Section 2

Montagu-Clemsford Reforms or Government of India Act of 1919

Q1. Why were the Montagu-Clemsford reforms opposed by Indians in 1919? [7]
The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were set out in the Government of India Act of 1919. If
the British thought that they would be welcomed with enthusiasm by a grateful Indian
population they were mistaken. The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law
and order, finance, justice and administration and the civil service. The Indians only
received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy (appointed by the British government)
could veto any decision and make and introduce any law that was deemed necessary.
Many Indians had fought with the British in the World War-l and they expected much
greater concessions. Congress in particular was bitterly against the proposals since it felt
that the Indians had supported Britain during the World War-I, lost thousands of men but
was being short changed in receiving anything resembling real power in their government.
Congress and the League had recently come together, calling for self-rule, and they were
bitterly disappointed by the new structure.

At a special session of Congress in August 1918, the reforms were condemned as in

adequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. Only the moderates in Congress supported the
measures and they were very soon excluded from the party. Although separate electorates
had been given to Muslims, other minorities such as Sikhs were not given such right and
thus Sikhs also began to demand power.

It was true that the local people had more say in how their country was governed, but, in
reality, the British maintained their grip on power by ensuring that the Viceroy had the
authority to control how India was governed. There was also one other unexpected
outcome of the Reforms. The British had reluctantly accepted separate electorates for the
Muslims but other communities such as Sikhs were not given that right. Soon the non-
Brahmins, Sikhs and Eurasians were calling for concessions too. As these were granted,
the divisions within Indian society were increasingly emphasized.

Q2. Why India was not granted self-rule by Britain in 1919? [7]

Britain was severely weakened after the First World War, especially economically. AR
colonial nations were facing demands from their colonies for independence in one form or
another and Britain viewed India as the jewel of the Empire. Britain's standing as a world
power would be weakened if it gave in to india demands. Strategically, India was important
for the
British navy and British infiuence in the region. Therefore, the British were reluctant to
give in
to Indian demands. There were many thousands of British people living in India who could
not be abandoned. The British government did not want to lose these businessmen,
missionaries and civil servants.
In 1919 Indians had two main grievances:
o The British had failed to reward Indian support during the war with any real move to
self-government
o Britain responded to protests by repressive measures like the Rowlatt Act.
All of this was bound to increase protests. As tempers rose, both the British and the
indians were guilty of violence. The worst incident, at Amritsar, enraged Indians of all
faiths and opinions. If Britain had made a serious move towards self-government then the
violence and agitation that lasted for the next twenty-eight years would have been
avoided. But in London political leaders, supported by middle-class opinion, were
determined to hand on to this important part of the British Empire. They were also
confident that they could crush opposition.
Q3. ‘The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were more important than any other political
developments between 1909 and 1919.’ Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your
answer. [14]

Q4. How successful were political developments in finding a solution to the problems in
the sub-continent between 1909 and 1919? Explain your answer. [14]

In November 1917, John Montagu, Secretary of State of India, and Lord Chelmsford, the
Viceroy, carried out a fact-finding tour of India. After discussions with local leaders, in
July, they issued the Montagu-Chelmsford Report (sometimes called the Mont-Ford Report).
The Montagu-Chelmsford Report proposed: The Council of State would have 60 members,
33 of whom would be elected. The Legislative Council should now be known as the
Legislative Assembly. It would have 145 members, of which 103 should be elected for a
period of 3 years. There should be separate electorates for Muslims and Sikhs, with 32
seats reserved for Muslims. A Council of Princes was set up with 108 members to allow the
princes to debate matters of importance. In the provinces, a new system of 'diarchy was
introduced. Under this system, areas of responsibility were divided into reserved and
transferred subjects. Reserved subjects were controlled by the Provincial Governor and his
Executive Council whereas transferred subjects were entrusted to ministers responsible to
provincial Legislative Councils.
The real powers were, however, still with the British, as the Viceroy could pass any law he
liked in the Centre. Governors of the provinces, likewise, could veto any law they disliked.
The British also extended voting rights to more local people (5.5 million of total 250 million
population could vote).
To make things worse, the Rowlatt Act was enforced. It gave powers to the police to
arrest anyone without warrant and detain him without right of bail. The Act had tragic
results.
However, some other political developments also took place during the same time period.
The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) were important because these were the first important
step taken by the British government to give some political power to Indians. The number
of members in the Central and Provincial Councils were increased but official majority was
retained. These Reforms granted the right of separate electorate for Muslims which
pleased the Muslim League, but the Congress showed strong resentment. One Indian
member was added to Viceroy's Executive Council and one to each of Provincial Councils.
These Reforms were widely criticized by the Congress although some steps were taken to
give some power to Indians. The Congress condemned the Reforms but agreed to work
with them.
The Lucknow Pact (1916) was an agreement between Congress and Muslim League about
the constitutional problems of india. In 1913, the Muslims league had added self-rule in its
demands. it brought the Congress and Muslim League closer. Mr. Jinnah joined the Muslim
League in 1913 and ever since he made strong efforts to bring the two parties closer so
that the achievement of self-rule may be easier. The annual meetings of Congress and
Muslim League were held in Lucknow in 1916 and leaders of both parties came to an
agreement. The Congress accepted the right of separate electorate for Muslims, and that
1/3'* seats in Central Assembly were to be given to Muslims. Both parties demanded that
elected members in both central and provincial assemblies should be in majority. They
agreed upon autonomy for provinces and also to the principle of weightage which meant
that in provinces the minorities would be given more seats than their ratio of population.
The recommendations of the Lucknow Pact were presented to the British government.
With objective analysis, it seems that the Mont-Ford reforms were the most important
political development, because the introduction of Diarchy and bicameral set up showed
the British willingness to grant Indians more rights, though rather slowly.

Q5. Were the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms the main reason for the outbreak of violence
across India in 1919? Explain your answer. [14]
Q6. Was the introduction of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 the sole cause of Violence in India
during 1919 and 1920? Explain your answer. [14]

The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were set out in the Government of India Act of 1919.
If the British thought that they would be welcomed with enthusiasm by a grateful Indian
population, they were mistaken. The reforms were proposed in 1918 and wanted a National
Parliament with two Houses and a Legislative Assembly. The reforms stated to have
Legislative Assembly with 145 members of which 103 should be elected for a period of 3
years. There should be separate electorates for Muslims and Sikhs with 32 seats reserved
for Muslims. The Council of State to have 60 members, 33 of whom would be elected. A
Council of Princes was set up with 108 members but the princes did not even bother to
attend what was little more than a Talking Shop'. The role in the central administration of
India was further restricted by the power of the Viceroy who could still pass any law he
chose. The Executive Council was made of nominated members, although three of these
were to be Indian. The system of Diarchy was introduced, under this system; areas of
responsibility were divided into two lists i.e.
Reserved and Transferred subjects. British also extended voting rights to more local
people, it was still 5.5 million or 2% of India's 250 million population could vote.
Many Indians had fought with the British in the First World War and they expected much
greater concessions. Congress was bitterly against the proposals since they felt they had
supported Britain during the war had lost thousands of men but was being short changed in
receiving anything resembling real power in their government. Congress and the Muslim
League had recently come together, calling for self-rule, and they were bitterly
disappointed by the new structure. At a special session of Congress in August 1918, the
reforms were condemned as 'inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing'. These reforms
were opposed, in some cases violently, and a deep mistrust of the British government
grew. Fundamentalist groups grew during the early 1920s increasing communal violence
between Hindus and Muslims.

The Rowlatt act of the same year increased the resentment of Indians. It was aimed at
curtailing any kind of revolutionary or communist activity. Under this people could not hold
meetings, could be arrested without warrant, detained without the right of bail, and be
ordered by the police to live in some particular area. They could be tried privately by three
high court judges and had no right to appeal. This caused uproar in India because it
appeared to go against the central principles of British justice. The measures were seen as
being repressive. Strikes and demonstrations took place and the British made matters
worse by introducing further measures such as banning anti-British publications. Indians
protested on it violently.
Increasingly, there were waves of violent protests across India and the British were
worried that there would be a repeat of 1857.
General Dyer was appointed to control violence in Punjab. He banned all demonstrations
and processions but in Amritsar, Jallianwala Bagh, a peaceful procession by Indians was
held in which a crowd of 20,000 people was present to listen the speeches. General Dyer
ordered to close the doors of the Bagh and entered from the exit, he ordered firing, 400
were killed and 1200 were wounded. The British were determined to keep a firm hold on
India.
Although General Dre was reprimanded for ordering the shooting, his standing in the British
media was enhanced which offended Indians and resulted in further violence.
Therefore, it can be said that the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms led to the imposition of
Rowlatt Act and further to the killings in Amritsar. Therefore, relations between British and
Indians deteriorated.

Q7. To what extent had India benefited by the early 1920s from supporting Britain in the
First World War? Explain your answer. [10]

India had benefitted by the early 1920s from supporting the British in the First World War
because the British simply could not ignore the growing demand for self-government. Even
during the war agitation continued. The unity of the Muslim League and Congress could not
be dismissed. They had to respond to the Lucknow Pact. In 1917 the British House of
Commons was told of the Government's intention of giving Indians a much greater say in
their government. However, the announcement went on to emphasize that the process
would be gradual. A report in 1918 suggested that Indian might have self-government. The
Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) was significant as it was the
first time that an official British document mentioned the possibility of self-rule by the
Indians in all internal matters. A greater list of provincial powers was made so as to allow
the provinces to form the possible future basis of an all-Indian federation. Official
majorities were abolished and replaced with elected one. This Act also announced
separate electorates for Sikhs and Muslims and about 5.5 million wealthy Indians out of
250 million allowed to vote.

However, the Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) retained most
of the power in British hands. Minority groups were not given separate electorates. Many
Indians had fought with the British in the War and they expected much greater
concessions.
Congress and Muslim League had recently come together, calling for self-rule, and they
were bitterly disappointed by the new structure.Only the moderates in Congress supported
the measures and they were soon excluded from the party. The Rowlatt Act of 1919 was
very restrictive on indian people lives. Proposals of Rowlatt Act caused uproar in India as
they appeared to go against two of the central principles of British justice, namely trial by
jury and safeguards against illegal imprisonment. Jinnah resigned from the Imperial
Legislative Council in protest and Gandhi launched a hartal against the proposals.
So, it can be said that India was benefitted partially by the early 1920s from supporting the
British in the First World War.

India
1950 Liaquat Nehru pact 1947 Division of assets
1960 Indus water treaty 1965 Indo Kashmir war
1966 Tashkent deceleration 1971 Separation of Bangladesh
1972 Simla agreement 1984 Khalistan issue
1988 4th SAARC conf. 1999 Kargil conlict
1999 Lahore treaty

Bangladesh
1974 Accepted status in OIC 1971 Independence war
1975 Exchange of ambassador 1971 Operation searchlight
1985 Pak gave aid 1972 Commonwealth accepted
1993 $400 million trade

Afghanistan
1979

Iran

USA
1954 Pakistan joined SEATO and
55 CENTO
1979 Soviet afghan war 1962 Indo china war. Supported china
1993 Benazir visit Ayub He only visited USSR and China
1993 Brown amendment -> aid 1965 Indo pak war. Embargo on
ordinances
1979 US embassy burnt. People called
back
1989 Nuclear weapon threat (pressler
amd)

USSR
1963 11 million pound loan 1954 SEATO CENTO
55
1966 Tashkent dec. by ussr 1956 Offer -> steel mills if stop
relation w US
1972 Left SEATO CENTO 1960 U2
1971 Support india
1979 Soviet afghan war

Palestine
Muslim fellows. Support on international levels
OIC – promote harmony and peace in muslim countries
OIC conferences – support for Palestine promised

UK - Britain
1954 55 SEATO and CENTO 1947 Radcliff award
1960 Indus water treaty (dam, 1947 Common wealth
barrages)
1979 Soviet afghan war 1965 No support
1989 Rejoin commonwealth 1972 Left commonwealth (recog.
Bangladesh)

China
1962 Indo china war 1954 SEATO CENTO. China communist
55
1963 Border issue. Pak china -> 1990’s China tried restore relations w
india
1963 PIA flights to China
1600’s $60 million loan
1964 China support in Kashmir issue
1964 Pak supported in joining UN
1978 Karakoram highway
1990’s CPEC