MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

AURANGABAD

NAME: SOUMIKI GHOSH

ROLL NO: 10

SEMESTER: II

B.A.LL.B (Hons.)

SUBJECT: HISTORY-II

TOPIC: Analysis of Minto- Morley Reforms and Mont- Ford Reforms

GUIDED BY: Ms. Deeksha Ingle (Asst. Professor of History)

1
 TABE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO TOPIC PAGE NO

1 Introduction 3

2 Background 5

3 Major Provisions 8

4 Assessment 14

5 Conclusion 16

2
 INTRODUCTION

The Indian Councils Act 1909 was an act of the British Parliament that introduced a few
reforms in the legislative councils, placated the demands of moderates in Indian National
Congress and increased the involvement of Indians limitedly in the governance of British
India. It was more commonly called the Morley-Minto Reforms after the Secretary of State
for India John Morley (1905-1910) and the Viceroy of India, the 4 th Earl of Minto. The main
component of which directly introduced the elective principle to membership in the imperial
and local legislative councils in India. This act got royal assent on 25 May 1909.

In Great Britain the Liberal Party had scored an electoral victory in 1906 that marked the
dawn of a new era of reforms for British India. The relatively new secretary of state, Lord
Minto, the British viceroy of India (1905–10) was able to introduce several
important innovations into the legislative and administrative machinery of the British Indian
government. Implementing Queen Victoria’s promise of equality of opportunity for Indians,
he appointed two Indian members to his council at Whitehall: one a Muslim, Sayyid Husain
Bilgrami, who had taken an active role in the founding of the Muslim League, and the other a
Hindu, Krishna G. Gupta, a senior Indian in the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Morley also
persuaded a reluctant Lord Minto to appoint to the viceroy’s Executive Council the first
Indian member, Satyendra P. Sinha, in 1909.

Though the initial electorate base designated by the 1909 act was only a small minority of
Indians authorized by property ownership and education, in 1910 some 135 elected Indian
representatives took their seats as members of legislative councils throughout British India.
The act also increased the maximum additional membership of the Imperial Legislative
Council from 16 (to which it had been raised by the Indian Councils Act of 1892) to 60. In
the provincial councils of Bombay (now Mumbai), Bengal, and Madras (now Chennai),
which had been created in 1861, the permissible total membership had been earlier raised to
20 by the Indian Councils Act of 1892. That number was raised to 50 in 1909, even though a
majority of the members were to be unofficial. The number of council members in other
provinces was similarly increased.

3
When Morley abolished the official majorities of provincial legislatures, it was on the advice
of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and other liberal leaders of the Indian National Congress, such as
Romesh Chunder Dutt. He overrode the bitter opposition of not only the ICS but also his own
viceroy and council. Morley believed, as did many other British Liberal politicians, that the
only justification for British rule over India was to bequeath to India Britain’s greatest
political institution: parliamentary government. Lord Minto and his officials in Calcutta
(now Kolkata) and Simla (now Shimla) wrote strict regulations for the implementation of the
reforms and insisted on the retention of executive veto power over all legislation. Elected
members of the new councils were empowered, nevertheless, to question the executive
informally or formally about all aspects concerning the annual budget. Members were also
permitted to introduce legislative proposals of their own.

The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms or more briefly known as Mont-Ford Reforms were

reforms introduced by the colonial government in British India to introduce self-governing
institutions gradually to India. Montagu-Chelmsford Report, the set of recommendations
made to the British Parliament in 1918, became the theoretical basis for the Government of
India Act of 1919. The report was the result of lengthy deliberations between Edwin Samuel
Montagu, secretary of state for India (1917–22), and Lord Chelmsford, viceroy of India
(1916–21). In August 1917 Montagu had informed the House of Commons that the policy of
the British government toward India was thereafter to be one of “increasing association of
Indians in every branch of the administration, with a view to the progressive realization of
responsible government in India as an integral part of the empire.” Soon afterward Montagu
headed a delegation that spent the winter of 1917–18 in India, during which he held his
discussions with Chelmsford. The main element of the report was the recommendation that
control over some aspects of provincial government be passed to Indian ministers responsible
to an Indian electorate.

4
 BACKGROUND

MINTO-MORLEY

BACKGROUND OF MINTO-MORLEY REFORMS:

Some small educated elite met for the first time as the Indian National Congress in 1885.
Provincial level Associations had already emerged. One of the main grievances for the
associations revolved around the difficulties for Indians to obtain entry into the civil service.
In 1858, Queen Victoria had proclaimed equal treatment for Indians.[1] But very few Indians
had received an opportunity to be admitted. British officials were hesitant to accept Indians as
partners in the administration. With that perspective, it appeared that granting a few
concessions of representation in the provincial and imperial legislatures to the native elite
would be a lesser evil. The non-monopolising participation of Indians in the legislatures was
to be an enhancement for British rule.

Such a limited reform was initiated in 1892 to satisfy the Indian National Congress' clamour
for more legislative representation. The process was limited to proposing candidates whom
the government could nominate for the parliaments. Indians were still outnumbered by
British members in the legislatures and their abilities were limited to speeches and debates.
Nonetheless, the restricted enterprise attracted the attention of the Indian leadership and the
1892 charm of the Congress declined.

5
The Liberal Party won the 1906 general election in Britain. Subsequently, liberal philosopher
John Morley became Secretary of State for India. Morley wished to gather moderate Indians
because of the terrorist activities by the young radical nationalists, and through this wanted to
keep the moderates away from the radical members of the Congress. The moderates too were
enthusiastic, expecting more from Morley than he had countenanced. Additionally, Morley's
judgement was guided by Lord Minto, the viceroy, and H.H. Risley, the Home Secretary. The
latter opposed territorial representation and urged representation on the basis of the different
interests in what he perceived to be the Indian social structure.

 The Indian National Congress (INC) was also agitating for more reforms and self-
governance of Indians. The earlier Congress leaders were moderates but now
extremist leaders were on the rise who believed in more aggressive methods.

 INC demanded home rule for the first time in 1906.

 Gopal Krishna Gokhale met Morley in England to emphasise the need for reforms.

 Shimla Deputation: A group of elite Muslims led by the Aga Khan met Lord Minto in
1906 and placed their demand for a separate electorate for the Muslims.

 John Morley was a member of the Liberal government and he wanted to make
positive changes in India’s governance.

6
 MONT-FORD

BACKGROUND OF MONT-FORD REFORMS:

In late 1917, Montagu went to India to meet Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, and
leaders of Indian community, to discuss the introduction of limited self-government to India,
and the protection rights of minority communities. He drew up a report, with Bhupendra Nath
Bose, Lord Donoghmore, William Duke and Charles Roberts.

The Report went before Cabinet on 24 May and 7 June 1918 and was embodied in
the Government of India Act of 1919. These reforms represented the maximum concessions
the British were prepared to make at that time. The franchise was extended, and increased
authority was given to central and provincial legislative councils, but the viceroy remained
responsible only to London.

He put before the British Cabinet a proposed statement regarding his intention to work
towards the gradual development of free institutions in India with a view to ultimate self-
government. Lord Curzon thought that this gave Montagu too much emphasis on working
towards self-government and suggested that he work towards increasing association of
Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing
institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as
an integral part of the British Empire. The Cabinet approved the statement with Curzon's
amendment incorporated in place of Montagu's original statement. The Government of India
Act 1919 was an act of the British Parliament that sought to increase the participation of
Indians in the administration of their country.

7
 MAJOR PROVISIONS

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF MINTO-MORLEY REFORMS:

 The legislative councils at the Centre and the provinces increased in size.

 Central Legislative Council – from 16 to 60 members

 Legislative Councils of Bengal, Madras, Bombay and United Provinces – 50

members each

 Legislative Councils of Punjab, Burma and Assam – 30 members each

 The legislative councils at the centre and the provinces were to have four categories of
members as follows:

 Ex officio members: Governor General and members of the executive council.

 Nominated official members: Government officials who were nominated by

the Governor-General.

 Nominated non-official members: nominated by the Governor-General but

were not government officials.

 Elected members: elected by different categories of Indians.

 The elected members were elected indirectly. The local bodies elected an electoral
college who would elect members of the provincial legislative councils. These
members would, in turn, elect the members of the Central legislative council.
 The elected members were from the local bodies, the chambers of commerce,
landlords, universities, traders’ communities and Muslims.
 In the provincial councils, non-official members were in a majority. However, since
some of the non-official members were nominated, in total, a non-elected majority
was there.
 Indians were given membership to the Imperial Legislative Council for the first time.
 It introduced separate electorates for the Muslims. Some constituencies were
earmarked for Muslims and only Muslims could vote their representatives.
 The members could discuss the budget and move resolutions. They could also discuss
matters of public interest.

8
  They could also ask supplementary questions.
 No discussions on foreign policy or on relations with the princely states were
permitted.
 Lord Minto appointed (on much persuasion by Morley) Satyendra P Sinha as the first
Indian member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
 Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for Indian
affairs.

MAJOR PROVISIONS OF MONT-FORD REFORMS:

 Provincial government:
 Executive:
 Dyarchy was introduced, i.e., there were two classes of administrators – Executive
councillors and ministers.
 The Governor was the executive head of the province.
 The subjects were divided into two lists – reserved and transferred.
 The governor was in charge of the reserved list along with his executive councillors.
The subjects under this list were law and order, irrigation, finance, land revenue, etc.
 The ministers were in charge of subjects under the transferred list. The subjects
included were education, local government, health, excise, industry, public works,
religious endowments, etc.
 The ministers were responsible to the people who elected them through the
legislature.
 These ministers were nominated from among the elected members of the legislative
council.
 The executive councillors were not responsible to the legislature unlike the ministers.
 The Secretary of State and the Governor-General could interfere in matters under the
reserved list but this interference was restricted for the transferred list.
 Legislature:
 The size of the provincial legislative assemblies was increased. Now about 70% of the
members were elected.
 There were communal and class electorates.

9
 Some women could also vote.
 The governor’s assent was required to pass any bill. He also had veto power and could
issue ordinances also.
 Central government:
 Executive:
 The chief executive authority was the Governor-General.
 There were two lists for administration – central and provincial.
 Provincial list was under the provinces while the centre took care of the central list.
 Out of the 6 members of the Viceroy’s executive council, 3 were to be Indian
members.
 The governor-general could issue ordinances.
 He could also certify bills that were rejected by the central legislature.
 Legislature:
 A bicameral legislature was set up with two houses – Legislative Assembly
(forerunner of the Lok Sabha) and the Council of State (forerunner of the Rajya
Sabha).
 Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
 Members of the Legislative Assembly:

10
  The nominated members were nominated by the governor-general from Anglo-
Indians and Indian Christians.
 The members had a tenure of 3 years.
 Council of State (Upper House)
 Only male members with a tenure of 5 years.
 Members of the Council of State:

1
https://www.britannica.com/event/Montagu-Chelmsford-Report

11
  The legislators could ask questions and also vote a part of the budget.
 Only 25% of the budget was subject to vote.
 Rest was non-votable.
 A bill had to passed in both houses before it became a law.
 There were three measures to resolve any deadlock between both the houses – joint
committees, joint conferences and join sittings.
 Governor-General
 The governor-general’s assent was required for any bill to become a law even if both
houses have passed it.
 He could also enact a bill without the legislature’s consent.
 He could prevent a bill from becoming law if he deems it as detrimental to the peace
of the country.
 He could disallow any question, adjournment motion or debate in the house.
 Franchise was restricted and there was no universal adult suffrage.
 Voters should have paid land revenue of Rs.3000 or have property with rental value
or have taxable income.
 They should possess previous experience in the legislative council.
 They should be members of a university senate.
 They should hold certain offices in the local bodies.

2
https://www.britannica.com/event/Montagu-Chelmsford-Report

12
 They should hold some specific titles.
 All this narrowed the number of people who could vote to an abysmal number.
 Indian Council:
 There were to be at least 8 and a maximum of 12 members in the council.
 Half of the members should have ten years of experience in public service in India.
 Their tenure was to be 5 years.
 Their salaries were increased from £1000 to £1200.
 There were to be 3 Indian members in the Council.
 This act provided for the first time, the establishment of a public service commission
in India.
 The act also provided that after 10 years, a statutory commission would be set up to
study the working of the government. This resulted in the Simon Commission of
1927.
 It also created an office of the High Commissioner for India in London.

 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.
 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.
 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.

13
 

ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENTS OF MINTO-MORLEY REFORMS:

 The Act introduced communal representation in Indian politics. This was intended to
stem the growing tide of nationalism in the country by dividing the people on
communal lines. The culmination of this step was seen in the partition of the country
along religious lines. The effects of differential treatment of different religious groups
can be seen to this day.

 The act did nothing to grant colonial self-government which was the Congress’s
demand.

 The Act did increase Indian participation in the legislative councils, especially at the
provincial levels.

14
ASSESSMENT OF MONT-FORD REFORMS: 

 Dyarchy introduced the concept of responsible government.

 It introduced the concept of federal structure with a unitary bias.
 There was increased participation of Indians in the administration. They held some
portfolios like labour, health, etc.
 For the first time, elections were known to the people and it created a political
consciousness among the people.
 Some Indian women also had the right to vote for the first time.
 This act extended consolidated and communal representation.
 Franchise was very limited. It did not extend to the common man.
 The governor-general and the governors had a lot of power to undermine the
legislatures at the centre and the provinces respectively.
 Allocation of the seats for the central legislature was not based on population but the
‘importance’ of the province in the eyes of the British.
 The Rowlatt Acts were passed in 1919 which severely restricted press and movement.
Despite the unanimous opposition of Indian members of the legislative council, those
bills were passed. Several Indian members resigned in protest.

CONCLUSION

Many Indians had fought with the British in first world war and they expected much greater
concessions. Congress and the league had recently come together demanding for self-rule.
The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition,
and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted through the Rowlatt
Acts introduced in 1919. These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with
the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Several members of the council including
Jinnah resigned in protest. These measures were widely seen throughout India of the betrayal
of strong support given by the population for the British war effort.

Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of

protest in the Punjab. The situation worsened in Amritsar in April 1919, when General
Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on demonstrators hemmed into a tight square, resulting

15
in the deaths of 379 civilians. Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord
Hunter. The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be
dismissed, leading to Dyer's sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they
considered had received unfair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry. The conservative Morning
Post newspaper collected a subscription of £26,000 for General Dyer and Sir Edward
Carson moved a censure motion on Montagu which was nearly successful. Montagu was
saved largely due to a strong speech in his defence by Winston Churchill.

The Amritsar massacre further inflamed Indian nationalist sentiment ending the initial
response of reluctant co-operation. At the grass roots level, many young Indians wanted
faster progress towards Indian independence and were disappointed by lack of advancement
as Britons returned to their former positions in the administration. At the Indian National
Congress annual session in September 1920, delegates supported Gandhi's proposal
of swaraj or self-rule – preferably within the British Empire or out of it if necessary. The
proposal was to be implemented through a policy of non-cooperation with British rule
meaning that Congress did not field candidates in the first elections held under the Montagu-
Chelmsford reforms in 1921.

The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years. Sir John
Simon headed the committee (Simon Commission) responsible for the review which
recommended further constitutional change. Three round table conferences were held in
London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests. Mahatma Gandhi
attended the 1931 round table after negotiations with the British Government. The major
disagreement between the Indian National Congress and the British was separate electorates
for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay
MacDonald's Communal Award. A new Government of India Act 1935 was passed
continuing the move towards self-government first made in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.
Thus both the reports, in spite of having demerits, stood with their own uniqueness and
influenced the then Indian politics as well as the independence movement.

16
17