State Debates
I.L.C. Imperial Legislative Council.
M/C Report Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, (Montagu-Chelmsford) 1918.
| 1 →
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTRAL LEGISLATURE FROM 1861 TO 1920
The historic but failed Indian revolt in 1857, downgraded by the British Raj as little more than the Sepoy (soldiers) Mutiny save for the Indians who cherished the episode as the “first war of independence,” signified a change in the British Colonial imagination: the imperial government grasped that the great gap between the ruler and ruled in India should be bridged for better administration and peace in the subcontinent. Several British leaders felt that an institutionalized process of associating the Indians with the country’s law making process was essential for peace and stability of India.1 The Legislative Council under the Act, 1853 had six “legislative members” but none of them were Indian. It was hardly possible for the Government to know the Indian views on the legislative measures except through indirect sources. To remove this shortcoming, the Indian Councils Act, 1861, enabled the Governor-General to associate the “sons of the soil” with law-making. In addition to the ordinary members of the Council, not less than six and not more than twelve additional members (of whom at least one half were not government officials) could be appointed by the Governor-General. The additional non-official members were appointed for a two-year term. For the first time in the British period, the Indian members were directly associated with the legislative bodies: it was the significant new British Colonial stratagem. It is for this reason ← 1 | 2 → that the Indian Councils Act, 1861, is regarded as an important milestone in the Indian constitutional history, but as a matter of practice, those bodies were functionally restricted. Their role was decisively limited to legislation and they were even forbidden to ask questions or criticize executive policy.
The Indian lawmakers nominated to the Central Legislative Council from 1861 to 1891 were either the Indian Princes or big landowners or rich merchants or retired high officials. By modern standards of representative institutions, they could hardly be called the spokesmen of the Indian people at large. The Council proceedings indicated that the Indian members had hardly shown sufficient interest in the debates except on rare occasions: their speeches were, as a rule, short, read out of the manuscripts prepared before the actual debate. As a rule, they showed keener interest only in serious discussion of the Bills relating to property, taxation and inheritance, and most legislative proposals were passed with little deliberation, and often at a single sitting. Most initiatives of sending the Bills to the Select Committees or moving amendments to the Bills were too taken by the official members. The Indian members, as a rule, did not seriously challenge to the Government; as an example, the Vernacular Press Bill 1878 was passed in the Council at a single session on the plea of urgency.2 It was, however, one of the most discreditable measures passed by the then Viceroy. Even more disappointingly, not a single Indian member opposed this Bill on the Council floor, though it was universally condemned outside as the “Black Act.”3 An Annual financial statement (which we could now be called a budget) was laid on the table. It was not permissible to discuss the budget except when a new tax was proposed. From 1861 to 1892, there were only 16 new taxation proposals and on those occasions, the budget was discussed. Most of the time, the Governor-General presided over the Council meetings: any Bill passed by the Council could be vetoed by the Governor-General who could also promulgate ordinances tenable for a period of six months.
Habitually, the non-official Indian members did not show much eagerness to attend the meetings of the Council. After a few years of its working, Sir Henry Maine wrote in a minute in 1868 that the offers of seats in the Legislative Council were often declined and members who were nominated showed the “utmost reluctance to come and the utmost hurry to depart.”4 According to Sir H. Maine, the reason for such reluctance was the abominable weather in Calcutta.5 But in reality it was, perhaps, the narrow scope which made the Council sessions rather unattractive and useless. In the absence of adequate scope to influence the Executive it must have been too dull for the Indian ← 2 | 3 → “Maharajas” or “Nawabs” to sit in the Council Chamber. It could also be argued that the Indian members were not the typical lawyer-politicians who succeeded them in later years. The post-Mutiny period was rather politically dull in India. Possibly, the Indian law-makers were not interested in politics as it came to be understood later. But this transitional stage was soon to be replaced by a group of more western educated politicians. The “sham” character of the Legislative Councils was soon to be revealed. An awfully cynical comment about the Councils was made by Subramania Iyer in his address to the first session of the Indian National Congress: “The functions of these Councils are limited to registering the decrees of the executive government and stamp them with legislative sanction.”6 The stance of the legislative councils from 1861 to 1892 could also be described by another quotation: “The character of the legislative councils was simply this, that they were Committees for the purpose of making laws, committees by means of which the Executive Government obtained advice and assistance in their regulation and the public derived the advantage of full publicity being ensured at every stage of law-making process. Such laws were in reality the orders of the Government, but, made in a manner which ensured publicity and discussion, they were enforced by the Courts and not by the Executive; they could not be changed but by the same deliberative and public process that by which they were made, and could be enforced against the Executive or in favor of individuals whenever occasion required.”7 It was rightly observed by the Montagu/Chelmsford (M/C) Report that the operation of the Councils under the Act, 1861 marked the close of a Chapter in the Indian Constitutional History.8
While the Imperial Legislative Council functioned more or less as a Durbar of the Viceroy, the political opinion in the country outside was gradually changing. The Indian National Congress formed in 1885 was already pressing for further expansion of the legislative bodies. The shortcomings of the nominated Indian representatives were even realized a little earlier. In a letter to the Secretary of State in 1881, Lord Ripon suggested that the indirect election to the legislative councils through the local bodies should be introduced, so that the Government could run in accordance with growing public opinion.9 But the Secretary of State regarded that suggestion as premature and ignored it.10 Under the obvious pressure of the Congress demands, Lord Dufferin made certain important recommendations for liberalizing the legislative bodies which were finally embodied in the Indian Councils Act, 1892. It enlarged all the legislative councils and the new Central Council consisted of at least ten additional members, the maximum number being fixed at 16. ← 3 | 4 → Not more than six of the additional members could be officials. In order to maintain an official majority, however, not more than ten non-officials were admitted:11 four of those were allotted to recommendations by the non-official members of the four provincial councils and one to the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce. The remaining five seats were nominated by the Governor-General on the recommendations by the Municipalities, University Senates and several commercial bodies. This was but a cautious acceptance of the principle of election. The members were given the right to ask questions,12 and to discuss, though not to vote upon the budget. To this extent, the Legislative Councils recognized that their function thenceforth was more than merely legislative or advisory.13 But no member was allowed to move any resolution; the Budget was to be discussed as a whole and not item by item.14
The shortcomings of the 1892 Reforms were obvious since the nonofficial members constituted a permanent minority before the official bloc: it was impossible for a non-official member to press any demand against official opposition. Questions asked on the whole had been rare and supplementary questions could not be put. For example, only 13 questions were asked in the two years 1905 and 1906; the subjects of the questions were Services, Railways, Revenue and Exchange. There were very few questions on political grievances, but from 1905 onwards
