Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T23:51:27.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Reforms versus National Agitation in India, 1900-1950

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Dietmar Rothermund
Get access

Extract

The political development of India during the first half of the twentieth century was conditioned by constitutional reforms introduced by the British rulers, and by a vigorous agitation for national freedom. A constitution is a normative description of existing or intended relationships of political power; under the circumstances prevailing in India at that time, such a description was bound to be challenged again and again by an agitation for the revision of the status quo. In this way a peculiar relationship developed between constitutional reform and agitational advance. The constitutional reforms were designed to fulfill agitational demands on the one hand and to forestall more extreme demands on the other. Therefore they conformed to agitational patterns. In a similar way, the agitation was conditioned by the particular circumstances created by each constitutional reform; the constitution of the national movement itself, i.e., of the Indian National Congress, had to be adapted to the new situation whenever constitutional reforms were at stake. Finally when independence was achieved, an Indian Constituent Assembly adopted a constitution which closely resembled the previous constitutional structure introduced by British Acts of Parliament.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , August 1962 , pp. 505 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Despatch of the Secretary of State of November 27, 1908 in John Morley, Speeches on Indian Affairs, ed. G. A. Natesan, (Madras n.d.), App. A.

2 Morley, pp. 174, 175 (Speech in House of Lords, Second Reading of the Indian Councils Bill, February 23, 1909).

3 Government of India, Home Department Proceedings A, (henceforth referred to as HDPA), February 1909, Nos. 205–244, pp. 239, 251.

4 Viceroy to Governor of Madras: “Personally my object has been in the proposed reforms to secure the representation of landed proprietors and of those who have a stake in the country, and of communities.” HDPA, Oct. 1908, Nos. 116–148, Vol. I, p. 509.

5 HDPA, February 1909, Nos. 205–244, pp. 239 ff.

6 HDPA, October 1908, Nos. 116–148, Vol. I, 509.

7 HDPA, February 1909, Nos. 205–244, note of January 5, 1909.

8 SirRisley, H. H., The People of India (London, 1908), Chapter: “Caste and Nationality,” pp. 274 ff.Google Scholar

9 HDPA, October 1908, Nos. 116–148, Vol. I, 448.

10 HDPA, October 1908, Nos. 116–148, Vol. III, 1398.

11 Cf. Pal, Bipinchandra's analysis: Nationality and Empire (Calcutta, 1916), pp. 221 ff.Google Scholar

12 HDPA, March 1910, Nos. 33–44; for details see author's paper “Reform and Repression,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 1961.

13 Especially the “Anusilan Samiti”; cf. HDPA, February 1910, Nos. 34–42.

14 These generalizations are based on the analysis of the history sheets of 53 revolutionaries; cf. HDPA, March 1910, No. 93, and on an analysis of the list of editors of native newspapers, cf. Reports on Native Newspapers (Bombay, 1909).Google Scholar

15 Proceedings of the Indian National Congress of 1886, Appendix.

16 Mazumdar, A. C., Indian National Evolution (Madras, 1917), App. xxi (Congress Constitution of 1887 Article XV).Google Scholar

17 Mazumdar, p. xxiv.

18 Mazumdar, p. xxviii.

19 Mazumdar, pp. iv ff. (Congress Constitution of 1908, Art. XIII ff.)

20 Morley, p. 159 (Speech on Reform Proposals, House of Lords, December 17 1908; Morley had emphasized this point while defending the reduction of the official bloc in the provincial legislative councils).

21 See Curtis, Lionel, Papers Relating to the Application of the Principle of Dyarchy to the Government of India (Oxford, 1920), p. 383 reference to Lord Durham's report on Canada, 1838.Google Scholar

22 Curtis, p. 372.

23 Curtis, p. 105.

24 Curtis, p. 108, 401.

25 Joint Select Committee Report on die Government of India Bill (henceforth referred to as JSCR), P 537. q.9283, 9287; p. 539, q. 9329. (Curtis' evidence).

26 JSCR, p. 544, q. 9407 (Meston's evidence).

27 Curtis, pp. 501 f.

28 JSCR, p. 534, q. 9215.

29 JSCR, p. 544, q. 9407, Telegram of Government of India.

30 See Mitra, H. N., ed., Punjab Unrest (Calcutta, 1921).Google Scholar

31 Cf. the author's paper, “Non-cooperation and the Punjab Press,”Proceedings of the Indian History Congress,1960.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Indian Statutory Commission (Simon) Report, Vol. I, 203, 211.Google Scholar

33 Aurobindo's letter in Karmayogin, July 31, 1909.

34 young India (henceforth referred to as YI) March 30, 1921 (“.… a constitution whose working hellip;is in itself calculated to lead to Swaraj”). See also YI, June 29, 1921 (“.… a system of voluntary government”).

35 YI, March 30, 1921 and June 29, 1921.

36 JSCR, p. 531 (Curtis' evidence).

37 YI, June 29, 1921.

38 Indian Annual Register, (henceforth referred to as IAR), 1936, II, 238. (Gandhi's speech at Faizpur Congress Exhibition: “.… at the Round Table Conference I said I can give an Indian constitution today. Then I had the Congress constitution in mind … “).

39 YI, May 24, 1924 (“I am the author of the introduction into the Congress organization of the system of single transferable votes. But experience has shown that so far as the executive organizations are concerned it cannot work. The idea that all opinions should be represented on these bodies must be abandoned if the executive committees are to become bodies for the purpose of carrying out the Congress policy for the time being”).

40 YI, April 16, 1925.

41 Cf. YI, 1924–1926, ed. Ganesan (Madras, 1927), pp. 480, 499, 542, 543, 565 ff. and YI, 1927–1928, ed. Ganesan (Madras, 1935), pp. 530 ff.

42 YI, Nov. 13, 1924.

43 YI, July 23, 1925 and October 1, 1925.

44 YI, January 5, 1928.

45 Simon Report, Vol. II, 145–149.

46 All Parties Conference Committee (Nehru) Report,(Allahabad,1928) pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar (Recommendations), fundamental rights, pp. 101–103. It is interesting to note that the Resolution of the Delhi Congress of 1918 which was submitted by V. J. Patel to the Joint Select Committee contained also a Declaration of Rights. Cf. JSCR, Vol. II, Appendix C p. 12 ff.

47 Proceedings of the All Parties National Convention(Allahabad,1929).Google Scholar

48 Simon Report, Vol. I, 98, 100; Vol. II, 24, 56, 91, 175 refers to the Nehru Report only in passing with regard to the Army, adult suffrage, joint electorates, and the separation of Sind.

49 The eleven points were: (1) Prohibition, (2) Reduction of the exchange ratio to is 4d per rupee, (3) 50% reduction of land revenue, (4) Abolition of the salt tax, (5) Reduction of military expenditure by at least 50%, (6) Reduction of the salary of the highest grade services (7) Protective tariff for foreign cloth, (8) Passage of the Coastal Traffic Reservation Bill, (9) Discharge of all political prisoners … (10) Abolition of die C.I.D., (11) Issue of licenses to use firearms. Cf. IAR, 1930, I, 24.

50 JAR, 1931, I, 278.

51 Nehru Report, p. 102, Article xi; IAR, 1931, I, 278, Article 2.

52 IAR, 1934, II, 300 ff.

53 IAR, 1934, I, 291.

54 IAR, 1934, I, 291. (Gandhi's speech at the AICC session, Patna, May 19, 1934).

55 IAR, 1934, II, 205 (Resolution of the 48th Congress, Bombay, October 26–28, 1934).

56 IAR, 1934, I, 283 (AICC at Patna, May 18, 1934).

57 For the new constitution see IAR, 1934, II, 208 ff. For Gandhi's statement on the cabinet system see IAR, 1934, 1, 291 (Gandhi's speech on the resolution concerning the Parliamentary Board).

58 IAR, 1934, II, 211, Art. VIII, c(ii).

59 IAR, 1934, II, 257, (Gandhi moving the resolution on the amendments of the Congress constitution).

60 IAR, 1934, II, 210, Art. VI, Proviso III, g(iv) and 211, Art. VII, b.

61 IAR, 1936, I, 288 (Lucknow Congress).

62 IAR, 1937, I, 179; (Working Committee Proceedings,Delhi,March 15–22, 1937Google Scholar). Prior to this a resolution of the Lucknow Congress, April 1936, had stipulated that the functions of the Parliamentary Board should be discharged in future by the Working Committee; in a subsequent session the Working Committee had appointed a Parliamentary Committee which included all PCC presidents and several leading Congressmen. The convener was G. B. Pant, but this committee was replaced after the elections by the three-man sub-committee mentioned above. Cf. IAR, 1936, I, 249 and 255.

63 IAR, 1937, I, 179.

64 IAR, 1939, I, 314.

65 IAR, 1939, I, 315.

66 IAR, 1939, I, 316.

67 IAR, 1939, I, 349.

68 IAR, 1939, II, 220.

69 IAR, 1939, II, 212–213.

70 IAR, 1939, II, 221–223.

71 Sardar Patel stated the case for the caucus in the following unmistakable terms: “I wholly dissent from the view that the President has any powers of initiating policy save by consent of the Working Committee. More than once the Working Committee has asserted itself in the teeth of opposition of Presidents.” IAR, 1939, I, 316.

72 IAR, 1939, I, 315.

73 IAR, 1934, II, 257.

74 Cf. Rau, B. N., India's Constitution in the Maying (Bombay, 1960), Appendix A, 465 ff. (Statement of Cabinet Mission).Google Scholar

75 Rau, p. 474, Paragraph 20, v and viii.

76 Constituent Assembly Debates (henceforth referred to as CAD), I, No. 4 ff.

77 Rau, p. xvi, (biographical sketch).

78 Cf., e.g., CAD, X, No. 2, 4.

79 Speech of Shankarrao Deo, CAD, XI, No. 7, 730.

80 Speech of K. Hanumanthaiya, CAD, XI, No. 4, 616.

81 Speech of T. Prakasam, CAD, XI, No. 6, 697.

82 Speech of H. V. Pataskar, CAD, XI, No. 5, 671.

83 Pataskar, CAD, XI, No. 5, 672.

84 CAD, IX, No. 4, 143.

85 The following are the articles of the Indian Constitution and of the Government of India Act of 1935 as amended by the Independence of India Act of 1947, which refer to the powers of the President and the Governor-General respectively:

Art. 74 of the Constitution mentions the Prime Minister; this is the only provision which establishes responsible government.

86 Cf. CAD, V, No. 11, 375 ff.

87 Cf. Constitution of India, Art. 36–51.

88 Speech of Somnath Lahiri, CAD, III, No. 2, 404.

89 See Gandhi's eleven points, point no. 4 in footnote 49.

90 See CAD, IX, No. 6, 233 ff.

91 Statement of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, CAD, IX, No. 6, 239.

92 Speech of Prime Minister Nehru, CAD, IX, No. 7, 241.

93 Sitaramayya, Pattabhi, The History of the Indian National Congress (Bombay, 1947) II, 52.Google Scholar

94 Speech of Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, CAD, X, No. 3, 42.

95 Speech of Vallabhbhai Patel, CAD, X, No. 3, 51.

96 Speech of S. L. Saksena, CAD, IX, No. 31, 1202, 1203.

97 Speech of Prime Minister Nehru, CAD, IX, No. 31, 1192–1196.

98 Speech of Kishorimohan Tripathi, CAD, IX, No. 31, 1209.

99 Speech and amendment of H. V. Kamath, CAD, IX, No. 31, 1211.

100 cf. Constitution of India, Amendments of Article 31(2), 1951, 1955.

101 Speech of R. K. Chaudhuri, CAD, X, No. 3, 38.

102 Cf. Speech by SirGwyer, Maurice in Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921–1947, ed. by Gwyer, and Appadorai, (Oxford, 1957).Google Scholar

103 Speech or Prof. Saksena, S. L., CAD, XI, No. 6, 705.Google Scholar