Milestones in Indian Governance: The Morley-Minto Reforms and Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

The Indian Councils Act of 1909, popularly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, marked a significant milestone in the constitutional development of British India. It was the first serious attempt to introduce a representative element into the governance of India by expanding the legislative councils and allowing a limited number of Indians to participate in the legislative process.

Background

Discontent with Previous Reforms: The Indian Councils Act of 1892 failed to meet the aspirations of the Indian populace for greater participation in governance.

• The Indian National Congress (INC), established in 1885, consistently demanded increased legislative representation and involvement in administration.
• Rise of Nationalism: Lord Curzon’s Policies: His imperialist and autocratic measures, including the partition of Bengal in 1905, intensified anti-British sentiments.
• • Swadeshi Movement: The partition sparked widespread protests and the Swadeshi movement, promoting indigenous industries and self-reliance.
  • Emergence of Extremists: Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai advocated for more radical approaches against British rule.
• International Influences: Japanese Victory over Russia (1905): Shattered the myth of European invincibility, inspiring Asian nations.
  • Discrimination Abroad: Ill-treatment of Indians in British colonies like South Africa fueled national resentment.
• British Response: To pacify growing unrest and the demands of moderate Indian leaders, the British government decided to introduce reforms.
  • Lord Minto (Viceroy of India) and John Morley (Secretary of State for India) collaborated on the reform proposals.

Key Provisions of the Act

Limitations of the Act

• Limited Franchise and Indirect Elections:
  • Electorate was very narrow, based on property, taxation, or educational qualifications.
  • Elections were indirect, with elected members chosen by electoral colleges rather than direct popular vote.
• No Real Legislative Power
  • Councils remained advisory; the executive was not responsible to them.
  • Resolutions and discussions had no binding effect on the government.
• Communalization of Politics
  • Separate Electorates:
    • Fostered divisions along religious lines.
    • Set a precedent for communal representation, leading to long-term communal tensions.
• Representation of Elites
  • Emphasized representation of landlords and commercial interests.
  • Did not reflect the broader interests of the common populace.

Significance

• First Step Towards Representative Governance
  • Introduced elective principles in the legislative councils.
  • Recognized the importance of Indian participation in governance.
• Increased Political Awareness
  • Provided a platform for Indian leaders to articulate grievances and demands.
  • Encouraged political debates and discussions on public matters.
• Foundation for Future Reforms
  • Highlighted the need for more substantial constitutional reforms.
  • Set the stage for the Government of India Act, 1919 and subsequent demands for self-governance.

The Government of India Act, 1919 (The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms)

The Government of India Act, 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, was a significant constitutional reform that aimed to introduce self-governing institutions gradually in India. It marked a substantial step towards responsible government by introducing Dyarchy in the provinces and expanding the participation of Indians in governance.

Background

• Demand for Self-Government
  • Growing nationalist sentiments and demands for Swaraj (self-rule) by the Indian National Congress.
  • Contributions of India in World War I heightened expectations for political concessions.
• Montagu’s Declaration (August 20, 1917)
  • Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, declared the British policy of increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration.
  • Promised progressive realization of responsible government in India.
• Collaboration between Montagu and Chelmsford
  • Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, worked with Montagu to formulate the reform proposals.

Key Provisions of the Act

Limitations of the Act

• Ineffectiveness of Dyarchy: The division of subjects was impractical and confusing.
  • Governors often interfered in transferred subjects, undermining ministers.
• Limited Franchise: Voting rights restricted to a small, privileged section based on property and education.
  • Excluded the vast majority of the Indian population.
• Communal Electorates: Further entrenched communal divisions.
  • Fostered separatism and hindered national unity.
• No Responsible Government at the Centre: Central executive remained autocratic and unaccountable.
  • Legislative powers were limited and often overridden by the Governor-General.
• Continued British Control: Key areas like defense, foreign affairs, and communications remained under British control.
  • The Secretary of State and the British Parliament retained ultimate authority.

Significance

• Progress Towards Self-Government: Marked a step forward by involving Indians in administration at the provincial level.
  • Provided practical experience in governance to Indian ministers.
• Stimulated Political Participation: Increased political awareness and activism among Indians.
  • Encouraged the growth of political parties and leadership.
• Foundation for Future Reforms: The shortcomings of the Act highlighted the need for more comprehensive reforms.
  • Set the stage for the Simon Commission (1927) and the subsequent Government of India Act, 1935.
• Catalyst for National Movements: Disappointment with the Act led to widespread dissatisfaction.
  • Contributed to the launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920) led by Mahatma Gandhi.

Conclusion

The Indian Councils Act of 1909 and the Government of India Act of 1919 were pivotal in India’s constitutional evolution. While they introduced elements of self-governance and increased Indian participation in administration, both Acts had significant limitations. The communal electorates and restricted powers hindered the development of a truly representative and unified national government. These reforms, though inadequate, were instrumental in galvanizing Indian nationalist sentiments and set the foundation for India’s eventual struggle for complete independence.

DOWNLOAD PDF