Introduction:
Indian Councils Act 1909 or Morley-Minto Reform was an extension of the 1892 reform. The Morley-Minto Reforms, was named after John Morley, the secretary of state for India (1905-1910 & 1911) and Minto was the Governor-General of India (1905-1910).
The British Parliament had appointed a Royal Commission on Decentralisation in 1907, to inquire into relations between the Government of India and the provinces and suggest ways and means to simplify and improve them. Thus the report of the Royal Commission on Decentralization became the basis for Morley-Minto Reform
The aim was to hand over locals some more power in the legislative affairs. A facility was made for the expansion of legislative councils at both the levels viz. central as well as provincial.
The Indian council act 1909, was key for the constitutional journey towards the insertion of representative government and a gradual foot towards freedom from the British rule. As a royal control system, express electoral institutions were first introduced at district and municipal stories in the 1880s with a promise to introduce an elected legislature in the British Republic of India. Under the pressure of the Indian patriot movement and the need for recruitment of Indian political bread and butter, the government introduced a very limited electoral system at the bucolic level under the India Act of 1909.
Then Act provided for the enlargement of the Councils both Central and Provincial. The number of additional members for legislative purposes in the Viceroy’s Executive Council was raised from 16 to 60. Although there were Indian candidates in the council still the majority of non elected and official members outnumbered the elected member, this was done to form a pro-government bloc which would allow the Britishers to support all the laws brought by the government. The Act of 1909 empowered the members to discuss the budget and move resolutions before it was finally approved. The Act also extended to the members the right to discuss matters of public interest, adopt resolutions or divide the House on them.
But the resolutions were not absolute and binding. In short, the Legislatures got the right to talk but not to influence the Government in any way.
The act gave recognition to the elective principle for the appointing non-official members to the councils. The electorate was on the basis of class & community. For the provincial councils a provision of three categories was made viz. general, special and chambers of commerce. Further for the central council, a fourth category Muslims was added
Communal Representation which included separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims.
This according to me was the major change brought in by this act, which had a long-lasting impact on Indian politics and for India to attain independence.
Muslim community which was like a dearer wife to the British Government was shown favor. “Whereas a Muslim who paid income tax on an annual income of Rs.3000 was given the right of vote, a Parsi, a Hindu or a Christian, even if his taxable income was 3 lakhs, was denied the voting right.”
A fixed number of seats were reserved for the Muslims in the Councils as well as in public services. Separate constituencies of the Muslim electorate were created to further widen the gulf between the Hindus and Muslims. Every Muslim candidate elected his co-religionists and supporting the Government without whose favors he would have been nowhere. Since the Muslims had no more need to depend on Hindu votes for their election to the Councils, they adopted a very uncompromising attitude. The objective was to establish that the political, economic, and cultural interests of the Hindus and Muslims were different from one another. The granting of separate representation to Muslims proved in fact the beginning of an era of gross communalism in Indian politics. It identified the Muslim community as a separate class of India and prompted the cancer of Hindu-Muslim disharmony which ultimately led to the partition.
Problem
The Indian Councils act or the Minto-Morley reforms 1909 were not up to the expectations of the Indians. They hoped for provisions which would set up a responsible government in the country may be a parliamentary form of government but there was no such feature rather the Britishers had very cunningly come up with the plan of electing representatives from India in the council which could advise and take part in the proceedings of the government at that time constitutional autocracy was created.Such circumstances narrow franchises, indirect elections, limited powers of the Legislative Councils led to a completely irresponsible government.
Further, what I find to be a major problem in this reform was the community separating or the divide between Hindu and Muslim. It was a new political problem inserted by the imperial government. The attempt by the British to destroy the unity of the two community was a successful venture because the Muslim had realized they had different ideologies, they have there own people for whom they should vote and the British gave them a lot of powers because of which they had stopped supporting the Indians in their national movement which was a set back for them. Later led to partition. Also, Indians were not part of high posts; they were treated as a pariah by the arrogant Britishers. Indirect elections created chaos for the Indians because Indians were never part of the legislative council.
Why is the Indian Councils Act 1909 considered as a failure rather than a shadow?
The Minto-Morley Councils, in spite of the enthusiasm which they originally evoked, failed to satisfy the aspirations of the people. They were in no sense representative bodies. The establishment was confined and the arrangement of political decision was indirect. The largest constituency representing sectional interests which returned a member to the Indian Legislative Council by direct election was composed of 650 voters, while in the nine general constituencies representing non-official members of the Provincial Legislatures the average number of voters was twenty-two and in one, the number was nine only. For the Provincial Councils, the constituencies were larger but even here in no case, the electorate exceeded a few hundred persons. Except in the case of some special class constituencies, there was no real connection between the primary voter and the man who sat in the Council. Elections to the Provincial Legislative Councils were indirect and to the Indian Legislature doubly indirect.
The official members were not expected to ask questions or move resolutions and when a division took place they always voted by order in support of the Government. The framework was basically, honestly aggravating, and as the official individuals were commonly European it every so often gave racial appearance to the discussion. The famous agents and the official individuals were exhibited in contradicting camps. The chosen individuals being in minority the decision was often known beforehand with the result that debates lacked enthusiasm except when feelings were aroused
The Minto-Morley changes didn’t perceive the guideline of obligation or well-known control. They epitomized no new policy and depended on the crucial rule that the official government ought to hold the position to articulate an ultimate conclusion on all inquiries. This left the
Councils with no functions but criticism and the extremely restricted open doors which they managed were inadequate to fulfill the developing national cognizance of learned Indians.
Some of the antecedent conditions of success of the reformed Councils were lacking. “There was no general advance in local bodies; no real setting free of provincial finance, and in spite of some progress no widespread admission of Indians in greater numbers into the public services. Since the relaxation of parliamentary control had not been thought about, the Government of India couldn’t loosen up their command over local governments. The circle where the Councils could influence the Government’s activity, both in regard to fund and organization was, in this way, firmly delineated. Over and over, a local government could just meet a resolution by saying that the issue was truly out of its hands.”
The fundamental thought of the Minto-Morley changes was to “truly and successfully partner the individuals of India in the work of periodic enactment, but of actual everyday administration” With this end in see, a Royal Commission on Decentralization was designated in Lord Minto’s time which introduced its report in 1909 suggesting a progression of measures for the purpose of relaxation of control by higher authorities and the simplification of administrative methods. As a result of the Commission’s proposals, between the years 1910 and 1917, the control of the Government of India over the Provincial Governments was relaxed in a multitude of details, and something was done to free local bodies from official interference.
Further, the act was considered a failure because of the fact that the act failed to deliver what it promised.What disappointed the people most were the two incompatible elements of constitutional and autocracy of the nominative and elective principles. Supreme power continued to be vested in the executive on the principles that the responsibility to rule over India had developed exclusively on the British people. Indians were not considered for higher-level jobs in the administration. The local bodies continued to be officialized. Which did not help the Indians in any way? When we talk about Indians representing in the council they did not have powers to enforce a new law, rules, etc they could only advise in the council which was not binding and the Britishers were not even bound to reply or listen to their suggestions.
The Indian National Congress was divided into two groups i.e. the “moderate,” which was led by G.K. Gokhale and the “extremist,” which was led by B.G. Tilak. The moderates accepted the Reforms. In the Imperial Legislative Council, Gokhale said, “My Lord, I sincerely believe that you and Lord Morley have saved the country from anarchy and chaos”. On the other hand, the extremists strike the act of 1909. They were not in favor of the Reforms.
The Morley-Minto reforms 1909 uplifted the Muslim community. What were the repercussions of this act and how it compromised India’s efforts towards independence?
The Morley Minto reform 1909 gave rise to tension between the two communities. The British feared that the two could be dangerous for them as both were fighting for independence. This posed a real threat, so through this act, they adopted the principle of divide and rule. The granting of separate electorates and public portrayal was invited by Muslims however restricted by Congress. The Muslim League was satisfied by the evident British goal to help and defend Muslim interests in the subcontinent. Separate electorates stayed a piece of the Muslim League stage considerably after the autonomy of Pakistan. For Muslims, it was important both to gain a place in all- India politics and to hold their Muslim character, targets that necessary fluctuating reaction as indicated by conditions. The Muslims were given the privilege of plural democratic and direct decisions. Landowners also were given particular treatment.
The Government of India wanted to crush the nationalists and destroy their oneness and solidarity and please the communal and reactionary elements, therefore, forsaking the spirit of justice and fairly, they had unduly favored Mohammedans and the Landlords
Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya in his Presidential Address to the Indian National Congress Session at Lahore in 1909 expressed his disappointment over these reforms in the following words: “We find that the regulations have been vitiated by the disproportionate representation which they have secured to Mohammadans and to the landed classes, and the small room for
representation which they have left for the educated classes, also by the fact that they have made an invidious and irritating distinction between Muslim and non-Mulsim subjects of His majesty, in the matter of the protection of minorities and franchise and lastly in that they, have laid down unnecessarily narrow and arbitrary restrictions in the choice of the electors[1]”
There was much disparity in voting qualification among the Muslim electorate in different Provinces. Not only that but the qualifications for voting right also varied between the Muslims and non-muslims considerably. The Muslim community which was like a dearer wife to the British Government was shown favor. Whereas a Muslim who paid income tax on an annual income of Rs.3000 was given the right of vote, a Parsi, a Hindu, or a Christian, even if his taxable income was 3 lakhs, was denied the voting right. Again a Muslim graduate of five years standing acquired the right to vote but a graduate of any other community could not claim it even twenty years after his graduation. So the Act did gross injustice to non-Muslims. Besides that, the Government could debar those persons from contesting the election, who participated in the agitations against the Government Muslims could now have their own representative members at the Legislative Councils. They were to be elected by Muslims alone.
Further, S.P. Sinha, an Indian, was included in the Viceroy’s Executive Council. However, this demonstration was sharply censured by the Muslims, for they had previously requested that two Indian individuals including one Muslim ought to be remembered for the Council. The Government vowed to choose Muslim the next time. After Sinha’s renunciation, Sayed Ali Imam was designated as a Member of the Executive Council. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, as a private party, likewise introduced a Bill, Waqf-alal-Aulad, which was passed by the Council. In the established advancement of India, the Act of 1909 was a chosen step and opened the entryway for real politics. All this led to the separation of the two religions and broke the momentum which was earlier there for national independence. This was because Muslims knew that they were in minority also the Britishers were aware of it so they brought policies which favored the Muslims and deviating them from the national movement because they thought whoever benefits them, they shall be loyal to them and why should they risk their lives in a movement in which they knew life is at risk and they don’t know what they will gain out of it.
Is the divide done in 1909 still present and is it visible in the current political scenario?
Yes, according to me this divide on the basis of community difference created than in 1909 is still evident and visible in the current political scenario. When we talk about this dispute in India it is the most debatable topic
For example-”On the 28 September 2017, the Bajrang Dal stopped a Hindu woman from marrying a Muslim man in Meerut because they believed she had been brainwashed into converting to Islam and wasn’t really in love with him”[2] . If we see this as a domestic situation in which we see the religion, it is a small problem when we talk about India as a nation which is democratic and secular and functions according to the constitution it becomes very evident that there will be rifts.
In India, the Muslims have always considered themselves as a minority and this is because of history. Muslims in India voted for those who they thought was a well-wisher and will help them in getting a stand. I believe their mindset is wrong and should not victimize themselves. There have been several instances where we could divide between the two communities.
- Partition of the Nation
It was the first time according to me when this rift was seen at a bigger stage when the Muslims demanded altogether a different country. During this time all the Muslims united and demanded a separate nation from the Britishers. I believe what happened during 1909reforms led to this point where India and Pakistan were formed as two different countries. This resulted in several deaths and people getting separated from their families.
- Godhra Kand
The famous Godhra Muslim-Hindu riot which happened because some Muslims from Godhra burnt a train coming from Ayodhya carrying 58 karsevak. The cause of this fire was the demolition of Babri masjid. This was again the community difference which led to these burnings and riots where around 2000 Hindus and Muslims were killed.
- Banning of the practice Triple Talaq
It has been highly criticized by the Muslim men.”The BJP is interfering in Muslims’ domestic issues. It demonizes Muslim men,” Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Congress party official”[3]Supporters of the practice argue that the issue has deliberately been made controversial by Modi’s BJP. They say that Hindu nationalists want to interfere in Islamic faith and practices with the aim of homogenizing India. The practice of triple talaq was slashed by the Supreme court of India in which Muslim women were given some rights and powers. Thus we can see a hint of Hindu-Muslim rift in this issue also.
- Kashmir dispute
The Kashmir question is a fall out of the Partition of India. The Muslim-larger part portions of British India became Pakistan, and the Hindu-greater part areas turned into the Dominion of India. There were, around then, somewhere in the range of 575 regal states in India under aberrant British rule. lord Mountbatten gave them the decision of joining either India or Pakistan and taught that their decision must be guided by the strict structure of their people as well as by the borders they might share with either India or Pakistan, as the case might be.
On this premise, practically all the princely states selected either India or Pakistan. There were, however, three special cases to this. Hyderabad, a Hindu-greater part state with a Muslim ruler, decided on autonomy, yet India contended against this in light of the fact that the state had a Hindu larger part, thus requested the Police Action to fuse the state into the Indian Dominion. Junagadh, another Hindu-greater part state with a Muslim ruler, selected Pakistan, however, India over-managed this choice, again by virtue of the state’s Hindu lion’s share, and attacked it.
On the off chance that India had embraced a similar rule on account of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-larger part state with a Hindu ruler, there would have been no contention over Kashmir. All things considered, over 85% of the number of inhabitants in the state around then were Muslims; the significant rivers in the state streamed into Pakistan; the state shared a border of more than 750 kilometers with Pakistan; the main motorable road associating Kashmir with the outside world during the year passed from Srinagar to Rawalpindi and most of the individuals of the state had social and historical ties with the people of Pakistan.
The terrorist activities happening there, Mob lynching, and stone-pelting is all a result of the Hindu-Muslim religion fight. Which had started from partition and still going? In Kashmir, the ruling party led by Omar Abdullah supports the Muslims of the state. Thus it is a direct impact of communal separation that happened in 1909.
- Ram Janmabhoomi
The disputed land of Ram Janmabhoomi is a piece of land that has a profound history. It is said that on this very land the Hindus claim Ayodhya to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and he worshipped there while Muslims claim that in the year 1528 Mughal emperor constructed Babri Masjid there. In 1992 the Hindus demolished the mosque while the Muslims are not allowing them to construct a Ram mandir. This is a dispute which is ongoing even after the Supreme court has given the orders of constructing the Mandir, still, the Muslims are fighting. Hence again this fight between the two can be seen.
In CAA also the Muslims are considering themselves to be a minority and victimizing themselves and turning the issue into a fight between the Hindus and Muslims. Thus, it is not wrong to say that the divide in 1909 reforms is still present and an important aspect of politics.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding all the disadvantages the demonstration of 1909 experienced, it was a distinct development on the preceding Act of 1892. It denoted a significant stage in the development of representative establishments in India. Just because, the acknowledgment was given to the elective principle as the basic composition of Legislative Councils. In Spite of the disclaimer of Lord Morley, the demonstration did make ready for a parliamentary government albeit in a roundabout way in the nation. The chosen Indians in the chambers got a stage to ventilate their complaints. It was not less delighting the way that an Indian was additionally remembered for the Governor-General’s Executive Council. The amplification of the size of the Legislatures and nearness of chosen individuals in it, in spite of the fact that by aberrant decisions, set the ball moving of expanding interest for complete Indianisation of Legislatures.
Still, the Act missed the mark regarding national desires. What baffled individuals the most was the admixture of the two contradictory components of constitutionalism and totalitarianism, of the nominative and elective standards. Incomparable force kept on being vested in the official on the rule that the duty to administer over India had grown only on the British individuals. Indians were viewed as sick fitted for higher posts in the organization. The nearby bodies kept on being officialized.
The Act was nothing superior to a political round of the Government to arouse collective interests and split national solidarity. The Act gives undue significance to personal stakes by giving them an extraordinary portrayal. As indicated by the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, “It was against the instructing of history. It sustained division by doctrines what’s more, classes which implied the formation of political camps composed against one another and instructed them to think as partisans and not residents. It generalized existing connections and was an intense obstruction to the improvement of oneself overseeing standard.”
The rejection of the Indians from senior posts and from open administrations likewise pin-pricked the educated unemployed youths of India. To quote Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, “It (Act of 1909) was a trade-off among administration and majority rule government, unavoidably a fleeting if, vital, analysis.” The changes in this manner carried the nation to a phase whence there was no going back, rather the main course opened was further headway towards self-government which was affirmed by Montague’s August Declaration of 1917.
[1] Banerjee, A.C., Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol.,II, pp.269-70
[2]How British Raj’s ‘Divide & Rule’ Policy Is Still In Use … (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2020, from https://thelogicalindian.com/story-feed/awareness/british-raj-divide-rule-policy
[3] Deutsche Welle. (n.d.). Triple talaq: Instant divorce ban draws mixed reactions in India: DW: 31.07.2019. Retrieved June 06, 2020, from https://www.dw.com/en/triple-talaq-instant-divorce-ban-draws-mixed-reactions-in-india/a-49830803
0 Comments