Subject : History -II
Indian Council Act,
1919
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr. Tarun Pratap Shivam Chhaunkar
Assistant professor 2351110035
ILSR, GLAU
INTRODUCTION
The Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, was
a pivotal piece of legislation in the history of British India. Enacted by the British Parliament,
this act aimed to address growing Indian demands for greater participation in governance and
to lay the groundwork for a more representative system of administration.
At its core, the Act introduced the concept of diarchy, a system of dual governance, which
divided the administrative functions of the government into two categories: "reserved"
subjects, which remained under the direct control of the Governor, and "transferred" subjects,
which were managed by ministers accountable to the legislature. This marked a significant
departure from the previous centralized administration and was designed to gradually
increase Indian involvement in the governance of their own affairs.
Furthermore, the Act expanded the Indian Legislative Council, paving the way for a more
inclusive political system. It introduced indirect elections for some seats, albeit with a limited
franchise, while retaining nominated seats by the Governor. Additionally, the Act continued
the provision for separate electorates for various religious communities, reflecting the diverse
social fabric of India.
The Government of India Act of 1919 also established a bicameral central legislature,
comprising the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly, further enhancing the
representation of Indian interests at the national level.
Although the Act fell short of meeting all Indian aspirations for self-governance and was met
with criticism from some quarters, it marked a significant milestone in India's journey
towards eventual independence. It set the stage for subsequent constitutional reforms and
paved the way for increased Indian participation in the governance of their own country.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Government of India Act of 1919 emerged within a complex historical context shaped by
various factors, including colonial rule, World War I, Indian nationalism, and changing
global dynamics. Here's a brief overview:
1) Colonial Rule: By the early 20th century, India had been under British colonial rule
for over a century. The British had established a system of governance that was
primarily authoritarian and centralized, with limited participation from Indians in the
administration of their own country.
2) World War I: The outbreak of World War I in 1914 significantly impacted British
India. India's contribution to the war effort, both in terms of manpower and resources,
was substantial. However, the war also led to economic hardships, inflation, and
increased political discontent among the Indian population.
3) Montagu Declaration: In 1917, the British Secretary of State for India, Edwin
Montagu, made a historic declaration in the British Parliament, expressing the British
government's intention to gradually increase Indian participation in the governance of
their own country. This declaration was a response to growing Indian demands for
self-governance and was influenced by the need to secure Indian support during and
after the war.
4) Indian Nationalism: The early 20th century witnessed the rise of Indian nationalism,
with movements and organizations such as the Indian National Congress (INC)
advocating for greater political rights and self-rule. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah emerged as prominent figures in the
Indian nationalist movement, demanding Swaraj (self-rule) and challenging British
colonial authority.
5) Amritsar Massacre: In 1919, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the
Amritsar massacre, shocked India and the world. British troops fired on a peaceful
gathering of unarmed civilians in Amritsar, Punjab, resulting in hundreds of deaths
and sparking outrage across India. This event further fueled anti-colonial sentiments
and intensified demands for political reform.
6) Global Context: The aftermath of World War I saw significant changes in the global
political landscape, including the decline of colonial powers and the rise of nationalist
movements worldwide. The British government, facing pressure from various
quarters, sought to address Indian grievances and ensure stability in one of its most
important colonies.
Against this backdrop, the Government of India Act of 1919 was enacted, representing a
significant attempt by the British government to address Indian demands for greater
participation in governance while maintaining British control over India. Though the Act fell
short of Indian aspirations for full self-rule, it marked a crucial step towards eventual
independence and paved the way for further constitutional reforms in British India.
KEY PROVISIONS AND REFORMS
Diarchy: One of the most significant features of the Act was the introduction of
diarchy, which divided the powers of the provincial government into two categories:
"reserved" and "transferred." Reserved subjects, such as finance and law and order,
remained under the direct control of the Governor, while transferred subjects, like
education and public health, were managed by ministers accountable to the provincial
legislature. This marked a shift towards limited self-government at the provincial
level.
Legislative Councils: The Act expanded the Indian Legislative Council and
introduced a system of indirect elections for some seats. While the majority of seats
were still nominated by the Governor, a portion were now elected by local bodies,
universities, chambers of commerce, and other special interest groups. This expansion
aimed to provide broader representation and input into the legislative process.
Separate Electorates: The Act continued the provision for separate electorates for
Muslims, Sikhs, and other religious communities. This meant that members of these
communities could vote only for candidates of their own religious group in certain
elections, rather than participating in general elections. While intended to protect
minority interests, it also reinforced communal divisions.
Central Legislature: The Act established a bicameral central legislature, consisting
of the Council of State (upper house) and the Legislative Assembly (lower house).
While the Legislative Assembly was partially elected, the Council of State was
mainly composed of nominees. This structure provided for representation from
different regions and interests within British India.
Devolution of Power: The Act aimed to devolve certain powers to the provinces,
allowing them greater autonomy in managing their internal affairs. This included
control over transferred subjects and the establishment of provincial legislative
councils. While the Governor retained significant authority, the reforms paved the
way for increased Indian participation in provincial governance.
Reforms Commission: The Act provided for the appointment of a statutory
commission to review its implementation and effectiveness after ten years. This
commission, known as the Simon Commission, was tasked with assessing the impact
of the reforms and making recommendations for further changes. However, it faced
significant opposition in India due to its composition and lack of Indian
representation.
Expansion of Provincial Council : The Act expanded the powers and functions of
the provincial legislative councils, allowing for increased Indian representation and
participation in provincial governance.
LIMITS &CRITICISMS
While the Government of India Act of 1919 introduced significant reforms aimed at
addressing Indian demands for greater participation in governance, it also had several
limitations and drawbacks:
Limited Franchise: The Act retained a limited franchise, based on property
qualifications, which meant that only a small portion of the Indian population was
eligible to vote. This restricted the democratic representation of the Indian populace.
Reserved Subjects: The Act retained significant control over key administrative
subjects in the hands of the Governor, known as "reserved" subjects. This limited the
authority of Indian ministers and impeded their ability to effectively govern in areas
crucial to the welfare of the people.
Nomination System: The Act maintained a system of nomination for the majority of
seats in the legislative councils, both at the central and provincial levels. This
undermined the democratic principle of direct representation and allowed for British
influence to persist.
Separate Electorates: While the Act continued the provision for separate electorates
for religious communities, it also contributed to the communalization of Indian
politics. This divisive policy further fragmented Indian society along religious lines
and hindered the development of a unified national identity.
Limited Provincial Autonomy: While the Act aimed to devolve certain powers to
the provinces, the degree of autonomy granted was limited. The Governor retained
significant control over provincial affairs, and the scope of provincial legislative
powers was circumscribed.
Inadequate Indian Representation: Despite the expansion of legislative councils
and the introduction of indirect elections, Indian representation remained inadequate.
The Act did not fully reflect the diversity and complexity of Indian society, leading to
a lack of genuine participation and representation for various communities.
Failure to Address Economic Grievances: The Act did little to address the
economic grievances of the Indian population, including issues related to land reform,
agricultural distress, and industrial development. This failure to address socio-
economic concerns contributed to continued discontent among the Indian populace.
REASONS FOR REJECTION OF ACT
The act was based on a report by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India at the
time, and Lord Chelmsford, India's Viceroy between 1916 and 1921. But, the Indian
National Congress rejected the Act, and Annie Besant called the Act "unworthy of
England to offer and India to accept". At that time Indian National Congress (INC) was
the largest and most influential political organization advocating for Indian self-rule, and
it rejected Government of India Act of 1919 for several reasons:
Inadequate Representation: The Act did not provide for genuine
representation of the Indian populace in the legislative councils. While it
introduced indirect elections for some seats, the majority of seats were still
nominated by the British authorities. This limited franchise and lack of direct
representation were unacceptable to the INC, which demanded greater
democratic participation.
Limited Scope of Reforms: The Act fell short of the INC's demands for
substantial constitutional reforms and full self-rule (Swaraj). It retained
significant control in the hands of the British authorities, particularly through
the retention of reserved subjects and the nomination system for legislative
councils. The INC considered these reforms as insufficient and incremental,
failing to meet the aspirations of the Indian people.
Opposition to Communal Representation: The Act continued the provision
for separate electorates for religious communities, particularly Muslims. The
INC opposed this policy, viewing it as divisive and detrimental to the unity of
India. They advocated for a secular and unified approach to representation,
rather than one based on religious identity.
Desire for Complete Independence: The INC, under the leadership of
figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and others, was committed to
achieving complete independence from British rule. They saw the Government
of India Act of 1919 as a step towards perpetuating British dominance rather
than granting true self-rule to India. As such, they rejected the Act and
continued to push for more radical reforms leading to full independence.
Popular Discontent: The Act was met with widespread discontent among the
Indian populace, particularly in the aftermath of events like the Jallianwala
Bagh massacre. The brutal suppression of peaceful protests further galvanized
opposition to British rule and the Act itself, strengthening the INC's resolve to
reject it.
Basically, the Indian National Congress rejected the Government of India Act of 1919
due to its perceived inadequacy in providing genuine representation, limited scope of
reforms, continuation of communal representation, and the organization's commitment to
achieving complete independence for India.
CONCLUSION
The Government of India Act of 1919 or The Indian Council Act of 1919, represented a
significant attempt by the British government to address Indian demands for greater
participation in governance while maintaining British control over India. However, the
Act faced resistance and was not fully accepted by many Indians, including the Indian
National Congress (INC), for several reasons.
The Act introduced key provisions such as diarchy, expanded legislative councils,
separate electorates, and devolution of power to the provinces. While these reforms aimed
to provide a degree of Indian involvement in governance, they were seen as inadequate
and incremental by Indian nationalist leaders. The Act's limited franchise, retention of
British control, continuation of communal representation, and failure to address socio-
economic grievances were major points of contention.
Ultimately, the Act fell short of Indian aspirations for full self-rule (Swaraj) and failed to
address the root causes of discontent among the Indian populace. Its rejection by the INC
and other nationalist groups underscored their commitment to achieving complete
independence for India. Despite its limitations, the Government of India Act of 1919 laid
the groundwork for further constitutional reforms and contributed to the gradual process
of India's journey towards independence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical-constitution/government-of-india-act-
1919/
2) https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/this-day-in-history-jul08/
3) https://cbc.gov.in/cbcdev/crown/crown5.html
4) https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/paper1/government-of-india-act-1919
5) https://www.insightsonindia.com/modern-indian-history/national-movement-1919-
1939/montague-chelmsford-reforms-or-the-government-of-india-act-1919/
6) https://pwonlyias.com/upsc-notes/government-of-india-1919-act/
7) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/government-of-india-act-1919/
