passage. Only option C (1 and 3) combines two statements that match the historical record of the Ilbert Bill's intentions and its reception.

Common Pitfalls:
Many students confuse “limited criminal jurisdiction” with “complete jurisdiction” and assume the Bill was more radical than it actually was. Others remember the protests but forget that the government partially backed down, mistakenly thinking that a strong viceroy simply pushed the Bill through unchanged. It is also easy to mix up this reform with later constitutional acts that expanded Indian representation, such as the Acts of 1892 or 1909. Keeping timelines and specific provisions distinct helps avoid these errors.

Final Answer:
The Ilbert Bill of 1883 proposed limited criminal jurisdiction for Indian officials and provoked strong opposition from Europeans in India. Therefore, the correct combination of statements is 1 and 3, which corresponds to option C.