Government of India Act 1919

History glossary

Also called: Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Montford reforms · Topic: Framing the Indian Constitution · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 2 "Nationalism in India"; Class 12, Ch 4 "Framing the Constitution"

Meaning

The Government of India Act 1919 was a British law based on the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms (also called the Montford reforms). It brought in dyarchy (a "rule of two": two sets of rulers sharing power) in the provinces. Under it, Indian ministers answerable to elected legislatures ran some departments, while the Governor kept full control of the others.

It matters because it was the first time the executive (the people who run the government) was made partly responsible to elected Indians. It was still a law made by the colonial government, though. NCERT therefore treats it as Indians taking part in government without holding real power.

Explanation

Background and causes

Pressure during the First World War (1914-18): India sent soldiers and money for the war. Indian nationalists then demanded a bigger share in governing the country.
August Declaration, 1917: Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, announced Britain's goal. It was:
the "gradual development of self-governing institutions", and
the "progressive realisation of responsible government" in India.
Montagu-Chelmsford Report, 1918: Montagu and the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, wrote a joint report. It became the basis of the 1919 Act.
The Act was passed in 1919 and came into force in 1921.

Main features

Dyarchy in the provinces. Provincial subjects were split into two lists:
Transferred subjects, such as education, public health, local self-government and agriculture. Indian ministers handled these, and the ministers were answerable to the provincial legislature.
Reserved subjects, such as police, law and order, justice and land revenue. The Governor and his Executive Council handled these, and they were not answerable to the legislature.
Centre and provinces separated. Subjects were divided into a central list and a provincial list. This loosened the centre's tight grip on the provinces a little.
Two houses at the Centre (bicameral legislature):
the Central Legislative Assembly (lower house), and
the Council of State (upper house).
Most members were elected. But the Viceroy's executive stayed fully unanswerable to the legislature, so there was no dyarchy at the Centre.
Direct elections, but a narrow franchise. Only people who owned property, paid taxes or had some education could vote.
Communal electorates widened. The separate electorates of 1909 were extended to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans. A separate electorate is a system where only members of a community vote for their own reserved seats.
A review after ten years. The Act said a statutory commission would examine it after ten years. This later became the Simon Commission.

How it worked

Ministers had responsibility but no power:
The finance department was a reserved subject, so ministers in charge of education or health could not control their own budgets.
The Governor could overrule ministers.
Ministers often felt they were held answerable for things they could not control.
The Congress response: Congress called the reforms disappointing. In the same year (1919), the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre turned Indian opinion against British rule. This led to the Non-Cooperation Movement (Class 10, Ch 2).
Later change: the Government of India Act 1935 ended dyarchy in the provinces. It made the provincial executive almost entirely responsible to the legislatures.

Results

The colonial Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935 step by step let more Indians into government:
1919: executive made partly responsible to provincial legislatures.
1935: executive made almost entirely responsible.
1937: Congress ministries formed in 8 of the 11 provinces.
But these were not steps to real self-rule:
They were made by the colonial government, not by Indians.
Only a small group of people with property could vote. Even under the 1935 Act, only 10-15 per cent of adults had the vote.
Legislatures stayed under the control of British-appointed Governors.
Training ground: many future members of the Constituent Assembly gained experience in the legislatures this Act set up. One example is Dr Sachchidananda Sinha, who sat in the Central Legislative Assembly from 1921 [2].

Time, place and evidence

Period: late colonial India. The August Declaration came in 1917, the Report in 1918, the Act was passed in 1919 and it came into force in 1921.
Region: all of British India. Dyarchy applied in the provinces.
Key people:
Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India.
Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India.
Evidence:
the Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918) and the text of the Act itself, which are official British records;
the NCERT chapters: Class 10, Ch 2 "Nationalism in India", and Class 12, Ch 4 "Framing the Constitution".
Link to the Constituent Assembly: Dr Sachchidananda Sinha was the temporary Chairman at the Assembly's first sitting on 9 December 1946. He was chosen as the oldest member, and he had sat in the Imperial Legislative Council from 1910 and the Central Legislative Assembly from 1921 [2]. The second of these was a body created by the 1919 Act.

Don't confuse with

Government of India Act 1935: the 1919 Act brought dyarchy to the provinces. The 1935 Act ended provincial dyarchy, gave provincial autonomy, and proposed dyarchy at the Centre.
Indian Councils Act 1909 (Morley-Minto reforms): this Act brought in separate electorates for Muslims. The 1919 Act extended them to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and Europeans.
August Declaration 1917: this was a statement of policy by Montagu. The 1919 Act was the law that later put it into effect.
Rowlatt Act 1919: this was passed in the same year, but it was a repressive law allowing detention without trial. It was not a constitutional reform.

Prelims Hooks

Montford reforms: Edwin Montagu (Secretary of State) and Lord Chelmsford (Viceroy). The Act was passed in 1919 and came into force in 1921.
Dyarchy = reserved subjects under the Governor and transferred subjects under ministers answerable to the legislature. It applied in the provinces only, not at the Centre.
Trap: the 1919 Act created a bicameral central legislature (Central Legislative Assembly and Council of State), but the central executive stayed unanswerable to it.
Correct order of executive responsibility: 1919, partly responsible → 1935, almost entirely responsible → 1937, Congress ministries in 8 of 11 provinces.
Dr Sachchidananda Sinha, the temporary Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, had sat in the Central Legislative Assembly from 1921 [2].
The 1919 Act's ten-year review clause led to the Simon Commission.

Mains Points

Continuity or rupture?
One view says the Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935 trained Indians in parliamentary work and supplied much of the Constitution's machinery.
The NCERT view is that 1946 was a rupture. The 1919 Act was handed down by the British, covered only a small propertied electorate, and kept Governors in control.
The Constituent Assembly, by contrast, drew its authority from the people and aimed at universal adult franchise (the right to vote for every adult).
The limits of dyarchy:
Ministers were answerable for transferred subjects, but finance and law and order stayed reserved.
So "responsible government" was only partial.
This gap between taking part and holding power helps explain why nationalists rejected the reforms and moved to mass protest in 1919-22.
A step that shaped later institutions: the split between provincial and central subjects, the bicameral legislature, and elected legislatures were all later developed further by the 1935 Act. This background is useful for GS-I answers on how India's constitution developed.

Related concepts

The Objectives Resolution and the vision of the Constitution

Sources

1Class 10, Ch 2 "Nationalism in India"; Class 12, Ch 4 "Framing the Constitution" (primary)
2Constituent Assembly of India (Lok Sabha, sansad.in)sansad.in · tier 1