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

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

The Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, marked a significant step in India’s constitutional development. Enacted in response to the British Government’s declaration on August 20, 1917, to gradually introduce responsible governance in India, the act attempted to decentralize administration and expand Indian participation in governance.

Key Features of the Government of India Act, 1919

1. Devolution of Powers

The Act classified subjects of administration into:

● Central subjects:— Administered by the Central Government.
● Provincial subjects:— Administered by provincial governments.
This division was formalized under the Devolution Rules, relaxing central control and delegating authority to the provinces. However, the overall structure remained centralized and unitary.

2. Dyarchy in Provinces

Provincial subjects were further divided into:
● Transferred subjects:— Administered by ministers responsible to the provincial legislative council. These included public health, education, agriculture, and local self-government.
● Reserved subjects:— Administered by the Governor and his executive council, not responsible to the legislature. These included police, land revenue, and justice.
This dual system of governance, termed Dyarchy, proved largely ineffective due to confusion and conflicts between the reserved and transferred subjects.

3. Bicameral Legislature and Direct Elections

The Act introduced bicameralism at the central level:
● Upper House:— Council of State.
● Lower House:— Legislative Assembly.
Members of both houses were partly elected through direct elections, marking a significant democratic advancement.

4. Representation in the Viceroy’s Executive Council

Three out of six members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council (excluding the Commander-in-Chief) were required to be Indians, reflecting increased Indian participation in governance.

5. Extension of Communal Representation

● The Act extended the principle of separate electorates to include:— Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans.
● This deepened communal divisions, as different communities were represented separately in the legislature.

6. Restricted Franchise

Voting rights were granted to a limited number of people, based on:
● Property ownership.
● Tax payment.
● Educational qualifications.
This meant only a small elite could participate in elections.

7. High Commissioner for India

● The Act created the office of the High Commissioner for India in London.
● Some functions of the Secretary of State for India were transferred to this office, such as handling trade and commercial affairs.

8. Public Service Commission

● The Act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission to oversee recruitment of civil servants.
● The Central Public Service Commission was constituted in 1926 under this provision.

9. Separation of Budgets

● For the first time, provincial budgets were separated from the Central budget, granting provincial legislatures authority to enact their own budgets.

10. Statutory Commission

● The Act mandated the appointment of a statutory commission to review its functioning after ten years.
● This provision eventually led to the appointment of the Simon Commission in 1927.

11. Chamber of Princes (Narendra Mandal)

● The Act proposed the establishment of the Chamber of Princes to enable consultation with Indian princely states.
● Inaugurated in 1921, it consisted of:
● 108 Princes.
● 12 representatives from smaller states.
● The chamber was headed by the Viceroy and addressed issues of common interest.

Significance of the Act

1. Foundation for Decentralization:— The Act marked a shift towards decentralization, albeit limited, by delegating powers to provinces.
2. Increased Indian Representation:— By including Indians in governance and introducing direct elections, it acknowledged Indian aspirations for greater involvement in administration.
3. Institutional Development:— The Act laid the groundwork for future constitutional developments, such as the **Government of India Act of 1935.
4. Communal Politics:— The extension of separate electorates entrenched communal divisions, influencing later political developments, including the partition of India.

Criticism of the Act

1. Ineffectiveness of Dyarchy:— Dyarchy created confusion and conflict between the “reserved” and “transferred” subjects, undermining its effectiveness.
2. Limited Franchise:— The voting rights were restricted to a privileged minority, excluding the vast majority of Indians.
3. Centralized Control:— Despite the devolution of powers, the Central Government retained significant control, limiting provincial autonomy.
4. Communal Representation:— The extension of separate electorates deepened communal divisions, countering the goal of national unity.

Legacy of the Government of India Act, 1919

● The Act served as a precursor to the Government of India Act, 1935, which introduced further reforms and autonomy.
● It fostered political awareness and participation, despite its limitations.
● The communal representation provisions influenced the trajectory of Indian politics, contributing to the eventual partition of India.

Conclusion

The Government of India Act, 1919, was a step toward constitutional reform in India, reflecting the British response to growing nationalist demands. While it introduced significant changes, such as dyarchy and direct elections, it fell short of Indian aspirations for responsible self-governance. The act’s shortcomings fueled greater nationalist agitation, setting the stage for subsequent demands for full independence.

Simon Commission (1927)

The Simon Commission of 1927 marked a critical juncture in India’s constitutional history. It was a statutory commission appointed by the British Government to assess the functioning of the Indian Constitution under the Government of India Act of 1919 and to recommend future constitutional reforms. However, its composition, recommendations, and the events that followed make it a landmark in India’s struggle for self-governance.

Background of the Simon Commission

1. Purpose:—
   ● The Government of India Act, 1919, included a provision for a review after ten years to assess its implementation and recommend changes.
   ● In 1927, two years ahead of schedule, the British Government set up the Simon Commission to expedite the process.
2. Composition:—
   ● The commission comprised seven British members, with Sir John Simon as the chairman.
   ● It included no Indian members, which was perceived as an insult to Indian aspirations for self-governance.
3. Timing:— The announcement came at a time of rising Indian nationalism, marked by demands for greater autonomy and increasing opposition to British rule.

Reactions in India

1. Widespread Boycott:
   ● Exclusion of Indians:— The absence of Indian representation in the commission outraged political leaders and the public.
   ● Unified Opposition:—
   • The Indian National Congress, under leaders like Motilal Nehru and Jawaharlal Nehru, decided to boycott the commission.
   • Even the Muslim League, usually more conciliatory towards British policies, opposed it.
2. Protests and Slogans:
   ● Across India, protests erupted with the slogan “Simon Go Back“.
   ● Demonstrations were widespread, involving leaders from all major political parties.
3. Police Repression:
   ● Protests were met with police violence.
   ● The Lala Lajpat Rai incident in Lahore was a notable consequence. Rai, leading a protest, was lathi-charged by police and later succumbed to his injuries, becoming a martyr for the independence movement.

Report of the Simon Commission (1930)

After extensive investigations and consultations, the commission submitted its report in 1930. The major recommendations were:

1. Abolition of Dyarchy:—
   ● Suggested ending the dyarchy system in provinces, which had divided subjects into “reserved” and “transferred” categories under the Government of India Act, 1919.
   ● Advocated for responsible government in provinces.
2. Federal Structure:— Proposed the establishment of a federation, including British India and princely states, to ensure administrative efficiency.
3. Continuation of Communal Electorate:— Recommended maintaining separate electorates for different religious and social communities, perpetuating divisive politics.
4. Provincial Autonomy:— Advocated for greater autonomy in provinces by expanding legislative powers and making provincial governments more accountable to their legislatures.
5. No Dominion Status:— The report ignored Indian demands for Dominion Status, further alienating Indian leaders.

Aftermath and Legacy

1. Round Table Conferences

To consider the Simon Commission’s recommendations, the British Government convened three Round Table Conferences between 1930 and 1932. These conferences included representatives from:
(i) The British Government.
(ii) British Indian provinces.
(iii) Indian princely states.

2. White Paper on Constitutional Reforms

● Following the discussions, a White Paper on Constitutional Reforms was prepared, summarizing the deliberations and outcomes.
● The paper served as the foundation for the Government of India Act, 1935.

3. Impact on Indian Politics

● Increased Nationalism:— The exclusion of Indians from the Simon Commission united Indian political factions in opposition to British policies.
● Civil Disobedience Movement:— The widespread dissatisfaction with the Simon Commission’s recommendations contributed to the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement under Mahatma Gandhi in 1930.
● Martyrdom of Lala Lajpat Rai:— His death became a rallying point for Indian nationalists.

4. Government of India Act, 1935

Many recommendations of the Simon Commission were incorporated into the Government of India Act, 1935, albeit with modifications.

Criticism of the Simon Commission

1. Lack of Indian Representation:— The absence of Indian members rendered the commission illegitimate in the eyes of the Indian populace.
2. Perpetuation of Divide-and-Rule:— The recommendation to continue separate electorates deepened communal divisions.
3. Neglect of Dominion Status:— Ignoring the Indian demand for Dominion Status alienated moderate Indian leaders.
4. Failure to Address Key Issues:— The commission failed to propose measures for greater inclusivity or address the growing demands for complete independence.

Conclusion

The Simon Commission was a turning point in India’s struggle for independence. Though its recommendations formed the basis for the Government of India Act, 1935, the commission is remembered more for its role in uniting Indians against colonial rule. Its exclusion of Indians, coupled with repressive measures during protests, underscored the inadequacies of British policies in addressing Indian aspirations. The widespread resistance to the Simon Commission laid the groundwork for subsequent movements that eventually led to India’s independence in 1947.

Communal Award (1932): A Critical Juncture in Indian Politics

In August 16, 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald introduced the Communal Award, a scheme of minority representation in India’s legislative councils. This announcement, controversial and divisive, marked a turning point in the political landscape of colonial India. It deepened communal divisions while also raising fundamental questions about the representation of marginalized communities, particularly the Depressed Classes (Scheduled Castes).

Background of the Communal Award

1. Historical Context:—
   ● The British policy of divide and rule, initiated during their early governance, found its culmination in measures like the Communal Award.
   ● Separate electorates for Muslims were introduced in the Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) and further extended in subsequent constitutional reforms.
2. Objective of the Award:—
   ● Aimed to secure representation for minority communities in legislative bodies.
   ● Reinforced the British approach of addressing Indian demands piecemeal, rather than through holistic reforms.

Provisions of the Communal Award

1. Continuation of Separate Electorates:— Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans were to continue electing their representatives through separate electorates.
2. Extension to Depressed Classes:—
   ● For the first time, the Depressed Classes (Scheduled Castes) were granted separate electorates.
   ● This meant that members of these communities would vote for their own representatives, distinct from the broader Hindu electorate.
3. Seats for Minorities:— Allocated specific quotas for minority communities in the legislatures to ensure their representation.

Reactions to the Communal Award

1. Indian National Congress

● Opposition to Separate Electorates:
● The Congress had long opposed the concept of separate electorates, viewing it as a tool to divide Indian society along communal lines.
● It supported joint electorates with reserved seats to ensure minority representation without fostering divisions.

2. Mahatma Gandhi’s Response

(i) Strong Opposition:—
● Gandhi saw the extension of separate electorates to the Depressed Classes as a grave threat to Hindu unity.
● He feared it would permanently fragment Hindu society and weaken the nationalist movement.
(ii) Fast Unto Death:—
● While imprisoned in Yerawada Jail (Poona), Gandhi declared a fast unto death to protest the Award.
● This dramatic act aimed to pressure political leaders into finding a solution that avoided dividing Hindu society.

3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Position

Support for Separate Electorates:—
● As a leader of the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar supported the provision, believing it would empower the community politically.
● He argued that separate electorates were necessary to ensure the representation and protection of the marginalized.

The Poona Pact (1932)

1. Agreement Between Gandhi and Ambedkar

After intense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Gandhi and Ambedkar, known as the Poona Pact.
Key provisions included:
● Abolition of Separate Electorates:— The Depressed Classes would not have separate electorates but would vote within the Hindu joint electorate.
● Reservation of Seats:— A significant number of seats were reserved for the Depressed Classes in provincial and central legislatures.
● Educational and Social Benefits:— The Pact also called for special measures to uplift the Depressed Classes socially and economically.

2. Outcome

● Gandhi ended his fast after the agreement.
● The British Government accepted the terms of the Poona Pact, and the Communal Award was modified to exclude separate electorates for the Depressed Classes.

Impact of the Communal Award and Poona Pact

1. On the Depressed Classes

● Empowerment Through Reserved Seats:— The Poona Pact granted the Depressed Classes substantial representation in legislatures, ensuring their voices were heard.
● Continued Marginalization:— Critics argue that the elimination of separate electorates limited the autonomy of the Depressed Classes, leaving their representatives dependent on the larger Hindu electorate.

2. On Indian Politics

● Strengthened Communal Representation:— The Communal Award reinforced the British strategy of communal representation, which deepened divisions in Indian society.
● Unity Among Hindus:— The Poona Pact avoided further fragmentation within Hindu society, which was crucial for the nationalist movement.

3. On Gandhi-Ambedkar Relations

● Tensions and Mutual Respect:— While the Poona Pact was a compromise, it highlighted fundamental differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar regarding strategies for the upliftment of the Depressed Classes.

Incorporation in the Government of India Act, 1935

The provisions of the Poona Pact were integrated into the Government of India Act, 1935, which became the blueprint for India’s political structure until independence. Key aspects included:

1. Reserved Seats:— The central and provincial legislatures provided for reserved seats for the Depressed Classes within joint electorates.
2. Inclusion of Modified Communal Award:— The broader framework of the Communal Award, with the modification for the Depressed Classes, formed the basis for legislative representation under the Act.

Criticism of the Communal Award

1. Perpetuation of Divide-and-Rule:— Critics argue that the British used the Communal Award to deepen divisions within Indian society, weakening the nationalist movement.
2. Neglect of Unified Indian Identity:— The Award’s focus on communal representation hindered the development of a unified Indian political identity.
3. Marginalization of Depressed Classes:— Some believe that the compromise reached in the Poona Pact diluted the political power of the Depressed Classes by denying them separate electorates.

Conclusion

The Communal Award of 1932 was a pivotal event in Indian history, showcasing the interplay of British policies, communal tensions, and the complex dynamics of India’s struggle for independence. While it attempted to address the representation of minorities and marginalized communities, its divisive nature fueled political and social tensions. The subsequent Poona Pact represented a compromise, balancing the interests of the nationalist movement and the Depressed Classes. Together, these developments highlighted the challenges of creating an inclusive political framework in colonial India, setting the stage for future debates on representation and social justice in independent India

_