Government of India Act, 1919: Important Points and Effects
The Government of India Act, 1919 is also referred to as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. This was one of the most significant periods in British India’s constitutional history. It introduced several administrative and political reforms to increase Indian influence in governance while the British maintained dominant control over key issues.
Background of World War I:-
The involvement of British India during World War I was massive in all three aspects: man power, material supplies, and financial input. Indian leaders wanted to share more power and government as the nation had contributed to the war efforts. Post-war unrest among the Indian people presented a grim scenario for the political reforms that were taking place.
Montagu Declaration of 1917:-
Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu declared in August 1917 that the British government intended to confer “increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration” and gradually develop self-governing institutions.
The Act:-
The main objective of the act was to bring into existence a system of responsible government wherein elected Indian members had a greater say in administration, though under the overall control of British authorities.
Introduction of Diarchy
The Government of India Act, 1919, introduced a system known as diarchy at the provincial level.
In the diarchy, the provincial subjects were divided into two categories –
Transferred Subjects: these subjects are to be administered by the ministers responsible to the legislative councils which are mainly Indians. This included subjects such as education, public health, agriculture, and local self-government.
Individual Subjects: These subjects were still not under the purview of the Governor and his Executive Council, who British officials still dominated. The reserved subjects included defense, forеign affaіrs, and lаw and ordеr.
Bicameral Legіslatuvе at thе Cеntеr:-
The center had, for the first time, a bicameral system consisting of two housеs:-
Council of Statе:-
This was the upper house, which had a majority of non-elected members.
Legislative Assembly:-
This was the lower house, comprising a mix of elected and nominated members.
Though the act granted wider Indian representation, the elected members had no powers as most important decisions remained with the executive dominated by the British
Provincial Legislative Councils:-
The provincial legislative councils were increased in numbers. However, they had a much larger number of elected members. A franchise was conceded to certain classes, and as such, some about 10% of the adult male population could vote.
The legislative councils were endowed with greater powers of discussion relating to budgets and bills. However, the Governor still had the veto power of decisions.
Limited Franchise:-
The Act Enfranchised Highly Restricted
Voting rights were restricted under the act on properties and tax paying and educational qualifications.
This resulted in a handful of Indians in the population voting while stopping the masses from participating in the political process.
The Powers of Governors
Important powers were entrusted under the act with provincial governors.
They could:-
Over-rule the decisions made by elected ministers.
Take in hand administration of transferred subjects in case of emergency.
Induct new ministers if necessary.
This provision vested the authority of control with the provincial governments and provided for British supremacy over vital domains of administration.
Central Executive Council:-
The Viceroy’s Executive Council remained at the core of governance, and the Viceroy enjoyed strong authority over the central government.
The Indians were provided with seats in the executive council but were given only minor departments such as law and education as members. The sensitive departments of defense, finance, and foreign affairs were not bestowed upon Indians.
Demarcation between Provincial and Central Subjects:-
The act brought in an effective demarcation between the subjects that were directly under the control of the central government and those that came under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
The central government addressed matters of national importance, defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Matters such as education and health remained within the purview of the provinces.
Impact of the Government of India Act 1919
A Step Toward Responsible Government:-
He introduced the diarchy system for the first time in Indian history whereby elected Indian ministers were entrusted with some areas of governing affairs. It was a step towards establishing a responsible government in India.
Limited Success of Diarchy:-
The diarchy proved ineffective to a large extent due to the conflicting responsibilities of the elected ministers and the British-controlled executive. The elected Indian ministers had almost nil authority, and most of their decisions were opposed by the governors.
The act failed to ease the rising demands for self-rule as the British officials clung to the key areas such as law and order.
Emergence of Political Turmoil:-
The limited scope of the reforms offered under the Government of India Act, 1919, created discontent in the minds of Indian political leaders and the general public at large.
Some of the leaders at that time, among them were Mahatma Gandhi and Motilal Nehru, denounced the act for not raising the hopes of self-rule and continued supremacy by the British.
The non-cooperation movement launched by Gandhi in 1920 were partly due to the failures of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
More Demands for Reforms:-
Although this was a major step, it failed to satisfy the Indians, who were expecting ‘full self-governance’. The act only increased the demands of more radical reforms with Indians having a greater role in the governance of the country.
These unsatisfactory reforms with this act increased the dissatisfaction with the final demand for Purna Swaraj or complete independence. This movement now started gaining momentum.
Simon Commission and Nehru Report
The Government of India Act, 1919, was to be reviewed after 10 years. The Simon Commission was, therefore, set up in 1927 to assess the working of the reforms. However, Indian political parties boycotted the Simon Commission as it did not comprise of Indian members.
Preparation of the Nehru Report: Indian leaders framed the Nehru Report in 1928 reacting to the Simon Commission and putting forth the case for dominion status for India with a degree of self-government.
The Government of India Act, 1935
The weaknesses of the 1919 Act and the subsequent political maneuvers led to the Government of India Act, 1935, which created more radical reforms by the creation of provincial autonomy and a federal system.
Criticism of the Government of India Act, 1919
Although the 1919 Act brought about reforms, one cannot rule out the criticism of British control that continued.
This act brought diarchy but the Indians were not given effective power over key sectors of governance. It kept all important decisions of the British officials and gave the governor reservation right of majority in matters related to the elected ministers.
Restrictions on Franchise:-
As the limited franchise system effectively withheld voting rights from the majority of the Indian population, qualifications such as property ownership, education, and tax-paying capabilities marginalized the overwhelming majority of peasants and workers, where only a small elite class could participate in elections.
Failure to Address Indian Nationalism:-
The act did not quite do justice in fulfilling the emerging feeling of nationalism within the country. It was less than the Indian aspired for self-rule and did not ultimately deliver what leaders like Gandhi and Nehru had been demanding, to have greater autonomy in India.
Lack of Sufficient Powers for Elected Representatives:-
Even where the Indians were entrusted with power, their authority was starkly limited. Governor had the right to supersede ministers and assume all powers of administration in case of crisis, which really hamstrung the elected members.
Ineffectiveness of Diarchy:-
The diarchy system was ineffective, especially at the provincial level, since the reserved subjects under British officials often directly impacted the transferred subjects dealt with by Indian ministers. It naturally caused friction and an element of fettering the Indian ministers.
Conclusion:-
The Government of India Act, 1919 was landmark legislation in the constitutional development of India but short of the aspirations of the Indian people. While it did enact important reforms, including diarchy and expanded legislative councils, the act’s limitations—the largely unchallenged dominance of British officials and the very limited franchise—sparked popular revolt. As an intermediate step toward self-rule, the act proved to be a catalyst for the increasing nationalist movement that demanded independence in totality.
Also Read:- The Ghadar Party’s Fight for Liberation (1913)