Plagiarism Checker X Originality Report

Similarity Found: 24%

Date: Friday, April 17, 2020

Statistics: 1254 words Plagiarized / 5265 Total words
Remarks: Medium Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Selective Improvement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………….
Introduction………………………………………………………………………. Chief Provisions of the
act…………………………………………………….. Importance of The Morley Minto Reforms
………………………………………. Failure of Minto Morley council ……………………………………………
Critical Analysis ……………………………………………………………….
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………. Abstract The Indian Councils
Act 1909 commonly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, was an Act of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the involvement of
Indians in the governance of British India Johan the Liberal Secretary of State for India,
and the Conservative Governor-General of India, and Earl of Minto produced the Indian
Councils Act of 1909 (Morley-Mintoreforms), these reforms did not go any significant
distance towards meeting the Indian National Congress demand for ‘the system of
government obtaining in Self-Governing British Colonies.’

In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the
locals were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of
correspondences started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of
India. A committee was appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of
reforms. The committee submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and
Lord Morley, the Act of 1909 was passed by the British Parliament. The Act of 1909 has
its own significance in the Constitutional History of India.

By this Act, Indians were not only associated with the work of legislation but they were
allowed to participate in the administration of the country. The Act increased the
strength of theCouncils and also enhanced their powers. The Act by introducing a
separate electorate, narrow franchise and indirect election heralded a new era in the
Indian political life. Introduction During the late 19th Century British educated Indian
began to demand a role in their government, which later developed into independence
movement. In 1885, the Indian National Congress was founded. Most of its members
were elite Hindu.

The congress met annually to promote the goal of greater participation of Indians in
government. By the early 20th century a radical wing had developed in the Congress
that was not content with the slow pace of reform. They were energized by the partition
of the huge province of Bengal into two in 1905: East Bengal with a Muslim majority,
and West Bengal with a Hindu majority. A storm of protest against the partition ensued
and included an economic boycott of British goods and acts of terrorism. The Congress
was split over this issue and a radical wing split off to form the New Party. The new
viceroy. Lord Minto (1845-1914).

On the one acted to repress the unrest, while on the other he worked to unrest reforms
with the Secretary of state of India of the newly elected Liberal government in Great
Britain, John Morley. The partition of Bengal was a catalyst for Muslim political
consciousness. Since the decline and fall of the Muslim Mughal dynasty. Indian Muslims
had fallen behind Hindus in attaining modem education and adjusting to new
conditions. Unlike Hindus- Indian Muslims were encouraged by the formation of East
Bengal.

Realizing the constitutional reforms were in the works and that they would be a minority
in a representative government, Western- educated Muslims led by Aga Khan organized
the All India Muslim League in 1905 and lobbied Minto for a “fair share” for the Muslim
community in any representative system. Like the Congress, the league also met in
annual conventions to formulate goals. The Act of 1892 did not fulfil the aspirations of
the people of India. The Constitution and functions of the Legislative Council
disappointed the Indians. Moreover, only four years after the passing of the Councils Act
of 1892, India had to face many sufferings. Plague broke out in the country, which was
followed by famine.

Famine was followed by bubonic Plague in the Bombay Presidency. The measures
adopted by the Government were vigorous but the way they were implemented, was
not appealing to the masses. Some international events in this context also need
mention. Victory of Abyssinia over Italy in I896, and of Japan over Russia in 1905, clearly
indicated that the dawn of new era for the whole Asia was about to come. Indians in
South Africa, Fizi and Canada were meted with the most humiliating treatment. The
imposition, of three pound Toll Tax on Indian labourers in Natal if they overstayed, and
prohibitions on Indians in transval to have lands in their own names, added fuel to the
fire.

In 1888, the Indians of Orange River Colony were expelled and were subjected to
intolerable discrimination. Gandhiji launched Satyagraha against the Act, in South Africa
that Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak said at that time, ‘A good foreign Government was
redesireable than an inferior national Government.’ The whole atmosphere of India was
filled with the opposition to the British Government. The economic condition of the
country further deteriorated in the beginning of the 20th century. The leaders of the
country criticized the economic policy of the government.

Press and platforms played an important role in the development of the national
movement. The violent crusade launched by the Extremists against the British
imperialism compelled the government to introduce substantial reforms. In 1905, the
Liberal Government was formed in England and Mr. Morley became the Secretary of
State for India. This government was very liberal towards the Indians. In 1906, Lord
Minto in a minute reviewing of the political situation in India pointed out how the
growth of education encouraged by the British rule had led to the rise of important
classes claiming equality of citizenship, and aspiring to take a larger part in shaping the
policy of the government, and appointed a Committee of his Executive Council to
consider and report on the general question of constitutional reforms.

In England, in the same year, a Liberal Government came into power in face of what the
Secretary of State for India describe as “enormous difficulties” and for the next two years
there were “heavy and black clouds over The Indian horizon.” India attracted attention in
the House of Commons, in far excess of what she had hitherto done. In spite of sedition
and political unrest, Lord Minto’s Government persisted in the policy of reform and in
the Home Department Letter of the August 24th, 1907, they put forward certain
tentative proposals, inviting the Local Governments to submit their opinions after
consulting representatives of the various classes in the country.

As a direct result of these deliberations, a dispatch on reforms was addressed by the

Government of India to the Secretary of State on the October 1st, 1908, and a reply
discussing the proposed reforms was sent by Lord Morley to the Governor-General in
Council on the November 27th, 1908. On December 17th, 1908, Viscount Morley of
Blackburn made in Parliament his promised statement on the proposed reforms which
he described as “the opening of a very important chapter in the history of the relations
of Great Britain and India” and “the turning over of a fresh leaf in the history of British
responsibility to India.”

Viscount Morley summarized the reforms proposed under seven heads, Viz ,to increase
the number of members of both Vice regal and Provincial Councils; to sanction election
alongside of nomination; to repeal the prohibition contained in the Indian Councils Act,
1892, against resolution or division in Council in financial discussions; to invest
Legislative Councils with power to discuss matters of public and general importance,
and to pass recommendations to the Government; to extend the power to appoint a
member on the Council to preside; to increase the number of ordinary members of the
Executive Councils of Bombay and Madras; and to sanction the powers for creation of
Executive Councils for Lieutenant-Governors and to define the Lieutenant- Governor’s
power to overrule his Executive Council. The Government of India proposed to reduce
official majority in Provincial Councils to the narrowest limits by making number of
officials (excluding the Head of Government) & non-officials equal.

In regard to Viceroy’s Legislative Council, it was proposed to rely on public spirit of non-
official members and to dispense, with official majority “on all ordinary occasions.” The
Secretary of State while agreeing to dispense with official majority in Provincial Councils
decided to retain it in the Council of the Governor-General. Another of the reforms
proposed for which, however, no sanction of Parliament was required, was to appoint
one Indian member on each of the Executive Councils of the Governor- General and
Governors of Bombay and Madras, for such an absence could “no longer be defended”
and the advance was justified by reason of enormous success which attended the
appointment of two Indians to the Council of India.

CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT The Act made the following provisions: Expansion of
legislatures: The additional members of the Legislative Councils at the Centre and in
Madras and Bombay, and the members of the Legislative Councils of the lieutenant-
Governors of Provinces instead of being all nominated according to the Acts of 1861
and1892 would include members so nominated and also members elected according to
regulations to be made under the present Act. References in the former Acts to the
members so nominated and their nomination would be construed as including
references to the members so elected and their election.

The maximum number of Additional Members for each Legislative Council was laid
down, but the actual number, quorum, term of office, etc were left to be determined by
rules. The maximum fixed for the Legislative Council of the Governor-General was 60; for
Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, and Eastern Bengal and Assam 50; and for
the Punjab and Burma 30. The Governor-General-in-Council was, subject to the approval
of the Secretary of State-in-Council, empowered to make regulations as to the
conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in India might be
nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils as to the qualifications for
being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such Council, as to any
other matter, and also as to the manner in which those regulations were to be carried
into effect Regulations were not subject to alteration or amendment by the Central
Legislature.
Expansion of Executive Councils: Members of the Executive Councils of Madras and
Bombay were not to exceed four in number, as directed from time to time by the
Secretary of State in Council, and of these two at least were to be persons who at the
time of their appointment had been in the service of the Crown in India for not less than
twelve years. In a case of equality of votes at a meeting of the Council, the President was
to have two votes or the casting vote. Creation of Executive Councils: The Governor-
General in Council could with the approval of the Secretary of State-in-Council, create,
by proclamation, Executive Council for the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal Division
of the Presidency of Fort William, make provisions for determining the number (not
exceeding four) and qualifications of themembers of the Council, for appointment of
temporary or acting members and for the procedure to be adopted in case of difference
of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his Council, equality of votes and the
absence of a Lieutenant-Governor from his Council. In the same way the Governor-
General-in-Council could create an Executive Council in any other Province under a
Lieutenant-Governor.

But a draft of the proclamation before promulgation was to be laid before each House
of the Parliament. In case the proclamationwas made with respect to any province, the
Lieutenant-Governor might, with the consent of the Governor-General-in-Council, make
rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in his Council. Any
order made or act done according to the rules and orders so made was to be deemed
to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Every member of any such Council was to be appointed by the Governor-General, with
the approval of His Majesty and was, as such, to be a member of the Legislative Council
of the Lieutenant-Governor and elected under the provisions of this Act. The Governor-
General and the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the Lieutenant-Governor of
every Province respectively, would appoint a member of their respective Councils to be
its Vice-President. Discussion and Interpellation: Power was given to the Governor-
General in Council and Local Governments to make rules authorizing, at any meetings of
their respective Legislative Councils, the discussion of Annual Financial Statement and of
any matter of general public interest, and the asking of questions.

Such rules if made by the Governor-General in Council required the sanction of the
Secretary of State in Council, and when made by a Local Government required the
sanction of the Governor-General in Council and were not liable to alteration or
amendment by the Legislative Council concerned. The Governor-General in Council was
further empowered to make regulations, with the approval of the Secretary of State in
Council, as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons were to be
nominated or elected members of the Legislative Councils. The aforesaid rules might
provide for the appointment of a member of any such Council to preside at any
suchdiscussion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor or Lieutenant-Governor,
as the case might be, and any Vice-President.

The Finance Member was every year to present to the Legislative Council the Financial
Statement i.e., the preliminary financial estimates of the Government of India for the
financial year next following, together with an explanatory memorandum. On the day
fixed for discussion, any member could move a resolution relating to alteration in
taxation, etc., of which he had given notice in writing to the Secretary at least two clear-
days before the commencement of the stage of the discussion to which the resolution
related.

Aresolution was to take the form of a specific recommendation addressed to the

Governor-General in Council, and the President could disallow any resolution or part of
a resolution without giving any reason therefore other than that in his opinion it could
not be moved consistently with the public interests or that it should be moved in the
Legislative Council of a Local Government. A resolution, if carried by the majority of
votes, was to take effect only as a recommendation to the government. This was to be
followed by the presentation of the Financial Statement as finally settled by the
Governor-General in Council and on this occasion, the Finance Member was to explain
why any of the resolutions passed by the Council had not been accepted.

Certain heads of revenue were not open to discussion, such as stamps, customs, tributes
from native states, army, marine, military works, etc. Certain heads of expenditure also
were similarly excluded, such as interest on debt, ecclesiastical charges, special defenses,
state railways, political pensions, etc. By the Regulations made under the Act, the
Additional Members of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General were ordinarily
to be sixty in number, of whom not less than 25were to be elected and not more than
35 nominated.

The form in which the elective principle was embodied was representation of classes
and interests, instead of by territorial constituencies. Mohammedans were given the
right to elect their representatives in communal constituencies. The nominated
members were to consist of officials and non-officials, of whom the former were not to
be more than 28 and the latter not so may as would make the majority of the Council
non-official. There were four classes of electorates, viz., the Provincial Legislative
Councils, and the District Councils and Municipal Committees of the Central Provinces;
the landholders of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihar
and Orissa, and Central Provinces; the Mohammedan community of Bengal, Bombay,
Madras, United Provinces, and Bihar and Orissa; and the Chambers of Commerce of
Bengal and Bombay. The seats assigned to these electorates were 13 in the first case, 7
in the second, 5 in the third and 2 in the fourth.

The Act gave special representation to landholders, and set apart some seats to be filled
exclusively by Muslims as it was thought that territorial electorates had signally failed to
secure adequate representation of these classes. Of the non-official members elected to
the Imperial Council since 1893, 45 percent belonged to the professional middle class,
the landholders obtained 25 percent of the seats, the Mohammedans 12 percent and
Indian mercantile community, nil. Mohammedans were given 2 communal
constituencies in Madras, 4 in Bombay, 5 in Bengal, 4 in United Provinces, 2 in Assam,
and 4 in Bihar and Orissa.

The usual constituencies were Municipalities, District Boards, Universities, Landholders,

and special interests such as Chambers of Commerce. IMPORTANCE OF THE MORLEY
MINTO REFORMS The Morley Minto reforms effectively allowed the election of Indians
to the various legislative councils in India for the first time. Previously some Indians had
been appointed to legislative councils. The majorities of the councils remained British
government appointments. Moreover the electorate was limited to specific classes of
Indian nationals.

The introduction of the electoral principle laid the groundwork for a parliamentary
system even though this was contrary to the intent of Morley. As stated by Burke and
Quraishi. “To Lord Curzon's apprehension that the new Councils could become
'parliamentary bodies in miniature', Morley vehemently replied that, 'if it could be said
that this chapter ofreforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a
parliamentary system in India, I for one would have nothing at all to do with it'. But he
had already confessed in a letter to Minto in June 1906 that while it was inconceivable
to adapt English political institutions to the 'nations who inhabit India...the spirit of
English institutions is a different thing and it is a thing that we cannot escape, even if we
wished...because the British constituencies are the masters, and they will assuredly
insist... all parties alike...

on the spirit of their own political system being applied to India.' He never got down to
explaining how the spirit of the British system of government could be achieved without
its body.” Muslims had expressed serious concern that a ‘first past the post’ British type
of electoral system would leave them permanently subject to Hindu majority rule. The
Act of 1909stipulated, as demanded by the Muslim leadership that Indian Muslims be
allotted reserved seats in the Municipal and District Boards, in the Provincial Councils
and in the Imperial Legislature; that the number of reserved seats be in excess of their
relative population (25 percent of the Indian population); and, that only Muslims should
vote for candidates for the Muslim seats ('separate electorates').These concessions were
a constant source of strife 1909-47.

British statesmen generally considered reserved seats as regrettable in that they

encouraged communal extremism as Muslim candidates did not have to appeal for
Hindu votes and vice versa. As further power was shifted from the British to Indian
politicians in 1919, 1935 and after, Muslims were evermore determined to hold on to,
and if possible expand, reserved seats and their weightage. However, Hindu politicians
repeatedly tried to eliminate reserved seats as they considered them to be
undemocratic and to hinder the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national
feeling.

In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the
locals were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of
correspondences started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of
India. A committee was appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of
reforms. The committee submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and
Lord Morley, the Act of 1909 was passed by the British parliament.

FAILURE OF MINTO-MORLEY COUNCILS The Minto-Morley Councils, in spite of the

enthusiasm which they originally evoked, failed to satisfy the aspirations of the people.
They were in no sense representative bodies. The franchise was restricted and the
system of election was indirect. The largest constituency representing sectional interests
which returned a member to the Indian Legislative Council by direct election was
composed of 650 voters, while in the nine general constituencies representing non-
official members of the Provincial Legislatures the average number of voters was
twenty-two and in one, the number was nine only. For the Provincial Councils, the
constituencies were larger but even here in no case the electorate exceeded a few
hundred persons.

Except in the case of some special class constituencies, there was no real connection
between the primary voter and the man who sat in the Council. Elections to the
ProvincialLegislative Councils were indirect and to the Indian Legislature doubly indirect.
The Minto-Morley Councils continued the official bloc which gave unreal and farcical
character to their proceedings. The official members were not expected to ask questions
or move resolutions and when a division took place they always voted by order in
support of the Government.
The system was in effect, frankly irritating and as the official members were generally
European it occasionally gave racial complexion to the debate. The popular
exprsentatives and the official members were arrayed in opposing camps. The elected
members being in minority the decision was often known beforehand with the result
that debates lacked enthusiasm except when feelings were aroused. The Minto-Morley
reforms did not recognize the principle of responsibility or popular control. They
embodied no new policy and were based on the fundamental principle that executive
government should retain the authority to pronounce final decision on all questions.

This left the Councils with no function but criticism and the very limited opportunities
which they afforded were insufficient to satisfy the growing national consciousness of
educated Indians. Some of the antecedent conditions of success of the reformed
Councils were lacking. “There was no general advance in local bodies; no real setting
free of the provincial finance; and in spite of some progress no widespread admission of
Indians in greater numbers into the public services.

Because the relaxation of parliamentary control had not been contemplatedthe

Government of India could not relax their control over local governments. The sphere in
which the Councils could affect the Government’s action, both in respect of finance and
administration was, therefore, closely circumscribed. Again and again, a local
government could only meet a resolution by saying that the matter was really out of its
hands.”

The underlying idea of the Minto-Morley changes was to “really and effectively associate
the people of India in the work not only of occasional legislation, but of actual everyday
administration.” With this end in view, a Royal Commission on Decentralization was
appointed in Lord Minto’s time which presented its report in 1909 recommending a
series of measures for the purpose of relaxation of control by higher authorities and the
simplification of administrative methods.

As a result of the Commission’s proposals, between the years 1910 and 1917, the
control of the Government of India over the Provincial Governments was relaxed in a
multitude of details and something was done to free local bodies from official
interference. Critical Analysis The reforms under the Indian Councils Act of 1909 were
essentially of an evolutionary character; they were a natural extension of the previously
existing system. Excessive claims were made for them in the enthusiasm of the moment,
but in any case they could not justly be described as embodying any new policy. The
change was one of degree and not of kind.

Lord Morley himself repudiated the idea that the measures were in any sense a step
towards Parliamentary Government. Nevertheless, it failed to satisfy political aspirations
of the people of India. Under the Act, Muslims got separate electorates and yet their
right to vote in the joint electorates was left intact on account of their alleged political
importance. This enabled them to secure an excessive undue representation. What was
more egregious was the creation of franchise. A Muslim to become a voter had to pay
income tax on rupees, 3000 per year; while a non-Muslim on rupees 3,00,000.

A Muslim graduate to become a voter was to have standing of five years as a graduate,
while a non-Muslim of 30 years. The creation of separate electorates was an attempt to
set one religion against the other. It was a disintegrating agency to which sectional
interests were made the supreme consideration in the body politic. It was calculated to
retard harmony in the society. Separate electorates were meant to perpetuate class
divisions and were against the democratic spirit.

The Congress was even critical of the special representation of landholders who never
demanded to be treated as a separate class, and also the imposition of restrictions on
the choice of electors in choosing candidates. In the regulations for Bombay, Madras
and Bengal eligibility to a membership of a Provincial Legislature was confined to
members of Municipal and District Boards only. This meant to exclude able and leading
persons from the Legislature. Besides this, the Act did not provide for a non-official
majority in the Central Legislature.

As regards the character of non-official majority in Provincial Legislative Councils, the

non-official majority in all of them was composed of both elected and nominated
members which, as the Councils were constituted, meant a standing and, in fact ,an
overwhelming official majority in each one of them. The members returned were in
aminority as against the official and nominated members combined. Thus, the British
government gave an illusory official majority instead of a genuine one. The regulations
gave an extremely limited franchise, and except in the cases of Muslim landlords, the
representation of the middle classes was secured by indirect election. Instead, there
should have been direct election.

Also, certain parts of British India, like the North-Western Frontier Provinces, Coorg and
Ajmer Merwara, went unrepresented. The Montague-Chelmsford report dealt, in detail
with the Morley-Minto reforms. It said that their underlying idea was to associate the
people to a greater extent with the Government in the decision of public questions. “It
was thought impossible to introduce a general system of direct election with territorial
constituencies; and indirect election was accordingly retained, except in the case of
Muslims and certain other special electorates.”
The reforms “admitted the need for increased representation, while reiterating the
impossibility of basing it generally on a direct or general franchise. They admitted the
desirability of generally securing non-official approval to the Government legislation,
though they trusted in an emergency to the support of nominated members, to the
division of interests between different classes of elected members, and in the last resort
to overriding legislation in the Indian Legislative Council where an official majority was
retained.

Frankly abandoning the old conception of the Councils as a mere legislative committee
of the Government, they did much to make them serve the purpose of an inquest into
the doings of Government, by conceding the very important rights of discussing
administrative matters and of cross-examining Government on its replies to questions.”
But the reforms of 1909 “afforded no answer, and could afford no answer, to Indian
political problems. Narrow franchises and indirect elections failed to encourage in
members a sense of responsibility to the people generally and made it impossible,
except in special constituencies, for those who had votes to use them with perception
and effect.

Moreover, the responsibility for the administration remained undivided, with the result
that while Governments found themselves far more exposed to questions and criticism
than hitherto, questions and criticism were uninformed by a real sense of responsibility,
such as comes from the prospect of having to assume office in turn. The conception of a
responsible executive, wholly or partially amenable to the elected councils, was not
admitted. Power remained with the Government and the Councils were left with no
functions but criticism. The electoral system suffered from great defects.

The franchise was extremely restricted, and there was usually no connection between
the supposed primary voter and the man who sat as his representative. The result of the
Minto-Morley scheme was that a very large percentage of the elected were lawyers
securing a predominance of man of one calling which was not in the interests of the
general community. The work of the Councils was not what would have been expected.
In the Indian Legislative Council there was very little legislation, largely because non-
official opinion was taken before a Bill was introduced.

Hence, the constructive work of legislation was largely done by correspondence, which
must be the case where there was an official majority, though the influence of that
majority was felt more powerfully in the Council Chamber than in the committee room.
The conditions were rather different in the Provincial Councils, but the tendencies were
very similar. The Morley- Minto constitution “ceased in the brief space of ten years” time
to satisfy the political hunger of India. The new institutions began with good auspices
and on both sidesthere was a desire to work them in a conciliatory fashion.

For a short time after their inception, the Morley-Minto reforms threatened to diminish
the importance of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. It seemed as if
the Councils where electedmembers took a share in the business of Government must
be a more effective instrument for political purposes than mere self-constituted
gatherings. CONCLUSION Despite all the drawbacks the act of 1909 suffered from, it
was a definite advance on the preceding Act of 1892. It marked an important stage in
the growth of representativeinstitutions in India.

For the first time, recognition was given to elective principle as the basis of composition
of Legislative Councils. In spite of the disclaimer of Lord Morley, the act did pave the
way for a parliamentary government although indirectly in the country. The elected
Indians in the councils got a platform to ventilate their grievances. It was not less
heartening a fact that an Indian was also included in Governor-General’s Executive
Council. The enlargement of the size of the Legislatures and presence of elected
members in it, although by indirect elections, set the ball rolling of increasing demand
for complete Indian nation of Legislatures. Still the Act fell far short of the national
expectations.

What disappointed people the most was the admixture of the two incompatible
elements of constitutionalism and autocracy, of the nominative and elective principles.
Supreme power continued to be vested in the Executive on the principle that the
responsibility to rule over India had developed exclusively on the British people. Indians
were considered ill-fitted for higher posts in the administration. The local bodies
continued to be officialized. The Act was nothing better than a political game of the
Government to inflame communal passions and crack national solidarity. The Act gave
undue importance to vested interests by giving them special representation.

According to the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, “It was opposed to the
teaching of history. It perpetuated division by creeds and classes which meant the
creation of political camps organized against each other and taught them to think as
partisans and not citizens. It stereotyped existing relation and was a very serious
hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle.” The exclusion of the
Indians from senior posts and from public services also pin-pricked the educated
unemployed youths of India.

To quote Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, “It (Act of 1909) was a compromise between
bureaucracy and democracy, inevitably a short lived if, necessary, experiment.” The
reforms thus brought the country to a stage whence there was no going back, instead
the only course open was further advancement towards self-government which was
confirmed by Montague’s August Declaration of 1917.

INTERNET SOURCES:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1% - http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/14.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20with%20the
%20Simon%20Commission%20Preface.htm
1% - http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/ICP%20dt.%2013.05.2015.pdf
3% - https://www.slideshare.net/HamzaSaleem20/pakistan-movement-presentation
<1% - https://rokibcou.blogspot.com/
<1% - https://indianindependencemovement.blogspot.com/#!
3% - https://www.essaydepot.com/doc/19544/History
<1% - https://www.everycrsreport.com/topics/economic-policy.html
<1% - https://brahminsexposed.wordpress.com/posts/page/7/
<1% - http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/national-movement-in-india/49355
<1% - http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/january/tradoc_154178.pdf
<1% -
https://archive.org/stream/speecheswilliam00unkngoog/speecheswilliam00unkngoog_dj
vu.txt
<1% - https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000782/00002
<1% - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46471/46471-h/46471-h.htm
<1% - https://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/Indian-speeches-1907-1909-2/
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61480953/
<1% - https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/governor-general
<1% - https://authorzilla.com/o89QL/t-y-b-a-history-paper-v-modern-india-1857-1984-
eng.html
<1% - http://adc.library.usyd.edu.au/data-2/fed0059.pdf
<1% - http://www.cambodiainvestment.gov.kh/the-labor-law-of-cambodia_970313.html
<1% - https://www.jstor.org/stable/752520
<1% - https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1909/apr/19/considered-in-
committee
1% -
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/government_of_india_act__1
919_1st%20January%201919
<1% - https://patriotpost.us/alexander/3038-article-the-second-bill-of-rights-the-
second-amendment-2000-01-01
<1% - https://issuu.com/sadaketmalik/docs/constitutional-reforms-1892-to-1920
<1% - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5and1Edw8/26/2/enacted
<1% - https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000589/00674
<1% - https://www.legalcrystal.com/act/133622/government-of-india-act-1915-
complete-act
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107225908/
<1% - https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-13/latest/so-2002-c-13.html
1% -
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/indian_councils_act__1909_1
st%20January%201909
<1% - https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/lalor-cyclopaedia-of-political-science-political-
economy-vol-2-east-india-co-nullification/simple
<1% - https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr19-20/english/panels/ca/papers/ca20200316cb2-
676-4-e.pdf
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/306099/
<1% - http://sec.rajasthan.gov.in/cm/upload/PS_Mannuals(new)_2019_FINAL.pdf
<1% - http://bareactslive.com/Del/dl160.htm
<1% - https://www.legalcrystal.com/act/133623/government-of-india-act-1935-
complete-act
<1% - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Constitution_and_Government/Print_version
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/
<1% - http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/41D.What%20Congress%20and%20Gandhi
%20CHAPTER%20III.htm
<1% - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/India
<1% -
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/modern_indian_history/modern_indian_history_quick_gu
ide.htm
2% - https://yadagiriirs.blogspot.com/2013/12/constitutional-development-in-india.html
2% - http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/Government_of_India_Act_1909/en-en/
<1% - https://www.scholarshipsads.com/morley-minto-reforms/
1% - https://govtnic.blogspot.com/2013/11/constitutional-history-of-india-1909.html
1% - https://infogalactic.com/info/Indian_Councils_Act_1909
<1% - https://historypak.com/minto-morley-reforms-1909/
<1% - https://id.scribd.com/doc/39746705/IGNOU-s-Public-Administration-material-
Part-2-Indian-Administration
<1% - http://mea.gov.in/Images/attach/amb/Volume_17_02.pdf
<1% - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/volumes-on-indias-freedom-struggle-
martyrs.471376/
<1% - http://soc.culture.indian.marathi.narkive.com/Z1VVS0WQ/muslim-problem-
hindu-solutions-sid-harth.7
<1% - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1382698/
<1% - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35236/35236-h/35236-h.htm
1% - http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/66073/8/08_chapter%202.pdf
<1% - https://sadaketmaliklearning.blogspot.com/
2% -
https://www.worldwidejournals.com/paripex/recent_issues_pdf/2016/December/Decem
ber_2016_1482154210__83.pdf