Morley Minto reforms - History and Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

This paper goes into the history of the Morley-Minto reforms. It describes the circumstances that led to the shaping of policies amidst the disagreements between Lord Minto and Morley, the Secretary of State....

Description

The National Law Institute University, Bhopal

History 4th Semester Project The Indian councils Act of 1909 aka Morley Minto Reforms Submitted by:

Submitted to:

Aditya Kumar Pati

Prof. UdayPratap Singh

2019 BALLB 63

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project titled- ‘The Indian Councils Act of 1909 aka Morley Minto Reforms’ has been prepared and submitted by Aditya Kumar Pati who is currently pursuing his BA.LLB .(Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfilment of History 2 course . It is also certified this is original research report and this project has not been submitted to any other university nor published in any journal.

Date

Signature of the student

Signature of the research supervisor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people, I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. UdayPratap Singh for guiding me throughout the development of this project into a coherent whole by providing helpful insights and sharing her brilliant expertise. I, also would like to thank the members of the library staff and computer section for the cooperation in making available the books and accessing the internet even during their free time. I am deeply indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and encouragement.

Aditya Kumar Pati

Hypothesis The Morley Minto reforms were an embodiment of the divide and rule policy of the British.

Statement of problem Though the reforms sought to strengthen the process of election, it also led to communal clashes.

Objectives 1. To know about the circumstances that led to the Morley Minto Reforms. 2. To know what provisions were made by the Morley Minto Reforms. 3. To assess the response of the public to the reforms. 4. To understand the impact that it had on Indian polity.

Method of Research This project is based on the doctrinal method of research.

Review of literature 1. India Under Morley and Minto: Politics Behind Revolution, Repression

and Reforms by M.N. Das The empire which Curzon left late in 1905 was different from what it had been at the close of the nineteenth century when he came to rule over it. After memorable events and political climax, the awakening upset the rulers’ concept of Indian peace. A revolutionary movement, wide in its appeal and full of idealism, generated an incompatibility in the traditional relations between ruler and ruled.

2. The Indian National Congress and the Morley-Minto Reforms, 1909 by

William John Cheek Indian Councils Act of 1909, also called Morley-Minto Reforms, series of reform measures enacted in 1909 by the British Parliament, the main component of which directly introduced the elective principle to membership in the imperial and local legislative councils in India.

Chapterization 

Introduction



Background



History



Major Provisions



Assessment



Conclusion

Introduction The rigorous centralisation practised by the British-Indian Government made it efficient and formidable but at the same time very vulnerable because the forces of nationalism on the rise were motivated by the same structure of the state to achieve a unitarian mould. Also, the discretionary powers and the influence of the ‘man on the spot’ were restricted by centralisation, resulting in loss of touch of the government with the grass-root politics. The influence of the microscopic minority of the educated class was enhanced as they acquired more knowledge about national and local affairs. However. The British were in denial that these educated classes represented anybody and believed that they only looked after their self-interest. And many of the colonial masters had no clue about how to undo the effect that was exercised by the gentlemen who were "Indian in blood, but English in taste" 1, produced by Macaulay’s magic formula itself. The government of India, in order to strengthen its hold, adopted a policy of devolution of executive power and decentralisation, mixed with a ‘non-official element’ diversification in the legislatures. The purpose of the diversification was to associate traditional natural leaders of the people with government in an attempt to balance out the radical artificial leadership by the educated class. It was rather romantic to assume that such natural leadership was still existent in India, and the job of the ‘man on the spot’ was “to disillusion the higher authorities by pointing out that under the British rule 1 ‘The Indian Councils Act, 1909’ by Courtenay Ilbert, Pg 16

the power of the big landholders had been reduced to that of a ‘rent-collecting machine’, and that a Tahsildar wields, as the representative of the paramount power, greater authority than a territorial magnate with an income of a lakh of rupees a year”2.

Background of Morley-Minto Reforms 

Although Queen Victoria proclaimed that Indians would be equally treated, in reality, very few Indians ever got an opportunity of such a kind because the British Authorities were hesitant in accepting Indians as equal partners.



In 1905, Lord Curzon had caused the Bengal partition. A massive uprising in Bengal was seen as a result of this. After this, the British realized that they had to make some reforms in order to govern the Indians.



The Indian National Congress also was demanding suitable reforms and more importantly self-governance. Earlier the leaders were moderates, however now the leaders were extremists who followed more aggressive methods.



INC laid down the first demand for Home rule in 1906.



Gopal Krishna Gokhale went to England and met Morley to emphasize the requirement for reforms.



Shimla Deputation: Aga Khan led group of elite Muslims demanded a separate electorate for Muslims when they met Lord Minto in 1906.



John Morley, being a member of the Liberal Government, wanted to bring positive changes in governance of India.

History John Morley, who was the secretary of state, being liberal, was in favour of applying the ‘elective principle’ in constitutional reforms. As a result of this, the government failed to secure the desired diversification in the representatives through nominations. Territorial representation had very low chances of ensuring election of natural leaders but would lead to the ‘Congress 2 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-Councils-Act-of-1909

Vakils’ winning. Therefore, the government was against the policy of territorial representation and chose a policy of representation by ‘interests’, which was carved out of corporate electorates and a highly restricted franchise. An I.C.S. officer commented on the shortcomings of this system as: "Disenfrachisement is a policy which explains itself but the proposal is to restrict the electorate to the selection of certain classes of persons. In this way the Government abandons the power of choosing whom it considers most suitable whilst it also hampers the electorate in their choice of the men whom they consider most suitable".3 The elective principle and the principle of ‘territorial representation’ remained a debatable issue across the duration of the reforms. In the numerous public appearances that Lord Morley made, he always tries to maintain that he and the Viceroy were unanimous in their beliefs. However, the truth was that the government of India was making all attempts to do away with Morley’s efforts to protect the policy of ‘territorial representation’ through his scheme of electorates. Morley had to fight till the very last to prevent the government from overriding the principle of election with that of nomination. Lord Minto was skeptical about the differing beliefs in his own camp, and especially if these originated from the powerful governors of the two presidencies- Bombay and Madras, as he believed that these opinions would be readily adopted by the liberal India-lobby sitting in the House of Commons. Lord Minto was reassured when he found that the governor of MMadras had not taken to the beliefs of the Liberal India lobby. The Madras governor even wrote to him: "Personally my object has been in the proposed reforms to secure the representation of landed proprietors and of those who have a stake in the country, and of communities. I have never been enthusiastic over Provincial Advisory Councils ... I was sur- prised to find the strong support they met with in official circles here. What I am afraid of is that when our final proposals go home an attempt may be made to enlarge them on a more

3 ‘REFORM AND REPRESSION, 1907-1910: AN ANALYSIS OF BRITISH-INDIAN POLICY’ by Dietmar Rothermund, Pg 31

representative basis to meet the views of the Indian extremists, who are at home accepted as patriots, and of the present House of Commons".4

Minto, keeping this in mind, made a scheme for separate electorates of Muslims. Morley, in his report of November 27, 1908, however, readily rejected the idea of advisory councils, but he made very elaborate counter proposals with respect to communal electorates. The scheme that he proposed would have ensured a fixed percentage of Muslim representation through the general electorates. This scheme was warmly welcomed by the INC in the December, 1908 session 5. Government of India, however was dead-set against this policy. Lord Minto had put Sir H.H. Risley in charge of reforms and he wrote a detailed and reasoned note refuting Morley’s policy. Risley had examined various electoral arrangements and therefore was able to find the drawbacks of the scheme proposed by Morley. The main objection that Risley stamped upon Morley’s scheme was that this scheme was appropriate for safeguarding adequate representation in case of a minority of opinion, however it will not be fruitful in the instance of a minority of sect. The opinions of Risley of communicated to all the provincial authorities and in their report of February, 1909, the government of India wanted to proclaim that Morley’s scheme of electoral colleges had drawn universal condemnation. However, before this could happen, Lord Minto had some apprehensions because the governor of Bombay, Sir George Clark, seemed to like the proposition made by Morley, and thus Lord Minto was scared that Sir George might make the scheme workable by making some adjustments andusing it on the municipalities. Risley, being sure that the provincial governments would definitely shun Morley’s Scheme remarked: "We can then make out an overwhelming case in favour of communal representation as proposed in our despatch.” And Lord Minto added impatiently: “We cannot allow Sir George Clarke to dictate machinery to us”. Some days later, Sir George Clarke, however, sent 4 ‘The Indian Councils Act, 1909’ by Courtenay Ilbert, Pg 19 5 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/indian-council-act-of-1909-morley-mintoreforms-main-features-1443011546-1

Lord Minto a telegram in which he emphasized: “I feel strongly that we should recognize the Mohammedans as a community. This is already done to some extent as we do (secretly) favour Mohammedans in the matter of appointments whenever a promising candidate presents himself”.6 Thus, the whole of India accepted what Lord Minto was trying to incorporate while Morley still believed that the Muslims might still accept a slight variation to this. On 27 th January , 1909, he delivered a speech to a Muslim deputation at India office and suggested “an election by separate electorates to local boards which would then send representatives to the legislative council, or direct communal elections to an electoral college which would send a proportionate group of representatives to the legislative council”. In the same breath, he also assured that the entirely separate electorates were not exhaustively ruled out the scheme. He assured the deputation that he would submit the respective Bill to the parliament at the earliest, as it was ready. He received a telegram on 8th February, 1909, from the viceroy mentioning that his scheme had been condemned universally and it also mentioned that the government of India doesn’t believe in mere elections and holds that nomination is important to keep the undesirable candidates out. On 12 th February he sent a reply in a telegram expressing his strong disagreement about the latter point and pressed for the rights of the elected candidates to freely take their seats without any other constraints. With respect to electoral colleges, Morley admitted his defeat.7 This is how the policy of separate communal electoral defeated the scheme of territorial representation. The government of India, all this while, was trying to demonstrate that the ‘representation by interests’ was never a something entirely novel and that territorial representation had never been practised by any previous authority. The public noticed that the government this time had made all the necessary adjustments to make sure as to “elect the people they were intended to elect”. The initial enthusiasm that had prevailed while Morley

6 ‘The Indian National Congress and the Morley-Minto Reforms, 1909’ by William John Cheek, Pg 24 7 ‘India Under Morley and Minto: Politics Behind Revolution, Repression and Reforms’ by M.N. Das, Pg 43

had published his proposals in 1908, now transformed into resentment after these regulations of the British-Indian government became clear. The government of India was successful in diversifying interests in the legislative councils. Simultaneously, new ways were sought by the Decentralisation Committee for administrative devolution. These measures were necessary to alleviate the vulnerability of the government and to guard against opposition and friction. However, the government saw it as absolutely necessary to be armed with repressive laws. The typical policy of ‘deporting local leaders without trial’ was as ancient as 1818 and now seemed to be inconvenient and insufficient, as it would result in embarrassing questions amidst the British Parliament. Furthermore, the protest was so extensive that capturing a few leaders would prove to be futile.8 However, the repressive legislations which were supposed to undo the situation were central legislations and gained widespread attention. The repressive legislation thus acted as a political distraction while administrative decentralisation and representation by interests diffused opposition and agitation. Additionally, the repressive legislation warded off the Moderates who were showing cooperation with the intent of making successful constitutional reforms with the government. This put government of India in a very difficult spot. They had to bear the criticism from the house of Commons, where there were questions about every political prisoner from the LiberalIndia lobby and on the other hand they wee being advised by the conservative opposition to not grant any reforms at all. The government also faced difficulties due to the absence of correct information about ‘extent and the nature of revolutionary unrest’. The government’s position became worse in 1910 when the political crime rate went up and to make it worse, there was a reformed council and a very vigilant parliament. The instance which attracted a lot of attention was the detention of 9 Bengali leaders. Bengal’s lieutenant-governor ordered their further detention, submitting an supplementary list of 53 men who he considered as fit for deporting in the interest of law and order. These 53 men were generally 8 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-Councils-Act-of-1909

contemporaries of Gandhi and Aurobindo and associated more with the radicals than with the moderates. However, the scheme of deportation had turned out to be a fiasco with respect to repressing the widespread unrest. The government was determined to put an end to all the symptoms of repression- the seditious press, seditious meetings as well as the schools built as a result of the national education movement. But still the government had to be cautious. When the government prosecuted Aurobindo in relation to a seditious article called ‘To My Countrymen’ published in the paper ‘Karmayogin’, the Secretary of State demanded the full article because he believed that the article was not sufficient for his prosecution. It was very difficult to take action against the schools set up under the national education movement. All the government needed to do was to show that the schools were setting seditious question papers and prescribing seditious course books. Thus, many national schools were termed as unlawful associations. It was however difficult to attack the whole of the national education movement as it was supported by the liberals and had its central organs controlled by the moderates. The cooperation between the Extremists and the Moderates in this particular case created problems for the government as in all other activities, the government somehow was able to create a rift between the nationalists and the moderates9. The scheme of driving a wedge was used here too in the famous ‘Hindu Punch’10 case of defamation. The newspaper had written against G.K. Gokhale, a moderate leader and the government remarked: “We have often been charged with deserting our friends, here we shall come forward in defence of our most effective critic”. For the meanwhile, this policy worked out to be very effective and the energy that the nationalists were using against the government was channelised into in-fighting between the Moderates and the Extremists. Gokhale, who was widely respected as a leader, now became the victim of harsh invectives of the Extremist press. 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Councils_Act_1909 10 ‘India Under Morley and Minto: Politics Behind Revolution, Repression and Reforms’ by M.N. Das, Pg 171

Party politics ensuing in the country and the national awakening faced the government with a severe test. The old autocratic ways were objected against in the House of Commons and in nationalist press of India. Therefore, the government in the midst of repression and reform, resorted to a scheme of manipulating interests at Britain and in India. Administrative decentralisation, Constitutional reform and repressive legislation served the purpose of manipulating maintenance of power. Lord Curzon dreamed of administrative and social efficiency and thus he antagonised people both in England and India. Lord Minto proved to be more successful because he could ascertain the contemporary trends and used these trends to manipulate the political developments to his favour. Although he kept the Secretary of State, John Morley, at his side, he didn’t intend to stick to his liberal doctrines of politics. 11 It was he who left the idea of separate communal electorates in India, but the changes that he made in the Indian constitutional reforms were concretised in the forthcoming Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which also was based on the Morley-Minto reforms.12

Major provisions of the Morley-Minto reforms  There was an increase in the size of the legislative councils at the provinces and at the centre.13 o

Central Legislative Council – from 16 to 60 members

o

Legislative Councils of Bengal, Madras, Bombay and United Provinces – 50 members each

o

Legislative Councils of Punjab, Burma and Assam – 30 members each

 There were to be four categories of members at the Central legislative councils which are as follows:

11 ‘The Indian Councils Act, 1909’ by Courtenay Ilbert, Pg 8 12 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/indian-council-act-of-1909-morley-mintoreforms-main-features-1443011546-1 13 ‘The Indian National Congress and the Morley-Minto ...