Indian Councils Act of 1909

🌍 Background – Why reforms in 1909?

• In 1905, the Liberals came to power in Britain. John Morley, a noted liberal, became Secretary of State for India.
• In India, Lord Minto replaced Curzon as Viceroy. Together they felt:
  1. The Partition of Bengal (1905) had backfired, fuelling nationalism.
  2. Extremist and revolutionary politics were on the rise.
  3. They needed to appease Moderates within the Congress (who had split from Extremists in 1907).

👉 So, they designed reforms that looked liberal, but in reality, were meant to divide nationalists and strengthen British control.

⚖️ British Policy Towards Muslims – The Divide

• In October 1906, a deputation of Muslim leaders met Viceroy Minto at Simla (the famous Simla Deputation).
• They demanded separate representation for Muslims — seats reserved exclusively for them.
• The British encouraged this demand: by granting separate electorates, they created a loyalist Muslim elite who could act as a counterweight to Congress.

👉 This was the beginning of communal representation in Indian politics, which later became a deep-rooted problem.

🏛 Key Features of the Morley-Minto Reforms (1909)

1. Expansion of Councils

• Central Legislative Council: number of members increased to 60 (from 16). But officials still held majority.
• Provincial Councils: size increased to 30–50 members. Non-officials formed majority in provinces (but still controlled by British veto).

2. Composition of Central Legislative Council

• Total = 69 (37 official + 32 non-official).
• Non-officials included:
  • Nominated by govt: 5
  • Indirectly elected: 27 (by provincial councils, landlords, chambers of commerce, Muslims, etc.)

👉 So, elections were indirect — local boards/municipalities elected members of provincial councils, who in turn elected members to the central council.

3. Separate Electorates for Muslims

• Muslims elected their representatives separately, i.e., only Muslims could vote for Muslim seats.
• This was projected as a way of “protecting minorities,” but in reality:
  • It encouraged separatism.
  • Checked the growth of Indian unity.
  • Became a major factor in the rise of communalism.
• Muslims were also given weightage — more seats than their population proportion.

4. Enlarged Powers of Councils

• Members could now:
  • Ask supplementary questions (new).
  • Discuss budget and vote on a limited part of it (most key expenditures like army remained non-votable).
  • Move resolutions on matters of public interest (recommendatory only, govt could ignore).

👉 Famous example: Gopal Krishna Gokhale moved a resolution in 1910 against indentured labour in South Africa.

5. Indians in Executive Councils

• For the first time, one Indian could be appointed to the Viceroy’s Executive Council.
• Satyendra Prasad Sinha was the first (1909) — made member for Legal Affairs.
• Although Indians were given less important portfolios (law/education), it was symbolically significant.

6. Indians in the Secretary of State’s Council

• Even before the Act, in 1907, two Indians — Krishna Govinda Gupta and Nawab Syed Hussain Bilgrami — were appointed.

🎯 Reactions

Moderates

• Welcomed the reforms as progress and decided to cooperate with government.
• But this proved a blunder — it weakened their mass support and made them look irrelevant compared to Extremists.

Extremists

• Rejected the reforms as sham concessions meant to fool Indians.
• Argued that real power still remained in British hands.

📌 Appraisal of the 1909 Reforms

Positives (superficial):

• First time Indians entered executive councils.
• First time councils got limited rights: budget discussion, supplementary questions, resolutions.
• Expanded size of councils, allowing more political debate.

Negatives (fundamental):

• Councils were still advisory, not legislative.
• Executive was not responsible to legislatures.
• Real purpose:
  • To appease Moderates after the Surat Split.
  • To divide Indians by introducing communal electorates.
  • To check the rise of nationalist unity.

👉 In short: The reforms gave Indians illusion of participation but no real power. They sowed the seeds of communal politics, which became one of the gravest legacies of colonial rule.