Categories Modern IndiaSelfstudyhistory.com

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919

Background:

  • The Minto Morley Reforms were passed not with the intention of establishing a parliamentary system in India but with intention of buttressing the authority of the British bureaucracy by rallying to its side the Moderates and the Muslims.
    • The Reforms of 1909 did not satisfy any section of the people.
    • The Indian National Congress expressed its dissatisfaction at:
      • the excessive and unfairly preponderant share of representation given to the followers of one particular religion,
      • the unjust distinctions made between Muslims and non Muslims in the matter of electorates, the franchise and the qualifications of the candidates,
      • the wide, arbitrary and unreasonable disqualifications and restrictions for candidates seeking election to the Councils,
      • the general distrust of the educated classes,
      • the unsatisfactory composition of the non-official majorities in the Provincial Councils, rendering them ineffective and unreal.
    • Certain circumstance led to discontentment among the Muslims also.
      • A proof of it is to be found in the modification of the constitution of the Muslim League.
        • In March 1913 its goal was laid down to be “the promotion among Indians of Loyalty to the British Crown, the protection of the rights of the Muslims and, without detriment to the foregoing objects, the attainment of the system of self government suitable to India.
      • As the Muslims could not come to a settlement with the British Government in regarded to the condition on which a Muslim University was to be founded at Aligarh, the Muslims felt greatly hurt, as also at the annulment of the partition of Bengal in 1911.
      • The hostile attitude of England towards Turkey in the Turco-Italian War (1911-12) was viewed with dismay by the Muslims in India.
      • The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 were considered by them as a great conspiracy of the Christian Powers against Turkey.
      • This estrangement of the Muslims with British Government had one salutary effect, namely, that it brought the Hindus and the Muslims closer. The Congress League rapprochement resulted in the Lucknow Pact (1916).
    • So great was the discontent among the people of India with the Minto Morley Reforms that the British Government had to resort to repressive measures to suppress the rising tide of discontent through:
      • The Indian Press Act of 1910,
      • the Seditious Meetings Act of 1911 and
      • the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1913.
      • The Defence of India Act of 1915 (provided for the trial of revolutionary offenders by a strong bench without appeal).
  • As the World War I went on, the emergence of the doctrine of self determination, deeply influenced Indian public opinion.
    • If the war was being fought to make the world safe for democracy, it was hoped that it would at least put India on the road to self government.
  • Under the circumstances, the question of further constitutional reforms did not brook delay. In December, 1916 a joint scheme prepared by the Congress and the Muslim League, the outcome of the Lucknow Pact, was put forward.
  • Montagu’s Statement of 20 August 1917:
    • Montagu, the new Secretary of State made a statement in the House of Commons regarding the goal of British Government in India. he announced:
      • “The policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and gradual development of self governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible Government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this direction should be taken as soon as possible….I would add that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the co-operation received from those upon whom new opportunities of services will thus be conferred and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can reposed in their sense of responsibility.”
    • The Declaration eased the tense Indian atmosphere for the time being at least.
    • But, there was a section of people in India to whom the declaration failed to satisfy.
      • No definite time was prescribed, by which India would reach her goal.
      • Nor was there any standard laid down, by which one could decide whether a certain stage for further reforms had been reached or not.
      • It was indeed insulting to India that the British were to the sole judge to decide whether India was capable of a particular set up or not.
    • The Secretary of State came to India in November 1917 and discussed his scheme of reforms with the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, and some eminent British civil servants and Indian politicians.
      • A committee was appointed which together with the Viceroy helped Montagu prepare the draft of a reform scheme which was published in July 1918 and is called Montagu-Chelmsford (Montford) Report on the basis of which the Government of India Act 1919 was drafted.

Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919

  • The Act laid down in its Preamble the principles on which the reforms were to be progressively carried out in India.
  • The Preamble contained the following points:
    • British India is to remain an integral part of the British Empire.
    • Responsible Government in British India is the objective of the declared policy of Parliament.
    • Responsible Government is capable of progressive realisation only.
    • In order to achieve Responsible Government, it is necessary to provide for:
      • the increasing association of the Indians in every branch of administration and
      • the gradual development of self governing institutions.
    • Concurrently with the development of self governing institutions in the provinces, it is expedient to give to provinces in provincial matters the highest measure of independence of the Government of India.
  • Significance of Preamble:
    • In Preamble, what was already declared by Montagu was now given a definite legal shape.
    • The sovereignty of the British Parliament over India was reasserted.
    • The country was told in clear terms of the basis of the future British action.

Provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919

Changes in the Home Government:

  • The Secretary of State for India who used to be paid out of the Indian revenues was now to be paid by the British Exchequer.
    • Thus an injustice dating from 1793 was undone.
  • Some of his functions were taken away from him and given to the High Commissioner for India who was to be appointed and paid by the Government of India.
    • This new functionary acted as the agent of the Governor General in Council.
    • He was to be incharge of the Stores Department, the Indian Students Department, etc.
  • The control of the Secretary of State was reduced in the provincial sphere in India in so far as Transferred Subjects were concerned but his control over the Centre remained as complete as before.

Changes in the Government of India (Centre):

(A) Executive:

  • The governor-general was to be the chief executive authority.
  • The Act did not introduce responsible government at the Centre though Indians were to have greater influence there.
  • The number of Indians in the Governor General’s Executives Council was raised to 3 in a Council of 8.
  • The Indian members were entrusted with departments like that of Law, Education, Labour, Health and Industries.
  • The new scheme of Government envisaged a division of Subjects into the Central List and the Provincial List.
    • A List of Central subjects was drawn up which were to be administered by the Governor General in Council.
    • Central List:
      • Those subjects which were of national importance or which related to more than one province, such as:
        • Foreign Affairs, Defence, Political Relations, Posts and Telegraphs, Public Debt, Communications, Civil and Criminal Law and Procedure, etc.
      • Any subject not specially transferred to the provinces was a Central subject.
    • Provincial List:
      • Subjects of provincial importance, such as
        • Public Health, Local Self Government, Education, Medical Administration, Land Revenue Administration, Water Supply, Famine Relief, Law and Order, Agriculture, etc.
    • The revenue resources were divided between the centre and the provinces, with land revenue going to the provinces, and income tax remaining with the centre.
  • Analysis:
    • Though a step was taken towards increasing association of Indians by raising their strength to 3, yet the departments assigned to them were comparatively unimportant.
    • Nor were these members made responsible to the Legislative.
    • The division of subjects into two lists was not clear-cut or based on proper consideration.
    • Although all subjects in the Provincial List were provincial for purposes of administration, that was not the case for purpose of legislation.
    • The chief executive authority still remained with the Governor-General. He exercised full control over his Councillors and enjoyed vast powers over the country.
      • Thus the wishes of the people of the country in respect of the appointment, powers and functions of the Governor General were ignored in the Act.

(B) Legislative:

  • The Act set up a bicameral legislature at the Centre in place of the Imperial Council consisting of one House.
  • The two Houses now were to be: Council of State and Central Legislative Assembly.
    • The Council of State had tenure of 5 years and had only male members.
    • The Central Legislative Assembly had tenure of 3 years.
  • The Council of State:
    • Upper House was to consist of 60 members:
      • 26 were to be nominated by the Governor General:
        • 20 officials and 6 non-officials,
      • 34 were to be elected, (introducing an elected majority):
        • 20 to be elected by General constituencies,
        • 10 by the Muslims,
        • 3 by the Europeans, and
        • 1 by the Sikh constituencies.
    • The Council of State was renewed partially every year, though a member held his seat for five years.
    • Its President was to be nominated by the Viceroy.
    • Women were not entitled to become its members.
    • The governor General could address the House, and he could summon, prorogue or dissolve the House.
    • The franchise was extremely restricted.
      • Only those paying an income tax on the minimum income of Rs. 10,000 a year or those paying a minimum land revenue of Rs. 750 a year were entitled to vote.
      • Either a person must be on the Senate of a University or he must have some past experience in some Legislative Council of India, or he must be title holder.
      • Out of the entire population of India in 1920 of 24 crores not more than 17,364 persons possessed the requisite qualifications for a vote.
  • The Central Legislative Assembly:
    • The Lower House was to consist of 145 members.
      • 41 nominated:
        • 26 officials
        • 15 non officials
      • 104 elected:
        • 52 by the General constituencies,
        • 32 by the Communal constituencies:
          • 30 by the Muslims,
          • 2 by the Sikhs.
        • 20 by the Special constituencies:
          • 7 by the landholders,
          • 9 by the Europeans,
          • 4 by the Indian Commercial community.
    • The life of the Assembly was to be three years but it could be extended by the Governor General.
    • The franchise here was restricted (as per property/ tax/ land revenue) though as compared to Council of State it was not so high:
      • The number of persons who thus became entitled to vote stood at 909,874 in 1920.
  • The distribution of seats among the different provinces was made on the basis of their importance and not on the basis of their population.
    • Bombay and Madras were granted 16 seats each though the population of Bombay was only half of that of Madras. The reason here was the commercial importance of Bombay.
  • Powers of the Central Legislature.
    • The Central Legislature, constituted of the above mentioned two Houses, was supposed to have been given very wide powers.
    • It could legislate for the whole of British India, for the Indian subjects and servants of the Government, whether inside or outside the country.
    • It could repeal or amend any law already existing in the country.
    • The members were given:
      • the right to move resolutions and motions for adjournment of the House,
      • to consider urgent questions of public importance immediately.
      • the right to ask questions and supplementaries.
      • right to as Short notice questions,
      • the right of freedom of speech.
  • Restrictions on the Legislature:
    • There were certain restrictions imposed on the Legislature.
    • In certain cases, previous sanction of the Governor General was required for the introduction of a bill such as:
      • Amendment or repeal of an existing law or an ordinance of the Governor General,
      • Foreign relations and the relations with the Indian States,
      • Discipline or maintenance of the military, naval and the air forces,
      • Public debt and public revenue and
      • Religion, religious rites and usages of the people.
    • Further, if the Governor General felt that and bill affects the safety or tranquility of British India, he could prevent its consideration.
    • If on the advice of the Governor General the Legislature refused to pass a law, the Governor General could pass it himself, subject to the sanction of the Crown.
    • He could make and promulgate ordinances in cases of emergency which could last for six months.
    • His assent was essential for the enactment of law passed by the legislature.
    • Thus the vetoing power of the Governor General was real and was actually exercised.
    • Budget:
      • The Government would submit proposals for appropriation in the shape of demands for grant in the Legislative Assembly.
      • Certain items were subject to the vote of the Assembly, others were open for discussion and some could not even be discussed much less voted upon.
  • The Act of 1919 introduced responsive and not responsible government at the Centre:
    • No vote of no-confidence by the Legislature means the members of the Executive Council of the Governor General were irremovable.
    • But that did not mean that they could ride roughshod over the wishes of the Legislature. In fact, they did respond to the wishes of the Legislature and through it to the wishes of the people.
    • Some of the members of the Legislature were put on the standing committees such as that of Public Accounts and Finance and here they got considerable opportunity to influence the governmental policy.
    • Moreover, they could expose the Government by putting it questions, supplementaries and moving motions of adjournment.
    • They could also reject the budget and move and pass resolutions against the Government.
    • So the Executive Councillors had to respond to the wishes of the members of the Legislature.

Changes in Provincial Government—Introduction of Dyarchy:

  • One of the principles enunciated by the Montford Report was: “The provinces were the domain in which the earlier steps towards the progressive realisation of responsible government should be taken.
  • To give effect to this principle, the Act introduced what is called Dyarchy in the Provinces.

(A) Executive:

  • Dyarchy, i.e., rule of two—executive councillors and popular ministers—was introduced. The governor was to be the executive head in the province.
  •  Under the system of Dyarchy, the subject to be dealt with by the Provincial Government were divided into two parts:
    • Reserved subjects:
      • They were administered by the Governor with the help of the members of the Executive Council who were nominated by him and who were not to be responsible to the Legislature.
      • The Reserved subjects were:
        • Land Revenue,
        • Famine Relief,
        • Justice, Police,
        • Criminal Tribes,
        • Printing Presses,
        • Irrigation and Waterways,
        • Mines, Factories, Electricity,
        • Labour Welfare, Industrial Disputes,
        • Excluded Areas,
        • Public Services etc.
    • Transferred subjects:
      • They were administered by the Governor acting with ministers appointed by him from among the elected members of the Legislature and who were to be responsible to the Legislature and were to hold office during his pleasure.
      • The ministers were to be responsible to the legislature and had to resign if a no-confidence motion was passed against them by the legislature.
      • The secretary of state and the governor-general could interfere in respect of “reserved” subjects while in respect of the “transferred” subjects; the scope for their interference was restricted.
      • In case of failure of constitutional machinery in the province the governor could take over the administration of “transferred” subjects also.
      • Transferred subjects:
        • Education (other than European and Anglo Indian Education),
        • Libraries, Museums,
        • Local Self Government, Medical Relief,
        • Public Health and Sanitation, Agriculture,
        • Co-operative Societies,
        • Veterinary Department, Fisheries,
        • Public Works,
        • Excise,
        • Industries,
        • Religious and Charitable Endowments, etc.
    • The law did not require meetings of all ministers together to take decisions on all Transferred subjects. The Governor dealt with each minister individually.
    • On matters of common concern, particularly on the allocation of the revenues, there was joint consultation between the Reserved and Transferred halves of the Government, the Governor presiding and having the last word of the subject.

(b) Legislature:

  • Provincial Legislative Councils were further expanded:
    • Their size was increased, their total membership varying from province to province.
    • Of the total number of the members of a Provincial Council:
      • at least 70% were to be elected,
      • not more than 20% were to be officials,
      • the remaining were to be nominated non officials.
    • 70% of the members were to be elected.
  • The system of election introduced for the Provincial Councils was direct, the primary voters electing the members.
    • However, high property qualifications, the communal and class electorates and special weightage to certain communities figured in the provincial franchise.
    • Women were also given the right to vote.
  • The functions of the Provincial Council:
    • It was enlarged.
    • The members enjoyed:
      • the freedom of speech,
      • the right to move resolutions,
      • the right to ask questions and supplementaries,
      • the right to initiate legislation concerning any provincial subject, though every bill passed required the approval of the Governor.
    • The members could reject the budget, though the Governor could restore it, if necessary.
    • The governor could veto bills and issue ordinances.

Criticism of Dyarchy:

  • Diarchy was introduced in the provinces on April 1, 1921, and continued in operation till April 1937. During its operation, the limitations and defects of Diarchy came to the surface.
  • The actual division of subjects under the two heads of Reserved and Transferred was illogical and irrational, the result being that neither a Minister, nor an Executive Councillor could work independently of the other.
    • Thus, while Agriculture was a transferred subject, Irrigation was kept as Reserved, though the two for obvious reasons cannot be separated.
    • Similarly, industry was Transferred, while Water, Power Factories and Mines were kept as Reserved.
  • It was not possible at times to have unity of purpose between the two branches of administration.
    • For instance, when there was agitation in regard to the Sikh Gurudwaras, the aim of the Member in charge of law and order, which was Reserved subject, was to introduce certain legislative measures to meet the situation, but this he could not do, as the legislation in this connection could be introduced only by the Minister in-charge of Religious Endowments, which was a Transferred subject.
  • At times there was such a confusion that the authorities could not decide whether a particular subject belonged to one department or the other.
    • For example: an enquiry was started in the Department of Agriculture on the question of the fragmentation of holdings.
    • When the Report was submitted in the following year, all of a sudden it was discovered that the question should have been handled by the Revenue Department, to which the matter was now referred.
    • But here too, when the question had engaged the attention of the Revenue Department for two years, it was discovered that the subject after all belonged to the Co-operative Department.
  • There was no love lost between the two halves of the Government.
    • The ministers were the representatives of the people while the members of the Executive Council belonged to the bureaucracy.
    • Friction between them was inevitable. At times the Ministers and the Executive Councilors condemned one another in public.
    • As a rule, the Governor backed the members of the Executive Council against the Ministers.
  • The position of the Ministers was weak in another way.
    • They had to serve two masters, Governor and the Legislative Council.
    • A Minister was appointed by the Governor and dismissed at his will.
      • He was responsible to the Legislature for the administration of his department.
      • He could not retain his if a legislature passed a vote of no confidence against him.
    • From point of view of practical politics, the Ministers cared more for the Governor than the Legislature.
    • There were no strong parties in the provincial legislatures. The result was that no Minister had a majority to back him in office.
    • He had always to depend upon the backing and support of official bloc in the legislature and this he could only get if the Governor was happy with him.
    • The result was that the Ministers sank to the position of glorified secretaries and were always at the beck and call of the Governors.
  • The Governor did not encourage the principle of joint responsibility amongst the Ministers.
    • The latter never worked as a team. They were at times pitched against one another.
    • In 1928, Feroz Khan Noon, a Punjab Minister, publicly criticized and condemned the action of his Hindu colleague.
  • In most important matters, the Ministers were not even consulted, as for instance in the case of Gandhiji’s arrest.
    • The repressive policy against the non-cooperation movement was planned, and executed but the Ministers were neither consulted nor did they even know what actually the Governor was planning to do.
    • They, in the words of CR. Das, “were only dumb spectators, who could neither speak nor say anything.”
  • A Minister did not have the required control on the services under his own department.
    • His Own Secretary had a weekly interview with the Governor and therefore his opinion carried greater weight than that of the Minister.
    • Whenever there was a difference of opinion between the Minister and his permanent Secretary or between the Minister and the Commissioner of a Division or the head of the department, the matter had to be referred to the Governor, who always supported the officials against the Minister.
  • The appointment, salary, suspension, dismissal and transfer of the members of All-India Services was under the control of the Secretary of State for India.
    • These persons continued to be under the control of the Secretary of State even if they held charge in the Transferred departments.
    • They, in consequence, did not care for the Ministers. The Ministers had no power to choose officers of their own liking.
  • All the so-called nation building departments were transferred to the Ministers but they were given no money for them.
    • The result was that the Ministers had to depend upon the goodwill of the Finance Member.
    • As a member of the bureaucracy, the Finance Member had little sympathy will the aspirations of the people as represented by the Ministers.
    • He cared more for the needs of the Reserved departments than for the Transferred departments.
  • All these factors led to the failure of the Diarchy and as per recommendation of the Simon Commission, it was abolished in the provinces in the Government of India Act, 1935.
  • Other hindrances in the way of its successful working of the Act of 1919:
    • The political atmosphere in the country was surcharged with suspicion and distrust on account of terrible happenings in the Panjab and elsewhere, and the attitude of the British Government towards Turkey.
    • The monsoon failed in 1920 and added to the misery of the people.
    • Slump also came in the market with the result that the finances of both Central and Provincial governments were upset as also the favourable balance of trade of India.
    • Under the Meston Award, the Provincial Governments were required to make certain annual contributions to the Government of India but the provinces which themselves were in financial difficulties.
    • The financial crisis in the provinces and the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust boded ill for the successful working of the new constitution.
    • While, on the one hand, the Government dangled the carrot of constitutional reforms, on the other hand, it decided to arm itself with extraordinary powers to suppress any discordant voices against the reforms.
      • In March 1919, it passed the Rowlatt Act even though every single Indian member of the Central Legislative Council opposed it.
      • This Act authorised the Government to imprison any person without trial and conviction in a court of law, thus enabling the Government to suspend the right of habeas corpus which had been the foundation of civil liberties in Britain.
  • Other criticism:
    • Communal representation and reservations were not only retained, but also considerably extended.
      • In addition to the Muslims, Sikhs were granted separate electorate too, while seats were reserved for the non-Brahmans in Madras and the ‘depressed classes’ were offered nominated seats in the legislatures at all levels.
    • For Carl Bridge, on the other hand, these were measures to “safeguard the essentials of the British position” in India.
    • For Tomlinson, it was an attempt to mobilise “an influential section of Indian opinion … to support the Raj“.
    • The major problem of the reform, as Peter Robb has identified, was its being “limited by ideas of continuing British presence“.
    • Many Indians by this time had moved beyond the idea of self-government within the empire. Their new goal was swaraj, which was soon going to be defined as complete independence.
    • The reform therefore failed to satisfy Indian political opinions, and prevent the eventual mass movement.
  • Some positive aspects of the Act:
    • For the first time in the history of British rule it provided for transfer of power, even though the transfer was halting and the power extremely limited.
    • Previous measures had enabled Indians increasingly to control their legislatures but now their Government…Now Indians were to govern as leaders of the elected majorities in their legislatures, and responsible to them.
    • Though dyarchy has been condemned out of hands, it would be wrong to say that dyarchy brought no constitutional progress.
    • The electorates were considerably enlarged to 5 .5 million for the provinces and 1.5 million for the imperial legislature.
    • Philip Woods, on one hand, has argued that the ideas behind the reforms “were crucial in establishing parliamentary democracy in India and, thereby, in beginning the process of decolonisation“.”
    • The Cambridge School has in a different way sought to establish a connection between the constitutional reforms of 1909 and 1919 and the emergence of mass politics after World War One.: As the electorate was widened, the Indian leaders were forced to operate in a democratic way and seek the support of the masses.
      • This interpretation does not necessarily explain the mass upsurge under Mahatma Gandhi. A major theme of Gandhi’s non-cooperation programme launched in December 1920 was the boycott of the new councils.
      • Gandhian philosophy, was based on a critique of Western civil society; the mass movement he engineered had an altogether different logic, as his mission was to liberate Indian politics from this constricted arena of constiturionalism.

Reception in India:

  • The Act of 1919 had the following major defects from the nationalist point of view:
    • The absence of even partial responsible government at the Centre,
    • The consolidation of ‘separate electorates’.
      • Although the Montford Report had declared that communal ‘separate electorates’ was ‘a very serious hindrance to the development of the self governing principle, yet ‘separate electorates’ came to be a permanent feature of the Indian political life.
    • The introduction of dyarchy in the provinces was too complicated to be smoothly worked.
  • The Congress met in a special session in August 1918 at Bombay under Hasan Imam’s presidency and declared the reforms to be “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and demanded effective self-government instead.
  • The 1919 reforms did not satisfy political demands in India.
    • The British repressed opposition, and restrictions on the press and on movement were re-enacted in the Rowlatt Acts introduced in 1919.
    • These measures were rammed through the Legislative Council with the unanimous opposition of the Indian members.
    • Several members of the council including Jinnah resigned in protest.
    • These measures were widely seen throughout India of the betrayal of strong support given by the population for the British war effort.
  • Gandhi launched a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts with the strongest level of protest in the Punjab. An apparently unwitting example of violation of rules against the gathering of people led to the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh in Amritsar in April 1919. This tragedy galvanised such political leaders as Nehru and Gandhi and the masses who followed them to press for further action.
  • Montagu ordered an inquiry into the events at Amritsar by Lord Hunter.
    • The Hunter Inquiry recommended that General Dyer, who commanded the troops, be dismissed, leading to Dyer’s sacking.
    • Many British citizens supported Dyer, whom they considered had not received fair treatment from the Hunter Inquiry.
  • As per Gandhi Ji: “The Montford Reforms…were only a method of further draining India of her wealth and of prolonging her servitude.”

Later on:

  • The Montagu-Chelmsford report stated that there should be a review after 10 years.
  • Sir John Simon headed the committee (Simon Commission) responsible for the review which recommended further constitutional change.
  • Three round table conferences were held in London in 1930, 1931 and 1932 with representation of the major interests.
    • Gandhi attended the 1931 round table after negotiations with the British Government.
    • The major disagreement between Congress and the British was separate electorates for each community which Congress opposed but which were retained in Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award.
  • A new Government of India Act 1935 was passed continuing the move towards self-government first made in the Montagu-Chelmsford Report.

4 thoughts on “Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and Government of India Act, 1919”

  1. What many students do not realize is that this act while paving the way for more indians to be associated with the british government also paved the way to independence with the emphasis on self rule. Of course, the contrarian argumnent goes that when Montagu came up with this, he was thinking more of a british colony, similar to the status enjoyed by Australia..

    1. Path to freedom is natural. Every good or bad steps, intensional or untensional ultimately lead to freedom. People may or may not realise it. So yes, you are absolutely right here but your reason is bit narrow here. Dissociating more Indian would have have similar effect as associating more Indians. Remember, Lord Litton and Lord Riopon, both was equaly responsible to the rise of Indian nationalism ,inspite of the fact that they were pole apart from each other in their nature, attitude and work towards India.

Leave a Reply