Administrative Changes After 1858 in British India

The revolt of 1857 was a turning point in Indian history. Though the revolt failed militarily, it shook the very foundations of British authority in India. For the first time, the rulers in England realised that the East India Company’s reckless policies—especially in administration, economy, and society—had pushed Indians to the edge. Therefore, after suppressing the revolt, the British were forced to rethink how India should be governed.

Why changes were necessary?

Two sets of reasons compelled the British to reorganise their rule:

1. Immediate Cause – The Revolt of 1857
   • The uprising exposed the discontent generated by the Company’s exploitative policies.
   • Annexations, disregard for Indian rulers, interference in religion, and economic drain—all had fuelled resentment.
   • The revolt made it clear that if such mismanagement continued, British rule would not survive long.
2. Global Context – Industrial Revolution and Capitalist Expansion
   • In the latter half of the 19th century, industrialisation spread rapidly across Europe, the USA, and Japan. This created fierce competition for markets, raw materials, and areas of investment.
   • Britain, which had so far been the leader of world capitalism, began to feel the pressure of these “newcomers.” To secure its position, Britain tightened its grip on colonies like India, ensuring they functioned as safe markets and sources of raw materials.
   • By this time, huge amounts of British capital had already been invested in Indian railways, plantations, mines, mills, and trade. Therefore, political stability and strict administrative control became essential to protect this capital.

Thus, the revolt of 1857 and the needs of industrial capitalism together created the background for a new phase in British administration in India.

The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858

The British Parliament passed the Government of India Act, 1858, transferring power from the East India Company to the British Crown. From now on, Queen Victoria became the sovereign of India.

• The Act was introduced by Lord Stanley, then President of the Board of Control, and was passed on 2 August 1858.
• It abolished the Company’s authority and declared that all its territories were now part of the British Empire.

On 1 November 1858, Lord Canning read out Queen Victoria’s proclamation at Allahabad, addressing “the Princes, Chiefs and Peoples of India.”

This proclamation is sometimes called the “Magna Carta of the Indian people” because it formally laid down principles of governance that would guide the British for the next few decades:

• No further annexations: The Crown disclaimed territorial aggrandisement. Native princes were assured that their kingdoms would be respected if they remained loyal.
• Religious neutrality: The British promised not to interfere with Indian religions and customs.
• Equal treatment: Indians and Europeans were declared equal before law, and official services were formally opened to all.
• Pardon: Those rebels who surrendered by 2 January 1859 were pardoned, except those involved in killing British subjects.

👉 In practice, these promises were not always honoured, but the proclamation marked a shift—from aggressive expansionism under the Company to a more cautious, conservative policy under the Crown.

Thus, 1857 ended the era of annexations and began an era where Indian princes became allies of the British, while nationalism slowly emerged among the Indian people.

Government of India Act, 1858

The Act brought major structural changes:

1. Transfer of Power
   • The authority of governance passed from the East India Company to the Crown.
   • The armed forces of the Company were also transferred.
   • The Crown now had the power to appoint the Governor-General of India and governors of the presidencies.
2. Secretary of State for India
   • The old system of dual control—with the Court of Directors and the Board of Control—was abolished.
   • All authority was now concentrated in a new office: the Secretary of State for India.
   • The Secretary was a member of the British Cabinet and answerable to the British Parliament. Thus, the real control of India lay not in Calcutta (the Governor-General’s office) but in London.
   • He was assisted by an India Council of 15 members, most of whom had administrative experience in India.
   • The first Secretary of State was Lord Stanley.
3. Secretary of State: The De facto Ruler
   • Although the India Council advised him, the Secretary of State could override its decisions. Only in financial matters was Council approval necessary.
   • He had the power to send and receive secret communications with the Governor-General, bypassing the Council.
   • Over time, especially after the opening of the Suez Canal (1869) and the laying of a direct telegraph line (1870), communications between London and India became much quicker. Steamships also reduced travel time.
   • As a result, by the 1870s, the Secretary of State controlled minute details of Indian administration from London, effectively becoming the de facto government of India.

Significance of our reading till now,

The revolt of 1857, therefore, marks a watershed in Indian history:

• Before 1857 → Aggressive annexation, company rule, and fragile authority.
• After 1858 → Conservative policies, respect for Indian princes, direct Crown rule, and careful consolidation of the empire.
• Politically, Indians now faced a more centralised and tightly controlled administration.
• Socially, promises of religious neutrality and equal treatment created hopes, but disappointments soon followed.
• Nationally, this period sowed the seeds for the rise of modern Indian nationalism, which would grow stronger towards the end of the 19th century.

✨ In short, the year 1857 divides 19th-century Indian history into two halves:

• The first half dominated by British paramountcy and expansion,
• The second half shaped by the rise of Indian nationalism under direct Crown rule.

Perfect. Let’s now continue this journey of administrative evolution in India after 1858.

Central Administration after 1858

Government of India Act, 1858

After the Government of India Act, 1858, the British Crown formally took control of India. But the actual day-to-day administration still needed a structure. Let us see how the central administration evolved.

Viceroy: The Crown’s Representative

• The Governor-General of India was now also given the title of Viceroy—literally meaning the “representative of the Crown.”
• While the Governor-General was still the chief executive, as Viceroy he now became responsible for diplomatic relations with princely states as well.
• Lord Canning became the first person to hold both titles: the last Governor-General of the Company and the first Viceroy of the Crown.

👉 So, 1858 marks not just a change of rulers, but also a new era where the Viceroy symbolised the Queen’s direct authority over India.

Executive Council

• An Executive Council of five members was created to assist the Viceroy.
• Each member functioned like a departmental head and advisor.
• Decisions were usually made by majority, but the Viceroy could override the Council whenever he felt necessary.

👉 In reality, this council looked like a cabinet, but the Viceroy was no prime minister—he was bound by the control from London.

Control from London

Before 1858, London’s control was delayed:

• Communication between London and India took weeks, sometimes months.
• The Governor-General had considerable autonomy in policymaking. London’s control was more of review and criticism after the event.

After 1858, things changed dramatically:

• With the submarine telegraph cable (1870) through the Red Sea, orders could reach India in hours.
• By this time, the Secretary of State in London had direct and constant supervision.
• The Viceroy was reduced to a kind of chief executive officer, directly accountable to the Secretary of State.

👉 This meant that while India was ruled from Calcutta (later Delhi), it was actually governed from London.

Indian Councils Act of 1861

The Revolt of 1857 had shown the need to associate Indians with governance—at least superficially, to gain legitimacy. Hence, reforms were gradually introduced.

Key Provisions

1. Expansion of the Governor-General’s Council
   • Increased members from 4 to 5.
   • For legislative purposes, the Viceroy could nominate 6–12 additional members for 2 years.
   • This expanded body was called the Imperial Legislative Council.
2. Inclusion of Indians
   • At least half of the additional members had to be non-officials, including Indians.
   • But they were nominated, not elected.
   • In 1862, Lord Canning nominated three Indians:
     • Maharaja Sir Narendra Singh of Patiala
     • Raja Deo Narayan Singh of Benaras
     • Sir Dinkar Rao of Gwalior
3. Powers
   • The Council could discuss and pass laws, but only with Governor-General’s approval.
   • The Governor-General could issue Ordinances with the force of law.

Limitations

• It was a toothless body: no control over the budget, executive, or administration. Members could not even ask questions.
• It was unrepresentative: members were princes, landlords, and elites—not the voice of Indian people or emerging nationalist opinion.

👉 So, this was more about co-option of elites rather than democracy.

Indian Councils Act of 1892

By the late 19th century, the Indian National Congress (founded 1885) had started demanding reforms. As a response, the British made small concessions through the Act of 1892.

Key Features

• Number of members increased from 10 to 16 in the Imperial Council.
• The Council could:
  • Ask questions to the executive.
  • Discuss the annual budget (but not vote on it).
  • Criticise government policy freely.

👉 Though limited, these powers were parliamentary in nature, and for the first time, the Council resembled a discussion forum.

Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley–Minto Reforms)

By the early 20th century, the pressure of moderates in Congress grew stronger. Hence, the reforms of 1909 were introduced—named after John Morley (Secretary of State) and Lord Minto (Viceroy).

Key Provisions

1. Expansion of Councils
   • Strength of Imperial Legislative Council increased to 60 members.
   • Both nominated and indirectly elected members were included.
2. Separate Electorates for Muslims
   • For the first time, Muslims were given a separate electorate.
   • This meant Muslims could elect their representatives separately, without interference from Hindu voters.
   • This was the beginning of communal politics in colonial India, which later paved the way for Partition.
   • Lord Minto is thus remembered as the “Father of the Communal Electorate.”
3. Indian Representation
   • One Indian could be nominated to the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
   • In 1909, Satyendra Prasanna Sinha became the first Indian to enter the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
4. New Rights for Councils
   • Members could now:
     • Ask supplementary questions.
     • Vote on certain parts of the budget (votable part).
     • Move resolutions on matters of public interest.
5. Entry of Indians in British Institutions
   • In 1907, Morley appointed two Indians—Sir Krishna Govinda Gupta and Nawab Syed Hussain Bilgrami—to the Council of the Secretary of State in London.

Significance of These Reforms

• 1861 → Beginning of associating Indians in governance (but only elites, in a controlled manner).
• 1892 → Introduction of limited questioning rights and budget discussion.
• 1909 → Real entry of Indians in legislative councils and executive councils; but also, the poison of communal electorates was sown.

👉 The story, therefore, is one of slow concessions under pressure, but carefully designed to maintain British control while dividing Indians.

✨ In short:
From 1858 to 1909, central administration in India transformed from an absolute Crown dictatorship to a controlled inclusion of Indians, while keeping real power with London. These steps laid the foundation for both the growth of Indian nationalism and the divide-and-rule strategy of the British.

Excellent. Now we are moving into the phase where constitutional reforms start to take centre stage. The Revolt of 1857 had forced the British to reorganise their administration, but by the early 20th century, it was the pressure of Indian nationalism that pushed them towards gradual constitutional concessions. Let’s look at this now:

Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms)

Background

By the end of the First World War, the British realised that India could not be kept perpetually excluded from power. Several factors contributed to this:

1. India’s role in World War I
   • More than one million Indian soldiers and resources were mobilised for Britain’s war efforts.
   • This created expectations of political reward in return.
2. Growing Unity in Indian Politics
   • The Congress–League Lucknow Pact (1916) showed Hindus and Muslims could unite against colonial rule.
   • The re-entry of Extremists into Congress gave the movement new energy.
   • The Home Rule Movement (1916–17) demanded self-government, drawing inspiration from dominions like Canada and Australia.
3. The Montagu Declaration (1917)
   • The then Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the policy of gradual development of self-governing institutions in India.
   • The exact phrase—“progressive realisation of responsible government in India”—was later included in the preamble of the 1919 Act.

👉 Thus, the 1919 Act was born out of both Indian demands and British compulsions.

Main Features of the Act

1. Bicameral Legislature
   • For the first time, the Central Legislature was made bicameral:
     • Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
     • Council of State (Upper House)
2. Communal Electorates Expanded
   • Separate electorates were extended beyond Muslims to include Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, and Europeans.
   • This deepened the British policy of “divide and rule.”
3. Governor-General’s Powers
   • Still the pivot of administration:
     • Could veto bills and override his Executive Council.
     • Had complete control over foreign affairs and relations with princely states.
     • Needed to give consent to every bill before it became law.
4. Governor-General’s Executive Council
   • Now included 3 Indian members out of 6.
   • But Indians were given only minor portfolios—Law, Education, Health, Industry.
   • Critical departments like Defence, Finance, and Foreign Affairs remained with the British.
5. Secretary of State’s Council
   • Was reduced to 8–12 members, with at least 3 Indians included.

Limitations

• There was no responsible government.
• The Governor-General was not responsible to the legislature, but only to the British Parliament through the Secretary of State.
• The legislature could debate, but not control the executive.
• In short: more representative, somewhat responsive, but still not responsible.

👉 The 1919 Act raised hopes but fell far short of Indian aspirations. It led to disappointment and set the stage for mass movements under Gandhi.

Government of India Act, 1935

The next big step came almost two decades later. By then, the failure of 1919 reforms, the rise of Gandhian mass movements, and the Simon Commission Report (1928) had made deeper changes unavoidable.

Main Features

1. All-India Federation
   • Proposed a federation of British provinces and princely states.
   • Princely states, however, never joined, so the federation remained only on paper.
2. Bicameral Federal Legislature
   • Federal Assembly (Lower House): 375 members—250 elected from provinces, 125 nominated by princes.
   • Council of State (Upper House): 260 members—156 elected from provinces, 104 nominated by princes.
3. Division of Powers
   • Subjects divided into three lists:
     • Federal List (59 subjects) – controlled by Centre.
     • Provincial List (54 subjects) – controlled by provinces.
     • Concurrent List (36 subjects) – shared jurisdiction.
   • Residuary powers rested with the Governor-General.
4. Federal Court
   • Established to interpret the constitution and settle disputes between provinces.
5. Dyarchy at the Centre
   • The system of dividing departments into “reserved” and “transferred” subjects (introduced in provinces in 1919) was now extended to the Centre.
   • Reserved subjects: Defence, Foreign Affairs, Ecclesiastical Affairs.
   • Transferred subjects: Industries, Health, Education.

Limitations

• The Federation never came into existence since princely states did not join.
• British Parliament still retained ultimate supremacy.
• No Dominion Status was promised, despite the demand from Indian leaders.
• Governor-General still had wide overriding powers.

Significance

• The 1935 Act was the longest and most comprehensive law passed by the British for India.
• For the first time, it introduced:
  • A written constitution.
  • Federal features with division of powers.
  • A Federal Court.
• Though never fully implemented, it became the blueprint for the Indian Constitution of 1950. Many of its structural elements—federalism, division of subjects, federal court (later Supreme Court)—were carried forward.

Conclusion

• 1919 Act → Introduced bicameral legislature, expanded communal electorates, gave Indians a little role, but kept real power with Governor-General.
• 1935 Act → Went much further, proposing a federation, a detailed division of powers, and a federal court, but still retained British supremacy.

👉 Thus, both Acts show a pattern of reluctant concessions. The British gave just enough reforms to pacify demands, but not enough to grant real self-government. Yet, ironically, these reforms trained Indians in parliamentary practices and provided the very foundations on which independent India’s Constitution was later built.

Wonderful. Now we are entering the Provincial Administration—an equally important dimension, because while central reforms were about retaining British supremacy, provincial reforms were about giving the illusion of autonomy, while still keeping control. Let’s explore this part now:

Provincial Administration under the British

Provinces and Presidencies

• For administrative convenience, the British divided India into provinces.
• Among them, the three oldest and most important were the Presidencies—Bengal, Madras, and Bombay.
• These presidencies were administered by a Governor and his Executive Council, directly appointed by the Crown.
• Other provinces (like Punjab, Central Provinces, North-Western Provinces, etc.) were administered by Lieutenant Governors or Chief Commissioners, appointed by the Governor-General.

👉 The Presidency governments always enjoyed more powers than the other provinces. This hierarchy was deliberately maintained.

Indian Councils Act of 1861 and Provincial Law-Making

• Earlier, the provincial governments had some autonomy, but in 1833, their law-making powers were withdrawn, and authority became highly centralised.
• The Indian Councils Act of 1861 reversed this trend and restored some legislative powers:
  • Madras and Bombay were again given powers to enact laws, though with the permission of the Governor-General.
  • The Act laid down that legislative councils should be set up in the provinces—first in Bombay, Madras, Bengal, and later in others.
  • Accordingly, legislative councils were created in Bengal (1862), North-Western Provinces (1886), and Punjab (1897).

👉 Thus, the 1861 Act marked the turning of the tide of centralisation, although only partially.

Portfolio System

• Introduced informally by Lord Canning in 1859 and formally recognised by the Act of 1861.
• The Viceroy’s Executive Council began to function like a miniature cabinet.
• Each member was assigned a portfolio or department (Home, Revenue, Military, Finance, Law).
• This system gave some efficiency and division of work, though final authority remained with the Viceroy.

Provincial Administration and Finance

A. Centralisation of Finance

• Initially, all revenues from across India were collected at the centre, and then distributed to provinces.
• The centre tightly controlled even the smallest details of provincial expenditure.
• This system proved inefficient because:
  • It was impossible for the central government to supervise local revenue collection effectively.
  • Provinces had no incentive to economise, since they weren’t directly responsible for finances.

B. Steps towards Decentralisation

To address this, the British introduced gradual financial decentralisation:

1. Lord Mayo’s Reforms (1870)
   • Provinces were given fixed grants from central revenues for specific services—Police, Jails, Education, Medical Services, Roads.
   • Provinces could administer these as they liked.
   • This was the first step towards decentralisation of finance.
2. Lord Lytton’s Reforms (1877)
   • Extended Mayo’s scheme further.
   • Provinces were also given responsibility for Land Revenue, Excise, General Administration, Law & Justice.
   • To fund these, provinces were allowed a fixed share of income from Stamps, Excise Taxes, Income Tax.
3. Lord Ripon’s Reforms (1882)
   • Made the most important changes.
   • Instead of fixed grants, provinces were allowed to retain entire income from some sources and a fixed share from others.
   • Thus, revenues were divided into general, provincial, and shared sources.
   • This arrangement continued till 1902.

👉 However, these reforms were aimed at improving efficiency and saving money, not at granting real autonomy.

Appraisal

• The British called it “decentralisation”, but it was really administrative reorganisation.
• Provinces still had no political autonomy or Indian participation.
• The main motive was to reduce central expenditure and increase revenue collection, not to empower provinces.

Provincial Legislative Reforms

1. Indian Councils Act of 1892
   • Increased the number of members in provincial legislative councils.
   • But the official majority (British officials) was maintained.
2. Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley–Minto Reforms)
   • Provincial councils were further expanded.
   • For the first time, they allowed a non-official majority in provincial legislative councils.
   • However, this “non-official majority” was misleading—most members were still loyalists (landlords, princes, loyal elites), not nationalist representatives.

So, what we studied till now in provincial administration?

• The story of provincial administration shows a pattern of limited decentralisation.
• The British gave small powers to provinces to make administration more efficient and less costly, but not to empower Indians politically.
• Legislative councils were expanded, but still dominated by officials or nominated elites.
• Thus, provincial reforms before 1919 were only cosmetic—meant to pacify Indians and reduce British workload, while keeping real power with the centre and the Crown.

Excellent, now we’ve reached the Government of India Act of 1919 at the provincial level—where the British experimented with Dyarchy (dual government). This is very important, because it was the first real attempt at making Indians “partners” in provincial governance, though under heavy restrictions. Let’s go through this now:

Government of India Act, 1919 – Dyarchy in Provinces

The Concept of Dyarchy

• Dyarchy = Dual Government.
• Provincial administration was divided into two categories of subjects:

1. Reserved Subjects
   • Controlled by the Governor and his Executive Council.
   • These councillors were appointed by the British Government and were not responsible to the legislature.
   • Important portfolios like law and order, police, justice, land revenue, irrigation, factories, printing presses fell here.
2. Transferred Subjects
   • Handled by ministers who were responsible to the provincial legislature.
   • These included education, health, agriculture, sanitation, local self-government, social welfare.
   • On paper, this was the space where elected Indians could exercise power.

👉 In essence: The British kept all “steel frame” departments (law & order, revenue, police) under their control, while Indians were given softer, developmental portfolios.

Structure of the Provincial Legislature

• A large number of elected members were introduced.
• At least 70% of members had to be elected, while officials could not exceed 20%.
• Separate revenue systems for Centre and Provinces were created.
• Secretary of State could not interfere in transferred subjects (though Governors still had overriding authority).

Division of Subjects

• Central List: Defence, foreign relations, currency, tariffs, patents, communications.
• Provincial List: Agriculture, local self-government, health, sanitation, education, forests, law and order.
  • Within this,
    • Transferred Subjects: Local self-government, education, health, parts of agriculture.
    • Reserved Subjects: Police, justice, land revenue, irrigation, industries, printing presses.
• Residuary Powers: Rested with the Governor-General in Council.

👉 Even in subjects supposedly “transferred,” finances were tightly controlled by the Governor.

Limitations of Dyarchy

• The system failed in practice because:
  • Finance (a reserved subject) controlled everything. Developmental areas like education or health (transferred subjects) starved for funds.
  • Governors could overrule ministers at any time, using vague “special grounds.”
  • Legislatures had restricted powers—no real control over the executive.
  • Central government maintained unrestricted authority over provinces.

👉 So, while Indians got “offices,” they did not get “power.”

Positive Developments

Despite failure, the Act left behind some important legacies:

• Parliamentary culture: For the first time, Indians sat in ministries, answered questions in legislatures, and participated in debates.
• Women’s Franchise: Right to vote extended to women in almost every province.
• Provincial initiatives: Some provinces saw important reforms—Bombay and Bengal in local government, Madras in education and social welfare.
• It became a stepping stone towards the idea of provincial autonomy, which was fully introduced later in 1935.

INC’s Stand

• The Indian National Congress (INC) rejected the Act outright.
• It boycotted the first elections of 1920—instead launching the Non-Cooperation Movement under Gandhi.
• However, some moderate leaders welcomed the reforms:
  • Annie Besant, Bipin Chandra Pal, Surendranath Banerjee, Tej Bahadur Sapru supported the Act.
  • They formed the Indian Liberal Federation, a group of moderates often called “Liberals”.
  • Madan Mohan Malaviya also supported the reforms.
  • Muhammad Ali Jinnah resigned from the Congress in protest against its rejectionist stand.

👉 Thus, the Act split Indian politics into two camps—Moderates (Liberals) who sought gradual reform, and Nationalists who demanded complete self-rule.

The First General Elections of 1920

• Marked the first modern elections in India.
• Members were chosen for the Imperial Legislative Council and Provincial Councils.
• Although Congress boycotted, it was still a turning point, as it introduced electoral politics into India.

Government of India Act, 1935 – Next Step

• The 1919 Dyarchy experiment failed at the provinces, but it laid the ground for the Government of India Act, 1935.
• Dyarchy was now abolished at the provincial level.
• Instead, provincial autonomy was introduced:
  • The distinction between reserved and transferred subjects was removed.
  • Provinces were allowed to have ministries fully responsible to their legislatures.
• Six out of eleven provinces introduced bicameral legislatures.

Limitations

• The Governor still had extraordinary powers—could override ministers and legislatures.
• Thus, even under “autonomy,” provinces remained under the shadow of the British executive.

So, what can we conclude about the 1919 and 1935 act?

• The 1919 Act was the first step in bringing Indians into real administrative roles through Dyarchy. But its contradictions made it unworkable.
• The 1935 Act removed Dyarchy at the provinces and introduced autonomy, yet without removing the governor’s veto.
• Both Acts were half-hearted concessions, designed more to pacify Indian opinion than to transfer real power.

👉 Still, these reforms had unintended consequences—they gave Indians political training, encouraged the rise of new parties, expanded voting rights, and, most importantly, kept alive the demand for full self-rule (Swaraj).

Excellent. Let’s explore the story of Local Self-Government in India—a journey that begins under colonial compulsions, matures under nationalist demands, and finally finds full expression in independent India through the Constitution. Let us carefully trace this evolution:

Local Bodies

Why Local Bodies Were Needed?

By the late 19th century, the British realised that India urgently needed modern civic facilities—education, sanitation, water supply, and better roads.

• Nationalist Pressure: The Indian National Movement was demanding modern amenities.
• Contact with Europe: As Indians interacted more with Europe, the contrast became glaring—Indian towns lacked even basic civic infrastructure.
• Financial Constraints:
  • The government spent heavily on the army and railways, leaving little money for local improvements.
  • Raising taxes further would create discontent, since the poor were already overburdened.
  • Solution: Transfer responsibility for local services (education, sanitation, health, water) to local bodies, who could raise local taxes.
• Political Strategy:
  • Some English officials felt that involving Indians in local governance would keep them engaged and prevent political disaffection.
  • This way, Indians could be given “training in administration” without threatening British monopoly of power at the higher level.

👉 Thus, the push for local government was born more out of financial necessity and political strategy than any love for democracy.

The Early Beginning

• First Municipal Corporation in India: Madras, 1688.
• Later, similar bodies in Bombay and Calcutta (1726).
• Between 1864–1868, local bodies were established in various towns, but:
  • They were nominated bodies, not elected.
  • District Magistrates usually presided over them.
  • Indians saw them as tax-extracting agencies, not true self-government.

Lord Mayo’s Resolution (1870)

• Stressed the importance of self-government in local areas.
• Objective: raise local resources for services like police, education, health, roads.
• Municipal Acts were passed in provinces like Bengal, Madras, Punjab, and North-Western Provinces.
• But this was still limited—real power remained with British officials.

Lord Ripon’s Resolution (1882)

This was the turning point.

• Declared that local affairs should be managed by local bodies, both rural and urban.
• Key features:
  • Majority of members should be non-officials (i.e., Indians).
  • Wherever possible, these non-officials should be elected.
  • Non-officials could even become Chairmen of local bodies.
• Because of this, Lord Ripon is remembered as the “Father of Local Self-Government in India.”

Limitations

• In reality, elected members remained a minority in most boards.
• Voting rights were very restricted—based on property and education.
• The government retained strict powers of control, suspension, and supersession.
• Except in the Presidency cities (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras), local bodies were mere extensions of government departments.

👉 Still, politically conscious Indians welcomed this reform and used it as a platform to gain administrative experience.

Further Developments

• Government of India Act, 1919: Local self-government made a “transferred subject” under dyarchy.
  • But since finance was a reserved subject, Indian ministers lacked funds to make real progress.
• Government of India Act, 1935:
  • Finance portfolio now came under popular ministries.
  • Provinces passed new Acts, giving more powers and funds to local bodies.
  • This helped local bodies grow stronger and more effective.

Local Government in Independent India

When India became free, Mahatma Gandhi’s vision strongly influenced the debate:

• He believed in village swaraj and decentralisation of power.
• Strengthening village panchayats, for him, was the soul of Indian democracy.

However, when the Constitution was drafted:

• Local government was placed under Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 40), not as a fundamental structure.
• Article 40 directed states to organise village panchayats as self-governing units.

Why was it not given constitutional importance in 1950?

1. Partition turmoil: Nehru and others felt India needed a strong centralised state for unity.
2. Ambedkar’s caution: He feared that caste-dominated villages might misuse power and become centres of oppression instead of justice.

Post-Independence Initiatives

• Community Development Programme (1952): Aimed at socio-economic upliftment of villages through cooperative and democratic methods.
• National Extension Service (1953): Expanded the community development approach.
• 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992–93):
  • Gave constitutional status to Panchayats (rural) and Municipalities (urban).
  • Marked the true realisation of Gandhi’s vision of grassroots democracy.

Conclusion

• Local self-government in India began as a colonial necessity (finance and control).
• It gradually evolved into a training ground for Indian leaders through Ripon’s reforms.
• The 1919 and 1935 Acts linked it with broader constitutional reforms.
• After independence, it became a cornerstone of India’s democratic system, especially after the 73rd and 74th Amendments.

👉 Thus, what began as a reluctant experiment by the British became one of the strongest pillars of modern Indian democracy.