The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

The British government, unwilling to relinquish or share its authority with Indians, adopted a strategy that combined incentives and punitive measures, often described as the ‘carrot and stick’ approach. In this context, the ‘carrot’ represented the superficial Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, while actions like the Rowlatt Act served as the ‘stick,’ signifying a coercive approach. In alignment with the government’s position outlined in Montagu’s statement from August 1917, additional constitutional reforms were introduced in July 1918, known as the Montagu-Chelmsford or Montford Reforms. These reforms set the stage for the enactment of the Government of India Act in 1919. The Act aimed to create an appearance of constitutional change while retaining substantial control in British hands. Many perceived these reforms as inadequate and lacking in genuine delegation of power to Indians.

Significant Provisions 

Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy

• Executive: The Government of India Act of 1919 introduced the system of dyarchy at the provincial government level. Here are the key provisions and features of the executive under this dyarchic structure:
  • Dyarchy, or Rule of Two: The executive setup was divided between executive councilors and popular ministers, with the governor serving as the executive head of the province.
  • Division of Subjects: Subjects were categorized into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ lists. Reserved subjects encompassed areas like law and order, finance, land revenue, and irrigation. 
    • Transferred subjects included education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, and exercise.
  • Administration: The reserved subjects were to be administered by the governor through his executive council, primarily consisting of bureaucrats.
    • The transferred subjects were to be managed by ministers chosen from the elected members of the legislative council.
  • Ministerial Responsibility: Ministers responsible for the transferred subjects were answerable to the legislature. They were required to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them.
    • Executive councilors, in charge of reserved subjects, were not answerable to the legislature.
  • Failure of Constitutional Machinery: In the event of a breakdown in the constitutional system in the province, the governor could assume control of the administration of both reserved and transferred subjects.
  • Scope of Interference: The Secretary of State for India and the Governor-General retained the authority to intervene regarding reserved subjects. 
    • However, their interference in matters related to transferred subjects was limited.

This dyarchic structure essentially divided authority between elected ministers and appointed executive councillors, leading to a shared form of governance with separate responsibilities and accountability within the provincial administration.

• Legislature: Under the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1919, the legislature in the provinces saw several significant changes:
  • Expansion of Provincial Legislative Councils: The legislative councils at the provincial level were expanded, with 70% of their members elected through an electoral process.
  • Consolidation of Communal and Class Electorates: The Act further solidified the system of communal and class electorates, maintaining separate electorates based on religious and social classes. 
    • In addition to the Muslims, Sikhs were granted separate electorate too, while seats were reserved for the non-Brahmans in Madras and the ‘depressed classes’ were offered nominated seats in the legislatures at all levels.
  • Women’s Right to Vote: The Act granted women the right to vote, extending the franchise to include female participation in the electoral process.
  • Legislative Initiatives and Governor’s Authority: Legislative councils were empowered to introduce legislation, but the governor’s approval was necessary for these laws to take effect. 
    • The governor had the authority to veto bills and issue ordinances.
  • Budget Approval and Governor’s Power: The legislative councils held the authority to reject the budget. However, the governor had the power to reinstate the budget if deemed necessary.
  • Freedom of Speech for Legislators: Legislators were granted the freedom of speech, allowing them to express their opinions and concerns within the legislative framework.

Central Government—Still Without Responsible Government

• Executive:

• • Chief Executive Authority: The Governor-General was designated as the chief executive authority at the all-India level.
  • Division of Administration: Two lists were established for administration – central and provincial, akin to the arrangement in the provinces.
  • Composition of Executive Council: The Viceroy’s executive council consisted of eight members, of which three were to be Indian representatives.
  • Control over Reserved Subjects: The Governor-General retained complete control over the reserved subjects in the provinces, similar to the powers held by provincial governors.
  • Governor-General’s Authority: The Governor-General possessed significant powers, including the ability to reinstate reductions in grants, certify bills rejected by the central legislature, and issue ordinances.

This setup did not envision a responsible government at the central level and maintained a hierarchical governance structure where the Governor-General retained substantial control over crucial matters, and decision-making authority rested primarily within the executive council headed by the Governor-General.

• Legislature: Under the Government of India Act of 1919, significant alterations were introduced in the legislative structure and the functions of the legislature:
• Bicameral System: The Act introduced a bicameral arrangement, consisting of two houses—a lower house known as the Central Legislative Assembly and an upper house, the Council of State.
• Composition of Central Legislative Council: The Central Legislative Assembly comprised 145 members, 41 nominated and 104 elected, with diverse representation including various communities (General, Muslims, Sikhs, Special).
• Composition of Council of States: The Council of State had 60 members, with 26 nominated and 34 elected, comprising different sections (General, Muslims, Europeans, and Sikhs).
• Tenure and Functionality: The Council of State had a tenure of 5 years and consisted only of male members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had a tenure of 3 years.
• Legislative Powers: Legislators were granted certain powers such as the ability to ask questions and supplementary questions, pass adjournment motions, and vote on a part of the budget. 
• However, a significant portion (75%) of the budget remained non-votable.
• Indian Representation: Some Indian members were appointed to crucial committees, including the finance committee.
• Financial Reforms: Regarding changes in the home government (in Britain), an important amendment was made as the Secretary of State for India was henceforth to be remunerated from the British exchequer, signifying a shift in the financial framework related to the role of the Secretary of State for India.

Limitations

The reforms outlined in the Government of India Act of 1919 had several limitations and drawbacks:

• Limited Franchise: The electorate was extremely restricted, with only about one-and-a-half million eligible voters for the central legislature, despite the Indian population being around 260 million, which significantly limited democratic representation.
• Lack of Control Over the Viceroy and Executive Council: The central legislature had no authority or control over the Viceroy and his executive council, limiting the legislature’s influence on crucial decisions.
• Unsatisfactory Division of Subjects at the Centre: The delineation of subjects between the central legislature and the executive was not effectively executed, leading to ambiguities and inadequacies.
• Allocation of Seats Based on Provincial Importance: The allocation of seats for the central legislature was based on the perceived ‘importance’ of provinces, such as Punjab’s military significance or Bombay’s commercial importance, which might not have accurately reflected the diverse needs and representation of the population.
• Irrational Division of Subjects and Administration at the Provincial Level: The division of subjects and the parallel administration of two separate sections within provinces were deemed irrational and impractical. 
  • Some critical subjects like irrigation, finance, police, press, and justice were designated as ‘reserved’, limiting the control of elected ministers.
• Lack of Control for Provincial Ministers: Provincial ministers had limited control over financial matters and bureaucrats, resulting in ongoing tensions and conflicts. 
  • Additionally, these ministers were often excluded from critical decision-making processes and could be overruled by the governor on any matter deemed ‘special’, further reducing their influence.

Congress’ Reaction:

The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-government instead.

Conclusion

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, of 1919, represented a superficial attempt at constitutional change, marked by a dichotomy between limited Indian participation and extensive British control. Despite introducing dyarchy and expanding legislative councils, the reforms fell short of granting substantive power or genuine self-government to Indians. This half-hearted approach ultimately led to dissatisfaction among Indian leaders and highlighted the need for more profound constitutional reforms.

DOWNLOAD PDF