Memorandum as to Post-war Reforms, signed by 19 Elected Members of the Indian Legislative Council, October 1916

THERE is no doubt that the termination of the War will see a great advance in the ideals of government all over the civilized world, and especially in the British Empire, which entered into the struggle in defence of the liberties of weak and small nationalities and is pouring forth its richest blood and treasure in upholding the cause of justice and humanity in the international relations of the world. India has borne her part in this struggle and cannot remain unaffected by the new spirit of change for a better state of things. Expectations have been raised in this country and hopes held out that after the War the problems of Indian administration will be looked at from a new angle of vision. The people of India have good reasons to be grateful to England for the great progress in her material resources and the widening of her intellectual and political outlook under British rule, and for the steady, if slow, advance up to date.

        Commencing with the Charter Act of India of 1833 up to 1909, the Government of India was conducted by a bureaucracy almost entirely non-Indian in its composition and not responsible to the people of India. The reforms of 1909 for the first time introduced an Indian element in the direction of affairs in the administration of India. This element was of a very limited character. The Indian people accepted it as an indication on the part of the Government of a desire to admit the Indians into the inner counsels of the Indian Empire so far as the Legislative Councils are concerned. The numbers of non-official members were enlarged with increased facilities for debate and interpellation. The Supreme Legislative Council retained an absolute official majority, and in the Provincial Legislative councils, where a non-official majority was allowed, such a majority included nominated members and the European representatives; and in measures largely affecting the people, whether of legislation or taxation, by which Europeans were not directly affected, the Europeans would naturally support the Government, and the nominated members, being nominees of Government, would be inclined to take the same side. Past experience has shown that this has actually happened on various occasions. The non-official majorities, therefore, in the Provincial Councils have proved largely illusory and give no real power to the representatives of the people. The Legislative Councils, whether supreme or provincial, are at present nothing but advisory bodies, without any power of effective control over the Government, Imperial or Provincial.

        The people or their representatives are practically as little associated with the real government of the country as they were before the reforms, except for the introduction of the Indian members in the Executive Councils, where again the nomination rests entirely with the Government, the people having no voice in the selection of the Indian members. The object which the Government had in view in introducing the reforms of 1909 was, as expressed by the Prime Minister in his speech in the House of Commons on the second reading of the India Councils Bill on 1 April 1909, that it was most desirable in the circumstances to give to the people of India the feeling that these Legislative Councils are not mere automatons the wires of which were pulled by the official hierarchy. This object, it is submitted, has not been attained.

        Apart from this question of the constitution of the Legislative and Executive Councils, the people labour under certain grave disabilities which not only prevent the utilization but also lead to the wastage of what is best in them and are positively derogatory to their sense of national self-respect. The Arms Act, which excludes from its operation Europeans and Anglo-Indians and applies only to the pure natives of the country, the disqualification of Indians for forming or joining Volunteer Corps and their exclusion from the commissioned ranks of the army, are disabilities which are looked upon with an irritating sense of racial differentiation. It would be bad enough if these were mere disabilities. Restrictions and prohibitions regarding the possession and use of arms have tended to emasculate the civil population in India and expose them to serious danger. The position of Indians in India is practically this, that they have no real part or share in the direction of the government of the country and are placed under very great and galling disabilities, from which the other members of the British Empire are exempt and which have reduced them to a state of utter helplessness.

        The existence, moreover, of the system of indentured emigration gives to the British Colonies and the outside world the impression that Indians as a whole are no better than indentured coolies who are looked upon as very little, if at all, above the slaves. The present state of things makes the Indians feel that, though theoretically they are equal subjects of the King, they hold a very inferior position in the British Empire. Other Asiatic races also hold the same, if not a worse, view about India and her status in the Empire. Humiliating as this position of inferiority is to the Indian mind, it is almost unbearable to the youth of India whose outlook is broadened by education and travel in foreign parts, where they come in contact with other free races.

        In the face of these grievances and disabilities, what has sustained the people is the hope and faith inspired by the promises and assurances of fair and equal treatment which have been held out from time to time by our Sovereigns and British statesmen of high standing. In the crisis we are now going through, the Indian people have sunk domestic differences between themselves and the government, and have faithfully and loyally stood by the Empire. The Indian soldiers were eager to go to the battlefields of Europe, not as mercenary troops but as free citizens of the British Empire which required their services, and her civilian population was animated by one desire, namely, to stand by England in the hour of her need. Peace and tranquillity reigned throughout India when she was practically denuded of British and Indian troops. The Prime Minister of England while voicing the sentiments of the English people in regard to India's part in this Great War, spoke of Indians as the joint and equal custodians of one common interest and future. India does not claim any reward for her loyalty, but she has a right to expect that the want of confidence on the part of Government, to which she not unnaturally ascribes her present, should now be a thing of the past, and that she should no longer occupy a position of subordination but one of comradeship. This would assure the people that England is ready and willing to help them to attain self-government under the aegis of the British Crown and thus discharge the noble mission which she has undertaken and to which she has so often given voluntary expression through her rulers and statesmen.

        What is wanted is not merely good government or efficient administration, but government that is acceptable to the people, because it is responsible to them. This is what, India understands, would constitute the changed angle of vision. If, after the termination of the War, the position of India practically remains what it was before, and there is no material change in it, it will undoubtedly cause bitter disappointment and great discontent in the country, and the beneficent efforts of participation in common danger overcome by common effort will soon disappear, leaving no record behind save the painful memory of unrealized expectations. We feel sure that the Government is also alive to the situation and is contemplating a measure of reform in the administration of the country.

        We feel that we should avail ourselves of this opportunity to offer to the Government our humble suggestions as to the lines on which these reforms should proceed. They must, in our opinion, go to the root of the matter. They must give to the people real and effective participation in the government of the country and also remove those irritating disabilities as regards the possession of arms and a military career which indicate want of confidence in the people and place them in a position of inferiority and helplessness. Under the first head we would take the liberty to suggest the following measures for consideration and adoption:

        1. In all the Executive Councils, Provincial and Imperial, half the number of members should be Indians. The European element in the Executive Councils should, as far as possible, be nominated from the ranks of men trained and educated in the public life of England, so that India may have the benefit of a wider outlook and larger experience of the outside world. It is not absolutely essential that the members of the Executive Councils, Indians or Europeans, should have experience of actual administration; for, as in the case of Ministers in England, the assistance of the permanent officials of the department is always available to them. As regards Indians we venture to say that a sufficient number of qualified Indians, who can worthily fill the Office of members of the Executive Council and hold portfolios, is always available. Our short experience in this direction has shown how Indians like Sir S. P. Sinha, Sir Syed Ali Imam, the late Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer, Sir Shams-ul-Huda, and Sir Sankaran Nair have maintained a high level of administrative ability in the discharge of their duties. Moreover, it is well known that the native states, where Indians have opportunities, have produced renowned administrators like Sir Salar Jung, Sir T. Madhav, Rao, Sir Seshadri Iyer, Dewan Bahadur Ragunath Rao, not to mention the present administrators in the various native states of India. The statutory obligation now existing, that three of the members of the Supreme Executive Council shall be selected from the public services in India, and similar provisions with regard to Provincial Councils should be removed. The elected representatives of the people should have a voice in the selection of the Indian members of the Executive Councils and for that purpose a principle of election should be adopted.

        2. All the Legislative Councils in India should have a substantial majority of elected representatives. We feel that they will watch and safeguard the interests of the masses and the agricultural population, with whom they are in closer touch than any European officer, however sympathetic, can possibly be. The proceedings of the various Legislative Councils, the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League bear ample testimony to the solicitude of the educated Indians for the welfare of the masses and their acquaintance with their wants and wishes. The franchise should be broadened and extended directly to the people, Mahomedans or Hindus, wherever they are in a minority, being given proper and adequate representation, having regard to their numerical strength and position.

        3. The total number of the members of the Supreme Council should be not less than one hundred and fifty, and of the Provincial Councils not less than one hundred for the major provinces and not less than sixty to seventy-five for the minor provinces.

        4. The Budget should be passed in the shape of money bills, fiscal autonomy being conceded to India.

        5. The Imperial Legislative Council should have power to legislate on all matters and to discuss and pass resolutions relating to all matters of Indian administration, and the Provincial Councils should have similar powers with regard to provincial administrations, save and except that the direction of military affairs, of foreign relations, declarations of war, the making of peace and the entering into treaties other than commercial, should be vested in the Government of India. As a safeguard, the Governor-General-in-Council, or the Governor-in-Council, as the case may be, should have the right of veto, but subject to certain conditions and limitations.

        6. The Council of the Secretary of State should be abolished. The Secretary of State should, as far as possible, hold in relation to the Government of India a position similar to that which the Secretary of State for the Colonies holds in relation to the colonies. The Secretary of State should be assisted by two permanent under-Secretaries, one of whom should be an Indian. The salaries of the Secretary and the under-Secretaries should be placed on the British estimates.

        7. In any scheme of Imperial federation, India should be given, through her chosen representatives a place similar to that of the self-governing dominions.

        8. The Provincial Governments should be made autonomous as stated in the Government of India's dispatch, dated 25 August 1911.

        9. The United Provinces as well as the other major provinces should have a Governor brought from the United Kingdom with an Executive Council.

        10. A full measure of local self-government should be immediately granted.

        11. The right to carry arms should be granted to Indians on the same conditions as to Europeans.

        12. Indians should be allowed to enlist as volunteers and units of a territorial army established in India.

        13. Commissions in the army should be given to Indian youths under conditions similar to those applicable to Europeans.

From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. III. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922, 116-124.