Montague-Chelmsford Reforms – Free Modern History Notes for UPSC 2025

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, introduced in 1919, marked a significant milestone in India’s journey towards self-governance within the British Empire. These reforms were a response to growing demands for political participation and representation from Indian leaders and the Indian National Congress. Lord Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the Viceroy of India, played pivotal roles in formulating these reforms, which aimed to address Indian aspirations while maintaining British control over India. The reforms introduced significant changes to the legislative and administrative structure of British India, paving the way for greater Indian involvement in governance. However, they also fell short of meeting the expectations of many Indians, fueling further demands for autonomy and ultimately contributing to the momentum of the independence movement.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were changes made by the British Government in India to gradually introduce self-governing institutions. They were named after Edwin Samuel Montagu, who was the Secretary of State for India during World War I, and Lord Chelmsford, who served as Viceroy of India. These reforms were detailed in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report of 1918 and led to the Government of India Act 1919.

Main features of the Montford Reforms

Provincial Government: Introduction of Dyarchy:

Executive:

Dyarchy introduced, dividing rule between executive councillors and popular ministers.
Governor served as the executive head, overseeing “reserved” subjects like law, finance, and “transferred” subjects like education, health.
Ministers accountable to the legislature, while executive councilors were not.
Governor could take over “transferred” subjects if constitutional machinery failed.

Legislature:

Provincial Legislative Councils expanded with 70% elected members.
Communal and class electorates further established.
Women granted the right to vote.
Councils could propose legislation, but governor’s assent needed.
Budgets could be rejected by councils, but governor could reinstate if necessary.

Central Government: Still Without Responsible Government:

Executive:

Governor-General acted as chief executive.
Separate lists for central and provincial administration.
Three Indian members in viceroy’s executive council.
Governor-General retained control over “reserved” subjects in provinces.
Powers included restoring grants, certifying bills, issuing ordinances.

Legislature:

Introduced bicameral system: Central Legislative Assembly with 144 members and Council of State with 60.
Assembly tenure was 3 years, Council of State 5 years.
Legislators had limited budget voting powers.
Secretary of state controlled Government of India affairs.

Review:

Review every 10 years suggested.
Simon Commission formed for review, recommended further changes.
Three round table conferences held in London.
Government of India Act 1935 passed, continuing move towards self-government outlined in Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

Drawbacks

The right to vote was very limited.
In the central legislature, there was no control over the governor-general and his executive council.
The division of subjects at the center was not satisfactory.
Seats in the Central Legislature were allocated to provinces based on their importance, like Punjab’s military significance and Bombay’s commercial importance.
At the provincial level, the division of subjects and the dual administration system of Dyarchy were irrational and difficult to manage.
Provincial ministers had little control over finances and bureaucrats, leading to constant conflict. They were often not consulted on important matters and could be overruled by the governor.
An important change in the Government of India Act, 1919 was that the secretary of state would now be paid from the British treasury.
While promising constitutional reforms, the government also gave itself extraordinary powers to suppress any opposition. The Rowlatt Act passed in March 1919 allowed the government to imprison people without trial, suspending the right of habeas corpus.

Impacts

The act had some big problems. First, it gave seats in government based on religion and caste, which made people more divided instead of united.
Second, the ministers chosen by the act didn’t have much say in money matters or with the government workers. This made them less effective.
Third, these ministers didn’t have much say in important decisions. Often, decisions were made without asking them. The governor, who was picked by the British, could also overrule them on any big issue.
Fourth, even though these ministers were elected, they didn’t have much real power. The governor or the British still had the final say. This meant they couldn’t really represent the wishes of the Indian people well.
Overall, these problems made the government less representative and kept the real power in the hands of the British authorities.

Despite its flaws, the Government of India Act (1919) did have some good parts. One important thing it did was set up a commission to check how well the government was working after ten years. This commission, called the Simon Commission, helped see what was going on in India and suggested more changes. Another good thing was creating the office of the High Commissioner for India in London. This office helped India talk directly to the British government about its concerns. It made it easier for India’s interests to be heard by British officials. Even though the act wasn’t perfect, these parts helped move things forward and gave a chance for more talks and improvements in the future.