Indian Council Act 1909

The Indian Council Act of 1909, also called as the Morley-Minto Reforms, aimed to grant limited participation to Indians in the governance of British India. However, it fell short of providing a genuine political solution and failed to establish a meaningful connection between voters and representatives.

Indian Councils Act 1909 will be helpful for UPSC IAS Exam preparation. GS Paper-1 History.

Table of Content

• Morley-Minto Reforms 1909
• Background of Indian Councils Act 1909
• Features Indian Council Act 1909
• Evaluation of Indian Councils Act of 1909
• Conclusion
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Indian Council Act 1909

• The Indian Councils Act 1909 also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms 1909, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the involvement of Indians in the governance of British India.
• It was named after the Secretary of State for India John Morley and the Viceroy of India, the Earl of Minto.

Background of Indian Councils Act 1909

• The Indian Councils Act of 1892 introduced limited representation with indirect elections, but it failed to satisfy the Indians who were more aware of their rights by then.
• There was a lot of resentment against Lord Curzon’s reign, who had already angered the public with the idea of partitioning Bengal.
• In October 1906, a group of Muslim elites led by the Agha Khan, called the Shimla Deputation, met with Lord Minto.
  • They demanded separate electorates for the Muslims and representation in excess of their numerical strength.
• John Morley, a member of the Liberal government, was appointed as the Secretary of State for India. He wanted to make positive changes in India’s governance.
• The Congress saw a rise in extremism. The government wanted to suppress the extremists but also wanted to pacify the moderates.
  • Meanwhile, Gopal Krishna Gokhale went to England and met Mr Morley.

Features Indian Council Act 1909

Expansion of the Legislative Councils:

• The Indian Councils Act of 1909, considerably increased the size of the legislative councils, both Central and Provincial.
• Number of members in the Central Legislative Council: it was raised from 16 to 60.
• Number of members in the Provincial legislative council: it was not uniform.
  • The legislative councils of Bengal, Bombay, and Madras were increased to 50 members each.
  • The provincial legislature of the U.P. was to have 50 members, while Assam, Burma, and Punjab were to have 30 members each.
• The members of the legislative council were divided into four categories:
  • Ex officio members included the Governor-General and members of the executive council.
  • Nominated official members were government officials who were nominated by the Governor-General.
  • Nominated non-official members were nominated by the Governor-General but were not government officials.
  • Elected members were elected by different categories of Indians.

Communal Representation:

• The Indian Councils Act of 1909 introduced separate and discriminatory electorates based on class and community.
• The provincial councils had three categories: general, special, and chambers of commerce, while the central council had a fourth category, Muslims.
• The Morley-Minto Reforms marked the first time that seats in the legislative bodies were reserved based on religion for Muslims.
• Separate constituencieswere created for Muslims, and only Muslim community members were given the right to elect their representatives.
  • This means Muslims could vote exclusively for Muslim candidates in their constituencies.
• The idea behind this was to establish that the political, economic, and cultural interests of the Hindus and Muslims were distinct.
• It recognized the Muslim community as a separate section of India and triggered the cancer of Hindu-Muslim disharmony which ultimately culminated in the partition.

Other Provisions:

• The Indian Councils Act of 1909 empowered members to discuss the budget and move resolutions before it was finally approved.
• Members were given the right to ask supplementary questions and move resolutions on matters related to loans to local bodies.
• Rules were framed under the act for the discussion of matters of general public interest in the legislative councils.
• However, the house was not binding on the government, and no discussion was permitted on any subject, not within the legislative competence of the particular legislature.
• Matters affecting the relations of the Government of India with a foreign power or a native state, and any matter under adjudication by a court of law were also not allowed for discussion.

Evaluation of Indian Councils Act of 1909

• The Indian Councils Act of 1909 was a face-saving device and could not provide a real political solution to the Indian political problem.
• The act did not change the position of the Governor-General, and his veto power remained undiluted, leading to relentless constitutional autocracy.
• The introduction of the separate electorate system added new political problems, and the act ushered in a completely irresponsible government with narrow franchises, indirect elections, and limited powers of the Legislative Councils.
• While parliamentary forms were introduced, no responsibility was conceded, and the real political solution lay in complete self-rule and accountable governance.
• The Act did not establish any connection between the supposed primary voter and the representative who sat on the Legislative Council.
• As a result, political participation, awareness, and education remained a distant dream.
• In summary, the 1909 Act was “the shadow rather than the substance.”

Conclusion

The Indian Councils Act of 1909, though introduced with the intention of increasing Indian involvement, proved to be a superficial measure. It maintained the undiluted power of the Governor-General and introduced a separate electorate system that created new political problems. With limited powers and indirect elections, the act resulted in an irresponsible government and hindered political participation, awareness, and education. It did not offer a substantial solution to India’s political problems and fell short of achieving accountable governance.