Indians opposition to the Montford Reforms(1919)[7]

Question 1

Why were Indians disappointed with the Montague Chelmsford Reforms regarding self-rule?

Answer 1

• Before introducing the Montague Chelmsford Reforms, the British had announced that they were granting Indians self-rule and had released documents discussing this in 1916 and 1917.
• However, the reforms themselves did not mention self-rule, which deeply upset the Indians.
• They felt betrayed as the British had raised their hopes but did not fulfill their promises.

Question 2

What was Diarchy and why did Indians oppose it?

Answer 2

• The Montague Chelmsford Reforms introduced Diarchy at the provincial level, dividing power into two categories: reserved subjects and transferred subjects.
• Indians were given control over transferred subjects like public health, public works, and forests, while the British retained control over reserved subjects such as police, revenue, press, and publications.
• The real power remained with the British, as even the Indian ministers were chosen by the viceroy, who could dismiss the provincial councils if necessary.
• At the central level, no power was transferred to Indians, which further fueled opposition.

Question 3

How did World War I contribute to Indian opposition to the reforms?

Answer 3

• During World War I, Indians fought on behalf of the British and rendered great services, expecting a significant reward in return.
• However, the British only introduced Diarchy and granted Indians control over less influential sectors like health and education, while real power remained with British-appointed ministers.
• These ministers could dismiss provincial councils under emergency powers.
• Furthermore, no power was given to Indians at the central level, which made them feel that their contributions to the war had been ignored.

Question 4

How did the Council of Princes and voting restrictions lead to opposition?

Answer 4

• The MC reforms set up a Council of Princes with 108 members, to discuss important matters.
• However, their role was merely advisory, and some princes did not even attend, seeing it as a ‘talking shop’ without real influence.
• At the central level, the viceroy had full authority to pass any law for the safety of India.
• Although the Executive Council now had three Indian members out of six, they were still nominated rather than elected. Additionally, voting rights remained restricted, with 98% of Indians still unable to vote due to strict criteria. This lack of representation and power made the reforms unacceptable to many Indians.