The Dyarchy system introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, aimed to decentralize power and introduce a form of self-government in British India’s provinces. Under this system, certain subjects were divided into two categories: reserved and transferred.
The assessment of working of Dyarchy in the provinces according to the Act of 1919:
- Division of Subjects: The Act divided the subjects of administration into two categories – reserved and transferred. Reserved subjects were those that remained under the control of the Governor and his Executive Council (made up of British officials), while transferred subjects were handed over to the Indian ministers and their Councils (Indian representatives).
- Governor’s Authority: The Governor retained control over the reserved subjects, which included crucial areas such as finance, law and order, and communications. This allowed the British authorities to maintain significant influence over important matters.
- Ministerial Authority: The transferred subjects, like education, public health, local self-government, and agriculture, were managed by Indian ministers. These ministers were responsible for implementing policies and making decisions related to these subjects, providing a degree of self-governance at the provincial level.
- Bicameral Legislature: The Act introduced a bicameral legislature in the provinces, consisting of a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council contained both official (appointed by the Governor) and non-official members (elected by certain constituencies), while the Legislative Assembly was mainly composed of elected members.
- Dual Executive: The provinces had a dual executive structure. The Governor was the head of the Executive Council, which included both British and Indian members. The ministers formed the second part of the executive, responsible for transferred subjects.
- Responsibility and Accountability: One of the aims of the Dyarchy was to provide experience in self-government to Indians and gradually increase their participation in administration. Indian ministers were accountable to the Legislative Assembly for the conduct of transferred subjects. This was an attempt to encourage a sense of responsibility and responsiveness.
- Challenges and Limitations: Despite the intentions, the Dyarchy system had several limitations. The reserved subjects, which remained under the Governor’s control, were often more crucial and powerful, leaving the Indian ministers with limited real authority. This led to a lack of coordination and sometimes even conflicts between the two branches of the executive.
- Criticism and Repeal: The Dyarchy system faced criticism from various quarters. Indians saw it as an inadequate step towards self-governance, and British officials were often hesitant to share power. As a result, the Government of India Act of 1919 was replaced by the Government of India Act of 1935, which significantly modified the provincial setup.
In conclusion, the Dyarchy system introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919 attempted to provide a limited form of self-government at the provincial level. While it did offer some Indians a taste of administrative authority, it also maintained significant control in the hands of British officials through the reserved subjects. The system had its limitations and was eventually replaced by more comprehensive reforms.