A lot was achieved in Madras by the
Justice Party and in the Punjab, by the Unionist Party led by Sir
Fazl-i-Hussain and Chaudhuri Chottu Ram.
Justice Party and in the Punjab, by the Unionist Party led by Sir
Fazl-i-Hussain and Chaudhuri Chottu Ram.
Cambridge History of India - v4 - Indian Empire
While about 70% of the members of the provincial
Legislatures were elected, about 30% were nominated by the Gover-
nor. Some of the nominated members were officials and the others
were non-officials. The life of the Council was fixed at 3 years,
but the same could be extended. The members were given the
right of asking questions and supplementary questions. They were
also given the power of rejecting the budget although the Gover-
nor was given the power of restoring the same.
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
Dyarchy was introduced in the provinces. The subjects given
in the Provincial List were divided into two parts, reserved and
transferred subjects. The reserved subjects were to be adminis-
iered by the Governor as before with the help of the Executive
Council. The change now made was that the transferred sub-
jects were to be dealt with by the Governor in future with the help
of his ministers. While the members of the Executive Council were
nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by him from
the members of the Legislature. The reserved subjects were the
administration of justice, police, irrigation and canals, drainage
## p. 609 (#649) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
609
and embankments, water storage and water power, land revenue
administration, land improvement and agricultural loans, famine
relief, control of newspapers, books and printing presses, prisons
and reformatories, borrowing money on the credit of the province,
forests except in Bombay and Burma, factory inspection, settlement
of industrial disputes, industrial insurance and housing. The trans-
ferred subjects were local self-government including matters relat-
ing to municipal corporations and district boards, public health,
sanitation and medical administration including hospitals and
asylums and provision for medical education, education of Indians
with some exceptions, public works including roads, bridges and
municipal tramways, but excluding irrigation, agriculture and
fisheries, cooperative societies, excise, forests in Bombay anad Burma
only, development of industries including industrial research and
technical education. The Governor was not to act as a constitu-
tional head. He was given special responsibilities. He was given
the authority to over-rule his ministers and the members of the
Executive Council if that was considered necessary for the discharge
of his responsibilities. The Governor was expected to encourage
joint deliberations between the ministers and the members of the
Executive Council. Provision was made for the temporary admin-
istration of transferred subjects in case of an emergency. If no
minister was incharge of a transferred subject, the Governor him-
self assumed temporary charge of it till a minister was appointed.
The Governor-General-in-Council, with the previous sanction of
the Secretary of State in Council, could revoke or suspend the
transfer of all or any subjects in a province and in that case those
were to be administered by the Governor-in-Council.
The system of dyarchy was worked in the provinces from 1921
to 1937, but it did not work satisfactorily. The very principle of
dyarchy was faulty. Any division of administration into two parts,
each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and
practice of Government. The state is like an organism and the two
parts cannot be separated completely. However, the actual divi-
sion of subjects was the most defective. There could not be a
worse division than the one actually attempted. Sir K. V. Reddy,
a Minister of Madras, says: “I was a minister for development with-
out forests. I was the minister for agriculture without irrigation.
As minister of agriculture, I have nothing to do with the adminis-
tration of the Madras Agriculturists' Loans Act or the Madras Land
Improvement Loans Act. . . . . . Famine relief, of course, could not
be touched by the minister for agriculture; efficacy and efficiency
of a minister for agriculture without anything to do with irriga-
tion, agricultural loans, land improvement loans and famine relief
## p. 610 (#650) ############################################
610 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
>
is better imagined than described. Then again, I was a minister
for industries without factories, boilers, electricity and water power,
mines or labour, all of which were reserved subjects. ” While edu-
cation was a transferred subject, the education of Europeans and
the Anglo-Indians was made a reserved subject. Sir C. Y.
Chintamani, a minister of U. P. , has given some examples of the
manner in which dyarchy was actually worked. In 1921, an
enquiry was started in the Department of Agriculture on the ques-
tion of the fragmentation of lands. When the report was submitted
in 1922, it was felt that the question should have been dealt with
by the Revenue Department and the case was transferred to that
Department. In 1924, it was decided that the case should be sent
to the Cooperative Department to which it related. Similar
examples could be multiplied.
There was no harmony between the two halves of the provin-
cial Government. While the ministers were the representatives of
the people, the members of the Executive Council belonged to the
bureaucracy. Ordinarily, they did not pull together. There was
constant friction. Occasionally, the ministers and the Executive
Councillors condemned each other openly in public. The result
was that the work of the administration suffered. As a rule, the
Governor backed the members of the Executive Council because
he himself belonged to the service to which they belonged.
The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve
two masters, viz. , the Governor and the Legislative Council. A
minister could be appointed by the Governor and dismissed at his
will. He was responsible to the Legislature for the administration
of his Department. He could be turned out by the Legislature by
a vote of no-confidence. However, from the point of view of practi-
cal politics, the ministers cared more for the Governor than for the
Legislature. There were no strong political parties in the provin-
cial legislatures on whom the ministers could rely upon for their
support. No minister had a majority in the Legislature to back
him in office. He had always to depend upon the support of the
official bloc in the Legislature. While the elected members of the
Provincial Legislature were divided into many groups on the basis
of various religions, the support of the official bloc which always
voted under instructions from the Governor, was always available
to a minister who cared for the goodwill and support of the Gover-
No wonder, the ministers always looked up to the Governor
and were dependent upon him. The Raja of Panagal openly used
to say in the Madras Legislative Council that he was responsible
only to the Governor and none else. In certain cases, the ministers
hoped to become Executive Councillors after the expiry of their
nor.
## p. 611 (#651) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
611
term of office as ministers. The result of all this was that the min-
isters sank to the position of glorified secretaries. C. Y. Chintamani
rightly says that the ministers had no power. “The power is with
the Governor and not with the ministers”. The Governor could
interfere in any matter under any minister. Kelkar says that he
was allowed to have his way in matters of policy but was constantly
over-ruled in matters of detail. To quote him, “For instance, I
could not picture myself how a Governor could support my policy
of non-interference with a Municipal Committee who wanted to
hoist national flag on the municipal office and how the same Gover-
nor could ask me to uphold an order of a Deputy Commissioner
who had suspended a Committee's resolution to the effect that its
servants should put on Khaddar dress. ”
The Governors did not care to encourage the principle of joint
responsibility among the ministers. The ministers never worked as
a team. They were always quarrelling among themselves. In the
case of the Calcutta Municipal Bill, the Nawab Sahib and Sir
Surendranath Banerjee openly canvassed against each other in the
Legislative Council. In 1928, Sir Feroz Khan Noon publicly criti-
cized and condemned the action of his Hindu colleague. It is to
be noted that the dismissal or resignation of a minister did not
affect his colleagues. The Governor dealt with every minister
individually
The position of the permanent services created many difficulties.
The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal and transfer of the
members of the All-India services were under the control of the
Secretary of State for India. Those persons continued to be under
the control of the Secretary of State for India even if they worked
in the Transferred Departments. No wonder, they did not care
for the ministers. The ministers had no power to choose their
own subordinates. Vacancies occurred in their Departments. Most
of the important jobs were reserved for the members of the All-India
services. In the case of Madras, when the post of the Surgeon-
General fell vacant, the minister concerned could not get his
nominee appointed. An I. M. S. officer was sent to fill the post.
Although the minister desired to encourage the Indian system of
medicine, the Surgeon-General did not care for his views. Even
if there were certain superfluous jobs, the minister concerned had
no power to abolish them. In the case of U. P. , a District Officer
refused to apply for appeal in an excise case as required by the
minister and he was supported by a member of the Executive Coun-
cil. As a general rule, the Governors could be expected to support
the members of the civil services against the ministers.
According to the rules of executive business, if a minister differed
## p. 612 (#652) ############################################
612 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
from the opinion of the Permanent Secretary or the Head of the
Department or the Commissioner of a Division, the matter had to
be submitted to the Governor for final orders. Both the Permanent
Secretary and the Head of the Department had direct access to the
Governor. The Secretary had a weekly interview with the Gover-
nor and he could discuss everything about his Department with the
Governor. That must have weakened the position of the ministers.
Sometimes, the Governor knew more things about a Department
than the minister who was incharge of it.
Another cause of the failure of dyarchy was the reservation of
the Finance Department in the hands of a member of the Execu-
tive Council. While all the nation-building Departments were
given to the ministers, they were given no money for the same.
The result was that the ministers had to depend upon the sweet-will
of the Finance Secretary. As a member of the Indian Civil Service,
the Finance Secretary had no sympathy with the aspirations of the
Indians as represented by the ministers. He cared more for the
needs of the Reserved Departments than for the Transferred Depart-
ments. C. Y. Chintamani says: "A Finance Member was certain-
ly more anxious to see that his Reserved Departments got all the
money they required before other Departments got what they
wanted. ” In certain cases, the Finance Department refused even
to examine any scheme on the ground that no money was likely to
be available. In the case of U. P. , the Finance Department issued
a circular to all the Heads of the Departments directing them not
to send proposals involving expenditure. When actually money
was found available, it was contended by the Finance Department
that no money could be granted as proposals had not been put up
for examination at the right time. Many a time, the reply of the
Finance Department was that the proposals were not "worth spend-
ing money on”. Even when schemes were approved, ways and
means were found to defeat them or delay them till the end of the
financial year which compelled the minister concerned to start from
the very beginning once again. C. Y. Chintamani says: "I am
prepared to state this without any exaggeration that it was the
general experience of both the ministers in the United Provinces
that they had to contend with great difficulties when they went to
the Finance Department, that pretty frequently they had to go
before the Governor, pretty frequently the Governor did not side
with them and pretty frequently they could only gain their point
in the end by placing their offices at the disposal of the Governor. "
There was another hindrance in the way of the successful work-
ing of dyarchy. It was born under an unlucky star. The political
atmosphere in the country was surcharged with suspicion and dis-
## p. 613 (#653) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
613
trust in account of the happenings in the Punjab and the attitude
of the British Government towards Turkey. The monsoons failed
in 1920 and added to the misery of the people. Slump also came
in the market. The result was that the finances of both the Cen-
tral and Provincial Governments were upset. The favourable bal-
ance of trade of India was upset. Under the Meston Award, the
Provincial Government were required to make certain annual
contributions to the Government of India. On account of the fin-
ancial crisis, the Government of India demanded full contributions
from the provincial governments which themselves were in a very
bad condition. Dyarchy could not be expected to work without
finances.
The man in the street knew that the reforms of 1919 were in
the nature of a half-way house. It was known that ihe Indians
were going to get more in the future and no wonder, they were
not in a mood to give a fair trial to what they had already got.
The situation has been beautifully put in the following words:-
“The Indian intelligentsia exhibit the mentality of a traveller
who is consumed with the desire to arrive at the end of a long and
difficult journey. Every stage, no matter how essential, is a fresh
grievance; any obstacle, no matter how inevitable, an intolerable
outrage; every advance, no matter how note-worthy, is ignored
and forgotten in comparison with the distance which has yet to be
painfully traversed. "
Regarding the working of dyarchy, Sir Harcourt Butler says:
"In India, it has almost become a term of abuse. I have heard
one man shouting to another: 'You are a dyarchy'. 'I will beat
you with a dyarchy', said one Indian boy to another and when
questioned as to what dyarchy was, replied, “a new kind of tennis
racket. ' I have been received in a Burma village by 'a dyarchy
band' braying against a Home Rule band with all the vigour of
village faction neither having the least idea of what Home Rule or
dyarchy meant. ”
Dr. Appadorai in “Dyarchy in Practice” observes: “Dyarchy
was introduced with high hopes and it must be said that, on a
theoretical analysis and if worked under ideal conditions, it is not
without merits. It is the strictly logical solution of a situation in
which it is desired to base the authority of Government in different
matters on two different sources- a situation in which a complete
transfer of responsibility is considered impossible by a ruling power.
It is thus a bridge between autocracy and responsibility. It is
educative in the sense that it gives men an opportunity to show
what they can do, as it proceeds on the basis of proved results; it
would put everybody on their mettle, . . . . . In practice, largely
## p. 614 (#654) ############################################
614 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
because, I think, the conditions it postulates are too difficult to
obtain, its achievements are much more modest. It is a trite re-
mark that where it succeeded it succeeded only because the princi-
ple of dyarchy was largely ignored. But this much may be said:
under dyarchy many persons have been brought in touch with
problems of administration, and with the difficulties of a responsible
form of government. This is a valuable asset, especially if the same
people have an opportunity of working later under a system of full
responsible government. And another good result is that the ideas
of 'transferred subjects' and 'popular control have brought about
a concentration of public interest on certain beneficial activities of
government—the nation building departments. "
The view of Prof. Palande was: “Dyarchy was never intended to
be an ideal in itself but as a stepping stone to a nobler consumma-
tion, namely, a fully self-governing India. . . . . . . Indians were
thoroughly dissatisfied with the whole project of dyarchy. The
parliamentary appearances that it suggested were tantalising. But
those who had a personal knowledge of its inner working exposed
its ridiculous contradictions and defects. The ideal manifestation
of dyarchical Government implied the complete self-effacement of
an irresponsible bureaucracy, but unfortunately that quality was
too super-human to be a normal feature of the administration. "
To quote Punniah, “Dyarchy was a unique experiment which was
tried in the nine provinces for over a period of sixteen years. Its
main object and purpose was to train the people of India in the
art of responsible self-Government. Its authors were no doubt
aware of its defects and shortcomings but thought that there was
no alternative to it under the circumstances.
It was felt by the Englishmen that dyarchy was the least conces-
sion which they could make to the intelligentsia of India. How-
ever, the view of Sir Reginald Craddock was that “It was all based
on the assumption that a tiny novitiate of electors out of the vast
masses of illiterate India, bristling with its racial feuds, its religi-
ous antagonism, its castes, its social exclusions, its bable of tongues,
its fierce communal controversies, would start functioning in res-
ponse to a system absolutely alien to them in the same way that the
experienced electors of educated England to-day respond to a sys-
tem which the people have gradually developed for themselves in
the course of many centuries. ” (The Dilemma in India, London,
1929, p. 173).
Thompson and Garratt point out that it is wrong to say that
dyarchy was a complete failure. Useful work was done in the
provinces by the Indian ministers and there was no breakdown dur-
ing the first three years. In the province of Madras, the Justice
## p. 615 (#655) ############################################
ESTIMATE OF REFORMS OF 1919
615
Party got a clear majority and was able to carry a number of
measures including the reform of temple endowments. In the
Punjab, a coalition Government of the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs
was formed under the leadership of Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and it was
able to do a lot of useful work for the agriculturists. It is also
pointed out that the process of Indianisation within the Govern-
ment proceeded quickly although not ostentatiously. The minis-
ters also grew in status and the councils in prestige. People began
to watch with curiosity the proceedings of the new Legislative
Councils.
ESTIMATE OF REFORMS OF 1919
As regards an estimate of the reforms as a whole, they marked a
great departure from the past. India moved from the consulta-
tive to the first signs of a responsible Government, from select
bureaucratic control to the first hint of mass politics. Although
there were differences between those who held the view that too
much had been given or too little had been given or that the re-
forms were a disaster or a farce, it was pointed out that the reforms
had made a beginning with the transfer of power which was com-
pleted in 1947.
Prof. Percivall Spear points out that the reforms of 1919 were
attacked on all sides. The right wing British opinion held that the
reforms undermined the British Raj in India and gave authority to
irresponsibility. The Congressmen proclaimed that the reforms
were a sham and not worth giving a trial. However, his own view
is that the reforms proved to be a solid and substantial achievement.
They were an essential milestone on the road to self-Government.
Without them, Indian political progress would have been belated,
erratic and probably revolutionary. They gave, by and large,
enough inducement to enough people to work them and enough
scope to provide experience and incentives for the future. When-
ever there were determined leaders backed by coherent parties, solid
results could be achieved.
A lot was achieved in Madras by the
Justice Party and in the Punjab, by the Unionist Party led by Sir
Fazl-i-Hussain and Chaudhuri Chottu Ram. Though tensions and
frustrations could not be avoided, the new system went far enough
and worked far enough to make advance inevitable. “This was
its essential justification. It started a constitutional clock which
would not stop. The present Indian Government is the heir of
Montagu as well as of Gandhi. ”
Coupland gave his estimate of the reforms in these words: “The
Government of India Act, 1919, was by far the most important
## p. 616 (#656) ############################################
616 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
measure of Indian policy adopted by the British Parliament since
the process of constitutional development began in 1861, for it
crossed the line between legislative and executive authority. Previ-
ous measures had enabled Indians increasingly to control their
legislatures, but not their Governments. Some Indians, it is true,
had been members of those Governments but they had been offi-
cially appointed and were responsible, like their colleagues, to the
Secretary of State and Parliament. Now Indians were to govern,
so to speak, on their own. They were to take charge of great
departments of Provincial administration, not as official nominees
but as the leaders of the elected majorities in their Legislatures and
responsible only to them. Limited and checked though it might
be, this was a genuine transfer of power, and it was the appoint-
ment of these Ministers, more than anything else, that brought
home the fact that the abdication of the British Raj had actually
begun. ”
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM 1919 TO 1935
The Reforms of 1919 were considered to be utterly inadequate
by the Indians. The Indian National Congress at its annual ses-
sion held in 1919 characterised the Reforms as "inadequate, un-
satisfactory and disappointing. ” While it asked the British Govern-
ment to take early steps to establish full responsible Government in
India in accordance with the principle of self-determination, it
resolved to work the Reforms "so far as may be possible" with a
view to bring about the early establishment of responsible Govern-
ment in India. The Indians were not in an uncompromising mood
but certain events spoiled the political atmosphere in the country.
On the Report of a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice J.
Rowlatt, two Bills were introduced in the Imperial Legislature in
February 1919 and passed into law by the official majority in spite
of opposition from the people. Mahatma Gandhi appealed to the
people of India to offer Satyagraha against the oppressive laws.
Hartals were held all over the country. Disturbances took place
at various places. Martial Law was declared in the Punjab. On
the Baisakhi day (April 13, 1919), there occurred the Jallianwala
Bagh tragedy. General Dyer ordered the opening of fire on a
peaceful crowd at Amritsar. 1,650 rounds were fired and about
400 persons were killed and 1,200 wounded. The people were
subjected to great humiliations. The “crawling order” was most
resented. The people were required to pass through a street like
four-footed animals. The Punjab leaders were put in jails. At
many places in the Punjab, bombs were thrown on innocent per.
## p. 617 (#657) ############################################
DEMAND FOR CHANGE
617
sons. All this resulted in resentment against the Government.
Certain events brought the Congress and the Muslims together.
The Muslims of India protested against the harsh terms imposed
on Turkey after the First World War. Mahatma Gandhi joined
hands with the Muslims and started his non-violent Non-Coopera-
tion Movement for the redress of the Khilafat and the wrongs of
the Punjab and the establishment of Swarajya in India. The
Calcutta session of the Congress in September 1920 endorsed the
policy of Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the people to give up
their titles and honorary offices and also boycott schools, law courts,
Legislative councils and British goods. The movement was very
strong for two years. However, the events of Chauri Chaura in
U. P. where 22 policemen were burnt alive by a mob, made
Mahatma Gandhi suspend the movement. The Mahatma was
himself arrested in March 1922 and the movement collapsed.
Although the Moderates “were prepared to do everything in
their power to make the new Constitution a success," they were
themselves not satisfied with it. It was felt that the Reforms did
not go far enough. On September 23, 1921, a resolution was mov-
ed in the Central Assembly by Rai Jadunath Mazumdar Bahadur
for the establishment of autonomy in the provinces and introduc-
tion of responsibility in the Central Government. To that resolu-
tion, an amendment was moved by Mr. Jamnadas Dwarkadas in
which he asked the Governor-General-in-Council “to appoint a
Committee consisting of officials and non-officials, including mem-
bers of Indian Legislatures, to consider the best way of bringing
about provincial autonomy in all the Governors' Provinces and of
introducing responsibility in the Central Government and to make
recommendations. ” Sir William Vincent, the Home Member, sug-
gested the following formula which was adopted by the Assembly:
"That this Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in
Council that he should convey to the Secretary of State for India
the views of this Assembly that the progress made by India on the
path of responsible Government warrants a re-examination and
a
revision of the Constitution at an earlier date than 1929. "
The Government of India submitted a Report of its debates to
the Secretary of State for India for necessary action. The latter
was of the opinion that the possibilities of the new Constitution had
not been exhausted. He maintained that progress was possible
under the existing Constitution. The merits and capabilities of the
electorate had not been tested by time and experience. The new
constitutional machinery had still to be tested in its working as a
whole. The reply of the Secretary of State was followed by a reso-
lution moved in the Assembly by Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar in
a
## p. 618 (#658) ############################################
618 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
February 1923 expressing extreme dissatisfaction with it. Another
resolution was moved by Dr. Hari Singh Gour in July 1923 which
recommended to the Governor-General to move the Secretary of
State for India to carry out his suggestions with regard to further
reforms possible under the Constitution.
At this stage, the Swarajists appeared on the scene. So far, the
Indian National Congress had followed a policy of non-co-opera-
tion. However, certain of its leaders led by Sarvashri C. R. Dass
and Motilal Nehru turned to a new method of embarrassing the
Government. That method was ‘of wrecking legislatures from
within. " The members of the Swarajist party took the pledge of
"uniform, continuous and sustained obstruction with a view to
making the Government through the Assembly and the Council
impossible” and they had great success in the elections.
In the newly elected Assembly, Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar
moved a resolution recommending to the Governor-General-in
Council that he be pleased to take, at a very early date, the neces-
sary steps (including, if necessary, appointment of a Royal Com-
mission) for revising the Government of India Act so as to secure
for India full Self-Governing Dominion Status within the British
Empire and provincial autonomy in the provinces. The Govern-
ment opposed the resolution but proposed to make a serious attempt
to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the
scheme in practice, to
the causes and to examine the
necessary remedies. Neither the original resolution nor the propo-
sal of the Government was acceptable to the Swarajist Party and
consequently Pt. Motilal Nehru, leader of the Swarajist Party,
moved the following amendment and the same was carried :-
"This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in-Council
to take steps to have the Government of India Act revised with a
view to establish full responsible Government in India and for the
said purpose
“(a) to summon at an early date a representative Round Table
Conference to recommend with due regard to the protec-
tion of the rights and interests of important minorities
the scheme of a Constitution for India; and
“(b) after dissolving the Central Legislature to place the said
scheme for approval before a newly elected Indian Legis-
lature for its approval and submit the same to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. "
assess
MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
Although the Government of India did not accept the resolution
## p. 619 (#659) ############################################
MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
619
>
of the Central Assembly, it set up a Committee under the chair-
manship of Sir Alexander Muddiman
“(1) to enquire into the difficulties arising from or defects in-
herent in the working of the Government of India Act and
the Rules thereunder in regard to the Central Govern-
ment and the Governments of Governors provinces; and
(2) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of securing
remedies for such difficulties or defects, consistent with
the structure, policy and purpose of the Act;
(a) by action taken under the Act and the Rules, or
(b) by such amendments of the Act as appear necessary to
rectify any administrative imperfections. ”
The Muddiman Committee did not submit a unanimous Report.
The majority view was that the existing Constitution was working
in most provinces and was affording valuable political experience.
As the new Constitution had been in existence only for a short
period, it was not possible to say definitely as to whether it would
succeed ultimately or not. Detailed recommendations were made
for improving the machinery of the Government. The minority
view was that dyarchy had completely failed and could not succeed
at all in future. It was only a fundamental change of the Constitu-
tion which could improve matters. To quote, “It has been urged
than an advance could be made by action under S. 19A of the Act
and without any radical amendment of the Act itself. With all
respect to those who maintain this view, we entirely differ from it.
In the first place, it is obvious that under S. 19A, the Secretary of
State can only ‘regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of
superintendence, direction and control vested in him. In the
second place, such a regulation and restriction of powers must be
with a view to give effect to the purposes of the Government of
India Act. These purposes are defined in the Preamble and we
think that even if the Secretary of State felt so disposed, he could
not, by the mere exercise of his powers under this section, abolish
dyarchy. In the third place, reading the second and third parts
of S. 19A with the first part, it seems to us that the relaxation of
the control contemplated by S. 19A can only be with regard to
provincial Governments and cannot have any relation to the Cen-
tral Government. . . . . . We also think that the relaxation of con-
trol provided by this section cannot mean the same thing as divest-
ment. ”
In September 1925, the Report of the Muddiman Committee
was discussed in the Central Assembly. The Government of India
proposed to accept the principle underlying the majority report and
proceeded with the consideration of its recommendations. Shri
## p. 620 (#660) ############################################
620 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Motilal Nehru moved the following amendment which was carried
in the Assembly in spite of opposition from the Government: “That
immediate steps should be taken to move His Majesty's Govern-
ment to make a declaration in the Parliament embodying such
fundamental changes in the Constitution of India as would make
Government fully responsible; and that Round Table Conference
or Convention of representatives of all interests should be held to
frame a detailed scheme which should be placed before the Legisla-
tive Assembly for approval and afterwards submitted to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. ”
THE SIMON COMMISSION
In November 1927 was appointed the Simon Commission.
Different views have been expressed as to why the Statutory Com-
mission was appointed earlier than ten years as stipulated in the
Government of India Act, 1919. One view is that the British
Government was forced to appoint the Commission earlier on
account of the agitation carried on in India. However, the real
reason seems to have been different. In December 1925, Lord
Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India in the Conservative Minis-
try, referred to the possibility of accelerating the Commission. The
whole object of Lord Birkenhead and the Conservative Government
was not to leave the Commission to be appointed by the Labour
Government which, it was felt, would almost certainly come to
power at the next general elections. Another object was to use the
appointment of the Commission as a bargaining counter and to
disintegrate the Swarajist Party.
The Commission consisted of 7 members and was presided over
by Sir John Simon. All of its members were Englishmen. The
Commission was boycotted by the Indians on the ground that it
had no Indian member. The Commission was boycotted not only
by the Congress and other representative organisations but also by
other distinguished leaders of India. Resolutions were passed con-
demning the composition of the Commission. To quote, “We have
come to a deliberate conclusion that the exclusion of the Indians
from the Commission is fundamentally wrong. The underlying
principle of the scheme that Indians are to have no authoritative
voice either in the collection of proper material and evidence or in
taking of decisions by way of recommendations of the Commission
to Parliament is of such a character that India cannot, without any
self-respect, acquiesce in it. Unless a commission on which British
and Indian statesmen are invited to sit on equal terms is set up, we
cannot conscientiously take any part or share in the work of the
## p. 621 (#661) ############################################
THE NEHRU REPORT
621
Commission as at present constituted. ” The excuse put forward
for not appointing any Indian on the Commission was that the
intention of the framers of the Government of India Act, 1919 was
to confine the Commission to members of Parliament. However,
the Act did not lay down any such restriction. But even if the
British Government wanted to restrict the nomination to members
of the British Parliament, there were two Indian members at that
time. Lord Sinha was a member of the House of Lords and Mr.
Shapurji Saklatwala was in the House of Commons. Lord Sinha
had been closely associated with the various stages of constitutional
reforms in India. His presence on the Commission would have been
very valuable. The real reason seems to be that the Conservative
Government did not want any Indian to be on the Commission.
The Simon Commission was appointed "for the purpose of in-
quiring into the working of the system of Government, the growth
of education and development of representative institutions in
British India and matters connected therewith and reporting as
to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the prin-
ciple of responsible government or to extend, modify or restrict the
degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the
question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local
legislatures is or is not desirable. ” As the enquiry was coming to
a close, the members of the Commission “were increasingly impress-
ed by the impossibility of considering the constitutional problems
of British India without taking into account the relations between
British India and the Indian States. " With the approval of the
British Government, the Commission also considered the relations
between British India and the Indian states.
The day on which the Commission landed in India, there was a
Hartal all over the country. Wherever the members of the Com-
mission went, they were greeted with black flags and cries of "Simon
go back. ” The Central Assembly was invited to set up a committee
to cooperate with the Commission but it refused to do so. A large
number of persons were arrested and prosecuted. However, the
prosecutions did not damp the enthusiasm of the people against the
Commission.
THE NEHRU REPORT
The Indians had condemned the appointment of the all-White
Simon Commission and Lord Birkenhead, while justifying the ex-
clusion of Indians from the Commission, challenged the latter to
produce an agreed constitution and submit the same to the British
Parliament for consideration. The challenge was accepted by the
## p. 622 (#662) ############################################
622 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Indians and an All-Parties Conference was held in Bombay on May
19, 1928, under the Presidentship of Dr. M. A. Ansari. The Con-
ference appointed a Committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as
Chairman to consider and determine the principles of a constitu-
tion for India. The terms of the resolution appointing the Com-
mittee were in these words: “This Committee shall give the fullest
consideration to the resolution of the Madras Congress on com-
munal unity in conjunction with those passed by the Hindu
Mahasabha, the Muslim League, the Sikh League and other political
organisations represented at the All Parties Conference at Delhi
and the suggestions that may hereafter be received by it; the Com-
mittee will give due weight to the recommendations made by the
various Sub-Committees of the All Parties Conference at Delhi. ”
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Ali Imam, Shri M. S. Aney, Sardar
Mangal Singh, Shri Shuaib Qureshi, Shri G. R. Pradhan and Shri
Subhash Chandra Bose were its members. The Committee pro-
duced a report which has gone down in history as the Nehru Report.
The recommendations of the Report were unanimous except in
regard to the basis of the constitution. While the majority favour-
ed Dominion Status not only as a distant goal but as "the next
immediate step,” it gave liberty of action to all those groups and
parties which made complete independence their goal. Although
the report envisaged a future linking up of the Indian states with
the rest of India in a federal polity, it confined itself to British India.
It was provided in the report that all treaties made between the
East India Company and the Indian States and all such subsequent
treaties so far as they were in force, would be binding on the Com-
monwealth of India which would exercise the same right in rela-
tion to and discharge the same cbligations towards the Indian states
as the Government of India exercised and discharged previously. In
case of differences between the Commonwealth and the Indian
states on any matter arising out of treaties, engagements, Sanads or
similar other documents, the Governor-General-in-Council may,
with the consent of the state concerned, refer such matters to the
Supreme Court for its decision.
As regards the communal question, many basic recommenda-
tions were made. Joint electorates with reservation of seats for
minorities on population basis with the right to contest additional
seats were recommended. No seats were to be reserved for any
community in the Punjab and Bengal. Full protection was to be
given to the religious and cultural interests of the Muslim com-
munity. New provinces on linguistic basis were to be created with
a view to the “planning of Muslim majority provinces against Hindu
majority provinces. ”
## p. 623 (#663) ############################################
THE NEHRU REPORT
623
The Report enumerated 19 fundamental rights which were to be
embodied in the statute. It was to be declared that all powers of the
Government and all authority were derived from the people. No per-
son shall be deprived of his liberty, nor shall his dwelling or property
be entered, sequestered or confiscated, save in accordance with law.
Freedom of conscience and free profession and practice of religion
shall be guaranteed to all. The right of free expression of opinion and
the right to assemble peacefully and without arms and to form
associations or unions shall be guaranteed for purposes not opposed
to public order or morality. All citizens shall have the right to free
elementary education. All citizens shall be equal before law and
possess equal civic rights. There shall be no penal law of a discri-
minatory nature. No person shall be punished for any act which
is not punishable under the law at the time it is committed. No
corporal punishment or other punishment involving torture of any
kind shall be lawful. Every citizen shall have the right to a writ
of Habeas Corpus. There shall be no state religion for the Com-
monwealth of India or for any province nor shall any state endow
any religion or give preference to any religion. No person attend-
ing any school receiving state aid or other public money shall be
compelled to attend religious instruction that may be given in the
school. No person shall, by reason of his religion, caste or creed,
be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office
of power or honour and the exercise of any trade or calling. All
citizens shall have an equal right of access to and use of public
roads, public wells and all other places of public resort. Freedom
of combination and association for maintenance and improvement
of labour and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every
All agreements and measures tending to restrict or obstruct
such freedom shall be illegal. No breach of contract of service or
abetment shall be made a criminal offence. Parliament shall make
suitable laws for the maintenance of health and fitness for work
of all citizens, securing of a living wage for every worker, the pro-
tection of motherhood, welfare of children and the economic conse-
quences of old age, infirmity and unemployment. Every citizen
shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the
regulations made for that purpose. Men and women shall have
equal rights as citizens.
The report provided for a Parliament of two houses: the Senate
and House of Representatives. The Governor-General was to be
appointed by the British Government but paid out of the Indian
revenues. His salary was not to be altered during his continuance
in office. The Senate was to consist of 200 members elected by
the Provincial Councils. The House of Representatives was to con-
one.
## p. 624 (#664) ############################################
624 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
sist of 500 members. It was to be elected on adult franchise basis.
The life of the Senate was to be seven years and that of the House
of Representatives five years.
The Governor-General was to act on the advice of the Execu-
rive Council. The Prime Minister was to be appointed by the
Governor-General and the other ministers were to be appointed on
the advice of the Prime Minister. The Executive Government was
to be collectively responsible to Parliament. The Governor-Gene-
ral-in-Council was to appoint High Commissioners and other
foreign representatives similar to those appointed by Canada and
other Dominions. The Governor-General was also to appoint the
Auditor-General of India.
The Governors of the Provinces were to be appointed by the
King of England. They were to be paid out of the provincial reve-
nues. Provision was to be made for a Legislative Council elected
on an adult franchise basis. The Provincial Legislative Council
was to sit for 5 years but could be dissolved earlier by the Gover-
nor. The latter was also given the authority to extend its life under
special circumstances. Provision was also made for a President and
a Vice-President of the Legislative Council. The Governor was to
act on the advice of the Provincial Executive Council whose num-
ber was not to exceed 5. The Governor was to select the Chief
Minister but the other members of the Executive Council were to
be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister.
Provision was made for a Supreme Court of India which was to
consist of Lord President and other Justices. The Judges of the
Supreme Court were to be appointed by the Governor-General-in-
Council and were not liable to be removed from office except on an
address from both Houses of Parliament praying for such removal
on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity. The Supreme Court
was to have both original and appellate jurisdiction. Provision
was also made for the taking of appeals to the King-in-Council
under certain circumstances.
The Governor-General-in-Council was to appoint a Committee of
Defence consisting of the Minister of Defence, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Commander-in-Chief, Commander of Air Forces, Com-
mander of Naval Forces, Chief of the General Staff and two other
experts.
Legislatures were elected, about 30% were nominated by the Gover-
nor. Some of the nominated members were officials and the others
were non-officials. The life of the Council was fixed at 3 years,
but the same could be extended. The members were given the
right of asking questions and supplementary questions. They were
also given the power of rejecting the budget although the Gover-
nor was given the power of restoring the same.
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
Dyarchy was introduced in the provinces. The subjects given
in the Provincial List were divided into two parts, reserved and
transferred subjects. The reserved subjects were to be adminis-
iered by the Governor as before with the help of the Executive
Council. The change now made was that the transferred sub-
jects were to be dealt with by the Governor in future with the help
of his ministers. While the members of the Executive Council were
nominated by the Governor, the ministers were chosen by him from
the members of the Legislature. The reserved subjects were the
administration of justice, police, irrigation and canals, drainage
## p. 609 (#649) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
609
and embankments, water storage and water power, land revenue
administration, land improvement and agricultural loans, famine
relief, control of newspapers, books and printing presses, prisons
and reformatories, borrowing money on the credit of the province,
forests except in Bombay and Burma, factory inspection, settlement
of industrial disputes, industrial insurance and housing. The trans-
ferred subjects were local self-government including matters relat-
ing to municipal corporations and district boards, public health,
sanitation and medical administration including hospitals and
asylums and provision for medical education, education of Indians
with some exceptions, public works including roads, bridges and
municipal tramways, but excluding irrigation, agriculture and
fisheries, cooperative societies, excise, forests in Bombay anad Burma
only, development of industries including industrial research and
technical education. The Governor was not to act as a constitu-
tional head. He was given special responsibilities. He was given
the authority to over-rule his ministers and the members of the
Executive Council if that was considered necessary for the discharge
of his responsibilities. The Governor was expected to encourage
joint deliberations between the ministers and the members of the
Executive Council. Provision was made for the temporary admin-
istration of transferred subjects in case of an emergency. If no
minister was incharge of a transferred subject, the Governor him-
self assumed temporary charge of it till a minister was appointed.
The Governor-General-in-Council, with the previous sanction of
the Secretary of State in Council, could revoke or suspend the
transfer of all or any subjects in a province and in that case those
were to be administered by the Governor-in-Council.
The system of dyarchy was worked in the provinces from 1921
to 1937, but it did not work satisfactorily. The very principle of
dyarchy was faulty. Any division of administration into two parts,
each independent of the other, is opposed to political theory and
practice of Government. The state is like an organism and the two
parts cannot be separated completely. However, the actual divi-
sion of subjects was the most defective. There could not be a
worse division than the one actually attempted. Sir K. V. Reddy,
a Minister of Madras, says: “I was a minister for development with-
out forests. I was the minister for agriculture without irrigation.
As minister of agriculture, I have nothing to do with the adminis-
tration of the Madras Agriculturists' Loans Act or the Madras Land
Improvement Loans Act. . . . . . Famine relief, of course, could not
be touched by the minister for agriculture; efficacy and efficiency
of a minister for agriculture without anything to do with irriga-
tion, agricultural loans, land improvement loans and famine relief
## p. 610 (#650) ############################################
610 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
>
is better imagined than described. Then again, I was a minister
for industries without factories, boilers, electricity and water power,
mines or labour, all of which were reserved subjects. ” While edu-
cation was a transferred subject, the education of Europeans and
the Anglo-Indians was made a reserved subject. Sir C. Y.
Chintamani, a minister of U. P. , has given some examples of the
manner in which dyarchy was actually worked. In 1921, an
enquiry was started in the Department of Agriculture on the ques-
tion of the fragmentation of lands. When the report was submitted
in 1922, it was felt that the question should have been dealt with
by the Revenue Department and the case was transferred to that
Department. In 1924, it was decided that the case should be sent
to the Cooperative Department to which it related. Similar
examples could be multiplied.
There was no harmony between the two halves of the provin-
cial Government. While the ministers were the representatives of
the people, the members of the Executive Council belonged to the
bureaucracy. Ordinarily, they did not pull together. There was
constant friction. Occasionally, the ministers and the Executive
Councillors condemned each other openly in public. The result
was that the work of the administration suffered. As a rule, the
Governor backed the members of the Executive Council because
he himself belonged to the service to which they belonged.
The position of the ministers was very weak. They had to serve
two masters, viz. , the Governor and the Legislative Council. A
minister could be appointed by the Governor and dismissed at his
will. He was responsible to the Legislature for the administration
of his Department. He could be turned out by the Legislature by
a vote of no-confidence. However, from the point of view of practi-
cal politics, the ministers cared more for the Governor than for the
Legislature. There were no strong political parties in the provin-
cial legislatures on whom the ministers could rely upon for their
support. No minister had a majority in the Legislature to back
him in office. He had always to depend upon the support of the
official bloc in the Legislature. While the elected members of the
Provincial Legislature were divided into many groups on the basis
of various religions, the support of the official bloc which always
voted under instructions from the Governor, was always available
to a minister who cared for the goodwill and support of the Gover-
No wonder, the ministers always looked up to the Governor
and were dependent upon him. The Raja of Panagal openly used
to say in the Madras Legislative Council that he was responsible
only to the Governor and none else. In certain cases, the ministers
hoped to become Executive Councillors after the expiry of their
nor.
## p. 611 (#651) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
611
term of office as ministers. The result of all this was that the min-
isters sank to the position of glorified secretaries. C. Y. Chintamani
rightly says that the ministers had no power. “The power is with
the Governor and not with the ministers”. The Governor could
interfere in any matter under any minister. Kelkar says that he
was allowed to have his way in matters of policy but was constantly
over-ruled in matters of detail. To quote him, “For instance, I
could not picture myself how a Governor could support my policy
of non-interference with a Municipal Committee who wanted to
hoist national flag on the municipal office and how the same Gover-
nor could ask me to uphold an order of a Deputy Commissioner
who had suspended a Committee's resolution to the effect that its
servants should put on Khaddar dress. ”
The Governors did not care to encourage the principle of joint
responsibility among the ministers. The ministers never worked as
a team. They were always quarrelling among themselves. In the
case of the Calcutta Municipal Bill, the Nawab Sahib and Sir
Surendranath Banerjee openly canvassed against each other in the
Legislative Council. In 1928, Sir Feroz Khan Noon publicly criti-
cized and condemned the action of his Hindu colleague. It is to
be noted that the dismissal or resignation of a minister did not
affect his colleagues. The Governor dealt with every minister
individually
The position of the permanent services created many difficulties.
The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal and transfer of the
members of the All-India services were under the control of the
Secretary of State for India. Those persons continued to be under
the control of the Secretary of State for India even if they worked
in the Transferred Departments. No wonder, they did not care
for the ministers. The ministers had no power to choose their
own subordinates. Vacancies occurred in their Departments. Most
of the important jobs were reserved for the members of the All-India
services. In the case of Madras, when the post of the Surgeon-
General fell vacant, the minister concerned could not get his
nominee appointed. An I. M. S. officer was sent to fill the post.
Although the minister desired to encourage the Indian system of
medicine, the Surgeon-General did not care for his views. Even
if there were certain superfluous jobs, the minister concerned had
no power to abolish them. In the case of U. P. , a District Officer
refused to apply for appeal in an excise case as required by the
minister and he was supported by a member of the Executive Coun-
cil. As a general rule, the Governors could be expected to support
the members of the civil services against the ministers.
According to the rules of executive business, if a minister differed
## p. 612 (#652) ############################################
612 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
from the opinion of the Permanent Secretary or the Head of the
Department or the Commissioner of a Division, the matter had to
be submitted to the Governor for final orders. Both the Permanent
Secretary and the Head of the Department had direct access to the
Governor. The Secretary had a weekly interview with the Gover-
nor and he could discuss everything about his Department with the
Governor. That must have weakened the position of the ministers.
Sometimes, the Governor knew more things about a Department
than the minister who was incharge of it.
Another cause of the failure of dyarchy was the reservation of
the Finance Department in the hands of a member of the Execu-
tive Council. While all the nation-building Departments were
given to the ministers, they were given no money for the same.
The result was that the ministers had to depend upon the sweet-will
of the Finance Secretary. As a member of the Indian Civil Service,
the Finance Secretary had no sympathy with the aspirations of the
Indians as represented by the ministers. He cared more for the
needs of the Reserved Departments than for the Transferred Depart-
ments. C. Y. Chintamani says: "A Finance Member was certain-
ly more anxious to see that his Reserved Departments got all the
money they required before other Departments got what they
wanted. ” In certain cases, the Finance Department refused even
to examine any scheme on the ground that no money was likely to
be available. In the case of U. P. , the Finance Department issued
a circular to all the Heads of the Departments directing them not
to send proposals involving expenditure. When actually money
was found available, it was contended by the Finance Department
that no money could be granted as proposals had not been put up
for examination at the right time. Many a time, the reply of the
Finance Department was that the proposals were not "worth spend-
ing money on”. Even when schemes were approved, ways and
means were found to defeat them or delay them till the end of the
financial year which compelled the minister concerned to start from
the very beginning once again. C. Y. Chintamani says: "I am
prepared to state this without any exaggeration that it was the
general experience of both the ministers in the United Provinces
that they had to contend with great difficulties when they went to
the Finance Department, that pretty frequently they had to go
before the Governor, pretty frequently the Governor did not side
with them and pretty frequently they could only gain their point
in the end by placing their offices at the disposal of the Governor. "
There was another hindrance in the way of the successful work-
ing of dyarchy. It was born under an unlucky star. The political
atmosphere in the country was surcharged with suspicion and dis-
## p. 613 (#653) ############################################
DYARCHY IN THE PROVINCES
613
trust in account of the happenings in the Punjab and the attitude
of the British Government towards Turkey. The monsoons failed
in 1920 and added to the misery of the people. Slump also came
in the market. The result was that the finances of both the Cen-
tral and Provincial Governments were upset. The favourable bal-
ance of trade of India was upset. Under the Meston Award, the
Provincial Government were required to make certain annual
contributions to the Government of India. On account of the fin-
ancial crisis, the Government of India demanded full contributions
from the provincial governments which themselves were in a very
bad condition. Dyarchy could not be expected to work without
finances.
The man in the street knew that the reforms of 1919 were in
the nature of a half-way house. It was known that ihe Indians
were going to get more in the future and no wonder, they were
not in a mood to give a fair trial to what they had already got.
The situation has been beautifully put in the following words:-
“The Indian intelligentsia exhibit the mentality of a traveller
who is consumed with the desire to arrive at the end of a long and
difficult journey. Every stage, no matter how essential, is a fresh
grievance; any obstacle, no matter how inevitable, an intolerable
outrage; every advance, no matter how note-worthy, is ignored
and forgotten in comparison with the distance which has yet to be
painfully traversed. "
Regarding the working of dyarchy, Sir Harcourt Butler says:
"In India, it has almost become a term of abuse. I have heard
one man shouting to another: 'You are a dyarchy'. 'I will beat
you with a dyarchy', said one Indian boy to another and when
questioned as to what dyarchy was, replied, “a new kind of tennis
racket. ' I have been received in a Burma village by 'a dyarchy
band' braying against a Home Rule band with all the vigour of
village faction neither having the least idea of what Home Rule or
dyarchy meant. ”
Dr. Appadorai in “Dyarchy in Practice” observes: “Dyarchy
was introduced with high hopes and it must be said that, on a
theoretical analysis and if worked under ideal conditions, it is not
without merits. It is the strictly logical solution of a situation in
which it is desired to base the authority of Government in different
matters on two different sources- a situation in which a complete
transfer of responsibility is considered impossible by a ruling power.
It is thus a bridge between autocracy and responsibility. It is
educative in the sense that it gives men an opportunity to show
what they can do, as it proceeds on the basis of proved results; it
would put everybody on their mettle, . . . . . In practice, largely
## p. 614 (#654) ############################################
614 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
because, I think, the conditions it postulates are too difficult to
obtain, its achievements are much more modest. It is a trite re-
mark that where it succeeded it succeeded only because the princi-
ple of dyarchy was largely ignored. But this much may be said:
under dyarchy many persons have been brought in touch with
problems of administration, and with the difficulties of a responsible
form of government. This is a valuable asset, especially if the same
people have an opportunity of working later under a system of full
responsible government. And another good result is that the ideas
of 'transferred subjects' and 'popular control have brought about
a concentration of public interest on certain beneficial activities of
government—the nation building departments. "
The view of Prof. Palande was: “Dyarchy was never intended to
be an ideal in itself but as a stepping stone to a nobler consumma-
tion, namely, a fully self-governing India. . . . . . . Indians were
thoroughly dissatisfied with the whole project of dyarchy. The
parliamentary appearances that it suggested were tantalising. But
those who had a personal knowledge of its inner working exposed
its ridiculous contradictions and defects. The ideal manifestation
of dyarchical Government implied the complete self-effacement of
an irresponsible bureaucracy, but unfortunately that quality was
too super-human to be a normal feature of the administration. "
To quote Punniah, “Dyarchy was a unique experiment which was
tried in the nine provinces for over a period of sixteen years. Its
main object and purpose was to train the people of India in the
art of responsible self-Government. Its authors were no doubt
aware of its defects and shortcomings but thought that there was
no alternative to it under the circumstances.
It was felt by the Englishmen that dyarchy was the least conces-
sion which they could make to the intelligentsia of India. How-
ever, the view of Sir Reginald Craddock was that “It was all based
on the assumption that a tiny novitiate of electors out of the vast
masses of illiterate India, bristling with its racial feuds, its religi-
ous antagonism, its castes, its social exclusions, its bable of tongues,
its fierce communal controversies, would start functioning in res-
ponse to a system absolutely alien to them in the same way that the
experienced electors of educated England to-day respond to a sys-
tem which the people have gradually developed for themselves in
the course of many centuries. ” (The Dilemma in India, London,
1929, p. 173).
Thompson and Garratt point out that it is wrong to say that
dyarchy was a complete failure. Useful work was done in the
provinces by the Indian ministers and there was no breakdown dur-
ing the first three years. In the province of Madras, the Justice
## p. 615 (#655) ############################################
ESTIMATE OF REFORMS OF 1919
615
Party got a clear majority and was able to carry a number of
measures including the reform of temple endowments. In the
Punjab, a coalition Government of the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs
was formed under the leadership of Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and it was
able to do a lot of useful work for the agriculturists. It is also
pointed out that the process of Indianisation within the Govern-
ment proceeded quickly although not ostentatiously. The minis-
ters also grew in status and the councils in prestige. People began
to watch with curiosity the proceedings of the new Legislative
Councils.
ESTIMATE OF REFORMS OF 1919
As regards an estimate of the reforms as a whole, they marked a
great departure from the past. India moved from the consulta-
tive to the first signs of a responsible Government, from select
bureaucratic control to the first hint of mass politics. Although
there were differences between those who held the view that too
much had been given or too little had been given or that the re-
forms were a disaster or a farce, it was pointed out that the reforms
had made a beginning with the transfer of power which was com-
pleted in 1947.
Prof. Percivall Spear points out that the reforms of 1919 were
attacked on all sides. The right wing British opinion held that the
reforms undermined the British Raj in India and gave authority to
irresponsibility. The Congressmen proclaimed that the reforms
were a sham and not worth giving a trial. However, his own view
is that the reforms proved to be a solid and substantial achievement.
They were an essential milestone on the road to self-Government.
Without them, Indian political progress would have been belated,
erratic and probably revolutionary. They gave, by and large,
enough inducement to enough people to work them and enough
scope to provide experience and incentives for the future. When-
ever there were determined leaders backed by coherent parties, solid
results could be achieved.
A lot was achieved in Madras by the
Justice Party and in the Punjab, by the Unionist Party led by Sir
Fazl-i-Hussain and Chaudhuri Chottu Ram. Though tensions and
frustrations could not be avoided, the new system went far enough
and worked far enough to make advance inevitable. “This was
its essential justification. It started a constitutional clock which
would not stop. The present Indian Government is the heir of
Montagu as well as of Gandhi. ”
Coupland gave his estimate of the reforms in these words: “The
Government of India Act, 1919, was by far the most important
## p. 616 (#656) ############################################
616 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
measure of Indian policy adopted by the British Parliament since
the process of constitutional development began in 1861, for it
crossed the line between legislative and executive authority. Previ-
ous measures had enabled Indians increasingly to control their
legislatures, but not their Governments. Some Indians, it is true,
had been members of those Governments but they had been offi-
cially appointed and were responsible, like their colleagues, to the
Secretary of State and Parliament. Now Indians were to govern,
so to speak, on their own. They were to take charge of great
departments of Provincial administration, not as official nominees
but as the leaders of the elected majorities in their Legislatures and
responsible only to them. Limited and checked though it might
be, this was a genuine transfer of power, and it was the appoint-
ment of these Ministers, more than anything else, that brought
home the fact that the abdication of the British Raj had actually
begun. ”
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM 1919 TO 1935
The Reforms of 1919 were considered to be utterly inadequate
by the Indians. The Indian National Congress at its annual ses-
sion held in 1919 characterised the Reforms as "inadequate, un-
satisfactory and disappointing. ” While it asked the British Govern-
ment to take early steps to establish full responsible Government in
India in accordance with the principle of self-determination, it
resolved to work the Reforms "so far as may be possible" with a
view to bring about the early establishment of responsible Govern-
ment in India. The Indians were not in an uncompromising mood
but certain events spoiled the political atmosphere in the country.
On the Report of a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice J.
Rowlatt, two Bills were introduced in the Imperial Legislature in
February 1919 and passed into law by the official majority in spite
of opposition from the people. Mahatma Gandhi appealed to the
people of India to offer Satyagraha against the oppressive laws.
Hartals were held all over the country. Disturbances took place
at various places. Martial Law was declared in the Punjab. On
the Baisakhi day (April 13, 1919), there occurred the Jallianwala
Bagh tragedy. General Dyer ordered the opening of fire on a
peaceful crowd at Amritsar. 1,650 rounds were fired and about
400 persons were killed and 1,200 wounded. The people were
subjected to great humiliations. The “crawling order” was most
resented. The people were required to pass through a street like
four-footed animals. The Punjab leaders were put in jails. At
many places in the Punjab, bombs were thrown on innocent per.
## p. 617 (#657) ############################################
DEMAND FOR CHANGE
617
sons. All this resulted in resentment against the Government.
Certain events brought the Congress and the Muslims together.
The Muslims of India protested against the harsh terms imposed
on Turkey after the First World War. Mahatma Gandhi joined
hands with the Muslims and started his non-violent Non-Coopera-
tion Movement for the redress of the Khilafat and the wrongs of
the Punjab and the establishment of Swarajya in India. The
Calcutta session of the Congress in September 1920 endorsed the
policy of Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the people to give up
their titles and honorary offices and also boycott schools, law courts,
Legislative councils and British goods. The movement was very
strong for two years. However, the events of Chauri Chaura in
U. P. where 22 policemen were burnt alive by a mob, made
Mahatma Gandhi suspend the movement. The Mahatma was
himself arrested in March 1922 and the movement collapsed.
Although the Moderates “were prepared to do everything in
their power to make the new Constitution a success," they were
themselves not satisfied with it. It was felt that the Reforms did
not go far enough. On September 23, 1921, a resolution was mov-
ed in the Central Assembly by Rai Jadunath Mazumdar Bahadur
for the establishment of autonomy in the provinces and introduc-
tion of responsibility in the Central Government. To that resolu-
tion, an amendment was moved by Mr. Jamnadas Dwarkadas in
which he asked the Governor-General-in-Council “to appoint a
Committee consisting of officials and non-officials, including mem-
bers of Indian Legislatures, to consider the best way of bringing
about provincial autonomy in all the Governors' Provinces and of
introducing responsibility in the Central Government and to make
recommendations. ” Sir William Vincent, the Home Member, sug-
gested the following formula which was adopted by the Assembly:
"That this Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in
Council that he should convey to the Secretary of State for India
the views of this Assembly that the progress made by India on the
path of responsible Government warrants a re-examination and
a
revision of the Constitution at an earlier date than 1929. "
The Government of India submitted a Report of its debates to
the Secretary of State for India for necessary action. The latter
was of the opinion that the possibilities of the new Constitution had
not been exhausted. He maintained that progress was possible
under the existing Constitution. The merits and capabilities of the
electorate had not been tested by time and experience. The new
constitutional machinery had still to be tested in its working as a
whole. The reply of the Secretary of State was followed by a reso-
lution moved in the Assembly by Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar in
a
## p. 618 (#658) ############################################
618 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
February 1923 expressing extreme dissatisfaction with it. Another
resolution was moved by Dr. Hari Singh Gour in July 1923 which
recommended to the Governor-General to move the Secretary of
State for India to carry out his suggestions with regard to further
reforms possible under the Constitution.
At this stage, the Swarajists appeared on the scene. So far, the
Indian National Congress had followed a policy of non-co-opera-
tion. However, certain of its leaders led by Sarvashri C. R. Dass
and Motilal Nehru turned to a new method of embarrassing the
Government. That method was ‘of wrecking legislatures from
within. " The members of the Swarajist party took the pledge of
"uniform, continuous and sustained obstruction with a view to
making the Government through the Assembly and the Council
impossible” and they had great success in the elections.
In the newly elected Assembly, Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar
moved a resolution recommending to the Governor-General-in
Council that he be pleased to take, at a very early date, the neces-
sary steps (including, if necessary, appointment of a Royal Com-
mission) for revising the Government of India Act so as to secure
for India full Self-Governing Dominion Status within the British
Empire and provincial autonomy in the provinces. The Govern-
ment opposed the resolution but proposed to make a serious attempt
to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the
scheme in practice, to
the causes and to examine the
necessary remedies. Neither the original resolution nor the propo-
sal of the Government was acceptable to the Swarajist Party and
consequently Pt. Motilal Nehru, leader of the Swarajist Party,
moved the following amendment and the same was carried :-
"This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in-Council
to take steps to have the Government of India Act revised with a
view to establish full responsible Government in India and for the
said purpose
“(a) to summon at an early date a representative Round Table
Conference to recommend with due regard to the protec-
tion of the rights and interests of important minorities
the scheme of a Constitution for India; and
“(b) after dissolving the Central Legislature to place the said
scheme for approval before a newly elected Indian Legis-
lature for its approval and submit the same to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. "
assess
MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
Although the Government of India did not accept the resolution
## p. 619 (#659) ############################################
MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
619
>
of the Central Assembly, it set up a Committee under the chair-
manship of Sir Alexander Muddiman
“(1) to enquire into the difficulties arising from or defects in-
herent in the working of the Government of India Act and
the Rules thereunder in regard to the Central Govern-
ment and the Governments of Governors provinces; and
(2) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of securing
remedies for such difficulties or defects, consistent with
the structure, policy and purpose of the Act;
(a) by action taken under the Act and the Rules, or
(b) by such amendments of the Act as appear necessary to
rectify any administrative imperfections. ”
The Muddiman Committee did not submit a unanimous Report.
The majority view was that the existing Constitution was working
in most provinces and was affording valuable political experience.
As the new Constitution had been in existence only for a short
period, it was not possible to say definitely as to whether it would
succeed ultimately or not. Detailed recommendations were made
for improving the machinery of the Government. The minority
view was that dyarchy had completely failed and could not succeed
at all in future. It was only a fundamental change of the Constitu-
tion which could improve matters. To quote, “It has been urged
than an advance could be made by action under S. 19A of the Act
and without any radical amendment of the Act itself. With all
respect to those who maintain this view, we entirely differ from it.
In the first place, it is obvious that under S. 19A, the Secretary of
State can only ‘regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of
superintendence, direction and control vested in him. In the
second place, such a regulation and restriction of powers must be
with a view to give effect to the purposes of the Government of
India Act. These purposes are defined in the Preamble and we
think that even if the Secretary of State felt so disposed, he could
not, by the mere exercise of his powers under this section, abolish
dyarchy. In the third place, reading the second and third parts
of S. 19A with the first part, it seems to us that the relaxation of
the control contemplated by S. 19A can only be with regard to
provincial Governments and cannot have any relation to the Cen-
tral Government. . . . . . We also think that the relaxation of con-
trol provided by this section cannot mean the same thing as divest-
ment. ”
In September 1925, the Report of the Muddiman Committee
was discussed in the Central Assembly. The Government of India
proposed to accept the principle underlying the majority report and
proceeded with the consideration of its recommendations. Shri
## p. 620 (#660) ############################################
620 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Motilal Nehru moved the following amendment which was carried
in the Assembly in spite of opposition from the Government: “That
immediate steps should be taken to move His Majesty's Govern-
ment to make a declaration in the Parliament embodying such
fundamental changes in the Constitution of India as would make
Government fully responsible; and that Round Table Conference
or Convention of representatives of all interests should be held to
frame a detailed scheme which should be placed before the Legisla-
tive Assembly for approval and afterwards submitted to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. ”
THE SIMON COMMISSION
In November 1927 was appointed the Simon Commission.
Different views have been expressed as to why the Statutory Com-
mission was appointed earlier than ten years as stipulated in the
Government of India Act, 1919. One view is that the British
Government was forced to appoint the Commission earlier on
account of the agitation carried on in India. However, the real
reason seems to have been different. In December 1925, Lord
Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India in the Conservative Minis-
try, referred to the possibility of accelerating the Commission. The
whole object of Lord Birkenhead and the Conservative Government
was not to leave the Commission to be appointed by the Labour
Government which, it was felt, would almost certainly come to
power at the next general elections. Another object was to use the
appointment of the Commission as a bargaining counter and to
disintegrate the Swarajist Party.
The Commission consisted of 7 members and was presided over
by Sir John Simon. All of its members were Englishmen. The
Commission was boycotted by the Indians on the ground that it
had no Indian member. The Commission was boycotted not only
by the Congress and other representative organisations but also by
other distinguished leaders of India. Resolutions were passed con-
demning the composition of the Commission. To quote, “We have
come to a deliberate conclusion that the exclusion of the Indians
from the Commission is fundamentally wrong. The underlying
principle of the scheme that Indians are to have no authoritative
voice either in the collection of proper material and evidence or in
taking of decisions by way of recommendations of the Commission
to Parliament is of such a character that India cannot, without any
self-respect, acquiesce in it. Unless a commission on which British
and Indian statesmen are invited to sit on equal terms is set up, we
cannot conscientiously take any part or share in the work of the
## p. 621 (#661) ############################################
THE NEHRU REPORT
621
Commission as at present constituted. ” The excuse put forward
for not appointing any Indian on the Commission was that the
intention of the framers of the Government of India Act, 1919 was
to confine the Commission to members of Parliament. However,
the Act did not lay down any such restriction. But even if the
British Government wanted to restrict the nomination to members
of the British Parliament, there were two Indian members at that
time. Lord Sinha was a member of the House of Lords and Mr.
Shapurji Saklatwala was in the House of Commons. Lord Sinha
had been closely associated with the various stages of constitutional
reforms in India. His presence on the Commission would have been
very valuable. The real reason seems to be that the Conservative
Government did not want any Indian to be on the Commission.
The Simon Commission was appointed "for the purpose of in-
quiring into the working of the system of Government, the growth
of education and development of representative institutions in
British India and matters connected therewith and reporting as
to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the prin-
ciple of responsible government or to extend, modify or restrict the
degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the
question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local
legislatures is or is not desirable. ” As the enquiry was coming to
a close, the members of the Commission “were increasingly impress-
ed by the impossibility of considering the constitutional problems
of British India without taking into account the relations between
British India and the Indian States. " With the approval of the
British Government, the Commission also considered the relations
between British India and the Indian states.
The day on which the Commission landed in India, there was a
Hartal all over the country. Wherever the members of the Com-
mission went, they were greeted with black flags and cries of "Simon
go back. ” The Central Assembly was invited to set up a committee
to cooperate with the Commission but it refused to do so. A large
number of persons were arrested and prosecuted. However, the
prosecutions did not damp the enthusiasm of the people against the
Commission.
THE NEHRU REPORT
The Indians had condemned the appointment of the all-White
Simon Commission and Lord Birkenhead, while justifying the ex-
clusion of Indians from the Commission, challenged the latter to
produce an agreed constitution and submit the same to the British
Parliament for consideration. The challenge was accepted by the
## p. 622 (#662) ############################################
622 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Indians and an All-Parties Conference was held in Bombay on May
19, 1928, under the Presidentship of Dr. M. A. Ansari. The Con-
ference appointed a Committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as
Chairman to consider and determine the principles of a constitu-
tion for India. The terms of the resolution appointing the Com-
mittee were in these words: “This Committee shall give the fullest
consideration to the resolution of the Madras Congress on com-
munal unity in conjunction with those passed by the Hindu
Mahasabha, the Muslim League, the Sikh League and other political
organisations represented at the All Parties Conference at Delhi
and the suggestions that may hereafter be received by it; the Com-
mittee will give due weight to the recommendations made by the
various Sub-Committees of the All Parties Conference at Delhi. ”
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Ali Imam, Shri M. S. Aney, Sardar
Mangal Singh, Shri Shuaib Qureshi, Shri G. R. Pradhan and Shri
Subhash Chandra Bose were its members. The Committee pro-
duced a report which has gone down in history as the Nehru Report.
The recommendations of the Report were unanimous except in
regard to the basis of the constitution. While the majority favour-
ed Dominion Status not only as a distant goal but as "the next
immediate step,” it gave liberty of action to all those groups and
parties which made complete independence their goal. Although
the report envisaged a future linking up of the Indian states with
the rest of India in a federal polity, it confined itself to British India.
It was provided in the report that all treaties made between the
East India Company and the Indian States and all such subsequent
treaties so far as they were in force, would be binding on the Com-
monwealth of India which would exercise the same right in rela-
tion to and discharge the same cbligations towards the Indian states
as the Government of India exercised and discharged previously. In
case of differences between the Commonwealth and the Indian
states on any matter arising out of treaties, engagements, Sanads or
similar other documents, the Governor-General-in-Council may,
with the consent of the state concerned, refer such matters to the
Supreme Court for its decision.
As regards the communal question, many basic recommenda-
tions were made. Joint electorates with reservation of seats for
minorities on population basis with the right to contest additional
seats were recommended. No seats were to be reserved for any
community in the Punjab and Bengal. Full protection was to be
given to the religious and cultural interests of the Muslim com-
munity. New provinces on linguistic basis were to be created with
a view to the “planning of Muslim majority provinces against Hindu
majority provinces. ”
## p. 623 (#663) ############################################
THE NEHRU REPORT
623
The Report enumerated 19 fundamental rights which were to be
embodied in the statute. It was to be declared that all powers of the
Government and all authority were derived from the people. No per-
son shall be deprived of his liberty, nor shall his dwelling or property
be entered, sequestered or confiscated, save in accordance with law.
Freedom of conscience and free profession and practice of religion
shall be guaranteed to all. The right of free expression of opinion and
the right to assemble peacefully and without arms and to form
associations or unions shall be guaranteed for purposes not opposed
to public order or morality. All citizens shall have the right to free
elementary education. All citizens shall be equal before law and
possess equal civic rights. There shall be no penal law of a discri-
minatory nature. No person shall be punished for any act which
is not punishable under the law at the time it is committed. No
corporal punishment or other punishment involving torture of any
kind shall be lawful. Every citizen shall have the right to a writ
of Habeas Corpus. There shall be no state religion for the Com-
monwealth of India or for any province nor shall any state endow
any religion or give preference to any religion. No person attend-
ing any school receiving state aid or other public money shall be
compelled to attend religious instruction that may be given in the
school. No person shall, by reason of his religion, caste or creed,
be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office
of power or honour and the exercise of any trade or calling. All
citizens shall have an equal right of access to and use of public
roads, public wells and all other places of public resort. Freedom
of combination and association for maintenance and improvement
of labour and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every
All agreements and measures tending to restrict or obstruct
such freedom shall be illegal. No breach of contract of service or
abetment shall be made a criminal offence. Parliament shall make
suitable laws for the maintenance of health and fitness for work
of all citizens, securing of a living wage for every worker, the pro-
tection of motherhood, welfare of children and the economic conse-
quences of old age, infirmity and unemployment. Every citizen
shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the
regulations made for that purpose. Men and women shall have
equal rights as citizens.
The report provided for a Parliament of two houses: the Senate
and House of Representatives. The Governor-General was to be
appointed by the British Government but paid out of the Indian
revenues. His salary was not to be altered during his continuance
in office. The Senate was to consist of 200 members elected by
the Provincial Councils. The House of Representatives was to con-
one.
## p. 624 (#664) ############################################
624 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
sist of 500 members. It was to be elected on adult franchise basis.
The life of the Senate was to be seven years and that of the House
of Representatives five years.
The Governor-General was to act on the advice of the Execu-
rive Council. The Prime Minister was to be appointed by the
Governor-General and the other ministers were to be appointed on
the advice of the Prime Minister. The Executive Government was
to be collectively responsible to Parliament. The Governor-Gene-
ral-in-Council was to appoint High Commissioners and other
foreign representatives similar to those appointed by Canada and
other Dominions. The Governor-General was also to appoint the
Auditor-General of India.
The Governors of the Provinces were to be appointed by the
King of England. They were to be paid out of the provincial reve-
nues. Provision was to be made for a Legislative Council elected
on an adult franchise basis. The Provincial Legislative Council
was to sit for 5 years but could be dissolved earlier by the Gover-
nor. The latter was also given the authority to extend its life under
special circumstances. Provision was also made for a President and
a Vice-President of the Legislative Council. The Governor was to
act on the advice of the Provincial Executive Council whose num-
ber was not to exceed 5. The Governor was to select the Chief
Minister but the other members of the Executive Council were to
be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister.
Provision was made for a Supreme Court of India which was to
consist of Lord President and other Justices. The Judges of the
Supreme Court were to be appointed by the Governor-General-in-
Council and were not liable to be removed from office except on an
address from both Houses of Parliament praying for such removal
on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity. The Supreme Court
was to have both original and appellate jurisdiction. Provision
was also made for the taking of appeals to the King-in-Council
under certain circumstances.
The Governor-General-in-Council was to appoint a Committee of
Defence consisting of the Minister of Defence, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Commander-in-Chief, Commander of Air Forces, Com-
mander of Naval Forces, Chief of the General Staff and two other
experts.
