Various Indian Councils Acts

Indian Councils Acts – Indian Councils Act, 1861

It enlarged the Governor-General’s Council for the purpose of making laws in which capacity it was known as the Imperial Legislative Council. The GovernorGeneral was to add to his Council between six and twelve members of whom at least half had to be non-officials, either Indian or English. The Imperial Legislative Council possessed no real powers and was merely an advisory body. It could not discuss any important measure, and no financial measures at all or ask questions, without the previous approval of the Government. It had no control over the budget. Thus, the Legislative Council had no control over the Executive. Moreover, no bill passed by it could become an act till it was approved by the Governor-General and the Secretary of State, who could disallow certain Acts. Thus, the only important function of the Legislative Council was to ditto official measures and give them the appearance of having been passed by a legislative body.

Though the non-official Indian members were added to the Council to represent Indian views, the Indian members of the Legislative Council were few in number, were nominated by the Governor-General and composed mainly of princes and their ministers, big zamindars and merchants, or retired senior government officials. They were thoroughly unrepresentative of the Indian public opinion. Thus, Indians had no hand in the processes of government and India remained like before, an alien despotism. The Act of 1861 also laid down that legislative councils, similar to that of the centre should be established first in Bombay, Madras and Bengal and then in other provinces. The provincial legislative councils too were mere ádvisory bodies consisting of officials and four to eight nonofficial Indians and Englishmen. They too lacked the powers of a democratic parliament. –

Indian Councils Acts – Indian Councils Act, 1892

This Act was another attempt to appease the Indians who were highly dissatisfied with the 1861 Act. The Act was also a response to the growing nationalism symbolised by the Congress, established in 1885. The Councils established by the 1861 Act were highly undemocratic and unrepresentative of Indian opinion. So Lord Dufferin, an astute statesman, then the Viceroy, was able to gauge the discontent of the nationalists and sent proposals to the British government aimed at liberalising the councils but not to establish any kind of parliamentary government in India. The Act dealt exclusively with the powers, functions and composition of the Legislative Councils in India. With regard to the Central Legislature, the Act provided that the number of ‘additional members must not be less than ten or more than sixteen, which was a very paltry addition. The Act also provided that two-fifths of the total members of the Council were to be non-officials who were to be partly nominated and partly elected. The principle of election was conceded to a limited extent. In ‘two respects, the rights of the members of the Legislatures were increased. They were entitled to express their views upon financial statements which could be made on the floor of the Legislatures but were not empowered to vote. They were also empowered to put questions within certain limits to the Government on matters of public interest after giving a six days’ notice. In regard to the Provincial Legislatures, the Act enlarged the number of ‘additional’ members. In their functions, the members of the ‘Provincial Legislatures secured the right of interpolation of the executive n. the matters of general public interest. They could also discuss the policy of the Government and ask questions that required six days’ previous notice. And their questions too could be disallowed without assigning any reason.

The significant feature of the Indian Councils Act, 1892 was the introduction of the principle of election. In addition to the officials, the Central Legislature was to have five elected non-officials, to be elected one each by the non-official members of the four Provincial Legislatures of Madras, Bombay, Bengal and the North-Western Provinces and one by the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce. In the case of the Provincial Legislatures, the bodies permitted to elect members were Municipalities, District Boards, Universities, and the Chambers of Commerce. The method of election, however, was veiled. The ‘elected’ members were officially declared as ‘nominated’. These bodies only made ‘recommendations’ to the Governor-General or the Governor of the Province. The person favoured by the majority was not described as ‘elected’, but described as recommended for nomination. The Indian Councils Act of 1892 was undoubtedly an advance on the Act of 1861 as the country’s best and eminent Indian leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Asutosh Mukherjee, Rash Behari Ghosh and Surendra Nath Banerjee found their way in the Legislatures, Their eloquence and political wisdom amply demonstrated the parliamentary capacity and patriotism of the educated Indians. The Act of 1892 failed to satisfy Indian nationalists and it was criticised at all the sessions of the Congress. Critics pointed out that the system of election in the Act was a roundabout one. The functions of the Legislative Councils were restricted as members could not ask supplementary questions. Any question could be disallowed by the Chair. The Councils did not have any substantial control over the budget. Certain classes were over-represented while others did not get any representation at all.

The Indian Councils Act, 1909

The passing of the Act was related to various developments in the freedom struggle. The dissatisfaction with the 1892 reforms, the rise of extremism and revolutionary terrorism, aided by short-sighted measures of Lord Curzon like the partition of Bengal, and the Surat split between the moderates and extremists. The reforms were so timed as to implement the British policy of ‘Divide and Rule. By these reforms, the British. wanted to placate the moderates and suppress the nationalists so as to crush the freedom struggle The British also wanted to consolidate the newfound loyalty among the Muslims by conceding to their demands. The Morley-Minto Reforms increased the number of elected members in the Imperial Legislative Council and the provincial councils. But most of the elected members were elected indirectly, by the provincial councils in the case of the Imperial Council and by municipal committees and district boards in the case of provincial councils. Some elected seats were reserved for landlords and British capitalists in India.

Moreover, the reformed councils still enjoyed no real power, being merely advisory bodies. The reforms in no way changed the undemocratic and foreign character of British rule. They were, in fact, not designed to democratise Indian administration as the real purpose of these Reforms was to confuse the Moderates, to divide the nationalist ranks, and to check the growth of unity among Indians. The Reforms also introduced the system of separate electorates under which all Muslims were grouped in separate constituencies from which Muslims alone could be elected. This was done in the name of protecting the Muslim minority thought this was a part of the policy of dividing Hindus and Muslims and thus maintaining British supremacy in India.

The system of separate electorates was based on the unscientific notion that the political and economic interests of Hindus and Muslims were separate. This system proved extremely harmful in practice. It checked the progress of India’s unification and became a potent factor in the growth of communalism in the country. Instead of removing the educational and economic backwardness of the Muslims, thereby integrating them into the mainstream Indian nationalism, the system of separate electorates perpetuated their isolation from the nationalist movement. This encouraged separatist tendencies.

Government of India Act, 1919

The passing of this package of reforms was also a part of the British policy to give concessions to placate Indian opinion but at the same time, maintain their hold on India. It was also a result of the developments in the freedom movement in India. The dissatisfaction with the Act of 1909, the distancing of the Muslims from the British due to various measures like non-recognition of the Aligarh Muslim University, annulment of the partition of Bengal in 1911 and waging a war against the Sultan of Turkey in the First World War, which led to many young radical Muslims to extend their support to the Congress. Moreover, revolutionary activities resumed during the First World War as seen by the Ghadr movement. The Congress had matured and the leaders who were nominated to the Councils themselves put forward proposals reforms and moreover it extended support to the British during the war and so some concessions had to be given.

THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE

The Secretary of State was to be paid from the British exchequer and not from Indian revenues, as was done earlier, thus removing the gross injustice.
The number of Indians in the Governor General’s Executive Council was raised from 3 to 8.
For the first time, subjects were divided into the Central List and Provincial List, the former to be administered by the Governor-General – in – Council and the latter to be administered by the Governors and elected ministers in the provinces through a scheme of Dyarchy.
The principle of election was continued but the franchise was highly restricted as less than 0.07% of the Indian population could vote for the Central Legislature.
The principle of Communal Electorates was widened to include separate electorates for Sikhs.
Though the members of Central and Provincial Legislatures were given the powers of questioning, moving resolutions and motions for adjournment, it was highly restricted and made a mockery of Parliament.