Government of India Act 1919: Features, Limitations and More

The Government of India Act 1919 was introduced to establish responsible government in India and establish self-governing rights for Indians within the British Empire. This act was primarily supported by two individuals: Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, and Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India. Hence, this act is called ‘Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.’ However, this act came into effect in 1921. However, this law introduced by the British government could not satisfy Indian nationalist leaders, so it was later introduced the Government of India Act in 1935.

Below is a discussion about the background factors that led to the introduction of the Government of India Act 1919 and the main features, importance, and limitations of this reform act.

Background of Government of India Act 1919

• Several events can be attributed to the background of the Government of India Act 1919. One of the main reasons was that the ‘Indian Councils Act of 1909‘ or Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 failed to fulfil Indian expectations, so neither the moderates nor the extremists of the Indian National Congress could accept this reform.
• India greatly assisted the British government in winning World War I. Nearly one million Indians had joined the army. Throughout the war, the British government spent 2-3 million pounds annually from India’s revenue for the war. India had to pay 10 million pounds towards Britain’s war debt. Naturally, Indian leaders expected self-governance in return. Discussions began between Viceroy Chelmsford and Secretary of State for India Austen Chamberlain regarding this matter.
• Meanwhile, Chamberlain resigned as Secretary of State for India due to severe criticism in the British Parliament over the Indian government’s miserable failure in the Mesopotamian campaign, and Edwin Samuel Montagu took his position.
• Additionally, during World War I, discontent among Indians regarding the existing British Indian constitution had increased. Every Indian, inspired by nationalist ideals, had become vocal about their administrative rights and constitutional reforms in administration. Along with this, demands for self-governance had also increased. As a result, the concept of Indian self-government gained more acceptance in British political circles and some significant changes were noticed in British policy.
• In contemporary India, the Rowlatt Act, the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the Home Rule Movement, and Gandhi’s Satyagraha created an unstable situation in the Indian political sphere. With the signing of the ‘Lucknow Pact‘ in December 1916, Hindu-Muslim unity was established in Indian national politics, and the British government’s divide-and-rule policy became ineffective. Through this pact, when Congress and the Muslim League came to a mutual understanding, both parties agreed to anti-British movements to achieve self-governance. As a result, the British bureaucracy was forced to adopt a flexible attitude.
• In this context, to address the discontent among Indians by accepting their demands for constitutional reform, the Secretary of State for India of the time, Edwin Montagu, announced in the House of Commons on August 20, 1917, that “Gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of British empire.” This meant he had provided opportunities for Indian participation in every branch of administration.
• Towards the end of 1917, Edwin Montagu came to India and, after travelling extensively across India with the viceroy of India of the time, Frederic Chelmsford presented a report on India’s constitutional reforms in April 1918. Based on this report, the ‘Government of India Act of 1919’ also known as ‘Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms’ was enacted.

You can also read about Government of India Act 1858: Transition to Crown Rule.

Features of Government of India Act 1919

• The Government of India Act 1919 stated that India would remain part of the British Empire, meaning India would not get complete independence. A responsible government would be established in India gradually. For this purpose, Indians would be given opportunities to participate in various branches of administration.
• It established a new office called “High Commissioner of India” for India in London. The High Commissioner of India was given some of the duties previously performed by the “Secretary of State for India.”
• It reduced the central government’s control over the provinces by clearly dividing and separating subjects into central and provincial categories. Both the central and provincial legislatures were given the authority to make laws on their respective subjects. However, the overall structure of the government remained centralized and unitary in nature.
• The central government was responsible for foreign policy, customs, currency, defence, civil and criminal law, communications, finance, etc. The provincial government was responsible for education, health, water supply, famine, relief, law and order maintenance, etc.
• Additionally, it separated the provincial subjects into two categories: transferred and reserved. The transferred subjects included education, health, local self-government, medical services, agriculture, industries, cooperatives, religious endowments, and libraries. The reserved subjects were law and order, famine, relief, industries, press, police administration, forest resources, land revenue, irrigation, finance, and judiciary.
• The transferred matters were to be handled by the Governor with the assistance of the ministers assigned to the Legislative Council. On the other hand, the reserved matters would be handled by the Governor and his Executive Council without being accountable to the Legislative Council. This dual structure of government was termed ‘Dyarchy,’ derived from the Greek word di-arche, meaning ‘double rule.’ However, this experiment proved largely unsuccessful.”
• Revenue resources were divided between the central and provinces. Land revenue belonged to the provinces, and income tax belonged to the central.
• The administrative work of both transferred and reserved departments was entrusted to I.C.S. officers. These I.C.S. officers were appointed by the Secretary of State for India. Therefore, in one way, the Secretary of State for India got the opportunity to indirectly control provincial administration through them.
• The Government of India Act 1919 introduced a bicameral legislature at the central for the first time. One was the Council of State, or upper house, and the other was the Legislative Assembly or lower house.
• The Council of State had 60 members, of which 26 (according to some sources 27) were nominated by the Viceroy and the remaining 34 (according to some sources 33) were selected through direct elections.
• The Legislative Assembly had 140 members (later 145), of which 40 were nominated and the remaining 100 (later 105) were appointed through direct elections.
• This act also mentioned ‘Direct Elections’ for the first time, and the majority of members of both houses were chosen by direct election.
• The Council of State had a term of 5 years, and the Legislative Assembly had a term of 3 years. However, the Viceroy could dissolve both houses at any time and extend their terms.
• Six members were appointed to the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Among them, 3 were Indians.
• Although this act provided for voting rights, they were granted only based on property, tax, and education. There was no per capita voting system. The number of members was determined according to the importance of provinces rather than their population ratio.
• Montagu Chelmsford reforms provided separate electorates for Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans.
• Even in Madras, reservations were made for non-Brahmins, and designated seats in the legislative assembly were provided for the ‘Dalit class’ at all levels.
• It provided for the formation of a Public Service Commission. To recruit government officials, a Central Public Service Commission was established in 1926.
• It separated provincial budgets from the central budget for the first time and gave provincial legislatures the power to formulate their own budgets.
• Unicameral legislatures were established in the provinces. Among their members, 70 percent were elected and 30 percent were nominated by the Viceroy.
• The Act also stated that the Simon Commission would be sent to India after 10 years to evaluate the flaws in the Government of India Act 1919 and assess its effectiveness. However, the Simon Commission arrived in India on February 3, 1928, before the completion of the 10-year period.

You can also read about the Indian Independence Act 1947: Background, Features.

Limitations of Government of India Act 1919

• This act did not mention the end of British rule in India and did not specify any timeline for the transfer of administrative powers to Indians.
• Almost all powers were centralized in the hands of the Viceroy, which often led to him becoming autocratic.
• The act did not provide for any responsible ministry at the central. Since the Viceroy nominated the three Indian members to his Executive Council, they worked as his loyalists. These members were not under the jurisdiction of the central legislature.
• The ‘Dyarchy System’ was flawed. During the distribution of departments between central and provinces, the most important departments were given to the central.
• Although the Government of India Act 1919 mentioned self-governing rights for Indians, the British government did not fulfil this responsibility.
• This act created separate electorates, which increased tensions between different communities, especially between Hindus and Muslims.
• Though the Government of India Act 1919 mentioned establishing a representative and responsible government in India, no timeline was set for this matter.
• This was unjust since voting rights were based on property ownership.

Significance of Government of India Act 1919

• There have been various interpretations among historians about the significance of the Government of India Act 1919, or Montagu Chelmsford Reforms. Philip Woods said that the ideas behind the introduction of the Montagu Chelmsford Reforms “were crucial in establishing parliamentary democracy in India and thereby, in beginning the process of decolonization.”
• On the other hand, according to Carl Bridge, the main purpose of enacting the Government of India Act 1919 was to “safeguard the essentials of the British position in India.”

According to Tomlinson, the goal was to rally “an influential section of Indian opinion… to support the Raj.” According to Peter Robb, the reform’s main weakness was that it was “limited by ideas of continuing British presence.”

The Government of India Act 1919 FAQs