Montagu’s Statement of August 1917 marked a shift in British policy towards increasing Indian participation in administration and aiming for responsible government. Despite this, the concept of 'dyarchy' retained British control, and the lack of a clear timeline for reforms led to Indian objections. Leaders were concerned about the lack of Indian input in deciding their political future and the indefinite nature of the promised changes.
The August Declaration: On August 20, 1917, Edwin Samuel Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, delivered a statement in the British House of Commons known as the August Declaration of 1917. It outlined the British government’s policy for increasing Indian participation in administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions aimed at achieving responsible government within the British Empire.
Implications of the Statement:
The declaration marked a significant policy shift from Morley’s 1909 statement, which had denied any intention to grant self-government to India. It implied that the demand for self-government was no longer seditious but rather aligned with government policy.
The term ‘responsible government’ indicated that rulers would be accountable to elected representatives, not just to the imperial government in London. This suggested a degree of accountability and reform.
Despite this, the British made it clear that they had no intention of transferring power to legislatures with an Indian majority. To address the need for some Indian representation, the concept of ‘dyarchy’ was introduced, allowing partial Indian involvement while maintaining overall British control.
Concept of Dyarchy: The introduction of dyarchy aimed to balance Indian representation in government while retaining significant British control. This concept was meant to ensure some level of Indian participation without granting full power to Indian representatives.
Political Context: The statement was part of a broader strategy to placate Indian nationalists and reduce political unrest. It was seen as a response to increasing demands for self-rule and the political pressure exerted by the Home Rule Movement and the Lucknow Pact.
Lack of Specific Time Frame: The declaration did not specify a clear timeline for the implementation of self-government, leading to concerns about indefinite delays and lack of concrete progress.
Decision-Making Power: Indian leaders were frustrated that the British government retained sole authority to determine the nature and timing of reforms. They felt that such significant decisions about their future should involve Indian input and not be solely decided by British authorities.
Perception of British Intentions: Many Indian leaders viewed the statement as a tactical move to appease nationalist sentiments while maintaining control over Indian governance. The introduction of dyarchy was seen as a way to limit the effectiveness of Indian participation in government.
Continued British Control: The concept of dyarchy, while providing some Indian representation, was criticized for not addressing the broader demands for full self-rule. It was perceived as a way for the British to maintain ultimate control over Indian administration.
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.
