The government of India act 1909,1919,1935, the In bndian Independence Act 1947

Theoretical overview

The Indian Councils Act 1909

The Indian Councils Act 1909 or Morley-Minto Reforms or Minto-Morley Reforms was passed by British Parliament in 1909 in 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 the governance. This act got royal assent on 25 May 1909.

Background

Though the Indian Councils Act of 1892 had introduced limited representation with indirect elections, it failed to placate the Indians who were much more conscious of their rights by now. There was a lot of resentment against reign of Lord Curzon, who had already irked the public by the foolish idea of partition of Bengal. There was a rise of extremism in the congress. Government, on one hand wanted to suppress the extremists but on other hand wanted to pacify the moderates. Meanwhile, Gopal Krishna Gokhale went to England and met Mr. Morley, the Secretary of State for India. Viceroy Lord Minto also emphasised the need of making some reforms. Both the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India decided to work out some scheme to reform the Legislative councils This culminated as Indian Councils act 1909. The idea was to give locals some more power in the legislative affairs. A provision was made for the expansion of legislative councils at the both the levels viz. central as well as provincial.

Salient Provisions

Expansion of the Legislative Councils

The act enlarged the size of the legislative council both Central and Provincial. The number of members in the Central Legislative Council was raised from 16 to 60. The number in Provincial legislative council was not uniform. Legislative councils of Bengal, Bombay and Madras were increased to 50 members each. The provincial legislature of UP was to have 50, of Assam, Burma and Punjab 30 each.

Communal Representation

For the first time, the Indian Councils act gave recognition to elective principle for the appointment of nonofficial members to the councils. However, it introduced separate and discriminatory electorate. The electorate was decided on the basis of class & community. For the provincial councils a provision of three categories was made viz general, special and chambers of commerce. However, for the central council, a fourth category Muslims was added. This was for the first time that, the seats in the legislative bodies were reserved on the basis of religion for Muslims. Separate constituencies were marked for the Muslims and only Muslim community members were given the right to elect their representatives.

The separate electorate for Muslims had a long lasting impact on India’s polity. It recognized the Muslim community as a separate section of the India and triggered the cancer of Hindu-Muslim disharmony which ultimately culminated in the partition.

Under the separate electorates, Muslims could vote exclusively for the Muslim candidates in constituencies specially reserved for them. The idea was to establish that the political, economic and cultural interests of the Hindus and Muslims were distinct. The unity between Hindus and Muslims is a illusion and this act sowed the seeds of the Muslim Communism

Other Features

• The act empowered the members to discuss the budget and move resolutions before it was approved finally. They were given rights to ask supplementary questions and move resolutions to on matters related to loans to the local bodies.
• The members given right to discuss matters of the public interest however, the house was not binding on the government. Rules were also framed under the act for the discussion of matters of general public interest in the legislative councils.
• No discussion was permitted on any subject not within legislative competence of the particular legislature any matter affecting the relations of the Government of India with a foreign power or a native state, and any matter under adjudication by a court of law.

Critical Analysis of the Act

The Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909 could not come up to the expectations of the Indians. What the people of India demanded was that there should be set up a responsible government in the country. But the sacred heart of the reforms of 1909 was “benevolent despotism” and it was basically a subtle attempt to create a “constitutional autocracy”.

Further, though non-official majority was given in the Provincial Councils, the practical result was nothing. The non-official majority was nullified by the fact that it included nominated members. There was no real majority of those who represented the people.

A Shadow rather than Substance

The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer and could afford no answer to the Indian political problem. The real political solution was lying in complete self-rule and accountable governance but the 1909 Act was only a face saving device. The position of the Governor-General remained unchanged and his veto power remained undiluted and the Act was successfully maintained relentless constitutional autocracy. Under such circumstances narrow franchises, indirect elections, limited powers of the Legislative Councils ushered a complete irresponsible government. The Act rather added new political problem with the introduction of the separate electorate system. While the parliamentary forms were introduced, no responsibility was conceded. At the same time there were no connection between the supposed primary voter and a man who sits as his representative on the Legislative Council. In such a situation, the political participation, awareness and education remained a distant dream. In nutshell, it can be said that 1909 Act was ‘the shadow rather than the substance’.

Merits of Minto-Morley Reforms

Nevertheless, the Minto-Morley Reforms had some of their merits. They mark an important stage in the growth of representative institution, and one step ahead towards the responsible association of elected Indians with the administration. Further, 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 criticize the executives and make suggestions for better administration. The enlargement of the legislatures furthered the demand of complete Indianization of the legislature.

Government of India Act 1919

Government of India Act 1919 was passed by British Parliament to further expand the participation of Indians in the Government of India. Since the act embodied reforms as recommended by a report of Edwin Montagu (Secretary of State for India) and Lord Chelmsford {Viceroy and Governor General}, it is also called as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms or simply Mont-Ford Reforms. The most notable feature of the act was “end of benevolent despotism” and introduction of responsible government in India. This act covered 10 years from 1919 to 1929.

Edwin Samuel Montagu had remained the Secretary of State for India between 1917 and 1922. He was a critic of the entire system by which India was administered. On 20 August 1917, he made a historic declaration in the House of Commons in British Parliament which is called “Montague declaration”. The theme of this declaration was increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and gradual development of self governing institutions and responsible government in India.

In November 1917, Montague had visited India to ascertain views from all sections of polity including talks with Gandhi and Jinnah. A detailed report on Constitutional Reforms in India {Mont-Ford Report} was published on 8th July, 1918. This report became the basis of Government of India Act 1919. Key features of this report were as follows:

• Increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration.
• 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.
• Progress towards responsible government in successive stages.

Preamble:

The Government of India Act 1919 had a separate Preamble. Key points of the preamble were as follows:

• India to remain as an integral part of British Empire.
• Gradual decentralization of authority with loosening the supreme hold of the central government. Thus, the preamble of this act suggested for a decentralized unitary form of government
• The time and manner towards goal of responsible government will be decided by the British Parliament.
• Partial responsibility in provinces, but no change in character of the central government.

Introduction of Dyarchy: Reserved and Transferred Subjects

In Government of India Act 1919 the spheres of the central and provincial governments were demarcated by a division of subjects into “central” and “provincial”. Generally speaking, the central subjects included all subjects directly administered by the Government of India or in which extra-provincial interests were dominant. The provincial subjects included subjects in which the interests of the provinces essentially predominated.

The Dyarchy was for the Provincial Governments. The provincial subjects were divided into two categories viz. reserved and transferred. The reserved subjects were kept with the Governor and transferred subjects were kept with Governor acting with the Indian Ministers.

Element of Responsibility in Dyarchy

Dyarchy was a gradual transition from irresponsible to responsible government. The provinces were thought to be suitable for experimenting with such scheme. Thus, the provincial subjects were divided into reserved and transferred subjects. The elements of responsibility were as follows:

• The members in control of the reserved subjects were made responsible to British parliament through secretary of state.
• The ministers who controlled the transferred subjects were made responsible through the legislative councils to an Indian electorate.

While subjects such as Land revenue administration, famine relief, irrigation, administration of justice, law and order, newspapers, borrowing, forests etc. were kept in reserved list; the subjects such as education, public health sanitation, public works, agriculture, fisheries, religious endowments, local self governments, medical services etc. were kept in transferred list.

In other words, the subjects who were considered of key importance for the welfare of the masses and for maintaining peace and order in the state were classified as reserved, while subjects in whom there was more local interest were treated as transferred

Changes in Secretary of State for India

No substantial changes were made in the office of Secretary of State for India. However, his salary was made a charged expenditure on British revenue this time. Further, the legislative council got the opportunity to criticize him at the time of budget

Changes in Indian Council

The Indian Council was to be made of not less than 8 and not more than 12 members Half of the members should have 10 and salary was increased from £1000 to £1200. Also the number of Indians on the council was increased from two to three

Governor General’s Executive Council

A provision was made for inclusion of three Indians in the six members Council of the Governor General. The advocates of Indian high Courts of less than 10 years standing were eligible to be appointed as Law Minister in the Council. The Indian Councilors were entrusted with only some unimportant departments.

Central Legislature

Via the Government of India Act 1919, a bicameral legislature was set up at center with two houses viz. Legislative Assembly and Council of State. This was a primitive model of India’s Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha

Legislative assembly:

Legislative Assembly was the lower house with three years as its tenure. It was made of 145 members of which 41 were nominated and 104 were elected. The 41 nominated members included 26 officials and 15 non-officials Governor General was authorized to make nominations from Anglo Indians, Indian Christians and Labor to the legislative assembly to safeguard their interests.

The elected members included 52 General Members, 30 Muslims, 9 Europeans, 7 landlords, 4 Representatives of  India Community and 2 Sikhs. This means that the distribution of the seats was not based on population but importance in the eyes of the government. 

Council of state:

The Council of state of upper house had 60 members of which 33 were elected while 27 were nominated. Out of the 33 elected members, 16 were general, 11 Muslims, 3 Europeans and 1 Sikh. Out of 27 nominated members, 17 were officials and 10 were non-officials. The tenure of Council of State was five years.

Powers of the Assembly and Council

The Legislative Assembly and Council of State enjoyed similar and concurrent powers except in matters of finance. A bill needed to be passed on both the houses before becoming a law. The budget was presented in both the houses in same day, however, all other money bills were first introduced in lower house and then in upper house. Voting on grants could take place only in legislative assembly. Further, if a money bill was passed by assembly but rejected or returned by the assembly with some amendments, the amendment were not acceptable to the assembly until so certified by the Governor General.

Financial Powers

The act separated, for the first time, provincial budgets from the Central budget and authorized the provincial legislatures to enact their budgets. But the financial powers of the central legislature were also very much limited. The budget was to be divided into two categories, votable and non-votable. The votable items covered only one third of the total expenditure. Even in this sphere the Governor-General was empowered to restore any grant refused or reduced by the legislature, if in his opinion the demand was essential for the discharge of his responsibilities.

Conflict between Legislative Assembly and Council

There were three instruments to resolve the deadlock between the two houses. These instruments were: Joint Committees, Joint Conferences and Joint Sittings. Joint committees meant to avoid the possibility of deadlock. Joint Conferences meant to solve the differences by agreeing to a conference of equal number of representatives of both the houses and Joint Sittings was convened by the Governor as a last resort within six months of the difference.

Election and franchise

Under the Government of India Act 1919, the franchise was restricted. There was no universal franchise, no adult suffrage and no voting powers for women. The qualifications for voting were as follows:

• They should have a property with rental value, taxable income or paid land revenue of at least Rs. 3000 in a year.
• They must have past experience in the legislative council.
• They must have membership of university senate.
• They should hold certain offices in local bodies.
• They should have some specified titles.

The above qualifications were so much restrictive that there were only 1700 voters for election of 33 members.

Powers of the Governor General

No bill of the legislature could be deemed to have been passed unless assented to by the governor general. However, the later could enact a Bill without the assent of the legislature. He possessed the power to prevent the consideration of a Bill or any of its part, on the plea that it was injurious to the peace and tranquility of the country. He could disallow a question in the legislature. He had the power to withhold his assent to any bill passed by the legislature without which it could not become an Act. He also had the power to disallow an adjournment motion or debate on any matter. He could enact a law, which he considered essential for the safety and tranquility of the empire even if the legislature had refused to pass it.

This act also made a provision in its part V, that a statutory commission would be set up at the end of 10 years after the act was passed which shall inquire into the working into the system of the government. The Simon commission of 1927 was an outcome of this provision.

The communal representation was extended and Sikhs, Europeans and Anglo Indians were included. The Franchise (Right of voting) was granted to the limited number of only those who paid certain minimum “Tax” to the government.

Assessment:

The above description makes it clear that the Government of India Act provided for partial transfer of Power to the electorate through the system of Dyarchy. It also prepared the ground for the Indian Federalism, as it identified the provinces as units of fiscal and general administration. But the growing nationalism was not satisfied. The Act of 1919 had three major defects from the nationalist point of view: (a) absence of responsible government at the center, (b) separate electorates for different communities. Although the Mont-ford Report had declared that the separate electorate was a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principles, yet separate electorate came to be significant feature of the Indian political life. The introduction of diarchy in the province was too complicated to be smoothly worked.

Analysis: Government of India Act 1919

Despite of several limitations, the GOI Act 1919 had some merits. The GOI act 1919 marked the end of the policy of benevolent despotism, and thus began the genesis of the responsible government in India. It was for the first time, that elections to the legislatures were known to the people and this created political consciousness among the masses. However, those people who had a property, taxable income & paid land revenue of Rs. 3000 were entitled to vote. The number of the Indian were raised to 3 in the Governor General in Council of 8. These Indian members were entrusted to some portfolios such as labor, health and industry. It was the GOI Act 1919, whereby, the Indians came in direct contact with administration for the first time. This was a very useful experience. It was also for the first time that a number of Indian women got the right to franchise for the first time.

Now, under the Indian ministers, some of the far reaching measures were taken such as enactment of Madras State Aid to Industries Act, 1923, the Bombay Primary Education act, the Bihar and Orissa village administration Act, the Bombay local boards act, 1923, etc.

Government of India Act, 1935

The changes introduced by the Government of India act 1919 were too short of a self government in our country There was only partial transfer of powers through a system of dyarchy. The act was inadequate to satisfy the National aspirations

The division of subjects in Reserved and transferred was illogical and not acceptable. In November 1920, there were elections which were boycotted by the congress. The government of India act 1919 envisaged the centralization through the division of authority between the central and provincial governments in various fields of administration but central legislature was competent to legislate on the Provincial subjects and there was still no federal principle in operation and Government in India was still unitary

The act of 1919 could not satisfy any one. The dyarchy as an experiment failed, when it was put to practice as there was no substantial transfer of power to the representatives of the people. There was an emergence of a new spint, zeal and unity among the educated Indians under the banner of Indian National Congress

• In January 1915, Mahatma Gandhi had returned to India from South Africa. In may 1915 he established Sabarmati ashram in Gujarat
• The Champaran agrigarian dispute of North Bihar, a similar dispute in Gujarat at kaira and also a labor dispute in Ahmadabad made Mahatma Gandhi a national hero and his influential political career started He devised a new technique Satyagraha.
• The British were irked by the growing revolutionary terrorism and the ongoing First World War. In 1919, a committee was established by the Governor general Chelmsford under the judge of the Kings Bench in London Sydney Rowlatt. The responsibility of this committee was to investigate into the nature and extent of revolutionary activities and suggest measures. This committee submitted its report in April 1918. Based upon the recommendations of this committee two bills were introduced. One was dropped and another was passed. The name of this passed bill, which was now an act was Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act which was called Rowlatt Act.
• On February 6, 1919, Gandhi Ji decided to launch the Satyagraha and criticized the Rowlatt act as subversive and unjust and against the principles of liberty The volunteers courted arrest and a strike was launched country wide on April 6, 1919 On April 13, 1919 the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy occurred and the Satyagraha lost momentum.
• Before the government of India act 1935 passed, 3 round conferences in London were held. These have been discussed in our Independence struggle.

Salient Features of the Act

• The Government of India Act 1935 introduced the provincial autonomy and provided for an all India federation.
• This act introduced dyarchy at the central level.
• This act had 321 sections and 10 schedules.
• It made a provision for establishment of a Federal court.
• The franchisee was extended.
• It divided the subjects in 3 lists.
• The Indian council was abolished and an advisory body was introduced.

• Burma was separated from India, and Aden was surrendered to British Colonial office.
• The political conscious of the people of India was not considered. There was no provision of any fundamental right. It perpetuated the sovereignty of the British parliament over India.

Points to remember

1. The Indian Councils Act 1909 or Morley-Minto Reforms or Minto-Morley Reforms was passed by British Parliament in 1909 in 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 the governance. This act got royal assent on 25 May 1909.
2. Government of India Act 1919 was passed by British Parliament to further expand the participation of Indians in the Government of India. Since the act embodied reforms as recommended by a report of Edwin Montagu (Secretary of State for India) and Lord Chelmsford {Viceroy and Governor General}, it is also called as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms or simply Mont-Ford Reforms.
3. The Dyarchy was for the Provincial Governments. The provincial subjects were divided into two categories viz. reserved and transferred. The reserved subjects were kept with the Governor and transferred subjects were kept with Governor acting with the Indian Ministers.
4. The Government of India Act 1919 had a separate Preamble
5. Via the Government of India Act 1919, a bicameral legislature was set up at center with two houses viz. Legislative Assembly and Council of State. This was a primitive model of India’s Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
6. The changes introduced by the Government of India act 1919 were too short of a self government in our country There was only partial transfer of powers through a system of dyarchy. The act was inadequate to satisfy the National aspirations.