Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms & Government of India Act, 1919 | History Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Background

• The Minto Morley Reforms aimed to strengthen British bureaucratic control in India, not to establish a parliamentary system. They sought to align the Moderates and Muslims with British authority.
• The 1909 Reforms failed to satisfy any group in India.
• The Indian National Congress criticized the reforms for:
  • Unequal representation: Excessive representation for one religion.
  • Unfair distinctions: Unjust differences between Muslims and non-Muslims regarding electorates, franchise, and candidate qualifications.
  • Harsh disqualifications: Severe restrictions on candidates for Council elections.
  • Distrust of educated classes: General suspicion towards educated individuals.
  • Ineffective Councils: Poor composition of non-official majorities in Provincial Councils.
• Muslim discontent arose from various factors:
  • Modification of the Muslim League: In March 1913, the League aimed to promote loyalty to the British Crown, protect Muslim rights, and seek self-government suitable for India.
  • Aligarh Muslim University: Discontent over the British Government's conditions for establishing a Muslim University in Aligarh.
  • Partition of Bengal: Displeasure over the annulment of Bengal's partition in 1911.
  • Turco-Italian War: Muslims disapproved of Britain's stance towards Turkey during this period.
  • Balkan Wars: Viewed as a conspiracy against Turkey by Christian Powers.
• The estrangement of Muslims from the British Government inadvertently fostered closer ties between Hindus and Muslims, leading to the Congress-League cooperation and the Lucknow Pact of 1916.
• Widespread discontent with the Minto Morley Reforms prompted the British Government to implement repressive measures, including:
  • Indian Press Act of 1910
  • Seditious Meetings Act of 1911
  • Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1913
  • Defence of India Act of 1915: Allowed trial of revolutionary offenders by a strong bench without appeal.
• During World War I, the principle of self-determination significantly influenced Indian public opinion, with hopes that the war would lead to Indian self-government.
• In December 1916, a joint scheme for constitutional reforms, resulting from the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and Muslim League, was proposed.

Montagu's Statement of August 20, 1917:

• Montagu, the new Secretary of State, addressed the House of Commons about the British Government's goals in India.
• He stated that there would be an increasing involvement of Indians in administration.
• A gradual development of self-governing institutions aimed for responsible government in India as part of the British Empire.
• Montagu emphasized that this progress would occur in successive stages.
• The progress would depend on the cooperation and sense of responsibility of those given new opportunities to serve.
• The declaration temporarily eased tensions in India.
• However, some people were still dissatisfied because no definite timeline or standards were set for further reforms.
• It was considered insulting that the British would be the sole judges of India's capabilities.
• In November 1917, the Secretary of State visited India to discuss reform plans with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, and other officials.
• A committee was formed to assist Montagu in drafting a reform scheme.
• This scheme was published in July 1918 as the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.
• This report laid the groundwork for the Government of India Act 1919.

Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919

• The Act's Preamble outlined the principles for implementing reforms in India.
• The key points in the Preamble included:
• British India remaining a part of the British Empire.
• Responsible Government in British India being the goal of Parliament's policy.
• Responsible Government being achievable only through gradual progress.
• The need for greater Indian involvement in administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions.
• Provinces being given a high degree of independence in provincial matters alongside the development of self-governing institutions.
• Significance of the Preamble included giving legal shape to Montagu's declarations, reaffirming British Parliament's sovereignty over India, and clarifying the basis for future British actions in the country.

Provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919

Changes in the Home Government:

• The Secretary of State for India, previously paid from Indian revenues, is now funded by the British Exchequer, rectifying a historical injustice from 1793.
• Some of the Secretary's responsibilities are transferred to the High Commissioner for India, who is appointed and paid by the Government of India. This official acts as the Governor General in Council's agent, overseeing departments like Stores and Indian Students.
• The Secretary of State's control over provincial matters in India is diminished concerning Transferred Subjects, but his authority over central matters remains unchanged.

Changes in the Government of India (Centre):

(A) Executive:

• The Governor-General is established as the chief executive authority.
• While responsible government is not introduced at the Centre, Indians are given greater influence.
• The number of Indians in the Governor General's Executive Council is increased to three out of eight members.
• Indian members are assigned departments like Law, Education, Labour, Health, and Industries.
• The new government structure divides subjects into Central and Provincial Lists.
• Central List: Includes subjects of national importance or those affecting multiple provinces, such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, Political Relations, Posts and Telegraphs, Public Debt, Communications, and Civil and Criminal Law.
• Provincial List: Contains subjects of provincial importance, such as Public Health, Local Self Government, Education, Medical Administration, Land Revenue Administration, Water Supply, Famine Relief, Law and Order, and Agriculture.
• Revenue resources are divided between the centre and provinces, with land revenue going to the provinces and income tax remaining with the centre.

Analysis:

• Despite increasing Indian representation by adding three Indian members, their assigned departments were relatively unimportant.
• The Indian members were not made accountable to the Legislative body.
• The division of subjects into two lists lacked clarity and proper consideration.
• While all subjects in the Provincial List were provincial for administrative purposes, this was not the case for legislative purposes.
• The Governor-General retained chief executive authority, exercising full control over his Councillors and possessing extensive powers over the country.
• The Act did not address the preferences of the Indian populace regarding the appointment, powers, and functions of the Governor-General.

Legislative Changes:

• The Act established a bicameral legislature at the Centre, replacing the Imperial Council, which had only one House.
• The new legislature consisted of two Houses:The Council of State and The Central Legislative Assembly.

Council of State:

• Tenure: 5 years
• Composition: 60 members
• Nominations: 26 members nominated by the Governor-General (20 officials and 6 non-officials)
• Election: 34 members elected (20 by General constituencies, 10 by Muslims, 3 by Europeans, 1 by Sikhs)
• Election Majority: Introduced an elected majority
• Renewal: Partially renewed every year, but members served for five years
• President: Nominated by the Viceroy
• Membership: Women were not allowed to become members
• Governor-General's Powers: Could address, summon, prorogue, or dissolve the House
• Franchise: Extremely restricted. Voters had to meet high income or land revenue thresholds. Only a few individuals qualified to vote out of the large population.

Central Legislative Assembly:

• Tenure: 3 years
• Membership: Details not specified in the provided information

• The Central Legislative Assembly:

• Lower House Composition:

  • 145 members in total.
  • 41 nominated:
  • 26 officials.
  • 15 non-officials.
  • 104 elected:
  • 52 from General constituencies.
  • 32 from Communal constituencies:
  • 30 by Muslims.
  • 2 by Sikhs.
  • 20 from Special constituencies:
  • 7 by landholders.
  • 9 by Europeans.
  • 4 by the Indian Commercial community.

• Assembly Duration:

  Initially three years, extendable by the Governor General.

• Franchise:

  Restricted based on property, tax, or land revenue. In 1920, 909,874 people were entitled to vote.

• Seat Distribution:

  Based on provincial importance, not population. Bombay and Madras both received 16 seats, despite Bombay's smaller population, due to its commercial significance.

Powers of the Central Legislature:

• Legislate for all of British India.
• Apply laws to Indian subjects and government servants, regardless of their location.
• Repeal or amend existing laws.
• Members had the right to:
• Move resolutions and adjournment motions.
• Consider urgent public questions.
• Ask and supplement questions.
• Submit short notice questions.
• Enjoy freedom of speech.

Restrictions on the Legislature:

• Governor General's Approval: For specific bills like amending laws, foreign relations, military discipline, public debt, and religious matters, the Governor General's prior approval was necessary.
• Safety and Tranquility: The Governor General could block bills he believed would threaten British India's safety or peace.
• Governor General's Power: If the Legislature refused a bill on the Governor General's advice, he could enact it himself with the Crown's approval.
• Emergency Ordinances: The Governor General could issue emergency ordinances lasting up to six months.
• Assent Requirement: The Governor General's consent was crucial for laws passed by the Legislature.
• Veto Power: The Governor General's veto power was significant and frequently used.
• Budget Process: The Government presented expenditure proposals in the Legislative Assembly, with some items subject to Assembly vote, others open for discussion, and some non-debatable.

Act of 1919: Responsive Government at the Centre

• No-Confidence Vote: The Executive Council members were irremovable without a no-confidence vote by the Legislature.
• Legislature Influence: The Executive Council responded to the Legislature's wishes and, through it, to the public's wishes.
• Standing Committees: Some Legislature members served on committees like Public Accounts and Finance, influencing government policy.
• Government Accountability: Legislators could question the Government, move motions of adjournment, reject the budget, and pass resolutions against the Government.
• Executive Accountability: Executive Councillors had to consider the Legislature's preferences.

 Changes in Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy

• One of the principles enunciated by the Montford Report was: “The provinces were the domain in which the earlier steps towards the progressive realisation of responsible government should be taken.”
• To give effect to this principle, the Act introduced what is called Dyarchy in the Provinces.

Executive:

• Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head in the province.
• Under the system of Dyarchy,the subjects dealt with by the Provincial Government were divided into two parts:

Reserved subjects:

• They were administered by the Governor with the help of the members of the Executive Council who were nominated by him and who were not to be responsible to the Legislature.
• The Reserved subjects were:
  • Land Revenue,
  • Famine Relief,
  • Justice, Police,
  • Criminal Tribes,
  • Printing Presses,
  • Irrigation and Waterways,
  • Mines, Factories, Electricity,
  • Labour Welfare, Industrial Disputes,
  • Excluded Areas,
  • Public Services, etc.

Transferred subjects:

• Administered by the Governor with ministers appointed from elected members of the Legislature.
• Ministers responsible to the Legislature and must resign if a no-confidence motion is passed.
• Secretary of State and Governor-General can interfere in "reserved" subjects; interference in "transferred" subjects is limited.
• If constitutional machinery fails, the Governor can take over administration of "transferred" subjects.

Transferred subjects include:

• Education (excluding European and Anglo-Indian Education)
• Libraries, Museums
• Local Self Government, Medical Relief
• Public Health and Sanitation
• Agriculture
• Co-operative Societies
• Veterinary Department, Fisheries
• Public Works
• Excise
• Industries
• Religious and Charitable Endowments
• Decisions on Transferred subjects did not require meetings of all ministers; the Governor dealt with each minister individually.
• On matters of common concern, especially revenue allocation, there was joint consultation between Reserved and Transferred subjects, with the Governor presiding.

Legislature:

• Provincial Legislative Councils were expanded by increasing their size, with total membership varying by province.
• Of the total members in a Provincial Council:
• At least 70% were to be elected.
• No more than 20% were officials.
• The remaining were nominated non-officials.
• The system of election for the Provincial Councils was direct, with primary voters electing the members. However, factors like high property qualifications, communal and class electorates, and special weightage to certain communities were considered in the provincial franchise. Women were also granted the right to vote.
• The functions of the Provincial Council were enlarged, and members enjoyed rights such as:
• Freedom of speech
• Right to move resolutions
• Right to ask questions and supplementaries
• Right to initiate legislation on any provincial subject (with every bill requiring the Governor's approval)
• Members could reject the budget, but the Governor had the authority to restore it if necessary.
• The Governor had the power to veto bills and issue ordinances.

Criticism of Dyarchy

• Diarchy was implemented in the provinces on April 1, 1921, and remained in place until April 1937. During this period, its limitations and flaws became apparent.
• The division of subjects into Reserved and Transferred categories was often illogical, making it difficult for Ministers and Executive Councillors to operate independently. For example, while Agriculture was a transferred subject, Irrigation was reserved, despite their interconnection. Similarly,Industry was transferred, but Water, Power, Factories, and Mines were reserved.
• There were instances where unity of purpose between the two branches of administration was lacking. For instance, during agitation regarding the Sikh Gurudwaras, the Member in charge of law and order (a reserved subject) wanted to introduce legislative measures, but could only do so through the Minister in charge of Religious Endowments (a transferred subject).
• Confusion often arose over the jurisdiction of specific subjects. For instance, an inquiry in the Department of Agriculture regarding the fragmentation of holdings was later found to fall under the Revenue Department, and eventually the Co-operative Department.
• Relations between the two branches of government were strained. Ministers, representing the public, often clashed with Executive Councillors, who were part of the bureaucracy. Friction was common, with public condemnations occurring at times. The Governor typically sided with the Executive Councillors.
• Ministers had a weakened position for several reasons:
• They had to serve two masters: the Governor and the Legislative Council.
• Ministers were appointed by the Governor and could be dismissed at his discretion.
• They were responsible to the Legislature for their department's administration.
• If the legislature passed a vote of no confidence against a Minister, he would lose his position.
• In practical politics, Ministers often prioritized the Governor over the Legislature.
• The provincial legislatures lacked strong parties, leaving Ministers without a majority to support them. They relied on the backing of the official bloc in the legislature, which depended on the Governor's approval.
• As a result, Ministers became more like glorified secretaries, constantly at the mercy of the Governors.
• The Governor did not promote the idea of joint responsibility among the Ministers.
• Instead, the Ministers often worked in isolation and were sometimes even pitted against each other.
• In 1928, Feroz Khan Noon, a Minister from Punjab,publicly criticized the actions of his Hindu colleague.
• On significant issues, the Ministers were often not consulted at all. For example,Gandhi's arrest was a decision made without their input.
• The repressive measures against the non-cooperation movement were planned and executed without any consultation with the Ministers. They were, as C.R. Das put it,“dumb spectators”, unable to voice their opinions or concerns.
• A Minister lacked control over the services within his own department. For instance, his own Secretary had weekly meetings with the Governor, giving the Secretary's opinions more weight than those of the Minister.
• Whenever there was a disagreement between a Minister and his permanent Secretary, or between the Minister and the Commissioner of a Division or the head of a department, the issue had to be escalated to the Governor, who typically sided with the officials over the Minister.
• The Secretary of State for India controlled the appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal, and transfer of members of the All-India Services. These officials remained under the Secretary of State's control even when they were in charge of Transferred departments.
• As a result, these officials did not have to answer to the Ministers, who had no authority to select officers of their preference.
• All the so-called nation-building departments were handed over to the Ministers, but they were not provided with any funding for these departments. This left the Ministers reliant on the Finance Member's goodwill.
• The Finance Member, being part of the bureaucracy, was more concerned with the needs of the Reserved departments than with the aspirations of the people represented by the Ministers.
• These various factors contributed to the failure of the Diarchy. The Simon Commission recommended its abolition in the provinces, which was implemented in the Government of India Act, 1935.
• Other obstacles to the successful implementation of the Act of 1919 included:
  • The political climate was filled with suspicion and distrust due to the events in Punjab and the British Government's stance towards Turkey.
  • The monsoon failed in 1920, exacerbating the people's suffering.
  • A market slump disrupted the finances of both Central and Provincial governments and affected India's favorable balance of trade.
  • Under the Meston Award, Provincial Governments had to make certain annual contributions to the Government of India, which was difficult for provinces already facing financial difficulties.
  • The financial crises in the provinces and the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust were detrimental to the new constitution's success.
  • While the Government offered constitutional reforms, it also armed itself with extraordinary powers to suppress dissent, exemplified by the passage of the Rowlatt Act in March 1919, despite opposition from Indian members of the Central Legislative Council.

Criticism

Communal Representation and Reservations:

• Communal representation and reservations were not only retained but also significantly expanded.
• Sikhs were granted separate electorates alongside Muslims.
• Seats were reserved for non-Brahmans in Madras, and depressed classes were offered nominated seats in legislatures at all levels.

Differing Perspectives on Reforms:

• Carl Bridge viewed these measures as a way to safeguard British interests in India.
• Tomlinson interpreted them as an effort to mobilize influential Indian opinion in support of British rule.
• Peter Robb identified the limitation of the reforms as being tied to the idea of continuing British presence.

Shift in Indian Political Aspirations:

• Many Indians had moved beyond the notion of self-government within the empire and were now striving for swaraj, which was soon redefined as complete independence.
• The reforms failed to meet Indian political expectations and could not prevent the rise of a mass movement.

Positive Aspects of the Act:

• For the first time under British rule, the Act allowed for a transfer of power, albeit limited and gradual.
• Previous measures had given Indians more control over their legislatures, and now,Indians were to govern as leaders of elected majorities in their legislatures.
• While dyarchy faced criticism, it did represent some constitutional progress.
• The Act significantly enlarged electorates to 5.5 million for provinces and 1.5 million for the imperial legislature.
• Philip Woods argued that the reforms were crucial for establishing parliamentary democracy in India and initiating decolonization.
• The Cambridge School connected the constitutional reforms of 1909 and 1919 with the rise of mass politics after World War One, prompting Indian leaders to operate democratically and seek mass support.
• However, this interpretation does not fully explain the mass upsurge under Mahatma Gandhi, particularly his non-cooperation programme that aimed to boycott the new councils.

Reception in India:

• In August 1918, the Congress declared the reforms as "disappointing" and "unsatisfactory", calling for effective self-government instead.
• The Act of 1919 was criticized by nationalists for several reasons:
  • Lack of partial responsible government at the Centre.
  • Permanence of separate electorates, despite being seen as a hindrance to self-governance.
  • Introduction of dyarchy in the provinces was deemed too complicated.
• The 1919 reforms failed to meet political demands in India.
• British repression followed, with restrictions on press and movement through the Rowlatt Acts.
• The Rowlatt Acts were passed despite unanimous opposition from Indian members of the Legislative Council.
• Some council members, including Jinnah, resigned in protest.
• The measures were seen as a betrayal of Indian support for the British war effort.
• Gandhi initiated a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts, with intense protests in the Punjab.
• The Jalianwala Bagh massacre in April 1919, resulting from a violation of gathering rules, spurred leaders like Nehru and Gandhi to push for further action.
• Montagu ordered an inquiry into the Amritsar events, leading to General Dyer's dismissal.
• Many British citizens felt Dyer was unfairly treated by the Hunter Inquiry.
• Gandhi Ji criticized the Montford Reforms as a means of draining India's wealth and prolonging her servitude.

Later Developments in British India's Constitutional Review:

• The Montagu-Chelmsford Report recommended a review of the constitutional arrangements after 10 years.
• The Simon Commission, led by Sir John Simon, was tasked with this review and suggested further constitutional changes.
• Three Round Table Conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931, and 1932, involving major stakeholders.
• During the 1931 Conference, Gandhi participated after negotiations with the British Government.
• A key point of contention between the Indian National Congress and the British was the issue of separate electorates for different communities. The Congress opposed this, but it was upheld in Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award.
• In response to these developments, a new Government of India Act was passed in 1935, which furthered the path towards self-government initially outlined in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.