Introduction
The Government of India Act, 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford (or Montford) Reforms, was a significant constitutional development in British India. It emerged from the context of India's substantial contribution to World War I, rising nationalist demands spearheaded by the Home Rule Leagues, and the British government's need to placate Indian public opinion. While the Act introduced notable changes, particularly provincial dyarchy and expanded legislative councils, it fell short of nationalist aspirations for genuine self-government, setting the stage for further political agitation. Its preamble, however, for the first time, articulated the "progressive realisation of responsible government" as a goal of British policy in India.
Context: The Road to Reforms
Several crucial developments set the stage for the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
Impact of World War I (1914-1918)
- India contributed over a million soldiers and vast resources to the British war effort.
- Led to expectations among Indians for political concessions and greater say in governance.
- War exposed myth of Western superiority, fueling nationalism globally.
- Economic hardships (inflation, high taxes, shortages) increased popular discontent.
Home Rule Movement (1916-1918)
- Led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant.
- Aimed at "Home Rule" or self-government within the British Empire.
- Revived political activity and mobilized masses, pressuring the British government.
Lucknow Pact (1916)
- Historic agreement between Indian National Congress and Muslim League.
- Both parties presented common political demands.
- Congress accepted separate electorates for Muslims – a decision with long-term communal implications.
Montagu's Declaration (August 20, 1917)
- Made by Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India.
- Landmark: Explicitly stated "responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire" as the goal of British policy.
- Implied gradual development, pace determined by British.
Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918)
The Basis for the Act
Edwin Montagu visited India in November 1917 and, along with Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, conducted extensive tours and discussions. Their joint report, the "Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms" (Montagu-Chelmsford Report), published in July 1918, formed the foundational document for the Government of India Act, 1919. It acknowledged the need for Indian participation and proposed the principle of dyarchy.
Government of India Act, 1919: Key Features
The Act introduced several significant, though often limited, constitutional changes.
- Largely reiterated Montagu's August 1917 Declaration.
- Emphasized India would remain an integral part of the British Empire.
- Stated "responsible government" in British India was the objective of British parliamentary policy.
- Stressed the "gradual" nature of this development, dependent on Indian cooperation.
This was the most significant and novel feature, meaning "rule by two authorities".
Provincial subjects divided into "Reserved" and "Transferred":
- Reserved Subjects: Administered by the Governor with his Executive Council (largely British, not responsible to legislature).
Examples: Law & order, finance, land revenue, irrigation, justice, police. - Transferred Subjects: Administered by the Governor with Indian Ministers (from elected members, responsible to legislature, could be removed by no-confidence vote).
Examples: Education, health, local government, agriculture, industries.
Governor's Overriding Powers:
- Governor was the ultimate authority, could veto ministers' decisions or take over transferred subjects.
- Finance for transferred subjects largely controlled by the Reserved half.
- Dyarchy proved complex and unworkable due to unclear division, lack of real power for ministers, and Governor's powers.
Bicameral Legislature:
- Introduced for the first time at the Centre.
- Council of State (Upper House): 60 members (34 elected). Tenure 5 years.
- Legislative Assembly (Lower House): 144 members (104 elected). Tenure 3 years.
- Majority of members in both houses directly elected.
Governor-General's Executive Council:
- Remained responsible only to the British Parliament. No responsible government at Centre.
- Three out of six members (excluding C-in-C) were to be Indian.
Governor-General's Overriding Powers:
- Could veto or certify bills, issue ordinances.
- Budget divided into votable and non-votable parts (75% non-votable, outside legislative control).
- Voting rights extended but still very limited, based on property, tax, or education.
- About 5 million (10% of adult male population) enfranchised for provincial councils.
- More restricted for Central Legislative Assembly (about 1 million).
- Provision for women's enfranchisement, left to provinces (Madras first in 1921).
- System of separate electorates (for Muslims, from 1909) was retained.
- Extended to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, and Europeans.
- Criticized by nationalists as a "divide and rule" tactic that furthered communalism.
- Separation of Central and Provincial Budgets: Provincial legislatures could enact their own budgets. Foundation for federal structure.
- Creation of Office of High Commissioner for India: In London, to perform some functions previously handled by the Secretary of State.
- Provision for Statutory Commission: To be appointed after 10 years to review the Act's working (led to Simon Commission in 1927).
Assessment and Reactions
Criticisms
- Dyarchy Complex & Unworkable: Illogical division of subjects, ministers lacked real power over finance & bureaucracy.
- No Real Transfer of Power: Governor's overriding powers made provincial autonomy a sham.
- No Responsible Government at Centre: Governor-General unaccountable to central legislature.
- Limited Franchise: Excluded vast majority of population.
- Separate Electorates: Furthered communalism, seen as "divide and rule."
- Fell Short of Nationalist Demands: Act seen as inadequate after India's wartime contributions.
- Congress Reaction: Termed reforms "disappointing and unsatisfactory." Tilak: "unworthy and disappointing – a sunless dawn."
Significance
- Shift in Principle: "Responsible government" officially stated as British policy goal for the first time.
- Increased Indian Participation: More Indians elected to councils, some became ministers, gaining administrative experience.
- Political Experience: Elections & legislative work provided valuable political experience.
- Devolution of Power: Separation of provincial subjects/budgets was a step towards federalism.
- Paved Way for Future Reforms: Shortcomings led to demands for GoI Act, 1935.
Congress's Dilemma: The Act led to a split with Moderates (forming Liberal Federation). Congress initially condemned it but later decided to participate in elections (under Swarajists) to "wreck the constitution from within" or expose its flaws.
Summary Table: Key Provisions of GoI Act, 1919
| Feature | Provision at Provincial Level | Provision at Central Level | Other Key Aspects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive | Dyarchy: Reserved & Transferred subjects. Governor's dominance. | No responsible govt. Viceroy's Exec. Council (3/6 Indians). Viceroy's veto. | Gov-Gen had overriding powers. |
| Legislature | Expanded Legislative Councils, some elected members. | Bicameral: Council of State & Legislative Assembly. Majority elected. | Limited Franchise (property-based). |
| Responsibility | Ministers (Transferred) responsible to legislature; Exec. Council (Reserved) not. | Executive not responsible to legislature. | Sec. of State ultimately responsible to British Parliament. |
| Subjects | Divided into Reserved & Transferred. | Division of subjects between Centre & Provinces. | |
| Electorates | Separate electorates extended (Sikhs, Christians, etc.). | Separate electorates reflected in constituencies. | Furthered communal representation. |
| Finance | Provincial budget separated. Finance largely a Reserved subject. | Central Budget (partly votable). | |
| Review | - | - | Statutory Commission after 10 years. |
| New Office | - | - | High Commissioner for India in London. |
UPSC Ready Notes
- Common Name: Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (Montford Reforms).
- Context: WWI, Home Rule Movement, Lucknow Pact (1916), Montagu's Declaration (Aug 20, 1917).
- Montagu's Declaration (1917): Goal: "Progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."
- Basis: Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918).
- Key Features of GoI Act, 1919:
- Preamble: Reiterated Montagu's Declaration.
- Provincial Dyarchy: Division of subjects into Reserved (Governor + Executive Council, not responsible) and Transferred (Governor + Indian Ministers, responsible to leg.).
- Reserved: Law, finance, land revenue.
- Transferred: Education, health, local govt.
- Central Legislature: Bicameral - Council of State (Upper) & Legislative Assembly (Lower). Majority directly elected. No responsible govt at Centre.
- Viceroy's Executive Council: 3 out of 6 members (excluding C-in-C) to be Indian.
- Franchise: Expanded but limited (property, tax, education). About 10% adult males for provinces. Women got limited franchise later (Madras first in 1921).
- Separate Electorates: Retained for Muslims; extended to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, Europeans.
- Budgets: Central and Provincial budgets separated.
- High Commissioner for India: New office in London.
- Statutory Commission: Provision for review after 10 years (led to Simon Commission).
- Reactions:
- Congress: "Disappointing and unsatisfactory."
- Tilak: "Sunless dawn."
- Moderates (e.g., Surendranath Banerjea) formed Indian National Liberal Federation to work the reforms.
- Significance: First official commitment to responsible government, increased Indian participation, groundwork for federalism.
Major Debates/Discussions:
- "Responsible Government" – Reality or Rhetoric?: While declared, Act's provisions (dyarchy, Governor/Viceroy's overriding powers) limited real responsibility.
- Dyarchy – A Flawed Experiment: Intended as training, but actual flaws included illogical subject division, ministers' lack of control over bureaucracy/finance, and Governor's powers, suggesting it was designed to fail.
- Extension of Separate Electorates: Major contention. Nationalists saw it as 'divide and rule', supporters as minority protection. Widely seen as precursor to Partition.
- Congress's Dilemma: Led to split (Liberals formed), Congress condemned but later participated (Swarajists) to expose flaws.
Historical/Long-term Trends, Continuity & Changes:
- Continuity: Ultimate British control, supreme authority of Secretary of State/Viceroy, continued expansion of communal divisions.
- Changes: Explicit commitment to "responsible government," introduction of direct elections/bicameralism, rudimentary federal foundations, increased Indian administrative association.
- Set a pattern of "too little, too late" reforms from British.
Contemporary Relevance/Significance/Impact:
- Constitutional Legacy: Features like bicameralism, direct elections, subject division found in independent India's Constitution.
- Lessons in Governance: Dyarchy's failure taught lessons on accountability, financial autonomy, and responsible executive.
- Impact on Communal Politics: Entrenchment of separate electorates had lasting negative impact, key factor in Partition.
(Note: Direct recent examples are not applicable to a historical act. Its study is crucial for understanding the evolution of India's parliamentary democracy and its federal structure. Debates on federalism, state's rights, and minority representation in India often have historical echoes from these reforms.)
Direct current affairs related to the GoI Act, 1919, are minimal given its historical nature. However, connections can be drawn through:
- Discussions on India's Constitutional History: The Act is a critical milestone in the evolution of India's parliamentary democracy and constitutional framework.
- Commemorations: Centenaries of related events (e.g., Montagu's Declaration 1917, Act passage 1919) occasionally trigger academic discussions or publications.
- Legacy in Governance Structures: When modern administrative reforms or parliamentary procedures are discussed, lessons from early reforms like the 1919 Act might be implicitly or explicitly considered.
UPSC Previous Year Questions
Understanding UPSC's questioning style and focus areas.
Prelims MCQs
UPSC CSE 2012:
Q. The distribution of powers between the Centre and the States in the Indian Constitution is based on the scheme provided in the:
- (a) Morley-Minto Reforms, 1909
- (b) Montagu-Chelmsford Act, 1919
- (c) Government of India Act, 1935
- (d) Indian Independence Act, 1947
Answer: (c)
Hint: While the 1919 Act initiated separation of central and provincial subjects, the detailed scheme of three lists (Federal, Provincial, Concurrent) which strongly influenced the Constitution was a feature of the 1935 Act.
UPSC CSE 2017:
Q. With reference to Indian history, the members of the Constituent Assembly from the Provinces were:
- (a) directly elected by the people of those Provinces
- (b) nominated by the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League
- (c) elected by the Provincial Legislative Assemblies
- (d) nominated by the Government for their expertise in constitutional matters
Answer: (c)
Hint: The Provincial Legislative Assemblies, which formed the electoral college for the Constituent Assembly, were themselves constituted based on franchise rules evolving from Acts like GoI Act 1919 and 1935. The 1919 Act expanded these assemblies.
UPSC CSE 2004:
Q. The Montague-Chelmsford Proposals were related to
- (a) social reforms
- (b) educational reforms
- (c) reforms in police administration
- (d) constitutional reforms
Answer: (d)
Hint: The Montagu-Chelmsford Report led directly to the Government of India Act, 1919, which was a major constitutional reform package.
UPSC CSE 2022:
Q. The Government of India Act 1919 clearly defined:
- (a) the separation of power between the judiciary and the legislature
- (b) the jurisdiction of the central and provincial governments
- (c) the powers of the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy
- (d) None of the above
Answer: (b)
Hint: The Act demarcated and separated central and provincial subjects, which defined their respective jurisdictions for administration and legislation.
Original MCQ 1 (Based on theme):
Q. Which of the following statements accurately describes a key feature of 'Dyarchy' as introduced by the Government of India Act, 1919, in the provinces?
- (a) The Governor was bound by the advice of Indian ministers on all provincial subjects.
- (b) Provincial subjects were divided, with Indian ministers responsible to the legislature for 'Reserved' subjects like finance and law & order.
- (c) Indian ministers, responsible to the legislature, administered 'Transferred' subjects, but the Governor retained significant control over finance and bureaucracy.
- (d) It introduced a fully responsible government in the provinces, with the Governor acting only as a constitutional head.
Answer: (c)
Explanation: This accurately describes the core mechanism and inherent weakness of dyarchy – ministers for Transferred subjects were responsible to the legislature, but real control, especially over finance and key civil servants, often lay with the Governor and the Reserved half of the government.
Original MCQ 2 (Based on theme):
Q. The Government of India Act, 1919, provided for the establishment of a Statutory Commission after ten years to review its working. This provision directly led to the appointment of:
- (a) The Muddiman Committee
- (b) The Simon Commission
- (c) The Lothian Committee
- (d) The Butler Committee
Answer: (b)
Explanation: The Act itself mandated a review after ten years. The Simon Commission (Indian Statutory Commission) was appointed in 1927 (ahead of schedule) for this purpose.
Original MCQ 3 (Based on theme):
Q. Consider the following provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919:
1. Introduction of bicameralism at the Centre.
2. Grant of universal adult franchise for provincial elections.
3. Abolition of the India Council of the Secretary of State.
4. Extension of separate electorates to Sikhs and Indian Christians.
Which of the above provisions are correct?
- (a) 1 and 4 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1, 2 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 3 and 4 only
Answer: (a)
Explanation: 1 is correct (bicameralism at Centre). 2 is incorrect (franchise was limited). 3 is incorrect (India Council abolished by 1935 Act). 4 is correct (separate electorates extended).
Mains Questions
UPSC CSE 2017:
Q. Why did the ‘Moderates’ fail to carry conviction with the nation about their proclaimed loyalty to the British Crown? (10 marks)
Original Mains Question 1 (Hypothetical):
Q. "The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms offered 'dyarchy' at the provincial level but it proved to be a non-starter in practice." Elucidate. (15 marks, 250 words)
Original Mains Question 2 (Hypothetical):
Q. "The Government of India Act, 1919, was a halfway house that satisfied none. Critically analyze." (15 marks, 250 words)