Impact of World War I & Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

• India’s support to British war effort: soldiers, funds
• Rising expectations of post-war political reward
• Montagu Declaration (1917): gradual development of self-governing institutions
• Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): dyarchy introduced
• Separate electorate extended, Indian ministers for “transferred subjects”

Impact of World War I and Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

Background

World War I (1914-1918) had a profound impact on India, both in terms of its contributions to the British war effort and the subsequent political developments. India’s support to the British war effort was significant, involving substantial contributions of soldiers and funds. This support was driven by the hope of political rewards and greater self-governance post-war. The Montagu Declaration of 1917 and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 were key outcomes of this period, aiming to address the political aspirations of Indians and secure their continued support.

India’s Support to British War Effort

Soldiers:

• Number of Soldiers:
  • India provided over 1.3 million soldiers to the British war effort, which was a significant contribution considering the population and resources of the time.
• Theaters of War:
  • Europe:
    • Indian troops fought in major battles such as the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Ypres.
    • They played a crucial role in the trenches and were known for their bravery and resilience.
  • Middle East:
    • Indian soldiers were deployed in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) and Palestine.
    • They participated in the capture of Baghdad and the defense of the Suez Canal.
  • Africa:
    • Indian troops fought in East Africa and Egypt, contributing to the British efforts to control the region.
• Awards and Honors:
  • Indian soldiers received numerous military honors, including:
    • 13,000 Indian Order of Merit (IOM)
    • 21 Victoria Crosses (VC)
  • These awards recognized the exceptional bravery and service of Indian soldiers.
• Casualties:
  • Over 74,000 Indian soldiers were killed or missing in action, highlighting the significant human cost of the war for India.

Funds:

• Financial Contributions:
  • India contributed significantly to the financial support of the war, including:
    • Loans and grants amounting to over £100 million.
    • This financial support was crucial for the British war effort, as it helped to fund the military operations and sustain the war economy.
• Economic Impact:
  • The war led to:
    • Increased prices of essential goods, causing inflation and economic hardship.
    • Shortages of food and other resources, leading to widespread poverty and suffering.
    • Strain on the Indian economy, as resources were diverted to support the war effort.
  • The economic burden was particularly felt by the lower and middle classes, who bore the brunt of the increased taxes and inflation.

Rising Expectations of Post-War Political Reward

• Political Aspirations:
  • The significant contributions of India to the war effort raised expectations among Indians for greater political representation and self-governance.
  • Indian leaders and the public hoped that their support would be rewarded with substantial political reforms and a move towards self-rule.
• Lobbying Efforts:
  • The Indian National Congress and other political organizations actively lobbied for these changes.
  • Delegations were sent to London to present the case for Indian self-governance, emphasizing the contributions of India to the war effort.
• Public Sentiment:
  • There was a growing sense of national pride and a desire for political autonomy among the Indian population.
  • The war had exposed the limitations of British rule and the need for greater Indian participation in governance.
  • The Indian public was increasingly vocal in demanding political reforms and an end to colonial rule.

Montagu Declaration (1917)

• Key Provisions:
  • Gradual Development:
    • The Montagu Declaration, issued by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, in August 1917, promised the gradual development of self-governing institutions in India.
    • The declaration stated that the British government was committed to the progressive realization of responsible government in India.
  • Responsible Government:
    • The declaration outlined a plan for the progressive realization of responsible government in India, which would involve increasing the participation of Indians in the administration and governance of the country.
  • Indian Participation:
    • It aimed to increase the participation of Indians in the administration and governance of the country, with a focus on gradual and incremental reforms.
• Impact:
  • The declaration was seen as a significant step towards political reform and was welcomed by Indian leaders.
  • However, it was also criticized for its vagueness and lack of a clear timeline for implementation.
  • The declaration did not specify the exact nature or extent of the reforms, leading to skepticism and disappointment among some Indian leaders.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919)

• Key Features:

Dyarchy:

• System of Dyarchy:
  • The system of dyarchy was introduced at the provincial level, dividing government functions into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ subjects.
  • This system aimed to introduce a form of dual governance, where certain areas of administration were controlled by Indian ministers, while others remained under British control.
• Reserved Subjects:
  • Law and order, finance, and other critical areas remained under the control of the Governor and his executive council.
  • These subjects were considered too sensitive or important to be transferred to Indian control.
• Transferred Subjects:
  • Local self-government, health, education, and agriculture were placed under the control of Indian ministers.
  • These subjects were deemed less critical and more suitable for Indian administration.
• Responsibility:
  • Indian ministers were responsible to the provincial legislative councils but held office at the pleasure of the Governor, limiting their power.
  • This arrangement meant that Indian ministers could be dismissed by the Governor, which undermined their authority and effectiveness.

Separate Electorates:

• Extension:
  • The system of separate electorates was extended to include other communities such as Sikhs, non-Brahmins, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans.
  • This system allowed different religious and social groups to elect their own representatives, which was intended to ensure fair representation.
• Impact:
  • The extension of separate electorates perpetuated communal divisions and hindered the development of a unified national identity.
  • It reinforced the idea of separate communities with distinct interests, which made it difficult to build a cohesive national movement.

Indian Ministers:

• Appointment:
  • Indian ministers were appointed for ‘transferred subjects’ and were responsible to the legislative councils.
  • These ministers were expected to represent the interests of their communities and work towards the betterment of the transferred subjects.
• Limitations:
  • Their authority was limited, as they had no control over civil servants in the transferred departments.
  • Civil servants, who were often British, retained significant power and could undermine the decisions of Indian ministers.

Legislative Reforms:

• Expansion:
  • The reforms expanded the size of the legislative councils and increased the number of elected members.
  • This was intended to make the legislative process more representative and inclusive.
• Central Legislative Assembly:
  • The central legislative council was renamed the Central Legislative Assembly, with a majority of elected members.
  • The assembly was given more powers, including the ability to debate and pass legislation.
• Representation:
  • The reforms aimed to increase the representation of Indians in the legislative process, but the actual impact was limited due to the continued dominance of British officials.

The Evolution of Separate Electorates and Transferred Subjects: A Critical Colonial Legacy

The concept of separate electorates—first introduced for Muslims in 1909—was significantly expanded in 1919 to include Sikhs, Europeans, Anglo-Indians, and Christians? This extension fundamentally altered India’s political landscape, creating enduring communal divisions that would shape the subcontinent’s future.

The Dual System of Governance: Understanding Dyarchy

The Government of India Act of 1919, based on the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, introduced a revolutionary system of dual governance called “dyarchy” in provincial administrations. This system divided governmental responsibilities into two distinct categories:

Reserved Subjects: These remained under direct British control through appointed executive councillors and included critical areas like:

• Justice and police functions
• Land revenue administration
• Irrigation management

Transferred Subjects: For the first time, these areas came under Indian ministerial control and included:

• Local self-government
• Education
• Public health
• Public works
• Agriculture, forests, and fisheries

This division represented the first introduction of the democratic principle into executive governance in British India, marking a significant—albeit limited—breakthrough in colonial administration.

Indian Ministers: Pioneers of Limited Self-Governance

The Act required governors to select Indian ministers from elected members of provincial legislatures. These ministers, while enjoying some authority over transferred subjects, operated within substantial constraints:

• They remained accountable to British governors who retained veto power
• Their financial powers were severely limited, with only one-third of budget items designated as “votable”
• Governors could override ministerial decisions deemed essential for administrative responsibilities

Despite these limitations, these Indian ministers represented a crucial milestone—the first Indians to exercise legitimate executive authority within the colonial framework. Their appointment signaled a partial, though highly restricted, transfer of power to Indian representatives.

The Broader System and Its Implications

The 1919 reforms extended beyond dyarchy and ministerial appointments to reshape India’s political structure through several interconnected changes:

• Bicameral Central Legislature: Created a two-house system with the Legislative Assembly (145 members) and Council of State (60 members)
• Expanded Separate Electorates: Extended communal representation beyond Muslims to include Sikhs, Europeans, and Anglo-Indians
• Restricted Franchise: Limited voting rights to those paying minimum taxes of Rs. 3,000, ensuring elite dominance
• Provincial Budget Separation: Established distinct provincial budgets separate from central finances

The system, while projected as progressive, served to fragment Indian political consciousness along communal lines while maintaining ultimate British control.

Table: Indian Contributions to World War I

Category	Details
Number of Soldiers	Over 1.3 million
Theaters of War	Europe (Somme, Ypres), Middle East (Mesopotamia, Palestine), Africa (East Africa, Egypt)
Awards and Honors	13,000 Indian Order of Merit (IOM), 21 Victoria Crosses (VC)
Casualties	Over 74,000 killed or missing in action
Financial Contributions	Loans and grants over £100 million
Economic Impact	Increased prices, shortages, poverty, strain on the Indian economy

Table: Key Features of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919)

Feature	Details
Dyarchy	Divided government functions into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ subjects; reserved subjects controlled by Governor, transferred subjects by Indian ministers
Separate Electorates	Extended to include Sikhs, non-Brahmins, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans; perpetuated communal divisions
Indian Ministers	Appointed for ‘transferred subjects’, responsible to legislative councils; limited authority over civil servants
Legislative Reforms	Expanded size of legislative councils, increased number of elected members; renamed Central Legislative Assembly with more powers

Conclusion

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 marked a significant step towards the introduction of self-governing institutions in India. However, the reforms were criticized for their limited scope and the perpetuation of communal divisions. The system of dyarchy and separate electorates did not fully address the political aspirations of Indians and were seen as a hindrance to the development of a truly representative and responsible government. Despite these limitations, the reforms laid the groundwork for further political developments and the eventual struggle for independence. The contributions of India during World War I and the subsequent political reforms highlight the complex interplay between military support and political aspirations in the context of colonial rule. The reforms, while incremental, were a crucial step in the long journey towards Indian self-governance and independence.

---

MCQ:-

Question 1:

Which of the following statements about the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms is/are correct?

• They introduced the system of dyarchy at the central level.
• They expanded the legislative councils and increased Indian participation.
• They granted universal adult franchise to all Indian citizens.

Select the correct answer using the code below:

a) 1 and 2 only

b) 2 only

c) 2 and 3 only

d) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: b) 2 only

Explanation: The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms introduced dyarchy at the provincial level, not at the central level. They did expand legislative councils and increased Indian participation. However, they did not grant universal adult franchise; voting rights were limited and based on property and education qualifications. 

Question 2:

Under the dyarchy system introduced by the Government of India Act 1919, which of the following subjects were classified as “transferred”?

a) Defence and foreign affairs

b) Law and order

c) Education and public health

d) Finance and revenue

Answer: c) Education and public health

Explanation: In the dyarchy system, subjects were divided into “reserved” and “transferred” categories. “Transferred” subjects, such as education and public health, were administered by Indian ministers responsible to the legislative councils. “Reserved” subjects, like defence and law and order, remained under the control of the British-appointed governors.

Question 3:

Which of the following statements about the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms is/are correct?

• They introduced dyarchy at the provincial level.
• They granted universal adult suffrage.
• They introduced bicameralism at the central level.

Select the correct answer using the code below:

a) 1 and 2 only

b) 1 and 3 only

c) 2 and 3 only

d) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: b) 1 and 3 only

Explanation: The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms introduced dyarchy at the provincial level and bicameralism at the central level. However, they did not grant universal adult suffrage; voting rights were limited based on property, tax, or education qualifications.

Question 4 :

Which of the following were economic consequences of World War I on India?

• Sharp increase in defence expenditure financed by war loans and increased taxes.
• Decline in Indian industries due to competition from British imports.
• Rise in prices leading to hardship for common people.
• Expansion of Indian industries due to increased demand for goods.

Select the correct answer using the code below:

a) 1, 2, and 3 only

b) 1, 3, and 4 only

c) 2 and 4 only

d) 1, 2, 3, and 4

Answer: b) 1, 3, and 4 only

Explanation: World War I led to a significant increase in defence expenditure in India, financed through war loans and higher taxes. This, combined with rising prices, caused hardship for the common people. However, Indian industries expanded during the war due to increased demand for goods, as imports from other countries declined.