|
Pakistan
Beginnings of Self-Government
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
|
