disappointing document, though, thanks mainly to the series of important Resolutions recently moved in the Legislative Assembly by Sir Shivaswamy Aiyer, and accepted by Government, it has been vastly improved; and it will help to remedy some of the defects of military administration that were pointed out by Sir Krishna Gupta in his dissenting minute to that Report. Says Sir Gupta "in spite of an extension of the Indian element in the higher branches of the Civil Administration, the tendency has been, in military matters, to make the grip closer and tighter, so as not only to keep the Indians out of all superior positions, but also practically to exclude them from the artillery and various other services which form essential branches of the army organization." He continues "it is not enough that the civil administration should be democratized and placed on a representative basis; but Indians should also be eligible for positions of trust and responsibility in the army. The adoption of measures which shall make the civil government responsible to the people does not, in itself, make the country autonomous and self-governing, nor can it ever become so, as long as the administration of the army remains in other hands. If we are to achieve full responsible government it is necessary that the British Government should completely change their angle of vision in regard to Military Administration in India and that they should be prepared to share the control of the army with the people of the country; for this purpose they should throw open the higher ranks of offices of all kinds to Indians, to organise the Indian Defence Force, with a view especially to give an opportunity to the urban and educated sections of the population to take a share in the defence of the motherland, to establish in India Colleges for the military training of Indians and to increase largely the Indian element in the regular army in the interests of economy." The Act of 1919 does not make any reference to this vital question; but Mr. Montague knew that in the absence of its satisfactory solution, the Reforms were useless, and while speaking in the House of Commons on the Government of India Bill he said England must not deny India self-government because she (India) cannot take her proper share in her own defence and then deny Indians the opportunity of learning to defend themselves. The subjects enumerated above and others are important and a necessary complement to or corollary from any measure of success which the Reforms will attain. And I leave them here not because I value them less but because the limited scope of this book does not allow me to discuss them here. II. The Government of India Act of 1919 like its predecessor of ten years ago, merely lays down the broad features of the Reforms. As the Joint Committee said "the plan on which the Bill has been drafted, and in the opinion of the Committee rightly drafted, will necessitate the completion of some of its Rules under the Act and the Report of the main provisions by a large number of rules and other documents which will have to be framed before the machinery established by the Bill can come into working order." The work of filling in the picture, or of clothing the skeleton of the Act with flesh and blood was left to the Government of India and the Secretary of State. Various Rules embodying the recommendations of various Committees appointed or indicated by the Report have been passed. The importance of these rules is evident from the requirement that they had to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament before their final ratification. It was justly complained against the Morley-Minto Reforms that their scheme was spoilt by the rules made under. it. A similar attempt at "whittling" down the import of the Announcement was suspected on the part of the Government of India and hence the elaborate precau-tions for the exercise of this Rule-making power under the Act, and the deliberate findings of the Joint Committee on various controversial matters connected with the Reforms. It is impossible to exaggerate the fundamental importance of this Report of the Joint Committee. It has all the authority of the Act itself, and a lucidity of statement and perspicuity of arrangement peculiarly its own. Never before was more heterogeneous mass of evidence digested into fewer principles of broad statesmanship and an accurate regard to details of the operation of dyarchy. In approaching the Report after ranging over the volume of evidence on which it is based, the reader feels as though he has, by an unexpected stroke of fortune found his way into the beautiful simplicity of a garden, after being lost in a pathless tropical forest. And to none is he more indebted for this than to Lord Selborne, Mr. Montague, and Lord Sinha, whose labours on the Joint Committee moulded the Reform Scheme into the shape it has finally assumed. Time-a great factor. 12. The Scheme-and no efforts were spared to make it perfect-has yet to stand the test of time and actual experience. It is true that even within the limitations of the Announcement of August 20, it was possible to give more to Indians than has, in fact, been conceded. But though this is true, time could not safely be wasted in a nice demarcation of the first stages of responsible government. His Excellency Sir George Lloyd was right in striking the note of warning when he declared that time was a factor of vital importance in the consideration of the whole question of Reforms. "I am convinced that delay is a greater danger than an imperfect scheme, and that those of us on whom must fall the heavy burden of putting Reform Scheme into actual operation, will be better able to work an imperfect scheme with good will and confidence of all concerned than to operate a more perfect scheme-if one can be devised-when confidence and good will has been broken and alienated by distrust and delay." 13. A student who wishes to take a comprehensive view of the Reforms must refer to the following documents which contain their authentic exposition. First in importance is of course the Re- Sources. port by the Right Honourable Mr. Monta gue and Lord Chelmsford on the Constitutional Changes by which they proposed to give effect to the Announcement of 1917. It contains a masterly analysis of the Pre-Reforms condition of:India, indicates the line of political advance and sets out concrete proposals. As a contribution to Constitutional literature, it stands on a level with the famous 'Durham Report.' I have, throughout this book, referred to it as 'The Report.' The Report was preceded and followed by an enormous amount of work in the Provincial and Central Secretariats for being utilised by various Committees. The Report indicated three distinct Committees for this purpose. (2) The Franchise Committee, presided over by Lord Southborough, to consider the question of the electorates and constitutions of the new Councils; (3) The Functions Committee, presided over by Mr. Feetham, to consider the question of the separation of functions between the Central and Provincial Governments and of the latter between Reserved and Transferred Subjects; both the Committees submitted their Reports in March 1919. (4) The third Committee under the presidency of Lord Crewe, to consider the relations between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India, and generally the Home Administration of India. The Government of India addressed a series of despatches to the Secretary of State, of which (5) the first on the Montague-Chelmsford Report, (6) the fourth on the division of Functions and (7) the fifth on the Franchises deserve particular mention. The Government of India Bill based upon this material, when it was introduced in Parliament, was referred to a Joint Select Committee under the presidency of Lord Selbourne. This Committee collected a mass of evidence, now printed in (8) and (9) Volumes II and III of its Report (10). This Report itself of the Joint Committee, as already stated, is a document of fundamental importance to the whole Reforms. The Joint Committee accepted the recommendation of the Government of India to appoint a Committee on financial relations, to determine the provincial contributions. (11) The Report of this Committee presided over by Lord Meston is very important and finally the various Draft Rules made under the Act by the Government of India were submitted to the Joint Select Committee of Parliament which issued two Reports (12) and (13). (14) Rules under the Act, made by |