partition of Bengal. Sometimes information could be denied if the answer to any question involved the officials in lengthy preparation. On the 10th March, 1905, G. K. Gokhale’s (Gokhale) question was not answered by the Government on the plea that it would involve unnecessary pressure on the officials.15 Amendments to the Bills moved by non-officials were too rare indeed. Legislative divisions were seldom pressed except in extreme cases and then only perhaps to put on record the Indian opposition to any particular measure. In the event of any unanimous opposition by the Indian members, the Government exercised its official majority to pass legislative measures. On many occasions, the Government passed Bills disregarding the strong opposition of the Indian members. For example, in 1905 the Indian Universities Bill was passed though it was stoutly opposed by the Indian members; the divisions held on the Bill indicated that only one Indian member voted in its favor.16
The authors of the M/C Report claimed that the experience of the 1892 Reforms was on the whole favorable17 and they offered two main reasons for it. Firstly, criticism had been generally temperate and informative. Secondly, participation in public affairs even in a restricted sphere gave the Indian members certain insight into administrative matters. But the presence of some ← 4 | 5 → able persons in the Councils was perhaps the more important factor for their success. In the Imperial Legislative Council, men like G. K. Gokhale, Sir P. S. Mehta, Ashutosh Mukherjee, Rashbehary Ghose and Nawab Salimulla of Dacca made their positions felt and they were respected by the Government. It was during the working of the 1892 Reforms that Indian politicians began to show greater interest in the Council’s debates. Their speeches generally lasted longer than those of their predecessors in the earlier Councils while there was a distinct attempt by the Indian members to air the complaints through the constitutional procedures provided by asking questions, moving amendments to bills and criticizing the Government through the financial procedures. Most of the leading members in the Councils were prominent lawyers in the country; they showed genuine ability in expounding public policies on the floor of the House. Gradually, a new breed of politicians emerged who were more at ease in modern style of debate. It would be a mistake to belittle the value of the work of these and other members only because their attempts did not always bear fruit. It is certain that if the majority of them had been failures, if they had lacked capacity or a sense of responsibility and if they had not acted in the best interests of the people there would have been no Morley-Minto Councils in the after years.18
In a confidential letter on June 20, 1902 to Lord Cross, the Secretary of State, Lord Curzon described the 1892 Reforms as a great success. He was particularly happy with the Imperial Council where the members, according to him, were respectful of procedures.19 Behind this story of complacent success, there was a growing demand for liberalizing the legislative bodies.20 Firstly, the inability to influence the administration on important matters such as Indianization of the bureaucracy, reduction of military expenditure and taxes, and admission of Indians in the Executive Councils caused frustration to the non-official members. The Government failed to pay attention to non-official opinion on some vital issues, which later took the shape of outpouring political grievances. In 1875 the Government imposed excise duty on cotton goods produced in India to counterbalance the duty imposed on British-made cotton goods. During the discussion of the budget, this matter was from time to time raised in the Council, but the Government did not take any significant step to redress these grievances. The perceived ineffectiveness of the Indian members was further illustrated by the Government’s policy of large scale imprisonment and deportation during the agitation against the partition of Bengal. The policy of repression continued even after its vehement disapproval in the legislative bodies. Secondly, there were important political developments ← 5 | 6 → outside the Councils which put enormous pressures on the Government to think about remodeling the administration. The Indian National Congress (Congress) outside gradually gained ground as a powerful organization for discussing political grievances. There was a great famine and plague epidemic in Bombay in the 1890’s which killed a large number of people. The alleged inefficiency and negligence of the administration came to be known to the public. During this period, Bal Gangadar Tilak came to prominence as a leader of Hindu orthodoxy and a passionate critic of the Government: there were certain revolutionary crimes in this period, one of them resulting in the killing of Mr. Rand, the Plague Commissioner in 1897.
The Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon (1898–1905) was full of certain controversial events such as the Bengal Partition, the curtailment of the powers of the Calcutta Corporation, the University Reform and the Official Secrets Act which contributed to the country’s political unrest. The division of old Bengal into two provinces roused a storm of protest throughout this period while the terrorist activities of the extremists increased considerably. The agitations against that partition also brought the Congress to the forefront of national politics; most of the anti-partition demonstrations were led by distinguished Congress leaders.21
Lord Minto’s Viceroyalty which began in November 1905 confronted a deep and widespread political discontent. He rapidly recognized the need for further constitutional advance and conciliation in order to satisfy the moderate leaders of the country.22 A Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Arundel which was as well known as the Arundel Committee was appointed to consider the question of increasing the Indian constituents in the legislative councils.23 In 1906, Lord Minto sent a dispatch to Lord Morley giving his reasons for further constitutional advance and the rationalization he gave could be condensed into one single sentence: the political spirit had reached a stage in India when further space for the country’s political opinion in its government could no longer be resisted.24 The dispatch was followed by a long and voluminous correspondence between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State and, after that, Lord Morley introduced the Indian Councils Bill on February 17th, 1909, which became an Act of the Parliament on May 25 the same year. Obviously, the 1909 Reforms were not intended for the introduction of a parliamentary system; Lord Morley categorically stated in the House of Lords that he would have nothing to do with the reforms if they directly or indirectly led to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India.25 In opening the first session of the Imperial Legislative Council under ← 6 | 7 → the Reforms, Lord Minto said: “We have distinctly maintained that representative government in its western sense is totally inapplicable to the Indian Empire. We have aimed at the reform and enlargement of our councils, but not the creation of Parliaments.”26 To put it in the words of the M/C Report, the Reforms were intended to establish a kind of “constitutional autocracy” blending the principle of absolutism possibly derived from the Mughal Emperors or Hindu Kings with the principle of constitutionalism derived from the British Crown and Parliament.27 Though the Reforms were welcomed on general terms, they fell short of the Congress expectations.28 As far back as in 1889, the Congress demanded that at least half of the members in the Council should be elected.29 Speaking at the Caxton Hall in 1909, Surendra Nath Banerjea said that the Reforms did not come up to the expectations of the Congress in many important matters.30 But some of the most influential leaders in India, for example, Gokhale, set very high hopes on the reforms as they hoped that the authorities would pay greater attention to public opinion in the country.31
The salient features of the 1909 Reforms could be summarized under several heads: Firstly, the legislative councils were enlarged and the Imperial Legislative Council consisted of 60 members (nominated and elected) at the maximum and not more than 28 of them could be government officials. The Governor-General nominated 3 non-officials to represent certain special communities. Secondly, the principle of election which remained implied in the 1892 Reform was embodied in the Indian Councils Act, 1909.32 Thirdly, the power of the Councils was broadened by the authority of moving resolutions and asking supplementary questions. The resolutions were expressed as recommendations to the executive government and the legislative division votes could also be held on the budget and other resolutions on matters of general importance. The right to ask supplementary questions served the purpose of an inquest into the affairs of the government.33 Lastly, it would be fair to say that the Morley-Minto Reforms constituted a decided step forward in the constitutional evolution of British India.34
The
