MONTAGU-CHELMSFORD
REFORMS
1919
of Parliament by Command
of His Majesty
The Right Honourable Edwin S. Montagu, M.P. — Secretary of State for India
in consultation with
His Excellency the Right Honourable Lord Chelmsford, G.M.S.I., G.C.M.G. — Viceroy & Governor-General
TO THE KING’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY
We have the honour to submit this Report on the constitutional reforms required for the progressive realisation of responsible government in India. The proposals represent the maximum advance possible at the present stage of political development.
I. Historical Background
The August Declaration (20 August 1917)
Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State, declared in the House of Commons:
• 1916: Lucknow Pact (Congress + Muslim League unity)
• 1916-17: Home Rule Leagues by Tilak & Annie Besant
• 1917: Montagu visits India
II. Principal Features of the Government of India Act, 1919
Dyarchy in Provinces (Dual Government)
The most revolutionary feature. Provincial subjects were divided into two lists:
Administered by Governor + Executive Council
- Law & Order
- Finance
- Land Revenue
- Irrigation
- Police
- Press
Administered by Indian Ministers responsible to Legislature
- Education
- Public Health
- Local Self-Government
- Agriculture
- Industries
- Public Works
This system was introduced to train Indians in responsible government.
Bicameral Legislature at the Centre
60 members • Mostly nominated or indirectly elected
144 members • 104 elected
Retention & Extension of Separate Electorates
The most controversial feature. The principle introduced in 1909 was not only retained but significantly expanded.
This created the structural foundation for communal politics in India.
Property, tax, and educational qualifications were relaxed. Approximately 5-6% of the adult population became eligible to vote.
Provision was made for the establishment of a Central Public Service Commission (actually set up in 1926).
III. Why the Reforms Promoted Communal Politics
“The genesis of political alliances based on community lay in the very nature of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 1919.”
| No. | Statement | Verdict | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reforms retained and extended separate electorates | CORRECT | Extended from Muslims to Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians & Europeans. |
| 2 | Separate electorates were used to counter growing Indian nationalism | CORRECT | After Lucknow Pact (1916) and Home Rule Movement, Britain used communal electorates as divide-and-rule tool. |
| 3 | Deprived classes rallied around benefits of separate electorates | CORRECT | Weightage + reserved seats encouraged identity-based political mobilisation. |
IV. Reaction of Indian Leaders & Political Parties
Special Session (1918) & Amritsar Session (1919) rejected the reforms as “inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing”.
Welcomed the reforms but criticised the extension of separate electorates and lack of responsible government at the centre.
Gandhi called it “a post-dated cheque on a failing bank”. Tilak rejected it outright.
V. Comparison: 1909 vs 1919 vs 1935
| Feature | Morley-Minto (1909) | Montagu-Chelmsford (1919) | Government of India Act (1935) |
|---|---|---|---|
| System at Centre | Unicameral | Bicameral | Federal (proposed) |
| Provincial Government | Centralised | Dyarchy introduced | Provincial Autonomy |
| Separate Electorates | Introduced for Muslims | Extended to Sikhs, Christians etc. | Further expanded |
| Responsible Government | None | Partial (Provinces – Transferred subjects) | Full in Provinces |
| Franchise | Very limited | Expanded | Further expanded |
VI. Long-Term Impact & Significance
- First serious attempt at introducing responsible government
- Indians got experience of administration in transferred subjects
- Bicameral legislature established at centre
- Foundation for future constitutional development
- Dyarchy proved unworkable (friction between Governor & Ministers)
- Separate electorates deepened communal divide
- No responsible government at the centre
- Franchise remained extremely limited
- Viceroy retained overriding powers (Certification, Veto)
VII. Previous Year UPSC Questions
→ Introduction of dyarchy in the provinces • Bicameral legislature at the centre
→ Division of subjects into Reserved and Transferred lists
ONE-LINE REVISION
“The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919) introduced dyarchy in provinces and extended separate electorates, thereby sowing the seeds of communal politics while providing limited training in responsible government.”
महामहिम राजा के समक्ष
हम भारत में उत्तरदायी शासन की प्रगतिशील प्राप्ति के लिए आवश्यक संवैधानिक सुधारों पर यह रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने का सम्मान रखते हैं।
I. ऐतिहासिक पृष्ठभूमि
अगस्त घोषणा (20 अगस्त 1917)
• 1916: लखनऊ समझौता (कांग्रेस + मुस्लिम लीग एकता)
• 1916-17: होम रूल लीग (तिलक व एनी बेसेंट)
• 1917: मॉन्टेग्यू भारत यात्रा
II. भारत सरकार अधिनियम, 1919 की प्रमुख विशेषताएँ
प्रांतों में द्वैध शासन (Dyarchy)
प्रांतीय विषयों को दो सूचियों में बाँटा गया:
विधि-व्यवस्था, वित्त, भूमि राजस्व, सिंचाई, पुलिस
शिक्षा, सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य, स्थानीय स्वशासन, कृषि
पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों का विस्तार
1909 में मुसलमानों के लिए शुरू किया गया पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र अब सिखों, भारतीय ईसाइयों, आंग्ल-भारतीयों और यूरोपियों तक विस्तारित कर दिया गया।
III. साम्प्रदायिक राजनीति को बढ़ावा देने के कारण
“सामुदायिक आधार पर राजनीतिक गठबंधनों की उत्पत्ति मॉन्टेग्यू-चेम्सफोर्ड सुधारों 1919 की प्रकृति में ही निहित थी।”
| कथन | परिणाम | व्याख्या |
|---|---|---|
| सुधारों ने पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों को बनाए रखा और विस्तारित किया | सही | सिखों, ईसाइयों आदि तक विस्तार |
| पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र बढ़ते राष्ट्रवाद को रोकने के लिए थे | सही | लखनऊ समझौते के बाद ‘फूट डालो और राज करो’ नीति |
| वंचित वर्ग पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों के लाभ के लिए संगठित हुए | सही | वेटेज + आरक्षित सीटों ने साम्प्रदायिक लामबंदी को बढ़ावा दिया |
IV. दीर्घकालिक प्रभाव
- उत्तरदायी शासन की दिशा में पहला गंभीर प्रयास
- भारतीयों को प्रशासन का अनुभव मिला
- केंद्र में द्विसदनीय विधायिका की स्थापना
- द्वैध शासन अव्यावहारिक साबित हुआ
- पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों ने साम्प्रदायिकता को बढ़ावा दिया
- केंद्र में उत्तरदायी शासन नहीं दिया गया
“मॉन्टेग्यू-चेम्सफोर्ड सुधारों (1919) ने प्रांतों में द्वैध शासन लागू किया और पृथक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों का विस्तार किया, जिससे साम्प्रदायिक राजनीति की नींव पड़ी।”
Published by His Majesty’s Stationery Office • London, 1918
Digitally Restored & Annotated for UPSC CSE 2026
Leave a comment