Lord Chelmsfordwas 

Viceroy of India
Edwin Samuel Montagu was Secretary of State for India
The Government of India Act 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 101) was an Act of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. It was passed to expand participation of Indians in the government of India. The
Act embodied the reforms recommended in the report of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin
Montagu, and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to 1929. This Act
represented the end of benevolent despotism and began genesis of responsible government in
India. It was set to be reviewed by the Simon Commission in 10 years.
The Act received royal assent on 23 December 1919. On the same day the King-Emperor issued a
proclamation which reviewed the course of parliamentary legislation for India and the intent of the
act:
"The Acts of 1773 and 1784 were designed to establish a regular system of administration and
justice under the Honourable East India Company. The Act of 1833 opened the door for Indians to
public office and employment. The Act of 1858 transferred the administration from the Company to
the Crown and laid the foundations of public life which exist in India to-day. The Act of 1861 sowed
the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life by the Act of 1909. The
Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representative of the people with a definite
share in the Government and points the way to full responsible Government hereafter". [1]

The Act provided a dual form of government (a "diarchy") for the major provinces. In each such
province, control of some areas of government, the "transferred list", were given to
a Government of ministers answerable to the Provincial Council. The 'transferred list' included
agriculture, supervision of local government, health, and education. The Provincial Councils were
enlarged.
At the same time, all other areas of government (the 'reserved list') remained under the control of the
Viceroy. The 'reserved list' included defence (the military), foreign affairs, and communications.
The Imperial Legislative Council was enlarged and reformed. It became a bicameral legislature for
all India. The lower house was the Legislative Assembly of 145 members, of which 104 were elected
and 41 were nominated, with a tenure of three years. The upper house was the Council of State,
consisting of 34 elected and 26 nominated members, with a tenure of five years. [2]
Salient features of the Act were as follows:

1. This Act had a separate Preamble which declared that the objective of the British
Government was the gradual introduction of responsible government in India.
2. Diarchy was introduced at the Provincial Level. Diarchy means a dual set of governments;
one is accountable, the other is not accountable. Subjects of provincial government were
divided into two groups. One group was reserved, and the other group was transferred. The
reserved subjects were controlled by the British Governor of the province; the transferred
subjects were given to the Indian ministers of the province. [3]
3. The Government of India Act of 1919, made a provision for classification of the central and
provincial subjects. The Act kept the Income Tax as source of revenue to the Central
Government. However, for Bengal and Bombay, to meet their objections, a provision to
assign them 25% of the income tax was made.
4. No bill of the legislature could be deemed to have been passed unless assented to by the
Viceroy. The latter could however enact a bill without the assent of the legislature.
5. This Act made the central legislature bicameral. The lower house was the Legislative
Assembly, with 145 members serving three year terms (the model for today's Lok Sabha);
the upper house was the Council of States with 60 members serving five year terms (the
model for today's Rajya Sabha)
 6. The Act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission in India for the first
time.
7. This act also made a provision 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 system of the
government. The Simon commission of 1927 was an outcome of this provision.
8. 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.
9. The seats were distributed among the provinces not upon the basis of the population but
upon the basis of their importance in the eyes of the government, on the basis of
communities, and property was one of the main basis to determine a franchisee. Those
people who had a property, taxable income & paid land revenue of Rs. 3000 were entitled to
vote.
10. 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. Thus the Government of
India Act provided for partial transfer of power to the electorate through the system of
diarchy. It also prepared the ground for Indian federalism, as it identified the provinces as
units of fiscal and general administration.

2
In view of these circumstances the British felt that something must be done to pacify
the Indians. At that time, Edwin Montague was the Secretary of State for India. In his
famous August Declaration presented before the House of Commons on 20  August th

1917, Montague said that in order to satisfy the local demands, his government was
interested in giving more representation to the natives in India. Lord Chelmsford was
sent to India as the new Governor General. He stayed for six months and held
numerous meetings with different government and non-governmental people. Edwin
Montague in collaboration with Lord Chelmsford collected data and made a report
about constitutional reforms in 1918. The report was discussed in the House of
Common and later it was approved by the parliament. The Bill was introduced in
India in 1919 and became Act of 1919. This Act, commonly known as Montague-
Chelmsford Reforms, introduced the following reforms:

 The Council of the Secretary of State was to comprise of eight to twelve

people. Three of them should be Indian, and at least half of them should have
spent at least ten years in India.
 The Central Legislature was to consist of two houses, Upper House (Council of
the State), and the Lower House (Legislative Assembly). Council of the State
was to consist of 60 members, out of them 35 members would be elected and
rest of them would be nominated by the Governor General. The Legislative
Assembly was to consist of 144 members, out of them 103 were to be elected
and 41 to be nominated by the Governor General. The duration of the Upper
House was five and of the Lower House was three years.
 Powers were divided between the center and the provinces. The important
subjects were vested with the center and unimportant remained with provinces.
The important central subjects were defense, foreign affairs, custom, and
relations with Indian states, currency and railway. On the contrary, unworthy
provincial subjects were local self-government, public health, education etc.
 The salary of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs should be paid from
British exchequer; previously, his salary was paid by Indian treasury.
 The system of ‘Diarchy’ or a kind of double government in the Provinces was
introduced. Provincial subjects were divided into two categories “Transferred
and Reserved.” Transferred subjects which were public health, education, local
self-government, and agriculture were under the control of Minister; likewise
all transferred subjects were unimportant. Reserved subjects included
administration, police, land revenue etc. which were under the control of
Governor with the help of his secretaries. It was indirect control over
transferred department by reserved department. Hence, Governor was the head
of transferred and reserved subjects.

Indian Constitutional Act of 1919 was passed to satisfy Indian people. On the
contrary, Indian people opposed it because the Act went against Congress-League
pact thus resulting in the Hindu opposition. Muslims partly accepted the Montague-
Chelmsford reforms with certain reservations and demands regarding the safety of
Muslim states. Gandhi categorically rejected this scheme and congress denounced it
as inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing. Besides these problems, the events
like Rowlatt act, the Jallianwal Bagh tragedy and Khilafat movement further
aggravated the situation and doomed the reforms to failure. Thus, there erupted
violent communal riots and anti-British agitations become frequent creating a disdain
for British rule and Montague Chelmsford also failed as the two vanguard parties
rejected its reforms and considered them to be unsatisfactory. The only point of the
reforms appreciated by the Indian was that after ten years, a commission was to assess
the reforms and to bring further improvement in them.

Montagu-Chelmsford Report
 বাংলা

Montagu-Chelmsford Report appeared in the summer of 1918, aiming at introducing partial

responsible government in the provinces of British India. In view of the magnificent war services of
the people of India, the Lucknow communal concordat of 1916, and the increasing pressure of the
Indian nationalists to remedy the inadequacy of the reforms of 1909, the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
INDIA, Edwin Montagu (1917-1922) made a momentous declaration in the House of Commons on 20
August 1917 stating that the policy of the British government was to increase the number of Indians
in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with
a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the
British Empire.

In pursuance of the policy laid down in the announcement, Montagu toured India in the winter of
1917-18 in companywith Lord Chelmsford, the viceroy of India (1916-1921). The result of the tour
and exchange of views appeared in the summer of 1918 in the shape of a report usually called the
Montagu-Chelmsford Report, which was considered to be the first comprehensive study on the
whole problem of Indian government. The recommendations of the report were faithfully embodied in
the Government of India Act of 1919, which introduced partial responsible government in the
provinces.

Although the report frankly admitted the backwardness of the vast majority of the Indian people, it
held the opinion that indirect election to the provincial legislature must give place to direct election on
as wide a franchise as might prove practicable. It urged the political intelligentsia to devote
themselves to the immense task of educating their country as a whole to the new political life and
especially to breaking down the social and communal barriers which obstructed its development.
After a thorough review of the Hindu-Muslim schism that made parliamentary government as
understood in England unworkable in India, it favored, as a practical solution, the continuation of
separate electorates introduced by the Act of 1909.

On the administrative side, the most important feature of the scheme was the adoption of the
principle of 'dyarchy' by which the functions of the government were divided vertically between
'reserved' and 'transferred' departments. The 'reserved' departments were to be administered by the
governor in council responsible to the Crown, while the 'transferred' departments were to be
administered by the governor acting on the advice of ministers who were elected members of the
legislature and were amenable to the control of that body. Main departments transferred to the
ministers were agriculture, industries, public works (excluding irrigation), local self-government,
public health and education. The 'dyarchy' principle remained in force till its replacement by the
Government of India Act, 1935 that was implemented in 1937. [Enayetur Rahim]

4
Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and government of India Act,
1919:
In line with the government policy contained in Montagu’s statement
(August 1917), the Government announced further constitutional
reforms in July 1918, known as Montagu- Chelmsford or Montford
Reforms.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Based on these, the Government of India Act, 1919 was enacted. The
main features of the Montford Reforms were as follows.
(i) Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy:
Executive:
(i) Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular
ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head
in the province.

(ii) Subjects were divided into two lists: “reserved” which included
subjects such as law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation, etc.,
and “transferred” subjects such as education, health, local
government, industry, agriculture, excise, etc.

The “reserved” subjects were to be administered by the governor

through his executive council of bureaucrats, and the “transferred”
subjects were to be administered by ministers nominated from among
the elected members of the legislative council.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(iii) The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to

resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them by the
legislature, while the executive councilors were not to be responsible
to the legislature.

(iv) In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the

governor could take over the administration of “transferred” subjects
also.
(v) The secretary of state and the governor-general could interfere in
respect of “reserved” subjects while in respect of the “transferred”
subjects; the scope for their interference was restricted.

Legislature:
(i) Provincial Legislative Councils were further expanded—70% of the
members were to be elected.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(ii) The system of communal and class electorates was further

consolidated.

(iii) Women were also given the right to vote.

(iv) The Legislative Councils could initiate legislation but the

governor’s assent was required. The governor could veto bills and
issue ordinances.

(v) The Legislative Councils could reject the budget but the governor
could restore it, if necessary.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(vi) The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

(ii) Central Government—Still Without Responsible

Government:
Executive:
(i) The governor-general was to be the chief executive authority.
(ii) There were to be two lists for administration—central and
provincial.

(iii) In the viceroy’s executive council of 8, three were to be Indians.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(iv) The governor-general retained full control over the “reserved”

subjects in the provinces.

(v) The governor-general could restore cuts in grants, certify bills

rejected by the Central Legislature and issue ordinances.

Legislature:
(i) A bicameral arrangement was introduced. The lower house or
Central Legislative Assembly would consist of 144 members (41
nominated and 103 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20
Special) and the upper house or Council of State would have 60
members (26 nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims, 3
Europeans and 1 Sikh).

(ii) The Council of State had tenure of 5 years and had only male
members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had tenure of 3
years.

(iii) The legislators could ask questions and supplementaries pass

adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75% of the
budget was still not votable.
(iv) Some Indians found their way into important committees
including finance.

Drawbacks:
The reforms had many drawbacks:
(i) Franchise was very limited.

(ii) At the centre, the legislature had no control over the governor-
general and his executive council.

(iii) Division of subjects was not satisfactory at the centre.

(iv) Allocation of seats for Central Legislature to provinces was based

on ‘importance’ of provinces for instance, Punjab’s military
importance and Bombay’s commercial importance.

(v) At the level of provinces, division of subjects and parallel

administration of two parts was irrational and hence unworkable.

(vi) The provincial ministers had no control over finances and over the
bureaucrats, leading to constant friction between the two. Ministers
were often not consulted on important matters too; in fact, they could
be overruled by the governor on any matter that the latter considered
special.

On the home government (in Britain) front, the Government of India

Act, 1919 made an important change the secretary of state was
henceforth to be paid out of the British exchequer.
Congress’ Reaction:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under

Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the reforms to be
“disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-
government instead.

Rowlatt Act:
While, on the one hand, the Government dangled the carrot of
constitutional reforms, on the other hand, it decided to arm itself with
extraordinary powers to suppress any discordant voices against the
reforms.

In March 1919, it passed the Rowlatt Act even though every single
Indian member of the Central Legislative Council opposed it. This Act
authorised the Government to imprison any person without trial and
conviction in a court of law, thus enabling the Government to suspend
the right of habeas corpus which had been the foundation of civil
liberties in Britain.