In World War I, the British claimed that they stood for the protection of democracy around the world. Thus, the Indians, who fought for them in this war, demanded that democracy should also be introduced in their country. The newly promoted Secretary of State for India, Lord Montagu, said that in order to satisfy the local demands, his government was interested in giving more representation to the natives in India.
In November 1917, the Viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford, and the Secretary of State for India carried out a fact-finding tour of India. After discussions with local leaders, in July 1919, they issued the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, sometimes called the Montford Report. The two leaders stated that a system of Government should be introduced in India which gave some measure of responsibility to representatives chosen by an electorate.
Reforms
The Secretary of State for India would control affairs relating to the Government of India.
At the center, the central legislative council was to be replaced by the bicameral legislature – the Council of State (Upper House) and the Central Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
The Council of State would have 60 members, 33 of whom would be elected for a period of 5 years.
The Legislative Council should now be known as the Legislative Assembly. It would have 145 members, of which 103 would be elected for a period of 3 years. There should be separate electorates for Muslims and Sikhs, with 32 seats reserved for Muslims.
A Council of Princes was also set up with 108 members to allow princes to debate matters of importance. But it had no power and some princes did not even bother to attend what was little more than a 'talking shop'.
The Viceroy could pass any law he chose, if he felt it was necessary for the safety of India. Provincial Ministers were to be chosen by him and he could dismiss the minister if he feels like.
The Executive Council was still made up of only nominated members, although three of these were now to be Indians.
The British claimed that they were extending voting rights to more local people, but the new regulations still meant that only 5.5 million (or 2%) of India’s 250 million population could vote.
The British Government stated that a commission was to be set up after 10 years to enquire into the workings of the reforms set up in 1919.
In the provinces, a new system of dyarchy was introduced. It gave authority to the Central Government to interfere in the provincial matters. Under this system, areas of responsibility were divided into two lists.
Reserved Subjects – Justice, Police, Revenue, Power Resources, Press and Publication, etc. were controlled by the Provincial Governor and his Executive Council, which had between two and four members nominated by the Governor.
Transferred Subjects – Local Government, Education, Public Health, Public Works, Forests, etc. were entrusted to ministers responsible to Provincial Legislative Councils.
Reaction of the Indian People
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were set out in the Government of India Act of 1919. If the British thought that they would be welcomed with enthusiasm by a grateful Indian population, they were totally mistaken. Many Indians had fought with the British in World War I and they expected much greater concessions.
The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League had recently come together, calling for self-rule, and they were bitterly disappointed by the new structure. At a special session of the Congress in August 1919, the reforms were condemned as inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. Only the moderates in Congress supported the measures and they were soon excluded from the party.
It was true that the local people had more of a say in how their country was governed, but, in reality, the British maintained their grip on power by ensuring that the Viceroy had the authority to control how India was governed.
There was also one other unexpected outcome of the Reforms. The British had reluctantly accepted the separate electorates for the Muslims and the Sikhs. Soon, the non-Brahmins and Euphrates were calling for concessions too. As these were granted, the divisions within the Indian society were increasingly emphasized.
Why did the Indians reject these?
As the Provincial Legislative Councils were elected by the people, this looked as if there was a substantial degree of involvement by local people, but it should not be forgotten that the ministers were chosen from the Legislative Council by the Viceroy himself. So, he had the real power. Indeed, under certain circumstances, the Viceroy had the authority to dismiss the Provincial Legislative Councils.
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms disappointed the Muslims and the Hindus as they had hoped for greater concessions. The Central government reserved sweeping powers for itself with only minor concessions for the locals. As the Indians had supported the British during World War I, they felt that the British Government should reward this by giving them more responsibility in running their own affairs.
The role in the central administration for the Indians was further restricted by the power of Viceroy, who could still pass any law he chose and could suspend the constitution, if he felt it was necessary for the safety of India.
Only 2% of India’s 250 million population could vote. Voting is the right which was taken from the Indians.
Comments
Post a Comment