The Politics of Promise and Power: 1917–1920

Response of the Government: The Policy of Carrot and Stick

When the First World War ended, the British government clearly sensed that nationalist feelings in India were intensifying. People were frustrated by economic hardships, disappointed by false promises, and inspired by new global events like the Russian Revolution.

So, the Government decided to deal with the situation through a dual approach:

On the one hand, concessions were offered to pacify Indians. (This was represented by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.)
On the other hand, repression was used to suppress rising discontent. (This came in the form of the Rowlatt Act.)

This “carrot and stick” policy became a hallmark of British rule in India—giving small reforms to create hope, while using strict measures to prevent rebellion.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms: Background and Context

In 1918, Edwin Montagu (Secretary of State for India) and Lord Chelmsford (Viceroy) presented a scheme of constitutional reforms. This became the basis of the Government of India Act of 1919. But why did they feel compelled to introduce reforms at all?

Circumstances Leading to Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms

By 1916, it was becoming evident to both Indians and the British that changes in the political structure were unavoidable. There were several reasons for this:

Aspirations of Indians
- Indians had supported Britain’s war effort wholeheartedly, contributing manpower, money, and materials.
- In return, they expected significant political gains once the war ended.
Activities of the Home Rule Leagues
- Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant had founded the Home Rule Leagues (1916).
- They carried out intense propaganda demanding Home Rule or self-government for India.
- This mass political activity created pressure that the British could not ignore.
Strained Relations Between Muslims and the Government
- The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 had introduced separate electorates for Muslims, but this did not win them over to the government’s side.
- In fact, the Muslim League, under leaders like Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali, gradually shifted towards the demand for self-government.
- The League even began negotiations with the Congress to work together on a common programme.

🔑 Earlier attempt at reconciliation: In 1910, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Sir William Wedderburn organised a Hindu-Muslim Conference at Allahabad, which laid the foundation for future cooperation between Congress and the Muslim League.

Lucknow Session of Congress (1916)
- This session was a turning point.
- Moderates and Extremists reunited after years of division.
- Congress and Muslim League also came together in what is called the Lucknow Pact.
- Together, they prepared a joint scheme of constitutional reforms.

This unity of Indians across ideological and communal lines made it clear to the British that cosmetic measures would no longer work—some form of reform had to be introduced.

The Montagu Declaration (20 August 1917)

In response to this rising political pressure and to secure Indian loyalty during the War, Lord Montagu made a historic statement in the British Parliament:

“The policy of His Majesty’s Government is to increase the association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with the ultimate goal of responsible government in India.”

This statement, known as the Montagu Declaration, was extremely significant because for the first time, the British government officially mentioned “responsible government” as the ultimate goal in India.

Of course, the words were vague and “gradual development” meant an extremely slow pace. But still, this declaration gave a sense of hope to many Indians at that time.

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1918–1919)

After this declaration, Montagu himself visited India in November 1917. He held discussions with:

Lord Chelmsford (the Viceroy),
British officials in central and provincial governments, and
Prominent Indian leaders.

Based on these deliberations, the Montagu-Chelmsford Report (popularly called the Montford Report) was published in July 1918. This report became the foundation of the Government of India Act of 1919.

Perfect, now we’ve reached the heart of the Government of India Act of 1919. This Act is extremely important because it sets the stage for both — the hopes of Indians (responsible government) and their frustrations (limitations of reforms). Let’s understand this:

Government of India Act, 1919

This Act was based on the Montagu-Chelmsford Report and is sometimes called the Montford Reforms. Its preamble was significant because, for the first time, it explicitly declared the goal of “gradual introduction of responsible government in India.”

However, the word “gradual” was the catch. While Indians expected real power, what they got was a half-hearted experiment.

Major Features of the Act

1. Bicameral Legislature at the Centre

For the first time in India, a bicameral legislature (two houses) was created:

Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
- 145 members, term of 3 years.
- Seats were not allocated by population but by the importance of provinces in the eyes of the British.
Council of State (Upper House)
- 60 members, term of 5 years.

👉 In both Houses, the majority of members were chosen through direct elections. This was a landmark step because Indians were, for the first time, electing their representatives at the central level.

2. Unicameral Legislatures in the Provinces

The Act was first applied to 8 provinces — Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Central Provinces, and Assam. Later, in 1923, it was extended to Burma and later to NWFP.

Each province got a Legislative Council.
70% of members were elected, and elections were direct (primary voters elected the members).
The size of councils varied from province to province.

So, while the Centre had two Houses, the provinces had unicameral legislatures.

3. Limited Franchise (No Universal Adult Franchise)

The Act did not give the right to vote to all adults. Instead, the franchise was limited:

Only those with property, taxable income, or land revenue of at least Rs. 3000 could vote.
Members of university senates were also allowed to vote.
Women were excluded, though provincial councils could choose to grant voting rights to women.

👉 Compare this with Britain: In 1918, British women above 30 (with property qualification) got voting rights under the Representation of the People Act (1918). But in India, women were still largely excluded.

4. Extension of Communal Electorates

The separate electorate system, introduced earlier for Muslims, was now extended to:

Sikhs,
Anglo-Indians,
Indian Christians,
Europeans.

👉 This further deepened communal divisions, making it harder for Indians to unite.

5. Division of Subjects between Centre and Provinces

A dual distribution of powers was introduced:

Central List: Foreign affairs, political relations, currency, tariffs, customs, patents, communications, public debt, etc.
Provincial List: Local self-government, health, sanitation, education, agriculture, forests, public works, law and order, etc.
Residual Powers: Vested in the Governor-General in Council.

6. Dyarchy in the Provinces

This was the most unique (and controversial) feature of the Act. Dyarchy (dual government) meant dividing provincial subjects into two categories:

Reserved Subjects
- Controlled by the Governor and his Executive Council.
- These were critical areas like police, justice, land revenue, irrigation, printing presses, factories.
- Here, Indians had no real say.
Transferred Subjects
- Handed over to Indian ministers, who were responsible to the provincial legislature.
- These included agriculture, local self-government, health, education, etc.

👉 In short, Indians were given responsibility only for “softer” subjects, while the British retained control over “hard power” subjects like police, revenue, and law.

Thus, it was called a partially responsible government at the provincial level.

7. Powers of the Governor-General

The Governor-General remained extremely powerful, almost like a dictator:

Consent for all Central bills was mandatory.
He could veto any bill.
He could even certify a bill rejected by the legislature if he declared it “essential for the safety, tranquillity, or interests of British India.”
He could overrule his Executive Council.
He had complete control over foreign and political matters, especially dealings with Princely States.

👉 This shows that despite the appearance of reforms, the real authority remained with the British executive.

Conclusion: Significance of the Act

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a turning point:

It introduced elections, bicameralism, and dyarchy, which were important experiments in constitutional governance.
It acknowledged “responsible government” as a long-term goal.

But at the same time:

Franchise was severely restricted.
Communal divisions were deepened.
Real power remained with the British — especially in crucial areas like law and order, finance, and administration.

Thus, instead of satisfying Indians, the Act only intensified discontent. And this frustration merged with anger over the Rowlatt Act (1919), creating the conditions for Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement.

Excellent, we are now moving into the detailed provisions, limitations, and political reactions to the Government of India Act, 1919. This part is crucial because it helps us understand both:

Why the Act was projected by the British as a “big concession,” and
Why Indian nationalists saw it as a mere deception.

Let’s understand:

Additional Provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919

1. Governor-General’s Executive Council

Out of the six members of the Governor-General’s Executive Council, three were to be Indians.
However, they were given less important portfolios such as Law, Education, Labour, Health, and Industry.
They reported not to the Legislature, but directly to the Governor-General, who himself was answerable only to the Secretary of State in Britain.

👉 So, despite including Indians, real power remained out of their reach.

2. Council of the Secretary of State

The Secretary of State’s Council was to have 8–12 members, of which 3 were Indians.
The Secretary of State had to follow the advice of this Council.
Importantly, he was barred from interfering in provincial transferred subjects.
Also, for the first time, his salary and expenses were to be paid from British revenues (earlier they came from Indian revenues).

👉 This was a small relief, since earlier Indians were literally paying for the bureaucracy that ruled them.

3. Finance

A clear separation of revenue sources was introduced between the Centre and Provinces.
Provincial budgets were separated from the Central budget.
Provinces were allowed to enact their own budgets.

👉 This gave provinces some fiscal autonomy, though in practice the Central Government retained financial dominance.

4. Other Provisions

Relaxation of Control: The British Parliament reduced its direct control over Indian Government, and the Central Government’s control over provinces was also relaxed.
Enlargement of Functions of Councils: Members could now ask supplementary questions, giving legislatures more space for debate.
High Commissioner’s Office: Created in London, to handle some duties of the Secretary of State.
Statutory Commission: The Act promised a review commission after 10 years to examine its working. This led to the Simon Commission (1927).

Limitations of the Act

Despite these reforms, the Act was deeply disappointing. Let’s see why:

No Responsible Government at the Centre
- The Governor-General remained the supreme authority, responsible not to the Indian Legislature but to the British Parliament via the Secretary of State.
Central Government only “Representative,” not Responsible
- Though Indians were now represented in the legislature, the executive remained free from legislative control.
Dyarchy Failed
- Since finance (a reserved subject) controlled everything, transferred subjects like education and health lacked funds.
- Governors could override ministers at will.
Governor’s Powers Were Overwhelming
- Using the Instrument of Instructions and Executive Business Rules, the Governor could control the entire administration.
Provincial Governments Subordinate
- Central Government still had unrestricted control over provinces.

👉 In short, the reforms were a façade—they created the appearance of self-government but kept real power firmly in British hands.

Positive Developments

Even with its flaws, the Act had some long-term contributions:

Though Dyarchy failed, it paved the way for a federal system later.
It created a parliamentary atmosphere, with Indians learning how to debate, legislate, and ask questions.
In some provinces, local government reforms (Bombay, Bengal) and social reforms (education and welfare in Madras) were introduced.
In almost every province, women got limited voting rights, which was a symbolic breakthrough.

Indian National Congress (INC) Stand

When the reform proposals were published, Congress met in a special session at Bombay (August 1918) under the presidentship of Hasan Imam.

Congress condemned the reforms as disappointing and unsatisfactory.
It demanded effective self-government, not half-hearted measures.
INC decided to boycott the first elections (1920) under this Act. Gandhi’s call for boycott got huge public support, and voter turnout was extremely low.

Split Within Congress: Liberals vs Nationalists

Not all leaders agreed with the boycott:

Annie Besant, Bipin Chandra Pal, Surendranath Banerjee, Tej Bahadur Sapru accepted the reforms and chose to cooperate with the government.
They broke away and formed the Indian National Liberal Federation (INLF) in 1919.
- They were henceforth called the Liberals.
- They played only a minor role in later politics.
Madan Mohan Malaviya also supported the reforms.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, however, resigned from the INC in protest.

👉 This moment is critical: it shows how the Act created divisions among Indian leaders, which the British always tried to exploit.

Final Analysis

The Government of India Act, 1919 marked a transition:

It promised Indians a taste of responsible government but gave them only crumbs.
It united people in disappointment, fuelling the demand for real swaraj (self-rule).
The failure of reforms, combined with the Rowlatt Act (1919), created the perfect storm that led to the rise of Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement.

Wonderful — now we come to one of the most painful yet defining chapters in our freedom struggle: the Rowlatt Act, the Rowlatt Satyagraha, and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. This part is important because it shows how the false promises of reforms (Montagu-Chelmsford) were immediately followed by harsh repression. Let’s understand:

The Rowlatt Act (1919): The “Black Law”

During the First World War, the British had imposed many repressive measures under the Defence of India Act (1915) to crush revolutionary activities. After the war ended, instead of relaxing controls, the British wanted to continue these extraordinary powers.

For this, they appointed a Sedition Committee under Justice Sidney Rowlatt to investigate “revolutionary crimes.”
Based on its recommendations, two bills were drafted and introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council on 6 February 1919.
Nationalists immediately recognised these bills as an attempt to criminalise dissent and maintain permanent repression.

Repressive Provisions of the Act

No Appeal: Political offences would be tried by a special court of three High Court judges, with no right of appeal.
Relaxed Rules of Evidence: Courts could accept evidence that would normally be inadmissible.
Arrest without Warrant: Police could arrest anyone and search premises without warrant.
Detention without Trial: Individuals could be kept in jail for up to two years without trial.
Suspension of Habeas Corpus: The cherished legal safeguard of the right to challenge unlawful detention was removed.

👉 In short, it was a lawless law — unlimited powers for the government, no rights for the people.

The Rowlatt Satyagraha

Nationalist leaders reacted sharply:

Mahatma Gandhi called it a “Black Law”.
M.A. Jinnah warned that it was nothing but “lawless law.”

To oppose it:

Gandhi founded the Satyagraha Sabha in Bombay on 24 February 1919.
Members took a pledge to disobey the Act, court arrest, and fill the prisons.
It attracted young radicals from the Home Rule Leagues, Pan-Islamic leaders like Abdul Bari, and some members of the Muslim League.

Forms of Protest

Hartals (strikes), demonstrations, processions.
Civil disobedience against specific laws.
Selling prohibited books like Hind Swaraj as an act of defiance.

By March–April 1919, the whole country was electrified. Slogans of Hindu-Muslim unity echoed across cities.

But the British government responded with brutal repression — lathi-charges and firing on unarmed crowds became common.

Opposition to Gandhi’s Move

Not all leaders supported Gandhi’s step.

Liberals like Surendranath Banerjee, T.B. Sapru, D.E. Wacha, and Srinivasa Sastri opposed the Satyagraha, arguing it would derail the reforms process.
Annie Besant also condemned it, saying there was “nothing in the Act to resist civilly” and blindly breaking laws at someone’s dictate was dangerous.

Despite opposition, one of the two Rowlatt Bills was withdrawn. But the other became law in March 1919 as the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (Rowlatt Act).

👉 Every single Indian member of the Imperial Legislative Council opposed the Act. Leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Mazhar ul Haq even resigned in protest.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (13 April 1919)

The Rowlatt Act triggered nationwide anger. Gandhi called for a hartal on 6 April 1919, which saw massive participation. Punjab, already tense under the authoritarian rule of Lt. Governor Michael O’Dwyer, became the epicentre.

Key Events Leading to the Massacre

Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satyapal, two respected leaders symbolising Hindu-Muslim unity, organised a peaceful protest at Amritsar on 9 April.
They were arrested and deported, causing widespread resentment.
On 10 April, peaceful protestors demanding their release were fired upon by the police, leading to deaths and retaliatory violence in the city.

General Dyer’s Brutality

To control the unrest, General Reginald Dyer took command.
He imposed strict restrictions:
- Nobody could leave Amritsar without a pass.
- No gatherings or processions were allowed.
But on Baisakhi day (13 April), thousands gathered in Jallianwala Bagh — many for the festival, others for a peaceful meeting to pass two resolutions:
- Condemn the firing of April 10.
- Demand the release of leaders.
Dyer surrounded the garden, blocked the only exit, and ordered firing without warning.
His men fired 1,650 rounds for 10–15 minutes, killing 379 officially (thousands by Indian estimates) and wounding many more.

This was a cold-blooded massacre — firing stopped only when ammunition was exhausted.

Aftermath

Punjab was placed under martial law.
Humiliating atrocities followed (like the infamous “crawling order” in Amritsar).
The entire nation was shaken and horrified.
Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood in protest.
Gandhi, shocked by the violence that followed, withdrew the Satyagraha on 18 April 1919, admitting it was a “Himalayan blunder” — the people were not yet disciplined enough for Satyagraha.

Closer Examination

The agitation was spontaneous but unorganised; Congress as an organisation hardly played a role.
It was more urban than rural.
The Satyagraha Sabha mostly focused on literature, pledges, and propaganda.
Gandhi’s early test of mass Satyagraha ended abruptly, but it prepared the ground for bigger struggles ahead.

Significance of the Rowlatt Satyagraha

It was the first all-India struggle against the British.
Gandhi emerged as a truly all-India leader.
It showcased Hindu-Muslim unity, which became a vital strength for later movements.
The brutality of Jallianwala Bagh destroyed the moral legitimacy of British rule in Indian eyes.

✨ In short: The Rowlatt Act was a betrayal, the Satyagraha was Gandhi’s first experiment with mass mobilisation, and Jallianwala Bagh became the turning point that convinced Indians that reforms alone could never bring freedom.

Aftermath of the Massacre

Amritsar Session of the INC (1919)

To show solidarity with the people of Punjab, the Indian National Congress held its annual session at Amritsar in December 1919.

President: Pandit Motilal Nehru.
The session condemned the massacre and mourned the victims of Jallianwala Bagh.

Key Resolutions Passed

Withdrawal of Viceroy Lord Chelmsford.
Action against Michael O’Dwyer (Punjab’s Lt. Governor) and General Dyer (who ordered the firing).
Boycott of the Hunter Commission (the official inquiry).
Repeal of the Rowlatt Act (1919) and the Press Act (1910).
Protest against the British government’s hostile attitude on the Khilafat issue.
Support for Swadeshi and encouragement of Labour Unions.

Interestingly, Gandhi also moved a resolution expressing regret over mob excesses in Punjab and Gujarat. This showed his insistence on maintaining the discipline of non-violence.

👉 At this session, Gandhi initially suggested that Indians should cooperate with the reforms, despite inadequacies. But within a year, in September 1920, he changed his stance and launched the Non-Cooperation Movement.

Hunter Commission (1919–1920)

The international outrage over Jallianwala Bagh forced the British to hold an inquiry.

On 14 October 1919, the government set up the Disorders Inquiry Committee, popularly known as the Hunter Commission.
It had 8 members: 5 British and 3 Indians —
- Chimanlal Setalvad (Vice-Chancellor, Bombay University),
- Jagat Narayan (lawyer),
- Sultan Ahmed Khan (lawyer).

Findings

Indian members grilled Dyer rigorously and later submitted a minority report disagreeing with British members.
In 1920, the Commission censured General Dyer, but no real punishment was given.
He was asked to resign as Brigade Commander and was barred from further employment in India.

👉 The Committee admitted that the massacre was a dark episode, but failed to deliver justice.

For a cinematic portrayal of the aftermath, one may watch the Hindi film Kesari 2 (2025). It offers a fictionalised dramatization of events, useful for visualising the mood and emotions of that period.

No Universal Condemnation

Reactions to the massacre revealed deep divisions:

Condemnations:
- The Hunter Commission itself censured Dyer.
- Viceroy Chelmsford and the House of Commons expressed disapproval.
- Winston Churchill called it “monstrous.”
Support for Dyer:
- The House of Lords hailed him as a hero.
- Author Rudyard Kipling defended him.
- British newspapers like Calcutta Statesman and Madras Mail raised a fund of £28,000 for him.
- Many princes and Sikh leaders also refrained from condemning the massacre, seeking to stay in British favour.

👉 This contrast exposed the moral bankruptcy of British imperialism — even mass murder could be celebrated by sections of British society.

Congress Report on Punjab Disorders (1920)

The INC did not trust the British inquiry. So, it formed its own sub-committee in 1919, led by Gandhi, C.R. Das, Abbas Tyabji, and M.R. Jayakar.

In March 1920, they published The Congress Punjab Inquiry.
It demanded strict action against Dyer, O’Dwyer, and Viceroy Chelmsford.
It also refuted the official figure of 379 deaths, estimating 1,200 killed and 3,600 wounded.

👉 This report was groundbreaking because it documented the truth and countered the colonial narrative.

Later Developments

Surprising Honour: Soon after the massacre, Arur Singh, caretaker of the Golden Temple, presented Dyer with a siropa (robe of honour). This angered Sikhs and triggered the Gurdwara Reform Movement.
O’Dwyer’s Assassination (1940): On 13 March 1940, freedom fighter Udham Singh assassinated Michael O’Dwyer in London’s Caxton Hall.
- Singh believed O’Dwyer was the real architect behind Jallianwala Bagh.
- Gandhi, however, condemned the act, calling it an “act of insanity” — because his focus was always on changing the system, not taking revenge.
General Dyer’s Death: He died in 1927 of cerebral haemorrhage.

For a powerful visualization, the film Sardar Udham (2021) offers a historically respectful and largely accurate portrayal of Udham Singh’s life and his revenge for Jallianwala Bagh — though with some dramatization in personal details.

Historical Significance

The aftermath of Jallianwala Bagh made one thing crystal clear:

British promises of reforms were hollow.
Repression remained their real policy.

This event convinced millions of Indians that freedom could not be won by appealing to British justice — it had to be wrested by mass struggle.

And from here, Gandhi moved decisively towards launching the Non-Cooperation Movement, linking it with another powerful issue of the time — the Khilafat question.