Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….
Introduction……………………………………………………………………….
Chief Provisions of the act……………………………………………………..
Importance of The Morley Minto Reforms ……………………………………….
Failure of Minto Morley council ……………………………………………
Critical Analysis ……………………………………………………………….
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….
 Abstract
The Indian Councils Act 1909  commonly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, was an Act of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the involvement
of Indians in the governance of British India Johan the Liberal Secretary of State for India, and
the Conservative Governor-General of
India, and Earl of Minto produced the Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley-Mintoreforms),
these reforms did not go any significant distance towards meeting the Indian National Congress
demand for ‘the system of government obtaining in Self-Governing British Colonies.’
 In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the locals
were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of correspondences started
between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of India. A committee was appointed
by the Government of India to propose a scheme of reforms. The committee submitted its report,
and after the approval of Lord Minto and Lord Morley, the Act of 1909 was passed by the British
Parliament. The Act of 1909 has its own significance in the Constitutional History of India. By
this Act, Indians were not only associated with the work of legislation but they were allowed
to participate in the administration of the country. The Act increased the strength of theCouncils
and also enhanced their powers. The Act by introducing a separate electorate, narrow franchise
and indirect election heralded a new era in the Indian political life.

Introduction

During the late 19th Century British educated Indian began to demand a role in their government,
which later developed into independence movement. In 1885, the Indian National Congress was
founded. Most of its members were elite Hindu. The congress met annually to promote the goal
of greater participation of Indians in government. By the early 20th century a radical wing had
developed in the Congress that was not content with the slow pace of reform. They were
energized by the partition of the huge province of Bengal into two in 1905: East Bengal with a
Muslim majority, and West Bengal with a Hindu majority. A storm of protest against the
partition ensued and included an economic boycott of British goods and acts of terrorism. The
Congress was split over this issue and a radical wing split off to form the New Party. The new
viceroy. Lord Minto (1845-1914). On the one acted to repress the unrest, while on the other he
worked to unrest reforms with the Secretary of state of India of the newly elected Liberal
government in Great Britain, John Morley.
The partition of Bengal was a catalyst for Muslim political consciousness. Since the decline and
fall of the Muslim Mughal dynasty. Indian Muslims had fallen behind Hindus in attaining
modem education and adjusting to new conditions. Unlike Hindus- Indian Muslims were
encouraged by the formation of East Bengal. Realizing the constitutional reforms were in the
works and that they would be a minority in a representative government, Western- educated
Muslims led by Aga Khan organized the All India Muslim League in 1905 and lobbied Minto for
a “fair share” for the Muslim community in any representative system. Like the Congress, the
league also met in annual conventions to formulate goals.
The Act of 1892 did not fulfil the aspirations of the people of India. The Constitution and
functions of the Legislative Council disappointed the Indians. Moreover, only four years after the
passing of the Councils Act of 1892, India had to face many sufferings. Plague broke out in the
country, which was followed by famine. Famine was followed by bubonic Plague in the Bombay
Presidency. The measures adopted by the Government were vigorous but the way they were
implemented, was not appealing to the masses. Some international events in this context also
need mention. Victory of Abyssinia over Italy in I896, and of Japan over Russia in 1905, clearly
indicated that the dawn of new era for the whole Asia was about to come. Indians in South
Africa, Fizi and Canada were meted with the most humiliating treatment. The imposition, of
three pound Toll Tax on Indian labourers in Natal if they overstayed, and prohibitions on Indians
in transval to have lands in their own names, added fuel to the fire. In 1888, the Indians of
Orange River Colony were expelled and were subjected to intolerable discrimination. Gandhiji
launched Satyagraha against the Act, in South Africa that Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak said at that
time, ‘A good foreign Government was redesireable than an inferior national Government.’
The whole atmosphere of India was filled with the opposition to the British Government. The
economic condition of the country further deteriorated in the beginning of the 20th century. The
leaders of the country criticized the economic policy of the government. Press and platforms
played an important role in the development of the national movement. The violent crusade
launched by the Extremists against the British imperialism compelled the government to
introduce substantial reforms.
 In 1905, the Liberal Government was formed in England and Mr. Morley became the Secretary
of State for India. This government was very liberal towards the Indians. In 1906, Lord Minto in
a minute reviewing of the political situation in India pointed out how the growth of education
encouraged by the British rule had led to the rise of important classes claiming equality of
citizenship, and aspiring to take a larger part in shaping the policy of the government, and
appointed a Committee of his Executive Council to consider and report on the general question
of constitutional reforms. In England, in the same year, a Liberal Government came into power
in face of what the Secretary of State for India describe as “enormous difficulties” and for the
next two years there were “heavy and black clouds over The Indian horizon.” India attracted
attention in the House of Commons, in far excess of what she had hitherto done. In spite of
sedition and political unrest, Lord Minto’s Government persisted in the policy of reform and in
the Home Department Letter of the August 24th, 1907, they put forward certain tentative
proposals, inviting the Local Governments to submit their opinions after consulting
representatives of the various classes in the country. As a direct result of these deliberations, a
dispatch on reforms was
addressed by the Government of India to the Secretary of State on the October 1st, 1908, and a
reply discussing the proposed reforms was sent by Lord Morley to the Governor-General in
Council on the November 27th, 1908. On December 17th, 1908, Viscount Morley of Blackburn
made in Parliament his promised statement on the proposed reforms which he described as “the
opening of a very important chapter in the history of the relations of Great Britain and India” and
“the turning over of a fresh leaf in the history of British responsibility to India.” Viscount
Morley summarized the reforms proposed under seven heads,
Viz ,to increase the number of members of both Vice regal and Provincial Councils; to sanction
election alongside of nomination; to repeal the prohibition contained in the Indian Councils Act,
1892, against resolution or division in Council in financial discussions; to invest Legislative
Councils with power to discuss matters of public and general importance, and
to pass recommendations to the Government; to extend the power to appoint a member on the
Council to preside; to increase the number of ordinary members of the Executive Councils of
Bombay and Madras; and to sanction the powers for creation of Executive Councils for
Lieutenant-Governors and to define the Lieutenant- Governor’s power to overrule his Executive
Council. The Government of India proposed to reduce official majority in Provincial Councils to
the narrowest limits by making number of officials (excluding the Head of Government) & non-
officials equal. In regard to Viceroy’s Legislative Council, it was proposed to rely on public
spirit of non-official members and to dispense, with official majority “on all ordinary occasions.”
The Secretary of State while agreeing to dispense with official majority in Provincial Councils
decided to retain it in the Council of the Governor-General. Another of the reforms proposed for
which, however, no sanction of Parliament was required, was to appoint one Indian member on
each of the Executive Councils of the Governor- General and Governors of Bombay and Madras,
for such an absence could “no longer be defended” and the advance was justified by reason of
enormous success which attended the appointment of two Indians to the Council of India.

CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

The Act made the following provisions:

Expansion of legislatures:
The additional members of the Legislative Councils at the Centre and in Madras and Bombay,
and the members of the Legislative Councils of the lieutenant-Governors of Provinces instead of
being all nominated according to the Acts of 1861 and1892 would include members so
nominated and also members elected according to regulations to be made under the present Act.
References in the former Acts to the members so nominated and their nomination would be
construed as including references to the members so elected and their election. The maximum
number of Additional Members for each Legislative Council was laid down, but the actual
number, quorum, term of office, etc were left to be determined by rules. The maximum fixed for
the Legislative Council of the Governor-General was 60; for Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United
Provinces, and Eastern Bengal and Assam 50; and for the Punjab and Burma 30. The Governor-
General-in-Council was, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State-in-Council, empowered
to make regulations as to the conditions under which and manner in which persons resident in
India might be nominated or elected as members of the Legislative Councils as to the
qualifications for being, and for being nominated or elected, a member of any such Council, as to
any other matter, and also as to the manner in which those regulations were to be carried into
effect Regulations were not subject to alteration or amendment by the Central Legislature.
 
Expansion of Executive Councils:
Members of the Executive Councils of Madras and Bombay were not to exceed four in number,
as directed from time to time by the Secretary of State in Council, and of these two at least were
to be persons who at the time of their appointment had been in the service of the Crown in India
for not less than twelve years.
 In a case of equality of votes at a meeting of the Council, the President was to have two votes or
the casting vote.
Creation of Executive Councils:
The Governor-General in Council could with the approval of the Secretary of State-in-Council,
create, by proclamation, Executive Council for the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal Division
of the Presidency of Fort William, make
provisions for determining the number (not exceeding four) and qualifications of themembers of
the Council, for appointment of temporary or acting members and for the procedure to
be adopted in case of difference of opinion between a Lieutenant-Governor and his Council,
equality of votes and the absence of a Lieutenant-Governor from his Council. In the same way
the Governor-General-in-Council could create an Executive Council in any other Province under
a Lieutenant-Governor. But a draft of the proclamation before promulgation
was to be laid before each House of the Parliament. In case the proclamationwas made with
respect to any province, the Lieutenant-Governor might, with the consent of the Governor-
General-in-Council, make rules and orders for the more convenient transaction of business in his
Council. Any order made or act done according to the rules and orders so made was to be
deemed to be an act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Every member of any such
Council was to be appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty and
was, as such, to be a member of the Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor and elected
under the provisions of this Act. The Governor-General and the Governors of Madras and
Bombay, and the Lieutenant-Governor of every Province respectively, would appoint a member
of their respective Councils to be its Vice-President.

Discussion and Interpellation:

Power was given to the Governor-General in Council and Local Governments to make rules
authorizing, at any meetings of their respective Legislative Councils, the discussion of Annual
Financial Statement and of any matter of general public interest, and the asking of questions.
Such rules if made by the Governor-General in Council required the sanction of the Secretary of
State in Council, and when made by a Local Government required the sanction of the Governor-
General in Council and were not liable to alteration or amendment by the Legislative Council
concerned. The Governor-General in Council was further empowered to make regulations, with
the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, as to the conditions under which and manner in
which persons were to be nominated or elected members of the Legislative Councils.
 The aforesaid rules
might provide for the appointment of a member of any such Council to preside at any suchdiscus
sion in the place of the Governor-General, Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, as the case might
be, and any Vice-President. The Finance Member was every year to present to the Legislative
Council the Financial Statement i.e., the preliminary financial estimates of the Government of
India for the financial year next following, together with an explanatory memorandum. On the
day fixed for discussion, any member could move a resolution relating to alteration in taxation,
etc., of which he had given notice in writing to the Secretary at least two clear-
days before the commencement of the stage of the discussion to which the resolution related. Are
solution was to take the form of a specific recommendation addressed to the Governor-General
in Council, and the President could disallow any resolution or part of a resolution without giving
any reason therefore other than that in his opinion it could not be moved consistently with the
public interests or that it should be moved in the Legislative Council of a Local Government. A
resolution, if carried by the majority of votes, was to take effect only as a recommendation to the
government. This was to be followed by the presentation of the Financial Statement as finally
settled by the Governor-General in Council and on this occasion, the Finance Member was to
explain why any of the resolutions passed by the Council had not been accepted. Certain heads
of revenue were not open to discussion, such as stamps, customs, tributes from native states,
army, marine, military works, etc. Certain heads of expenditure also were similarly excluded,
such as interest on debt, ecclesiastical charges, special defenses, state railways, political
pensions, etc.
 
By the Regulations made under the Act, the Additional Members of the Legislative Council of
the Governor-General were ordinarily to be sixty in number, of whom not less than 25were to be
elected and not more than 35 nominated. The form in which the elective principle was embodied
was representation of classes and interests, instead of by territorial constituencies.
Mohammedans were given the right to elect their representatives in communal constituencies.
The nominated members were to consist of officials and non-officials, of whom the former were
not to be more than 28 and the latter not so may as would make the majority of the Council non-
official. There were four classes of electorates, viz., the Provincial Legislative Councils, and the
District Councils and Municipal Committees of the Central Provinces; the landholders of
Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Bihar and Orissa, and Central
Provinces; the Mohammedan community of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, United Provinces, and
Bihar and Orissa; and the Chambers of Commerce of Bengal and Bombay. The seats assigned to
these electorates were 13 in the first case, 7 in the second, 5 in the third and 2 in the fourth. The
Act gave special representation to landholders, and set apart some seats to be filled exclusively
by Muslims as it was thought that territorial electorates had signally failed to secure adequate
representation of these classes. Of the non-official members elected to the Imperial Council since
1893, 45 percent belonged to the professional middle class, the landholders obtained 25 percent
of the seats, the Mohammedans 12 percent and Indian mercantile community, nil.
Mohammedans were given 2 communal constituencies in Madras, 4 in Bombay, 5 in Bengal, 4
in United Provinces, 2 in Assam, and 4 in Bihar and Orissa. The usual constituencies were
Municipalities, District Boards, Universities, Landholders, and special interests such as
Chambers of Commerce.

IMPORTANCE OF THE MORLEY MINTO REFORMS

The Morley Minto reforms effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various legislative
councils in India for the first time. Previously some Indians had been appointed to legislative
councils. The majorities of the councils remained British government appointments. Moreover
the electorate was limited to specific classes of Indian nationals. The introduction of the electoral
principle laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system even though this was contrary to the
intent of Morley. As stated by Burke and Quraishi. “To Lord Curzon's apprehension that the new
Councils could become
'parliamentary bodies in miniature', Morley vehemently replied that, 'if it could be said that this c
hapter ofreforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in
India, I for one would have nothing at all to do with it'. But he had already confessed in a letter to
Minto in June 1906 that while it was inconceivable to adapt English political institutions to the
'nations who inhabit India...the spirit of English institutions is a different thing and it is a thing
that we cannot escape, even if we wished...because the British constituencies are the masters, and
they will assuredly insist... all parties alike... on the spirit of their own political system being
applied to India.' He never got down to explaining how the spirit of the British system of
government could be achieved without its body.”
 
Muslims had expressed serious concern that a ‘first past the post’ British type of electoral system
would leave them permanently subject to Hindu majority rule. The Act of 1909stipulated, as
demanded by the Muslim leadership that Indian Muslims be allotted reserved seats in the
Municipal and District Boards, in the Provincial Councils and in the Imperial Legislature; that
the number of reserved seats be in excess of their relative population (25 percent of the Indian
population); and, that only Muslims should vote for candidates for the Muslim seats ('separate
electorates').These concessions were a constant source of strife 1909-47. British statesmen
generally considered reserved seats as regrettable in that they encouraged communal extremism
as Muslim candidates did not have to appeal for Hindu votes and vice versa. As further power
was shifted from the British to Indian politicians in 1919, 1935 and after, Muslims were
evermore determined to hold on to, and if possible expand, reserved seats and their weightage.
However, Hindu politicians repeatedly tried to eliminate reserved seats as they considered them
to be undemocratic and to hinder the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national
feeling. In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British
Parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the locals
were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of correspondences
started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of India. A committee was
appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of reforms. The committee
submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and Lord Morley, the Act of 1909 was
passed by the British parliament.

FAILURE OF MINTO-MORLEY COUNCILS

The Minto-Morley Councils, in spite of the enthusiasm which they originally evoked, failed to
satisfy the aspirations of the people. They were in no sense representative bodies. The franchise
was restricted and the system of election was indirect. The largest constituency representing
sectional interests which returned a member to the Indian Legislative Council by direct election
was composed of 650 voters, while in the nine general constituencies representing non-official
members of the Provincial Legislatures the average number of voters was twenty-two and in one,
the number was nine only. For the Provincial Councils, the constituencies were larger but even
here in no case the electorate exceeded a few hundred persons. Except in the case of some
special class constituencies, there was no real
connection between the primary voter and the man who sat in the Council. Elections to the Provi
ncialLegislative Councils were indirect and to the Indian Legislature doubly indirect. The Minto-
Morley Councils continued the official bloc which gave unreal and farcical character to their
proceedings. The official members were not expected to ask questions or move resolutions and
when a division took place they always voted by order in support of the Government. The system
was in effect, frankly irritating and as the official members were generally European it
occasionally gave racial complexion to the debate. The popular exprsentatives and the official
members were arrayed in opposing camps. The elected members being in minority the decision
was often known beforehand with the result that debates lacked enthusiasm except when feelings
were aroused. The Minto-Morley reforms did not recognize the principle of responsibility or
popular control. They embodied no new policy and were based on the fundamental principle that
executive government should retain the authority to pronounce final decision on all questions.
This left the Councils with no function but criticism and the very limited opportunities which
they afforded were insufficient to satisfy the growing national consciousness of educated
Indians. Some of the antecedent conditions of success of the reformed Councils were lacking.
“There was no general advance in local bodies; no real setting free of the provincial finance; and
in spite of some progress no widespread admission of Indians in greater numbers into
the public services. Because the relaxation of parliamentary control had not been contemplatedth
e Government of India could not relax their control over local governments. The sphere in which
the Councils could affect the Government’s action, both in respect of finance and administration
was, therefore, closely circumscribed. Again and again, a local government could only meet a
resolution by saying that the matter was really out of its hands.”
 The underlying idea of the Minto-Morley changes was to “really and effectively associate
the people of India in the work not only of occasional legislation, but of actual everyday
administration.” With this end in view, a Royal Commission on Decentralization was appointed
in Lord Minto’s time which presented its report in 1909 recommending a series of measures for
the purpose of relaxation of control by higher authorities and the simplification of administrative
methods. As a result of the Commission’s proposals, between the years 1910 and 1917, the
control of the Government of India over the Provincial Governments was relaxed in a multitude
of details and something was done to free local bodies from official interference.
 
Critical Analysis

The reforms under the Indian Councils Act of 1909 were essentially of an evolutionary character;
they were a natural extension of the previously existing system. Excessive claims were made for
them in the enthusiasm of the moment, but in any case they could not justly be described as
embodying any new policy. The change was one of degree and not of kind. Lord Morley himself
repudiated the idea that the measures were in any sense a step towards Parliamentary
Government. Nevertheless, it failed to satisfy political aspirations of the people of India. Under
the Act, Muslims got separate electorates and yet their right to vote in the joint electorates was
left intact on account of their alleged political importance. This enabled them to secure an
excessive undue representation. What was more egregious was the creation of franchise. A
Muslim to become a voter had to pay income tax on rupees, 3000 per year; while a non-Muslim
on rupees 3,00,000. A Muslim graduate to become a voter was to have standing of five years as a
graduate, while a non-Muslim of 30 years. The creation of separate electorates was an attempt to
set one religion against the other. It was a disintegrating agency to which sectional interests were
made the supreme consideration in the body politic. It was calculated to retard harmony in the
society. Separate electorates were meant to perpetuate class divisions and were against the
democratic spirit. The Congress was even critical of the special representation of landholders
who never demanded to be treated as a separate class, and also the imposition of restrictions on
the choice of electors in choosing candidates. In the regulations for Bombay, Madras and Bengal
eligibility to a membership of a Provincial Legislature was confined to members of Municipal
and District Boards only. This meant to exclude able and leading persons from the Legislature.
Besides this, the Act did not provide for a non-official majority in the Central Legislature. As
regards the character of non-official majority in Provincial Legislative Councils, the non-official
majority in all of them was composed of both elected and nominated members which, as the
Councils were constituted, meant a standing and, in fact ,an overwhelming official majority in
each one of them. The members returned were in aminority as against the official and nominated
members combined. Thus, the British government gave an illusory official majority instead of a
genuine one. The regulations gave an extremely limited franchise, and except in the cases of
Muslim landlords, the representation of the middle classes was secured by indirect election.
Instead, there should have been direct election. Also, certain parts of British India, like the
North-Western Frontier Provinces, Coorg and Ajmer Merwara, went unrepresented. The
Montague-Chelmsford report dealt, in detail with the Morley-Minto reforms. It said that their
underlying idea was to associate the people to a greater extent with the Government in the
decision of public questions. “It was thought impossible to introduce a general system of direct
election with territorial constituencies; and indirect election was accordingly retained, except in
the case of Muslims and certain other special electorates.” The reforms “admitted the need for
increased representation, while reiterating the impossibility of basing it generally on a direct or
general franchise. They admitted the desirability of generally securing non-official approval to
the Government legislation, though they trusted in an emergency to the support of nominated
members, to the division of interests between different classes of elected members, and in the
last resort to overriding legislation in the Indian Legislative Council where an official majority
was retained. Frankly abandoning the old conception of the Councils as a mere legislative
committee of the Government, they did much to make them serve the purpose of an inquest into
the doings of Government, by conceding the very important rights of discussing administrative
matters and of cross-examining Government on its replies to questions.”
 But the reforms of 1909 “afforded no answer, and could afford no answer, to Indian political
problems. Narrow franchises and indirect elections failed to encourage in members a sense of
responsibility to the people generally and made it impossible, except in special constituencies,
for those who had votes to use them with perception and effect. Moreover, the responsibility for
the administration remained undivided, with the result that while Governments found themselves
far more exposed to questions and criticism than hitherto, questions and criticism were
uninformed by a real sense of responsibility, such as comes from the prospect of having to
assume office in turn. The conception of a responsible executive, wholly or partially amenable to
the elected councils, was not admitted. Power remained with the Government and the Councils
were left with no functions but criticism. The electoral system suffered from great defects. The
franchise was extremely restricted, and there was usually no connection between the supposed
primary voter and the man who sat as his representative. The result of the Minto-Morley scheme
was that a very large percentage of the elected were lawyers securing a predominance of man of
one calling which was not in the interests of the general community. The work of the Councils
was not what would have been expected. In the Indian Legislative Council there was very little
legislation, largely because non-official opinion was taken before a Bill was introduced. Hence,
the constructive work of legislation was largely done by correspondence, which must be the case
where there was an official majority, though the influence of that majority was felt more
powerfully in the Council Chamber than in the committee room. The conditions were rather
different in the Provincial Councils, but the tendencies were very similar. The Morley-
Minto constitution “ceased in the brief space of ten years” time to satisfy the
political hunger of India. The new institutions began with good auspices and on both sidesthere
was a desire to work them in a conciliatory fashion. For a short time after their inception, the
Morley-Minto reforms threatened to diminish the importance of the
Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. It seemed as if the Councils where electedme
mbers took a share in the business of Government must be a more effective instrument
for political purposes than mere self-constituted gatherings.
 CONCLUSION

Despite all the drawbacks the act of 1909 suffered from, it was a definite advance on
the preceding Act of 1892. It marked an important stage in the growth of representativeinstitutio
ns in India. For the first time, recognition was given to elective principle as the basis of
composition of Legislative Councils. In spite of the disclaimer of Lord Morley, the act did pave
the way for a parliamentary government although indirectly in the country. The elected Indians
in the councils got a platform to ventilate their grievances. It was not less heartening a fact that
an Indian was also included in Governor-General’s Executive Council. The enlargement of the
size of the Legislatures and presence of elected members in it, although by indirect elections, set
the ball rolling of increasing demand for complete Indian nation of Legislatures. Still the Act fell
far short of the national expectations. What disappointed people the most was the admixture of
the two incompatible elements of constitutionalism and autocracy, of the nominative and elective
principles. Supreme power continued to be vested in the Executive on the principle that the
responsibility to rule over India had developed exclusively on the British people. Indians were
considered ill-fitted for higher posts in the administration. The local bodies continued to be
officialized. The Act was nothing better than a political game of the Government to inflame
communal passions and crack national solidarity. The Act gave undue importance to
vested interests by giving them special representation. According to the
 Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, “It was opposed to the teaching of history. It
perpetuated division by creeds and classes which meant the creation of political camps organized
against each other and taught them to think as partisans and not citizens. It stereotyped existing
relation and was a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle.”
 The exclusion of the Indians from senior posts and from public services also pin-pricked the
educated unemployed youths of India. To quote Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, “It (Act of 1909) was a
compromise between bureaucracy and democracy, inevitably a short lived if, necessary,
experiment.”
The reforms thus brought the country to a stage whence there was no going back, instead the
only course open was further advancement towards self-government which was confirmed by
Montague’s August Declaration of 1917.