The Indian Councils Act 1909 (9 Edw. 7. c. 4), commonly known as the Morley–Minto or Minto–Morley Reforms, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the involvement of Indians in the governance of British India. Named after Viceroy Lord Minto and Secretary of State John Morley, the act introduced elections to legislative councils and admitted Indians to councils of the Secretary of State for India, the viceroy, and to the executive councils of Bombay and Madras states. Muslims were granted separate electorates according to the demands of the All-India Muslim League.

Background

In 1906, Lord Minto met with the Simla Deputation.

In 1885, the Indian National Congress was founded at Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College in Bombay, gathering a small group of colonial India's educated elite. One of their main grievances was the difficulty Indians faced when trying to enter the civil service and administrative roles. Queen Victoria had promised racial equality in the selection of civil servants for the government of India in the Government of India Act 1858, but in practice Indians remained largely outside spheres of power. Examinations for the services were exclusively held in Great Britain and were open only to male applicants between the ages of 17 and 22 (this was later changed to a range of 17 to 19 in 1878). British administrators' reluctance to accept Indians into the civil service only further closed administrative positions to Indians.

In the face of growing Indian demands, the Indian Councils Act 1892 introduced several reforms to the legislative councils in British India; it expanded the number of members in the central and provincial councils, and permitted universities and other bodies in India to recommend and elect representatives. However, the government continued to approve many bills despite strong Indian opposition; additionally, it did not give members control over the budget, as they were only allowed to debate it, not vote on it. Unhappy with such minor concessions, many Indian National Congress members blamed the lack of progress on the Congress's moderate strategy and agitated for a more assertive strategy against the British.[citation needed]

After the Liberal Party's victory in the 1906 general election, liberal philosopher John Morley became the Secretary of State for India; Morley strove to implement the equality of opportunity promised in 1892, but also wished to 'rally the moderates' against a rising wave of radical nationalists and political terrorism. In May and June 1906, Morley and the moderate Congress leader Gokhale discussed the Congress's demands for reforming the Secretary of State's Council, the executive councils of the viceroy and governors, and the legislative councils. In July 1906, during a speech on the Indian Budget in the House of Commons, Morley announced that he would consider proposals on reform. This spurred leaders of the Muslim League to send the Simla Deputation to advocate for Muslim interests.

Advocation of separate Muslim electorates

On 1 October 1906 Minto received the deputation from the newly founded Muslim League, which comprised numerous Muslims from all Indian provinces except for the Northwest Frontier. The Muslim League was founded to prevent the rise of an emergence of a Hindu dominated political system, and made a number of demands to Minto. They argued that the special interests of Muslims must be maintained, and pushed for the separate election of Muslims to the provincial councils and requiring the election of a sufficient number of Muslims to the Imperial Legislative Council to avoid reducing Muslims to an insignificant minority Minto encouraged the foundation of the League as a rival organization to the Indian National Congress, and promised to the deputation that they would give consideration to Muslim demands.

Like the Muslim League, British administrators also sought to prevent the rise of an Indian majority in the legislature, and persuaded Minto of the danger of Muslim discontent to British rule and that the League's demands were representative of most Indian Muslims' wishes.

Morley expressed a desire for reconciliation between territorial representation and Muslim demands, but with the support of Herbert Risley, the Home Secretary, separate Muslim electorates were successfully implemented in the final plan. This sympathy to the Muslim League led to the false suspicion that the 1906 deputation had been invited by the viceroy, rather than simply received.

Morley–Minto Reforms

The act itself conferred some political reforms. Both central and provincial legislative councils increased in size and expanded their memberships. Local bodies would elect an electoral college, which in turn would elect the members of provincial legislatures, who in turn would elect members of the central legislature. Under the act, Muslim members were to be elected by only Muslim voters, dividing the electorate.[citation needed]

Previously, provincial councils had a majority of their members appointed by civil service officials, referred to as an "Official Majority"; this system was lifted with the act's passage. However, an official majority was retained on the Central Legislative Council.[citation needed]

The elected Indians were allowed to table resolutions, debate budgetary matters, and ask supplementary questions, which they were previously prevented from doing so.[citation needed] Nevertheless, they were not permitted to discuss foreign policy or relations with the princely states were.[citation needed] The British executive also retained an absolute veto over all legislation.

Reaction and legacy

After the passage of the act, Morley appointed two Indian members to his council Whitehall, and also persuaded the viceroy Lord Minto to appoint the first Indian member to the viceroy's Executive Council, Satyendra P. Sinha. Though the act did increase Indian participation in the legislative councils, the act did nothing to address the Indian National Congress's demands for colonial self-government.[citation needed] The introduction of separate electorates for Muslims was viewed by the Congress as an imperial attempt at control through an elective policy of divide-and-rule.

The First World War substantially changed Indian expectations for representation, with India providing substantial support for the British war effort in men, material, and money. India's sacrifice led to stronger demands, which would result in Indian Secretary Edwin Montagu announcing further constitutional reforms towards responsible government in 1917, eventually leading to the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act 1919.

The whole act was repealed by the Government of India Act 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 61).

Significance

The act, commonly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, is a landmark in the constitutional history of British India:

  • It introduced, for the first time, the elective principle in the composition of legislative councils in India — allowing Indians to vote for members of provincial and central legislative councils, albeit indirectly and on a restricted franchise based on property and education.
  • The size of the Central Legislative Council was significantly expanded from 16 to 60 members, while provincial councils in Bengal, Bombay, Madras, and the United Provinces were each increased to 50 members — substantially widening the scope of Indian participation in governance.
  • For the first time, non-official members were given a majority in the provincial legislative councils, though the official majority was retained in the Central Legislative Council.
  • The deliberative powers of legislative councils were meaningfully expanded — members could now ask supplementary questions, move resolutions on the budget, vote on separate budget items, and discuss matters of public interest — going significantly beyond the limited rights granted by the Indian Councils Act 1892.
  • Satyendra Prasad Sinha was appointed as the first Indian member of the Viceroy's Executive Council in 1909 — a historic milestone marking the first association of an Indian with the highest executive body of British India. He was appointed as Law Member.
  • Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for India in London — Sayyid Husain Bilgrami, a Muslim, and Krishna G. Gupta, a senior member of the Indian Civil Service — implementing, to a limited extent, Queen Victoria's promise of equality of opportunity.
  • The act provided for separate representation of presidency corporations, chambers of commerce, universities, and zamindars — introducing the concept of functional constituencies into Indian legislative politics for the first time.
  • The reforms were a direct response to the growing demands of the Indian National Congress and the moderate nationalist leadership, particularly Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who had personally met Secretary of State Morley in England to advocate for constitutional reforms.
  • The act set the stage for future, more expansive constitutional reforms — including the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935 — by firmly establishing the principle of Indian representation in governance.

Limitations

Despite its historic significance, the Indian Councils Act 1909 had profound and far-reaching limitations:

  • The most controversial provision of the act was the introduction of separate electorates for Muslims — under which Muslim members of legislative councils were to be elected exclusively by Muslim voters. This institutionalised communal representation in Indian politics for the first time, leading Lord Minto to be called the Father of Communal Electorate. The Indian National Congress strongly condemned this provision as a deliberate strategy of divide and rule.
  • The act made absolutely no provision for colonial self-government or responsible government — the core demand of the Indian National Congress. Lord Morley himself told the House of Lords that if the reforms led to a parliamentary system in India, he would have nothing to do with them.
  • Despite the expansion of council membership, the official majority was retained at the centre, ensuring that British officials could always outvote Indian members on critical matters.
  • The electorate was confined to a tiny minority of Indians — only those with significant property holdings or educational qualifications could vote, leaving the vast majority of the Indian population entirely disenfranchised.
  • No discussions were permitted on foreign policy or on the relations between the British government and the Indian princely states — placing crucial matters of governance entirely beyond the reach of the legislative councils.
  • The executive remained entirely unaccountable to the legislative councils — Indian members could debate and ask questions, but had no power to enforce accountability or remove executive officials.
  • The act was widely criticised by Indian nationalists as offering a shadow rather than substance of representative governance. The growing disconnect between Indian political aspirations and British constitutional concessions contributed significantly to the rise of Tilak's assertive nationalist politics and the eventual split between Moderates and Extremists at the Surat session of the Congress in 1907.
  • The communal electorate system introduced by the act deepened religious divisions in Indian society and laid the ideological groundwork for the two-nation theory — with lasting and tragic consequences for the subcontinent.

Subsequent developments

The whole act was repealed by section 130 of, and the fourth schedule to, the Government of India Act 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 61), which came into force on 1 January 1916.

See also

Notes

Sources

  • Hardy, Thomas Hardy (1972). . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09783-3.
  • Ilbert, Courtenay (1911). . Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation. 11 (2): 243–254. ISSN . JSTOR .
  • Kulke, Hermanne; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004). (PDF) (4th ed.). Routledge. Archived from (PDF) on 26 February 2015.
  • Metcalf, Barbara; Metcalf, Thomas (2006). (PDF) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Robb, Peter (2002). (1st ed.). Palgrave.
  • Robinson, Francis (1974). . Cambridge University Press.
  • Stein, Burton (1998). A History of India (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell publishers. ISBN 978-0-631-17899-6.
  • Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (23 July 2009). . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85661-4.

External links