The Rowlatt Acts, Amritsar and the Government of India Act, 1919 » The Government of India Act 1919 and Dyarchy

Where the Act came from

Remember, the Montagu Declaration of 1917 promised a gradual move towards self-government. Edwin Montagu, the British minister in charge of India, and Lord Chelmsford, the viceroy, then worked out a plan together. Their report came out in 1918. In December 1919 Parliament turned it into law as the Government of India Act. The changes are also called the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.

Notice the timing. The Act was passed in the same year as the Rowlatt Acts and the Amritsar Massacre. Britain was offering Indians a reward with one hand while punishing them with the other.

Key terms:

• Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: the changes to the way India was governed that were made law by the Government of India Act (1919).
• Dyarchy: 'rule by two'. Power in each province was shared between Indian ministers and the British governor.
• Transferred subjects: the areas of provincial government handed over to Indian ministers.
• Reserved subjects: the areas of provincial government kept by the British governor.
• Veto: the power to block a law or decision.

The nature of the Act: Dyarchy in the provinces

The biggest change was in the provinces of British India. Each province had a law-making council. The Act made these councils larger, and about seven in every ten members were now elected. The work of each provincial government was then split into two lists. This sharing of power was called Dyarchy.

This was a real change. For the first time, Indians were running government departments and making decisions that touched daily life. The British saw Dyarchy as training: Indians would learn to govern in safe areas first, and more power could follow later.

What Britain kept

• The central government. In Delhi there was now a law-making body with two houses, and most members of both were elected. But it could not remove the viceroy or his government. The viceroy answered only to London.
• The viceroy's special powers. He could veto any law. He could also push through a law that the elected houses had rejected, simply by declaring that it was necessary.
• The key subjects. Defence, foreign affairs and the main taxes all stayed with the central government.
• The top jobs. Three Indians now sat on the viceroy's own council of ministers, but he chose them. They were not elected.
• The timetable. The Act set no date for self-government. It said only that a commission would review how the reforms were working after ten years.

The weaknesses of the Act

• Indian ministers had duties but little power. Finance was a reserved subject, so ministers had to ask British officials for money. Schools and hospitals were costly, and the money was often not there. Governors could also overrule their ministers.
• The powers that mattered stayed British. The police, the courts, the army and taxes were the tools used to control India. None of them was handed over.
• Very few people could vote. The vote depended on owning property or paying tax. Only about 5 million people could vote for the provincial councils, in a British India of roughly 250 million.
• It kept communities apart. Remember, separate electorates gave Muslims their own voters and seats. The Act kept them and gave them to other groups too, such as the Sikhs. Many nationalists feared this would divide Indians.
• It was too slow. A ten-year wait for a review, with no promise at the end, was far less than nationalists believed India had earned.

Why nationalists were disappointed

The war had raised hopes. India had given men and money, and many nationalists expected home rule soon. Instead they were offered a share in running schools and drains. Coming straight after the Rowlatt Acts and Amritsar, the offer looked small and grudging.

Congress met at Amritsar in December 1919 and called the reforms 'inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing'. At first it still planned to take part. During 1920, as anger over Amritsar grew, Congress changed its mind and boycotted the first elections. You will see this in Non-Cooperation and Swaraj, 1920-22.

Not everyone refused. Some moderates had already left Congress in 1918 because they wanted to make the reforms work. They stood for election in 1920 and became ministers, hoping to prove that Indians could govern well. So the Act split the nationalists as well as disappointing them.

Exam-style question

'The main reason for Indian anger at British rule in 1919 was the weaknesses of the Government of India Act.'

How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [16 marks]

You may use the following in your answer:

• the Government of India Act (1919)
• the Amritsar Massacre (1919)

You must also use information of your own.