History Notes Page 1 Section 2

MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORMS

WHY BRITISH GOVT ANNOUNCE MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORMS?
AFTER 10 YEARS REFORMS WERE TO BE INTRODUCED
 It was issued because the British govt. was following a policy to introduce
reforms after every 10 years and it had been the time since they
introduced Morley-Minto reforms in 1909.
 So they had to announce new reforms according to their policy in 1919.

BRITISH WANTED FAVOR FROM INDIANS

 The British govt. wanted get the favour of the Indians by giving them
relaxation in these reforms.
 Because they were thinking that if they would introduce these reforms
they would get the Indian favour by giving them share in the govt.
council.

TO IMPROVE THEIR REFORMS

 They wanted to check the success of their previous reforms (Morley-Minto

reforms) & to plan for the future reforms of India (Simon Commission).
 They never wanted to see that the Indians would not accept it like they
did in last reforms.

MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORMS

 In 1919 Viceroy of India Lord Chelmsford and secretary state for India Lord
Montague took a tour for India and discussed the constitutional work with
Indian people.
 They sent constitutional reforms to british govt for ratification.
 These were ratified by the british govt and were implanted in India with
name of Mont-Ford reforms.
 Its main recommendations were as follows
 Bicameral Legislature was first time established in the center and it was
approved that the time period of the elected members of the upper
house(Council of state) was to be 5 years and the Lower House(Legislative
Assembly) to be 3 years. Upper house had total 60 members, 33 were
elected and 27 were nominated. Lower house had 145 members, 104
were elected and 41 were nominated.
 System of “Diarchy” was introduced in the provinces which gave authority
to the central govt. to interfere in the provincial matters.
 Reserved subjects (Justice, Police, Revenue, and Power & Press) were to
be controlled by the Governor while Transferred subjects (Local govt.
Education, Health, Public Works & Forests) were controlled by Ministers.
History Notes Page 2 Section 2

 Separate electorates were also accepted first time for the both the
Muslims and the Sikhs.
 Out of 103 seats in the Imperial Legislative Council 32 seats would be
reserved for the Muslims.
 The Council of State was consisted of 60 members
 A Council of Princess was also setup with 108 members
 The Legislative Council should now be called as the Legislative Assembly
 The British govt. also claimed that they were extending voting rights for
locals.
 The Viceroy was given full power to pass any bill & appoint the provincial
Governors
 The British govt. promised to introduce more constitutional reforms after 10
years.

RESULTS

 The Muslims League and Congress both were hoping much more from the
British govt. but it kept the main powers.
 In congress some moderates accepted these & they were dismissed from
Congress while most of them rejected these reforms while Muslims League
could not achieve anything new.
 Muslims were given separate electorate so other minorities like Sikhs &
others also demanded the concessions.
 Local people of India wanted that the country should be according to
their desire while the power was granted to Viceroy.

ROWLATT ACT

 In December 1917 a committee was formed under Justice Rowlett to

study the revolutionary activities in India & it recommended that some
measure to be taken urgently to control this attitude.
 However, both the parties had to accept it because of The Rowlett Act
(1919).
 This act gave the right of arrest to anyone without a warrant, detention
without bail & right of the provincial govt. to order people where to live.
 Gandhi and others found that constitutional opposition to the measure
were useless; so on April 6 Hartal was organized where Indians would
suspend all business and fast as a sign of their hatred. This event is known
as Rowlatt Satyagraha.
 Due to this act Jinnah resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council &
Gandhi gave a call for Strike against this black law.
 Due to the introduction of these reforms there was much dissatisfaction in
the small provinces because they had lost their power.
History Notes Page 3 Section 2

 The British govt. banned all the anti govt. publications, demonstrations due
to violence. In the Punjab there was a great effect of Rowlett Act.

AMRITSAR MASSACRE

 April 13 1919
 In Amritsar, a meeting was arranged but it was banned by the govt.
 The organizers Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus decided to go there.
 In that peaceful demonstration nearly 20 thousand people gathered at
Jallianwala Bagh.
 The British govt. did not give permission for such gatherings.
 A British Officer General Dyer was dealing the situation that ordered the
soldiers to open fire on the civilians.
 Around 400 people were killed & 1200 wounded in Jallianwala Bagh
Incident.
 To investigate this incident HUNTER COMMITTEE was set up in England in
October 1919 after issues ordered by Secretary of State for India, Lord
Montague .
 General Dyer was removed from his services but he was not punished for
it.

WHY INDIANS OPPOSED MONTAGUE CHELMSFORD REFORMS?

SELF RULE WAS NOT GRANTED

 Diarchy gave the right to governors (mainly british) to intervene in the

provincial matters.
 This means that main powers and all authorities were in the hands of British.
 The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law and order,
finance, justice and administration and the civil service.
 The Indians only received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy
(appointed by the British government) could veto any decision made and
introduce any law that was deemed necessary.
 Indians realized that they were not provided with any power.

INDIANS WERE EXPECTING MUCH MORE

 The Congress, especially, was deeply opposed to the proposals of the British
government regarding India's political future.
 This opposition was fueled by the feeling that they had supported Britain
during World War I, and many Indian soldiers had fought and died in the
war.
 However, despite these sacrifices, the Congress believed that they were not
receiving anything resembling substantial power or control over the Indian
government.
History Notes Page 4 Section 2

 They felt shortchanged and frustrated with what they saw as a lack of
meaningful political representation.

ONLY 2% PEOPLE CAN VOTE

 One significant point of contention was the extremely limited voting rights
in India at the time.
 Only a tiny fraction of the Indian population had the right to vote.
 To put it in perspective, roughly 2% of the population had the privilege of
casting their votes. O
 ut of a vast population of approximately 250 million people, only around 5
million had the opportunity to participate in the electoral process.
 This meant that the majority of Indians were excluded from the decision-
making process, raising questions about the fairness and representation of
the political system.

SIKHS WERE NOT GIVEN SEPARATE ELECTORATES (WRONG POINT)

 While separate electorates had been granted to Muslims as a concession,

other minority communities like the Sikhs felt left out.
 These communities began to demand access to political power, seeking
recognition and representation in the evolving political structure.
 This showed that India had many different kinds of people, and it meant
that the government should include everyone in its plans and decisions.

WHY INDIA WAS NOT GRANTED SELF RULE BY BRITAIN IN 1919?

 After World War I, Britain found itself in a significantly weakened state,

particularly economically. The war had drained its resources and finances,
leaving the nation in a vulnerable position. During this period, many of its
colonial territories, including India, began expressing demands for greater
self-governance and independence. India, often referred to as the "jewel
of the Empire," was one of the most valuable and strategically important
colonies within the British Empire.
 Despite its weakened state, Britain still held a prominent position on the
world stage, and its status as a global power was a point of pride and a
source of influence. Granting Indian demands for independence or self-
governance was perceived as a threat to Britain's prestige and influence in
the international community. Strategically, India held immense importance
for the British navy, serving as a vital naval base and a crucial part of their
maritime defense. Additionally, British influence in the Indian subcontinent
was essential for maintaining their dominance in the broader region,
including countering potential threats from other global powers.
 Another significant factor in Britain's reluctance to meet Indian demands
was a lot of British people living abroad in India. This community included
History Notes Page 5 Section 2

not just colonial administrators but also businessmen, missionaries, and civil
servants. These individuals played a vital role in managing the colonial
administration, trade, and missionary activities. The British government was
concerned about losing this skilled and influential community if it granted
India greater autonomy or independence. The departure of these
individuals could have disrupted the functioning of British-controlled
institutions and caused economic and social chaos in the subcontinent.
History Notes Page 6 Section 2

PAST PAPER QUESTIONS SOLVED

BY MUHAMMAD YOUSUF MEMON
Question 1 N2018/P1/Q1/C
Why was India not granted self-rule by Britain in 1919? [7]
After Writing Any 1 Paragraph from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 5 Marks

After Writing Any 2 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 6 Marks

After Writing Any 3 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 7 Marks

After World War I, Britain found itself in a significantly weakened state,

particularly economically. The war had drained its resources and finances,
leaving the nation in a vulnerable position. During this period, many of its
colonial territories, including India, began expressing demands for greater self-
governance and independence. India, often referred to as the "jewel of the
Empire," was one of the most valuable and strategically important colonies
within the British Empire.

Despite its weakened state, Britain still held a prominent position on the world
stage, and its status as a global power was a point of pride and a source of
influence. Granting Indian demands for independence or self-governance
was perceived as a threat to Britain's prestige and influence in the international
community. Strategically, India held immense importance for the British navy,
serving as a vital naval base and a crucial part of their maritime defense.
Additionally, British influence in the Indian subcontinent was essential for
maintaining their dominance in the broader region, including countering
potential threats from other global powers.

Another significant factor in Britain's reluctance to meet Indian demands was

a lot of British people living abroad in India. This community included not just
colonial administrators but also businessmen, missionaries, and civil servants.
These individuals played a vital role in managing the colonial administration,
trade, and missionary activities. The British government was concerned about
losing this skilled and influential community if it granted India greater autonomy
or independence. The departure of these individuals could have disrupted the
functioning of British-controlled institutions and caused economic and social
chaos in the subcontinent.
Question 2 N2015/P1/Q3/B
Why were the Montague Chelmsford reforms opposed by Indians in
1919? [7]
After Writing Any 1 Paragraph from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 5 Marks
History Notes Page 7 Section 2

After Writing Any 2 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 6 Marks

After Writing Any 3 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 7 Marks

Diarchy gave the right to governors (mainly british) to intervene in the provincial
matters. This means that main powers and all authorities were in the hands of
British. The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law and order,
finance, justice and administration and the civil service. The Indians only
received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy (appointed by the British
government) could veto any decision made and introduce any law that was
deemed necessary. Indians realized that they were not provided with any
power.

The Congress, especially, was deeply opposed to the proposals of the British
government regarding India's political future. This opposition was fueled by the
feeling that they had supported Britain during World War I, and many Indian
soldiers had fought and died in the war. However, despite these sacrifices, the
Congress believed that they were not receiving anything resembling
substantial power or control over the Indian government. They felt
shortchanged and frustrated with what they saw as a lack of meaningful
political representation.

While separate electorates had been granted to Muslims as a concession,

other minority communities like the Sikhs felt left out. These communities began
to demand access to political power, seeking recognition and representation
in the evolving political structure. This showed that India had many different
kinds of people, and it meant that the government should include everyone in
its plans and decisions.

One significant point of contention was the extremely limited voting rights in
India at the time. Only a tiny fraction of the Indian population had the right to
vote. To put it in perspective, roughly 2% of the population had the privilege of
casting their votes. Out of a vast population of approximately 250 million
people, only around 5 million had the opportunity to participate in the
electoral process. This meant that the majority of Indians were excluded from
the decision-making process, raising questions about the fairness and
representation of the political system.
Question 3 J2016/P1/Q3/C
Was the introduction of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 the sole cause of violence
in India during 1919 and 1920? Explain your answer. [14]
After Writing Paragraph Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 7 Marks

In 1919, there was a law called the Rowlatt Act. This law allowed the authorities
to arrest people without a proper reason or warrant. It also let them keep
History Notes Page 8 Section 2

people in jail without letting them out on bail. The government could even tell
people where they had to live. This made a lot of people in India very angry
because it seemed like the government was going against the fair rules of
British justice. People thought they should have the right to a fair trial and
protection from being put in jail unfairly. This led to protests and strikes all over
India. People saw these rules as harsh because they could be made to live in
a certain place and couldn't attend meetings. Strikes and protests happened,
and things got worse when the British government started banning publications
that criticized them, which caused even more trouble.
After Writing Above Paragraph and MC Paragraph from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will
Score L4 12 Marks

After Writing Above Paragraph and 2 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will
Score L4 12 Marks (Suggested by MYM)

In 1919, a law called the Government of India Act disappointed both Muslims
and Hindus. Diarchy gave the right to governors (mainly british) to intervene in
the provincial matters. This means that main powers and all authorities were in
the hands of British. The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law
and order, finance, justice and administration and the civil service. The Indians
only received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy (appointed by the
British government) could veto any decision made and introduce any law that
was deemed necessary. Indians realized that they were not provided with any
power. The Congress, especially, was deeply opposed to the proposals of the
British government regarding India's political future. This opposition was fueled
by the feeling that they had supported Britain during World War I, and many
Indian soldiers had fought and died in the war. However, despite these
sacrifices, the Congress believed that they were not receiving anything
resembling substantial power or control over the Indian government. They felt
shortchanged and frustrated with what they saw as a lack of meaningful
political representation. One significant point of contention was the extremely
limited voting rights in India at the time. Only a tiny fraction of the Indian
population had the right to vote. To put it in perspective, roughly 2% of the
population had the privilege of casting their votes. Out of a vast population of
approximately 250 million people, only around 5 million had the opportunity to
participate in the electoral process. This meant that the majority of Indians
were excluded from the decision-making process, raising questions about the
fairness and representation of the political system. It seemed like nothing was
happening after the war despite some British support, this made people in India
even more frustrated.

In 1919, a terrible event called the Amritsar massacre happened. A lot of

Indians had gathered for a meeting even though the British government hadn't
allowed it. A British officer named General Dyer was in charge, and he ordered
History Notes Page 9 Section 2

the soldiers to shoot at the crowd, which included women and children. Nearly
20 thousand people had come to a place called Jallianwala Bagh for a
peaceful gathering. Around 400 people were killed, and 1200 were hurt in this
incident. To figure out what happened, a committee called the Hunter
Committee was set up in England in October 1919. General Dyer lost his job,
but he wasn't punished for it. Even though some people criticized him for
ordering the shooting, some British media praised him, which upset Indians and
caused more trouble and violence.

Conclusion [2 Marks]

Question 4 N2014/P1/Q2/C
Were the Montague–Chelmsford Reforms the main reason for the
outbreak of violence across India in 1919? Explain your answer. [14]
After Writing Paragraph Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 9 Marks

In 1919, a law called the Government of India Act disappointed both Muslims
and Hindus. Diarchy gave the right to governors (mainly british) to intervene in
the provincial matters. This means that main powers and all authorities were in
the hands of British. The reforms kept power in British hands in respect of law
and order, finance, justice and administration and the civil service. The Indians
only received minimal powers and even then the Viceroy (appointed by the
British government) could veto any decision made and introduce any law that
was deemed necessary. Indians realized that they were not provided with any
power. The Congress, especially, was deeply opposed to the proposals of the
British government regarding India's political future. This opposition was fueled
by the feeling that they had supported Britain during World War I, and many
Indian soldiers had fought and died in the war. However, despite these
sacrifices, the Congress believed that they were not receiving anything
resembling substantial power or control over the Indian government. They felt
shortchanged and frustrated with what they saw as a lack of meaningful
political representation. One significant point of contention was the extremely
limited voting rights in India at the time. Only a tiny fraction of the Indian
population had the right to vote. To put it in perspective, roughly 2% of the
population had the privilege of casting their votes. Out of a vast population of
approximately 250 million people, only around 5 million had the opportunity to
participate in the electoral process. This meant that the majority of Indians
History Notes Page 10 Section 2

were excluded from the decision-making process, raising questions about the
fairness and representation of the political system. It seemed like nothing was
happening after the war despite some British support, this made people in India
even more frustrated.
After Writing Above Paragraph and 1 Paragraph from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score
L4 12 Marks

After Writing Above Paragraph and 2 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will
Score L4 12 Marks (Suggested by MYM)

In 1919, there was a law called the Rowlatt Act. This law allowed the authorities
to arrest people without a proper reason or warrant. It also let them keep
people in jail without letting them out on bail. The government could even tell
people where they had to live. This made a lot of people in India very angry
because it seemed like the government was going against the fair rules of
British justice. People thought they should have the right to a fair trial and
protection from being put in jail unfairly. This led to protests and strikes all over
India. People saw these rules as harsh because they could be made to live in
a certain place and couldn't attend meetings. Strikes and protests happened,
and things got worse when the British government started banning publications
that criticized them, which caused even more trouble.

In 1919, a terrible event called the Amritsar massacre happened. A lot of

Indians had gathered for a meeting even though the British government hadn't
allowed it. A British officer named General Dyer was in charge, and he ordered
the soldiers to shoot at the crowd, which included women and children. Nearly
20 thousand people had come to a place called Jallianwala Bagh for a
peaceful gathering. Around 400 people were killed, and 1200 were hurt in this
incident. To figure out what happened, a committee called the Hunter
Committee was set up in England in October 1919. General Dyer lost his job,
but he wasn't punished for it. Even though some people criticized him for
ordering the shooting, some British media praised him, which upset Indians and
caused more trouble and violence.

Conclusion [2 Marks]
History Notes Page 11 Section 2

Question 5 QUESTION BY MYM

Why Montage Chelmsford Reforms introduced by British Govt? [7]
After Writing Any 1 Paragraph from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 5 Marks

After Writing Any 2 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 6 Marks

After Writing Any 3 Paragraphs from Paragraphs Mentioned Below You Will Score L3 7 Marks

It was issued because the British govt. was following a policy to introduce
reforms after every 10 years and it had been the time since they introduced
Morley-Minto reforms in 1909. So they had to announce new reforms according
to their policy in 1919.

The British govt. wanted get the favour of the Indians by giving them relaxation
in these reforms. Because they were thinking that if they would introduce these
reforms they would get the Indian favour by giving them share in the govt.
council.

They wanted to check the success of their previous reforms (Morley-Minto

reforms) & to plan for the future reforms of India (Simon Commission). They
never wanted to see that the Indians would not accept it like they did in last
reforms.
History Notes Page 12 Section 2

04 MARKS
What was Montague-Chelmsford reforms?
They were jointly drafted by the Secretary of State, John Montague and the
Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. A bicameral set up was introduced at the Centre
with an Upper House, the Council of States, and a Lower House, the Legislative
Assembly. Out of 145 members of the Legislative Assembly, 103 were elected.
At the provincial level, Diarchy was introduced under which some of the
reserved subjects of the Governor were transferred to the ministers. The right of
separate electorates was extended to the Sikhs, too. The number of voters was
increased to 5.5 million. Both INC and ML opposed the reforms.

What was diarchy system?

Diarchy system was introduced in Montague-Chelmsford reforms provinces.
Reserved subjects like police and justice were under control of governor's
council, Transfered subjects were less important like health and education
were in the control of Indian ministers.

What was Rowlatt act?

The British anticipated a violent reaction to the Mont-Ford reforms. They
appointed an investigative committee under Justice Rowlatt in Dec. 1917. In
the light of its report the Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. The Act empowered
the local administration/police to arrest anyone without warrant, detain him
without the right of bail and decide where the people in a province should
live. Gandhi launched a countrywide strike against it, and Jinnah resigned from
the Imperial Legislative Council in protest. A protest by 20,000 unarmed people
led to the tragic massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, a public park, in Amritsar, in
April 1919.

What was Amritsar massacre?

As part of protest against the Rowlatt Act, there was unrest in Amritsar and five
Europeans were killed. An angry mob of 20,000 gathered in a public park,
Jillianwala Bagh. Though all were peaceful protesters, General Dyer, the local
British Commander was determined to restore peace as he had banned all
public meetings. He sealed the only exit of the park and ordered a shootout
without warning. Over 1600 rounds were fired and about 400 people were
killed while another 1200 were wounded. Dyer was trialed under the Hunter
Committee and was removed from his service without any further punishment.
History Notes Page 13 Section 2

Who was General Dyer?

He was a British commander, in charge of the police in Amritsar. He quickly
mobilized his troops against a huge number of Indians who had gathered in a
public park, Jallianwala Bagh. He thought the aim of these people was to
protest against the Rowlett Act. On 13th April 1919 he ordered a direct shoot
out on the peaceful gathering. Hundreds of people were killed and several
more injured. Dyer was trialed for his cruel action and removed from his post.