Montague Chelmsford Reforms, 1919

Introduction

Montague Chelmsford Reforms—1919 are the recommendations of a report by Edwin Montagu, the then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, India’s Viceroy between 1916 and 1921. These recommendations became the basis of the constitutional reforms introduced by the British government through its 1923 Act to grant greater autonomy to India. The act was based on the recommendations of a report by Edwin Montagu, the then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, India’s Viceroy between 1916 and 1921. Hence, the constitutional reforms set forth by this act are known as Montagu-Chelmsford reforms or Montford reforms.

Context

These reforms should be seen in the following objective conditions:

1. Genuine Desire of the British: Although the British came to India as a colonial power, they always had this view that one day they would have to leave it and wanted to leave a lasting legacy. One of the legacies they wanted to leave was the British form of representative government. Thus, soon after assuming direct rule, the British Government began introducing piecemeal constitutional reforms. The time had come to increase the range of these reforms.
2. End of WW1: The year 1919 marked the formal end of the First World War for which they had promised the Indians greater autonomy in return for their assistance in war efforts
3. Giving Moderates Space: The British government in India wanted to defuse radical and militant Indian nationalists who had challenged colonial rule through acts of political violence. The passage of the Government of India Act of 1919 intended to privilege Indian elites who were politically moderate by creating a road map to allow Indians the ability to eventually govern themselves, but with British supervision.

Main Points of the Reforms:

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were based on the recommendations of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, which aimed to address the demands for political reforms in India. Some of the key points of the reforms were as follows:

1. Diarchy: The most notable feature of the reforms was the introduction of the diarchy system in the provinces. This meant that the provincial governments were divided into two parts: reserved subjects (under the direct control of the British government) and transferred subjects (under the control of Indian ministers). The reserved subjects included matters like defence, foreign affairs, and finance, while the transferred subjects included education, health, and local government.
2. Central Legislature: The reforms expanded the legislative councils at both the central and provincial levels. The central legislature was to be bicameral, consisting of the Council of States and the Legislative Assembly. While the majority of members were still to be appointed, a portion of them were to be elected through a limited franchise.
3. Franchise and Electorate: The reforms introduced a limited form of electoral representation. The franchise was extended to a larger number of people, but it was still far from universal suffrage. Only a small percentage of the population was eligible to vote or stand for elections.
4. Separate Electorates: The system of separate electorates for different religious communities was continued, which led to the further communalization of politics.
5. Safeguards for Minorities: The reforms included provisions to protect the rights of religious and ethnic minorities in terms of representation and safeguards.
6. Expanded Bengal Legislature: Bengal’s Legislative Council was enlarged to 139 members, as many more property holders, businessmen, lawyers, and professionals were rendered eligible to vote

Reaction of Political Parties

The reforms got mixed reactions from mainstream parties; both wanted self-rule for India, whereas the reforms preferred the language of “responsible government” over self-government. In addition, the act proposed limited political changes to promote civic institutions and encourage democratic representation.

However, their main criticism was that, in spite of provincial devolution and the expansion of the franchise, the 1919 reforms were limited by the oversight of British administrators. The Governor-General of each province, who was appointed by the India Office, had the right to veto or validate any bill against the wishes of the partially elected council; the viceroy, the presumptive head of state in the Government of India, could override votes made by the Legislative Assembly.

1. Indian National Congress: The Congress, led by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, had mixed feelings about the reforms. While they welcomed some aspects of self-governance, they criticized the limited scope of reforms and the continuation of the communal electorate system.
2. Muslim League: The Muslim League, under the leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, welcomed the reforms due to the continuation of separate electorates. They saw it as a way to safeguard the interests of the Muslim community.
3. Other Parties: Various regional and smaller parties had diverse reactions, ranging from support to outright rejection of the reforms. Some felt that the reforms did not go far enough in providing real self-governance to Indians.

Significance

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms marked a crucial step in India’s journey towards self-governance and independence, even though they fell short of meeting the aspirations of many Indians. They are significant for the following reasons:

1. Another Step towards Self-Governance: The introduction of elected representatives in legislative councils, albeit in limited numbers, marked the beginning of Indians participating in governance.
2. Political Awakening: The reforms prompted Indians to engage in politics more actively. It laid the foundation for greater political awareness and mobilization.
3. Critique of Limited Reforms: The reforms exposed the limitations of British intentions in addressing Indian demands for self-governance. This realization played a role in the growing demand for complete self-rule.
4. Communalization of Politics: The continuation of separate electorates and the communalization of politics laid the groundwork for later communal tensions and negotiations surrounding India’s partition.
5. Milestones towards Independence: The reforms, while imperfect, set the stage for further discussions and negotiations between Indians and the British, ultimately leading to the Government of India Act of 1935 and, eventually, full independence in 1947.

Conclusion

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were a turning point in India’s constitutional evolution and its struggle for independence. They marked the beginning of Indian participation in governance, but their limitations and communal aspects underscored the need for more comprehensive reforms and genuine self-rule.

From the book “Milestones of Pakistan Movement: 1857–1947”

Milestones of Pakistan Movement: 1857-1947

Thanks for reading the article. If you like it, kindly show it by clicking the clap icon as many times as you like, and sharing it with your friends on social media

You are welcome to contact me at my Twitter account @Shahid_H_Raja for any assistance.