Learning Task: From the Indian National Congress -Morley-Minto Reforms

4 mark questions
INC 1885
Partition 1905
1. What was INC?
The Indian National Congress was a political organisation founded by Allan Octavian Hume in 1885. Its main
aim was the seeking of self-governance and independence for India from British colonial rule. The Congress
was initially composed of educated and wealthy individuals and gradually expanded to include people from
all walks of life. The Congress played a significant role in India's struggle for independence and organised
various movements and campaigns against British rule.
2. Who was Lord Dufferin?
Lord Dufferin was a prominent member of Victorian society and a British public servant. He served as the
eighth viceroy and Governor-General of India from 1884 to 1888. He also played a key role in promoting the
formation of the Indian National Congress. Lord Dufferin formed a committee to reform the councils, which
resulted in the Indian Councils Act 1892. This act established the principle of representation in India.
3. Describe the objectives of INC in the year 1886.
In 1886, Congress, in its second meeting, stated that it aimed to create an organisation ‘United one and for
all to promote our welfare and the welfare of our mother country’. They wanted to achieve this by
educating the public in India by persuading the British government to end unfair practices. It also called for
more Indian representation in the Indian Civil Service and in the legislative councils in various provinces.
These objectives helped to persuade the British to introduce the Indian Councils Act of 1892.
4. Who was Bal Gangadhar Tilak?
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was one of the earliest and most influential advocates of Swaraj, or 'self-rule,' and he
played a pivotal role in the Indian struggle for independence. He is famously known for his quote: "Swaraj is
my birthright, and I shall have it!" Tilak was honoured with the title "Lokmanya," meaning "accepted by the
people as their leader." Mahatma Gandhi referred to him as "The Maker of Modern India." In 1908, he was
one-third of the Lal Bal Pal triarchy. Tilak was sentenced to six years in prison for publishing a provocative
article against the British in a newspaper.
5. Who were Lal Bal Pal?
Lal Bal Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal) were a triarchy of nationalists
in British India from 1906 to 1918. Lal Bal Pal united Indians against the partition of Bengal. They backed
the Swadeshi movement involving the boycott of all British products. The nationalist movement gradually
faded with the arrest of its main leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and the retirement of Bipin Chandra Pal.
While Lala Lajpat Rai suffered from injuries due to a police lathi charge and died.
6. Describe the partition of Bengal.
The Partition of Bengal (1905) was a territorial reorganisation of the Bengal Presidency carried out by Lord
Curzon on 19 July 1905. It was put into effect on 16 October 1905. The reorganisation divided the
predominantly Muslim eastern areas from the predominantly Hindu western areas. The Hindus of West
Bengal objected to the division, claiming that it would make them a minority in a province that would
include Bihar and Orissa.
7. Who was Lord Curzon?
Lord Curzon was a British statesman and Foreign Secretary. At the age of 39, he became India's youngest
Viceroy. Lord Curzon succeeded Lord Elgin as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905. He partitioned Bengal in
1905, which generated strong protests. Curzon's seven-year rule in India, which was full of missions,
commissions, and omissions, caused a strong reaction in the Indian mind.
8. Describe the steps that the British took to deal with the Hindu protests from 1905 onwards.
The British placed Restrictions on newspapers and public meetings. From 1906 onwards, editors were
brutally prosecuted, while some were imprisoned. In 1908, the Press Act gave the government even greater
control over the newspapers. Tilak, a nationalist leader, was arrested and sentenced to six years'
imprisonment. The British started imprisoning those they considered suspicious, and soon the local prisons
became full of revolutionaries. They also deported the suspects without being charged or put on trial.
7 Mark Question
 Q.1 Why was the Indian National Congress formed?

One of the reasons why the Indian National Congress was formed was to provide a platform for Indians to
voice their concerns and demands for greater political representation and self-governance. Britain
realised that Indian people needed their own national political body to represent their views to the British.
A British member of parliament wrote to The Times newspaper suggesting that the Indians should set up
their own political association. Even a former member of the Indian civil service, Allan Hume, wrote a letter
to the graduates of Calcutta University calling them to take the lead in setting up the Indian National Union,
which was supported by Lord Dufferin, who said that the new organisation would act as a 'safety valve' for
the escape of great and growing forces within India.
Furthermore, it may be said that the Congress's purpose of formation gradually turned to persuade the
British to stop unfair practices in India in a few matters. Indians through Congress started to call for more
Indian representation in the ICS and in the legislative councils in various provinces. This convinced the
British to introduce the Indian Council Act 1892, which increased the number of Indians in the councils.
Besides this, the creation of this organisation aimed to increase the role of native Indians in the
government. The 'moderates' believed that the British were fair-minded and that British rule had brought
benefits to India. There was political stability and a modern form of justice and education. All that was
required was a peaceful protest and persuasion of the British to relax their tight control of the country.
However, the extremist Indians wanted things to move more quickly. But all these demands were entirely
ignored by the British. Lord Dufferin claimed that the organisation that it represented was just a
microscopic minority of Indian opinion, and in 1900, lord curzon wrote that Congress is tottering to its fall,
and one of my greatest ambitions is to assist it to a peaceful death. This response of the government led to
the formation of radical nationalism in India in the late nineteenth century.

Q.2 WHY PARTITION OF BENGAL OCCUR IN 1905?

One of the reasons for the partition of Bengal was the rise of Radical Nationalism in India. In the late 19th
century, the natives of India perceived how important freedom was for them. The rising nationalism among
the Indians could have been menacing for the British, as the common aim of the natives was to get rid of
them. Hence, the British took immediate action to prevent any growth of nationalism among the Indians,
which was the partition of Bengal. Bal Gangadhar Tilak of Poona made many speeches calling for freedom,
but was imprisoned in 1897 as he wrote a provocative newspaper article about the British.
Furthermore, to establish an effective administration of Bengal, it was divided by the British
government. The British claimed that Bengal was very complicated to administer due to the majority of the
Indian population being settled there. They portrayed that by dividing Bengal into 2 provinces, it would
become easy for them to govern it. Therefore, in 1903, Lord Curzon proposed that Bengal should be
partitioned into East and West. Eastern, including Assam, Dhaka, Chittagong, and Mymensingh.
Moreover, the 'divide and rule' policy of the British was also another reason, as from the inception
British aimed to carve up India to avoid any expected uprising. When they saw the majority of the Indian
population in Bengal, they took it as a real threat to their existence in India, as if the Indians united, they
could overtake the British government. Many societies sprang up in India, aiming to eradicate the British
from India 1870s onward. This led to an ideology among the British to partition Bengal, avoiding any
uprising.

Simla Deputation 1906

Formation of AIML 1906

1. What was the Simla Deputation?

On October 8, 1906, a group of important Muslims, led by Agha Khan, met with Lord Minto in Simla. They
asked for separate Muslim representatives in local and provincial elections, elected only by Muslim voters,
and a larger share of seats than their population percentage. These demands came to be known as the
Simla deputation, which Lord Minto accepted.
2. Who was Lord Minto?
 From 1905 to 1910, Lord Minto II, the 4th Duke of Minto, served as the Governor General and Viceroy of
India, succeeding Lord Curzon in November 1905. He was the grandson of Lord Minto I, who had also held
the position of Governor General of India from 1807 to 1813. As a Tory aristocrat, Minto II arrived in India
with significant experience. Together with the Secretary of State, John Morley, he introduced several
important improvements to the legislative and administrative councils of the British government. Minto II
also played a key role in the establishment of the Muslim League by accepting their demands during the
Simla Conference.
3. Describe the importance of the Simla Deputation.
The acceptance of this deputation helped to restore relations between Muslims and the British. The British
were now ready to work with them and even make concessions to them. This also showed that the
Muslims made it very clear that they were a separate community and should be treated differently from
the Hindus. This deputation further increased the rivalry between Hindus and Muslims. It was perhaps the
first step down the road leading toward the formation of Pakistan.
4. Who was Agha Khan?
Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, Aga Khan III, was one of the founders of the All-India Muslim League (AIML).
His goal was the advancement of Muslim agendas and the protection of Muslim rights in British India. He
led the delegation of 35 prominent Indian Muslim leaders in Simla in October 1906. Aga Khan called on the
British to consider Muslims to be a separate nation within India.
5. Describe the objectives of the All-India Muslim League.
On 30 December 1906, AIML was founded with the objectives to protect and advance the political rights
and interests of Muslims in India. It was planned to promote feelings of loyalty towards the British
government. Another objective was to represent Muslim needs and ambitions to the government of India.
Lastly, it was designed to prevent hostility among Muslims towards other communities in India.
6. What was All-India-Muslim-League?
The AIML was the first Muslim political party of India. It was formed through a meeting of around 3000
delegates of the Muhammadan Educational Conference at Dhaka, in which the idea of a Muslim League
was suggested. The name was proposed by Nawab Khwaja Sir Salimullah Bahadur and seconded by Hakim
Ajmal Khan. The founders of the Muslim League were: Khwaja Salimullah, Vikar-ul-Mulk, Syed Amir Ali,
Syed Nabiullah, Khan Bahadur Ghulam and Mustafa Chowdhury. The first Honorary President of the League
was Aga Khan III.
Why did Hindus oppose the Partition?
The main reason why Hindus opposed because the INC also viewed the partition as a step against Indian
nationalism. It is believed that all people living in India were primarily Indians regardless of the cultural and
religious differences and identities. So, all communities living in Bengal were equally Indian, whether they
were Hindus or Muslims. It viewed the whole country as “mother India” and therefore, condemned the
partition of Bengal as a kind of vivisection of their motherland. It declared 16th Oct 1905 as a day of
mourning.
In addition, the Hindu-dominated INC was also unhappy over the loss of a monopoly over the economy
and politics of Bengal. In East Bengal, Muslims were a decisive majority and had formed their own
government. Therefore, their economic condition began to improve. They decided to develop the
Chittagong port to compete with the Calcutta port of West Bengal. This scenario was worrying for the INC,
which launched an aggressive campaign against the British.
Furthermore, many Hindus saw this as a continuation of the traditional British policy of "divide and rule."
They believed that the British were using this tactic to strengthen their control over Indian political affairs
by creating divisions between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims. This opposition could be
seen through widespread protests and opposition by Hindus towards the British and resentment towards
the Muslim communities. Gangadhar Tilak once remarked, "The British policy of divide and rule has sown
the seeds of discord and hatred between the Hindus and Muslims.

Why was the Simla deputation formed?

One of the reasons why the Simla Deputation was formed was to ensure that Muslims had a fair say in the
new legislative councils. Led by the Agha Khan, 33 prominent Muslim members of the deputation argued
that Muslim representation should be determined not solely by numerical strength, but also by their
political significance within the community and their contributions to the Empire. Muslims supported their
demands with strong arguments as the strength of Muslim troops in the British army, the Muslim
landowner class & fear of violence in case of joint electorates. Lord Minto, acknowledging the validity of
these arguments, agreed to give Muslims separate seats to protect their rights. It appeared that the British
had decided to win Muslim support for their own rule.
Moreover, Muslims were upset that the partition of Bengal was being undone. They had watched the
reaction of the Hindus to the partition of Bengal with dismay. They saw a massive wave of organised
protests as a rapid Swadeshi movement, an assassination attempt on Viceroy Minto and a plan of creating
economic stress on the British, which they felt would result in the partition being reversed. They knew
that they, the Muslims, were not able to provide such a level of protest to maintain the partition, so they
approached the British to seek constitutional protection.
In addition, it was formed as Muslims were worried about the potential dominance of Hindu interests in
the Indian National Congress. They were concerned that Hindi might become the national language, and
there were fears of forced conversions to Hinduism. When a new liberal government came to power in
Britain in 1905, these fears grew stronger. The government had plans to increase local participation in
Indian governance through elections, and since Hindus were in the majority, Muslims were concerned
about their representation being overshadowed. This provoked Muslims to take action and present their
demands to the British for the future protection of their interests in the presence of Congress's dominance.
This eventually paved the way for the formation of the Muslim League.

Why Simla deputation important?

One of the most noteworthy outcomes of the Simla Deputation was the improved relationship between
the British & Muslim relations. The British showed their sympathy towards Muslims. The Muslim
delegation was able to persuade the British to accept them as an important Indian community. This was
possible mainly due to the attempts of Sir Syed and his colleagues to improve relations with the British.
Now, their efforts had started bearing fruit as the British were prepared to work with the Muslims and
grant them concessions. This was a crucial development as it contributed to a more favourable atmosphere
for the Muslim population within the broader political landscape of British India.
Moreover, another key significance was that it developed a sense of nationalism among Muslims. By
asking for separate electorates and a greater share in the legislative councils and the government jobs
demonstrated that Muslims had started working on proving themselves a distinct and important
community of India. The creation of separate electorates allowed Muslims to vote for their own
representatives, fostering a greater sense of political identity and empowerment within the community. For
this reason, the Muslims were able to form their own political party on 30th December 1906, named All-
India Muslim League (AIML), only two months after the success of the Simla deputation.
Similarly, the Success of the Simla delegation also showed the growing political awareness among
Muslims in the presence of Hindu dominancy. Since the Hindus had already started making progress in all
walks of life, the rivalry between Muslims and Hindus was bound to grow. This rivalry was now going to be
visible in the constitution, too. The Muslims had started realising that they needed to secure a better
position in British India and became more aware of their rights and status in India.
Why Muslim League formed?
The most important factor in the formation of the Muslim League was the communism and religious
separatism that was taking root in India during the early 20th century played a significant role in the
formation of the Muslim League. Muslim leaders felt that their community's interests were being neglected
by the Congress party, which was dominated by Hindus. This led to a sense of insecurity among Muslims,
who felt that their religion was under threat. This was further worsened by the British government's policy
of divide and rule, which turned the Hindus against the Muslims. As a result, Muslim leaders felt that the
only way to safeguard their community's interests was to form a separate political party. An example of this
was the communal riots that took place in Bengal in 1905 after the British partitioned the province.
 Another reason for the formation of ML was the success of the Simla Delegation. In October 1906, about
36 Muslim delegates led by Sir Aga Khan called on the Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla. This delegation
demanded a greater share of Muslims in the councils and government jobs. It also demanded separate
electorates for the Muslims in view of their political importance and numerical weakness against the Hindu
majority. Lord Minto’s encouraging response convinced the delegates that the organised efforts were more
likely to be successful. For this, a political party was needed.

Furthermore, in February 1906, the Liberal Party won elections in England. It was generally more
sympathetic towards the Indians and, especially at times, towards Indian Muslims. It announced that it
would expand the legislative councils by including more Indians. Muslims realised it was time to think of
making their own political party because the INC had not been sincere towards them. To join the legislative
councils, elections had to be contested through the platform of a political party. Therefore, prominent
Muslim leaders gathered at the residence of Nawab Salimullah Khan in Dhaka to attend the 20th session of
the MEC attend the 20th session of MEC [Muhammadan Educational Conference]. There, they decided to
convert the MEC into a political party named All India Muslim Confederacy, which was soon renamed as All
India Muslim League. Its main objective was to protect the political and socio-economic interests of the
Indian Muslims while keeping them loyal to the British.

Indian Council Act /Morley Minto Reforms 1909/Indians' Reaction

1. Describe the Indian Council Act 1909.

The Indian Councils Act 1909, commonly known as the Morley–Minto Reforms, was passed by the British
Parliament. It brought about a limited increase in the involvement of Indians in the governance of British
India. Indians’ seats in the imperial and central executive council were increased. Muslims were given
separate electorates and 1/3rd seats in all the elections.
2. Who was John Morley?
John Morley was a British Liberal statesman, writer and newspaper editor. He was chief secretary for
Ireland in 1886 and secretary of state for India between 1905 and 1910. Morley is best known for his
 writings and for his "reputation as the last of the great nineteenth-century Liberals. His opposition to British
entry into the First World War as an ally of Russia led him to leave the government in August 1914.
3. Describe the resolution passed by INC and AIML in 1906.
In the Calcutta session of 1906, under the leadership of Dadabhai Naoroji, the INC adopted Swaraj as the
Goal of the Indian people. At this session, a resolution was passed for the boycott partition of Bengal,
promotion of the ideas of Self Government (Swaraj), support of Swadeshi and national education on
Boycott were passed. While in an AIML session at Dhaka in 1906, when some well-known Muslim
politicians met the Viceroy of British India, Lord Minto, to secure Muslim interests, they declared loyalty to
the British, supported Partition and opposed the boycott of British goods.
4. Who was Lord Harding?
Lord Harding was a British colonial administrator who served as the Viceroy and Governor-General of India
from 1910 to 1916. His tenure was a memorable one and included the visit of King George V and the Delhi
Durbar of 1911. He also moved the capital from Calcutta to New Delhi in 1911. His tenure included an
improvement of relations between the British administration and the nationalists, as a consequence of the
implementation of the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909.
5. Who was King George V?
George V was King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions. He was born on 3 June 1865 and died
in 1936. He was the emperor of India from 6 May 1910 until his death. George wore the newly created
Imperial Crown of India at the ceremony and declared the shifting of the Indian capital from Calcutta to
Delhi. He was the only Emperor of India to be present at his own Delhi Durbar. George's reign saw the rise
of socialism, communism, fascism, Irish republicanism, and the Indian independence movement.
6. Who was Queen Victoria?
Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, crowned at the age of 18. Her reign
was one of the longest in British history (1837–1901). In 1876, the British Parliament voted to grant her the
additional title of Empress of India. Her tenure as Queen is associated with Britain's great age of industrial
expansion, economic progress.
7. Describe the reversal of the partition of 1911.
The partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911 by Lord Harding. It was done in response to the Swadeshi
movement's riots in protest against the policy. King George V announced at Delhi Durbar on 12 December
1911 that eastern Bengal would be assimilated into the Bengal Presidency. The partition animated the
Muslims to form their own national organisation along communal lines.

Q: Why are Morley Morley-Minto Reforms important?

One of the reasons why Morley Morley-Minto Reforms hold significance is that these reforms granted
Indians a greater say in government affairs through the expansion of central and provincial councils.
While the British expressed a desire to train Indians in politics and allow them to voice their opinions, they
stopped short of providing them with decisive powers. The council members were granted the ability to
raise questions and offer advice to the government, but the real authority remained in British hands.

Moreover, these reforms were important due to the inclusion of more non-official members in the
councils, to gradually increase the number of elected members in the future. This shift towards a more
representative council composition was a crucial step towards a more inclusive and participatory political
system in India. It signified a move away from an exclusively British-controlled governance structure, laying
the groundwork for a more democratic framework.

Similarly, the introduction of separate Muslim electorates was a key development in British-Muslim
relations and a major step towards the establishment of a distinct national identity for the Muslim
community. This measure was implemented to safeguard the interests of the Muslim population and
ensure their representation in the political sphere. However, it was met with opposition from the Indian
National Congress (INC), highlighting the complexities and tensions within the broader Indian political
landscape during this period.

Q. Why Morley-Minto reforms opposed by the INC (Indian National Congress)? [7]

One of the reasons why the Indian National Congress (INC) expressed firm opposition to the Morley-Minto
Reforms was due to its dissatisfaction with the limited powers granted to the councils. The INC, aspiring
for a more substantial role in governance, found the concessions provided under the reforms to be
insufficient. They sought a greater degree of autonomy and influence in the decision-making processes,
which the reforms failed to adequately address. Morley, the Secretary of State, himself stated that the
reforms were not part of a move towards setting up a parliament in India. He said that if he thought that
they might make such a parliament any more likely, "I for one would have nothing to do with it".

Another central point of disagreement for the INC was the establishment of separate Muslim electorates,
which they viewed as antithetical to the principles of democracy. While the British did not intend to
introduce full-fledged democracy in India at the time, they granted concessions deemed necessary. The
introduction of separate electorates for Muslims was seen by the INC as a conflict-ridden measure that
could result in more communal differences in India. So, for the next 25 years, Congress was to pass an
annual resolution calling for an end to separate electorates and rejection of British goods.

Moreover, for the INC, the Morley-Minto Reforms represented a setback to the broader cause of Indian
nationalism and unity. They perceived these reforms as a deliberate attempt to fragment the Indian
political landscape along religious lines, undermining the collective struggle for independence. The limited
powers granted to the councils were seen as a strategy aimed at weakening the growing Indian nationalist
movement. This opposition underlined the INC's commitment to a unified, inclusive vision of India's
political future.

Chap-6 Learning Task: From 1911 Reversal of Partition to Delhi Proposals 1927
1. Describe the reversal of partition 1911
The partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911 by Lord Harding. It was done in response to
the Swadeshi movement's riots in protest against the policy. . King George V announced at
Delhi Durbar on 12 December 1911 that eastern Bengal would be assimilated into the
Bengal Presidency. The partition animated the Muslims to form their own national
organization along communal lines.
2. What was Lucknow Pact?
It was an agreement signed between the Muslim League and the Congress in December
1916 at Lucknow. Jinnah led the ML while Mahajan led the INC. Congress agreed to the
separate Muslim electorates and one third Muslim seats in the Central Legislative
Assembly. Both demanded more seats in the Councils, provincial autonomy and protection
of minorities. It was the first occasion of Hindu-Muslim unity that showed the possibility of
starting some kind of Home Rule campaign.
3. Who was Lala Hardayal?
Lala Hardayal was an Indian nationalist who was active in the early 20th century. He was a
prominent member of the Ghadar Party, a revolutionary organization aimed at overthrowing
British colonial rule in India. Hardayal was also a writer and scholar who wrote extensively
on Indian history, culture, and politics. He spent most of his life in exile and continued to
work for India's independence from abroad.
4. What was silk letter conspiracy?
It was a revolutionary movement launched by the Deobandi sect of Sunni Muslims in India
from 1913 to [Link]’s aim was to liberate India from the British rule with the help of
Germany, the Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan. The Punjab CID uncovered the conspiracy
by capturing letters written by Maulana Ubaid Ullah Sindhi to Maulana Mahmud Ul Hassan.
These letters were written in silk cloth, hence the name “Silk Letters Conspiracy”. Both the
leaders visited Afghanistan and persuaded the Afghan Amir to initiate an uprising in the
tribal belt of India. However, like many other similar secret attempts, this too was stopped
by the British.
5. What was defense of India act?
Ans: On 19 March 1915, the Defence of India Act 1915 was passed as an emergency law
by Charles Hardinge,the then Governor-General of India. It was passed as a temporary
wartime measure that lasted for the entire duration of World War I and was to expire six
months after. Under the Defence of India Act 1915, the Governor-General had special
powers to make rules. The laws were primarily undertaken to restrict the violent activities of
revolutionaries and nationalities.
6. What was the effect of world war I on the Indian politics /subcontinent?
World War I sparked a strong desire for self-rule and independence in India.. The
economic pressures of the war, combined with increased exploitation of Indian resources,
led to social discontent and a push for reforms, resulted in movements like Non
Cooperation and Civil Disobedience. Repressive measures like the Rowlatt Act and the
tragic Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 intensified anti-British sentiments, strengthening
the call for self-governance. In response, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919
acknowledged Indian political demands and paved the way for greater Indian participation
in legislative matters
7. Describe the importance of lucknow pact.
The lucknow pact marked a milestone in Hindu-Muslim cooperation, strengthening the
unity of India's diverse communities in their quest for self-rule. The pact secured separate
electorates for Muslims, ensuring their political representation and safeguarding their
interests within a united India. It promoted Hindu-Muslim collaboration by endorsing joint
electorates for certain legislative seats, fostering a spirit of mutual understanding. The pact
laid the groundwork for constitutional reforms, serving as a precursor to later demands for
communal representation and autonomy.8. Who was lord Chelmsford?
Lord Chelmsford held the prestigious position of Viceroy during a period of significant
political and social change in India. In 1916, he succeeded Lord Hardinge as Viceroy of
India. He played a central role in the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in
1919.. Lord Chelmsford's time as Viceroy witnessed a growing Indian independence
movement.
9. Who was lord Montague?
Lord Montagu, also known as Edwin Samuel Montagu, served as the Secretary of State for
India from 1917 to 1922. He was primarily responsible for the Montagu–Chelmsford
Reforms which led to the Government of India Act 1919,. His work aimed to increase
Indian participation in government. Heplayed a significant role in India's path to self-rule
and eventual independence.
10. What was diarchy?
Diarchy in British India, as part of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, introduced a dual
government system in the provinces. Under this system, certain areas of governance were
transferred to Indian ministers who were responsible to the Legislative Council, while other
areas remained under the direct control of British officials. The system was aimed at
increasing Indian participation in the government while maintaining British control over
important areas such as defense and foreign affairs. However, the diarchy was largely
unsuccessful in achieving its goals and was eventually replaced by more comprehensive
reforms.
11. Describe the Montague Chelmsford reforms.
These reforms were introduced in 1919 by British aimed to grant limited self-governance
and autonomy to Indians while retaining British control over key areas. A significant aspect
of the reforms was the introduction of diarchy, which established a dual government system
in the provinces, sharing powers between elected Indian ministers and British-appointed
officials. The reforms allowed for increased Indian participation in government and
provincial legislatures. While not full self-rule, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms marked a
critical transitional phase in India's progress toward independence.
12. What was Rowlatt act?
The British anticipated a violent reaction to the Mont-Ford reforms. They appointed an
investigative committee under Justice Rowlatt in Dec. 1917. In the light of its report the
Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. The Act empowered the local administration/police to
arrest anyone without warrant, detain him without the right of bail and decide where the
people in a province should live. Gandhi launched a countrywide strike against it, and
Jinnah resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council in protest.
13. What was amritsar massacre?
The Amritsar Massacre, also known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, occurred on April
13, 1919, in Amritsar, India, during British colonial rule. British troops, led by General
Reginald Dyer, opened fire on a crowd of unarmed Indian civilians who had gathered at
Jallianwala Bagh to protest oppressive British laws that did not allow protests. The troops
fired for approximately ten minutes, resulting in the deaths of at least 379 people and
injuring over a thousand. The massacre had a profound impact on the Indian
independence movement, galvanizing resistance against British rule and leading to
widespread outrage both in India and around the world.
14. Who was general dyer?
He was a British commander, in charge of the police in Amritsar. He quickly mobilized his
troops against a huge number of Indians who had gathered in a public park, Jallianwala
Bagh. He thought the aim of these people was to protest against the Rowlett Act. On 13th
April 1919 he ordered a direct shoot out on the peaceful gathering. Hundreds of people
were killed and several more injured. Dyer was trialed for his cruel action and removed from
his post.
15. What was non cooperation movement?
The Non-Cooperation Movement was a significant nonviolent campaign led by Mahatma
Gandhi from 1920 to 1922 during India's struggle for independence from British colonial rule. It aimed to
unite the Indian population in a nonviolent protest against British
authorities. Indians were encouraged to boycott British-made goods, educational
institutions, and government services. The movement gained immense support and
participation, but it was eventually suspended in 1922 due to instances of violence.
Nevertheless, it marked a turning point in India's fight for freedom, as it highlighted the
power of nonviolent resistance as a tool for social and political change.
16. What was Swadeshi movement?
The Swadeshi movement was a socio-political movement that began in India in the early
20th century, during the period of British colonial [Link] movement aimed to promote
Indian goods and boycott foreign goods, as a means of protesting against British economic
policies and promoting [Link] movement gained momentum in 1905, after the
British partitioned Bengal, and was led by prominent Indian leaders such as Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra [Link] Swadeshi movement played
an important role in India's struggle for independence and is seen as a symbol of economic
nationalism and self-determination.
17. Who was Pandit Mohan Malaviya?
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya( 25 December 1861 — 12 November 1946) was
an Indian scholar, educational reformer. He was president of the Indian National
Congress four times and the founder of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. He was
addressed as Pandit, a title of respect, and also as Mahamana (Great Soul). He was
awarded the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, in recognition of his significant
contributions to the nation.
18. Describe Delhi proposals 1927.
The Delhi Proposals were a set of political recommendations made by the British
government in 1927 during the constitutional discussions of the Simon Commission. These
proposals aimed to address the constitutional future of India. They suggested the creation
of a federal government for India, in which the provinces would have substantial autonomy,
while the British government would maintain control over defense, foreign affairs, and
finance. However, these proposals were met with strong opposition from Indian political
leaders who demanded full self-rule, leading to the rejection of the Delhi Proposals and a
continued struggle for complete independence from British colonial rule.
7 Mark Questions
Reversal of Partition 1911
Q: Why partition of Bengal was reversed? (7 mark)
One of the reasons that why partition 1905 was reversed that the INC fully pressurized the
British government to reconsider the decision of partition. Hindus believed that British have
partitioned the Bengal as part of their traditional divide and rule policy. This aroused a fury
amongst the Hindus proclaiming, 16h Oct 1905 as a day or mourning. A country-wide anti-partition
campaign was launched. Mob rallies were organized and shutter down strikes were observed as a
token of resentment against the partition. With the passage of time, the opposition adopted the
terrorist behavior as many senior British officials were attacked including Lord Minto who survived
a murder attempt. This created a serious problem for the British as they found it difficult to run the
state affairs effectively.
Moreover, it was opposed as the INC started the Swadeshi Movement in which boycott of
the British goods and institutions was observed. British titles given to the Hindus were
returned and the attendance in various institutes dropped significantly. At many places, the British
factory made cotton cloth was thrown in the bonfire to mark the hatred against the Videshi/foreign
goods. This created serious economic difficulties for the British as the sale of their products
sharply declined in the Indian markets. As one Indian author Rabindranath wrote about these
events in his novel in which the heroine declares I must burn all my foreign clothes, I do not wish
to ever wear them again in this life.
In addition, British wanted to avoid any future threat to their Pride and Prestige. King George
V was scheduled to visit India in 1911. The INC, threatened to boycott the Coronation ceremony of the King
that was a royal tradition and a hallmark of British authority over its colonies. This threat
of the INC was a serious blow to the pride and prestige of the British who were now pressurized to
reconsider the partition. Sir John Jenkins, a member of the Viceroy’s executive council, advised
the British government to reverse the partition and the King himself announced the reversal in
Delhi in 1911. Assam, Bihar and Orissa were separated from reunited Bengal.
The Impact of WW1 on Indians 1918
Q: Why were there mixed views in India about supporting the British in the WW1?(7)
Its main reason is that many Indians were not sympathetic to the British and wanted to exploit
the British weakness during the War. They saw Britain’s ‘necessity’as ‘India’s opportunity’. They
were, therefore, called the ‘opportunists’ or ‘realists’. According to their views, Britain was in
difficulty and needed help, so there was moreopportunity for the Indians to press the British for self
government. This ‘anti-British’ group soon began to take action in the form of the revolutionary
activity in and beyondIndia. They included the Mutiny Party of Lala Hardayal in the US in 1913, rise
of the nationalists in the Punjab in 1915 and the Silk Letter Conspiracy
Moreover, it was so because when the War broke out in 1914 ,many of them were in a way
‘idealists’ as they believed that in case of the British victory they surely would reward Indian
loyalty by introducing reforms to give the Indians a greater role in governing the country
.They, therefore, agreed with the idea of giving support to the British on the ground that the British
were fighting for the rights of nations to determinehow they should be governed (self-determination).
The British, too, admitted that thewar would have prolonged beyond their calculations and indeed
might not even havebeen won without the help of the Indians
Similarly, the Indian National Congress, which was the largest political organization at the
time, was divided on the issue. While some members of the Congress supported the British war
effort, others were opposed to it, believing that India's contribution to the war would not be
recognized and that the war was a European conflict that had nothing to do with India. For example,
Mahatma Gandhi, who was a prominent Congress leader, opposed India's involvement in the war
and instead advocated for nonviolent resistance against British rule.
Lacknow Pact 1916
Why Lucknow Pact was signed?
Answer: One of the main reasons why the Lucknow pact was signed was that the British had
failed to grant more rights to the Indians in the years up to 1913. The British were planning to
introduce fresh reforms and this was leaked to the two major parties. The Indians were constantly
fighting to get their rights from British. British, being the government, had to look after the Indian
communities and grant them equal rights. Instead, the British policy of repression during the WW1
also brought the two parties closer to each other.. There were joint councils from the Congress
and Muslim League to improve common understanding between them as they came closer to
each other.
Moreover, it was signed because the leaders of Indian National Congress and Muslim League
had decided to work together. Jinnah had joined Muslim League in 1913 while retaining his
membership of the Indian National Congress. He persuaded that the Muslim League leaders had
to change the policy of “loyalty to the British” and make a demand for self-rule. This brought
Muslim League closer to Congress that already was demanding “Sawaraj” (self-rule). Both parties
realized it would be better to ask for constitutional reforms jointly.
Similarly, Muslim league and Indian National Congress also wanted to reduce the mutual fiction
understanding and to accommodate each other. The main figure in this regard was Mohammed
Ali Jinnah, who believed in a unity between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League.
He was therefore given the title of the ‘ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity’ by Mr. Gokhle. Thus,
Congress and the Muslim League had a joint session in Lucknow. In this, Congress for the first
time, accepted the separate electorates for Muslims and one third Muslim seats in the council. In
addition to preparing a draft of common demands for [Link] was lucknow pact important?
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 holds great significance in Indian history as it marked a key moment
in the contest of Hindu-Muslim unity. For the first time, Hindus and Muslims came together to
present a unified demand for political reforms from the British colonial administration. This pact
represented a high point in their collaborative efforts. The British were shocked by the harmonious
relations between the Indian National Congress (INC) and the All India Muslim League (AIM), as
they had previously been seen as rival parties with conflicting interests. This unity was a powerful
assertion of the shared aims of Hindus and Muslims for political rights and representation in British
India.
Furthermore, it signified the initial acknowledgment by Hindus that a degree of partition
might be inevitable in a self-governing India. As acceptance of separate electorates by INC
meant that it had confirmed its future cooperation towards Muslims. Muslims also recognized that
aligning with the Congress against the British would provide them with a better opportunity to
safeguard their rights and weaken British influence in India. This period laid the foundation for
future discussions on partition and the political landscape of India.
Similarly, the pact was important because it increased the belief in India that Home Rule could
be a real possibility. In 1917, two prominent Home Rule Leagues’ leaders, Bal Gangadhar Tilak
and Annie Besant, organized nationwide campaigns. In response, Edwin Samuel Montagu, the
Secretary of State for India, announced an increased level of Indian participation in various
administrative branches, emphasizing the eventual readiness of India to self-govern as a part of
the British Empire. This development marked a significant step towards the aim of self-rule in
India.
Events of 1919
➢ Montague Chelmsford Reforms
➢ Rowlat Act
➢ Amritsar Masacarre
[Link] did the British Pass Mont-Ford Reforms?
The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms were introduced in response to mounting pressure on the
British government from the Indian populace, who were increasingly demanding self-rule.
Years of protests, and advocacy by Indian leaders and organizations had created more stronger
demand for greater autonomy. The Home Rule Movement, the Non-Cooperation Movement, and
the efforts of leaders like Tilak and Annie Besant had stimulated Indian society. This widespread
sentiment for self-governance compelled the British authorities to consider reforms that would
address Indian aspirations for greater participation in their own governance.
Another significant driver for the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms was the undeniable influence of
both the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Muslim League (ML). The political landscape
was evolving, and the collaboration between these two major political entities could not be
overlooked. The Lucknow Pact of 1916, a historic agreement between the INC and the ML,
demonstrated a willingness to work together and presented a united front in demanding increased
rights for Indians. The British recognized the need to engage with these influential groups and
address their demands in order to maintain stability and control in India.
In addition, the international context also played a crucial role in driving the Montagu
Chelmsford Reforms. Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States and a wartime ally of
Britain, supported the principle of "self-determination" for nations after World War I. This principle
emphasized the right of nations to govern them and played a significant role in shaping the post
war geopolitical landscape. In light of this global sentiment, the British government recognized the
importance of aligning with Indian people for greater self-governance. Lord Montagu and Lord
Chelmsford stated that a system of government should be introduced in India which gave 'some
measure of responsibilities to representatives chosen by an electorate.
Why Montague Chelmsford reforms were opposed?One of the reasons for the opposition to the
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms was the provision for
separate electorates for Muslims and Sikhs in the legislative councils. Under this system,
people from different religious communities, such as Muslims and Sikhs, were allowed to vote for
their own representatives, with 32 seats reserved specifically for Muslims. However, the separate
electorates for Muslims and Sikhs were seen as reducing the number of available seats for Hindus
in the government. This created a sense of resentment and opposition among Hindus, as they felt
that it reduced their representation in the legislative bodies. Their belief in a shared Hindu identity
with Sikhs led to the perception that their interests should be represented together, rather than in
separate electorates. This issue of representation of separate religious played a significant role in
the opposition to the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
Another reason for the opposition of Montague Chelmsford reforms was the limited self
government offered to Indians. The reforms proposed a Diarchy system where certain powers
were transferred to the Indian legislatures, (controlled by the provincial government)such as the
local government, education, public health etc, but key areas such as justice, police, power
resources, and press and publication remained under British control. However, Indians expected
much greater concessions in return of their support to the British in the war. It was true that the
right of local people say in governing the country was increased but in reality the viceroy had the
supreme power over all councils. Also at a special session of Congress in August 1918, the
reforms were condemned as ‘inadequate, unsatisfactory and disappointing’.
Moreover, timeline for achieving full self-government and inadequate voting rights was
another significant reason for opposition. Indian leaders and nationalists were dissatisfied with the
reforms’ ambiguity regarding when India would attain dominion status. The absence of a well
defined path toward complete self-rule left many feeling uncertain about the reforms’ commitment
to India’s progress towards sovereignty, fueling their opposition. The extended voting rights were
also objected as according to new regulations only 2 % of Indian populace could vote.
Why was the Rowlatt Act Passed ?
The Rowlatt Act of 1919 was passed in India primarily as a response to the political unrest and
civil disobedience that had emerged in the wake of the First World [Link] was the result of
the recommendations of the t Rowlatt Committee, which was appointed to investigate
revolutionary activities in India. The committee's report revealed the risings threat of revolutionary
movements and recommended the implementation of the Rowlatt Act to that political unrest. The
British government, fearing a potential uprising, wanted to suppress any perceived threat to their
authority. The Act was named after its chief architect, Sir Sidney Rowlatt, a British judge. It allowed
for the arrest and detention of individuals without trial, effectively suspending key civil liberties.
Moreover, the backdrop of the First World War played a significant role in the passage of the
Rowlatt Act. The British government was grappling with the aftermath of the war, and there was a
prevailing sense of unease and insecurity. The global conflict had disrupted economies and
societies worldwide, including in India. The British were concerned that the political agitation in
India might fall into a larger anti-colonial movement, potentially destabilizing the region.
In addition, the Rowlatt Act also emerged in the context of rising demands for self-rule and
political autonomy in India. Movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Khilafat
Movement had gained momentum, posing a challenge to British authority. Leaders like Mahatma
Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were becoming prominent figures in the Indian political
landscape, advocating for greater civil liberties and political rights. The British responded to these
demands with the Rowlatt Act, seeking to maintain their control and authority in the face of
mounting Indian aspirations for self-determination.
Q:
Why were Indians not given self-rule by 1919?
One of the reason that why British have not given self-rule to Indians was that after the
end of WWI British had suffered huge losses during the four years of the War. Their top
priority was to pay attention to the repair and reconstructionof Britain that had been damaged by
the Germans, and that made India a secondary issue for them. Britain very well knew about many
other colonies ruled by the Europeans had started asking for independence thinking the British had been
weakened by the War. It was not easy and simple to leave India abruptly at that time.
Therefore, they rejected the Indian demand of self-rule.
Moreover, Indian subcontinent was still a source of heavy income for the British. Its
resources had a strong attraction for the British, and so, it was rightly called the Jewel in the
Crown. Strategic location of India s from India towards the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Middle
East and Africa. They could not afford to pull out of India at this crucial time when they desperately
needed revenue was vital for the trading interests and naval force of the British. There were sea
trade route to keep their economic growth in a good shape. Moreover, several Indians, especially
the Muslims and Sikhs were bulk of the British army. Along with these Indians, there were several
thousand British employees in India, including missionaries, civil servants, businessmen and
military officers. If India was given self-rule without a thorough planning, these British serving in
India would have turned from an asset to a liability.
Finally, the question of British prestige was also a considerable factor. The British thought
their prestige was likely to be damaged before the rest of the world if they had givenin before the
growing demand of self-rule by the Indians. Such a step might have conveyed a message of weak
position of the British in India, and that too, after their victory in the [Link] is equally true the
Indians in 1919 were not politically mature and trained to run the state affairs on their own.
Therefore, the British decided to keep their control over India by makingnew laws like the Montford
reforms of 1919.
India after WWI/Non Cooperation Movement /Growth of Communalist
1920 to 1927
Q Why was the Non Cooperation movement important?
. The main reason why Non Cooperation movement was important because it created a
substantial economic impact on British administration. The boycott of British goods and
institutions, which included schools, courts, and government services, had a profound effect on the
British revenue. This economic boycott led to a notable decline in the sale of British goods in India
by over 20% during the movement, which was a substantial economic setback for the colonial
administration.
Moreover, the movement played a crucial role in promoting political awareness and
mobilizing the masses. Previously apolitical individuals became politically conscious,
understanding the importance of active participation in the struggle for independence. This political
awakening resulted in a surge in membership for the Indian National Congress, with its
membership increasing from around 3.5 million in 1920 to nearly 13 million in 1922. This
demonstrated the widespread political consciousness that was ignited by the Non-Cooperation
Movement.
Furthermore, the Non-Cooperation Movement served to uplift Mahatma Gandhi's status as a
leader of the masses. His philosophy of non-violence and civil disobedience became the driving
force behind the movement. His ability to mobilize millions of Indians through non-violent
resistance marked a significant departure from previous modes of protest. The movement
elevated Gandhi to a position of matchless influence in the Indian independence struggle, making
him the undisputed leader of the national movement. His approach of non-violent resistance would
go on to inspire similar movements across the world, including the Civil Rights Movement in the
United States led by Martin Luther King Jr.
Q. Why there were anti-British groups in India after WWI ?
One of the reasons why India witnessed a flood of anti-British sentiments after World War I
was the impact of the Non-Cooperation Movement, launched by Mahatma Gandhi in [Link]
was a powerful expression of Indian resistance against British rule. It saw widespread participation
and gathered support from various segments of society. Initially, campaign had failed to bring
about swaraj but later it had played an important part in raising Indian expectations and convincing
many people of the need to work to overthrow their British rulers it was a weapon with Gandhi was
to use several more times against the [Link], the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 stands as
an important example of British
brutality and contributed significantly to anti-colonial sentiments. In Amritsar, British troops,
under the command of General Reginald Dyer, opened fire on a peaceful gathering, resulting in
hundreds of deaths. This brutal act shocked and infuriated the Indians, leading to widespread
protests and condemnations both within India and internationally. The event served as a catalyst
for the growing anti-British sentiment, further solidifying Indian resolution against colonial rule.
Moreover, the divide between INC and the Muslim League highlighted opposition to British
rule. The Khilafat Movement, starting in 1919, saw collaboration against the British dismantling of
the Ottoman Caliphate. While showing unity against colonial oppression, it also revealed
underlying tensions. This period saw not only Hindu-Muslim disagreement nut also a split within
the INC. Some Hindu extremist opposed Gandhi's religious tolerance, viewing it as damage to
Hindu purity. Groups like the Hindu Mahasabha and Arya Samaj engaged in militant activities
further straining Hindu-Muslim unity.
Q. Why was there Growth of communalism in India after WW1?
One of the reasons for the growth of communalism in India after WW1 was the British DIVIDE
AND RULE POLICY. British government used communalism to counter and weaken the growing
national movement and the welding of the Indian people into a nation. The Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms of 1919 introduced separate electorates based on religious communities, effectively
institutionalizing communal representation. This divisive policy deepened religious identities and
sowed the seeds of communalism within Indian society .The colonial rulers showed extreme
tolerance towards communal organizations and leaders and did not care to crush the communal
riots.
Furthermore, ideology of the Khilafat Movement during WWI, which emerged in 1920,
aligned the cause of Indian independence with the protection of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Initially supported by the Indian National Congress, this movement later caused a rift within the
party when leaders like Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali sought to combine it with the Gandhi’s
Non-Cooperation Movement. Resultantly, Hindu fundamentalism gained more influence a which
represented anti Gandhi ‘s ideologies claiming to purify Hinduism and new Hindu political parties
began to emerge like Arya Samag and Hindu Mahasabha .This subsequent split in the Congress,
contributed significantly to the communalism growth within Indian Hindus as well as the Hindu
Muslim disunity in India.
Another reason was the STAGNANT ECONOMY OF INDIA which was devoid of any
Development became an important factor in the growth of communalism in India. The post-war
period witnessed widespread unemployment and inflation, intensifying competition for limited
resources. In the period of this economic stress of Indians, British could declare more favorable
grants instead they adopted more repressive policies like Rowlatt Act and a ban on strikes and
demonstrations. The 1919 Amritsar massacre, a tragic incident where British forces killed
hundreds of unarmed Indians, including women and children, during a peaceful protest of Sikh
community at Jallianwala Bagh, further heightened communal hatred.
Delhi Proposals 1927
Q. Why did Jinnah produce Delhi proposals?
Jinnah produced Delhi proposals because he aimed to address the growing concerns of the
Muslim community in British India. Jinnah, a prominent Muslim leader, wanted to ensure that
the rights and interests of Muslims were safeguarded, particularly in the face of increasing
tensions between different religious and communal groups. He wanted more Muslim-majority
provinces to balance the number of Hindu-majority ones represented in the central assembly. He
proposed that Sindh be separated from the Bombay Presidency and made into a full province He
wanted a fair and representative political system that would give Muslims appropriate
representation in government. Jinnah believed that Muslims, being a significant minority, deserved
a proportional voice in decision-making processes. The proposals outlined measures to rectify the
imbalance in representation and empower the Muslim community [Link] gave these proposals
because he realized that the greatest constitutional disputation
between Muslim League and Congress was the matter of electorate. Congress propagated
joint electorates as to them separate electorates would have weakened the foundations of the
Indian nationalism. Whereas Muslim League out of their insecurity of undermined representation
were not ready to let go of their demand for separate electorate. Jinnah and team realized that
they could only convince the Congress to accept a common agenda if they withdrew the League’s
demand of Separate electorate. In contrast of this, One third of seats in the central legislature
were to be set aside for Muslims and he wanted reserved seats rather than separate electorates.
They discussed and tried to chalk out the conditions following which the system of Joint
Electorates could be accepted. After a prolonged discussion it was unanimously resolved that
League should accept a settlement with the Congress on the basis of certain proposals
Similarly, Jinnah produced Delhi proposals in order to break the ice and to bridge the gulf
between the Muslims League and Congress so that they could present common demands
before the British for the legislation of the new Act, a group of prominent Muslims, mostly members
of the two chambers of the central met at Delhi on March 20, 1927. M.A. Jinnah presided over the
session. The proceedings were held in camera and lasted for almost seven hour in which Jinnah
was keen to have Hindu-Muslim unity and was prepared to reject separate electorates for this.
14 Marks Questions
Q(a) “Bengal was partitioned because of geographical factors”. Do you agree? Give
reasons for your answer. (14)
Ans: It may be said that Bengal was partitioned due to Geographical factor as Bengal was one
of the largest provinces of British India with a huge population of more 80 million spread
over a small area . It was increasingly becoming difficult for British to administer such a big and
densely populated province by a single a governor so the British decided to divide the area.
Moreover, for decades the British officials had maintained that the huge size created difficulties
for effective management and had caused neglect of the poorer eastern region. This resulted
in administrative difficulties included collection of revenue / taxes so the province was divided.
Similarly, British faced administrative difficulties in providing emergency
help in times of floods and cyclones in Bengal yearly. Since there had been earlier examples
of dividing huge territories like Khandesh and Narbada, the British began to consider partitioning
Bengal into two provinces. So in 1903 Viceroy Lord Curzon proposed partition of Bengal into two
provinces.
However, the growing disparity between the Hindus and the Muslims which was closely
observed by the British was another factor of the partition. Hindus dominated the politics and
economy of Bengal while keeping Muslims underdeveloped and poor. Perhaps British wanted to
give Muslims an opportunity to prosper in the newly created province of East Bengal with Assam
and three districts Dhaka, Chittagong and Mymensingh where they would be in a majority and
hence would be able to farm their own government (which exactly happened). The other part,
West Bengal, remained a Hindu majority province. Muslims now began to develop a new seaport
at Chittagong.
Furthermore, it was partitioned due to Political Unrest as India was becoming increasingly
politically active in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the growth of the national
independence movement. Bengal was a hotbed of political activity, with many leaders and activists
coming from the region. The British believed that partitioning Bengal would help to diffuse political
tensions in the region and make it easier to maintain control.
Besides this, the British were also mindful of the INC demand of self ruled in the 1890s. For
example, INC leaders like Mr. Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak used to deliver impassioned and provoking
speeches to incite the people for pressurizing the government for self rule. Such leaders were
arrested and British decided to distract the INC attention from its demand for self rule. Thus when Lord
Curzon in October 1905 announced the partition of Bengal, the INC guns were directed
against the partition instead of demand for self rule.
In addition, it was partitioned due to Economic Interests as Bengal was one of the most
economically developed regions in India and was a major center of trade and commerce. The
British believed that by partitioning Bengal, they would be able to better control the economic
resources of the region and exploit them for their own benefit.
Similarly, it was being depicted that British partitioned Bengal as per their Divide and Rule
Policy. The British had a long-standing policy of divide and rule, where they sought to divide
communities and create divisions in order to weaken resistance to colonial rule. The partition of
Bengal was part of this strategy, as the British hoped that it would create division and strife
between Hindus and Muslims, two of the largest religious communities in the region .Both
communities would remain diverted and the British own position would not remain vulnerable of
any opposition.
In addition, increased long term demands for national education also swiftly followed
partition. Bengali students and professors extended their boycott of British goods to
English schools and college classrooms, and politically active Indians began to emulate the so
called “Indian Jesuits[Swadeshi]”—Vishnu Krishna Chiplunkar (1850–82), Gopal Ganesh Agarkar
(1856–95), Tilak, and Gokhale—who were pioneers in the founding of indigenous educational
institutions in the Deccan in the 1880s. The movement for national education spread throughout
Bengal, as well as to Varanasi (Banaras), where Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya (1861–1946)
founded his private Banaras Hindu University in [Link] control such movements British
partitioned Bengal.
To conclude, it may be proved that the major reason for the partition of Bengal was the
geographical factor because it is a universal practice to make new and smaller administrative units
for the sake of better administration.
Formation of Muslim League
Q. “The Muslim League was established in 1906 because of the Hindus had their own
political party.” Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. [14]
OR 10 mark
Ans:
It may be said that the formation of the Muslim League in 1906 was solely because Hindus had
their own political party in the form of the Indian National Congress. As the Congress party was
dominated by Hindus, the pro-Hindu INC policies were a major reason for the formation of
Muslim League (ML). The INC had been demanding enforcement of Hindi as the official language
replacing Urdu in various provinces this led to the feeling social discrimination among the Muslim
masses.
Similarly, the Muslim community felt that their interests were not being adequately
represented to the British govt by the predominantly Hindu Indian National Congress Hence
they need a platform for Muslims to voice their concerns and to work towards their political, social
and economic advancement. For example, Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aga
Khan III advocated for the formation of the League as a means of protecting Muslim interests.
Moreover, INC also opposed the partition of Bengal in 1905. This was shocking for the
Muslims as they realized the hidden INC aims of denying Muslims to make any progress. The way
the INC launched the Swadeshi Movement with country-wide protests and strikes, proved to be an
eye opening experience for the Muslims. The reaction of Hindus meant they could not tolerate
Muslims making progress. So the Muslims increasingly felt the need of their own political party that
could counter any anti-Muslim activities and campaigns.
Other side[All other reasons]
However, other factors also played a significant role in the league's establishment. The
communalism and religious separatism that was taking root in India during the early 20th century played a
significant role in the formation of the Muslim League. Muslim leaders felt that
their community's interests were being neglected by the Congress party, which was dominated by
Hindus. This led to a sense of insecurity among Muslims, who felt that their religion was under
threat. This was further worsened by the British government's policy of divide and rule, which
pitted Hindus against Muslims. As a result, Muslim leaders felt that the only way to safeguard their
community's interests was to form a separate political party. An example of this was the communal
riots that took place in Bengal in 1905 after the British partitioned the province.
Besides this, another reason for the formation of ML was the success of the Simla Delegation.
In October 1906 about 36 Muslim delegates led by Sir Aga Khan called on the Viceroy Lord Minto
at Simla. This delegation demanded a greater share of Muslims in the councils and the
government jobs. It also demanded separate electorates for the Muslims in view of their political
importance and numerical weakness against the Hindu majority. Lord Minto’s encouraging
response convinced the delegates that the organized efforts were more likely to be successful. For
this a political party was needed.
Moreover, by the start of the twentieth century the activities of the Hindu extremist party,
Arya Samaj (Hindu Society), had become more intense. The purpose of this party was to purify
India from non-Hindu elements, especially Muslims. With the passage of time it began to use force
against the weak Muslims and there were reports of forcible conversion of Muslims into Hindus.
Muslims felt insecure about their cultural and religious identity and realized that a political party
could protect and promote their cultural and political rights.
Furthermore, in February 1906, the Liberal Party won elections in England. It was generally
more sympathetic towards the Indians and especially, at times, towards Indian Muslims. It
announced that it would expand the legislative councils by including more Indians. Muslims
realized it was time to think of making their own political party because the INC had not been
sincere towards them. In order to join the legislative councils elections had to be contested
through the platform of a political party. Therefore, prominent Muslim leaders gathered at the
residence of Nawab Salimullah Khan in Dhaka to attend the 20th session of the MEC attend the
20th session of MEC [Muhammadan Educational Conference). There they decided to convert the
MEC into a political party name All India Muslim Confederacy that was soon renamed as All India
Muslim League. Its main objective was to protect political and socio economic interests of the
Indian Muslims while keeping them loyal to the British.
It may be concluded that ML was founded mainly because the Hindus had their own political
party. In view of the prevailing circumstances it was vital for Muslims to constitute a party that
could voice their concerns and safeguard their political and cultural identity and rights. Eventually
the ML became the founding party of the Pakistan Movement that led to the creation of Pakistan.
Q. Was the need for a separate political party was the main reason behind the formation of
the Muslim League in 1906?.
The need for a separate political party was the main reason behind the formation of the Muslim
League in [Link] main factor behind this was that Muslims felt politically marginalized by
the Indian National Congress, which was dominated by Hindus. They felt that their voices
were not being heard and that their interests were being neglected. An example of this was the
Calcutta Municipal Corporation elections in 1904, where the Congress party did not
nominate any Muslim candidates, leading to Muslim candidates running as independents
and losing.
Similarly, the Communal tensions were rising in India during this time, and there was a sense
of insecurity among Muslims. The partition of Bengal in 1905 was seen by many Muslims as a
deliberate attempt to divide the Hindu and Muslim communities. There were also incidents
of communal violence, such as the riots in Bombay in 1893 and 1902, which increased
Muslim fears about their safety and position in Indian society.
Furthermore, Muslim leaders demanded separate electorates for Muslims, arguing that this
was necessary to protect their interests and ensure that they had a say in the political process.
This demand was voiced in the Simla Deputation in 1906, where Muslim leaders presented a memorandum
to the Viceroy, Lord Minto, outlining their grievances and demands. This led to the
formation of the Muslim League, which aimed to represent Muslim interests and provide a platform
for Muslims to engage in politics.
Other side [All other reasons]
In conclusion, the need for a separate political party was the main reason behind the formation of
the Muslim League in 1906. Political marginalization, communal tensions, and the demand for
separate electorates were all factors that contributed to this need.
Q. To how much extent Indians were benefited by supporting the British in the 1st world
war? explain
There were also significant benefits that India gained from its involvement. from supporting the
British in the First World [Link], India gained significant political advantages by supporting
the British in the First World War. One such advantage was the Montagu-Chelmsford
Reforms of 1919, which granted India greater political representation and a measure of self
rule. This was a major achievement, as it marked the first time that India had been given any
form of political autonomy.
Secondly, India's support for the British in the First World War also had economic benefits.
India's contribution to the war effort was significant, with over one million Indian soldiers
serving in the British Army. This created a significant demand for Indian goods and services,
which helped to boost the country's economy. High demand of massive amounts of raw materials,
such as cotton and jute, which India was able to supply during the war. This led to a boom in
India's textile industry, which became one of the country's most important economic sectors.
Finally, India's support for the British in the First World War also had cultural benefits. Indian
soldiers who served in the war were exposed to new ideas and experiences, which helped to
broaden their horizons and expose them to different cultures. This experience helped to inspire a
sense of nationalism and pride in India's cultural heritage.
[indirect benefit] Additionally, the war effort created a sense of unity among the Indian people,
as they worked together towards a common goal. This sense of unity helped to create a
shared sense of identity, which would play a crucial role in India's struggle for independence in the
years to come.
Otherside.
However, India's support for the British in the First World War had significant costs and losses that
affected the country both during the war and in the years that followed. Many Indians had fought
with the British in the war and they expected much greater concessions Congress and the
league had recently come together calling for self-rule but they were bitterly disappointed by the
new structure offered by the British. At a special session of Congress in August 1918, the reforms
were condemned as inadequate unsatisfactory and disappointing only the moderates in
Congress supported the measures and they were soon excluded from the party .It was true the
British maintain their grip on power by ensuring that viceroy had the authority to control how
India was governed. There was also one other unexpected outcome of the reforms the British had
reluctantly accepted separate electorates for the Muslims,soon the non Brahmins ,sikhs and
Eurasians were calling for concessions too so by providing support in war and in reward after
getting concessions ,India became more divided..
Furthermore, the British had hoped would win the support of Indian people however they had
every intention of taking strong and effective action against any element in India which oppose the
British rule.
In December 1917 A committee was formed under justice Rowlatt to investigate revolutionary
activities in India. The committee recommended that some of the emergency measures of the
Defense of India act should be retained permanently. Indians revolutionaries were arrested
without warrant detention without bail the right of the provincial government to order
people to live the proposals caused uproar in India. Jinnah resigned from the imperial
legislative council in the protest and Gandhi launched hartal against the [Link] the April
1990 there was strikes and demonstrations across India but the viceroy
ignore the opposition accepted the recommendations and the Rowlatt was act was forcedly
implemented.
Furthermore, in April 10th rioting started in the city of Amritsar and two banks were attacked.
5 Europeans were killed in the rioting, general Dyre the British commander in the area was
determined to restore the [Link] banned all public meetings in the city and was anger when an
estimated crowd of 20000 turned up for a peaceful demonstration at a public Park called Jallian
wala Bagh into [Link] his order to open fire on the gathering, no one knows exactly how
many people were killed but estimates suggest that around 400 with offer 1200 founded or injured
in the panic .General Dyre stated that he had fired on the crowd in the park to make sure that
people of the Punjab understood that they should obey the British rule. Not surprisingly the Indian
people were highly inserted by the British failure to punish dryer it was one of the reason why
Gandhi now stated that cooperation in any shape or form with this satanic government is simple.
Furthermore, the loss of life was a significant cost for India during the war. Over one million
Indian soldiers served in the British Army during the war, and more than 70,000 of them lost
their lives. These losses had a devastating impact on Indian families and communities, as many
soldiers were the sole breadwinners for their families. The war effort required the mobilization of
resources and manpower, which often resulted in the displacement of people and the
destruction of property.
Moreover, the war effort required large amounts of money and resources, which were diverted
from India's economy. This led to inflation and economic instability, as the government printed
more money to finance the war effort. The war disrupted trade and commerce, which had a
negative impact on India's economy. The demand for Indian goods and services also
decreased after the war, leading to a decline in the textile industry and other economic sectors.
Similarly, the war had a profound impact on India's social and political landscape. The war
effort required the mobilization of people from different parts of India, who were often from different
ethnic, linguistic, and religious backgrounds. This led to tensions and conflicts among these
groups, which were aggravated by the government's policies.
Additionally, the war effort led to the growth of nationalist movements in India, as people
became more aware of the injustices and inequalities within the country and the empire.
So it may be concluded that there were significant political benefits which Indians availed during
WW1 to secure their future in India as natives.
Q: “The Montague-Chelmsford reforms were more important than any other political
developments between 1909 and 1919.’ Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your
answer.
(14)
Ans: It may be said that the Mont-Ford reforms were most important than any other political
development in India between 1909 and [Link] reforms enlarged the size of the legislative
councils and increased the number of voters to around 5.5 million. At the Centre, a bicameral
system was introduced with a Council of State (60 seats, 33 elected) and a Legislative Assembly
(145 members, 103 elected). Out of these, 32 seats were reserved for Muslims, while Sikhs were
also granted separate electorates for the first time. A Council of Princes was also set up with 108
members to discuss important issues. These measures gave Indians a greater role in law-making
and, for the first time, provided some level of political voice to minorities.
Moreover, at the provincial level, the reforms introduced the system of diarchy. Subjects
were divided into “reserved” (kept under the governor’s control) and “transferred” (handled by
ministers chosen from the elected members). This arrangement allowed Indians to gain
experience in running departments such as health, education, and agriculture, which created a
limited sense of responsibility and training for self-government. Although the governors could still
overrule the ministers, it marked the first step towards provincial autonomy.
Despite these changes, the reforms failed to satisfy Indian aspirations. The Viceroy still held
overriding powers at the Centre and could pass any law he wanted. Similarly, provincial governors
could veto laws they disliked, and the Council of Princes had no real authority, making it a mere debating
body. Many Indians also criticized the continuation of separate electorates, as it was
seen as a “divide and rule” policy that weakened national unity. Furthermore, the reforms
coincided with the unpopular Rowlatt Act (1919), which allowed arrest without warrant, leading to
the Amritsar Massacre. This created deep resentment and overshadowed the positive aspects of
the reforms, making them appear more like a British strategy to control India than a genuine step
towards self-rule.
However, some other political developments also took place during the same time period.
Before the 1919 Act, the British had introduced the Indian Councils Act 1909, also known as
the Morley-Minto reforms (M.M. Reforms). Under this act, size of the provincial and central
legislative councils was increased: for larger provinces 50 and for smaller provinces 30 members.
The Imperial Council was increased to 60 members by adding more non official members. Also,
the Central Executive Council was expanded by adding 60 new members, including many Indians.
Muslims were given the right of separate electorates. This shift towards a more representative
council composition was a crucial step towards a more inclusive and participatory political system
in India. It signified a move away from an exclusively British-controlled governance structure,
laying the groundwork for a more democratic framework. However, these councils had little
powers. The members could ask questions and express their opinion and advise the government
on some issues. INC was not satisfied with these provisions and it sharply criticized the provision
of separate electorates for Muslims. For INC, it was an undemocratic concession, but for Muslim
League, it was recognition of their political importance.
Moreover, the Lucknow Pact of 1916 was an agreement between INC and Muslim League.
Due to the efforts of Jinnah, ML and INC held their joint session at Qaiser Bagh Baradari,
Lucknow. INC was led by Ambeka Charan Muzamdar and ML was represented by Mr. Jinnah.
Both parties agreed on a charter of common demands, called the Lucknow Pact. The Pact asked
the British for provincial autonomy, enlargement of the councils by including more Indians. A very
important clause was the acceptance of separate Muslim electorates by the INC. It also agreed to
give Muslims one-third seats in the Centre. The Lucknow Pack marked a great occasion of Hindu
Muslim unity. It also showed the desire of self-rule among Indians, as there were two more Home
Rule Leagues during the same period one by Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak and the other by Mrs. Annie
Besant It, however, also reflected that Hindus would be ready to accept any degree of partition of
India along communal lines in future.
Another important political development was the rise of anti-British movements between
1914 and 1918. The Home Rule Movement, led by Tilak in Poona and Annie Besant in Madras,
demanded self-government within the British Empire and spread nationalist feeling widely. At the
same time, revolutionary groups like the Ghadar Party in North America tried to incite rebellion
during the war, while the Silk Letter Conspiracy (1916) led by Deobandi leaders sought German
and Turkish help to overthrow British rule. These efforts, though suppressed, showed the growing
unrest and determination of Indians for self-rule, and put pressure on the British to announce
reforms in 1919.
In conclusion, while the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919 were the most significant step as
they introduced diarchy and a bicameral system, other developments such as the Morley-Minto
reforms, the Lucknow Pact, and the Home Rule Movement with various anti-British activities also
played a vital role. These created political awakening, increased demands for self-rule, and forced
the British to consider further reforms. Together, they show that 1909–1919 was a turning point
decade in Indian politics.