Indian Council Act (Morley-Minto Act) 1909

The Morley-Minto reforms named after the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs Lord John Morley
and the Viceroy Lord Minto was the alternative name given to Indian Councils Act 1909. It
introduced for the first time the method of election, an attempt to widen the scope of legislative
councils, placate the demands of moderates in Indian National Congress and to increase the
participation of Indians in the governance. The Act amended the Indian Councils Acts of 1861 and
1892.
Background of the Act

 In October 1906, a group of Muslim elites called the Shimla Deputation, led by
the Agha Khan, met Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the
Muslims and representation in excess of their numerical strength in view of ‘the
value of the contribution’ Muslims were making ‘to the defence of the empire’.
 The same group quickly took over the Muslim League, initially floated by Nawab
Salimullah of Dacca along with Nawabs Mohsin-ul- Mulk and Waqar-ul-Mulk in
December 1906.
 The Muslim League intended to preach loyalty to the empire and to keep the
Muslim intelligentsia away from the Congress.
 John Morley, the Liberal Secretary of State for India, and the Conservative
Viceroy of India, Minto, believed that cracking down on uprising in Bengal was
necessary but not sufficient for restoring stability to the British Raj after Lord
Curzon’s partitioning of Bengal.
 They believed that a dramatic step was required to put heart into loyal
elements of the Indian upper classes and the growing Westernised section of
the population.

Features of the Act

 It considerably increased the size of the legislative councils, both Central and
provincial. The number of members in the Central Legislative Council was raised
from 16 to 60. The number of members in the provincial legislative councils was
not uniform.
 It retained official majority in the Central Legislative Council but allowed the
provincial legislative councils to have non-official majority.
 The elected members were to be indirectly elected. The local bodies were to
elect an electoral college, which in turn would elect members of provincial
legislatures, who in turn would elect members of the central legislature.
  It enlarged the deliberative functions of the legislative councils at both the
levels. For example, members were allowed to ask supplementary questions,
move resolutions on the budget, and so on.
 It provided (for the first time) for the association of Indians with the executive
Councils of the Viceroy and Governors. Satyendra Prasad Sinha became the
first Indian to join the Viceroy’s Executive Council. He was appointed as the law
member. Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State
for Indian Affairs.
 It introduced a system of communal representation for Muslims by accepting
the concept of ‘separate electorate’. Under this, the Muslim members were to be
elected only by Muslim voters. Thus, the Act ‘legalised communalism’ and Lord
Minto came to be known as the Father of Communal Electorate.
 It also provided for the separate representation of presidency corporations,
chambers of commerce, universities and zamindars.

Evaluation of the Reforms

 The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer and could afford no answer to the
Indian political problem. Lord Morley made it clear that colonial self-
government (as demanded by the Congress) was not suitable for India, and he
was against introduction of parliamentary or responsible government in India.
 The ‘constitutional’ reforms were, in fact, aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks
by confusing the Moderates and at checking the growth of unity among Indians
through the obnoxious instrument of separate electorates.
 The Government aimed at rallying the Moderates and the Muslims against the
rising tide of nationalism.
 The officials and the Muslim leaders often talked of the entire community when
they talked of the separate electorates, but in reality it meant the appeasement
of a small section of the Muslim elite only.
 Congress considered separate electorate to be undemocratic and hindering the
development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national feeling.
 Besides, system of election was too indirect and it gave the impression of
infiltration of legislators through a number of sieves.
 And, while parliamentary forms were introduced, no responsibility was
conceded, which sometimes led to thoughtless and irresponsible criticism of the
Government.
 Only some members like Gokhale put to constructive use the opportunity to
debate in the councils by demanding universal primary education, attacking
 repressive policies and drawing attention to the plight of indentured labour and
Indian workers in South Africa.
 The position of the Governor- General remained unchanged and his veto power
remained undiluted and the Act was successfully maintained relentless
constitutional autocracy.
 The reforms of 1909 gave to the people of the country a shadow rather than
substance.

The Act of 1909 was important for the following reasons:

 It effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various legislative

councils in India for the first time, though previously some Indians had been
appointed to legislative councils.
 The introduction of the electoral principle laid the groundwork for a
parliamentary system even though this was contrary to the intent of Morley.
 It also gave recognition to the elective principle as the basis of the composition
of legislative council for the first time.
 It gave some further avenues to Indians to ventilate their grievances. They also
got opportunity to criticise the executives and make suggestions for better
administration
 After Jinnah’s death in September 1948, Pakistan lurched towards Islamic
orthodoxy and Dalits faced mounting attacks.

Indian Council Act of 1909 was instituted to placate the moderates and appeasement to the
disseminate Muslims from National Movement by granting them separate electorate. The people
had demanded self-government but what they were given was ‘benevolent despotism’.

August Declaration – Background

 The First World War, the rapid growth of revolutionary activities, and the popularity of
the Home Rule Movement all had an impact on the British Government, which decided
to change its policies and adopt a more conciliatory attitude toward Indian nationalist
demands.
 During a debate in the House of Commons on July 12, 1917, Edwin Montagu delivered
a scathing indictment of the entire system by which India was governed.
 He also supported India's claim to have a greater say in how their government is run.
 Montagu was appointed Secretary of State of India shortly after.
 He sympathized with the aspirations of the Indian people and can thus be compared to
people such as Lord Pethick Lawrence and Sir Stafford Cripps.
 He brought a fresh perspective to his workplace.
 On August 20, 1917, when the Allies' fortunes were at their lowest ebb, he declared,
o "The government policy is of increasing participation of Indians in every
branch of administration and gradual development of self-governing institutions
with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as
an integral part of the British Empire."
August Declaration – Objectives
 Giving more representation to Indian natives in order to meet local demands. To achieve
this goal, the country would implement new reforms.
 Control of the Indian government would be gradually transferred to the Indian people.
This was the result of the Lucknow Pact's Hindu-Muslim unity.
 Increased Indian participation in administration and the development of self-governing
institutions in India.

August Declaration – Outcome

 Nationalists' demand for self-government or home rule could no longer be considered
seditious because achieving self-government for Indians had now become a government
policy, in contrast to Morley's statement in 1909 that the reforms were not intended to
give India self-government.
 Also implied in the use of the term "responsible government" was the requirement that
rulers be answerable to elected representatives rather than just the imperial
government in London.
 It was also clear that the British had no intention of ceding power to predominantly
elected legislatures with an Indian majority.
 So, in order to make the executive more accountable to the elected assemblies, whose
size and proportion of elected members were going to be increased in any case,
the concept of 'dyarchy' was to be developed.

India’s Objection to August Declaration

 It was criticized by nationalists because it fell short of their legitimate expectations.
 The declaration was criticized during the December 1917 Calcutta session, which was
presided over by Annie Besant, who pleaded for the establishment of self-government in
India.
 Tilak called the Montague reforms "unworthy and disappointing - a sunless dawn."
 Annie Besant described it as "unworthy of England to offer and India to accept."
 No time frame was specified.
 The government alone was to decide the nature and timing of the transition to a
responsible government, and Indians were resentful that the British would decide what
was good and bad for Indians.

Conclusion
The declaration's significance stems from the fact that it began in categorical terms as to what
the British Government's goal in India would be. It is on the same level as the Queen's
Proclamation of 1858. While it is seen as "the most momentous utterance ever made in India's
chequered history," it also marked "the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one."

The Government of India Act (1919) - Historical

Background
 The Government of India Act (1919) was based on the recommendations of a report
submitted by Edwin Montagu. Edwin Montagu was the then secretary of State for India
in the year 1917.
  Montagu presented this report to the Cabinet. The report outlined his aim to work towards
the gradual development of free institutions in India which will lead to ultimate self-
government.
 But Lord Chelmsford advised Montagu to work towards strengthening Indian participation
in every aspect of government and the gradual creation of self-governing institutions
instead of developing free institutions.
 Lord Chelmsford’s ideas were accepted by the Cabinet, and Edwin Montagu's plans was
approved.
 This was the reason why the Government of India Act (1919) was often called
the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms.

The Government of India Act (1919) - Objective

 The primary objective of the Government of India Act (1919) was to ensure that Indians
were represented in the government.
 This Act introduced reforms at both the federal and provincial levels of the government.

The Government of India Act (1919) - Key Provisions

Diarchy

 The Government of India Act (1919) introduced diarchy at the Provincial Level.
Diarchy means a dual set of governments where one set of government is accountable
while the other is not.
 The control over provinces was relaxed by separating subjects as ‘central subjects’ and
‘provincial subjects’.

Division of Subjects

 The provincial government's subjects were separated into two divisions: reserved
subjects and transferred subjects.
 The reserved subjects were under the supervision of the British Governor of that province
and the transferred subjects were assigned to the Indian Ministers of that province.
 Subjects under the Transferred List: Local self-government, public works, sanitation,
industrial research, and the establishment of new companies were all in the Transferred
List.
 Subjects under the Reserved List: Justice Administration, Press, Revenue, Forests,
Labour Dispute Settlements, Water, Agricultural Loans, Police, and Prisons were in the
Reserved List.
 The Secretary of State and the Governor-General had the authority to interfere in things
covered by the reserved list, but only to a limited extent in matters covered by the
transferred list.

Legislative Changes

 Legislature had no power to pass any bill without the assent of the Viceroy while on the
contrary Viceroy could enact a bill without the legislature's assent
 Bicameralism was introduced in the Central Legislature by this act. The lower house
was the Legislative Assembly with 145 members serving three-year terms. The upper
house was the Council of States with 60 members serving five-year terms.
 Composition of Lower House: The Lower House would consist of 145 members, who
were either nominated or indirectly elected from the provinces. It had a tenure of 3 years.
o 41 nominated (26 officials and 15 non-official members)
o 104 elected (52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special).
  Composition Upper House: The Upper House would have 60 members. It had a tenure
of 5 years and had only male members.
o 26 Nominated Members
o 34 Elected Members (20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans, and 1 Sikh).
 The legislators, under the new reforms, could now ask questions, pass adjournment
motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75% of the budget was still not votable.

​Electoral Provision

 The communal representation was extended to include Sikhs, Europeans, and Anglo-
Indians.
 The Franchise (right of voting) was also granted but only to a limited number of people.
 There was a provision to provide the reservation to the non-Brahmins in Madras and
the depressed classes were also offered nominated seats in the legislatures.

Other Provisions

 The Act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission in India.
 The number of Indians in The Executive Council was three out of eight.
 It established an office of the High Commissioner for India in London.

Government of India Act (1919) - Significance

 The Government of India Act (1919) expanded the election area in India and people
now began to understand the significance of voting. Some women got limited voting
rights, for the first time based on certain income criteria.
 Through the Government of India act, of 1919, the government for the first time showed
its intention of the gradual introduction of responsible government in India.
 The concept of Self Government in provinces was introduced. The power was given to
the people for administration and administrative pressure from the government was
greatly reduced.
 Self-government become a government policy and so the demand of nationalists and the
Home Rule League could not be termed as seditious anymore.
 Indians become aware of the process of administration which awakened towards
achieving the goal of Swaraj.

Government of India Act (1919) - Defects

 As the Government of India Act (1919) represented specific castes and religions, it
further developed a sense of communalism.
 The provincial ministers were not given any control over finances and over the
bureaucrats.
 The ministers were often not consulted on important matters too and could be
overruled by the governor on any matter that the latter considered special.
 As the governor was given the power to make decisions on all important matters related
to administration, he could overrule the decisions taken by the council of ministers.
 The elected Indian ministers were given no real powers.

Conclusion
Indian Council Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, marked a
significant chapter in India's constitutional evolution during the British colonial era. The Act aimed
to address the growing demands for Indian representation in the governance process and sought
to provide a limited form of self-government. While it fell short of fully meeting nationalist
aspirations for complete independence, it did introduce certain democratic elements, such as the
expansion of legislative councils and the introduction of a system of dyarchy in the provinces.

Simon Commission (1927)

The Indian Statutory Commission, also known as the Simon Commission, was a panel of seven
Members of Parliament led by Sir John Simon. In 1928, the commission arrived in British India to
investigate constitutional reform in Britain's largest and most important possession. One of its
members was future Labour Party leader Clement Attlee, who became committed to India's self-
government.

Background
 The Simon Commission was the Indian Statutory Commission, which was led by Sir John
Simon and comprised seven Members of Parliament.
 In 1928, the commission arrived in British India to investigate constitutional reform in
Britain's largest and most important possession.
 After ten years, the Government of India Act of 1919 provided for the appointment of a
commission to study the progress of the governance scheme and recommend new steps.
 National leaders and freedom fighters were outraged that the British administration had
failed to include even one Indian on the Commission.

Objective
 The British government established a commission to investigate the Government of India
Act of 1919.
 The commission's mission was to investigate the operation of the act and make
recommendations for further reforms to the administrative system.
 Its main goal was to spread communal feelings in order to tear the country's social fabric
apart.
 It wished to postpone the process of granting Indians governance powers.
 They were attempting to spread and support the regional movement, which had the
potential to annihilate the country's national movements.

Criticism
 The Commission's all-European composition was interpreted as an insult to Indian
nationalism.
 As a result, the Indian National Congress has decided to boycott the Commission at all
stages and in any form.
 The seven members of the Commission were all Englishmen who were members of the
British Parliament.
 The British government argued that because the committee had to report its findings to
the British Parliament, appointing only British citizens was justified.
 The presence of two Indian members of the British Parliament, Lord Sinha and Mr.
Saklatwala, undermined this argument.
 The British government declared that no Indian could be appointed to the Constitutional
Development Commission because there was no unanimity among Indians on the issue.

Outcome
  The Commission's report was published in 1930. Before the publication, the government
assured that Indian opinion would be taken into account in the future, and that the natural
outcome of constitutional reforms would be dominion status for India.
 It advocated the abolition of diarchy and the establishment of representative
governments in the provinces.
 It also advocated for the retention of separate communal electorates until communal
tensions had subsided.
 The Simon Commission resulted in the Government of India Act of 1935, which served
as the foundation for many aspects of the current Indian Constitution.
 The first provincial elections were held in 1937, and Congress governments were formed
in almost all of the provinces.
 The arrival of the Commission fueled the Indian independence movement by galvanizing
leaders and the masses.

Nehru Report (1928)

The Nehru Report of 15 August 1928 (approved on 28 August) was a memorandum requesting a
new dominion status and a federal government structure for India's constitution. It also proposed
Joint Electorates with seats reserved for minorities in legislatures. It was drafted by an All Parties
Conference committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, with his son Jawaharlal Nehru serving as
secretary.

Background
 When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928, Indians, particularly the Congress
Party, were outraged because there was not a single Indian on the Commission.
 So, Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, challenged Indian leaders to draft a
constitution for India, implying that Indians were incapable of finding a common path and
drafting a constitution.
 The political leaders accepted the challenge, and an All Party Conference was called,
and a committee was formed to draft a constitution.
 Motilal Nehru was the chairman of this committee, and Jawaharlal Nehru was the
secretary. Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mangal Singh, M S Aney, Subhas Chandra
Bose, Shuaib Qureshi, and G R Pradhan were also members.
 The committee's draft constitution was known as the Nehru Committee Report or Nehru
Report. On August 28, 1928, the report was presented at the Lucknow session of the all-
party conference.
 This was the first major attempt by Indians to draft their own constitution.

Main Recommendations
 Dominion status should be granted to India, which should have a Parliamentary form of
government and a bi-cameral legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of
Representatives.
 The Senate will elect 200 members for a seven-year term, while the House of
Representatives will elect 500 members for a five-year term.
 The Governor-General will make decisions based on the Executive Council's
recommendations. It will be held jointly responsible to the legislature.
 A federal system of government should be established in India, with the Centre retaining
residuary powers.
 Because a separate electorate for minorities incites communal feelings, it should be
abolished and a joint electorate established.
 The Punjabi and Bengali communities will not have any reserved seats. Muslim seats, on
the other hand, may be reserved in provinces with a Muslim population of at least 10%.
 The judiciary and the executive must be kept separate.
  Muslims should account for one-quarter of the population at the Center.
 Sind, if it can demonstrate financial independence, should be separated from Bombay.

Outcome
 The Nehru report enraged Bengal's Muslim political circles, who saw it as a threat to
Hindu dominance.
 Separate electorates had become the sine qua non of Muslim politics in Bengal, and its
sudden rejection was viewed as a betrayal of the Muslim cause by Hindus.
 They claimed that because of their provincial majority, they should be granted a
legislative majority, and that separate electorates should be maintained to protect Hindus
from economic and educational exploitation.
 Hindus saw no logic in these demands and instead claimed that, despite being a minority
in the population, they fully deserved their current majority in the house based on past
service and current capacity.

Conclusion
The British were supposed to consider and announce another round of constitutional reforms in
1929–30. In preparation, it announced the formation of the 'Simon Commission.' The commission
was made up entirely of white men, which was an insult to Indians. The Congress resolved to
boycott the commission at its annual session in Madras in 1927. The decision was also
supported by the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. A series of meetings were held, and
the consensus was to work on developing an alternative proposal. The Motilal Nehru Report was
the result of the majority of the parties agreeing to challenge the colonial attitude toward India.
However, on the issue of communal representation, the All-Parties Meeting in Calcutta in
December 1928 refused to accept it.

First, Second and Third Round Table Conferences, Features,

Impacts
Round Table Conferences

1929 saw a spike in political fervor as Gandhi called for an act of civil disobedience to
protest the Simon Commission findings and Bhagat Singh detonated a bomb in Meerut. In his
infamous Irwin proclamation, Viceroy Lord Irwin pledged a round table discussion following
the delivery of the Simon commission findings.

Congress agreed to abstain from the conference, start a Civil Disobedience Movement, and
set Purna Swaraj as its ultimate goal at its Lahore session in December 1929. Jawahar Lal
Nehru was the president at the time. The Labour Party-led British government convened the
round table talks to explore the constitutional reforms in India on an equal basis. The
administration was prepared to accede to the demands of Gandhi and the Congress, to put an
end to the movement, and to participate in the round table discussion.

The round table conference’s goal should be to adopt the dominion status, and the
fundamental idea behind the status should be approved right away. The conference must have
representation from the majority of the congress. Political prisoners must be given a wide
amnesty and subject to an arbitration policy. Viceroy Irwin rejected the demands made in the
Delhi Manifesto by stating that the conference was not intended to address those issues.
First Round Table Conference

Demands for India to be given dominion status were growing in some sectors of the British
political system. In India, the swaraj, or self-rule, movement was in full swing, with the
charismatic Gandhi leading the way.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s advice to Lord Irwin, the viceroy of India at the time, and James
Ramsay MacDonald, the British prime minister at the time, as well as the Simon Commission
report, served as the foundation for the conferences. For the first time, Indians and Britons
interacted as “equals.” The inaugural conference started on November 12th, 1930. Many
more Indian groups were present, despite the Congress and some notable corporate figures
declining to attend.... Read more at: https://www.studyiq.com/articles/round-table-
conferences/

Who shared the first round table conference?

The first Round Table Conference convened by Labour Government Prime Minister Ramsay
McDonald from 12 November 1930 to 19 January 1931 in London. The Round Table
Conference officially inaugurated by His Majesty George V on November 12, 1930, in Royal
Gallery House of Lords at London.

Round Table Conference Dates

The First Round Table Conference was held on 12 November 1930 in London. It was the first
conference arranged between the Britishers and the Indians as equals. It was boycotted by the
Indian National Congress.

The Second Round Table Conference was held in London from 7 September 1931 to 1
December 1931 with the participation of Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.

The third Round Table Conference took place between 17 November 1932 and 24 December
1932.

First Round Table Conference Features

The inaugural Round Table Conference, which took place in London between November
1930 and January 1931, was presided over by Ramsay MacDonald. The British and Indians
finally met on an equal footing at this point. The Congress and a few notable business figures
declined to attend.

The Princely States, Muslim League, Justice Party, Hindu Mahasabha, and others were
present. Little was achieved as a result of the conference. The British government
acknowledged that any discussion regarding India’s future constitutional governance would
need to include involvement from the Indian National Congress.

First Round Table Conference Participants

The First Round Table Conference was attended by the following individuals:

Three British political parties sent a total of 16 delegates.

There were 74 Indian delegates in total.

58 representatives from political parties in India.

16 delegates from princely states

Universities, Burma, Sindh, landlords (from Bihar, the United Provinces, and Orissa), and
other provinces were also represented. However, because the most of them were behind bars
for their involvement in the Civil Disobedience Movement, neither the Indian National
Congress nor any important political or economic leaders from India participated.

First Round Table Conference Issues

One of the topics that was covered was the structure of the federal government. The
provincial charter was considered. Defense Services for Minorities in Sindh and the
Northwest Frontier Provinces. Legislative accountability of the executive Separate electorates
for “untouchables” was supported by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. A national federation was
suggested by Tej Bahadur Sapru. The Muslim League supported this. The princely states
agreed, provided that their internal sovereignty is upheld.

First Round Table Conference Outcome

Between 1930 and 1931, the First Round Table Conference took place. Although the Round
Table Conference (RTC) amendments were approved, they were never put into practice. The
Civil Disobedience Movement was continued by Indian National Congress leaders during the
First RTC. The First Round Table Conference was therefore considered a failure.

The British government expressed hope for INC leaders’ attendance at the Second Round
Table Conference and acknowledged the significance of the Congress Party’s participation in
Round Table Conferences for successful reform implementation. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact,
which put an end to the Civil Disobedience Movement and decided to participate in the
Second RTC, was signed by Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Irwin in March 1931. The British
government administration recognised the importance of including the Indian National
Congress in discussions about India’s future constitutional arrangements.

Second Round Table Conference

The Second Round Table Conference, which was convened in London from 7 September
1931 to 1 December 1931 to address the shortcomings of the First Round Table Conference,
included Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, who had been particularly invited for the
Conference.

Second Round Table Conference Participants

The participants included James Ramsay MacDonald, the British Prime Minister, and British
leaders from several political parties. the princes, maharajas, and divans of India’s numerous
princely realms. The Maharaja of Indore, the Maharaja of Rewa, the Maharaja of Baroda, the
Nawab of Bhopal, the Maharaja of Bikaner, the Maharaja of Patiala, Sir Muhammad Akbar
Hyadi of Hyderabad, Mirza Ismail of Mysore, and many more princes participated in the
Second Round Table Conference.
Gandhi is the lone representative of the Indian National Congress, the group representing
British Indians.

There were numerous Muslim participants, including Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Muhammad
Iqbail, Aga Khan III, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Maulana Shaukat Ali, and Raja Sher
Muhammad Khan of Domeli.

Representatives of Hinduism: B. Diwan Bahadur Raja Narendra NAth, M. R. Jayakar, and S.

Moonje.

On behalf of the downtrodden classes: Rattamalai Srinivasan, as well as R. Ambedkar.

Sardar Ujjal Singh and Sardar Sampuran Singh are the Sikh delegates.

Radhabai Subbarayan and Sarojini Naidu are female representations.

Liberal Representatives: Justice Party, Parsis, Anglo-Indians, Sindhis, businesspeople,

academics, Burmese, and Europeans.

Second Round Table Conference Important Events

The main distinction between the second Round Table Conference and the first was the
inclusion of the Indian National Congress. The conference officially started on September
7th, 1931. The Indian National Congress, which was solely represented by Gandhi,
participated because of the Gandhi-Irwin pact.

The second significant difference was that, unlike the last conference, Ramsay MacDonald,
the British Prime Minister, was now in charge of a National government rather than a Labor
one. The British supported creating a distinct electorate as a communal reward for the
representation of minorities in India.

Gandhi rejected this incentive because he disagreed with the notion that minorities should be
treated differently from Hindus. Gandhi and Ambedkar presented opposing viewpoints on the
communal award of a separate electorate for the untouchables, who were regarded as a
minority and were divided based on their ideas, at this Round Table session. With the aid of
the Poona Pact, 1932, the two of them were able to resolve this matter in the end.

Second Round Table Conference Outcomes

Due to the numerous conflicts and differences among the attendees, the Second Round Table
Conference was regarded as a failure. It was believed that the Indian National Congress
spoke for the entire nation. The other participants and the party leaders disagreed with the
Indian National Congress’s assertion.

Third Round Table Conference

The third round table discussion served as the conclusion. The incident happened on
November 17, 1932. Due to their displeasure, the Indian National Congress made the
decision to skip the convention. Both INC and the British Labour Party declined to attend the
conference. There were just 46 people left from the summit, and some important political
figures were not present. It occurred between September 1931 and March 1933. The 1935
Government of India Act was suggested to undergo a number of revisions. All of these works
were completed under the supervision of Sir Samuel Hoare.

Third Round Table Conference Participants

Only 46 delegates attended this Third Round Table conference because the majority of the
political leaders were unable to attend. The British Labor Party declined to attend the
conference, and the Indian National Congress was not invited. Aga Khan III represented the
British Indians.

The princely realms of India were represented by princes and the divans. The conference
included speakers like Raja Oudh Narain Bisarya of Bhopal, Wajahat Hussain of Jammu &
Kashmir, Mirza Ismail – Dewan of Mysore, V. T. Krishnamachari – Divan of Baroda, Nawab
Liaqat Hayat Khan of Patiala, etc. B. R. Ambedkar stood in for the downtrodden classes.
Begum Jahanara served as the women’s representative. A variety of people, including
Europeans, Labors, Anglo-Indians, and others, were Liberal representatives.

Third Round Table Conference Important Events

Nothing significant occurred at this conference because there weren’t enough attendees to
conduct an adequate debate. But the British Parliament later debated its proposals.

Third Round Table Conference Outcomes

The absence of the political leaders and Maharajas made this round table session ineffective,
and nothing significant was discussed. The recommendations made at this round table
conference were written down and published in a white paper in 1933, which was then
discussed in the British Parliament. The British parliament then examined the round table
conference’s suggestions and initiatives. Based on this, the Government of India Act of 1935
was passed.

The Civil Disobedience Movement and the Round Table Conferences were held concurrently.
Irwin agreed to almost all of Gandhi’s demands after the First Round Table, which put the
British government on the defensive for the first time. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was broken at
the second round table conference, which was conducted under the new Viceroy. The
freedom fighter was subjected to countless crimes by the police, who engaged in outright
terror. Nationalist publications were outlawed, while censorship of nationalist journals was
reinstated.

Once more, the leaders of Congress were absent from the third round table conference. The
Community Award made B.R. Ambedkar, who attended all three conferences, the happiest
person there. The Award, which reserves seats for minorities, is also evident in contemporary
politics. Gandhi’s call for Joint Electorates did not receive much support from the delegates.
Even the princes of India weren’t overly excited about a federation. The Round Table
Conference’s outcome was inconclusive due to the Indian participants’ lack of cooperation....
Read more at: https://www.studyiq.com/articles/round-table-conferences/
Civil Disobedience Movement, Causes, Impacts, Limitations
A pivotal moment in the Indian Nationalist movement was the civil disobedience movement.
The Civil Disobedience Movement began with Mahatma Gandhi’s well-known Dandi March.
Gandhi set out on foot from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad on March 12, 1930, with
78 other Ashram members for Dandi, a village on India’s western seacoast about 385
kilometres from Ahmedabad. On April 6, 1930, they arrived in Dandi.

Time Period 1930-1934

Leader Mahatma Gandhi

Objective Protest against British salt monopoly and taxes, demand for complete
independence

Key Event Dandi March (Salt March) initiated by Gandhi on March 12, 1930

Method of Protest Civil Disobedience, Non-violent Resistance

Salt Satyagraha Symbolic production and selling of salt without paying taxes, breaking
the salt laws

Boycott of British Goods Indians boycotted British goods and institutions

Non-Cooperation People refused to cooperate with British authorities, surrendered titles

and honors

Women’s Participation Significant involvement of women in protests and marches

Repression British response included arrests, imprisonments, and use of force

Outcome Increased political awareness, international attention, and negotiations with

British

End of Movement Officially called off by Gandhi in 1934

LegacyContributed to India’s independence movement, emphasized non-violent resistance

What is Civil Disobedience Movement?

Mahatma Gandhi’s Dandi March served as the catalyst for the start of the Civil Disobedience
Movement. In March 1930, Gandhi and 78 other ashram members set off on foot for Dandi, a
village on Gujarat’s western seaboard, from the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmadabad.

On April 6, 1930, they arrived in Dandi, where Gandhi violated and broke the Salt Law.
Since salt production in India was a monopoly of the British Government, it was regarded as
illegal. The Civil Disobedience Movement gained significant support thanks to the Salt
Satyagraha, and the Salt March represented citizens’ opposition to British government policy.

Causes of Civil Disobedience Movement

These were some of the main reasons that paved the way for the Civil Disobedience
Movement.

The formation of the Simon Commission

The rejection of the demand for Dominion Status

The demonstrations against the detention of social revolutionaries, etc.

The British government’s lack of genuine interest in giving Dominion Status was evident to
the nationalist leaders. In an emergency meeting held in Lahore in December 1929, the INC
under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership announced PurnaSwaraj, or “Complete Independence,”
as the Congress’s main objective.

The Congress Working Committee (CWC) was authorized by the Lahore Congress of 1929 to
start a campaign of civil disobedience, which included not paying taxes. At Sabarmati
Ashram in 1930, Gandhi was given full authority by the CWC to start the Civil Disobedience
Movement whenever and wherever he chose. Additionally, it enabled Mahatma Gandhi the
freedom to start a national campaign of civil disobedience whenever and wherever he
pleased.

Viceroy Irwin received a letter from Mahatma Gandhi on January 31, 1930, in which he
outlined and imposed eleven demands. The most compelling of all the requests was to get rid
of the salt tax, which is paid for by both the rich and the poor. By March 11th, the demands
had to be satisfied, or Congress would start a campaign of civil disobedience. 78 of his
dependable volunteers marched with Mahatma Gandhi in the well-known salt march.

The march travelled more than 240 kilometres from Gandhiji’s ashram in Sabarmati to the
coastal town of Dandi in Gujarat. He landed in Dandi on April 6 and ceremonially breached
the law by salting seawater by scalding it. This movement served as the catalyst for the Civil
Disobedience Movement.

Impact of Civil Disobedience Movement

The Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) had a significant impact on India’s struggle for
independence. It was a turning point in the movement, and it forced the British to take the
Indian demand for independence more seriously. The CDM was not immediately successful
in achieving Indian independence.

However, it was a major step towards that goal. It weakened British authority and laid the
groundwork for India’s eventual freedom. Here are some of the key impacts of the CDM:

It popularized new methods of nonviolent resistance. The CDM was the first time that
Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence were used on a large scale in India. The movement
involved a variety of nonviolent tactics, such as boycotts, strikes, and civil
disobedience. These tactics were effective in disrupting British rule and raising awareness of
the Indian independence movement.

It united Indians from all walks of life. The CDM brought together people from different
religions, castes, and social classes. It also attracted the participation of women and
children. This unity was a major source of strength for the movement.

It weakened British authority. The CDM showed the British that the Indian people were
determined to achieve independence. It also led to the loss of British revenue and the erosion
of British prestige.

It laid the groundwork for Indian independence. The CDM helped to prepare India for
independence. It showed that Indians were capable of organizing and carrying out a mass
movement. It also helped to raise international awareness of the Indian independence
movement.

British Government’s Response on Civil Disobedience Movement

In November 1930, the British government called the first round table conference to discuss
the reforms proposed by the Simon Commission. However, the Indian National Congress
chose to boycott it. Indian princes, the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, and a few
others attended the summit. Nothing, though, came of it. The British understood that without
Congress’ involvement, no substantive constitutional changes would be made.

Viceroy Lord Irwin tried to convince Congress to participate in the second round table
congress. Gandhi and Irwin came to an arrangement in which the government promised to
free all political prisoners who weren’t accused of using violence, and Congress promised to
put an end to the civil disobedience movement.

Vallabhbhai Patel presided over the Karachi session in 1931, where it was determined that the
congress would take part in the second round table congress. Gandhi was the delegate for the
September 1931 session.

Why was Salt chosen by Gandhiji as a Weapon?

Because salt was considered to be a basic right of every Indian, it was chosen to represent the
beginning of the civil disobedience movement. Gandhi once famously said, “There is no
other product besides water that the government can tax in order to feed the millions of
people who are starving, as well as the sick, the injured, and the totally defenceless. It is the
cruellest poll tax that man has ever devised.”

Salt made a quick connection between the swaraj ideal and a very genuine and common
complaint of the rural poor (and with no socially divisive implications like a no-rent
campaign). Similar to khadi, salt gave the poor a small but psychologically significant source
of income through self-help and gave urban believers a chance to symbolically relate to
widespread misery.

Limitations of Civil Disobedience Movement

Despite its significant impact on India’s struggle for independence, the Civil Disobedience
Movement had certain limitations:

The movement primarily involved the urban middle class, while the peasantry and other
marginalized groups remained largely uninvolved. This limited the movement’s reach and its
ability to mobilize the masses.

The movement ignored the untouchables.

Because Muslim political organisations do not participate, the gap between Hindus and
Muslims widened.

Muslim’s demand for special seats led to disputes between Congress and Muslims.

A large number of Muslims have been turned away from the conflict because they were
afraid of becoming a minority group in India.

The movement faced challenges in reconciling the aspirations of different sections of society.

The movement primarily focused on specific grievances and demands, but it did not address
the underlying structural inequalities that perpetuated British rule. This limited the
movement’s long-term impact.

The movement heavily relied on the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. His charisma and
influence were crucial in mobilizing support, but the movement’s effectiveness diminished
when he was imprisoned or absent...

GoI (Government of India) Act 1935 was the result of the Third
Round Table Conference (RTC), held in November 1932.

The third RTC was held again without the participation of Congress. The British parliament
enacted the GoI Act in 1935, and it went into effect in 1937.

It was based on a report by a Joint Select Committee that established the two houses of the
British parliament and was chaired by Lord Linlithgow.

At that time, it was the longest legislation passed by the British Parliament.

Main Features of the GoI Act, 1935

The Government of India Act of 1935 was a significant piece of legislation that marked a
crucial phase in the constitutional development of British India. The Act was enacted by the
British Parliament and came into effect in 1937. It replaced the Government of India Act of
1919 and remained in force until India gained independence in 1947.

The legislation was passed by the British Parliament in August 1935 and its main provisions
were as follows:
Federal Level
Changes made at the federal level are:

Executive

 Dyarchy at the Centre- The executive authority of the Centre was vested in the
Governor General. All the subjects that needed to be administered were divided
into two subjects i.e., Reserved Subject and Transferred Subject.

 Reserved subjects were exclusively administered by the governor-

general on the advice of executive councilors and included
subjects like foreign affairs, tribal affairs, defense, etc.

 Note that, executive councilors were not responsible to the central

legislature.

 Transferred Subjects were to be administered by the governor-

general on the advice of ministers elected by the legislature.

 Here, Ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and are

subject to resignation on losing the confidence of the body.

 On discharge of his special responsibilities, the governor-general could act at

his discretion for the security and tranquillity of India.

Legislature– The Bicameral legislature was to have an upper house (council of states) and a
lower house (Federal Assembly).

 Oddly, the election of the upper house (council of states) was direct and that of
the lower house was indirect.
 The Council of State was made a permanent body and made a provision that
one-third of the members will be retired every third year.
 As per the provision, the duration of the assembly was to be 05 years.
 The three lists of legislation were made i.e.,

 Federal List

 Provincial List

 Concurrent List

 Members of the legislative assembly were given the power to move a vote
of no-confidence against ministers. Such power to move a no-confidence
motion was not given to the Council.
 Further expansion of religion-based and class-based electorate.
 80% of the budget was still non-votable.
 The Governor General enjoys the residuary power. and he could-
  restore cut in grants

 restore and certify bills rejected by the legislature

 can issue ordinances

 can exercise his veto.

Provincial Level
Changes made at the provincial level are-

 Provinces were made free from the directions of the Secretary of State and
Governor General. Hence, provinces started deriving their authority directly
from the British Crown.
 Dyarchy was replaced by provincial autonomy and a separate legal system was
also granted to the provinces.
 Provinces were granted independent financial powers and resources. As per the
Act, the Provincial government could borrow money for its security.

Executive

 The governor was to be the crown’s nominee.

 Governor holds special power regarding minorities, law, and order, rights of
civil servants, British interests related to business, princely states, etc.

Legislature

 The separate electorate that was introduced under communal award was to be
made operational.
 The franchise was extended and women were given the same rights as men.
 A provision was made that all the members were to be directly elected.
 Ministers were made answerable and removable by the vote of the legislature.
 The provincial legislature was given the power to legislate on subjects that fall
under the provincial list as well as the concurrent list.
 40% of the budget was still non-votable.
 Governor enjoys certain powers like-

 he could refuse to assent to a bill

 he can promulgate ordinances.

 can enact governor’s acts.

Other Points:

 Dyarchy, which was rejected by the Simon Commission was provided in the
federal executive.
  Whereas, Dyarchy in the province was abolished and given provincial
autonomy.
 In case of deadlock between the houses, there was a provision for joint sitting.
 The residuary list falls under the discretion of the Governor-General.
 The provincial legislature was further expanded.
 The communal electorate was further extended to depressed classes, women,
and labor.
 The franchise was further expanded and about 10% of the total population was
given the right to vote.
 The Indian Council of the Secretary of State was abolished.

Limitations of GoI Act 1935

The governor still enjoyed several extensive powers in provinces.

Various safeguards and special responsibilities of the governor-general disrupted the proper
functioning of the act.

Separatist tendencies were further extended with the extension of the system of communal
electorates which culminated in the partition of India.

The act provided a rigid constitution with no possibility of internal growth. Moreover, the
right to amend was reserved by the British Parliament.

Nationalists’ Response
Nearly all the sections and Congress unanimously condemned the GoI Act of 1935. However,
the Hindu Mahasabha and the National Liberal Foundation declared themselves in favor of
the 1935 Act.

Instead, Congress demanded the formation of a constituent assembly elected by the adult
franchise to create a constitution for independent India.

Debate Over Office Acceptance after the GoI Act

Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, and Congress Socialists and Communists were
against the official acceptance and thereby in the working of the 1935 Act because they
argued that office acceptance would negate the rejection of the Act.

A counter strategy was proposed by the leftists that suggested entry into the council with the
only aim of creating deadlocks and thus making the working of the Act impossible.

Gandhi opposed the idea of office acceptance at the beginning but was willing to give a trial
to the formation of congress ministries.
In 1936 at Lucknow Session and in 1937 at Faizpur Session, Congress decided to fight the
election but postponed the decision of official acceptance to the post-election phase.

In its election manifesto, Congress reaffirmed the total rejection of the GoI Act of 1935.

Significance of the GoI Act of 1935 in the Journey of Indian Administration

Increased Provincial Autonomy:

 The Act represented a move towards greater provincial autonomy, giving Indian
leaders more control over local administration. However, the diarchy system
remained complex and was criticized for being cumbersome.

Foundation for Post-Independence Governance:

 The Act laid the foundation for the administrative structure that India would
adopt after gaining independence in 1947. Many features of the Act influenced
the design of the Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950.

Communalization of Politics:

 The continuation of separate electorates and the reservation of seats for various
religious and social groups contributed to the communalization of Indian
politics. This had lasting implications for post-independence India, leading to
the demand for a separate Muslim state and the eventual partition in 1947.

Legal Framework:

 The establishment of the Federal Court provided a legal framework for

adjudicating constitutional matters. This experience contributed to the
development of the judicial system in post-independence India.

Emergency Powers:

 The emergency provisions in the Act foreshadowed similar provisions in the

post-independence Indian Constitution. The lessons learned from the use of
emergency powers during British rule influenced the drafting of constitutional
provisions related to emergencies.

Representation of Minorities:

 While the Act attempted to address the representation of minorities, the

communal approach to political representation persisted and continued to
influence Indian politics even after independence.

Princely States and Federal Structure:

  The inability to fully integrate princely states into the federal structure outlined
in the Act had implications for India’s post-independence territorial integrity.
The issue of integrating princely states was resolved during the integration
process that followed independence.

Conclusion
The Government of India Act, of 1935, played a crucial role in shaping the administrative
and constitutional trajectory of India. While it fell short of fully addressing the aspirations of
Indian leaders for self-governance, it provided important lessons and experiences that
contributed to the development of independent India’s administrative and constitutional
framework.