TheMontagu–Chelmsford Reforms or more concisely theMont–Ford Reforms, were introduced by the colonial government to introduce self-governing institutions gradually inBritish India. The reforms take their name fromEdwin Montagu, theSecretary of State for India from 1917 to 1922, andLord Chelmsford, theViceroy of India between 1916 and 1921. The reforms were outlined in the Montagu–Chelmsford Report, prepared in 1918, and formed the basis of theGovernment of India Act 1919. The constitutional reforms were considered byIndian nationalists not to go far enough though British conservatives were critical of them. The important features of this act were that:
Edwin Montagu becameSecretary of State for India in June 1917 afterAusten Chamberlain had resigned over the capture ofKut by theOttoman Empire in 1916 and the capture of anIndian army that was staged there. Montagu put before theBritish Cabinet a proposed statement regarding his intention to work towards the gradual development of free institutions in India with a view to ultimate self-government.Lord Curzon thought that Montagu laid too much emphasis on working towards self-government and suggested that he work towards increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. The Cabinet approved the statement with Curzon's amendment incorporated in place of Montagu's original statement.[1]
In late 1917, Montagu went to India to meetLord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, and leaders of Indian community, to discuss the introduction of limited self-government to India, and the protection rights of minority communities. He drew up a report, withBhupendra Nath Bose,Lord Donoghmore,William Duke andCharles Roberts.[2]
The report went before the Cabinet on 24 May and 7 June 1918 and was embodied in theGovernment of India Act of 1919. The reforms represented the maximum concessions the British were prepared to make at that time. The franchise was extended, and increased authority was given to central and provincial legislative councils, but the Viceroy remained responsible only to London.[3]
The changes at the provincial level were very significant, as the provincial legislative councils contained a considerable majority of elected members. In a system called "diarchy", the nation-building departments of government were placed under ministers, who were individually responsible to the legislature. The departments that made up the "steel frame" of British rule were retained by executive councillors, who were nominated by the governor. They were often but not always British and were responsible to the governor. The Act of 1919 introduced diarchy to the provinces.
Accordingly, the rights of the central and provincial governments were divided in clear-cut terms. The central list included rights over defence, foreign affairs, telegraphs, railways, postal, foreign trade etc. The provincial list dealt with the affairs like health, sanitation, education, public work, irrigation, jail, police, justice, etc. The powers that were not included in the state list were vested in the hands of the central government. In case of any conflict between the "reserved" and "unreserved" powers of the State (the former included finance, police, revenue and publication of books, and the latter included health, sanitation and local-self government), the governor had the final say. In 1921, the "Diarchy" was installed inBengal,Madras,Bombay, theUnited Provinces, theCentral Provinces, thePunjab,Bihar and Orissa, andAssam; in 1932 it was extended to theNorth-West Frontier Province.[4]
In 1921, another change that had been recommended by the report was carried out by elected local councils being set up in rural areas, and during the 1920s, urban municipal corporations were made more democratic and "Indianized".
The main provisions were the following:
Many Indians had fought for the British in World War I, and they expected much greater concessions.[7] TheIndian National Congress and theMuslim League had recently come together demanding self-rule. The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. Colonial authorities repressed opposition throughout India, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted through theRowlatt Acts introduced in 1919. The measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Several members of the council, includingMuhammad Ali Jinnah, resigned in protest. The measures were widely seen throughout India as a betrayal of the strong support given by the population for the British war effort.[2]
Mahatma Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of protest in thePunjab. The situation worsened inAmritsar in April 1919, when GeneralReginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on demonstrators who were hemmed into a walled compound. Estimates of deaths range from 379 to 1500 or more and 1200 people injured, 192 of them seriously. Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter.[8] The Hunter Inquiry recommended the dismissal of Dyer, who had commanded the troops, which led to Dyer's sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had received unfair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry. The conservativeMorning Post newspaper collected a subscription of £26,000 for Dyer, and SirEdward Carson moved a censure motion on Montagu that was nearly successful. Montagu was saved largely because of a strong speech in his defence byWinston Churchill.[3]
The Amritsar massacre further inflamed Indian nationalist sentiment and ended, or at least reduced, the initial response of reluctant co-operation.[9] At the grassroots level, many young Indians wanted faster progress towards Indian independence and were disappointed by their lack of advancement as Britons returned to their former positions in the administration. At the Indian National Congress annual session in September 1920, delegates supported Gandhi's proposal ofswaraj, or self-rule, preferably within theBritish Empire but out of it if necessary. The proposal was to be implemented through a policy of non-cooperation with British rule and so Congress did not field candidates in the first elections, held in 1921 under the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms.[5]
The Montagu-Chelmsford Report stated that there should be a review after 10 years. SirJohn Simon headed theSimon Commission, the committee that was responsible for the review, and recommended further constitutional change. Three round table conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests. Gandhi attended the 1931Round Table Conferences after negotiations with the British government. The major disagreement between the Indian National Congress and the government was separate electorates for each community, which Congress opposed but were retained inRamsay MacDonald'sCommunal Award. A newGovernment of India Act 1935 was passed and continued the move towards self-government that had been first made in the Montagu–Chelmsford Report.[5]
The India writes: The most horrifying and amazing fact about the Amritsar Massacre after the vile deed itself, is that it has been possible to conceal it for exactly eight months from the British people. For that concealment the Secretary of State for India cannot possibly evade their responsibility