Introduction
In 1917, as Indian nationalist movements gained momentum and the contribution of Indian soldiers to World War I became evident, the British government made a dramatic policy shift. Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, declared in the British Parliament that the policy of the British government would now be the “gradual development of self-governing institutions” in India.
This led to the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, implemented through the Government of India Act, 1919. Though widely publicized as a progressive reform, many nationalists saw it as a half-hearted measure that sought to delay full Indian self-governance.
1. Background: Why Were the Reforms Introduced?
a. Growing Nationalist Pressure
-
The Lucknow Pact (1916) and the Home Rule Movement (1916–17) had unified political opinion against colonial rule.
-
The rise of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah added weight to demands for constitutional reforms.
b. India's Contribution to World War I
-
Over 1.3 million Indian soldiers fought in the war.
-
Massive financial and human contributions created expectations of political rewards from the British.
c. Edwin Montagu’s Declaration
-
On August 20, 1917, Montagu promised “increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration.”
This declaration laid the foundation for the new Government of India Act.
2. Key Features of the Government of India Act, 1919
a. Dyarchy in Provinces
-
Introduced dual government in provinces.
-
Powers were split into:
-
Reserved Subjects (e.g., finance, law & order): retained by the British Governor.
-
Transferred Subjects (e.g., education, health): handed to Indian ministers responsible to the legislative council.
-
-
While appearing progressive, this division diluted accountability and restricted Indian authority.
b. Bicameral Central Legislature
-
Created a bicameral legislature:
-
Council of State (Upper House)
-
Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
-
-
Majority of members were still nominated by the British, limiting real autonomy.
c. Franchise Expansion
-
Very limited expansion of voting rights based on property and education.
-
Only 10% of the population was enfranchised.
d. Continued Separate Electorates
-
Continued and even expanded communal electorates, especially for Muslims, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans.
-
This reinforced communal divisions in Indian politics.
3. Structure of Government Under the Act
| Level | Key Features |
|---|---|
| Central Government | Viceroy retained supreme control, even over legislature. |
| Provincial Governments | Dyarchy was introduced. Governors were powerful, Indian ministers had limited roles. |
| Legislative Bodies | Two houses created, but without real legislative or financial authority. |
4. Response of Indian Political Leaders
a. Congress Reaction
-
The Indian National Congress rejected the reforms as inadequate and deceptive.
-
Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak, and Motilal Nehru saw the reforms as a betrayal of Indian expectations.
b. Moderate and League View
-
Some moderate nationalists and leaders of the Muslim League saw it as a step forward but criticized the limited scope.
c. Rise of Discontent
-
The dissatisfaction led to the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920) initiated by Gandhi, marking a new phase of mass resistance.
5. Shortcomings and Criticism
| Criticism | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Dyarchy Confusion | Created administrative inefficiency; overlapping jurisdictions between “reserved” and “transferred” subjects. |
| Limited Indian Role | Real power stayed with the British; Indian ministers were figureheads. |
| Continued Racial Discrimination | British officials retained veto powers over Indian voices. |
| Increased Communalism | Separate electorates led to deep-rooted sectarian divisions. |
| No Roadmap for Full Self-Government | Though promised, the reforms lacked clarity or a timeline. |
6. Positive Contributions
Despite criticism, the reforms had some benefits:
a. Constitutional Training
-
Exposed Indian leaders to legislative work, budget planning, and public administration.
-
Leaders like Vallabhbhai Patel, C. Rajagopalachari, and Jawaharlal Nehru honed their skills in these provincial setups.
b. Political Awakening
-
The dissatisfaction with the Act sparked mass movements like:
-
Non-Cooperation (1920)
-
Civil Disobedience (1930s)
-
-
Set the stage for future reforms like the Government of India Act, 1935.
7. Montagu-Chelmsford Report vs. Final Act
The original Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918) had suggested:
-
Greater Indian control
-
Broader electorate
-
Stronger provincial powers
But many provisions were watered down in the actual 1919 Act due to British fears of losing control. Thus, the final law betrayed the spirit of the original report.
Conclusion
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act of 1919 occupy a complex position in India’s constitutional history. Though touted as a progressive step, the reforms turned out to be largely cosmetic. They failed to satisfy Indian nationalists and only deepened political mistrust.
Nevertheless, the Act was historically important as it marked the beginning of constitutional devolution of power and inspired future Indian administrators and politicians to prepare for self-rule. It also inadvertently triggered a new era of mass movements, particularly under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, who emerged as the central figure of the freedom struggle in the 1920s.