Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919
Modern History › Emergence of Gandhi · Topic 16.7
The Montagu-Chelmsford or Montford Reforms were announced in July 1918 in line with Montagu's statement of August 1917, and the Government of India Act, 1919 was based on them. The Act introduced dyarchy in the provinces, created a bicameral central legislature, and gave the vote to some women, but kept the Centre without responsible government.
6 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Emergence of Gandhi
At a Glance
- What it is Constitutional reforms announced July 1918; Act of 1919
- Provinces Dyarchy: reserved and transferred subjects
- Centre Bicameral legislature; no responsible government
- Congress view Special session of August 1918 found them disappointing
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Emergence of Gandhi
Where Does It Fit?
This is the seventh and last topic of the category on the emergence of Gandhi. The previous topic covered the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the Hunter Committee. This topic describes the constitutional reforms that were the carrot of 1919. The next category begins with the Khilafat issue. Previous topic: Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the Hunter Committee.
What Were the Montford Reforms?
The British government, unwilling to part with or share power, used a policy of carrot and stick. The carrot was the insubstantial Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and the stick was measures like the Rowlatt Act. In line with the policy in Montagu’s statement of August 1917, the government announced further constitutional reforms in July 1918, known as the Montagu-Chelmsford or Montford Reforms. The Government of India Act, 1919 was enacted on that basis.
How Did the Act Change the Provinces?
The Act introduced dyarchy, or rule of two, in the provincial executive: executive councillors and popular ministers. The governor was the executive head. Subjects were divided into two lists.
| List | Examples | Administered by |
|---|---|---|
| Reserved | Law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation | The governor through his executive council of bureaucrats |
| Transferred | Education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, excise | Ministers nominated from elected members of the legislative council |
Ministers were responsible to the legislature and had to resign on a no-confidence motion, while executive councillors were not responsible to it. If constitutional machinery failed in a province, the governor could take over the transferred subjects too. The Secretary of State and the Governor-General could interfere in reserved subjects, with restricted interference in transferred subjects.
| Provincial legislature | Feature |
|---|---|
| Size | Councils expanded; 70 per cent of members to be elected |
| Electorates | Communal and class electorates further consolidated |
| Women | Given the right to vote |
| Powers | Could initiate legislation but needed the governor’s assent; governor could veto bills and issue ordinances |
| Budget | Could reject the budget, but the governor could restore it |
| Freedom of speech | Legislators enjoyed it |
What Changed at the Centre?
No responsible government was envisaged at the all-India level. The Governor-General was the chief executive, there were two lists of subjects, central and provincial, and of the eight members of the Viceroy’s executive council three were to be Indians. The Governor-General kept full control over reserved subjects in the provinces and could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the central legislature and issue ordinances.
| House | Composition and tenure |
|---|---|
| Central Legislative Assembly | 145 members: 41 nominated and 104 elected (52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special); tenure 3 years |
| Council of State | 60 members: 26 nominated and 34 elected (20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans, 1 Sikh); tenure 5 years; only male members |
The figures are as given by Subhash Kashyap. Legislators could ask questions and supplementaries, pass adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75 per cent of the budget was not votable. In Britain, the Act made an important change: the Secretary of State for India would henceforth be paid from the British exchequer.
What Were the Drawbacks?
- The franchise was very limited: the electorate for the central legislature was extended to about one and a half million, against a population of about 260 million by one estimate.
- At the Centre the legislature had no control over the Viceroy and his executive council, and the division of subjects was unsatisfactory.
- Seats for the central legislature were allotted on the importance of provinces, such as Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s commercial importance.
- In the provinces the division of subjects and parallel administration of two parts was irrational and unworkable, with irrigation, finance, police, press and justice reserved.
- Provincial ministers had no control over finances or over the bureaucrats, which led to friction, and ministers could be overruled by the governor on any matter he considered special.
As an analytical point, dyarchy gave Indians the departments that needed money, such as education and health, while the money stayed with the reserved side, which meant that popular ministers carried responsibility without the means to act.
How Did Leaders React?
The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under the presidency of Hasan Imam and declared the reforms disappointing and unsatisfactory, demanding effective self-government instead. Tilak called them unworthy and disappointing, a sunless dawn, and Annie Besant found them unworthy of England to offer and India to accept. Subhash Chandra Bose said the Act forged fresh fetters for the people, and Gandhi described the reforms as a method of further draining India of her wealth and prolonging her servitude.
The reforms divided nationalist ranks and Besant’s wavering over them weakened the Home Rule League, as described in Home Rule League Movement. They also followed from Montagu’s Statement of August 1917, with its idea of dyarchy.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Core constitutional Act The Act of 1919 is a stock Prelims fact
- Dyarchy details Reserved and transferred subjects are often asked
- Step in constitutional history It links to the Simon Commission and later Acts
What Came Next?
The next category begins with the Khilafat issue and the Non-Cooperation Movement. Next topic: The Khilafat Issue and Its Link With Non-Cooperation.
Key People and Terms
- Dyarchy Rule of two in the provincial executive
- Reserved subjects Law and order, finance, land revenue and irrigation, run by the governor
- Transferred subjects Education, health and similar subjects, run by ministers
- Central Legislative Assembly The lower house of 145 members
- Council of State The upper house of 60 members
- Hasan Imam President of the special Congress session of August 1918
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Reforms announced July 1918; Act of 1919.
- Dyarchy in the provinces; reserved and transferred subjects.
- Central Legislative Assembly: 145; Council of State: 60.
- 75 per cent of the budget was not votable.
- Secretary of State to be paid from the British exchequer.
Do Not Confuse With
- Reserved and transferred subjects Reserved: governor and bureaucrats; transferred: elected ministers
- Montagu’s statement and the Act The 1917 statement was policy; the 1919 Act was the law
- Provincial and central changes Dyarchy in provinces; no responsible government at the Centre
Memory Hook
Dyarchy gave Indians the schools and the sick, and the governor kept the police and the purse.
Mains Angle
Questions ask about the features and drawbacks of the Act. These points add depth.
- Dyarchy Divided subjects and divided responsibility
- Centre No responsible government
- Reaction Congress rejected the reforms
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Discuss the main features of the Government of India Act, 1919 and examine why it failed to satisfy nationalists.”
How to Answer
- Background Montagu’s statement and the announcement of 1918.
- Features Dyarchy, central legislature and women’s vote.
- Drawbacks Limited franchise and no responsible government at the Centre.
- Conclude Nationalist rejection of the reforms.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms?
They were constitutional reforms announced in July 1918 in line with Montagu's statement of August 1917. The Government of India Act, 1919 was enacted on that basis, introducing dyarchy in the provinces and a bicameral legislature at the Centre.
What was dyarchy under the Act of 1919?
Dyarchy meant rule of two in the provincial executive. Reserved subjects, such as law and order, finance and land revenue, were administered by the governor with bureaucrats, while transferred subjects, such as education and health, were administered by ministers responsible to the legislature.
What changes did the Act make at the Centre?
It created a bicameral legislature with a Central Legislative Assembly of 145 members and a Council of State of 60, but no responsible government at the Centre. The Governor-General kept control, and 75 per cent of the budget was not votable.
What were the main drawbacks of the Act of 1919?
The franchise was very limited, the Centre had no responsible government, dyarchy was unworkable, and ministers had no control over finance or the bureaucrats. Seats for the central legislature were allotted on a province's perceived importance.
How did Congress react to the Montford Reforms?
The Congress special session at Bombay in August 1918 under Hasan Imam called the reforms disappointing and unsatisfactory and demanded effective self-government. Tilak called them a sunless dawn, and Annie Besant said they were unworthy of England to offer and India to accept.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The Government of India Act, 1919 introduced dyarchy in the provinces.
It divided subjects into reserved and transferred lists.
2 Education was a reserved subject under the Act of 1919.
Education was a transferred subject.
3 The Act of 1919 introduced a bicameral legislature at the Centre.
It had the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State.
4 The Act of 1919 established responsible government at the Centre.
No responsible government was envisaged at the Centre.
5 Under the Act, the Secretary of State for India was to be paid from the British exchequer.
This was an important change on the home front.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index