UPSC Prelims 2021 Q42: Women's Franchise in 1919 and 1935 — Explained
Consider the following statements:
1. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 recommended granting voting rights to all the women above the age of 21.
2. The Government of India Act of 1935 gave women reserved seats in legislature.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (b) 2 only
Statement-wise explanation
- 1: incorrect — The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms did not recommend votes for all women above 21. The Southborough Franchise Committee of 1918 accepted that women's demand for equal votes was just. It still turned the demand down, saying Indian social conditions were 'not yet ripe'. The 1919 Act only let each provincial council decide whether to remove the sex bar, and the property, income and education tests for voters still applied. Madras was the first province to take up this option, in 1921.
- 2: correct — The Government of India Act 1935 reserved seats for women in the legislatures. Its First Schedule set aside 9 women's seats in the Federal Assembly and 6 in the Council of State. The Fifth Schedule reserved women's seats in the provincial assemblies. The federal part of the Act never came into force, but the provincial seats were filled in the 1937 elections.
How to eliminate
Statement 1 is weakened by the absolute word 'all' and by a universal age test of 21. Neither fits colonial franchise rules, which tied the vote to property, tax or education. Universal adult franchise came only with the Constitution in 1950, at age 21; the 61st Amendment of 1988 lowered it to 18. Once Statement 1 is out, only the first two options of 2 alone or neither remain. Choosing between them needs one fact: the 1935 Act reserved seats for women, as it did for other special groups such as Muslims, Sikhs, Europeans and labour. This followed the 1932 Communal Award. Remember: 1919 left women's votes to the provinces, and 1935 gave women reserved seats.
Know more
How women got the vote in British India
| Stage | What happened for women |
|---|---|
| 1917–18 | A 14-member women's delegation, including the Women's Indian Association (WIA), asked Montagu for equal votes. The Southborough Committee rejected the demand. |
| GoI Act 1919 | No vote for women at the centre. Provincial councils could remove the sex bar by resolution. Women still had to meet the property and education tests. |
| 1921 onwards | Madras (under the Justice Party ministry) and Bombay enfranchised women in 1921. Other provinces followed during the 1920s. Bengal's women got the vote only in 1925, after a campaign. |
| GoI Act 1935 | Seats were reserved for women: 9 in the Federal Assembly, 6 in the Council of State, and more in the provincial assemblies. The franchise was widened, but most women still could not vote. |
| Constitution 1950 | Universal adult franchise (Article 326) gave every woman an equal vote. There were no reserved seats. |
Points to remember
- The 1919 Act brought dyarchy to the provinces, direct elections and a narrow, property-based franchise. Women's suffrage was handled through the provinces, not granted outright.
- Women's groups such as the WIA and AIWC wanted equal votes and open contest. Many of them opposed reserved seats. In the Constituent Assembly, women members said the reservations had been 'forced upon us'.
- The 1935 Act's reserved seats fit its wider system of special representation after the Communal Award.
- Reservation for women came back after independence in local bodies through the 73rd and 74th Amendments (one-third of seats). It reached the Lok Sabha and state assemblies through the 106th Amendment (2023).
NCERT Concepts to Revise
- Government of India Act 1919: Statement 1 depends on what the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms actually did about the franchise and provincial councils.
- Government of India Act 1935: Statement 2 depends on how the 1935 Act made up its federal and provincial legislatures, seat by seat.
- Indian Councils Act 1909: The Morley-Minto reforms began reserved and separate representation. That background helps you judge claims about later reserved seats.