Causes
1. Dissatisfaction with Minto-Marley reforms
About Minto-Marley reforms. K.M. Munshi said that it was a bribe for the liberal litigants of the Congress. While Surendranath Banerjee said that its rules and regulations almost destroyed the scheme of reforms. Thus there was discontent in India regarding these reforms.
2. International pressure
The circumstances of the First World War emphasized the right of self-determination throughout the world. Meanwhile, the Mesopotamian campaign of the Government of India was unsuccessful. The failure's inquiry report came in May 1917, stating that "the Government of India is utterly inept in the matter of efficiency."
3. Demand for the members of the Central Legislative Council
A deputation of the members of the Central Legislative Council demanded that "not only good or efficient government is necessary but that government which is acceptable to the people because it is responsible to them."
4. Declaration of Montague
Coming to the post of Secretary of India, Montague announced that "the policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India also fully agrees, is that the contact of Indians in every department of Indian Government should be increased gradually and self-governing administrative institutions should be developed gradually." This system proceeded as an integral part of the English Empire."
Major provisions of the Government of India Act of 1919
1. Preamble
The Montague Declaration of 1917 AD was given the form of a preamble to the Act. The main points of this preamble were as follows: First, India has to remain a part of the British Empire. Secondly, responsible government has to be established in India but slowly.
2. India Secretary
Till now the expenditure on the Secretary of India and his department was recovered from the revenue of India. But now this expenditure is being done from the funds approved by the British Parliament. The High Commissioner was appointed to reduce the work load of the Secretary of India.
3. Council of India
The number of members of the Council of India was reduced to a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 12.
4. Two-house system at the central level
For the first time a Two-house legislature was established at the central level. The first State Council, it had 60 members, in which 27 were nominated and 33 were elected. Second Legislative Council, it had 145 members, in which 41 were nominated and 104 were elected.
5. Power of the Central Legislature
The two Houses of the Central Legislature had equal powers in all other matters, except in matters relating to finance. The vote of the Council of States was not required to pass the Finance Bill.
Members of the Central Legislature could ask questions and supplementary questions to the government and could also criticize them.
In case of deadlock in both the Houses, the Governor General could call a joint sitting, where the final decision was taken by majority. The Governor General's authority over ordinances and veto remained.
6. Diarchy in the Provinces
Lineus Cartius is considered the father of diarchy. Diarchy system was implemented in the provinces. According to this, the provincial subjects were divided into two classes. The first reserved subject - in which revenue, justice, finance, police, etc. were kept in the reserved category, which was to be administered by the governor and his executive. While the second transferred subjects – in this, education, health etc. were transferred subjects whose administration was given in the hands of the responsible ministers.
7. Election System
Direct election system was adopted in the provinces in which there was a system of reservation on communal basis. The right to vote was based on property qualification. Women were also given suffrage. The electoral system on a communal basis was extended to the Sikhs as well.
Review of the Act of 1919
1. Defective theory of diarchy
K.V. Reddy who had been a Madras minister once said that "I was the development minister but the forest department was not under me. I was the agriculture minister but the irrigation and land reforms department was not under me."
2. Insignificance of transferred subjects
All the important departments were included in the reserved subject. While the less important departments were included in the transferred subjects. There was complete lack of budget on the transferred subjects.
3. Comprehensive and special role of provincial governor
The role of the provincial governor was extensive. He not only had full authority over the reserved subjects, but he also had influence over those subjects which did not come under the transferred subjects. These people used to deduct limited financial grants as well.
4. Lack of coordination between ministers and employees
The provincial ministers did not have control over the employees of the state. The provincial staff were Responsible to the Viceroy and his executive, so there was no coordination between the staff and the ministers.
5. Lack of joint Responsible
Because the provincial government was divided into reserved subjects and transferred subjects. Hence there was lack of joint responsibility. Diarchy had now become a slur as Butler wrote that he heard people saying "You diarchy", "I'll kill you with diarchy".
In this way, the Act of 1919 was ugly, confusing and complex in character. To get rid of this, Gandhi later started the non-cooperation movement.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें