THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935

• The Government of India Act 1935 was originally passed in August 1935 and was the longest British Act of Parliament ever enacted by that time. The Government of Burma Act 1935 was also included in it.

Background to the Act:

• Indians had increasingly been demanding a greater role in the government of their country since the late 19th century. The Indian contribution to the British war effort during the First World War meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political establishment felt the necessity of constitutional change, resulting in the Government of India Act 1919. That Act introduced a novel system of government known as provincial “dyarchy”.
• After the release and publication of Simon Commission Report when the new Labour Government succeeded in office, it declared that the Report was not final and in order to resolve the constitutional deadlock, the matter would finally considered after consulting representatives of all the Indian communities. This would be done at a Round Table Conference in London.
• After holding three sessions of Round Table Conference in 1930, 1931 and 1932 respectively, their recommendations were embodied in a White Paper published in 1933, which was considered by a Joint Select Committee of the British Parliament chaired by Lord Linlithgow. (However, division between Congress and Muslim representatives proved to be a major factor in preventing agreement as to much of the important detail of how federation would work in practice. So, the new Conservative-dominated National Government in London decided to go ahead with drafting its own proposals “the white paper“.)
• The government also constituted a committee of 20 representatives from British India and 7 from Indian States including 5 Muslims. The committee went in session from April 1933 to December 1934 for deliberation and submitted its report to Parliament in the end of 1934. The Parliament debated the report and passed a bill in February 1935, which got royal assent on July 24th 1935, and it was enforced on April 1, 1937 with the name of Government of India Act 1935.
• Although the Government of India Act 1935 was intended to go some way towards meeting Indian demands, both the detail of the bill and the lack of Indian involvement in drafting its contents meant that the Act met with a lukewarm response at best in India, while still proving too radical for a significant element in Britain.

Provisions of the Act:

The Government of India Act 1935 contained 32 Sections 14 Parts and 10 Schedules and consisted of 2 Major Parts. The Act introduced federal systemin the centre.

Provincial Part of the Act:-Introduction of Provincial Autonomy:

• The provincial part of the Act basically followed the recommendations of the Simon Commission.
• In the provinces Diarchy was abolished. There was no Reserve Subjects and no Executive Council in the provinces. The Council of Ministers was to administer all the provincial subjects except in certain matters like law and orders etc. for which the government had special responsibilities.
• The ministers were chosen from among the elected members of the provincial legislature and were collectively responsible to it.
• The British-appointed provincial governors (who were responsible to the British Government via the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India) were to accept the recommendations of the ministers unless, in their view, they negatively affected his areas of statutory “special responsibilities” such as the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquility of a province, the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities, rights of civil servants etc.
• In the event of political breakdown, the governor, under the supervision of the Viceroy, could take over total control of the provincial government. This, in fact, allowed the governors a more untrammeled control than any British official had enjoyed in the history of the Raj. After the resignation of the congress provincial ministries in 1939, the governors did directly rule the ex-Congress provinces throughout the war.
• It was generally recognized, that the provincial part of the Act, conferred a great deal of power and patronage on provincial politicians as long as both British officials and Indian politicians played by the rules. However, the paternalistic threat of the intervention by the British governor rankled.

Federal Part of the Act:-All India Federation:

• The India Act 1935 proposed to set up All Indian Federation comprising of the British Indian Provinces and Princely States. The constituent units of the Federation were 11 Governor’s provinces, 6 Chief Commissioner’s provinces and all those states that agreed to joint it. The States were absolutely free to join or not to join the proposed Federation.
• At the time of joining the Federation the ruler of the state was to execute an Instrument of Accession in favour of the Crown. On acceptance of that Instrument, the state was become a unit of the Federation. The ruler was however authorized to extend the functions of the federal authority in respect of his state by executing another instrument in its internal affairs.
• The act proposed that federation of India could come into existence only if as many princely states were entitled to one half of the states seats in the upper house of the federal legislature.
• The terms offered to the Princes included:
  • Each Prince would select his state’s representative in the Federal Legislature. There would be no pressure for Princes to democratize their administrations or allow elections for state representatives in the Federal Legislature.
  • The Princes would enjoy heavy weightage. The Princely States represented about a quarter of the population of India and produced well under a quarter of its wealth.
• Unlike the provincial portion of the Act, the Federal portion was to go into effect only when half the States by weight agreed to federate. This never happened due to opposition from rulers of the princely states and the establishment of the Federation was indefinitely postponed after the outbreak of the Second World War. The remaining parts of the Act came into force in 1937, when the first elections under the act were also held.

Division of Federal Subjects:

• The scheme of federation and the provincial autonomy necessitated proper division of subjects between the centre and the provinces.
• The division under 1919 Act was revised and the 1935 Act contained three lists i.e. (1)Federal, (2)Provincial(3) Concurrent Legislative Lists.

Introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre:

• The India Act 1935 introduced Dyarchy at the centre. The Federal Subjects were divided into two categories, the Reserved and the Transferred.The reserved subjects were to be administered by the Governor-General on the advice of executive councilors, while transferred subjects were to be administered on the advice of the ministers.
• The Reserved included defence, ecclesiastical affairs, external affairs and administration of Tribal Areas. These were to be administered by the Governor General with the help of executive councilors not exceeding three in number.
• The rest of the subjects were Transferred ones. These were to be administered by the Governor General with the help of a Council of Ministers, the number of which was not to exceed 10.  The Governor General by his special powers and responsibilities could dominate the ministers.
• The British Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for India, through the Governor-General of India(Viceroy) , would continue to control India’s financial obligations, defence, foreign affairs and the British Indian Army and would make the key appointments to the Reserve Bank of India and Railway Board.
• The Act stipulated that no finance bill could be placed in the Central Legislature without the consent of the Governor General. The funding for the British responsibilities and foreign obligations (e.g. loan repayments, pensions), at least 80 percent of the federal expenditures, would be non-votable and be taken off the top before any claims could be considered for social or economic development programs.
• The Viceroy, under the supervision of the Secretary of State for India, was provided with overriding and certifying powers that could, theoretically, have allowed him to rule autocratically.

Protection of Minorities:

• A very significant provision was the safeguards and protective armours for the minorities. It was argued that the minorities needed protection from the dominance of the majority community. But the so-called provisions in the Act relating to safeguards were merely a trick to empower the Governor Generaland the Governors to override the ministers and the legislators.

Bicameral Legislature:

• The proposed federal legislature was bicameral body consisting of the Council of States (Upper House) and the Federal Assembly (Lower House).
• The strength of the Upper House(Council of States) was 260 out of which 104 nominated by the rulers were to represent the Indian States. 6 by the Governor General and 150 were to be elected.(Out of 260 members 156 were to represent the provinces and 104 to the native Indian states.)
• Out of the 156 which were to represent the provinces, 150 were to be elected on communal basis. Seats reserved for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, were to be filled bydirect elections and Seats reserved for Indian Christians, Anglo Indians and Europeans was to be filled by indirect method of a electoral college consisting of their representative members
• The lower House was to consist of 375 members, out of which 250 were to be the representatives of the British India and 125 of the Indian States. The members from the British India were to be indirectly elected who were composed of the members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures but were to be nominated by the rulers in case of the Indian States. Its life was 5 years unless dissolved earlier by the Governor General.
• 6 out of 11 provinces were given bicameral system of legislature. The Act not only enlarged the size of legislature, it also extended the franchise i.e. the number of voters was increased and special seats were allocated to women in legislature.
• Membership of the provincial assemblies was altered so as to include more elected Indian representatives, who were now able to form majorities and be appointed to form governments.

Establishment of a Federal Court, Federal Railway Authority and Reserve Bank:

• The India Act 1935 also provided for the establishment of a Federal Court to adjudicate inter-states disputes and matters concerning the interpretation of the constitution.
• It was however, not the final court of appeal. In certain cases the appeals could be made to the Privy Council in England.
• A federal court was established which began its functioning from October 1, 1937. The chief Justice of the federal court was Sir Maurice Gwyer. It consisted of One Chief Justice and not more than 6 Judges.
• Federal Railway Authority: The Government of India Act 1935 vested the control of the railways in federal railway authority , a new 7 member body. This authority was kept free from the control of ministers and councilors. The idea was to assure the British Stakeholders of the railways that their investment was safe
• Reserve Bank of India was established.

Communal and Separate Electorate and Reservations:

• The Act not only retained the separate electorate(of previous act of 1919) but also enlarged its scope. The Anglo-Indians and the Indo-Christians were also given separate electorate.
• Women were granted reservation in 41 seats in provincial legislatures as well as limited reservations in central legislature. But women reservation was subdivided in religious lines.
• The reservation of seats for the Depressed Classes was incorporated into the act,

Supremacy of the British Parliament:

• The supremacy of the British Parliament remained intact under the government Act of India 1935. No Indian legislature whether federal or provincial was authorized to modify or amend the constitution. The British Parliament alone was given the authority to amend it.

Burma Separation from India:

• Another important feature of the Act was that Burma was separated from India with effect from April 1937.
• Aden was also transferred from the administrative control of the Government of India to that of the colonial offices. Thus Aden became a Crown colony.

Abolition of the Indian Council of the Secretary of State:

• The Government of India Act 1935 abolished the Council of the Secretary of State for India,which was created in 1858. The Secretary of State was to have advisers on its place.
• With the introduction of the provincial autonomy the control of the Secretary of State over Transferred Subjects was greatly diminished. His control, however, remained intact over the powers of Governor General and Governors.

Reorganisation of Provinces and Creation of Two New Provinces:

• A partial reorganization of the provinces:
  • Sindh was separated from Bombay
  • Bihar and Orissa was split into separate provinces of Bihar and Orissa
• Hence, the Act provided for the creation of two new provinces of Sindh and Orissa.The new provinces together with the NWFP formed the Governor provinces making 11 in all.

Analysis of the Act:

• The basic conception of the act of 1935 was that the government of India was the government of the crown, conducted by authorities deriving functions directly from the crown, in so far as the crown did not itself retain executive functions. His conception, familiar in dominion constitutions, was absent in earlier Acts passed for India.
• The experiment of provincial autonomy under the act of 1935, definitely served some useful purposes, thus we can say that the Government of India Act 1935 marks a point of no return in the history of constitutional development in India.

No preamble: the ambiguity of British commitment to dominion status:

• While it had become uncommon for British Acts of Parliament to contain a preamble, the absence of one from the Government of India Act 1935 contrasts sharply with the 1919 Act, which set out the broad philosophy of that Act’s aims in relation to Indian political development.
• The 1919 Act’s preamble quoted, and centered on, the statement of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu (1917–1922) to the House of Commons on 20 August 1917, which had pledged: “…the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral Part of the British Empire.”
• Indian demands were by now centering on British India achieving constitutional parity with the existing Dominions such as Canada and Australia, which would have meant complete autonomy within the British Commonwealth. A significant element in British political circles doubted that Indians were capable of running their country on this basis, and saw Dominion status as something that might, perhaps, be aimed for after a long period of gradual constitutional development.
• This tension between and within Indian and British views resulted in the clumsy compromise of the 1935 Act having no preamble of its own, but keeping in place the 1919 Act’s preamble. This was seen in India as yet more mixed messages from the British, suggesting at best a lukewarm attitude towards satisfying Indian desires.

No “Bill of Rights / Fundamental Rights”:

• In contrast with most modern constitutions, but in common with Commonwealth constitutional legislation of the time, the Act does not include a “bill of rights” or “fundamental rights” within the new system that it aimed to establis as the draft outline constitution in the Nehru Report included such a bill of rights.
• However, in the case of the proposed Federation of India there was a further complication in incorporating such a set of rights, as the new entity would have included nominally sovereign (and generally autocratic) princely states.

Safeguards:

• The Act was not only extremely detailed, but it was riddled with ‘safeguards’ designed to enable the British Government to intervene whenever it saw the need in order to maintain British responsibilities and interests.
• To achieve this, in the face of a gradually increasing Indianization of the institutions of the Government of India, the Act concentrated the decision for the use and the actual administration of the safeguards in the hands of the British-appointed Viceroy and provincial governors who were subject to the control of the Secretary of State for India.

Reality of Responsible Government Under the Act – Is the Cup Half-Full or Half-Empty?

• A close reading of the Act reveals that the British Government equipped itself with the legal instruments to take back total control at any time they considered this to be desirable. However, doing so without good reason would totally sink their credibility with groups in India whose support the act was aimed at securing.
• Contrasting view of Lord Lothian, in a talk lasting forty-five minutes, came straight out with his view on the Bill: “If you look at the constitution it looks as if all the powers are vested in the Governor-General and the Governor. But is not every power here vested in the King? Everything is done in the name of the King but does the King ever interfere? Once the power passes into the hands of the legislature, the Governor or the Governor-General is never going to interfere.”

False Equivalences:

• Under the Act, British citizens resident in the UK and British companies registered in the UK must be treated on the same basis as Indian citizens and Indian registered companies unless UK law denies reciprocal treatment.
• The unfairness of this arrangement is clear when one considers the dominant position of British capital in much of the Indian modern sector and the complete dominance, maintained through unfair commercial practices (Like: Insignificance of Indian capital in Britain and the non-existence of Indian involvement in shipping to or within the UK).
• There are very detailed provisions requiring the Viceroy to intervene if, in his view, any India law or regulation is intended to, or will in fact, discriminate against UK resident British subjects, British registered companies and, particularly, British shipping interests.

British Political Needs vs. Indian Constitutional Needs – the Ongoing Dysfunction:

• From the moment of the Montagu statement of 1917, it was vital that the reform process stay ahead of the curve if the British were to hold the strategic initiative. However, imperialist sentiment, and a lack of realism, in British political circles made this impossible. Thus the grudging conditional concessions of power in the Acts of 1919 and 1935 caused more resentment and signally failed to win the Raj the backing of influential groups in India which it desperately needed.
• There is evidence that Montagu would have backed something of this sort but his cabinet colleagues would not have considered it. Considering the balance of power in the Conservative party at the time, the passing of a Bill more liberal than that which was enacted in 1935 is inconceivable.’

Relationship to a Dominion Constitution:

• In 1947, a relatively few amendments in the Act made it the functioning interim constitutions of India and Pakistan.

Objectives of the British Government:

• The federal part of the Act was designed to meet the aims of the Conservative Party. Over the very long term, the Conservative leadership expected the Act to lead to a nominally dominion status India, conservative in outlook, dominated by an alliance of Hindu princes and right-wing Hindus which would be well disposed to place itself under the guidance and protection of the United Kingdom.
• The Act aimed to:

1. Win the support of moderate nationalists since its formal aim was to lead eventually to a Dominion of India which, as defined under the Statute of Westminster 1931 virtually equalled independence;
2. Retain British control of the Indian Army, Indian finances, and India’s foreign relations for another generation;
3. Win Muslim support by conceding most of Jinnah’s Fourteen Points;
4. Ensuring that the Congress could never rule alone or gain enough seats to bring down the government This was done by over-representing the Princes, by giving every possible minority the right to separately vote for candidates belonging to their respective communities (separate electorate), and by making the executive theoretically, but not practically, removable by the legislature.
5. By giving Indian politicians a great deal of power at the provincial level, while denying them responsibility at the Centre, it was hoped that Congress, the only national party, would disintegrate into a series of provincial fiefdoms. But, the congress High Command was able to control the provincial ministries and to force their resignation in 1939. The Act showed the strength and cohesion of Congress and probably strengthened it.
6. Convince the Princes to join the Federation by giving the Princes conditions for entry never likely to be equaled. It was expected that enough would join to allow the establishment of the Federation.The Federation, as planned in the Act, was not viable and would have rapidly broken down with the British left to pick up the pieces without any viable alternative.

Why Princes did not join Federation:

• It was hoped hat the Princes would see that their best hope for a future would lie in rapidly joining and becoming a united block without which no group could hope, mathematically, to wield power. However, the princes did not join, and thus exercising the veto provided by the Act prevented the Federation from coming into existence.
• Among the reasons for the Princes staying out were the following:

1. They did not have the foresight to realize that this was their only chance for a future.
2. They were not a cohesive group and probably realized that they would never act as one.
3. Each Prince seemed consumed by the desire to gain the best deal for himself were his state to join the Federation: the most money, the most autonomy.
4. Congress had begun, and would continue, agitating for democratic reforms within the Princely States. Since the one common concern of the 600 or so Princes was their desire to continue to rule their states without interference, this was indeed a mortal threat. It was on the cards that this would lead eventually to more democratic state regimes and the election of states’ representatives in the Federal Legislature. In all likelihood, these representatives would be largely Congressmen. Had the Federation been established, the election of states’ representatives in the Federal Legislature would amount to a Congress coup from the inside. Thus, contrary to their official position that the British would look favorably on the democratization of the Princely States, their plan required that the States remain autocratic. This reflects a deep contradiction on British views of India and its future.

Indian Reaction to the Proposed Federation:

• So little was offered that all significant groups in British India rejected and denounced the proposed Federation. A major contributing factor was the continuing distrust of British intentions for which there was considerable basis in fact.
• No significant group in India accepted the Federal portion of the Act. After all, there are five aspects of every Government worth the name: (a) The right of external and internal defence and all measures for that purpose; (b) The right to control our external relations; (c) The right to control our currency and exchange; (d) The right to control our fiscal policy; (e) the day-to-day administration of the land.”
• But under the Act, external affairs, defence, currency and exchange were all under Governor General effectively. Reserve Bank Bill just passed has a further reservation in the Constitution that no legislation may be undertaken with a view to substantially alter the provisions of that Act except with the consent of the Governor-General…. there is no real power conferred in the Centre.
• However, the Liberals, and even elements in the Congress were tepidly willing to give it a go. Linlithgow asked Sapru whether he thought there was a satisfactory alternative to the scheme of the 1935 Act. Sapru replied that they should stand fast on the Act and the federal plan embodied in it.
• Birla said that It was not ideal but at this stage it was the only thing.He thought that Congress was moving towards acceptance of Federation. He said that Gandhi was not over-worried by the reservation of defence and external affairs to the centre, but was concentrating on the method of choosing the States’ representatives. Birla wanted the Viceroy to help Gandhi by persuading a number of Princes to move towards democratic election of representatives.

The Working of the Act:

• The British government sent out Lord Linlithgow as the new viceroy with the remit of bringing the Act into effect. Linlithgow was intelligent, extremely hard working, honest, serious and determined to make a success out of the Act. However, he was also unimaginative, stolid, legalistic and found it very difficult to “get on terms” with people outside his immediate circle.
• In 1937, after the holding of provincial elections, Provincial Autonomy commenced. From that point until the declaration of war in 1939, Linlithgow tirelessly tried to get enough of the Princes to accede to launch the Federation. In this he received only the weakest backing from the Home Government and in the end the Princes rejected the Federation en masse.
• In September 1939, Linlithgow simply declared that India was at war with Germany. Though Linlithgow’s behaviour was constitutionally correct it was also offensive to much of Indian opinion that the Viceroy had not consulted the elected representatives of the Indian people before taking such a momentous decision. This led directly to the resignation of the Congress provincial ministries.
• From 1939, Linlithgow concentrated on supporting the war effort.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

• In line with the government policy contained in Montagu’s statement (August 1917), the Government announced further constitutional reforms in July 1918, known as Montagu- Chelmsford or Montford Reforms.

• The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms were reforms introduced by the British Government in India to introduce self-governing institutions gradually to India. The reforms take their name from Edwin Samuel Montagu, the Secretary of State for India during the latter parts of World War I and Lord Chelmsford, Viceroy of India between 1916 and 1921.
• The reforms were outlined in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report prepared in 1918 and formed the basis of the Government of India Act 1919.
• Edwin Montagu became Secretary of State for India in June 1917 after Austen Chamberlain resigned. He put before the British Cabinet a proposed statement containing a phrase that he intended to work towards “the gradual development of free institutions in India with a view to ultimate self-government.” Lord Curzon thought that this phrase gave too great an emphasis on working towards self-government and suggested an alternative phrase that the Government would work towards “increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire.” The Cabinet approved the statement with Curzon’s phrase incorporated in place of Montagu’s original phrase.

The main features of the Montford Reforms:

(1) Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy:

(a) Executive:

1. Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head in the province.
2. Subjects were divided into two lists: “reserved” which included subjects such as law and order, finance, land revenue, irrigation, etc., and “transferred” subjects such as education, health, local government, industry, agriculture, excise, etc.
3. The “reserved” subjects were to be administered by the governor through his executive council of bureaucrats, and the “transferred” subjects were to be administered by ministers nominated from among the elected members of the legislative council.
4. The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them by the legislature, while the executive councilors were not to be responsible to the legislature.
5. In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the governor could take over the administration of “transferred” subjects also.
6. The secretary of state and the governor-general could interfere in respect of “reserved” subjects while in respect of the “transferred” subjects; the scope for their interference was restricted.

(b) Legislature:

1. Provincial Legislative Councils were further expanded—70% of the members were to be elected.
2. The system of communal and class electorates was further consolidated.
3. Women were also given the right to vote.
4. The Legislative Councils could initiate legislation but the governor’s assent was required. The governor could veto bills and issue ordinances.
5. The Legislative Councils could reject the budget but the governor could restore it, if necessary.
6. The legislators enjoyed freedom of speech.

(2) Central Government—Still Without Responsible Government:

(a) Executive:

1. The governor-general was to be the chief executive authority.
2. There were to be two lists for administration– central and provincial.
3. In the viceroy’s executive council of 8, three were to be Indians.
4. The governor-general retained full control over the “reserved” subjects in the provinces.
5. The governor-general could restore cuts in grants, certify bills rejected by the Central Legislature,summon, prorogue, dissolve the Chambers, and issue ordinances.

(b) Legislature:

1. A bicameral arrangement was introduced. The lower house or Central Legislative Assembly would consist of 144 members (41 nominated and 103 elected—52 General, 30 Muslims, 2 Sikhs, 20 Special) and the upper house or Council of State would have 60 members (26 nominated and 34 elected—20 General, 10 Muslims, 3 Europeans and 1 Sikh).
2. The Council of State had tenure of 5 years and had only male members, while the Central Legislative Assembly had tenure of 3 years.
3. The legislators could ask questions and supplementaries pass adjournment motions and vote a part of the budget, but 75% of the budget was still not votable.
4. Some Indians found their way into important committees including finance.

• The secretary of state would control affairs relating to Government of India
• In 1921 another change recommended by the report was carried out when elected local councils were set up in rural areas, and during the 1920s urban municipal corporations were made more democratic and “Indianized.

(3) Review:

• The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years.
• Sir John Simon headed the committee (Simon Commission) responsible for the review which recommended further constitutional change.
• Three round table conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests. Gandhi attended the 1931 round table after negotiations with the British Government. The major disagreement between Congress and the British was separate electorates for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award.
• A new Government of India Act 1935 was passed continuing the move towards self-government first made in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

Drawbacks:

1. Franchise was very limited.
2. At the centre, the legislature had no control over the governor-general and his executive council.
3. Division of subjects was not satisfactory at the centre.
4. Allocation of seats for Central Legislature to provinces was based on ‘importance’ of provinces for instance, Punjab’s military importance and Bombay’s commercial importance.
5. At the level of provinces, division of subjects and parallel administration of two parts i.e. Dyarchy was irrational and hence unworkable.
6. The provincial ministers had no control over finances and over the bureaucrats, leading to constant friction between the two. Ministers were often not consulted on important matters too; in fact, they could be overruled by the governor on any matter that the latter considered special.
7. On the home government (in Britain) front, the Government of India Act, 1919 made an important change the secretary of state was henceforth to be paid out of the British exchequer.
8. While, on the one hand, the Government dangled the carrot of constitutional reforms, on the other hand, it decided to arm itself with extraordinary powers to suppress any discordant voices against the reforms.In March 1919, it passed theRowlatt Act even though every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council opposed it. This Act authorised the Government to imprison any person without trial and conviction in a court of law, thus enabling the Government to suspend the right of habeas corpus which had been the foundation of civil liberties in Britain.

Reception in India:

• The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-government instead.
• The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India. The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted in the Rowlatt Acts introduced in 1919. These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members. Several members of the council including Jinnah resigned in protest. These measures were widely seen throughout India of the betrayal of strong support given by the population for the British war effort.
• Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of protest in the Punjab. An apparently unwitting example of violation of rules against the gathering of people led to the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar in April 1919. This tragedy galvanised such political leaders as Nehru and Gandhi and the masses who followed them to press for further action.Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter. The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be dismissed, leading to Dyer’s sacking. Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had not received fair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

MORLEY-MINTO REFORMS, 1909

• The Indian Councils Act 1909, commonly known as the Morley-Minto 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.The Act amended the Indian Councils Acts of 1861 and 1892

• The Morley-Minto Reforms, so named after Morley, the secretary of state, and Minto,the viceroy at that time, were preceded by two important events.
• In October 1906, a group of Muslim elites called the Shimla Deputation, led by the Agha Khan, met Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslims and representation in excess of their numerical strength in view of ‘the value of the contribution’ Muslims were making ‘to the defence of the empire’.
• The same group quickly took over the Muslim League, initially floated by Nawab Salimullah of Dacca along with Nawabs Mohsin-ul- Mulk and Waqar-ul-Mulk in December 1906. The Muslim League intended to preach loyalty to the empire and to keep the Muslim intelligentsia away from the Congress.
• John Morley, the Liberal Secretary of State for India, and the Conservative Viceroy of India, The Minto, believed that cracking down on uprising in Bengal was necessary but not sufficient for restoring stability to the British Raj after Lord Curzon’s partitioning of Bengal. They believed that a dramatic step was required to put heart into loyal elements of the Indian upper classes and the growing Westernised section of the population.

The Reforms:

1. The member of the Legislative Councils, both at the Center and in the provinces, were to be of four categories i.e. ex officio members (Governor General and the members of their Executive Councils), nominated official members (those nominated by the Governor General and were government officials), nominated non-official members (nominated by the Governor General but were not government officials) and elected members (elected by different categories of Indian people).
2. The Governor-General, with the approval of the Secretary of State for India, made regulations for how members of legislative councils were nominated or elected nominated, and their qualifications. Regulations made in accordance with the Act could not be exercised until laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that either house might object.
3. The number of elected members in the Imperial Legislative Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils was increased.
4. In the Provincial Councils, non-official majority was introduced, but since some of these non-officials were nominated and not elected, the overall non-elected majority remained.
5. In the Imperial Legislative Council, of the total 68 members, 36 were to be the officials and of the 32 non-officials, 27 to be elected and 5 were to be nominated. Of the 27 elected non-officials, 8 seats were reserved for the Muslims under separate electorates (only Muslims could vote here for the Muslim candidates), while 6 seats were reserved for the British capitalists, 2 for the landlords and 13 seats came under general electorate.
6. The elected members were to be indirectly elected. The local bodies were to elect an electoral college, which in turn would elect members of provincial legislatures, who in turn would elect members of the central legislature.
7. Besides separate electorates for the Muslims, representation in excess of the strength of their population was accorded to the Muslims. Also, the income qualification for Muslim voters was kept lower than that for Hindus.
8. Powers of legislatures (both at the centre and provinces) were enlarged and the legislatures could now pass resolutions (which may not be accepted), ask questions and supplementaries,iscuss the budgets, suggest the amendments, and even to vote on them; excluding those items that were included as non-vote items. Also they could vote separate items in the budget but the budget as a whole could not be voted upon.
9. One Indian was to be appointed to the viceroy’s executive council (Satyendra Sinhawas the first to be appointed in 1909).
10. Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs.
11. The Indian Councils Act served as the governance structure of India for a decade. It was modified by the Government of India Act 1912, to clarify the authority of the Governor of Bengal, to create a legislative council for the new province of Bihar and Orissa, to dispense with Parliamentary review of the creation of new legislative councils for provinces under a lieutenant-governor and to permit the creation of legislative councils in provinces under chief commissioners.

Evaluation:

• The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer and could afford no answer to the Indian political problem. Lord Morley made it clear that colonial self-government (as demanded by the Congress) was not suitable for India, and he was against introduction of parliamentary or responsible government in India. He said, “If it could be said that led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it.”
• The ‘constitutional’ reforms were, in fact, aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks by confusing the Moderates and at checking the growth of unity among Indians through the obnoxious instrument of separate electorates.
• The Government aimed at rallying the Moderates and the Muslims against the rising tide of nationalism. The officials and the Muslim leaders often talked of the entire community when they talked of the separate electorates, but in reality it meant the appeasement of a small section of the Muslim elite only.
• Muslims had expressed serious concern that a “first past the post” electoral system, like that of Britain, would leave them permanently subject to Hindu majority rule. The Act of 1909 stipulated, as demanded by the Muslim leadership

• 1. that Indian Muslims be allotted reserved seats in the Municipal and District Boards, in the Provincial Councils and in the Imperial Legislature;
  2. that the number of reserved seats be in excess of their relative population (25 percent of the Indian population); and,
  3. that only Muslims should vote for candidates for the Muslim seats (‘separate electorates’).

• Congress considered separate electorate to be undemocratic and hindering the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national feeling.
• Besides, system of election was too indirect and it gave the impression of infiltration of legislators through a number of sieves.
• And, while parliamentary forms were introduced, no responsibility was conceded, which sometimes led to thoughtless and irresponsible criticism of the Government. Only some members like Gokhale put to constructive use the opportunity to debate in the councils by demanding universal primary education, attacking repressive policies and drawing attention to the plight of indentured labour and Indian workers in South Africa.
• The reforms of 1909 gave to the people of the country a shadow rather than substance. The people had demanded self-government but what they were given was ‘benevolent despotism’.

The Act of 1909 was important for the following reasons:

• It effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various legislative councils in India for the first time, though previously some Indians had been appointed to legislative councils.
• The introduction of the electoral principle laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system even though this was contrary to the intent of Morley.

MORLEY-MINTO REFORMS, 1909

The Indian Council Act, 1892

The Indian Council’s Act, 1892

• The Indian Councils Act 1892 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that authorized an increase in the size of the various legislative councils in British India. Indian Councils Act 1892 was the beginning of the parliamentary System in India.
• Before this act was passed, the Indian National Congress had adopted some resolutions in its sessions in 1885 and 1889 and put its demand. One of the demand was: Reforms of the legislative council and adoption of the principle of election in place of nomination.This demand reflected the dissatisfaction of the Indian National Congress over the existing system of governance. The Indian leaders wanted admission of a considerable number of the elected members. They also wanted the creation of similar councils of North western Province and Oudh and also for Punjab
• The Indian leaders also wanted a right to discussion on budget matters.
• Viceroy Lord Dufferin set up a committee. The committee was given the responsibility to draw a plan for the enlargement of the provincial councils and enhancement of their status. The plan was drawn, but when it was referred to the Secretary of State for India, he did not agree to introduction of the Principle of election.
• Following provisions were made in the Act:

1. The Indian Councils Act 1892 gave the members right to ask questions on Budget or matters of public Interest after giving six days’ notice.But no right to ask supplementary questions.The act was 1892 can be said to be a First step towards the beginning of the parliamentary system in India, where the members are authorized to ask questions.At least, they were enabled to indulge in a criticism of the Financial Policy of the Government.
2. Additional members could be indirectly elected to the Legislative Council. For the very first time, an element of election was sought to be introduced for the first time. The universities, district board, municipalities, zamindars and chambers of commerce were empowered to recommend members to provincial councils. Thus was introduced the principle of representation.
3. India was divided into provinces for administrative convenience. Bengal, Bombay and Madras were presidencies which had more powers than the provinces.
4. The Indian Councils act 1892 increased the number of the additional(non-official) members in councils to between 10 and 16. The Council now had 6 officials, 5 nominated non-officials, 4 nominated by the provincial legislative councils of Bengal Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency and North-Western Provinces and 1 nominated by the chamber of commerce in Calcutta. The law member was made a permanent member. In case of Bombay and Madras 8-20 and In case of the Bengal 20 and In case of North Western province and Oudh 15. In 1892, the council consisted of 24 members, only five being where Indians
5. The British reorganized the Indian Army but it was dominated by the European branch of the army. In addition the maximum age for entry into the Civil Services was gradually reduced from 23 to 19. The princely states were rewarded for their supportive role for the British in 1857 revolt. Their right to adopt heirs could be respected and integrity of their territories granted against future annexation.

• Thus British made several changes with the objective of gradually involving Indians in the British administrative structure with the object of preventing any major upsurge from the nationalist front by creating a permanent group of loyalists.
• Contrary to the Congress faith in the policy of petition, prayer and protest, the Indian Councils Act did not satisfy the public demand. The congress way of demand was seen as a weakness by the British Government. This was evident from the following note by BG Tilak:“……political rights will have to be fought for. The moderates think that these can be won by persuasion. We Think that they can only be obtained by strong Pressure…”

The Indian Council Act, 1892

The Government of India Act, 1858 and The Indian Council Act, 1861

The Government of India Act, 1858

• The Revolt Of 1857 gave a severe jolt to the British administration in India and compelled it to reorganise its structure
• This act is coterminous with Queen Victoria’s declaration, 1858
• The British prime Minister, Palmerstone had introduced a Bill in 1858 in the parliament for the transfer of Government of India to The crown. However, before this bill was to be passed, Palmerstone was forced to resign on another issue.
• Later Lord Stanley introduced another bill which was originally titled as “An Act for the Better Government of India” and it was passed on August 2, 1858. This act provided that India was to be governed directly and in the name of the crown.
• Following changes were made:

1. Transferred powers from the East India Company to the Crown.The Company’s territories in India were to be vested in the Queen. India was to be governed in the Queen’s name.
2. All the property of the East India Company was transferred to the Crown. The Crown also assumed the responsibilities of the Company as they related to treaties, contracts, and so forth
3. A member of British Parliament was made secretary of state of India to exercise powers on behalf of the Crown and was responsible to the British Parliament.
4. The Crown was empowered to appoint a Governor-General and the Governors of the Presidencies.
5. Provision for the creation of an Indian Civil Service under the control of the Secretary of State.
6. The Governor General for India was provided with an Executive Council, whose decision he was empowered to override.

• The Act ushered in a new period of Indian history, bringing about the end of Company rule in India. The era of the new British Raj would last until Partition of India in August 1947, at which time all of the territory of the Raj was granted dominion status within the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India.

The Indian Council’s Act, 1861

The Indian Councils Act 1861 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

1. This act is known to have made notable changes in the composition of the Governor General’s council for executive & legislative Purposes.
2. The council of the Governor General of India performed dual functions of executive and legislature.
3. For executive functions the notable change was that Council of the Governor General was expanded and a fifth member of law (Five members: home, revenue, military, law, finance, and after 1874, 6th member of public work) was added.With the Indian Councils Act for the first time Portfolio system started (Cabinet type). Each member of the Council of the Governor General was allocated portfolio of a particular department. Lord Canning was the First to start a Portfolio system.
4. For the purpose of Legislation, the Governor General’s Council was restructured and enlarged. Now the additional new NOT less than 6 and NOT more than 12 members were now to be nominated by the Governor General and they were to hold the office for two years. Out of these, not less than half were required to be Non-Official (English or Indian). This was a beginning towards the establishment of legislative system by adding legislative non official members to the Council of the Governor General. However, the functions were limited to the legislation and it had not to do any other function except the consideration or enactment of legislative measures.
5. It was laid down that without the assent of the Governor General a bill relating to the public revenue or debt, religion, military, naval or foreign relations cannot be passed. However, any such act might be dissolved by the crown acting through the secretary of State of India.
6. The Viceroy was allowed, under the provisions of the Act, to overrule the council on affairs if he deemed it necessary – as was the case in 1879, during the tenure of Lord Lytton.
7. The Governments of Madras and Bombay were deprived of their power of legislation by Charter act of 1833. The Indian Councils Act 1861 restored the power of legislation to the governor-in-councils of Madras and Bombay in respective matters. The legislative council at Calcutta was given extensive authority to pass laws for British India as a whole, while the legislative councils at Bombay and Madras were given the power to make laws for the “Peace and good Government” of their respective presidencies.
8. The act also laid down the provision for the formation of legislative councils in other provinces.
9. The Governor General was given the power to create new provinces for legislative purposes. He also could appoint Lt. Governors for the same
10. Imperial legislative Council was merely an advisory body.

• The Secretary of State for India at the time the Act was passed, Sir Charles Wood, believed that the Act was of immense importance: “the act is a great experiment. That everything is changing in India is obvious enough, and that the old autocratic government cannot stand unmodified is indisputable.
• However from India’s point of view the act did little to improve the influence of Indians in the legislative council. The role of council was limited to advice. No financial discussion could take place.

The Government of India Act, 1858 and The Indian Council Act, 1861

Viceroy’s Executive Council and The Imperial Legislative Council

(A)Viceroy’s Executive Council

• The Viceroy’s Executive Council was the cabinet of the government of British India headed by the Viceroy of India. It was transformed from an advisory council into a cabinet run by the portfolio system by the Indian Councils Act 1861.
• The Government of India Act 1858 transferred the power of the East India Company to the British Crown which was empowered to appoint a Viceroy and Governor-General of India to head the government in India. The advisory council of the Governor-General was based in the capital Calcutta and consisted of four members, three of which were appointed by the Secretary of State for India and one by the Sovereign.
• The Indian Councils Act 1861 transformed the Viceroy of India’s executive council into a cabinet run on the portfolio system. Three members were to be appointed by the Secretary of State for India, and two by the Sovereign. The five ordinary members took charge of a separate department: home, revenue, military, “law and finance”. The military Commander-in-Chief sat in with the council as an extraordinary member. The Viceroy was allowed, under the provisions of the Act, to overrule the council on affairs if he deemed it necessary. In 1869, the power to appoint all five members was passed to the Crown and in 1874, a new member was added to be in charge of public works.
• The Indian Councils Act 1909 empowered the Governor General to nominate one Indian member to the Executive Council leading to the appointment of Satyendra Prasanno Sinha as the first Indian member. The Government of India Act 1919 increased the number of Indians in the council to three.

Main Indians in the Council (1909-1946):

• Law Members: Satyendra Prasanno Sinha (1909–1914), P. S. Sivaswami Iyer (1912–1917), Syed Ali Imam, Muhammad Shafi (1924–1928), Tej Bahadur Sapru (1920–1923)Bepin Behary Ghose (1933)
•  Education: C. Sankaran Nair (1915–1919), Muhammad Shafi: Education (1919–1924)
• Revenue and Agriculture: B. N. Sarma (1920–1925)
• Health, Education and Lands: Muhammad Habibullah (1925–1930),Girija Shankar Bajpai (1940)
• C. P. Ramaswami Iyer: Law (1931–1932), Commerce (1932), Information (1942)
• Muhammad Zafarullah Khan (1935–1941): Commerce (–1939), Law (1939–), Railway, Industries and Labour, and War Supply

Expansion:

• On 8 August 1940, the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow made a proposal called the August Offer which expanded the Executive Council to include more Indians.

Interim Government:

• As per the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Executive Council was expanded to consist of only Indian members except the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief. This formed the Interim Government of India.

(B)The Imperial Legislative Council

• The Imperial Legislative Council  was a legislature for British India from 1861 to 1947. It succeeded the Council of the Governor-General of India, and was succeeded by the Constituent Assembly of India and pakistan.

Predecessor:

• The Regulating Act of 1773 limited the influence of the Governor-General of India and established the Council of Four, elected by theEast India Company’s Court of Directors. Pitt’s India Act of 1784 reduced the membership to three, and also established the India Board.
• During the rule of the East India Company, the council of the Governor-General of India had both executive and legislative responsibilities. The council had four members of the Council elected by the Court of Directors. The first three members were permitted to participate on all occasions, but the fourth member was only allowed to sit and vote when legislation was being debated. Council elected by the Court of Directors.
• In 1858, the British Crown took over the administration from the East India Company. The council was transformed into the Imperial Legislative Council, and the Court of Directors of the Company which had the power to elect members of the Governor-General’s Council ceased to have this power. Instead, the one member who had a vote only on legislative questions came to be appointed by the Sovereign, and the other three members by the Secretary of State for India.

1861-1892:

• The Indian Councils Act 1861 made several changes to the Council’s composition. The council was now called the Governor-General’s Legislative Council or the Imperial Legislative Council.
• Three members were to be appointed by the Secretary of State for India, and two by the Sovereign. (The power to appoint all five members passed to the Crown in 1869.)
• The Governor-General was empowered to appoint an additional six to twelve members. The five individuals appointed by the Indian Secretary or Sovereign headed the executive departments, while those appointed by the Governor-General debated and voted on legislation.
• There were 45 Indians nominated as additional non-official members from 1862 to 1892. Out of these 25 were zamindars and 7 were rulers of princely states. The others were lawyers, magistrates, journalists and merchants. The participation of the Indian members in the council meetings was negligible.
• First three Indian members were: Raja Sir Deo Narayan Singh of Benaras (Jan 1862-1866), Narendra Singh, Maharaja of Patiala (Jan 1862-1864), Dinkar Rao (Jan 1862-1864).

1892-1909:

• The Indian Councils Act 1892 increased the number of legislative members with a minimum of ten and maximum of sixteen members. The Council now had 6 officials, 5 nominated non-officials, 4 nominated by the provincial legislative councils of Bengal Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Madras Presidency and North-Western Provinces and 1 nominated by the chamber of commerce in Calcutta.
• The members were allowed to ask questions in the Council but not allowed to ask supplementaries or discuss the answer. They were however empowered to discuss the annual financial statement under certain restrictions but could not vote on it.
• Some important Indian members in this period were: Pherozeshah Mehta, Bombay (1893-1901),Aga Khan III, nominated (1903)Syed Hussain Bilgrami (1902-1908)Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bombay (1903-1909).

1909-1920:

• The Indian Councils Act 1909 increased the number of members of the Legislative Council to 60, of whom 27 were to be elected.
• It effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various legislative councils in India for the first time. Previously some Indians had been appointed to legislative councils.There were six Muslim representatives, the first time that such representation had been given to a religious group.The composition of the Council was as follows:
  • Ex-officio members from the Viceroy’s Executive Council (9)
  • Nominated officials (28)
  • Nominated non-officials (5): Indian commercial community (1), Punjab Muslims (1), Punjab Landholders (1), Others (2)
  • Elected from provincial legislatures (27)

1920-1947:

• Under the Government of India Act 1919, the Imperial Legislative Council was converted into a bicameral legislature with the Imperial Legislative Assembly (also known as the Central Legislative Assembly) as the lower house of a bicameral legislature and the Council of State as the upper house, reviewing legislation passed by the Assembly.
• The Governor-General nonetheless retained significant power over legislation. He could authorise the expenditure of money without the Legislature’s consent for “ecclesiastical, political and defence” purposes, and for any purpose during “emergencies”. He was permitted to veto, or even stop debate on, any bill. If he recommended the passage of a bill, but only one chamber co-operated, he could declare the bill passed over the objections of the other chamber. The Legislature had no authority over foreign affairs and defence. The President of the Council of State was appointed by the Governor-General; the Central Legislative Assembly elected its own President, apart from the first, but the election required the Governor-General’s approval.
• Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the Imperial Legislative Council and its houses were dissolved on 14 August 1947 and was replaced by the Constituent Assembly of India and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.

Viceroy’s Executive Council and The Imperial Legislative Council

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT (1942-1944)

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT (AUGUST KRANTI)

• After Cripps’ departure, Gandhi framed a resolution calling for British withdrawal and a non-violent non-cooperation movement against any Japanese invasion.

Resolution for Complete Independence:

• The CWC meeting at Wardha (July 14, 1942) accepted the idea of a struggle and  passed a resolution demanding complete independence from the British government. The draft proposed massive civil disobedience if the British did not accede to the demands.
• The resolution said”-The committee,therefore,resolves to sanction for the vindication of India’s inalienable right to freedom and independence,the starting of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest possible scale,so that the country might utilise all the non-violent strength it has gathered during the last 22 years of peaceful struggle…they(the people) must remember that non-violence is the basis of the movement...”
• However, it proved to be controversial within the party. A prominent Congress national leader Chakravarti Rajgopalachari quit the Congress over this decision, and so did some local and regional level organizers.
• Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were apprehensive and critical of the call, but backed it and stuck with Gandhi’s leadership until the end.Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr Anugrah Narayan Sinha openly and enthusiastically supported such a disobedience movement, as did many veteran Gandhians and socialists like Asoka Mehta and Jayaprakash Narayan.

Reasons of starting a struggle:

1. The failure of the Cripps Mission to solve the constitutional deadlock exposed Britain’s unchanged attitude on constitutional advance and made it clear that any more silence would be tantamount to accepting the British right to decide the fate of Indians without consulting them.
2. There was popular discontent because of rising prices and shortage of rice, salt, etc. and because of factors such as commandeering of boats in Bengal and Orissa. There were fears of Britain following a scorched earth policy in Assam, Bengal and Orissa against possible Japanese advance.
3. News of reverses suffered by the British in South-East Asia and an imminent British collapse enhanced popular willingness to give expression to discontent. Popular faith in the stability of British rule was so low that people were withdrawing deposits from banks and post offices.
4. The manner in which the British evacuated from South-East Asia leaving the subjects to their fate (two roads were provided—Black Road for Indian refugees and White Road exclusively for European refugees), and the rout by an Asian power shattered white prestige and exposed the racist tendencies of the rulers.
5. The leadership wanted to condition the masses for a possible Japanese invasion.

AICC Meeting—Gowaliar Tank Maidan, Bombay (August 8, 1942):

• The Congress Working Committee had adopted the ‘Quit India’ Resolution on July 14th 1942 at Wardha. The All India Congress Committee accepted this resolution with some modifications, on 8th August, 1942 in Bombay. The British were prepared to act.The very next day, on 9th August, eminent Congress leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel, Jaeaharlal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad were arrested.Most spent the rest of the war in prison and out of contact with the masses.
• The Quit India Resolution was ratified and the meeting resolved to:

1. Demand an immediate end to British rule in India.
2. Declare commitment of free India to defend itself against all types of Fascism and imperialism.
3.  Form a provisional Government of India after British withdrawal.
4. Sanction a civil disobedience movement against British rule.
5. Gandhi was named the leader of the struggle.

Gandhi’s General Instructions to Different Sections:

• These were spelt out at the Gowalia Tank meeting but not actually issued. They were directed at various sections of society:

1. Government servants: Do not resign but declare your allegiance to the Congress.
2. Soldiers: Do not leave the Army but do not fire on compatriots.
3. Students: If confident, leave studies.
4. Peasants: If Zamindars are anti-government, pay mutually agreed rent, and if Zamindars are pro-government, do not pay rent.
5. Princes: Support the masses and accept sovereignty of your people.
6. Princely states’ people: Support the ruler only if he is anti-government and declare yourselves to be a part of the Indian nation.

• Gandhi followed up with the now-famous exhortation: “Here is a mantra, a short one that I give you. You may imprint it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it. The mantra is: ‘Do or Die’. (on 7th August,1942 session).We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery.”

Spread of the Movement:

• Gandhi had carefully built the tempo through individual civil disobedience movements, organisational revamping and a consistent propaganda campaign. The Government, however, was in no mood to either negotiate with the Congress or wait for the movement to be formally launched.
• In the early hours of August 9, in a single sweep, all the top leaders of the Congress were arrested and taken to unknown destinations. Removal of established leaders left the younger and militant elements at their own initiative.
• Within few hours of the resolution and call, all the national leaders were arrested.  Since there were no leaders  outside, the movement became violent.  The people burnt the Govt. offices and violence could not be controlled by the Congress.  British Govt. moved the army and more than one lakh people were arrested.  During this period, the contact of the leaders with the masses were cut off.
• Due to the arrest of major leaders, a young and till then relatively unknown Aruna Asaf Ali presided over the AICC session on 9 August and hoisted the flag; later the Congress party was banned.
• These actions only created sympathy for the cause among the population. Despite lack of direct leadership, large protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. Not all demonstrations were peaceful, at some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut and transport and communication lines were severed.

Public on Rampage:

• The general public attacked symbols of authority, hoisting national flags forcibly on public buildings. Satyagrahis offered themselves up to arrest, bridges were blown up, railway tracks were removed and telegraph lines were cut.
• This kind of activity was most intense in eastern UP and Bihar. Students responded by going on strikes in schools and colleges, participating in processions, writing and distributing illegal news patrikas and acting as couriers for underground networks. Workers went on strike in Ahmedabad, Bombay, Jamshedpur, Ahmednagar and Poona.
• Of special importance in Saurashtra (in western Gujarat) was the role of the region’s ‘baharvatiya’ tradition (i.e. going outside the law) which abetted the sabotage activities of the movement there.
• In rural west Bengal, the Quit India Movement was fueled by peasants’ resentment against the new war taxes and the forced rice exports. There was open resistance to the point of rebellion in 1942 until the great famine of 1943 suspended the movement.

Underground Activity:

• This was undertaken by the Socialists, Forward Bloc members, Gandhi ashramites, revolutionary terrorists and local organisations in Bombay, Poona, Satara, Baroda and other parts of Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra, UP, Bihar and Delhi. Underground activity was carried out by Rammanohar Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali, Usha Sharma, Biju Patnaik, Chhotubhai Puranik, Achyut Patwardhan, Sucheta Kripalani and R.P.
• Goenka. Usha Sharma started an underground radio in Bombay. This phase of underground activity was meant to keep up popular morale by continuing to provide a line of command and guidance to distribute arms and ammunition.
• Congress Radio was a clandestine and underground radio station, which operated for about three months during the Quit India Movement and functioned from different locations from Bombay. It was organized by Usha Mehta (1920–2000), a veteran freedom fighter of India with the help of ham radio operators. Her other associates for organizing the Congress Radio included Vithalbhai Jhaveri, Chandrakant Jhaveri, and Babubhai Thakkar. The technicians and the equipment were supplied by Nanak Motawani of Chicago Radio, Mumbai. Eminent personalities like Ram Manohar Lohia, Achyutrao Patwardhan, and Purushottam Trikamdas were also associated with the Congress Radio

Parallel governments were established at many places:

1. Ballia (in August 1942 for a week)—under Chittu Pandey. He got many Congress leaders released.
2. Tamluk (Midnapore, from December 1942 to September 1944)—which undertook cyclone relief work, sanctioned grants to schools, supplied paddy from the rich to the poor, organised Bidyut Bahinis etc.
3. Satara (mid-1943 to 1945)—named “Prati Sarkar”, was organised under leaders like Y.B. Chavan, Nana Patil, etc. Village libraries and Nyayadan Mandals were organised, prohibition campaigns were carried on and ‘Gandhi marriages’ were organised.

Extent of Mass Participation and Support:

• Main storm centres of the movement were eastern UP, Bihar, Midnapore, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.
• The participation was on many levels.Active help was provided by businessmen (through donations, shelter and material help though many Indian businessmen were profiting from heavy wartime spending and did not support Quit India. ), students (acting as couriers), simple villagers (by refusing information to authority), pilots and train drivers (by delivering bombs and other material) and government officials including police (who passed on secret information to activists).
• Students, workers and peasants were the backbone of the movement while the upper classy and the bureaucracy remained largely loyal.
• Youth, especially the students of schools and colleges, remained in the forefront.(though Many students paid more attention to Subhas Chandra Bose, who was in exile and supporting the Axis)
• Women, especially school and college girls, actively participated, and included Aruna Asaf Ali, Sucheta Kripalani and Usha Mehta.
• Workers went on strikes and faced repression.
• Peasants of all strata were at the heart of the movement. Even some Zamindars participated. These peasants concentrated their offensive on symbols of authority and there was complete absence of anti-zamindar violence.
• Government officials, especially those belonging to lower levels in police and administration, participated resulting in erosion of government loyalty.Loyalty to Government suffered considerable erosion. This also showed how deep nationalism had reached.
• Muslims helped by giving shelter to underground activists. There were no communal clashes during the movement.
• Communists, despite their anti-war line, felt the irresistible pull of the movement.
• Princely states showed a low-key response.
• The only outside support came from the Americans, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressured Prime Minister Winston Churchill to give in to Indian demands.
• In this struggle, the common people displayed unpara­lleled heroism and militancy. The repression they faced was the most brutal, and the circumstances under which resistance was offered were most adverse.
• The movement established the truth that it was no longer possible to rule India without the wishes of Indians.

Opposition to Quit India:

• The Congress had little success in rallying other political forces under a single flag and program.
• Smaller parties like the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the call.
• The Communist Party of India strongly opposed the Quit India movement and supported the war effort because of the need to assist the Soviet Union, despite support for Quit India by many industrial workers. In response the British lifted the ban on the party.
• The movement had less support in the princely states, as the princes were strongly opposed and funded the opposition.
• Muslim leaders opposed Quit India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s opposition to the call led to large numbers of Muslims cooperating with the British, and enlisting in the army.TheMuslim League gained large numbers of new members. Congress members resigned from provincial legislatures, enabling the League to take control in Sindh, Bengal and Northwest Frontier.On March 23, 1943 Pakistan Day was observed.
• The nationalists had very little international support. They knew that the United States strongly supported Indian independence, in principle, and believed the U.S. was an ally. However, after Churchill threatened to resign if pushed too hard, the U.S. quietly supported him while bombarding Indians with propaganda designed to strengthen public support of the war effort. The poorly run American operation annoyed both the British and the Indians

Government Repression:

• Although martial law was not applied, the repression was severe. Agitating crowds were Lathi-charged, tear-gassed and fired upon. The number of those killed is estimated at 10,000.
• The press was muzzled. The military took over many cities; police and secret service reigned supreme. Rebellious villages were fined heavily and in many villages, mass flogging was done.

Estimate:

1. The masses were left without any guidance after arrest of all top leadership on 9th August after ratification of Quit India Movement Resolution. Gandhi’s ‘do or die’ call for the people created an upheaval in the country. This ruined the atmosphere of non- violence in the country. Unlike the other two movements, the Non-Co-Operation and the Civil Disobedience Movement that unleashed under the aegis of Mahatma Gandhi, the Quit India Movement captures the quintessence of a ‘spontaneous’ rising by the people.
2. The element of spontaneity was higher than before, although a certain degree of popular initiative had been sanctioned by the leadership itself, subject to limitations of instructions. Also, the Congress had been ideologically, politically and organisationally preparing for the struggle for a long time.
3. The great significance was that the movement placed the demand for independence on the immediate agenda of the national movement. After Quit India, there could be no retreat.

Gandhi’s fast, February 1943:

• Gandhi was imprisoned at the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. Gandhi’s wife Kasturbai Gandhi and his personal secretary Mahadev Desai died in months and Gandhi’s health was failing, despite this Gandhi went on a 21-day fast and maintained his resolve to continuous resistance
• Gandhi started a fast as an answer to an exhortation by the Government to condemn violence; the fast was directed against the violence of the state. The popular response to the news of the fast was immediate and overwhelming. Protests were organised at home and abroad through hartals, demonstrations and strikes. Three members of the viceroy’s executive council resigned.Gandhi got the better of his opponents and refused to oblige by dying.

The fast achieved the following purposes:

1. Public morale was raised
2. Anti-British feeling was heightened.
3. An opportunity was provided for political activity.
4. Government’s high-handedness was exposed.

• Although the British released Gandhi on account of his health in 1944, Gandhi kept up the resistance, demanding the release of the Congress leadership.
• By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the Congress leadership was still incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage, criticizing Gandhi and the Congress Party.

Q. Why did Gandhi supported Violent Quit India Movement?

• Gandhi shifted away from his long-standing condemnation of violence.  In 1942, a few months before the Quit India resolution was announced, “Gandhi argued that under certain conditions the use of violence would not injure the national cause, however much he might prefer a different form of service”.
• Gandhi had always argued that violence was acceptable to use in immediate self-defense such as against murderers and rapists, and by 1942, he had decided that violent resistance to British rule could also fit underneath this category, as a form of immediate and instinctual resistance against criminal acts.
• So while Gandhi still preferred and urged all those partaking in the struggle to use tactics of non-violence, he would not condemn those who took up arms.  And indeed, he arguably expected violence to break out, while almost sarcastically pushing the idea that mass struggle against exploiters would remain non-violent, as seen in this excerpt from an interview in 1942:
• Gandhi: In the villages…the peasants will stop paying taxes…their next step will be to seize the land.
• Fischer: With violence?
• Gandhi: There may be violence, but then again the landlords may cooperate.
• Fischer: You are an optimist.
• Gandhi: They might cooperate by fleeing.

QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT (1942-1944)