Government of India act, 1858

Why the Act Was Passed

1.      The revolt of 1857 discredited the Company’ administration in India.

2.      Both the Whig and Tory politicians desired formal and complete transfer of Indian administration from the Company to the Crown.

3.      The ‘dual system’ of government at home was dubbed as ‘divided responsibility, concealed responsibility and no responsibility’.

4.      The system of checks and balances was hindering the functioning of the home Government.

Provisions

1.      The Crown took over formal, direct and legal control of Indian administration.

2.      The Crown took over the entire property of the Company.

3.      The Court of Directors and the Board of Control were abolished.

4.      A Secretary of State who was a member of the British Cabinet was to superintend, direct and control Indian affairs. He was to be responsible to the British Parliament.

6.      The Governor-General was given the additional title of Viceroy.

7.      Patronage in important appointments for India was divided among the Crown, the Secretary of State and the Governor-General.

8.      ICS officers were to be recruited through competitive examination held in London.

9.      All naval and military forces of the Company were transferred to the Crown service on the same service conditions.

10.    Every year the Secretary of State was required to present to the British Parliament a report on the moral and material progress of India.

Consequences ofthe Act

• The transfer of Government from the Company to the Crown was more a formal than a substantial change. Since 1784 the Crown enjoyed, through the Board of Control, considerable say in Indian affairs. The important consequences of the Act were:
• The Secretary of State’s complete control over Indian policies, revenues, customs, currency and exchange etc. were used to exploit India even more than earlier to fill the British coffers.
• The administrative structure set up by the Act was unitary and highly centralized.
• The Crown’s assumption of Indian administration meant slackening of Parliament’s interest in Indian affairs.

Queen’s proclamation of 1 November 1858

With this proclamation, Queen Victoria announced the takeover of Indian administration, from the Company.

Provisions

1.      Lord Canning was appointed as the first Viceroy and Governor-General of India.

2.      The policy of extension of British territories in India was abandoned.

3.      Treaties and engagements of the Company with the princes of Indian states were to be respected.

4.      All civil and military officers of the Company were confirmed in their offices under the Crown.

5.      Services in India were thrown open to all subjects, Englishmen and Indians, on the basis of merit. There were to be no racial or religious considerations in this matter.

6.      A policy of religious neutrality and non-interference in the religious beliefs of Indians was laid down.

7.      A policy was laid down to protect the ancient rights, usages and customs of Indians with regard to inheritance of land.

8.      A general clemency was offered to all Indian rebels, if they laid down arms.

9.      The Queen promised [1]to adopt all possible measures to promote the material and moral progress of India.

Indian councils act, 1861

Why the Act Was Passed

• The revolt of 1857 necessitated changes in the Constitution of India. It was being said that the lack of contact between the rulers and the ruled was the basic cause of the revolt.
• Indians had been demanding representation in the Legislative Councils.
• Over centralization of legislation was resented by the Governments of Bombay and Madras.
• The working of the Legislative Council, which was formed in 1853, was found unsatisfactory.

Provisions ofthe Act

1.      The strength of the Governor-General’s Executive Council was increased from four to five members.

2.      In the Governor-General’s Executive Council, a portfolio system was to be introduced.

3.      For legislative work, the Governor-General’s Executive Council was doubled, from six to twelve. The ‘additional members’ were to be non-officials.

4.      The legislative Council was to be an advisory body.

5.      The legislative powers of the Provinces, with-drawn since 1833, were restored to the Governments of Bombay and Madras with some limitations.

6.      The Governor-General was empowered to establish Legislative Councils for BengalNorth-WestProvinces and Punjab.

Critique

The act was a milestone, for the following reasons:

• It was a progressive step towards legislative decentralization.
• It laid the foundation of Indian legislature.
• It marked the beginning of representation of Indians in Legislative Councils.

On the negative side, the powers of the new Legislative Councils were very limited and the general character of government of India still remained autocratic.

Indian councils act, 1892

This was merely a revised and enlarged edition of the Indian Councils Act of 1861.

Why the Act Was Passed

The Act of 1861 did not satisfy Indian aspirations for a share in the administration. One of the first demands of the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, was for the expansion of Legislative Councils and more representation for Indians. The European business community in India favored an expansion of Legislative Councils and its own representation in it.

Provisions ofthe Act

The Act enhanced the powers of both the Governor-General’s Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils.

1.      For legislative work, the number of ‘additional’ members to the Governor-General’s Executive was increased to between 10 and 16. The strength of non-official members was to be two-fifths of the total members.

2.      A veiled system of election of ‘additional’ members was introduced.

3.      Non-official members of each Provincial Legislative Council were to ‘elect’ one member to the Central Legislative Council.

4.      Increase in the size of Provincial Legislatures was allowed. Also, the Provincial Legislatures, with previous sanction of the Governor-General, could alter Central acts affecting the Provinces.

5.      Members of the Legislative Council could now ask questions and discuss the annual budget.

Critique

The Act was certainly an advance over the Act of 1861. New Legislative Councils attracted talented Indians, who with their active involvement in legislative work influenced government policies to a limited extent. The Act, however, had its drawbacks. this act did not satisfy the aspirations of educated Indians. Especially, the system of ‘election-cum-nomination’ showed British distrust of Indians.

The Indian council Act- 1909

(Minto- Morely Reforms)

Since the Indian Council Act of 1892 coved not satisfy the aspirations of Indians just because there was no element of democracy as yet and Indians had been demanding their representation in the legislative councils in a democratic manner especially through elections. Moreover, the Indian National Congress had also been demanding a greater control of the legislative councils over the executive. In view of these developments, the British Parliament extended another set of constitutional reforms in the form of the Indian council Act of 1909 which popularly came to be called as Minto-Morley reforms after the names of then Governor General and Secretary of state of India respectively. This Act carried some of the following features:

Firstly, the Act introduced for the first time an element of election to fill in both the central legislative council as well as Provincial Legislative Councils. In this sense, this Act made the very first attempt at introducing a representative and popular element insofar as the constitution of legislative bodies was concerned. Moreover, the size of these councils was also considerably increased. Significantly the reforms at the level of Provincial Legislative councils were more substantial than at the central level. This was done by increasing the proportion of non officials as against the officials at the provincial level so that the official majority is gone at the provincial level. Although election was also introduced at the central level but the proportion of officials was kept more than the non-officials here.

Secondly, the number of additional members in the Governor General’s executive council was also increased from 16 to 60. At the same time, the powers of the legislative councils at both the levels were also enlarged by empowering them to discuss any matter, raise questions including supplementaries etc. The councils could also discuss the annual financial statement (budget) besides a right of moving resolutions thereon although without voting power.

Unfortunately this positive element of elections to the Legislative Council was counter checked by the Britishers to serve their political ends by introducing a pernicious system of communal electorate under which separate electorates was given to Muslims in order to wean them away from the Hindu majority. Incidentally this communal electorate was synchronised with the birth of Muslim league that had occurred a few years earlier in 1906. Without surprise, this system of communal electorate not only led to a spurt of separatist tendencies in the country, but was always hoisted by the Muslim League throughout the freedom struggle of India until Muslims portioned for a separate state of Pakistan. Thus we can conclude that although Minto- Morelyreform were progressive in so far as the introduction of some limited kind of democracy was concerned , but could also be criticised for sowing the seeds of separatism in the country.

The Government of India Act-1919

(Montague-Chelmsford Reforms):

The Minto-Morely reforms fell miserably short of satisfying the demand of Indians, most importantly, inviting the wrath of Indian nationalists for introducing the vicious device of communal electorate. The Nationalists felt that the colonial power had no intention for actually conceding any Constitutional reforms in the country other perpetuating its own rule by its divide and rule policy. This led to an agitation for more vigorous reforms in the country especially, a demand for home rule or swaraj spearheaded by extremists who had captured the reigns of the Congress after the First World War. Various home rule leagues were set up in different parts of the country especially by Tilak at Pune and by Annie Beasant from Madras.

In view of this demand, the British government responded and announced its future policy towards India in a statement made on August 20, 1917 that “the British policy in India would be to increasingly associate Indians in every branch of the administration so as to ensure a gradual development of self- governing institutions with a view to progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of British empire.”

The task of implementing this policy was assigned to the then secretary of state for India, Lord Montague and then Governor General, Lord Chelmsford. Their report eventually formed the basis of Government of India Act-1919 which carried some of the following features:

1) Introduction of Dyarchy at the Provincial level:

Under this system, the subjects were classified into two categories came to be called as centre subjects and provincial subjects,. The centre subjects that were of national importance were placed in the hands of governor general who was to administer them with the help of his own executive council which was purely dominated by officials. Hence in this regard the governor General was not responsible to anyone. This was meant that there was no intention on the part of Britishers to introduce a Parliamentary system at Central level. However, the subjects that were of Local importance were given to the provinces through devolution of powers under the devolution rules made under the Act.  A kind of responsible system of Government was thus sought to be created at the provincial level where the proportion of non officials was also now far more than that of the officials. However, at the provincial level under this diarchy, the subjects were further .

classified into reserved and transferred categories. The reserved subjects were placed under the charge of governor or LG who was to administer them with the help of his executive council and was not made accountable to anyone in this regard while administering such reserved subjects. On the other hand, the transferred subjects were assigned to elected ministers for which they were made accountable to the provincial legislatures. In this sense a kind of limited Parliamentary system was sought to be implemented at least, in the transferred area apparently to satisfy the Indian demands.

2) Relaxation of central control over the Provinces

As the provinces before the introduction of the 1919 Act used to be completely under the control of the Central Government in a highly rigid unitary system. However, the Act of 1919 sought to relax this central control over the provinces to some extent. This was done by dividing the subjects into two categories which came to be called as central subjects and provincial subjects so that a kind of administrative experience could be inculcated in the provinces and at least to satisfy the demand of India nationalists in the art of self rule. This way the provinces were given some subjects of local significance so that they could make their own policies and laws in these subjects. Moreover for the first time the provinces were given the right to present their own budget and also to levy taxes so that they could raise their own revenue or resources to be required for running the provincial administration. Nevertheless, this relaxed central control over the provinces was not to be mistaken for a federal distribution of powers because, the provinces had derived all their powers from the Central government merely by way of delegation rather than independent and autonomous powers. This was achieved with the help of devolution rules made under the GOI Act, 1919.

A  bicameral and expanded central legislature

This was third important feature of 1919 Act as it not only expanded the size of the Central legislature especially by increasing the number of non-officials over the officials but it was made bicameral for the first time consisting of 2 houses which came to be known as legislative assembly and council of States. Thus, this expanded legislatures’ lower house came to have a membership of 144 members out of which 104 were elected i.e. non – officials and the rest were nominated. Among these nominated members, around 26 were officials. Similarly the strength of Upper House (council of state) was kept at 60 members out of whom 34 were elected. The powers of both the houses were equal except that the power to veto a bill was given exclusively to the lower house. Moreover, in respect of financial bills, both the houses had equal powers.

 Although the election to legislative councils was on a limited franchise perpetuating the vice of communal electorate further, yet the Act of 1919 did introduce some progressive reforms in the direction of Parliamentary democracy in the country…