MORLEY MINTO REFORMS (1909)

Officially known as the Government of India Act, 1909, the Minto-Morley Reforms take their name after their official sponsor, Minto, then Governor-General and John Morley (1838-1923), Secretary of State for India. When Lord Minto came as viceroy to India, the whole country was in a state of political unrest. In collaboration with Lord Morley, secretary of state for India, Minto appointed a committee to go into details and prepare a despatch regarding constitutional reforms. This despatch was ready in 1907 and was sent to London on March 19. It served as the basis of the reforms which were enacted into law by the Indian Councils Act of 1909.

The important constitutional changes introduced by these reforms were several. Provincial legislative councils were enlarged up to a maximum of 50 members in the larger provinces and 30 in the smaller ones. The number of the unofficial members was raised equal to that of the official members. The method of election was partly indirect and partly direct. Second, Muslims were given separate representation in most provinces. In addition, the power of legislative councils was increased. The Imperial Legislative Council was also enlarged, but the officials would remain in majority. Finally, an Indian member was taken into the executive council of the viceroy and in each of the provincial executive councils.

Despite many defects in this scheme, the Morley-Minto reforms were important in several aspects. For Muslims, the most important change brought about by the reforms was the establishment of separate electorates. The Simla deputation demand was met, and a system of separate Muslim representation was introduced.

All Hindu and several British observers of the Indian scene criticised the creation of communal electorates as a breach of democratic principle. But Morley saw the force of the Muslim argument that to make Muslim seats dependent on Hindu votes would embitter communal relations. Mere reservation of seats would not have gone to a Muslim candidate who identified himself wholeheartedly with the interests of his own community. Another argument in support of this was that it was the unanimous demand of a large community. But Hindu politicians and the Congress immediately began a campaign of criticism and opposition. At the

1910 Congress session, it condemned the provision of separate representation for Muslims and demanded withdrawal of the resolution. From then on up to the passing of the 1935 Act, the Congress made a habit of it to condemn separate electorates and to advocate their removal.

The sober, well-reasoned and constitutional advocacy of the Muslim League thus did not fail to achieve its objective. Within two years of its inception, the Muslim League scored a major political victory against a more powerful political organisation. The day the demand for separate electorate was conceded, the course for the Muslim freedom movement changed. It laid down the foundation for the growth of the Muslim national consciousness which, after a forty year struggle, was to achieve for the Muslims the culmination of their aspirations as a distinct nation.

IMPACT OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR ON INDIA

The impact of would war I created a minor revolution in India’s political and constitutional position. Unlike world war II, India remained loyal to the British Government during the war. No large scale effort was mode to embarrass Britain in her hour of travail or to exploit her weakness in order to gain political concessions. Thousands of Indians volunteered to fight for Britain. Legislative councils readily voted for all emergency powers to the executive as well as full financial backing to war expenditure.

The most profound effects of the war were, that it brought the Congress and the muslim league closer. The basic differences between the two were momentarily forgotten due to a strong foreign stimulus.It seemed that the political exigency had overcome deep rooted and suspicions. For the first time a desire developed to arrive at some understanding between the two otherwise apart communities.

On the other hand the British projected that they were fighting the war to further the cause of freedom and self determination. It was expected that due to the Indian complacence during the war, a set of reforms will be despatched once the war ended. These reforms were expected to make India a self governing member of the British common wealth. This notion in the Indian populace produced a vigour in the populace unseen and unheard of before. However the end of the war did not bring any such measures and the local Indian were further disillusioned with false British promises and vows.

LUCKNOW PACT 1916

In 1913, the Muslim League adopted the principle of self-rule. This brought Congress and Muslim League closer to each other. The leaders of both parties decided that they should cooperate with each other to bring the government around to accept their demands. Therefore in 1916 Muslim League and Congress held sessions in Lucknow. The Muslim League session was presided over by Quaid-e-Azam, while Ambeka Choian Maujamdar presided over the Congress session. There, Congress and the Muslim League reached an agreement on a scheme of constitutional reforms known as the Lucknow Pact. The agreement inncluded separate electorates for Muslims and provided for elections of central and provincial councils and responsibility of the executive to the legislature. They agreed to the principle of a separate electorate and reservation of one-third of the seats in the central legislature for Muslims. The Muslim representation was fixed at: 33% of the elected members of the central government, 50% for Punjab, 40% for Bengal, 33% for Bombay, 30% for U.P, 25% for Bihar, 15% for C.P and 15% for Madras

It was also decided that the members of assemblies should have the right to present adjournment motions. In addition, provincial autonomy should be given to the provinces and the communal problems should be solved. The pact stated that seats should be reserved for Muslims in those provinces in which they were a minority, and that Hindus should be protected in Muslim majority provinces. Finally, no resolution or motion could be presented in the assembly which would affect the interests of any of the two communities without the approval of the concerned group. The Lucknow Pact was considered a great achievement. For the first time, Hindus acknowledged Muslims as a separate nation and accepted their right to a separate electorate.

MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORMS 1919

The reforms introduced by the act of 1909 failed to satisfy the people of India because they did not give enough power to the Indians. The parliamentary form of government was introduced, but the executive was not made responsible to the legislature. The Muslims were at first friendly to the government because they had been given a separate electorate, but with time they were dissatisfied. The annulment of the partition of Bengal came as a shock, and they began to lose faith in the British government. Also, Britain did not help Turkey against Italy during the Turco-Italian war, which Indian Muslims resented. During World War I, in spite of their grievances, Indians helped the British by providing both men and money. In return for their services Indians expected that they would be given self-rule. As the war went on, Indians began to suspect that the British were not planning to grant them self-government. At this time Mrs. Annie Besant started the Home Rule Movement, which declared that self-government was the birthright of Indians.

In order to pacify the Indian youth who were getting restless, the British government decided that something must be done. Therefore, on August 20, 1917, Lord Montague, Secretary of State for India, made a declaration in the British Parliament, that Indians should slowly be admitted to every branch of administration in order to introduce self-government gradually. It was further stated that his majesty’s government and the government of India would be the judges of the time and measure for each advance.

Lord Montague visited India and in collaboration with the governor-general, Lord Chelmsford, drafted a scheme of reforms. It was submitted to the British Parliament, which then passed the act in 1919 known as the Montague-Chelmsford reforms. This act established legislative councils in the provinces with a system of dyarchy. Under this system anything relating to law and order was to be administered by executive councilors responsible to the governors.

The act made numerous recommendations. India was to remain an integral part of the British empire and responsible government was to be given by stages. The British government was to be the judge of the measure of each province. It also aimed at introducing partial responsible government in the provinces, which necessitated the division of subjects. The central subjects included defence, foreign and political relations, customs, posts and telegraphs, currency, and communications. The provincial subjects included local self-government, public health, sanitation, education, public works, irrigation and agriculture.

In addition, the position of secretary of state for India and the Indian council was changed. Some of the powers of the secretary of state were transferred to the governor-general in the council. The office of the high commission for India was created. A bicameral legislature was established in the centre; the upper house consisted of 60 members with a tenure of 5 years. The lower house consisted of 145 members for the period of 3 years. Moreover, separate electorates were reserved for Muslims and Sikhs. In addition, out of the 103 seats of the imperial legislative council 30 sets were reserved for Muslims.

A system of dyarchy was introduced in the provinces by which the law enforcing departments and a few other departments were put under the direct control of the governor and the remaining came under the executive council. Under the system of dyarchy, the governor-general could interfere in provincial matters. Finally, the act stated that more constitutional reforms would be introduced after 10 years.

The various political circles in the country were not happy with these reforms. Congress was divided over the reforms, nor was the Muslim League very optimistic about them. However, Congress and the Muslim League ultimately approved the proposals.

KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

After the end of the First World War, the victorious allied countries planned to demolish the Ottoman Caliphate of Turkey because Turkey had chosen to fight on the side of Germany against the allied powers. The Indian Muslims, because of their sentimental attachment to the caliph, had always held the institution of the caliphate in the highest esteem. Since they did not wish for the end of the caliphate, they presented the British colonial government with the threat of an internal law and order situation. They asked the government to assure that the caliphate would not be demolished and that due respect would be shown for the sacred places of the Muslims. The British promised to respect the institution of the caliph and the right of the Turks to their homeland. But when the war came to an end the Indian Muslims found, to their disappointment, that Turkey had been divided among the allies. Thus Muslims decided to launch a movement for the protection of the caliphate. A Khilafat Committee was set up to organize the movement with Maulana Shaukat Ali as its secretary. Under the presidency of Maulana Fazlul Haq the first meeting of the committee was held on 23 November, 1919.

Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Hindus came forward with their full support for the movement. Gandhi had planned to use the Khilafat agitation in order to pressurize the government to come to terms with Indian independence. He therefore advocated full support and outlined a programme of non-cooperation. The plan was to paralyse the administration by a complete boycott of British institutions and goods. Indians were asked to give up government service, renounce titles, boycott courts of law, walk out of schools and colleges and take no part in elections.

The Khilafat Committee decided to send a delegation under the leadership of Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar to England to put their views before the British government. The Khilafat Delegation left for England in March, 1919 and met Prime Minister Lloyd George. But they returned without achieving their objectives.

The cooperation between Muslims and Hindus could not last long. In February of 1922 at the village of Chauri Chaura, a fight erupted between the police and a demonstrating procession. The hostile mob set fire to the police station where twenty-two policemen were burnt alive. Gandhi immediately and unilaterally called off the non-cooperation movement, doing damage to the entire Khilafat movement. This sudden action dismayed the Muslim masses and leaders. In the meantime in Turkey, the Turks under the leadership of Mustafa Kamal launched effective measures to protect their independence. In 1924 the Turkish government under Kamal abolished the institution of the khilafat and established a nationalist government. With this the Indian Khilafat movement also lost ground. Though it was not fully successful, the Khilafat movement helped to create political consciousness in the Muslim masses in India.

HIJJRAT MOVEMENT

In 1924 Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar was released from jail after his arrest during the Khilafat movement. He was deeply troubled to see the awful state of Indian society and declared India the Dar-ul-Harb, (House of War) and urged Muslims to migrate to a place where their religion and national image would not be endangered. This declaration was duly endorsed by the majority of ulema At his call, nearly 18,000 Muslims migrated to Afghanistan in protest against the British policy on the caliphate. The Afghan government welcomed the migrants in the beginning but refused to accept them when their numbers increased later. These immigrants faced many difficulties; many of them died on the way. Those who were not allowed to enter Afghanistan had to go back to India to find themselves homeless. The migration to Afghanistan is known as the Hijrat Movement. Those who had blindly responded to the call by their religious leaders disposed their belongings with the hope of a better future, but when they came back they found themselves homeless and helpless.

DELHI PROPOSALS

By 1926, the Hindu Mahasbha (a Hindu organization) managed to become part of the Congress. The new leadership of Congress initiated a violent propaganda campaign against the Muslims’ demand for a separate electorate. Pandit Nehru in 1927 told Quaid-e-Azam that if Muslim League surrendered its demand for a separate electorate, then Congress would accept any other demand in its place. In reply to this, Quaid-e-Azam convened a meeting of Muslim leaders on March 20, 1927 in Delhi. The meeting discussed in detail the offer made by the Congress and finally decided to surrender the demand for a separate electorate. The meeting presented a set of proposals in place of the separate electorate, which are known as the Delhi Proposals.

These stated that Sindh should be separated from Bombay and that both Balochistan and NWFP should be given provincial status and reforms should be introduced. They further demanded that Muslims should have one-third of the seats in the central legislature and should be given representation in Bengal and Punjab in accordance with their strength. Congress and Hindu leaders in the beginning welcomed the Delhi proposals but afterwards began opposing them.

SIMON COMMISSION

When the Montague Chemlsford Reforms were introduced in 1919, the British government announced that a commission would be sent to India to examine their effects and introduce more reforms. Therefore, the British in 1927 appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon to report on India’s constitutional progress and to make recommendations for a new constitution. Since the commission had no Indian member, the Congress and a section of the Muslim League, who were working under the leadership of the Quaid-e-Azam, boycotted the commission. The other section of Muslim League was in favour of cooperating with the commission.

There was large scale agitation against the commission. Wherever it went, large demonstrations occurred, with slogans like “Simon go back, Simon go back”. In spite of the agitation and hostile demonstrations, the commission prepared a detailed report for constitutional reforms in India and sent it to the government for approval, who in turn made a plan for constitutional reforms, but Congress and the Muslim League refused to accept the commission’s recommendations.

FOURTEEN POINTS OF QUAID-E-AZAM

The Nehru Report submitted by Pandit Moti Lal Nehru turned down the Delhi Proposals and the Muslims’ demand for separate representation. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah refused to accept the Nehru Report. He convened a meeting of the Muslim League in 1929 in Delhi and put forward the Muslim point of view in a document known as the Fourteen Points. The meeting declared that the Muslims would reject any constitution which did not include the Fourteen Points.

These demands were rejected by the Hindu leadership, creating a rift between the two communities. Meanwhile, Congress demanded that a new constitution be presented by 31 December 1929. The government turned down this demand and issued a two-fold declaration. The first part related to the constitution. The second announced that a Round Table Conference would be convened at which the British Government would meet the representatives of British India and the princely states for the purpose of agreeing on constitutional proposals.

Rejection of the Fourteen Points cost the Nehru Report its credibility among the Muslim population.