The Central Legislature in British India, 192147. Mohammad Rashiduzzaman

of sending the Bills to the Select Committees or moving amendments to the Bills were too taken by the official members. The Indian members, as a rule, did not seriously challenge to the Government; as an example, the Vernacular Press Bill 1878 was passed in the Council at a single session on the plea of urgency.² It was, however, one of the most discreditable measures passed by the then Viceroy. Even more disappointingly, not a single Indian member opposed this Bill on the Council floor, though it was universally condemned outside as the “Black Act.”³ An Annual financial statement (which we could now be called a budget) was laid on the table. It was not permissible to discuss the budget except when a new tax was proposed. From 1861 to 1892, there were only 16 new taxation proposals and on those occasions, the budget was discussed. Most of the time, the Governor-General presided over the Council meetings: any Bill passed by the Council could be vetoed by the Governor-General who could also promulgate ordinances tenable for a period of six months.

      Habitually, the non-official Indian members did not show much eagerness to attend the meetings of the Council. After a few years of its working, Sir Henry Maine wrote in a minute in 1868 that the offers of seats in the Legislative Council were often declined and members who were nominated showed the “utmost reluctance to come and the utmost hurry to depart.”⁴ According to Sir H. Maine, the reason for such reluctance was the abominable weather in Calcutta.⁵ But in reality it was, perhaps, the narrow scope which made the Council sessions rather unattractive and useless. In the absence of adequate scope to influence the Executive it must have been too dull for the Indian ← 2 | 3 → “Maharajas” or “Nawabs” to sit in the Council Chamber. It could also be argued that the Indian members were not the typical lawyer-politicians who succeeded them in later years. The post-Mutiny period was rather politically dull in India. Possibly, the Indian law-makers were not interested in politics as it came to be understood later. But this transitional stage was soon to be replaced by a group of more western educated politicians. The “sham” character of the Legislative Councils was soon to be revealed. An awfully cynical comment about the Councils was made by Subramania Iyer in his address to the first session of the Indian National Congress: “The functions of these Councils are limited to registering the decrees of the executive government and stamp them with legislative sanction.”⁶ The stance of the legislative councils from 1861 to 1892 could also be described by another quotation: “The character of the legislative councils was simply this, that they were Committees for the purpose of making laws, committees by means of which the Executive Government obtained advice and assistance in their regulation and the public derived the advantage of full publicity being ensured at every stage of law-making process. Such laws were in reality the orders of the Government, but, made in a manner which ensured publicity and discussion, they were enforced by the Courts and not by the Executive; they could not be changed but by the same deliberative and public process that by which they were made, and could be enforced against the Executive or in favor of individuals whenever occasion required.”⁷ It was rightly observed by the Montagu/Chelmsford (M/C) Report that the operation of the Councils under the Act, 1861 marked the close of a Chapter in the Indian Constitutional History.⁸

      While the Imperial Legislative Council functioned more or less as a Durbar of the Viceroy, the political opinion in the country outside was gradually changing. The Indian National Congress formed in 1885 was already pressing for further expansion of the legislative bodies. The shortcomings of the nominated Indian representatives were even realized a little earlier. In a letter to the Secretary of State in 1881, Lord Ripon suggested that the indirect election to the legislative councils through the local bodies should be introduced, so that the Government could run in accordance with growing public opinion.⁹ But the Secretary of State regarded that suggestion as premature and ignored it.¹⁰ Under the obvious pressure of the Congress demands, Lord Dufferin made certain important recommendations for liberalizing the legislative bodies which were finally embodied in the Indian Councils Act, 1892. It enlarged all the legislative councils and the new Central Council consisted of at least ten additional members, the maximum number being fixed at 16. ← 3 | 4 → Not more than six of the additional members could be officials. In order to maintain an official majority, however, not more than ten non-officials were admitted:¹¹ four of those were allotted to recommendations by the non-official members of the four provincial councils and one to the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce. The remaining five seats were nominated by the Governor-General on the recommendations by the Municipalities, University Senates and several commercial bodies. This was but a cautious acceptance of the principle of election. The members were given the right to ask questions,¹² and to discuss, though not to vote upon the budget. To this extent, the Legislative Councils recognized that their function thenceforth was more than merely legislative or advisory.¹³ But no member was allowed to move any resolution; the Budget was to be discussed as a whole and not item by item.¹⁴

      The shortcomings of the 1892 Reforms were obvious since the nonofficial members constituted a permanent minority before the official bloc: it was impossible for a non-official member to press any demand against official opposition. Questions asked on the whole had been rare and supplementary questions could not be put. For example, only 13 questions were asked in the two years 1905 and 1906; the subjects of the questions were Services, Railways, Revenue and Exchange. There were very few questions on political grievances, but from 1905 onwards there were some questions on the partition of Bengal. Sometimes information could be denied if the answer to any question involved the officials in lengthy preparation. On the 10th March, 1905, G. K. Gokhale’s (Gokhale) question was not answered by the Government on the plea that it would involve unnecessary pressure on the officials.¹⁵ Amendments to the Bills moved by non-officials were too rare indeed. Legislative divisions were seldom pressed except in extreme cases and then only perhaps to put on record the Indian opposition to any particular measure. In the event of any unanimous opposition by the Indian members, the Government exercised its official majority to pass legislative measures. On many occasions, the Government passed Bills disregarding the strong opposition of the Indian members. For example, in 1905 the Indian Universities Bill was passed though it was stoutly opposed by the Indian members; the divisions held on the Bill indicated that only one Indian member voted in its favor.¹⁶

      The authors of the M/C Report claimed that the experience of the 1892 Reforms was on the whole favorable¹⁷ and they offered two main reasons for it. Firstly, criticism had been generally temperate and informative. Secondly, participation in public affairs even in a restricted sphere gave the Indian members certain insight into administrative matters. But the presence of some ← 4 | 5 → able persons in the Councils was perhaps the more important factor for their success. In the Imperial Legislative Council, men like G. K. Gokhale, Sir P. S. Mehta, Ashutosh Mukherjee, Rashbehary Ghose and Nawab Salimulla of Dacca made their positions felt and they were respected by the Government. It was during the working of the 1892 Reforms that Indian politicians began to show greater interest in the Council’s debates. Their speeches generally lasted longer than those of their predecessors in the earlier Councils while there was a distinct attempt by the Indian members to air the complaints through the constitutional procedures provided by asking questions, moving amendments to bills and criticizing the Government through the financial procedures. Most of the leading members in the Councils were prominent lawyers in the country; they showed genuine ability in expounding public policies on the floor of the House. Gradually, a new breed of politicians emerged who were more at ease in modern style of debate. It would be a mistake to belittle the value of the work of these and other members only because their attempts did not always bear fruit. It is certain that if the majority of them had been failures, if they had lacked capacity or a sense of responsibility and if they had not acted in the best interests of the people there would have been no Morley-Minto Councils in the after years.¹⁸

      In a confidential letter on June 20, 1902 to Lord Cross, the Secretary of State, Lord Curzon described the 1892 Reforms as a great success. He was particularly happy with the Imperial Council where the members, according to him, were respectful of procedures.¹⁹ Behind this story of complacent success, there was a growing demand for liberalizing the legislative bodies.²⁰ Firstly, the inability to influence the administration on important matters such as Indianization of the bureaucracy, reduction of military expenditure and taxes, and admission of Indians in the Executive Councils caused