HISTORY ASSIGNMENT

DISCUSS THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ACT, 1919

SUBMITTED TO: KARAN PALSANIYA SUBMITTED BY:

(DEPT. OF LEGAL HISTORY) PRAKRITI
SECTION B
1901071
Introduction

1919 marked the official conclusion of the first world war and gave the British Government
in India an incentive to disinfect extreme and violent Indian nationalists who by acts of
political violence, had defied colonial rule. The passing of the Indian government Act of 1919
aimed to privilege the political moderate Indian elites by the creation of a path to allow
Indians to ultimately rule themselves, but only with British oversight. While the terminology
of "responsible governance" was favoured by colonial authorities over self-government, there
was little political reform to encourage civil institutions and cultivate democratic
representation.

British India's constitutional transition has grown from a multicultural international vision of
all nations' territorial integrity. This internationalist speech placed special strain on colonial
states. International law structures that allow European nations to collaborate and the
establishment of the League of Nations were planned to bring a supposed end to colonial
occupation as announced in the fourteen points of President Wilson's address. Via its colonial
practises, Britain has long claimed to have been a pioneer in humanitarian internationalism.
The war started, however with the revolutionaries of Ireland, Egypt, India and Khilafat
becoming defiant against British control, representing a particular crisis for the British
empire.

The rules on representative self-government had been broadened from earlier amendments of
1909 that had provided independent political representation for minorities such as Muslims.5
In 1919, the amendments were deemed special as a result of the Indian Dyarchy, which was a
double or split government in which specified authority were given to the central and regional
governments. The central assembly was headed by Indian elite-elected officials and the
colonial government-elected officials. The provincial councils consisted of appointed Indian
and British officials. An all-India Legislative Assembly newly elected required 106 members
to vote from an increased population.

In addition to the "nation building" operations, regional governments were responsible of

education, public health, the public sector and agriculture. The central government proceeded
to regulate defence, income and foreign policy (the working of the "legislation and order").
The Indian government act was deemed to provide Indians with the power to rule by elected
officials, an extended franchise and inclusion in local governance. The government of India
act The 1919 reforms remained restricted by regulation by British authorities, amid regional
devolutions and the proliferation of franchises, as many critic have observed. Each province's
governor general, appointed by the India Office, has had the power, in contrast to the wishes
of its partially elected council, to veto or validate any bill; the vice-roy, assumed head of state
in India's parliament, could reverse the votes of the Legislative Assembly. The reforms were
to be assessed after a decade and further expanded if the time was right. Some members of
the Indian National Congress and Home Rule League felt this could be a step toward Indian
independence; however most members of the National Indigenous Congress were not
satisfied with the reforms, argues that the Indians should have purna swaraj, or full
independence.

A vision that India (and other colonies) would one day rule themselves, perhaps like
members of the Commons or with a domination status, so that Britain's links to India's
economy would not be broken was expressed in the reforms Montagu – Chelmsford that had
been under parliamentary discussion several years earlier. The reforms at the end of the First
World War, many in England knew that the continuing colonial occupation was politically
and economically insostenible, but the creation of a plan to look like political independence
for British colonies remained fraught with fragilities. Politicians from the successive
governments of Liberal, Labor, Conservative and Koalition agree that India needed autonomy
and self-determination, but the question of whether India or the Indians were ready to govern
themselves was unclear.

Role of Political Parties

Political parties such as labour tended to support Indian nationalist demands, whereas British
observers from across the political spectrum wanted to preserve British influence and power
in India. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms' 'responsible government' language was
calculated to lay the timeline for self-government and possibly independence. However even
colonial officials knew that the logic of this timeline varied: the Vice-Chancellor Lord Irwin,
from 1926-1931, joked that in sixty years time for India's self-governing government the Earl
of Birkenhead, who then served as the Secretary of State.
From a certain point of view, the reforms of Montogu-Chelmsford were a critical moment in
the colonial government's historical progress, providing Indians with representative
institutions, indianization and a pragmatic reduction of British participation in India without
surrendering sovereignty over Indian territoried countries. Which  happened shortly after the
First World War and had a significant influence on the manner in which the nationalist
terrorist movement formed in 1920. The implementation of the Anarchical and Revolutionary
Crimes Act, best known as the Rowlatt Act, is an effort to restrict the power of
revolutionaries and insurgents, which is the basis of the report by the Rowlatt Commission
which calls for repressive measures including restricting the right to jury trial in case of some
political crimes and the suspension of habeas corpus t Rowlatt's provisions come from the
1915 Protection of India Act steps to apprehend those who, although participating in the war,
were identified as a danger to the welfare of the State.

The langue of the need for war approved the expansion of the administrative departments
even when no war had taken place: "wartime is a shorthand to evoke the conventional notion
that conditions are both extraordinary and temporary."21 Six months after the end of the war,
however, British officials recommended that the interim steps in the D should be
implemented before the end of war. In December 1917, then the colons approved the
establishment of a commission to "researcher and study on the existence of the criminal
conspiracies connected with the revolutionary movement in India" and to "communises as to
the danger of political opposition by means of revolutionary terror."

There was no imminent emergency danger but through a circular argument that the absence
of repressive intervention could lead the government to face political emergencies, the
Rowlatt Act was therefore set as a defensive measure to protect the mechanism of
constitutional change against those who might be challenging it.

Second Law Commission

While considering the provisions of the Rowlatt Act by the colonial government, the Indian
government initiated a second commission to study prison reform. It was this committee that
was commissioned in particular to study the problem of prisons in India and how to put an
end to travel as a punishment for those accused of sedition, conspiracy and government
overthrow. The committee focussed on the Andaman Islands jail, which was used by a
significant number of gentlemanly terrorists who were sent to it in the 1910s with the more
brutal political prisoners. All of the questions that the committee discussed was how inmates
of various backgrounds and castes could be treated in order to change those who might be
returned to the larger society. At a period when studies and commissions and reforms were
spreading, the colonial government in India drew on its wealth of knowledge of Indian
history and what could be expected of Indian conduct, according to a colonial caste sociology
and its connection with criminality. The population of India's penal population may have
grown in expenditure, but it fusioned with an increasing question about recognising the vast
number of Indians who did not belong to the "criminal castes and clans," but who were
treated as prisoners of politics.

The management of prison for political disagreement was a major problem for colonial
authorities, especially high-ranking liberals such as Edwin Montagu, primarily because those
were the communities that were considered crucial to further political change. In discussions
within the government between various constituencies, the issue of differentiating terrorists
from militants and extremists, and finally peaceful protestors like Satyagrahis inspired by
Gandhi and Legislative leaders, meant that officials were called on to recognise, as the
populace of the prisons considered, the distinction between criminality and rebellion. The
management of prison for political disagreement was a major problem for colonial
authorities, especially high-ranking liberals such as Edwin Montagu, primarily because those
were the communities that were considered crucial to further political change. In discussions
within the government between various constituencies, the issue of differentiating terrorists
from militants and extremists, and finally peaceful protestors like Satyagrahis inspired by
Gandhi and Legislative leaders, meant that officials were called on to recognise, as the
populace of the prisons considered, the distinction between criminality and rebellion.

Features of the Act

1. It eased central provincial power by splitting central and provincial problems into
demarcation and division. Legislation was given to the central and provincial
legislatures on the respective list. The government system remained central and
unitary, however.
2. The provincial subjects were further split into two parts—transferred and reserved.
The Chancellor, with the assistance of ministers responsible to the Legislative
Council, was to administrate the subjects transferred. On the other hand, the reserved
subjects should be administered without the responsibility of the Legislative Council
by the Governor and his Executive Council. This double governing scheme was
 known as "dyarchy," a Greek term "di-arche," meaning "double law." The experiment
was however, largely inefficient.
3. Bicameralism and direct voting were launched in the world for the first time.
Therefore, a bicameral legislative assembly consisting of an Upper House (Council of
State) and a Lower House (Legislative Assembly) was substituted by the Indian
Legislative Council. The majority of the two chambers is elected directly.
4. It necessary that three of the six members (with the exception of the Commander in
Chief) of the Executive Council of the Viceroy be Indians.
5. It expanded the population representation concept by presenting Sikhs, Indian
Christians, English Indians and Europeans with distinct electorates.
6. It issued permits on the grounds of land, tax or education to a small number of
individuals.
7. It established a new office for India in London for the High Commissioner and has
shifted those duties to him previously carried out by the Indian Minister.
8. It called for the formation of a Committee for the public sector. In 1926 a National
Committee for the Appointment of Officers was also set up.
9. It divided regional budgets and allowed the provincial assemblies to implement their
budgets for the first time.
10. After ten years of entry into force, it provided for the designation of a Statutory
Committee to examine and report on its work.

Conclusion

The changes were not close to the Swaraj, which the people hoped the end of the war would
achieve. Discontent across the country was widespread. The government resorted to new
authoritarian policies in the face of this discontent. The Rowlatt Act was passed in March
1919, and was based on the Rowlatt commission's findings. It was opposed by the assembly.
In protest a number of leaders who were assembly members resigned. In a letter of
resignation, Mohammad Ali Jinnah believed that a government passed or bans a law of that
nature in peacetime would overturn its claim to be a civilised government. The passage of the
event provoked people's indignation. The new repressive measures have been condemned as
Black acts.
A country-wide protest was called for by Gandhi who previously had made the Satyagraha
sabha. A national day of humiliation was observed throughout the country on 6 April 1919.
Throughout the country, there were protesters and Hartals. The passage of the case provoked
people's outrage. The new repressive measures have been condemned as Black acts.
A country-wide protest was called for by Gandhi who previously had made the Satyagraha
sabha. A national day of humiliation was observed throughout the country on 6 April 1919.
Throughout the country, there were protesters and Hartals. All companies in the country have
come to a halt. In India, such protests by a united people had never before been witnessed.
The government used brutal action to put down the unrest and lathi charges and fire were
carried out in many areas.