While Legendary Mangal Pandey’s defiance of his commanders on March 29, 1857, is considered the first act of rebellion in this war against British East India Company Raj, the uprising actually began a month and a half later in Meerut cantonment, where soldiers had refused to accept their ammunition (cartridges for the Lee Enfield guns, supposedly greased with tallow from cow and pig fat).
Mutiny of 1857 and Rajput chieftains of Rae Bareli and Unnao :-
 |
| Though it is wrong to allege that Rao Ram baksh singh had many Cawnpore fugitives killed...Infact these fugitives took refuge in a shiv temples...Many religious things were thrown out perhaps to make more room...And they also had their shoes on ..It was enough to provoke general public...When asked to come out they open fire....Rest you can understand....They were burnt alive by villagers....No one listened entreaties of Rao sahab |
Rao Ram Baksh Singh of Dhaundia Khera was a Bais Rajput .
Rana Beni Madho Baksh of Shankarpur was a Bais Rajput.
Bhagwan Baksh Singh of Nain was Kanhpuria Rajput.
Raja Sheodarshan Singh of Atra Chandapur was Kanhpuria Rajput.
Raja Madho Singh of Amethi was Amethia Gaur Rajput.
Raja Drig Bijay Singh was a Bais Rajput Raja of Murar Mau.
Raja Jagpal Singh of Tiloi was Kanhpuria Rajput.
Rana Raghunath Singh was Bais Rajput Raja of Khajurgaon.
Babu Sarabjit Singh was Kanhpuria Rajput talluqdar of Tikari.
The soldiers were court-martialled and locked up, triggering the unrest. Their fellow soldiers broke open the prison, and the mutinous soldiers first attacked their English officers and their families, then marched towards Delhi, the ancient and symbolic seat of power in India. On May 11, they crowned the aged and reluctant Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar, as the emperor of India. They had also taken over the Red Fort from the British East India Company.
The English of Company Raj were caught by surprise, and retreated. But, they blew up their own arsenal, leaving very little for the rebels to claim. Initially, the rebels succeeded in taking over the surrounding areas. The British East India Co. forces, however, started the Siege of Delhi on July 1. They commanded a position north of the Delhi ridge and circled the city, although not entirely.
The unrest against the Company rule had spread through the land, with peasants, soldiers and nobility turning against its policies. Mutinous troops from neighbouring cantonments trickled into the city, determined to drive out the foreign rulers. However, the rebels suffered from a lack of command. Bakht Khan, their commander-in-chief, was a natural leader, but there was infighting between various factions of rebels, as was seen in the Battle of Najafgarh. While there was no lack of fighting spirit, no soldier can fight on an empty stomach; even the most hardened rebel needs to be paid. As these soldiers plundered their own compatriots, it was not long before the citizens of Delhi got tired of the rebels themselves.
Meanwhile, the British were able to establish a supply line from Punjab. The rebels tried sabotaging this line, but failed for lack of a strategic vision. With the arrival of the Punjab Moveable Column, the replenished British forces were finally able to breach the rebel lines at Kashmiri Gate on September 14. They put up their guns at Juma Masjid, killed two of the emperor’s sons and a grandson, and had Zafar tried for treason.
The siege of Awadh lasted longer. The British troops were held up in the Residency almost soon after the mutiny in Meerut. The rebels were not able to breach the walls, but they kept up a steady attack. It was only in November, after the second relief column arrived in Lucknow with Colin Campbell, that the garrison was relieved and the civilians evacuated. It would, however, take Campbell up to the next summer to declare a win over Lucknow. The resistance here was fierce. Lucknow, however, did fall.
The loss of Delhi was a symbolic blow; the loss of Awadh was a direct assault on the evolved Ganga-Jamuna tehzeeb. After this, all resistance fell one by one. There were many reasons why the uprising failed, but we are not going into that here.
What we know is that as 1857 ushered in a new era of British rule, it brought a sad end to the culture that was a marvellous confluence of Hinduism and Islam.
“Lucknow was so evolved culturally, it could have become like Paris had it not been hit,”
In Delhi, there were so many translations happening from and to various languages. Had Delhi won that year, who knows, we would have been thinking in our own languages today, not in English.
But, this new dawn for the crown also ushered in the sunset of the empire.
The concept of the nation state emerged from the ashes of this war, We had learnt that, as a people, we were capable of putting aside differences and working towards an independent India.”
Ironically, at the same time, it sowed the seeds of partition. The Punjabis did not want a separate nation, neither did the Pashtuns of the North-West Frontier Province,
“It was the taluqdars [aristocrats] of Awadh, dispossessed of their lands after the annexation of Awadh [before the uprising], who were the most vociferous in demanding partition.”
So yes, while it is not easy to predict how India would have shaped up if the rebellion had succeeded in throwing out the British, at least the land would not have been torn into two on the basis of religion.
Governor-General of British territories in India Charles Canning’s next decision meant that, instead of a series of mopping-up operations, conducted in the next campaigning season when Campbell had originally intended to take Lucknow, the British were suddenly faced by a whole new rebellion, requiring them once more to fight on through the hot weather and the monsoon. As a collective punishment for the support that so many taluqdars of Awadh had given to the cause of their deposed king, Canning issued a proclamation that all except for six named individuals would have their land-holdings resumed. Other than a promise of life and liberty to those who were not personally implicated in murder, the only concession offered was that dispossessed taluqdars should depend on the justice and mercy of the British government. In view of its previous dealings with Awadh, he might as well have said they should depend on the mildness of the summer sun or the gentleness of the monsoon rain. The result, as Outram and John Lawrence warned him would be the case, was to drive those who had previously been in arms to a more determined resistance. Those who had been neutral, or had helped British fugitives, took up arms themselves rather than suffer the loss of their place in the world. The insurgents who had been driven from Lucknow, instead of quietly dispersing to their homes, remained in the field with renewed hope.
Canning had prepared this proclamation long in advance and only waited for the recovery of Lucknow before issuing it, on the grounds that such leniency as it contained would otherwise be regarded as evidence of British weakness. He sent it to London for approval, unaware that Palmerston’s administration had fallen on 12 February 1858 and the Conservatives had returned to office after a generation in opposition. The new President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough, a former Governor-General of India, wrote to Canning on 24 March saying that, once Lucknow was taken, Awadh should be treated with the conventions appropriate to a country conquered after defending itself to the last in a desperate war, rather than those applicable to the suppression of mutiny and rebellion.
He was appalled when he received on 12 April the terms of the Awadh declaration, sent long before Canning knew of the change of ministry. It was especially unexpected given that Canning had previously insisted that no one be punished without due process, if only to avoid alienating the many respectable Indians who supported the maintenance of British rule (a policy pilloried in The Times and Punch as `The Clemency of Canning’). In a minute denouncing Dalhousie’s annexation of Awadh as based on fraud and deception, Ellenborough said that hostilities there `had rather the character of legitimate war than of rebellion’. Canning was told that the ministers wished to see British rule in India rest upon the willing obedience of a contented people. `There cannot be contentment where there is general confiscation.’
Due to an error on parliamentary procedure, the draft of this despatch was circulated among MPs for several weeks before it reached the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors. The subsequent scandal threatened to bring down the minority `Derby-Dizzy’ government. To save his colleagues Ellenborough resigned, though the Prime Minister, the Earl of Derby, supported his judgement by telegraphing to Canning that a clear distinction had to be made between the taluqdari militias and sepoys previously in the British service. Canning considered resigning, especially as the news of these proceedings soon reached India and thus prolonged the resistance in Awadh. After a few days, however, he decided, as senior officers in wellpaid appointments generally do, that it would be in the public interest for him to remain in post. The Times suggested that the ministers had tried to provoke his resignation so that they could lay their hands on a valuable piece of patronage.
While Campbell marched to Lucknow, the second front was opened according to plan. Major General Sir Hugh Rose, then aged fifty-six and more practised as a military diplomat than a field commander, had arrived in India for the first time on 19 September, to command of the Bombay Army’s Poona Division. He was resented by those who saw him as an inexperienced interloper, and at first the inevitable consequences of the friction of war on any plan was taken as evidence of his mismanagement. On 17 December he took over the newly formed Central India Field Force, consisting of the 14th Light Dragoons (who had returned to Bombay from the Persian Gulf in May 1857), the 86th Foot, the 3rd Bombay Europeans, the 3rd Bombay Light Cavalry and 25th Bombay NI, elements of the Hyderabad Contingent, a siege train and four horse or field batteries, with sappers and miners from Madras and Bombay, totalling some 6,000 combatants organized in two brigades. Rose, with the 2nd Brigade, left his base at Mhow, 10 miles south-west of Indore, on 6 January 1858. His first task was to relieve Sagar (Saugor), 200 miles away to the northeast, a mud fort held by seventy European gunners and the 31st Bengal NI since the mutiny of two other sepoy regiments in the original garrison eight months earlier, and containing 150 European women and children.
On the way, he demolished the insurgent stronghold at Rahatgarh, despite a surprise attack by Mardan Singh, of Banpur,. This prince had previously supported the British, hoping that they would return his ancestral district of Chanderi, seized from the previous raja by Sindhia and then administered by the British to fund the Gwalior Contingent. When they did not, Maharaja Mardan Singh decided to recover it irrespective of their approval and did so with the aid of the local nobles. After the fall of Rahatgarh he retreated to Barodia, but was again defeated by Rose’s column and was himself wounded. Sagar was relieved on 3 February and Rose was later joined there by a Madras brigade from Jabalpur, 80 miles to the southeast. While he waited, he collected supplies, bullocks and baggage-elephants, and augmented his siege train with heavy guns from the Sagar arsenal.
On 27 February he advanced northwards. Maharaja Mardan Singh, with his ally the Raja of Shahgarh, tried to hold the hill passes between Sagar and Bundelkhand, but was outmanoeuvred at the cost of some British casualties, including Rose’s horse shot under him. Mardan Singh fell back, adopting a scorched-earth policy, and the British reached his capital only to find it deserted. Meanwhile the 1st Brigade (previously the Malwa Field Force), advancing on a separate axis, recaptured Chanderi for Sindhia. After marching 120 miles in twenty days, Rose’s main force had almost reached Jhansi when, on 20 March, urgent messages arrived from both Canning and Campbell. After his defeat at Kanpur on 6 December, Tatya Tope had rallied with the Gwalior Contingent at Kalpi and now suddenly struck southwards against Charkhari, a small Bundela state whose raja supported the British. The raja, holding out in Charkhari fort, 80 miles east of Jhansi, appealed for help and Rose was ordered to his relief.
Rose, supported by Sir Robert Hamilton, the Governor-General’s Agent in Central India, who accompanied his march, decided to maintain his aim. He reasoned that to leave a strong fortress and garrison in his rear would boost insurgent morale by giving the impression he feared to attack it. If the British laid siege to Jhansi, Tatya Tope would leave Charkhari and come to its assistance, whereas even if they headed for Charkhari, it might fall before they arrived. Accordingly, operations against Jhansi began on 21 March, the same day that Campbell completed his capture of Lucknow. The first siege batteries opened fire on 25 March and the remainder the next day, when the 1st Brigade joined Rose’s camp. The fort, built on a granite outcrop within a walled city 4½ miles in circumference, was one of the strongest in Central India, and had a garrison of about 12,000 troops, with over thirty guns. Many were regular soldiers from Jhansi’s former army, disbanded at the time of the British annexation. All trees and buildings around the city had been levelled to deny the besiegers their raw materials and to give clear fields of fire.
The Rani, since the massacre of the previous June, had been in correspondence with the British authorities, denying any responsibility for what had occurred and claiming that such support as she had given the sepoy mutineers was in response to force majeure. This was, however, much the same story as that told by the King of Delhi and Nana Sahib. Lurid tales of sexual assault had no more foundation here than elsewhere. The widely believed story (the subject of a touching poem by Christina Georgina Rosetti) that, after a spirited defence, Captain Skene, the British political agent, finding further resistance useless, shot first his wife and then himself, was quite false. Nevertheless, sixty people had been very cruelly killed and the British were not prepared to take the Rani’s words at face value. She was instructed to assume the government of Jhansi state pending the restoration of British rule, when they would investigate what had occurred. In the meanwhile, she had to face incursions from her neighbours, the rajas of Datia and Orchha, who had their own claims on Jhansi territory. In a spirited response, she made alliances with the rajas of Banpur and Shahgarh, reassembled her late husband’s army and called on the local land-holders to join her with their militias. They had driven out the invaders and now, with the apparent return of the good old days, stood ready to treat the Central India Field Force in the same way. As the British showed no sign of allowing the Rani to retain possession of Jhansi, she decided to defy them in arms rather than tamely submitting to their return.
As Rose expected, Tatya Tope left Charkhari and marched to relieve Jhansi. He arrived late on 31 March with some 20,000 men, including Mardan Singh’s troops, and over twenty guns. After crossing the River Betwa, they lit a huge beacon to signal their presence to the defenders, who acknowledged it with shouts and gunfire. During the night, leaving his siege works held by a third of his force and a contingent of Orchha troops, Rose redeployed the remainder, about 1,900 strong, to meet the anticipated attack. The next morning the insurgents’ first line advanced and began a firefight. Rose, meeting them with his 2nd Brigade, pinned them with his field artillery and ordered his infantry to lie down while his cavalry and horse artillery attacked on both flanks. Rose himself led a charge by a troop of the 14th Light Dragoons. The insurgent firing line crumpled and fell back to its reserve, 2 miles in the rear, where Tatya Tope had his command post. With the British closely following, the retreat become a rout before the second line was reached. Tatya Tope’s artillery opened fire, but was countered by the advancing British guns. The 1st Brigade, marching towards the sound of gunfire, drove a force of about 3,000 insurgents from a village with a bayonet charge, but in the heat of the day the men were too exhausted to pursue them and they withdrew in good order. Elsewhere, the British cavalry pressed Tatya Tope’s retreating men hard, and captured their guns before they escaped back across the river, covered by smoke and flames from forest fires burning behind them. British casualties totalled less than 100, against an estimated 1,500 among their opponents.
Rose resumed the siege, where a masking bombardment had prevented the defenders from sallying out to support their intended rescuers. The engineers had already reported a practicable breach and efforts to close it with wooden palisades had been defeated by red-hot shot. Women as well as men, inspired by the Rani’s proclamation that, even if defeated, they would earn eternal glory, laboured on the walls and the Rani herself was observed encouraging them. Accurate shooting by the British siege gunners had dismounted most of her guns, but nevertheless, when Rose launched a moonlight assault at 3.00 a. m. on 3 April there were still enough left, with other improvised explosive devices, rockets and missiles of various kinds, to bring it to a momentary halt. The engineers led the way to the city wall and while one column entered the breach, two others scaled the ramparts. The first two officers were killed as they led the way over the walls, but their men followed and fought their way through fiercely defended streets and houses to reach the palace, designated by Rose as the point where all three columns were to meet. A group of fifty Afghans of the Rani’s bodyguard held the palace stable yard until flames drove them out.
Fighting in the city continued into the following day. The 86th and the Bombay Europeans, fighting to avenge their massacred compatriots, gave no quarter to any male of military age, and their comrades of the Bombay Native Infantry followed their example. The estimated number of those killed varied from three to five thousand, with many others subsequently executed. British casualties amounted to about 40 killed and 200 wounded, including 2 killed and one wounded out of the 7 Engineer officers, always among those most at risk in siege warfare. The 86th lost men to suicide bombers who blew up buildings inside the palace as the British entered.
During the day the Rani was persuaded by her advisers that the battle was lost and that she could do more for her cause by escaping to carry on the fight elsewhere. Wearing a breastplate, sword and pistols, she rode in the midst of her Afghan cavalry with the infant maharaja on her saddlebow, and escaped with members of her household and a baggage elephant through the sector held by the Orchha troops. Rose seems deliberately to have left an opening there, with a view to allowing the Rani to leave rather than hold out in the citadel, which could only be stormed with heavy losses. They encountered an outlying picquet, but rode on for 21 miles towards Kalpi before halting. The Rani’s father and her finance minister became separated from the main party and sought refuge with the Raja of Datia, who sent them back to his British friends at Jhansi, where they were later hanged.
Rose had given strict orders against looting, but much destruction of valuable cultural property went on nevertheless. Everyone knew the story of how Mahmud the Iconoclast, the first great Muslim invader of India, had refused to accept an offer of ransom for the holy Shivalingam of Somnath, saying he would not stand forth on Judgement Day as one who took money to spare an idol, but then found it full of precious stones when he destroyed it. In the temples of Jhansi, images of Hindu deities were broken up, and the gold and jewels adorning them carried off by the victorious troops. Despite Rose’s orders to spare women and children, many were killed by collateral damage and others by their own husbands and fathers, as some of the British at Lucknow had planned to do, for fear of the usual consequences when a city was stormed. There were, however, other cases in which British soldiers, finding widows and orphans without food, gave them their own rations. The Rani’s scorched-earth policy had had little effect on the British, who received supplies from Sindhia and Orchha, but the ordinary people of Jhansi starved and Rose subsequently fed them with government grain seized as lawful contraband.
The next morning, 4 April, when the Rani’s escape was discovered, a squadron of light dragoons and Bombay light cavalry was sent in pursuit. They found the Rani at breakfast and one officer almost reached her before a bullet wounded him. Forty of her Afghan troopers sacrificed themselves to protect her flight and the British, with their own horses failing, could not overtake the rested mounts on which the rest of her party escaped. Late on 5 April, escorted by a party of Tatya Tope’s cavalry, she reached the headquarters of the Peshwa’s army in Bundelkhand, commanded by Nana Sahib’s nephew Panduranga Sadashiv, Rao Sahib, at Kalpi, 85 miles north-east of Jhansi. She decamped to Kalpi with a few guards, where she joined additional rebel forces, including Tatya Tope. They occupied the town of Kalpi and prepared to defend it. On 22 May British forces attacked Kalpi; the forces were commanded by the Rani herself and were again defeated.
The leaders (the Rani of Jhansi, Tatya Tope, the Nawab of Banda, and Rao Sahib) fled once more. They came to Gwalior and joined the Indian forces who now held the city (Scindia having fled to Agra from the battlefield at Morar). They moved on to Gwalior intending to occupy the strategic Gwalior Fort and the rebel forces occupied the city without opposition. The rebels proclaimed Nana Sahib as Peshwa of a revived Maratha dominion with Rao Sahib as his governor (subedar) in Gwalior. The Rani was unsuccessful in trying to persuade the other rebel leaders to prepare to defend Gwalior against a British attack which she expected would come soon. General Rose's forces took Morar on 16 June and then made a successful attack on the city.
On 17 June in Kotah-ki-Serai near the Phool Bagh of Gwalior, a squadron of the 8th (King's Royal Irish) Hussars, under Captain Heneage, fought the large Indian force commanded by Rani Lakshmibai, who was trying to leave the area. The 8th Hussars charged into the Indian force, slaughtering 5,000 Indian soldiers, including any Indian "over the age of 16". They took two guns and continued the charge right through the Phool Bagh encampment. In this engagement, according to an eyewitness account, Rani Lakshmibai put on a sowar's uniform and attacked one of the hussars; she was unhorsed and also wounded, probably by his sabre. Shortly afterwards, as she sat bleeding by the roadside, she recognised the soldier and fired at him with a pistol, whereupon he "dispatched the young lady with his carbine".
The last rebels were defeated in Gwalior on 20 June 1858.
On 8 July 1858, a peace treaty was signed and the rebellion ended.
By 1859, rebel leaders Bakht Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled.
The proclamation to the "Princes, Chiefs, and People of India," issued by Queen Victoria on November 1, 1858. "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects."
Also bring the constitutional development in India which begins from the passing of the Regulating Act in 1773. The Pitt’s India Act of 1784 and the successive Charter Acts from 1793 to 1853 form part of the constitutional changes under the East India Company’s rule.
The Revolt of 1857 brought about important changes in the British administration in India. The rule of the East India Company came to an end. The administration of India came under the direct control of the British Crown.
These changes were announced in the Government of India Act of 1858. The ‘Proclamation of Queen Victoria’ assured the Indians a benevolent administration. Thereafter, important development had taken place in constitutional history of India as a result of the Indian National Movement.
Government of India Act of 1858
The rebellion saw the end of the East India Company's rule in India. In August, by the Government of India Act 1858, the company was formally dissolved and its ruling powers over India were transferred to the British Crown. A new British government department, the India Office, was created to handle the governance of India, and its head, the Secretary of State for India, was entrusted with formulating Indian policy. The Governor-General of India gained a new title, Viceroy of India, and implemented the policies devised by the India Office. Some former East India Company territories, such as the Straits Settlements, became colonies in their own right. The British colonial administration embarked on a program of reform, trying to integrate Indian higher castes and rulers into the government and abolishing attempts at Westernization. The Viceroy stopped land grabs, decreed religious tolerance and admitted Indians into civil service, albeit mainly as subordinates.
The Government of India Act of 1858 was passed by the Parliament of England and received royal assent on 2nd August 1858. Following are the main provisions of the Act:
East India Company’s rule came to an end and the Indian administration came under the direct control of the Crown.
In England, the Court of Directors and Board of Control were abolished. In their place came the Secretary of State for India and India Council were established. The Secretary of State would be a member of the British cabinet. Sir Charles Wood was made the first Secretary of State for India. India Council consisting of 15 members would assist him.
The Governor General of India was also made the Viceroy of India. The first Viceroy of India was Lord Canning.
All the previous treaties were accepted and honoured by the Act.
Essentially the old East India Company bureaucracy remained, though there was a major shift in attitudes. In looking for the causes of the Rebellion the authorities alighted on two things: religion and the economy. On religion it was felt that there had been too much interference with indigenous traditions, both Hindu and Muslim. On the economy it was now believed that the previous attempts by the Company to introduce free market competition had undermined traditional power structures and bonds of loyalty placing the peasantry at the mercy of merchants and money-lenders. In consequence the new British Raj was constructed in part around a conservative agenda, based on a preservation of tradition and hierarchy.
Queen Victoria’s Proclamation
On 1 November 1858 the Proclamation of Queen Victoria was announced by Lord Canning at Allahabad. This royal Proclamation was translated into Indian languages and publicly read in many important places. It announced the end of Company’s rule in India and the Queen’s assumption of the Government of India.
It endorsed the treaty made by the Company with Indian princes and promised to respect their rights, dignity and honour. It assured the Indian people equal and impartial protection of law and freedom of religion and social practices. The Proclamation of Queen Victoria gave a practical shape to the Act of 1858. On a political level it was also felt that the previous lack of consultation between rulers and ruled had been another significant factor in contributing to the uprising. In consequence, Indians were drawn into government at a local level.
Though this was on a limited scale a crucial precedent had been set, with the creation of a new 'white collar' Indian elite, further stimulated by the opening of universities at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, a result of the Indian Universities Act. So, alongside the values of traditional and ancient India, a new professional middle class was starting to arise, in no way bound by the values of the past. Their ambition can only have been stimulated by Queen Victoria's Proclamation of November 1858. But a policy at once liberal and progressive at one turn was reactionary and backward at the next, creating new elites and confirming old attitudes.
Indian Councils Act of 1861
The Indian Councils Act of 1861 increased the number of members in the Governor-General’s executive Council from 4 to 5. Further the Governor-General’s Executive Council was enlarged into a Central Legislative Council. Six to twelve “additional members” were to be nominated by the Governor-General. Not less than half of these members were to be non-officials. Thus, a provision was made for the inclusion of Indians in the Legislative Council. The functions of these members were strictly limited to making legislation and they were forbidden from interfering in the matters of the Executive Council. They did not possess powers of administration and finance.
Legislative Councils were also established in the provinces. The number of additional members in the provinces was fixed between four to eight. So, this Act was an important constitutional development and the people of India came to be involved in the law-making process. The mechanism of Indian legislation developed slowly and reinforced further by the Acts of 1892 and 1909.
2
Indian Councils Act of 1892
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 was the first achievement of the Indian National Congress. It had increased the number of “additional members” in the Central Legislative Council. They were to be not less than 10 and not more than 16.
It had also increased the proportion of non-officials – 6 officials and 10 non-officials. The members were allowed to discuss the budget and criticize the financial policy of the government. In the provinces also the number of additional members was increased with additional powers.
Minto- Morley Reforms of 1909
The Indian Councils Act of 1909 was also known as Minto- Morley Reforms in the names of Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for India and Lord Minto, the Governor-General of India. Both were responsible for the passing of this Act. It was passed to win the support of the Moderates in the Congress. The important provisions of this Act were:
The number of “additional members” of the Central Legislative Council was increased to a maximum of 60. Elected members were to be 27 and among the remaining 33 nominated members not more than 28 were to be officials.
The principle of election to the councils was legally recognized. But communal representation was for the first time introduced in the interests of Muslims. Separate electorates were provided for the Muslims.
The number of members in provincial legislative councils of major provinces was raised to 50.
The Councils were given right to discuss and pass resolutions on the Budget and on all matters of public interest. However, the Governor-General had the power to disallow discussion on the budget.
An Indian member was appointed for the first time to the Governor-General’s Executive Council. Sir S. P. Sinha was- the first Indian to be appointed thus.
In Bombay and Madras, the number of members of the Executive Councils was raised from 2 to 4. The practice of appointing Indians to these Councils began.
Two Indians were also appointed to the India Council [in England].
The Minto- Morley reforms never desired to set up a parliamentary form of government in India. However, the Moderates welcomed the reforms as fairly liberal measures. The principle of separate electorates had ultimately led to the partition of India in 1947.
Montague-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919
The political developments in India during the First World War such as the Home Rule Movement led to the August Declaration. On 20th August, 1917 Montague, the Secretary of State for India made a momentous declaration in the House of Commons. His declaration assured the introduction of responsible government in India in different stages. As a first measure the Government of India Act of 1919 was passed by the Parliament of England. This Act is popularly known as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms. At that time Lord Chelmsford was the Viceroy of India.
The main features of the Act were:
Dyarchy was introduced in the provinces. Provincial subjects were divided into “Reserved Subjects” such as police, jails, land revenue, irrigation and forests and “Transferred Subjects” such as education, local self-government, public health, sanitation, agriculture and industries. The Reserved subjects were to be administered by the Governor and his Executive Council. The Transferred subjects by the Governor and his ministers.
A bicameral (Two Chambers) legislature was set up at the centre. It consisted of the Council of States and the Legislative Assembly. The total member in the Legislative Assembly was to be a maximum of 145, out of which 105 were to be elected and the remaining nominated. In the Council of States there would be a maximum of 60 members out of which 34 were elected and the remaining nominated.
The salaries of the Secretary of State for India and his assistants were to be paid out of the British revenues. So far, they were paid out of the Indian revenues.
A High Commissioner for India at London was appointed.
The most important defect in this Act was the division of powers under the system of Dyarchy in the provinces.
The Government of India Act of 1935
The Government of India Act of 1935 was passed on the basis of the report of the Simon Commission, the outcome of the Round Table Conferences and the White Paper issued by the British Government in 1933. This Act contained many important changes over the previous Act of 1919.
Following were the salient features of this Act.
Provision for the establishment of an All India Federation at the Centre, consisting of the Provinces of British India and the Princely States. (It did not come into existence since the Princely States refused to give their consent for the union.)
Division of powers into three lists: Federal, Provincial and Concurrent.
Introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre. The Governor-General and his councillors administered the “Reserved subjects”. The Council of Ministers were responsible for the “Transferred” subjects.
Abolition of Dyarchy and the introduction of Provincial Autonomy in the provinces. The Governor was made the head of the Provincial Executive but he was expected to run the administration on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Thus, provincial government was entursted to the elected Ministers. They were responsible to the popularly elected Legislative Assemblies.
Provincial Legislatures of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, United Provinces, Bihar and Assam were made bicameral.
Extension of the principle of Separate Electorates to Sikhs, Europeans, Indian Christians and Anglo Indians.
Establishment of a Federal Court at Delhi with a Chief Justice and 6 judges.
The working of the provincial autonomy was not successful. The Governors were not bound to accept the advice of the ministers. In reality, the real power in the Provincial Government was with the Governor. But, despite these drawbacks in the scheme, the Congress decided to take part in the elections to the Provincial Legislatures with the consideration that it was an improvement over the previous Acts.
In accordance with the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935 elections to the Provincial Legislatures were held in February 1937. The Congress had virtually swept the polls. On 7 July 1937, after the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow, assured the Congress of his cooperation, the party formed its ministries in seven provinces.
No comments:
Post a Comment