The Indian people had hoped during the first world war that the British government would give them some facilities and grant them the right to self-rule after the war. The Congress and the Muslim league had reached an agreement in 1916 at Lucknow. It was now a possibility that the two parties would work together.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant started the Home Rule Movement to demand self-rule in India. The influence of the extremist fraction increased in the Congress. Indian Secretary Montague, announced on 20 August 1917 that the institution of self – rule would be encouraged in order to gradually establish a responsible government in India.
Due to all these reasons, the basis of the Montague Chelmsford reforms of 1919 was founded. Montague was the Indian secretary while Chelmsford was the Viceroy of India. The Act of 1919 made on the basis of the reports of these two was called the Montague Chelmsford Reforms. Act Mantague Chelmsford Reforms had the following features
1. Dyarchy in the provinces: Dyarchy was established in the provinces. The provincial subjects were divided into two parts-reserved subjects and transferred subjects. The reserved subjets were administrated by the Provincial Governor with the advice of his Executive Council.
The reserved subjects mainly included police, jail, establishing law and order, justice etc. The transfered subjects were administered by the Governor with the advice of his Indian Ministers. The transferred subjects included local self-rule, health, medical care and public works etc.
2. The Governor’s executive council responsible towards the governor: The Governor’s Executive Council was not responsible to the State Legislative Assembly, but to the Governor, while the Indian ministers were responsible to the Legislative Assembly. The Governor had the right to appoint and remove the ministers. The Governor could dissolve the legislative assembly and also he had the power to dissolve the annual bill passed by the Provincial Legislative Assembly.
3. Division of power between centre and provinces: There was a division of power between the centre and provinces. The centre administered subjects, such as defence, foreign policy, railways, communication census, public debt etc. The provinces administered subjects such as local self governance, health, medical services, police, education, public works, forest, irrigation, agriculture etc.
4. Bicameral system in centre: Bicameral legislature was established for the first time by the Act of 1919 at the centre. The upper house of the Central Legislature was called Council of States, and the second lower house was called the Legislative assembly.
5. Separate election system on the communal basis: Separate electroral system was extended on communal basis in the provincial legislative assembly. Apart from Muslims, Sikhs, Europeans, Anglo – Indians, Indian Christians were given the right to elect their representatives in separate electorates.
6. Indian High Commissoner’s Provision: Provision was made for Indian High Commission for functions like some tasks of India Council, education of Indians in England, etc. The crown appointed the Indian High Commissioner on the advice of the government of British India.
Defects in the Act of 1919: This act was mainly criticised for the system of dyarchy in the provincial administration. The division of subjects under the reserved and transferred list in the provinces under diarchy system was not practical. Education was a transferred subject. Industrial development was a transferred subject but labour department was reserved subject.
The focus point of entire administration was the finance department which was a reserved subject, while the subjects requiring funds i.e., education, public work, etc. were with Indian ministers. The reserved subjects lay with the members of the Governor’s executive council, who were answerable to the Governor.
The transferred subjects lay with Indian ministers who were responsible to the legislative assembly of the province. There was lack of collective responsibility in the ministers. That is why the diarchy system was a failure in principle.
The Governor General (Viceroy) and his council was still responsible and answerable to the secretary of India and the British Parliament. The Governor General could reject the recommendations of his executive council. The extension of electoral system on communal basis was an attempt to prevent the organisation of India on a national basis.
