Whitehall and the Government of India
THE control of the British Parliament over the Government of India exercised through the Secretary of State was firmly held, and even a strong personality like Lord Curzon was overruled by the Home Government. The power of superintendence and direction was vigorously asserted by Lord Morley as the Secretary of State for India, and he claimed a larger and more direct share in Indian administration than his predecessors had done. Mr. Lovat Fraser observed in the Edinburgh Review for January, 1918: ” Lord Morley… whatever his virtues may have been, was certainly the most autocratic and the least constitutional Secretary of State ever seen in Whitehall.” But the Governor- General being the man on the spot, his “old discretionary power ” did not altogether disappear.
During the early years of the present century, some Indian politicians, including the late Mr. Gokhale, demanded certain changes in the Home Government, particularly the abolition of the Indian Council. In 1907 two Indian gentlemen were appointed members of Lord Morley’s Council. A Committee, appointed in 1919, with Lord Crewe an ex-Secretary of State for India, as chairman and Prof. A. B. Keith and Mr. B. N. Basu among others as members, to examine and report on the working of the Home Government, recommended the total abolition of the Indian Council. But the recommendation was not accepted by the Joint Committee of Parliament. The Committee advocated certain changes in details, which were given effect to by the Act of 1919. Vacancies in the Council were to be filled, as before, by the Secretary of State, but henceforth it was to consist of not less than eight and not more than twelve members, half of whom were to be qualified by not less than ten years’ residence or service in India and must have left India only recently. Their term of office was reduced from seven to five years. The concurrence of a majority vote of the Council was required only in cases of (i) the grant or appropriation of any portion of the revenues of India, (ii) the making of contracts, and (iii) the framing of rules to regulate matters relating to the Civil Service. The Council remained clearly subordinate to the Secretary of State, who retained his discretionary powers not only in relation to it but also in relation to the Government of India, particularly for Imperial or Military affairs, foreign relations, the rights of European British subjects, the law of naturalisation, the Public Debt, customs, currency and shipping. His control was restricted only over ” transferred ” subjects. Before 1919 the salary of the Secretary of State, and the expenses of his department, were paid from the Indian revenues. As a result Parliament could not criticise the Indian Budget in the same way as the Budget presented by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. With a view to bringing the Secretary of State under more effective criticism by Parliament, the Act of 1919 provided that ” the salary of the Secretary of State shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the salaries of his under-secretaries or any other expenses of his department may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament “. A joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was appointed to consider Indian questions, rules and enactments, that were laid before the Houses. Thus indirectly the control of Parliament over British India was strengthened.
The Government of India Act, 1935 changed the legal position of the Secretary of State. According to it, ” all rights, authority or jurisdiction in or in relation to territories in India ” were to rest with the British Crown. The Governor- General or Provincial Governor exercising executive authority on behalf of His Majesty was to be, while acting in his discretion, under the general control of the Secretary of State, who was a member of the British Cabinet and was responsible to Parliament in all matters relating to India. In substance the authority of the Secretary of State remained almost unchanged but for some relaxation due to the introduction of autonomy in certain provinces and partial responsibility at the Centre in case a Federation came into being. He continued to ” stand at the top of the Indian administration as its guardian “. As provided by the Act of 1935, the India Council was abolished from Ist April, 1937, and in its place the Secretary of State was given a body of advisers not less than three or more than six in number, of whom half at least must have served for ten years under the Crown in India and must have been appointed within two years of ceasing to work in India. The Secretary of State had full liberty in his discretion to consult his advisers collectively or individually or to ignore them, and he might act or refuse to act according to their advice except in certain specified cases, such as the exercise of powers conferred on him in regard to the Services under the Crown, for which the concurrence of at least one half of the members present at the meeting was necessary.
To relieve the Secretary of State of agency work for the Central and Provincial Governments of India, the Act of 1919 provided for the office of High Commissioner, which was established by Order in Council of 13th August, 1920. He was to be appointed by the Government of India, to whom he remained primarily responsible, and his salary was to be paid from Indian revenues. His duties were to procure stores for Indian governments, to supply trade information, to promote the interests of Indian commerce, to look after the education of Indian students in England, and to furnish information on India to enquirers. He also represented India as one of the delegates at International Conferences. Under the Act of 1935, the High Commissioner was to be controlled by the Governor- General in his ” individual judgment “, and he might act, if empowered by the Governor- General, for a province, a federated State, or Burma.
The Indian Government
The strong regime of Lord Curzon, instead of checking the forces of Indian nationalism, intensified the desire for political advance among the Indians, which manifested itself in some places in an extreme form. Besides taking some measures to assert the law, Government planned certain constitutional changes, which were embodied in the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909. These reforms provided for the association of qualified Indians with Government to a greater extent in deciding public questions. Thus one seat on the Government-General’s Executive Council was, in actual practice, reserved for an Indian member. Satyendra Prasanna Sinha (afterwards the first Lord Sinha of Raipur) was the first Indian to attain the honour of being appointed Law Member of the Governor- General’s Council. The members of the Executive Councils of the Governors of Madras and Bombay were increased to four. An Executive Council was introduced in Bengal in 1909, and when Bihar and Orissa was created a separate province in 1912 it also was given an Executive Council in that year though three years later such a proposal for the United Provinces was set aside. It should also be noted that, though the Act of 1909 did not specifically provide for the appointment of Indians on provincial Executive Councils, the practice was begun of including such members in them, Raja Kishori Lal Goswami being appointed a member of the Executive Council of Bengal.
