History Sem 2 Niyati.docx

Contents

          

Introduction…………………………………………………………….1 Background to the Government of India Act, 1919…………...….…..2 The August Declaration of 1917……………………..………….….…..7 Constitutional significance of the August Declaration (1917)…..……8 The Montagu-Chelmsford Proposals………………………………....10 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919………………………12 Main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919……………..13 Preamble………………………………………………………………..13 Changes introduced in the Provincial Governments……...………...14 Ministerial Responsibility……………………………………………..16 Council Secretaries…………………………………………………….17

Page 1 of 26

Introduction The Morley-Minto policy envisaged by the Indian Councils Act, 1909 failed to satisfy the aspirations of the extremists who were persistently making a demand for self-government. The moderates were also not very happy with the excessive control of the Central Government over the local Governments. The separate representation of Muslims caused resentment among the Indian leaders and a motion was proposed in the Imperial Legislature on January 24, 1911 asking for the discontinuance of the scheme. In consequence, the partition of Bengal was annulled. The attitude of Britain in the Balkan Wars and the lining up of Turkey against the British in the War of 1914 had already weakened the loyalty of Muslims to the British Government. The annulment of partition of Bengal further infuriated the Muslims against the British bureaucracy and at the same time it led to extremist’s wing of the Congress to conclude that they could extort more concessions from the British government by resorting to terrorism. All these factors brought pressure on the British government to abandon the policy of repression and concede to the Indian demand of responsible government.

Background to the Government of India Act, 1919 The policy of repression and reforms followed under the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 generated a feeling of extreme bitterness among the Indian nationalists and they started a revolutionary movement which gradually spread throughout the country. The extremists like Lokmanya Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal carried on vigorous propaganda against British bureaucracy. Consequently, there were terrorist outrages in various parts of the country. Lord Minto tried to suppress the extremists and revolutionaries by resorting to enactment of representative laws. He sought the sanction of the Secretary of State for India for arrests and detentions on a large scale and even suggested promulgation of Martial Law. But the Secretary of State Mr Morley disagreed with Lord Minto and even warned him against such repressive measures as they were likely to jeopardise the British interests in India. He, however, reluctantly accepted Viceroy’s proposal for the enactment of drastic press-laws. The Press Act of 1910 was more stringent and comprehensive than the earlier Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act, 1908. The Act widened the definition of seditious publications Page 2 of 26

so as to leave no scope for the expression of even the most honest opinion. Moreover, it was the local Government and not the Courts which were to adjudge as to what was seditious and what was not. Mr Gokhale strongly opposed the Bill in the Supreme Legislative Council and warned the Government that “force may afford temporary relief but it can never prove a permanent remedy.” The Act was, however, passed and proved to be a terrible weapon in the hands of the Executive and was so frequently used that it added to the long list of “indictments against British rule.” By this time, the Seditious, Meetings Act, 1907 was to expire in 1910. Therefore, its life was further extended till March 31, 1911 with a view to providing sufficient time to the new Governor General who was to succeed Lord Minto, to study the situation and decide whether to continue the Act or to repeal it. Lord Hardinge, the new Viceroy replaced the Act by the Seditious Meetings Act, 1911, which was equally repressive like the previous one. The incident of bomb-throwing on Lord Hardinge in December 1912, eventually led to the enactment of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1913 which included “conspiracy” as an independent offence in the Indian Penal Code. The World War-I brought in its wake the Defence of India Act, 1915 which empowered the Government to intern people without charge or trial. The Government took advantage of this law and made arbitrary use of this power. It became apparent that the Defence Act was not only a war measure but was essentially intended to repress political movement and even to supersede the ordinary criminal law in some cases. The developments and circumstances which preceded immediately before the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1919, otherwise known as Montagu Chelmsford Reforms, are as follows: 1. Failure of the Repressive Measures.-The repressive policy adopted by the Government of India miserably failed to suppress the revolutionaries. On the contrary, it encouraged the terrorists to resort to terrorism, riots and conspiracies as a result of which the number of political murders and outrages increased considerably. The revolutionaries organised themselves into several secret societies throughout the country.1 The revolutionary movement gathered momentum outside India as well. The Indian Home Rule Society was established by Shyamji Krishnavarma in 1905. This society in its publications vehemently criticised the 1

In Punjab, Lala Har Dayal organised the revolutionary groups assisted by Ras Bihari and Amirchand. Abhinav bharat society was a revolutionary organisation under the leadership of Ganesh Sawarkar in Maharashtra.

Page 3 of 26

Government policies land encouraged Indians to strengthen the Swaraj-movement. One of the staunch supporters of this society was Vinayak Domodar Sawarkar, who was keen to intensify revolutionary activities in India. He took initiative in supplying literature to freedom fighters in Maharashtra and arranged arms and ammunition for them from London. The Muslim resentment against the annulment of partition of Bengal in 1911 also contributed to the spirit of revolt. They characterised this act of the Government as a great concession granted to Hindus and gross injustice to the Muslims in India. The declaration of war against Turkey led to Khilafat Movement. Some Indian students from Lahore left their college studies, in February, 1915 and entered the tribal territory beyond North-West Frontier to join the German and Turkish mission at Kabul in an attempt to overthrow the Indian Government. The Muslim League in its session at Karachi in 1913 had already resolved to patch up its differences with the Indian National Congress which paved the way for communal unity and common action for the attainment of self-Government for India. The Indian National Congress in its Madras Session in 1914 welcomed the attitude of Muslim League and emphasised the need for united action. 2. The Congress-League Concord - In 1915, Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a staunch nationalist at that time, took initiative of inviting Muslim League to hold its annual session at the same time and place as the Congress and both the organisations synchronised their session at Bombay in December same year, The Congress and the League resolved to cooperate in formulating a scheme of post war reforms and urge upon the British Government to accept the same. They adopted a joint scheme of constitutional reforms known as Congress-League Scheme or the Lucknow Pact, 1916 which, according to MontagueChelmsford Report was “the latest, most complete and most authoritative presentation of the claims of the leading Indian political organisations” and worthy of praise as a testimony to the growing force of national feeling.2 3. Humiliating treatment to Indians in South Africa and other British Colonies- Another reason that aroused the feeling of indignation among Indians against British regime was the humiliating treatment meted out to them in South Africa, Canada and other British Colonies. The Asiatic Registration Act, popularly known as the Black Act was passed by the Transaval Parliament in March 1907. Another Act3 of the same year completely barred the entry of

2 3

Report on the Indian Constitutional Reforms,(1918) Para 27 The Act was known as Transval Immigration Registration Act, 1907

Page 4 of 26

Indian newcomers in Transaval. These humiliating measures forced Mahatma Gandhi to launch a Satyagraha campaign in South Africa. The treatment meted out to Satyagrahis in jail was most inhuman and a number of them died of pneumonia and severe cold. Greatly perturbed by the loss of Indian life in South Africa, Mr Gokhle urged the Secretary of State for India to visit South Africa and study the conditions on the spot. While efforts were being made to repeal the Black Act and the poll tax law, another event again forced Indians in South Africa to agitate Mr Justice Searle of the Cape Supreme Court in his judgment dated March 14, 1913 declared all marriages not solemnised in the Christian fashion and not duly registered to be invalid. Mahatma Gandhi requested the Union Government to exempt Indians from this law but to no avail. Therefore, he organised a band of Satyagrahis called ‘Army of Peace’ who marched from New-Castle to the border of Transaval on 28 October, 1913. The Satyagrah gathered momentum and the “whole Indian community in South Africa rose like one man to combat the organised tyranny of the raceconscious arrogant Europeans.” Large subscriptions were raised all over India to which rich and poor contributed enthusiastically. Surprisingly, Lord Hardinge the Viceroy also supported the Indian cause and demanded an impartial enquiry into the allegations of inhuman treatment meted out to Satyagrahis. As a result of this a provisional agreement was drawn up between General Smut and Mahatma Gandhi which eventually led to the passage of the Indian Relief Act of 1914. The Act abolished the hated £ 3 poll-tax, validated Indian marriages and recognised the ‘domicile certificate’ as the conclusive evidence of the right of the holder to enter the Union. Similar efforts were made by certain Indians from Canada who voiced the sufferings and grievances of Indians in Canada. This created a political unrest in India. . 4. Outbreak of World War-I - The First World War which broke out in 1914 had a direct bearing on the constitutional history of India. It changed the course of political events in the country and at the same time compelled the British Government to survey the Indian problem from a ‘new angle of vision’. The great majority of Indians including the Indian National Congress displayed splendid devotion and loyalty to the British cause and naturally they expected due regard for showing their solidarity with the British Empire in the vindication of public law and protection of national rights.4 The Indians felt that the war was for the cause of liberty and justice. The Indian Princes also favourably responded to the British call and

4

Keith, A.B: A Constitutional History of India, p. 241.

Page 5 of 26

placed at the disposal of British Government all their resources. The Indian subscription to war loans amounted to euro 7.5 crores. Thousands of Indian soldiers suffered from muddle and misery while fighting for Britain in Mesopotamian campaign and in Palestine and East Africa. In short, the exemplary service rendered by India to the British Government during World War-I obliged the later to grant some substantial concession to the Indians. There was yet another effect of the World War-I which accelerated the cause of constitutional reforms in India. The war had infused a new sense of Self-esteem among Indians and given new force and vitality to India’s demand for self-Government. The constant pronouncements of British and American Statement that the war for the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights made Indian masses self-conscious and brought about a political awakening in the country. The Indians, therefore, claimed equality of treatment and clamoured for constitutional concessions. Taking a realistic view of these developments, Lord Chelmsford who succeeded Lord Hardinge in 1916, found no difficulty in holding that self-Government was the goal of British rule in India.5 5. The Home Rule Movement.-The Irish rebellion had an exciting effect on Indian politics and Mrs Annie Besant started a Home Rule Movement in India. She formally established a Home Rule League in a meeting at Madras on September 1, 1916. The object of the Home Rule Movement was two-fold Firstly, it aimed at affecting the unity of moderates and the extremists-the two wings of the Congress which had separated in 1907. Secondly, it aimed at launching an intensive propaganda for Home Rule of Self-Government throughout India. Mrs Besant carried on her Home Rule Movement in close cooperation with Lokmanya Tilak who had been released from jail in 1914. Tilak established the Home Rule League for Bombay region in September, 1916 with headquarters at Pune. As an immediate reaction of Mrs Annie Besant’s Home Rule Movement, nineteen elected members of the Supreme Council in October 1916, submitted a memorandum to the British Government in India containing proposals for post-war reforms. They expressed that they were no more content with merely the good and efficient Government but wanted a ‘responsible Government’. The memorandum further suggested that in the scheme of future reforms at least half the members of the Central and Provincial Executive Councils should be Indians, who were to be selected by the elected members of the respective Legislative Councils at both levels. The Supreme Legislative Councils should consist of not less than 150 5

Keith, A.B: A Constitutional History of India, p. 242.

Page 6 of 26

members whereas the membership of the Provincial Legislative Councils should be 100 in case of a major Province and 60 to 75 in the case of minor Provinces. The system of direct election should be followed and jurisdiction of the Central and Provincial Legislatures should be clearly defined. The post of Secretary of State for India should be abolished. The memorandum contained that the provincial autonomy should be granted to the Provinces and India must be equated with the Dominion countries. 6. Political unrest due to Annie Besant’s internment.-The Government of Madras and Bombay were greatly purturbed by the vigorous propaganda launched under the Home Rule Movement. The Defence of India Act, 1915 and Press Act, 1910 were extensively used by these Governments to restrain Mrs Besant, Mr Tilak and other revolutionary activists. Provoked by the activities of the revolutionaries, Lord Pentland, the Governor of Madras observed in the Madras Legislative Council that “all thoughts of early grant of responsible self-Government should be entirely out of mind”. He also ordered the internment of Mrs Annie Besant along with her two colleagues.6 This created great storm and the whole of the atmosphere became very tense. The All-India Congress Committee condemned the action of the Madras Government and made a strong representation to the Viceroy for the acceptance of India’s demand for Self-Government or Swaraj and Immediate release of the interned leaders. Viceroy turned a deaf ear to the representation made by the Indian National Congress was decided to resort to passive resistance movement which Mahatma Gandhi had successfully experimented in South Africa. But the government soon realised the implications and released Mrs Annie Besant and her two associates. Mrs Besant was later elected as the Indian National Congress for the session of 1917.

The August Declaration of 1917 “Political agitation in India”, observed G.N. Singh, “reached the highest point in July and August, 1917”. The publication of the Report of Mesopotamian Commission condemned the Government of India and the Secretary of State for conducting the Mesopotamians campaign in a deplorable way. Lord Hardinge tactfully, succeeded in shifting a great part of the blame on British War Office. In a speech during the debate on the Report of the Mesopotamian Commission in the House of Commons Mr Montagu, an ex Under Secretary of State for India blamed the Government of India for its rigidity and characterised it as “too unrealistic to be of any use for the modern purposes.” 6

The other two associates of Mrs Annie Besant were G.S. Arundale and B.P. Wadia.

Page 7 of 26

The statement made by Montagu in British Parliament furnished a soothing ground for the. Indian Nationalist Press to voice the demand for immediate change in the Government of India. In the meantime the war situation grew worse and the people of India readily offered to help but wanted definite promise of swaraj in near future. Consequently, realising the gravity of the situation Mr Montagu was appointed as Secretary of State for India in place of Chamberlain who had resigned. The Government announced removal of the ban which excluded Indians from the Commissioned ranks in the Army. On August 20, 1917 Mr Montagu made the historic declaration in the House of Commons which said that “the policy of His Majesty’s Government with which the Government of India is in complete accord, is that of increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to progressive realisation of the responsible Government in India as an integral, part of the British Empire…”7. He further announced that His Majesty’s Government had decided to send him to India almost immediately for the purposes of consultation and enquiry. An analysis of the Declaration, of August 20, 1917 indicates that it broadly contained four assurances: 

The self-Government within the Indian Empire was the ultimate goal of British Rule in India.



The self-Government was not to be given forthwith but was to be given in stages.



The successive stages were to be determined by the progress made by the Indians.



The British Parliament and the Government of India alone were to judge the time and measure for each advance.

Constitutional significance of the August Declaration (1917): The declaration of August 20, 1917 was a great landmark in the constitutional history of India. It was the first momentous announcement of British policy towards India. Even since the transfer of power from Company to the Crown, the Queen’s “Proclamation” of 1858 had remained the basis of the British policy for a period of sixty years, when it gave place to this historic declaration of Montagu in 1917. This declaration served a basis of British policy till the Independence of India.

7

Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, p. 1.

Page 8 of 26

The declaration is also significant for it declared officially for the first time that India would be treated like other dominions of the British Commonwealth and it laid down in unambiguous terms that self-Government was the ultimate goal of British policy in India. The declaration thus constituted the first milestone towards the grant of responsible Government to the people of India. Montagu’s Declaration of August, 1917 was indeed a revolutionary step in the sense that it promised responsible Government to India-a concession which was categorically denied by Mr Morley in 1908. Mr Morley had emphatically declared that he had no intention of introducing a Parliamentary form of Government in India. Thus it would be seen that the course of events during nine years (1908-17) had taken such a turn that the British rulers were obliged to change their policy towards India. That apart, the August Declaration of 1917 furnished a basis for the Indian National Congress to intensify its activities towards the achievement of Swami. Once the British Government had committed itself to a formula and laid down its ultimate policy, it could not go back from its commitments. Thus the Declaration indirectly helped to inculcate a sense of confidence and hope among the nationalists that their struggle for freedom had borne fruits. Encouraged by this achievement, they intensified their freedom movement. This does not, however, mean that the Declaration was free from defects. Its greatest demerit was that there was no specific mention as to the time and final stage when responsible Government would be granted to the people of India. The machinery devised under the Declaration, observes Coupland,“was hardly calculated to pave the way to liberty.” The fact that Indian progress was to be judged jointly by the British Parliament and Government of India was inconsistent with the spirit of liberty. Moreover, the announcement provided no time limit for each subsequent progress which rendered the Declaration vague and unsatisfactory. That apart, the Declaration had a negative effect from the point of view of national unity. The moderates took it as a great achievement while the extremists regarded it as a useless document. The Muslims noticed in it at once a victory of Hindu nationalism and a direct threat to Muslim community. Despite, these shortcomings, Declaration of August 20, 1917 marked, “the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one" in the process of constitutional advancement in India.

Page 9 of 26

The Montagu-Chelmsford Proposals: Immediately after the August Declaration of 1917 was made in the House of Commons, the Government of India in Shimla and a Committee of the India Office in London devoted themselves in the preliminary consideration of the problem involved. As already expressed in the Declaration of August 1917, Mr Montagu, the Secretary of State for India accompanied by a strong delegation, reached Bombay on November 10, 1917. The object of the MontaguMission was to make an enquiry into the political conditions in India, to hear the views of the people and of the Government officials and to formulate proposals in consultation with the Viceroy. Montagu conferred with the Viceroy, the Government of India and the Governors of Provinces and several Indians representing variety of people and interest. He earnestly desired that the whole scheme of reforms should come from the Indians themselves. Mr Montagu had to strain hard to make the Viceroy’s Executive Council, the Heads of the Provincial Governments, and the European Members of the Services agreeable to his scheme of reforms. He had to make large concessions to recalcitrant elements. The result was that the scheme which finally emerged possessed none of that grandeur which Mr Montagu had intended it to possess. The second and the more important task before Montagu Mission was to keep the Indian nationalists and revolutionaries engaged in deliberations and negotiations with the Secretary of State and his associates so that their attention be diverted from agitations and revolutionary activities and they were induced to help the British Government in the prosecution of war which had reached a most critical state during the year 1917. Montagu himself claimed that even if he failed to evolve an agreed scheme he had done something for which the Cabinet at Home ought to be grateful to him. He wrote, “I have kept India quiet for six months at a critical period of the war; I have set the politicians thinking of nothing else but my mission.” While finishing his Report on April 21, 1918, Mr Montagu observed that the main principle involved in his scheme of Reforms was that “instead of founding the Indian Government on the confidence of the people of England, we are to gradually found it on the confidence of the people of India.” The Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms known as the Montagu Chelmsford Report was published on July 8, 1918. The authors of the Report admitted in their preliminary survey that the machinery of Government in India as it existed did not meet the needs of the time. It worked slowly. There was a pressing demand from the educated Indians to reform the Page 10 of 26

working of the government and this suggestion was supported by the official opinion also. The report contained four governing principles which were to be embodied in, the new constitutional structure for the country. They were 

As far as possible there should be complete popular control in local bodies and they should be free from outside influences.



The steps for the progressive realisation of responsible Government should begin from the Provinces. To make a beginning, the Provinces should be given some measure of responsibility in legislative, administrative and financial matters of the Government. However, the Provinces were to be given complete responsibility as soon as the conditions permitted.



The Government of India was to remain wholly responsible to Parliament. The Indian Legislative Council was to be enlarged and made mom representative in character.



The control of the Parliament and the Secretary of State over the Government of India and Provincial Government was to be relaxed gradually in proportion to the constitutional changes introduced in the light of this scheme of Reforms.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Report merely enunciated the principles on questions relating to the functions of Central and Provincial Governments, franchise, and the relations between the Secretary of State in Council, the Government of India and the Provincial Governments. To complete the work, three Committees were appointed as suggested in the Report, These were: 

The Franchise Committee



The Functions Committee



The Committee on the Reorganisation of the India Office.

The Franchise Committee: The Franchise Committee under the president ship of Lord South Borough was to advise the Government on the franchise and constituencies in each Province and was to devise a scheme of direct elections as for as possible. It was also to consider as to how the territorial representation would give adequate representation to various interests and minorities in the Provincial Legislative Councils. It was also to suggest on the strength of the Provincial Councils and the number of nominated official members to be included in each of the Provincial Council.

Page 11 of 26

The Functions Committee: The Functions Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Richard Feetham was to advise about the functions that should be transferred to the Provinces and the extent and nature of control to be retained by the Government of India for the discharge of its responsibilities. It was also to recommend the departments of the administration which could be transferred to the Ministers.8

The Committee for reorganisation of India Office: The Committee for the Reorganisation of India Office was appointed in February 1918 under the Presidentship of Lord Crewe. It suggested that Council of India be abolished and the Secretary of State should be assisted by an Advisory Board to which he might refer such matters as he deemed necessary. The Board was to consist of not more than twelve members, one-third being persons domiciled in India and selected from a panel of names submitted by the non-official members of the Indian Legislature. The Committee also recommended the appointment of a High Commissioner for India who was to exercise agency functions on behalf of the Government of India in London.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1919 The Franchise and the Functions Committees presented their Reports to the Government of India on March 10, 1919. To give effect to the proposed constitutional changes a Bill was introduced in House of Commons on May 29, 1919 by Mr Montagu. It was referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament for consideration. The Joint Select Committee examined about seventy witness both official and non-official, Indians and British. The Committee proposed the inclusion of August, 1917 Declaration as preamble to the proposed Government of India Bill, 1919. The Joint Parliamentary Committee drew up its final report which was accepted by House of Commons and the Bill was amended accordingly. The Bill was passed by House of Commons on December 5, 1919 and by House of Lords on December 18, 1919. It received Royal assent on December 23, 1919. Before it could come into force, it had to be supplemented by Rules. The Rules so framed under the

8

The Franchise and Functions Committees were to meet in joint session whenever deemed necessary.

Page 12 of 26

Act were published by the Government of India on July 20, 1920, and the Government of India Act, 1919 finally came into force with effect from January 1, 1921.

Main provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919: The Government of India Act, 1919 is a great landmark in the constitutional history of India. It marks the beginning of a responsible Government in the country. It also brought about many remarkable changes in the administrative set up of the Indian Government and introduced some minor changes in the Government at Home, i.e., India Council in Britain. The provincial autonomy, the system of dyarchy, the bicameral system of legislature at Centre, the enlargement of Provincial Legislatures, the consolidation of separate electorates, the special powers of the Governors and Governor-General, the division of subjects under two lists, and the creation of a Chamber of Princess were some of the notable features related to the Provincial as well as the Central Government in India. The reorganisation of India Council, the creation 0f the office of the High Commissioner for India and relaxation in the control of the Secretary of State were some other important changes effected by the Act in the Home Government controlling Indian administration from Whitehall.

Preamble: As stated earlier the Government of India Act, 1919 in its preamble contained the whole part of the Declaration made by His Majesty’s Government in the British Parliament in August, 1917. Sir Tej Bhadur Sapru analysed it as follows:

British India was to remain an integral part of the British Empire;



Responsible Government in India was the objective of the declared policy of Parliament;



The responsible Government was capable of progressive realisation only; and



In order to achieve responsible Government it was necessary to provide for two things, namely, the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and gradual development of self-governing institutions.

The statement of policy and methods of its attainment as contained in the preamble were emphasised in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor General who was to be vigilant in implementing these policies at Centre and in the local governments of all Presidencies and Provinces. Page 13 of 26

I. Changes introduced in the Provincial Governments: Before the introduction of Reforms envisaged under the Government of India Act, 1919, British India comprised fifteen Provinces of Which three were headed by Governors-inCouncil, four by Lieutenant-Governors and eight by Chief Commissioners. By the Act of 1919, the Provinces of U.P., Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, Central Provinces and Assam were also to be governed by Governor-in-Council thus raising the total number of Governor’s Provinces to eight. The Act, however, did not raise Burma to the status of Governor’s Province. The Province of North-West Frontier was made a Governor’s Province in 1931. (1) Division of subjects between Centre and Provinces.-The central theme of Montford Reforms was to make a beginning to the Provincial autonomy in local governments in India. This implied freedom of control from above and also in a sense, transfer of power to the people. To achieve this object, the subjects of administration and sources of income were divided and grouped in two lists called to (i) Central subjects, and (ii) the Provincial subjects. The subject which concerned whole of India or more than one Province and necessitated a uniform policy were enumerated in the Central list and included defence, foreign and political relations, public debt, customs, post and telegraphs, currency, communication (i.e., railways, aircraft and inland waterways), All India Services, civil and criminal law and procedures, etc. The subjects such as, public health, sanitation, education, public works, irrigation, forests, agriculture; excise, veterinary department, fisheries and co-operative societies, famine relief, land revenue, police and prisons, etc. were included in the Provincial list to be dealt with by the local governments. It is, however, to be noted that the division of functions was not as definite as in a federation. In case of doubt whether a particular matter lay within the competence of the Central or Provincial Government, the decision of the Governor General was final. All matters not specially declared to be provincial subjects were to be considered as central subjects. This, is other words, meant that under this scheme the residuary powers were vested in the Central Government. The Government of India Act, 1919 also introduced division in the sources of revenue. However, with a view to meeting the deficit of the Central Government, a system of provincial contribution was devised which was to cease as soon as the Government of India was able to develop its own resources to meet the entire expenditure. The division of sources of revenue was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Meston Committee. Land revenue and income from excise, irrigation, forests, stamps and registration fees etc. Page 14 of 26

was assigned to the Provinces while the income from customs, income-tax, railways, posts and telegraphs, salt and opium was to go to the Centre. However, 25% of the income-tax collections in the Provinces were to be appropriated by each of the Provinces. The Devolution Rules framed under the Act of 1919 also provided for legislative devolution and gave power to the Provincial Legislatures to make laws for the good government of the Province. The previous sanction of the Governor General was no longer necessary to legislate on any provincial subject except in certain exceptional cases. The statutory rules framed under the Act provided that the Governor General could exercise control and issue directions only for the purposes of safeguarding the administration of central subjects, to decide questions arising between two Provinces if they failed to settle them mutually for preserving the imperial interests. (2) Dyarchy in Provinces.-The Montagu-Chelmsford Report emphasised that steps towards the progressive realisation of responsible Government should first be taken in Provinces. They were, however convinced that ‘complete responsibility was not possible at that time and it would lead to complete breakdown. Therefore, the scheme envisaged under the Government of India Act, 1919 contemplated the transference of responsibility for certain functions of the Government to the elected representatives of the people in the Provinces while reserving control of the Governor over others. The system so introduced was known as ‘dyarchy’. The provincial subjects were divided into two classes, viz. the ‘Transferred’ and the ’Reserved’ subjects.9 Among the Transferred’ subjects were included the local selfgovernment, education, medical administration, sanitation and public health, public works, agriculture, development of industries, veterinary department, fisheries and co-operative societies. The ’Reserved’ subjects included finance, land revenue. famine relief, justice, police, prison, criminal law and procedure and the control Of newspapers and print media, irrigation, mines, electricity, public services, etc. The responsibility for the proper administration of the ‘Reserved’ subjects lay with the Governor-in-Council of the Province while the ‘Transferred’ subjects were controlled by the Governor acting with his Minister. It Would thus be evident that with the introduction the system of dyarchy in eight Governor’s Provinces the executive government of each of these Provinces consisted of two parts, one

9

Section 45 (1) (d) of the government of India Act, 1919 provided for rules being framed by the government of transfer for among the provincial subjects.

Page 15 of 26

comprising the Governor and his Executive Council and the other consisting of the Governor acting through his Ministers. (3) The Provincial Executive.-With the introduction of ’Dyarchy’ under the Government of India Act, 1919 the executive government in the Province was split into two distinct parts. One comprising the Governor-in-Council, while the other consisting of the Governor and his Ministers, the one almost foreign the other wholly Indian, the one in charge of reserved subjects the other of transferred subjects, the one responsible to the Government of India the other to the Provincial Legislature. The Governor of the Province played a pivotal role in the new system. He was appointed for a term of five years by His Majesty. The members of the Executive Council of the Governor were also appointed by His Majesty for five years’ and on salaries fixed by the Act and were charged upon the revenue or the Province. The number of executive councillors was not to exceed four, of whom one must be person who had served the Crown in India for at least twelve years. In practice, there were four members in the Executive Council in each of the Provinces of Bengal, Madras and Bombay with two Indian members while in other Provinces there were two Executive Councillors, one of whom was an Indian. All members of the Executive Council were ex officio members of the Legislative Council but they were not responsible to the latter.

Ministerial Responsibility The Act of 1919 made a genuine effort to provide a responsible Government in Provinces by appointing Ministers who were to guide the Governor for the administration of transferred subjects. The Governor was to act on the advice of his Ministers so far decisions relating to transferred subjects were concerned unless he had sufficient cause to dissent from their advice, in which case he could take action otherwise than in accordance with that advice. There was no statutory limit to the number of ministers. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report proposed that every Governor should have one or more ministers but the Joint Parliamentary Committee recommended that there should be at least two ministers in each Governor’s Province. In actual practice there were three ministers in each of the Presidencies,‘ the United Provinces and Punjab, and two in each of the others four provinces. The ministers were to be the elected members of the Provincial Legislative Council. If they were not so elected at the time of their appointment, they were required to get themselves elected within a period of six months. They were appointed by the Governor and held office during his pleasure. In case of emergency arising out of the resignation of a minister the other minister was asked to add the Page 16 of 26

subject to his charge, or when this could not be possible, the Governor himself could take charge of these subjects temporarily.

Council Secretaries The Governor of the Province was empowered to appoint in his discretion, Council Secretaries from among the non-official members of the Council. They held office during his pleasure and performed the duties of assisting members of the Executive and the Ministers in their Work.

Provincial Legislature With the introduction of responsible Government in each of the eight major Provinces the question of reforming the Legislatures of these Provinces assumed great importance. Montford Report did not favour the proposal to establish second chambers in the Provinces but instead stressed on the need to enlarge the size, of the Legislative Council with a substantial elected majority with such communal and special representation as may be deemed necessary. The members were to be elected by direct franchise and the size of the Legislative Council was to depend on its population. Thus, unicameral Legislature called the ’Legislative Council’ was set up in each of the eight Provinces under the Act of 1919. Similar Legislative Council was formed in Burma in 1923 when it was raised to a Governor’s Province. The Act also provided that at least 70 per cent members of a Council should be elected members and not more than 20 per cent should be official members. The MontaguChelmsford Report did not contemplate abolition of the ’official element’ in the Legislative Councils. The official experience of these members was greatly advantageous to steady discussion in the Council. The Members of the Executive Council were ex officio members of the Legislative Council. The official members were, however, disqualified for contesting election. If a non-official member accepted office in the service of the Crown in India, his seat in the Council was deemed to have fallen vacant. The Legislative Council also consisted of non-official members nominated by the Governor. This was with a view to redressing inequalities in giving representation to different classes or communities which might otherwise go unrepresented.

Page 17 of 26

Franchise Montford Report had recommended direct system of election for Provincial Legislatures. Therefore, the Provincial Councils set up under the Act of 1919 consisted of members who were directly elected by the people. The normal qualifications for the voter was residence within the constituency and payment of a small amount by way of land-revenue, rent or local rates in rural areas and municipal rates in urban areas. All persons who paid Income-tax and all retired, pensioners or discharged officers or men of regular forces had right to vote. Women were initially denied franchise but the Provincial Councils were empowered to remove this disqualification. Those who were not British subjects or were below 21 years of age or of unsound mind were not eligible for voting.

Communal Representation As regards the communal representation, Montagu-Chelmsford Report did not favour it because it was considered injurious to the development of responsible Government. Nevertheless, this concession had to be extended to Muslims on account of the earlier commitments. Similar representation was allowed to Sikhs in Punjab. The Franchise Committee further extended this concession to Indian Christians, Europeans and AngloIndians. The Joint Parliamentary Committee recommended reservation of seats in the Legislative Council to Marathas in Bombay and non-Brahmins in Madras. In addition to communal electorates, the Act also provided for special representation to different groups and interests such as, landlords, zamindars, universities, chambers of commerce, plantation and mining interests and mill owners associations.

Duration of the Legislative Council The normal duration of the Legislative Council was three years. It could be dissolved even earlier by the Governor. He could also extend the life of the Legislative Council for a period not exceeding one year. The Act also provided for the appointment of a President and Deputy President for the legislative Council. Hitherto, the Governor himself used to preside but under the Act he ceased to be a member of the Council though his right of addressing the Council was still recognised. To begin with, the President of the Council was to be appointed by the Governor for a term of four years but thereafter the Council was to elect its own President from among its members. The Deputy President was, however elected by the members of the Council and was not a Governor’s appointee. Page 18 of 26

Legislative Powers of the Provincial Legislative Council The Provincial Legislative Council was given the power to make laws “for the peace and good Government” of the Province. But this power was restricted in several ways. Firstly, the devolution rules required the sanction of the Governor-General in several cases. Secondly, the Governor was given the power of passing legislation on reserved subjects despite its rejection by the Legislative Council. Thirdly, the Governor was empowered to stop, at any stage, the consideration of a bill on the ground that it affected peace and tranquillity of the Province. Lastly, the Governor as well as the Governor-General could veto the Bills passed by the Legislative Council or could return the measure to the Council for reconsideration. In addition the Crown had the power of disallowing any enactment of provincial legislature.

II Changes introduced in the Central Government Montagu-Chelmsford Report did not propose any change in the character of the Government at the Centre and wanted the Government of India to remain wholly responsible to the British Parliament. Nevertheless, it was deemed necessary to enlarge the Indian Legislative Council and make it more responsible.10 Therefore, the Government of India Act, 1919 reconstituted the Central Legislature. There were to be two chambers of the Central Legislature in future, namely, the Council of State and the Indian Legislative Assembly.

(1) The Executive Council The Constitution of Viceroy’s Executive Council was slightly modified. The maximum limit imposed on the membership of the Executive Council was removed and pleaders of the Indian High Courts with ten year’s standing practise were eligible for membership of the Executive Council. The Act provided for the appointment of Council Secretaries from among the members of the Indian Legislative Assembly. Three members of the Executive Council were to possess the qualification of ten years’ experience in the service of the Crown in India. Three Indians were appointed to the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee.

10

Report of the Indian Constitutional Reforms (1918), Para 190

Page 19 of 26

(2) The Governor General-in-Council The Central Government comprised the Governor-General-in-Council with eight members including the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief who looked after the Army Department, The remaining six members were placed in charge of Home Finance, Legislature, Commerce including Railways, Education, Health, and Lands and Industry and Labour Departments. Each Executive Councillor was to be a member of one or the other House of the Central Legislature. With the election or nomination of a member to the Governor-General’s Council, his seat in the House to which he belonged was to be deemed to have fallen vacant. The Governor General presided over the meetings of the Executive Council. In his absence the Executive Member whom the Governor General appointed as Vice-President was to preside in the meetings. The Presiding Officer and one member (other than Commander-inChief) formed the quorum and exercised functions of the Government of India. The decisions in the Executive Council were taken by majority votes. In case of equality of votes the Governor General was empowered to veto the majority decision if in his opinion safety or tranquillity of British India or any part thereof was affected. In actual practice only more important matters were decided at the meetings of the Executive Council and matters of routine were disposed of by the Member in charge of the Department concerned.

Functions of the Government of IndiaThe Government of India was to administer the central subjects. In addition, it had two more functions to perform which were as follows: (i) The Government of India was entrusted with the power of superintendence, direction and control over Provincial Government in respect of all reserved subjects. In regard to transferred subjects, the supervision and interference of the Government of India was required either to safeguard the administration of central subjects or to decide disputed questions between two Provinces or to safeguard Civil Services in India. (ii) The Government of India was also responsible for administration of all subjects within the area of British India not included within the boundaries of the nine Governor’ s Provinces.3 The areas were governed by the Chief Commissioner and the local Executives

Page 20 of 26

were merely agencies of the Government of India. The revenue and expenditure relating to these Commissionaires were part of the Central budget.

(3) The Central Legislature The Central Legislature established under the Act of 1919 consisted of two Chambers, namely, the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly. (i) The Council of State - The authors of Montagu-Chelmsford Report while conceding to an elected majority in Legislative Assembly, established a Council of State as a second Chamber in which Government will be able to command a majority. Under the Rules framed by the Government of India, the Council of State was to consist not more than sixty members, of whom not more than twenty were officials. Election of the members was to be direct but franchise for the Council was extremely restricted. It was based on high property qualifications so that only a few wealthy land owners and merchants could secure representation in this upper Chamber. For instance, in Madras only those having property fetching annual income of Rs. 3,000/or paying land-revenues worth Rs. 1,300 or income-tax on at least Rs. 20,000/could vote for Council of State. Other qualifications for the voters included membership of the University Senate or holding of certain specified title, etc. The women could neither contest elections nor vote in the election for Council State. The term of the Council was five years unless it was dissolved earlier. The President of the Council of State was nominated by the Governor General from amongst its members. Decisions were taken by majority votes and the President had a casting vote. (ii) The Legislative Assembly- The lower House called the Indian Legislative Assembly consisted of 143 members, of whom 103 were elected and 40 were nominated. Of the forty nominated members, 26 were official members and 14 were nominated non-officials. The Governor General was not a member of either House but he could address any House. The franchise qualifications for Assembly seats were also very high. Thus in Madras only those who paid income-tax or land revenue not less than Rs. 50/ per annum or a municipal tax not less than Rs. 20/ per annum were eligible to vote. The allocation of seats in the Legislative Assembly among the Provinces was not on the basis of population but upon the importance of each Province. Thus, the Province of Bombay because of its commercial importance was given equal representation with Madras though its population was not even

Page 21 of 26

half than that of Madras. Similarly, Punjab with two-third of population of Bihar and Orissa was given the same number of seats because of the former’s military importance. The normal duration of Legislative Assembly was three years. The Governor General could dissolve the Assembly even earlier. But in such a case he was to hold next session within not more than six months or with the sanction of Secretary of State for India, not more than nine months from the date of dissolution. He could also adjourn or prorogue the Assembly. The first President of the Assembly was nominated by the Governor General for four years after which he was to be elected by the Assembly itself.

III. The Indian States: Recognising the importance of the native States, the Act proposed the constitution of a Chamber of Princes so that consultation with the Heads of these States could be possible. The Chamber of Princes was set up at Delhi on February 8, 1921 by a Royal Proclamation. The inaugural ceremony was performed by the Duke of Connaught in the Diwani-Am of Moghul Palace in Delhi on behalf of the King-Emperor. The Chamber also called as ‘Narendra Mandal’ was to meet annually for discussion on issues of common interest. The Chamber represented 108 ruling Princes and twelve representatives of the ruling Chiefs. The Viceroy was its President. A Standing Committee comprising four or five members of the Chamber of Princes advised the political Department of the Government on questions referred to it. Disputes between two States or a State and a local Government or the Government of India were referred to for report by a Commission presided over by a Judge and consisting of the nominee of either side. If the Viceroy could not accept their finding, he could refer it to the Secretary of State. Similarly, allegations and charges against a ruler were to be entrusted to a Judge, two ruling princes and two other persons. All important states were placed in direct relations with the viceroy instead of the local governments.

IV. Changes introduced in the Indian Civil Services: The Government of India Act, 1919 also contained provisions regularising the position of the civil services in India.1 All existing rules relating to civil services were retained but they could, however, be altered by the rules made in future. The power of making rules, regarding the classifications of the civil services in India, methods of recruitment and conditions of their services, pay and allowances, discipline and conduct was vested with the Secretary of State in Council who could delegate his power to the Governor General-in-Council or the Page 22 of 26

local Governments. The Secretary of State in Council could also authorise the Central or Provincial Legislatures to regularise the public services subject to the condition that the rules so framed would not be to the disadvantage of civil servants appointed before the commencement of the Act of 1919. No civil servant could be dismissed by an authority inferior to that by which he was appointed and the Secretary of State could reinstate any dismissed person. The Act of 1919 also authorised the establishment of a Public Service Commission in India2 with not more than five members to hold office for five years but with eligibility for reappointment and removable only by the Secretary of State in Council. Its functions extended to the recruitment and control of civil services. The Secretary of State was to make rules to facilitate the entry of Indians to the Indian Civil Service3. Section 39 of the Act also provided that no office could be added or taken off from the civil service list and no remuneration could be varied without consultation by the Government concerned within the financial authority designated in the rule and the Secretary of State could appoint an Auditor General with such functions as assigned to him.

Failure of the act 1919 (1) The powers of Governor-General under the Act of 1919, virtually made him a constitutional dictator-Though the reforms introduced under the Act of 1919 added a second Chamber to the Central Legislature and increased the number of its elected members, yet it failed to establish even partial responsible Government at the Centre. The Central Legislature had no share in vital matters such as controlling the Executive, formulating legislation and directing the finances. Almost sixty per cent of the budget was excluded from the vote of the Legislative Assembly which constituted the lower House of the Central Legislature. Moreover, the Governor General had wide discretionary powers in matters of finance and he could restore any demand refused by the Central Legislature. In case of emergency he was the sole judge to take decision on any financial matter. Thus Legislature had no financial powers and its legislative powers were also sufficiently curtailed. The Governor General could withhold any Bill from his assent of could amend it the way he liked. He could certify and Bill and sign it as a permanent law despite Legislature’s opposition to it. The second Chamber called the Council of State was so constituted that it provided an additional safeguard for the Government. (2) Absence of responsible Government at the Centre-The Government of India Act, 1919, no doubt contained provisions regarding the additional of a few more Indian members to Page 23 of 26

Viceroy’s Executive Council but they tended to be merely, yes-men to the Executive Council in order to retain their position. Commenting adversely on the absence of even a partially responsible Government at the Centre. (3) The system of communal electorate encouraged fractionalism among the IndiansThe Act of 1919 extended communal representation to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Europeans and Anglo-Indians besides the Muslims. Provisions were also made for electorates representing special interest, such as universities, trade and commerce, landholders etc. This obviously led to clash of interest between the different groups of India society. The communal representation originated by Morley-Minto in 1909 and consolidated by Montague Chelmsford Reforms widened the differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities in India which eventually paved way to partition of India in 1947. (4) Restricted franchise was against the principle of democracy and self-Government.The franchise for both the Houses of the Central Legislature was extremely restricted. High property qualifications, such as payment of land revenue worth Rs. 1300/ or Income-tax on not less than Rs. 20,000/a year in Province of Madras, or membership of University-Senate, prescribed by the Act for Council of State made the “Upper House the representative and custodian of the vested interests of Zamindars and the capitalist classes”. Similar restrictions on franchise also existed for the Legislative Assembly. These limitations and undemocratic character of the Legislature were a glaring defect in the Reforms introduced by the Act of 1919. (5) The political atmosphere of the country at the time of the introduction of the Montague-Chelmsford reforms was not favourable - One of the main causes which accounted for the breakdown of the system of reforms envisaged by the Act of 1919 was that they were introduced at a time when the conditions in India were not suited to any political reforms. The Defence of India Act which was a war-time measure expired in 1917 and the Government wanted a fresh measure to suppress anti-British propaganda and revolutionists in India. Therefore, a Committee under the leadership of Rowlatt was appointed which submitted its report in October, 1918. The recommendations of Rowlatt Committee came in the form of Rowlatt Bill which soon became an Act despite strong opposition from the Indians. To add to the distrust and discontent of the Indian masses, and Jallianwala Bagh incident, at Amritsar on April 13, 1919, created horror and hatred for British rule in the minds of Indians. Page 24 of 26

Another unlucky state that cast an evil eye upon the inauguration of Reforms was the Khilafat Movement organised by Muslims in India in protest against the treaty of Severes, in 1920. The Muslims thought that their loyalty to British during World War-I “counted for nothing in the day of victory”. The Congress also joined hands with Muslims in the Khilafat Movement with a view to embarrassing the British Government. The cumulative effect of these events completely destroyed the goodwill which alone could have animated the inauguration of Reforms of 1919. The new Indian Legislatures could not function properly in an atmosphere of agitation and attitude of indifference towards the British. The phraseology of the Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919 made it clear that the British rulers themselves were not very sure about the successful working of the Reforms. They considered the constitutional changes introduced by the Act of 1919 as experiment rather than a beginning of a well-defined Constitution.

Page 25 of 26

Conclusion: The Reforms introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919 were not appreciated by the Indian leaders. The people in general denounced them as a ‘poor reward for Indian’s services’ while the Indian National Congress characterised them as wholly ‘inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing’. The scheme of reforms did not satisfy even the moderates who felt that their hopes were duped. The Reforms suffered from many grave defects, some of them being due to the complex and complicated system of dyarchy introduced in Provinces, the absence of responsible Government in the Centre and consolidation of separate electorates. The system of dyarchy introduced by the Act of 1919 in the Provinces was a complex system having no logical basis and was rooted in compromise. The system operated in a spirit of harmony, goodwill and co-operation between Legislature and the Executive during the first three years after the commencement of the Act, but it soon cracked down after 1924 being unsatisfactory and unworkable Pt. Motilal Nehru in his Presidential address at Amritsar Congress held in 1919 remarked that the most serious omission in the Act was that it failed to provide for any transference of administrative or political power to the representatives of the people in the Central Government Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Montague Chelmsford Reforms introduced revolutionary changes in the sense that it promised responsible government which was categorically denied to Indian People by the Morley-Minto Scheme of 1909.

Page 26 of 26