Partition of India in Print Media and Cinema

Prof. Sarbani Banerjee

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

Lecture - 03
History of the Partition of India - III

Good morning and welcome to my lecture on Partition of India in Print Media and
Cinema. So, this is the lecture three and earlier we talked about the Indian National
Congress, the Moderates, the Extremists; we have discussed a few British policies and
this is going to be a continuation of the different policies and the important turn of
events, the earmarks in history that add up to and that ultimately lead to the Partition of
India.

So, after talking about the Morley Minto reforms and the Lucknow Pact, we are going to
discuss

(Refer Slide Time: 01:12)

the Rowlatt Act, [which] was passed in March 1919 by the Central Legislative Council
to control the militant nationalist struggles, and as a way of curtailing the liberty of the
Indian people, this bill was meant for speedy trial of offences by a special court and had
no room for appeal.

So it had its own arbitrary nature inbuilt in the act itself. The Rowlatt Act caused a wave
of anger across the country among the Indians and it resulted in M.K. Gandhi, you know,
announcing his Non-Cooperation Movement. So, Gandhi had organized the Satyagraha
on 14th of February, 1919 and he was arrested on 8th of April, 1919.

(Refer Slide Time: 02:11)

On 13th April of the same year, a large peaceful crowd had gathered at an open space
known as the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar Punjab, in order to protest the arrest of pro-
Indian independence leaders, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal.

When people had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh and they were peacefully protesting, at
that spot Brigadier General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer ordered his soldiers to open
fire on the crowd of an unarmed Indian people. Mass of people that were completely
without weapons and they had just assembled to protest peacefully.

National leaders condemned the act of General Dyer unequivocally and the responses
around Jallianwala Bagh tragedy further polarised both British and the Indian peoples.
So, renowned authors such as Rudyard Kipling, for example, he legitimizes, he justifies
Dyer's Act by saying that he was only delivering his duty.

Shocked to this response made by Kipling, Rabindranath Tagore renounced the

"Knighthood" that was conferred on him. In the same way, Gandhiji signed away the
'Kaiser-e-Hind,' the title that was bestowed to him by the British for his service during
the Boer War in South Africa. So, the level of casual brutality and the sheer lack of
answerability or accountability had stunned the entire nation, and the people of India had
lost their faith, the general public of India had lost their faith in the intentions of the
United Kingdom.

(Refer Slide Time: 04:47)

After this, we talk about the Montagu-Chlemsford reforms that came in 1919. The
reforms draw their name from Edwin Samuel Montagu, who was the Secretary of State
for India during the later parts of First World War and from the name of Lord
Chlemsford who was the Viceroy of India and who ruled between 1916 and 1921.

So, the reforms are also known as Montford Reforms. So, Montagu's 1917 Declaration
announced the British government's intention to grant self-government to Indians. And
Montagu promised the gradual development of self-governing institutions in India.
Montagu headed a delegation during 1917 and 1918, in which he held his discussions
with Viceroy Lord Chlemsford.

(Refer Slide Time: 05:40)

So, the reforms were delineated in the Montagu-Chlemsford report prepared in 1918 and
they formed the theoretical basis of the famous Government of India Act in 1919. The
primary proposal in the report was that control of some areas of provincial governance
be transferred to the Indian ministers, who would be accountable to an Indian electorate.

And the key features of this report included increasing association of Indians in every
branch of administration. So, a further opportunity to become visible within the political
arena, and then gradual development of self-governing institutions with a progressive
realization of responsible government in India, as an integral part of the British Empire.
(Refer Slide Time: 06:42)
Then the reforms would also refer to 'End of benevolent despotism' and introduction of
responsible government in India. It referred to a decentralized yet unitary system of
government, which was proposed based on a steady decentralization of authority and the
loss of central government's supremacy.

The Montagu-Chlemsford reforms bestowed partial responsibility to Indians in the

provinces. the Indian legislative council at the centre was replaced by what was called as
the bicameral system - a bicameral system comprising (a) the Council of a state and (b)
Legislative Assembly.

(Refer Slide Time: 07:35)

So, the principle of separate communal electorates were further being extended for
Sikhs, the Christians and the Anglo Indians in addition to the Muslims. We see that the
Morley-Minto reforms was just the beginning, which actually set a trend and now what
the Muslim had demanded for a separate electorate was also being voiced by the other
communities, such as the Sikhs, the Christians and the Anglo Indians.

Indians were now being labelled in terms of their communal identification and this is a
crucial point in divisive politics. You know, in order to fill seats in the lower and higher
houses. If you look at the composition, we will see all these divisions and this is how an
Indian self-perception would develop. We would have these words in our common
parlance. This is a legacy that these reforms actually leave to the modern day Indians.

We still talk of general seats, for any post we talk like this and it had started back in 1900
and at the beginning of 20th Century actually, with Morley-Minto Reforms. So, the
Central Legislative Assembly having 52 general seats and then 30 Muslim seats, 2 Sikh
seats, 20 special seats and then the Council of State had 20 general seats and 10 Muslim
seats, 3 European seats, and 1 Sikh seat.

So, an Indian would not be only an Indian any more; with Montagu-Chlemsford
Reforms, there was a dyarchy or rule of two classes of administrations – the Executive
councillors comprising bureaucrats and the Legislative councillors comprising ministers.
(Refer Slide Time: 09:37)
So, the size of the Provincial legislative assemblies was increased. Now, about 70
percent of the members were elected. There would be direct elections of members, but
restricted franchise.

Some women would also vote. So there were certain good things about these reforms
too; women were coming out to vote. That had never happened before. Legislators
enjoyed their freedom of speech; that was also positive. The Governor-General and his
executive council were deemed supreme. The Governor's assent was required to pass any
bill. So, the central government contained executive body. The chief executive authority
was the Governor-General or Viceroy.

So, the administration was divided into two lists, basically: the Central and the
Provincial. Out of eight members of the Viceroy's Executive Council, there would be
three Indians. So, definitely the INC had been able to push, I mean their stake was
increasing, they were stakeholders in the larger scheme and more and more so.

But there were also compromises that were being made. The self-perception of the
Indian was changing, they were no longer just Indians, but we will see with Poona Pact,
with the further reforms and policies, the divisions in terms of one’s caste, one’s
communal belonging keep coming back again and again.

(Refer Slide Time: 11:34)

So, Montagu-Chlemsford Reforms created an office of High Commissioner of India to
act as the agent of Governor-General of India in London. So, the supreme control was of
course not being bestowed to the Indians. It was still with the Britishers; just that the
Indians had an increased representation in the government. The act provided for the first
time the establishment of Public Service Commission in India, which was a very positive
sign. So, Indians were gaining more agency within the polity.

For the first time, the elections created a political consciousness among the people, and
some Indian women also had the right to vote. It was suggested that the yearly
percentage of recruitment made in India be increased by 1.5 percent, this was also a
positive change. Finance on the other hand would remain a reserved issue under the
supervision of the Executive Councilor.

So, finance would be controlled by the Executive Councilor. As a result, due to a

shortage of funding, Indian ministers were unable to perform much work in the area of
local self-government. So, although there were representations in some exclusive
matters, the British would hold on to their own control. So, the question of self-
government at the localized level would not be very strongly functional. The question of
autonomy was still a distant cry; it was still something that remained to be achieved.
(Refer Slide Time: 13:33)

So, the major limitations of Montagu-Chlemsford Reforms include… it further extended

and consolidated communal representation – something that I have already stated again
and again. Next, the franchise was very limited. Only those people who had the property
taxable income and those who could pay high Land revenue were entitled to vote.

So, here we see an India being etched out through dialogue with the British, which is
very elitist by nature. The ones who would vote, someone that could define and who
could determine the destiny of a future independent India had to have certain positions.
So, the ones that were paying Land revenue, that had property taxable income. So, you
know, the future enactors and leaders of India were actually emerging from the upper
echelons of the society and the voice of the masses remained unheard.

The Governor-General and the Governors had a lot of power to undermine the legislature
at the centre and at the provinces, respectively. So, the main power was still in the hands
of the British, like we see the Governor-General and the Governors. The significance of
the provinces from the perspective of the British was used to allocate seats for the
Central Assembly, rather than referring to the actual population; this was another
drawback.

Further, the Indians were enraged that the British administration assumed sole authority
over the nature and timing of the transition of responsibility to the Indians for self-
governance.

So, although some degree of power was being transferred to the native or the Indian
rulers, the British were wary – they were not sure how much of power to transfer to the
Indians and they wanted to supervise and control this entire transition of responsibility.
They wanted to determine how much of power be given to Indians and when the Indians
were ready for self-governance. This was seen as an outright insult by the Indians, who
were actually deemed or perceived as not ready for ruling their free country.

In the chapters of pre-independent struggles, Simon Commission remains as a black spot.

(Refer Slide Time: 16:32)
So the Government of India Acts stated that after 10 years, a statutory Commission
would be set up to study the working of the government, and it resulted in the Simon
Commission in 1927.

The Simon Commission… it was the result of the Conservative Party-led government in
the UK. Fearing a defeat at the hands of the Labour Party, a speedy appointment of a
commission [was made] in 1928, which was composed entirely of British members. So,
it was a commission determining Indian policies, but it did not have a single Indian
member in that commission. In that board, all the members were British.

And this was actually perceived as a humiliation, as an insult to the Indians and because
it implied that the Indians were not ready to decide their own destiny. It would be
determined by a few British people. Now, the Congress Party had decided to boycott the
Simon Commission at their session at Madras in 1927. The Muslim League led by M.A.
Jinnah also boycotted it.

When the commission landed in February 1928, there were mass protests and there were
black flag demonstrations. There were slogans all around the country – 'Simon Go Back'.
So, the police resorted to lathi charges as a way of suppressing the protesters and senior
leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru were also not spared. In Lahore, Lala Lajpat Rai who
was leading a demonstration against the Simon Commission was brutally lathi-charged
and he died later during the year as a way of succumbing to the injuries that were
sustained at that time.

So, Simon Commission is something remembered in Indian history as a black spot in

British rule of India.

(Refer Slide Time: 18:35)

Next, we are going to discuss Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award in 1932. So, the
Communal Award was based on the conclusions of the Indian Franchise Committee,
which was commonly known as the Lothian Committee. And it was issued on August 16
1932 by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald.

It intends to establish separate electorates in India. So, the question of separate electorate
became almost synonymous with the formation of a free Indian polity, with the
formation of Indian self-governance. So, we see that the two things are actually
progressing parallelly – the progress towards independence and at the same time, an
advancement in terms of separate communal identities and thereby the question of two
nations.

The theory of two nations, which is becoming more and more prominent with the
progression of years towards [Partition]…. And this is the development that becomes the
most prominent in the 1940s. The question of separate electorate gets interspersed with
the question of independence. So, now we have separate electorates according to
MacDonald's Communal Award for the Forward Caste and for the Scheduled Caste – all
these legacies that we carry till today.

For the Muslims, for the Buddhists, for the Sikhs, the Indian Christians, the Anglo
Indians, for the Europeans and for the Depressed Classes that are now known as the
Schedule Caste. So, a white paper on the future of India's constitution was released by
the government. The constitution proposed the creation of multiple Muslim-majority
provinces as well as the institution of parliament with different electorates. The
MacDonald Award was an attempt to purposely destroy India's unity, by encouraging
caste and religious consciousness or awareness as well as a sense of regionalism.

(Refer Slide Time: 21:23)

It was a plot to divide India into several smaller states as a way of strengthening
colonialism, which had been sweeping the globe at that time. The British did not want
any sense of national unity to be introduced since that would jeopardise their own status.
The provisions of the Communal Award include doubling the number of seats in
provincial legislatures, and creating separate electorates in Bombay for Muslims,
Europeans, Indian Christians, Anglo Indians, the poor and the Marathas.

(Refer Slide Time: 22:00)

So, in Punjab, the Sikhs were assigned 32 seats out of 175 total seats with 3 percentage
of seats designated for women except in the North Western Frontier Province, and seats
allocated to labourers, to landowners, traders and industrialists. So, through all these
categories we have our sense of class belonging – where do we socio-economically
belong in that ladder?

As a result, we see M. K. Gandhi beginning to fast from September 20, 1932. His fast
aroused strong emotions among Hindu caste leaders as well as among the Depressed
Classes, who came together in Poona (which is now Pune) in order to rescue Gandhiji's
life as well as to vouch for the Hindu Community's unity.

The Dalit leaders, especially Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, supported this proposal of
separate electorate for the depressed classes or the scheduled caste people, believing that
it would allow Dalits to advance their interest. So, we see that what Ramsay
MacDonald's Communal Award yields creates a kind of tiff between B.R. Ambedkar on
the one side spearheading the Dalits demand and M.K. Gandhi who is actually looking at
the dwindling power of the caste Hindus.

So, if the Dalits were to separate themselves out from the Hindu identity, the Hindus as a
community would further have their position [weakened], which M.K. Gandhi did not
want.

(Refer Slide Time: 24:12)

So, Gandhi objected to the provision of an electorate for the Dalits in isolation from the
Hindu electorate, which in his view would weaken India in its bid for independence.

Negotiations with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had begun…so negotiation between M. K.

Gandhi and Ambedkar which resulted in the Poona Pact in 1932. The Poona Pact was
signed on September 24, 1932 at Yerwada Central Jail in Poona by B.R. Ambedkar and
M.K. Gandhi, and this was regarding the reservation of political seats for the poor.

And leaders, such as Madan Mohan Malviya along with B.R. Ambedkar and others
actually signed this as a way of terminating Gandhiji’s fast. Gandhi had fast until death
till the Dalits actually acquiesced, and so basically Ambedkar and Gandhi had a divide in
their opinions, but they tried to reconcile and so Poona Pact was signed.

(Refer Slide Time: 25:28)

As a result of Poona Pact…we see that the pact declined separate electorates of course,
so Gandhiji had his way to a certain extent. However, it gave increased representation to
the Dalits within the Hindu electorate for a period of next 10 years. The pact marked the
start of the movement against "untouchability."

So, it was a very significant moment for Dalit agency in India. Dalit voice and Dalit
rights, the question of Dalit rights emerged with this pact. So, the visibility of the Dalit
within the Indian nationalist movement was marked with this pact, the Poona Pact.
According to the Poona Pact instead of 71 seats granted in the Communal Award 148
seats [were granted to the Dalits]…so, more than double [seats] were allotted to the
underprivileged classes. It was an achievement on the part of Ambedkar and his
followers. Depressed Classes would adhere to the Joint Electorate idea and they would
be given appropriate representation in the civil service. This was another achievement.

This event caused Gandhiji to recognise the problems of the poor and the need to
integrate them into the society. As a result, on September 30th of the same year, he
founded the all India Anti-Untouchability League, later renamed as the Harijan Sevak
Sangh, and also known as the Servants of Untouchable society as a way of eliminating
the practice of untouchability from the Hindu society.

(Refer Slide Time: 27:17)

Next, we talk about the Government of India Act in 1935. The Government of India Act
was passed on the basis of the following [factors]. So, the report of Simon Commission,
the outcome of round table conferences and then the White Paper issued by the British
Government in 1933. It provided the provision for the establishment of an All India
Federation consisting of provinces and princely states as units.

So, the Government of India Act divided the powers between the centre and units in
terms of three lists – (a) the federal list, (b) the provincial list and (c) the concurrent list.
The residuary powers were given to the Viceroy.

(Refer Slide Time: 28:16)

However, this federation never fructified since princely states refused to give in or to
join. It abolished diarchy in the provinces and instead introduced provincial autonomy in
its place. So, the provinces were becoming autonomous as a result of this act.

The act introduced responsible government in provinces, which meant that the governor
was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the provincial legislature.
(Refer Slide Time: 28:54)
And the Government of India Act called for the establishment of diarchy in the centre.
So however, we see that this clause ah did not take effect at all. In the six provinces –
Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United Provinces, bicameralism was
implemented.

Bicameralism means a form of administration where the legislature is divided into two
chambers. This was implemented in these six provinces. The Governors were not bound
to accept the advice of ministers.

(Refer Slide Time: 29:38)

So, in the Indian provincial elections in 1937, the Indian National Congress came to
power in seven provinces.

So, the Government of India Act was a crucial turning point in the history of pre-
independent ah India. We see that separate electorates was further extended to depressed
classes, to women, to labour. So, all these separate identities become more and more
concretized through the passing of these different acts. The Council of India which was
established as per the 1858 Act was abolished.

The secretary of state was instead provided with a team of advisors, the establishment of
a Federal Court at Delhi with the Chief Justice and six judges. Establishment of Reserve
Bank of India, the RBI in the year 1935 was recommended by Hilton Young
Commission. So, these are all historic events that are coeval with this act.

(Refer Slide Time: 30:46)

And the act provided for setting up the Federal Public Service Commission, Provincial
Public Service Commission, Joint Public Service Commission. They were partial
reorganization of several provinces. So, we see that the Government of India Act
becomes a turning point. Sindh was separated from Bombay. Bihar and Orissa were split
into two separate provinces. Burma was completely separated from India through this
act. There were introduction of direct elections, thus increasing the franchise from 7
million to 35 million people – that is a huge change. No mention of dominion status or
future concessions.

(Refer Slide Time: 31:42)

So, the Indian National Congress unanimously rejected the 1935 Act. Instead INC called
for a Constituent Assembly to be chosen based on universal adult franchise for framing
the Indian Constitution. The acceptance of the role was challenged by Jawaharlal Nehru,
Subhas Chandra Bose and the Congress socialists. They believed that by collaborating
with colonialism's oppressive machinery, they would be able to achieve nothing for the
common Indians through creating provincial administrations at the Indian National
Congress.

So, despite their restricted powers, right-wing-pro-office acceptance politicians would

think that provincial ministries might encourage beneficial activities, such as rural and
Harijan upliftment. So, they were seeing some positive aspects in these reforms, these
changes.

(Refer Slide Time: 32:58)

Jalal very correctly points out… like many other historians that study the postcolonial
nations and the partition scholars, she [also] notes that the Montagu-Chlemsford Reforms
in 1919 and the Government of India Act in 1935 were responsible for the creation of
"regional particularisms".

These colonial enterprises fragmented Indian politics in terms of class and communal
manipulations. With this, we come to the end of lecture three, and I am going to meet
you again for the next lecture. Until then, thank you.