MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Pakistan
Index
The Government of India Act of 1909--also known as the
Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of
state for
India, and Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was
viceroy)--
gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial
legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had
previously been appointed to legislative councils, but
after the
reforms some were elected to them. At the center, the
majority of
council members continued to be government-appointed
officials,
and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the
legislature. At
the provincial level, the elected members, together with
unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed
officials, but
responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not
contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the
legislation
to the British Parliament that parliamentary
self-government was
not the goal of the British government.
The granting of separate electorates and communal
representation was welcomed by Muslims but opposed by
Congress.
The Muslim League was pleased by the apparent British
intention
to support and safeguard Muslim interests in the
subcontinent.
Separate electorates remained a part of the Muslim League
platform even after the independence of Pakistan. Congress
opposition was understandable. As the majority community
in most
provinces, Hindus stood to lose from weighted minority
representation. Congress also presented itself as a
national
secular party and could not support identification of
voters with
a particular community.
The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by
step, the
elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian
legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited,
however, to a
small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members
increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official
government."
Communal electorates were later extended to other
communities and
made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward
group
identification through religion. The practice created
certain
vital questions for all concerned. The intentions of the
British
were questioned. How humanitarian was their concern for
the
minorities? Were separate electorates a manifestation of
"divide
and rule"?
For Muslims it was important both to gain a place in
all-
India politics and to retain their Muslim identity,
objectives
that required varying responses according to
circumstances, as
the example of Mohammad Ali Jinnah illustrates. Jinnah,
who was
born in 1876, studied law in England and began his career
as an
enthusiastic liberal in Congress on returning to India. In
1913
he joined the Muslim League, which had been shocked by the
1911
annulment of the partition of Bengal into cooperating with
Congress to make demands on the British. Jinnah continued
his
membership in Congress until 1919. During this dual
membership
period, he was described by a leading Congress
spokesperson as
the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity."
India's important contributions to the efforts of the
British
Empire in World War I stimulated further demands by
Indians and
further response from the British. Congress and the Muslim
League
met in joint session in December 1916. Under the
leadership of
Jinnah and Pandit Motilal Nehru (father of Jawalharlal
Nehru),
unity was preached and a proposal for constitutional
reform was
made that included the concept of separate electorates.
The
resulting Congress-Muslim League Pact (often referred to
as the
Lucknow Pact) was a sincere effort to compromise. Congress
accepted the separate electorates demanded by the Muslim
League,
and the Muslim League joined with Congress in demanding
self-government. The pact was expected to lead to
permanent and
constitutional united action.
In August 1917, the British government formally
announced a
policy of "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." Constitutional reforms were embodied in
the
Government of India Act of 1919--also known as the
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (Edwin Samuel Montagu was
Britain's
secretary of state for India; the Marquess of Chelmsford
was
viceroy). These reforms represented the maximum
concessions the
British were prepared to make at that time. The franchise
was
extended, and increased authority was given to central and
provincial legislative councils, but the viceroy remained
responsible only to London.
The changes at the provincial level were significant,
as the
provincial legislative councils contained a considerable
majority
of elected members. In a system called "dyarchy," the
nation-
building departments of government--agriculture,
education,
public works, and the like--were placed under ministers
who were
individually responsible to the legislature. The
departments that
made up the "steel frame" of British rule--finance,
revenue, and
home affairs--were retained by executive councillors who
were
often, but not always, British and who were responsible to
the
governor.
The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in
India.
The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the
press
and on movement were reenacted. 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 galvanized such political leaders as Jawaharlal
Nehru
(1889-1964) and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) and
the
masses who followed them to press for further action.
The Allies' post-World War I peace settlement with
Turkey
provided an additional stimulus to the grievances of the
Muslims,
who feared that one goal of the Allies was to end the
caliphate
of the Ottoman sultan. After the end of the Mughal Empire,
the
Ottoman caliph had become the symbol of Islamic authority
and
unity to Indian Sunni Muslims. A pan-Islamic movement,
known as
the Khilafat Movement, spread in India. It was a mass
repudiation
of Muslim loyalty to British rule and thus legitimated
Muslim
participation in the Indian nationalist movement. The
leaders of
the Khilafat Movement used Islamic symbols to unite the
diverse
but assertive Muslim community on an all-India basis and
bargain
with both Congress leaders and the British for recognition
of
minority rights and political concessions.
Muslim leaders from the Deoband and Aligarh movements
joined
Gandhi in mobilizing the masses for the 1920 and 1921
demonstrations of civil disobedience and noncooperation in
response to the massacre at Amritsar. At the same time,
Gandhi
endorsed the Khilafat Movement, thereby placing many
Hindus
behind what had been solely a Muslim demand.
Despite impressive achievements, however, the Khilafat
Movement failed. Turkey rejected the caliphate and became
a
secular state. Furthermore, the religious, mass-based
aspects of
the movement alienated such Western-oriented
constitutional
politicians as Jinnah, who resigned from Congress. Other
Muslims
also were uncomfortable with Gandhi's leadership. The
British
historian Sir Percival Spear wrote that "a mass appeal in
his
[Gandhi's] hands could not be other than a Hindu one. He
could
transcend caste but not community. The [Hindu] devices he
used
went sour in the mouths of Muslims." In the final
analysis, the
movement failed to lay a lasting foundation of Indian
unity and
served only to aggravate Hindu-Muslim differences among
masses
that were being politicized. Indeed, as India moved closer
to the
self-government implied in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms,
rivalry over what might be called the spoils of
independence
sharpened the differences between the communities. .
The political picture in India was not at all clear
when the
mandated decennial review of the Government of India Act
of 1919
became due in 1929. Prospects of further constitutional
reforms
spurred greater agitation and a frenzy of demands from
different
groups. The commission in charge of the review was headed
by Sir
John Simon, who recommended further constitutional change,
but it
was not until 1935 that a new Government of India Act was
passed.
Three consecutive roundtable conferences were held in
London in
1930, 1931, and 1932, at which a wide variety of interests
from
India were represented. The major disagreement concerned
the
continuation of separate electorates, which Gandhi and
Congress
strongly opposed. As a result, the decision was forced on
the
British government. Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald issued
his
"communal award," which continued the system of separate
electorates at both the central and the provincial level.
The principal result of the act was "provincial
autonomy."
The dyarchical system was discontinued, and all subjects
were
placed under ministers who were individually and
collectively
responsible to the former legislative councils, which were
renamed legislative assemblies. (In a few provinces,
including
Bengal, a bicameral system was established; the upper
house
continued to be called a legislative council.) Almost all
assembly members were elected, with the exception of some
special
and otherwise unrepresented groups. After the elections,
provincial chief ministers and cabinets took office,
although the
governors had limited "emergency powers." Sindh was
separated
from Bombay and became a province. The 1919 reforms had
earlier
been introduced in the North-West Frontier Province.
Balochistan,
however, retained special status; it had no legislature
and was
governed by an "agent general to the governor general." At
the
center, the act essentially provided for the establishment
of
dyarchy, but it also provided for a federal system that
included
the princes. The princes refused to join a system that
might
force them to accept decisions made by elected
politicians. Thus,
the full provisions of the 1935 act did not come into
force at
the center.
Data as of April 1994
|
|