Answer:

Introduction

The Government of India Act, 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, emerged following World War I to address demands for Indian self-government. It marked a significant shift in British India’s governance, reflecting constitutional reforms aimed at gradual decentralization and Indian self-governance, maintaining British dominance overall.

Body

Far-reaching implications of the Government of India Act, 1919, on British India

• Establishment of Dyarchy in Provinces: It introduced the system of ‘diarchy’, a dual form of government, in eight major provinces. This meant that governance was divided into ‘transferred’ subjects administered by Indian ministers and ‘reserved’ subjects under British control.
• Bicameralism: The Act introduced bicameralism in six out of eight provinces. This was a significant step towards establishing a parliamentary system in India. But, the majority of Indians were still without franchise rights, limiting the effect of this reform.
• Extension of Suffrage: The Act expanded the voting rights, but it was still limited to those who met certain income and property qualifications. The limited suffrage indirectly led to the strengthening of communal divisions as most voters were urban and upper-caste Hindus and Muslims.
• Separate Electorates: The Act extended separate electorates for Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans, which further entrenched communal divisions in Indian society. This became a contentious issue, leading to significant social and political problems.
• Central Legislative Council Expansion: The Central Legislative Council was expanded to include more elected Indian representatives. However, they had limited powers and couldn’t question the executive actions of the Government.
• Public Service Commission: It was established to handle civil service appointments, which was a step towards making the administration more transparent and accountable. Still, it was seen as a method to retain British control over important administrative positions.
• Budgetary Powers: The Indian members of the Legislative Council had the power to discuss the budget and propose amendments, but the British could veto any changes. This power was illusory as the crucial financial sectors remained under British control.
• Separation of Law and Order and local self-government: The Act separated the executive functions of the provincial government into two departments – law and order, and local self- government. This division aimed to grant Indian ministers a share in the administration while maintaining control over sensitive law and order matters.

Intricate and significant responses it elicited from the leadership of the nascent national movement

• Limited Autonomy: Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak criticized the Act’s limited provision of autonomy. They saw ‘diarchy’ as a sham for genuine power-sharing, observing that crucial portfolios like finance and police were still controlled by British officials.
• Role of Moderates: Moderates like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and V.S. Srinivasa Sastri cautiously welcomed the Act. They saw in it an opportunity to demonstrate Indian administrative capability, even while acknowledging its limitations.
• Response from Extremists: Extremists, such as Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal, rejected the Act, stating it fell short of the demand for complete Swaraj. Rai’s book “Unhappy India” voiced these criticisms, expressing discontentment with the Act.
• Criticism of Diarchy: Figures like Motilal Nehru critiqued the diarchy, arguing it fostered administrative inefficiency. They asserted that the power divisions were a deliberate British strategy to obstruct effective Indian administration.
• Demand for Full Responsible Government: The Act’s deficiencies spurred a demand for more autonomy. The Indian National Congress‘s 1920 session emphasized this, with leaders like C.R. Das vocalizing the need for ‘full responsible government’.
• Non-Cooperation Movement: The Act’s perceived shortcomings, along with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, prompted Mahatma Gandhi to launch the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920, symbolizing a nationwide rejection of the Act.
• Criticizing Limited Franchise: Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar criticized the Act’s limited franchise, arguing that excluding a large number of Indians from the electoral process was anti- democratic and perpetuated social inequities.
• Call for Constitutional Revision: The Act’s inadequacies led to the call for a thorough constitutional overhaul. As seen in the formation of the Motilal Nehru Committee (1928), which drafted a constitution that proposed a federal structure with residuary powers at the centre.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, the Government of India Act, 1919, sparked a demand for greater autonomy, igniting the flame of self-governance. It catalyzed the evolution of the Indian National Movement, leading to the creation of modern democratic India, with its robust federal structure and universal suffrage.