Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Dyarchy

The Government of India Act 1919, known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, instituted major structural changes in the governance of British India. Named after Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, the legislation introduced responsible government in the provinces through a dual administration system called Dyarchy.

Background and August Declaration of 1917

The demand for self-governance intensified during World War I due to the Home Rule Movement led by Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, alongside the Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. On August 20, 1917, Edwin Montagu made a historic declaration in the British House of Commons. He stated that British policy aimed at the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions. This statement promised the eventual establishment of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.

Division of Administrative Subjects

The Act introduced devolution of power by classifying government functions into two distinct lists: Central subjects and Provincial subjects.

Central Subjects

• Topics of national importance were retained under the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
• Included defense, foreign affairs, political relations, railways, posts and telegraphs, currency, civil and criminal law, and customs.

Provincial Subjects

• Topics related to local administration were transferred to the provincial domain.
• Included public health, sanitation, education, local self-government, agriculture, water supplies, land revenue, police, and prisons.

Dyarchy in the Provinces

Dyarchy, derived from the Greek word di-arche (meaning double rule), was applied to the executive administration of the provinces. Provincial subjects were divided into two operational categories: Reserved and Transferred.

Reserved Subjects

• Administered directly by the Governor and his Executive Council without any accountability to the provincial legislature.
• Included crucial portfolios like land revenue, justice, police, prisons, finance, irrigation, and press control.
• Members of the Executive Council were appointed by the Crown for a five-year term and were independent of legislative votes.

Transferred Subjects

• Administered by the Governor acting on the advice of Indian Ministers appointed from among the elected members of the provincial legislative council.
• Included portfolios like education, local self-government, public health, agriculture, public works, and excise.
• Ministers were accountable to the legislative council and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them.

Reforms in the Central Government

Executive Setup

• The Governor-General remained the supreme executive authority accountable only to the British Parliament through the Secretary of State.
• The Act mandated that three out of the six members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council (excluding the Commander-in-Chief) had to be Indians.
• Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru was appointed as the Law Member, while other portfolios like Education and Commerce were assigned to Indian members.

Bicameral Central Legislature

The Act replaced the Imperial Legislative Council with a bicameral legislature consisting of two houses: the Council of State and the Legislative Assembly.

• Council of State (Upper House): Consisted of 60 members, of which 34 were elected and 26 were nominated by the Governor-General. The term of the house was 5 years. It was an exclusively male body; women were not permitted to sit in the Upper House.
• Central Legislative Assembly (Lower House): Consisted of 145 members, of which 104 were elected and 41 were nominated (26 official and 15 non-official). The term of the assembly was 3 years.
• Powers of Legislature: The central legislature could pass laws for all of British India, but the Governor-General held overriding powers. He could restore cut demands through his certification power, issue ordinances, and withhold assent to any bill.

Expansion of Franchise and Communal Representation

• Restricted Franchise: Voting rights were granted based on property qualifications, land revenue payment, and income tax brackets. Only about 3% of the total adult population received voting rights.
• Women’s Suffrage: The Act allowed provincial legislatures to decide whether women could vote. Madras became the first province to grant voting rights to women in 1921.
• Expansion of Separate Electorates: Communal electorates, introduced for Muslims in 1909, were extended to Sikhs in Punjab, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans.

Structural Comparison of the Imperial Legislative Bodies

Financial and Institutional Innovations

• Separation of Budgets: Provincial budgets were separated from the Central budget for the first time. Provincial legislatures received the power to enact their own budgets and levy local taxes.
• Public Service Commission: The Act provided for establishing an independent civil service commission. Following the Lee Commission recommendations in 1924, the Central Public Service Commission was set up on October 1, 1926, with Sir Ross Barker as its first Chairman.
• High Commissioner for India: Created the office of the High Commissioner for India in London. Some administrative duties previously performed by the Secretary of State were transferred to this new official, whose salary was paid out of Indian revenues.
• Statutory Commission Provision: Section 84A of the Act mandated the appointment of a statutory commission ten years after its passage to inquire into the working of the system and report on further constitutional developments. This provision led to the appointment of the Simon Commission in 1927.

Working and Failure of Dyarchy

Dyarchy failed due to inherent structural defects.

• The division of subjects was illogical and impractical. Key nation-building portfolios like education and agriculture were transferred to ministers, but the financial controls required to execute policies remained under the Reserved domain handled by an uncooperative Finance Department.
• The Governor held absolute authority over transferred ministers. He could override their decisions, bypass their recommendations, and act independently through his Executive Council.
• Ministers owed dual allegiance—one to the provincial legislature and another to the Governor, who controlled their tenure and appointments.
• The Indian National Congress boycotted the elections held under the Act in 1920. Later, the Swaraj Party led by C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru entered the councils in 1923 with the objective of wrecking the working of the 1919 Act from within.

Essential Facts for Quick Revision

The concept of Dyarchy was framed by Lionel Curtis, a British author and member of the Round Table group, through his book Dyarchy (1920). The Reforms were rejected by the Indian National Congress at a special session in Bombay in August 1918, chaired by Syed Hasan Imam, which termed the scheme disappointing and unsatisfactory. Madras was the only major province where Dyarchy functioned continuously from 1921 to 1937, where the Justice Party formed governments and used the legislature to introduce social reforms. Under the 1919 Act, the Instrument of Instructions was issued to Governors outlining how they should exercise their discretionary powers in handling transferred subjects. The Central Legislative Assembly created under the 1919 Act was the venue where Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw smoke bombs in April 1929 to protest against the Trade Disputes Bill and Public Safety Bill. The legislative assembly had the right to vote on demands for grants, but non-voteable items accounted for nearly 75% of the central budget, leaving the legislature with minimal control over military and political expenditures.