By 1916 all parties in India began to think that some changes in the structure of the government was necessary. As a response to the political pressure in India during the war years and to buy support of the Indians, the Montagu- Chelmsford reforms were introduced by the Government.
In 1918, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, produced their scheme of constitutional reforms, which led to the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1919.The Government of India Act made many changes in the administration of India. The Act provided that in future the Secretary of State was to be paid out of the Indian revenues.
The Act of 1919 set up a bicameral legislature of the centre in place of the Imperial Council. The names of the two houses were the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. The life of the Central Legislative Assembly was 3 years and the Council of State 5 years. The franchise was restricted for both houses of the Central Legislature. The governor- General was given the power to summon and dissolve the chambers. The Central Legislature was given very wide powers. It could make laws for the whole of British India. The Act introduced responsive and not responsible Government at the Centre.
The Act provided for two lists of subjects: Central list and Provincial List. It is to be noted that the division was not clear-cut or definite. There was lot of overlapping. The size of Provincial Legislative Council was considerably enlarged.
The Act introduced diarchy in the provinces. Under this system, the subjects to be dealt with by the Provincial Governments were divided into two parts: Transferred and Reserved subjects. The Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor with the help of the Executive Council and the Transferred subjects were dealt with by the Governor with the help of his ministers.
While the members of the Executive Council were nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by the Governor from the members of the legislature. The system of diarchy worked in the provinces from 1921 to 1937, but the experience shows that the system did not work satisfactorily. Many factors were responsible for the failure of the system. The very principle of diarchy was faulty. The division of administration into two parts, each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and the practice of Governments. The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve two masters. Those were the Governor and the Legislative Council.
The Indian nationalists had advanced far beyond such halting concessions. They were no longer willing to be satisfied with the shadow of political power. The Indian National Congress condemned the Reforms as “ disappointing and unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self government instead. Some of the leaders led by Surendranath Banerjea were in favour of accepting the government proposals. They left the Congress and founded the Indian Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals.
In 1918, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy, produced their scheme of constitutional reforms, which led to the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1919.The Government of India Act made many changes in the administration of India. The Act provided that in future the Secretary of State was to be paid out of the Indian revenues.
The Act of 1919 set up a bicameral legislature of the centre in place of the Imperial Council. The names of the two houses were the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State. The life of the Central Legislative Assembly was 3 years and the Council of State 5 years. The franchise was restricted for both houses of the Central Legislature. The governor- General was given the power to summon and dissolve the chambers. The Central Legislature was given very wide powers. It could make laws for the whole of British India. The Act introduced responsive and not responsible Government at the Centre.
The Act provided for two lists of subjects: Central list and Provincial List. It is to be noted that the division was not clear-cut or definite. There was lot of overlapping. The size of Provincial Legislative Council was considerably enlarged.
The Act introduced diarchy in the provinces. Under this system, the subjects to be dealt with by the Provincial Governments were divided into two parts: Transferred and Reserved subjects. The Reserved subjects were administered by the Governor with the help of the Executive Council and the Transferred subjects were dealt with by the Governor with the help of his ministers.
While the members of the Executive Council were nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by the Governor from the members of the legislature. The system of diarchy worked in the provinces from 1921 to 1937, but the experience shows that the system did not work satisfactorily. Many factors were responsible for the failure of the system. The very principle of diarchy was faulty. The division of administration into two parts, each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and the practice of Governments. The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve two masters. Those were the Governor and the Legislative Council.
The Indian nationalists had advanced far beyond such halting concessions. They were no longer willing to be satisfied with the shadow of political power. The Indian National Congress condemned the Reforms as “ disappointing and unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self government instead. Some of the leaders led by Surendranath Banerjea were in favour of accepting the government proposals. They left the Congress and founded the Indian Liberal Federation. They came to be known as Liberals.
Bipan Chandra :India's Struggle for Independence
Bipan Chandra edtd : Freedom Struggle
Tara Chand : Freedom Movement
NCERT Text book
No comments:
Post a Comment