General Review
THE political agitation which followed upon the Partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon gradually assumed a revolutionary character. Apart from the growth of a radical section in the Congress, and the movement for boycotting foreign goods by way of protest against the Partition, secret societies grew up in various parts of India with the avowed object of collecting arms and manufacturing bombs to do away with certain types of officials and, if possible, to organise an armed insurrection. There was a “general state of serious unrest ” not only in Bengal but even in distant Provinces like the Punjab and Madras, and Government adopted strong measures. Laws were passed which put severe restrictions on popular movements as well as on the Press and public meetings. Some of the leading figures were deported without trial. Others were hanged or transported for life, and a large number, including notable leaders like Tilak, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. But even these severe measures could not check the murders and outrages, and ultimately the Government decided to modify Lord Curzon’s measure. The despatch of the Government of India on the subject, dated the 25th August, 1911, testified to the bitterness of feeling engendered by the Partition. It also frankly recognised the ” substantial grievance ” of the Bengalis ” who found themselves outnumbered in the legislatures of both the Provinces of Bengal and Eastern Bengal “, and the ” growing estrangement, which had assumed a very serious character in many parts of the country, between Muhammadans and Hindus. “
The accession of King George V was followed by a Durbar in Delhi held by the King and Queen in person in December, 1911. His Majesty made two famous announcements in the Durbar. One was the creation of the Presidency of Bengal under a Governor. Bihar, Orissa and Chota Nagpur were separated from it and formed into a Province under a Lieutenant Governor, while Assam was restored as a Chief-Commissionership. (Both were subsequently placed under Governors.) The other was the transfer of the capital of India from Calcutta to Delhi. The Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, was severely criticized for recommending these measures, but time to a large extent justified his policy. Although terrorist outrages were not stamped out altogether, there was a considerable improvement in the general situation, and feelings against the British grew much less bitter.
This was abundantly demonstrated in less than three years’ time, for the outbreak of the World War in 1914 put the loyalty of India to a stern test, and she acquitted herself in a way which won her the gratitude of Britain and the admiration of the world. Her people and Princes ungrudgingly placed their resources at the disposal of the Government, and Indian soldiers fought with bravery and won distinction in various theatres of war in Europe, Africa and Western Asia. Even in the first few months of the war nearly 300,000 were sent overseas to fight on different fronts, and India supplied England with ” 70,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 60,000 rifles of the latest type, and more than 550 guns.” During the course of the war more than 800,000 combatants and 400,000 non-combatants were recruited on a voluntary basis. India’s contribution in material was all almost equally important. Apart from munitions, her cotton, jute, iron, steel, wolfram, manganese, mica, saltpetre, rubber, skins, petroleum, tea and wheat, were of great help to the Allies. India also made financial contributions to her utmost capacity. Although her troops were employed outside her borders, she paid the normal expenditure for their maintenance, which varied between 20 and 30 million pounds sterling per annum. She also paid the cost of an additional force of 300,000 men and made a free gift of 100,000,000 sterling to the British Government. These heavy payments involved India in currency difficulties of a serious nature for many years.
England fully recognised the generous services of India. Apart from the constitutional changes of 1919, described above, Indians were admitted to the War Cabinet and the Imperial Conference. Mr. S.P. Sinha was made a peer and appointed Under-secretary of State for India. Indians were admitted to King’s Commissions in the army. A Territorial Force and a University Training Corps were organized. When the League of Nations was established India became one of its foundation members.
Local Self-Government
Whatever might have been the intentions of Lord Ripon, reforms in the sphere of local self-government did not make it free from official control, and, as the Indian Statutory Commission observed in 1929, ” no real attempt was made to inaugurate a system amenable to the will of the local inhabitants “. These defects were clearly recognised by the Montagu- Chelmsford Report, and Lord Chemsford’s Government issued a Resolution on 16th May, 1918, declaring the ” policy of the gradual removal of unnecessary Government control and of differentiating the spheres of action appropriate for Government and for local bodies respectively.
It was proposed to make these bodies as representative as possible, to remove unnecessary restrictions regarding taxation, the budget and the sanction of works, to bring the franchise as low as possible and to replace nominated Chairmen by elected non-officials. This Resolution also emphasised the importance of developing the corporate life of the village.
In 1921 local self-government became a Transferred subject in charge of Ministers. The Municipalities and Local Boards were vested with enhanced powers and functions, were freed comparatively from official control, became responsible to an enlarged electorate, and came to have elected Chairmen except under extraordinary conditions when expert guidance became necessary. The Provincial Governments began to evince great zeal and interest for the progress of local institutions, and passed several Acts modifying their nature in the cities and the villages to suit modern conditions. It is of course true that the local bodies have not worked satisfactorily in all cases. But this is not because the people are incapable of self-government, but is, as the Central Committee rightly pointed out, ” the inevitable result of the suddenness with which the transition from official tutelage to complete freedom was made “.
One notable feature of local self-government in modern times is the institution of Improvement Trusts in important cities like Bombay, Calcutta, Lucknow, Allahabad, Cawnpore and Rangoon, which have undertaken important activities to improve local sanitation.
