The period from 1909 to 1935 witnessed significant developments in India’s constitutional framework and the growth of local self-government institutions under British rule. These changes were largely a response to rising Indian nationalism, administrative needs, and British attempts to placate Indian demands while maintaining colonial control.
I. Growth of Local Self-Government (1909–1935)
1. Background and Early Developments
- Introduced by Lord Ripon (1882) as a measure to promote administrative efficiency and educate Indians in self-governance.
- Early institutions were municipal boards and district boards, largely dominated by British officials.
2. Reforms under Indian Councils Act, 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms)
- Focused on legislative councils rather than local bodies, but indirectly affected local self-governance by:
- Allowing Indians to enter councils through indirect elections.
- Introduced communal electorates (first time), dividing Indian political unity.
- However, local bodies remained weak, dominated by nominated or official members.
3. Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919
- Marked a significant step in the evolution of local self-government.
Key Provisions for Local Governance:
- Introduced diarchy in provinces:
- Transferred subjects included local self-government, public health, education, etc.
- These were administered by Indian ministers responsible to elected provincial legislatures.
- Local bodies got greater autonomy and funds but still lacked real power due to:
- Limited finances
- Dominance of bureaucracy
- Official veto powers
Impact:
- Increased Indian participation in local administration.
- Helped develop a political consciousness among the educated Indian middle class.
- Laid the groundwork for more democratic decentralization.
4. Simon Commission (1927–30)
- Appointed to assess constitutional progress but boycotted by Indians as it had no Indian members.
- However, it acknowledged the importance of strengthening local self-governance and provincial autonomy.
5. Government of India Act, 1935
Key Constitutional Change: Provincial Autonomy
- Diarchy at the Centre, but abolished in provinces.
- Provinces became autonomous units, responsible for all subjects including local self-government.
Local Self-Government under 1935 Act:
- Provincial governments could now freely legislate on local matters.
- Elected Indian ministers responsible for local bodies.
- Greater administrative and financial devolution to municipalities and district boards.
Limitations:
- Franchise still restricted based on property, tax, and education—excluded most of the population.
- Rural local bodies remained under control of landed elites or zamindars.
- No constitutional status or uniformity to local self-government.
II. Constitutional Changes (1909–1935)
1. Indian Councils Act, 1909
- Expanded legislative councils at both central and provincial levels.
- Introduced indirect elections.
- Legalized separate electorates for Muslims—sowing seeds of communal division.
2. Government of India Act, 1919
- Implemented Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms.
- Introduced diarchy in provinces.
- Established a bicameral legislature at the Centre (Council of State & Legislative Assembly).
- Extended franchise to about 10% of the adult male population.
3. Government of India Act, 1935
- Most significant and far-reaching pre-independence constitutional reform.
Key Features:
- All-India Federation (never materialized due to princely states’ non-participation).
- Provincial autonomy introduced.
- Federal court established.
- Bicameral legislatures in some provinces.
- Reserved and separate electorates extended to more communities (women, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians).
- Franchise expanded—but still not universal.
- Safeguards and special responsibilities for British governors diluted real autonomy.
Conclusion
Between 1909 and 1935, constitutional reforms gradually expanded Indian participation in governance and sowed the seeds of representative institutions. While local self-government was increasingly transferred to Indian hands, it remained constrained by colonial controls, financial dependence, and limited political power. Nonetheless, these reforms created a politically aware middle class and laid the institutional foundation for democratic governance in independent India.
Course Purchase Query 