The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 introduced significant changes, including the concept of dyarchy and expanded legislative councils. Despite its promise, the Government of India Act faced criticism for limited franchise, ineffective administrative divisions, and minimal control for elected bodies. The Congress deemed the reforms disappointing, highlighting the gaps between British promises and actual implementation. This act marked a crucial yet contested phase in India's constitutional development.
×
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919
The British government introduced the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919, following the policy of 'carrot and stick'—where the reforms represented the 'carrot' and the repressive Rowlatt Act represented the 'stick'.
Based on Montagu’s 1917 statement, the Government of India Act, 1919 was enacted to introduce certain constitutional reforms.
Executive: Dyarchy was introduced, splitting the executive between executive councillors and popular ministers. The governor was the executive head in the province.
Subjects were divided into two lists: 'reserved' (e.g., law and order, finance) and 'transferred' (e.g., education, health). The reserved subjects were administered by the governor through his executive council of bureaucrats, while the transferred subjects were administered by ministers nominated from among the elected members of the legislative council.
Ministers were responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them. Executive councillors, however, were not responsible to the legislature.
In case of failure of constitutional machinery, the governor could assume control over the administration of transferred subjects as well.
The Secretary of State for India and the governor-general had limited interference in the transferred subjects but could intervene in reserved subjects.
Legislature:
Provincial legislative councils were expanded, with 70% of the members elected. This expansion aimed to increase Indian representation.
The system of communal and class electorates was further entrenched, consolidating existing divisions.
Women gained the right to vote, marking a significant step towards gender inclusion in the political process.
The legislative councils could propose legislation, but the governor’s assent was necessary. The governor had the power to veto bills and issue ordinances.
The councils could reject parts of the budget, but the governor retained the power to restore it if deemed necessary.
Legislators were granted freedom of speech within the legislative assemblies.
Central Government—Still Without Responsible Government
Executive: The governor-general was the chief executive authority, with significant control over the central administration.
Two lists for administration were established: central and provincial. This structure aimed to delineate responsibilities but maintained centralized control.
The viceroy’s executive council comprised eight members, including three Indians, marking a gradual inclusion of Indians in high administrative roles.
The governor-general retained full control over reserved subjects in the provinces, limiting the autonomy of provincial administrations.
The governor-general had the authority to restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the central legislature, and issue ordinances, consolidating executive power.
Legislature:
A bicameral arrangement was introduced: the Central Legislative Assembly with 145 members (41 nominated and 104 elected) and the Council of State with 60 members (26 nominated and 34 elected).
The Council of State had a 5-year tenure and consisted only of male members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had a 3-year tenure.
Legislators could ask questions, propose motions, and vote on parts of the budget, though 75% of the budget was not subject to voting.
Some Indians were appointed to significant committees, including those related to finance, enhancing their influence in policy-making.
Home Government Changes
The Government of India Act, 1919 brought a notable change: the Secretary of State for India was to be financed from the British exchequer, affecting the financial arrangements of colonial administration.
The franchise was very limited, extending to approximately one-and-a-half million for the central legislature, compared to India's total population of around 260 million.
At the central level, the legislature had no control over the viceroy and his executive council, limiting legislative authority.
The division of subjects between central and provincial administrations was criticized for being ineffective and cumbersome.
Seat allocation in the central legislature was based on the 'importance' of provinces, leading to perceived inequities in representation.
In the provinces, the division of subjects and the parallel administration created inefficiencies and conflicts between ministers and bureaucrats.
Provincial ministers lacked control over finances and were often overruled by governors on important matters, leading to administrative friction.
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."
Prominent leaders like Tilak described the reforms as "unworthy and disappointing—a sunless dawn," while Annie Besant criticized them as "unworthy of England to offer and India to accept."
We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By continuing to browse, you agree to our use of cookies. Please review our
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Use for more information.
