The period between 1919 and 1947 marks a pivotal and transformative era in India’s constitutional history, characterized by a complex interplay of British imperial policy, burgeoning Indian nationalism, and evolving political consciousness. This epoch witnessed a gradual, albeit often contentious, devolution of power from the British Crown to Indian hands, culminating in the complete transfer of sovereignty and the subsequent framing of an independent constitution. It was a journey from limited self-governance and communal representation under colonial tutelage to the aspiration for a unified, sovereign, democratic republic, shaped by a series of legislative enactments, political movements, commissions, and negotiations.

The constitutional development during these decades was not a linear progression but a dynamic process fraught with political struggles, communal tensions, and a continuous push-and-pull between the British government’s attempts to introduce measured reforms and the Indian nationalist movement’s demand for complete self-rule. Each legislative step, from the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms to the Indian Independence Act, was met with varying degrees of acceptance and rejection by different Indian political factions, leading to further agitation and renewed negotiations. This period laid the fundamental groundwork for the eventual Constitution of India, influencing its federal structure, parliamentary system, and the principles of fundamental rights and representative democracy, even as it grappled with the divisive issue of communal electorates and the ultimate partition of the subcontinent.

Government of India Act 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms)

The constitutional reforms introduced by the Government of India Act 1919, commonly known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, represented the first significant step towards introducing responsible government in India. Propelled by the growing [nationalist movement](/posts/examine-imperialist-approach-to-indian/), especially the Home Rule Leagues, and India's significant contributions to World War I, Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, declared in 1917 the British policy's objective was the "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."

The Act introduced a system of ‘Diarchy’ at the provincial level, meaning a dual form of government. Provincial subjects were divided into ‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’ lists. Reserved subjects, such as finance, law and order, and land revenue, were administered by the Governor with his Executive Council, who were responsible to the British Parliament. Transferred subjects, including education, local self-government, public health, and agriculture, were administered by the Governor acting with ministers who were responsible to the provincial legislative council. This was an attempt to provide Indians with some experience in administration, albeit in limited areas.

At the central level, the Act introduced a bicameral legislature for the first time. The Indian Legislative Council was replaced by a Council of State (upper house) and a Legislative Assembly (lower house). While the majority of members in both houses were elected, the executive councilors remained responsible only to the British Parliament, not to the legislature. The franchise was expanded but remained very limited, covering about 10% of the adult male population. Crucially, the Act retained and expanded the principle of communal electorates, first introduced by the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, by extending it to Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans, thereby institutionalizing and deepening communal divisions in Indian politics. Although criticized by Indian nationalists for being inadequate and not granting true self-rule, the 1919 Act marked a significant departure from previous constitutional arrangements by explicitly stating the goal of responsible government.

The Non-Cooperation Movement and the Simon Commission

The limited nature of the 1919 reforms and the repressive Rowlatt Act led to widespread discontent and the launch of [Mahatma Gandhi](/posts/analyse-aims-of-education-as-advocated/)'s [Non-Cooperation Movement](/posts/write-account-of-non-cooperation/) (1920-1922). This movement, characterized by mass participation and non-violent civil disobedience, demonstrated the Indian National Congress's growing organizational strength and its ability to mobilize public opinion against British rule. While not directly a constitutional reform, its impact was profound, as it discredited the reforms in the eyes of many Indians and heightened the demand for complete [Swaraj](/posts/swaraj-for-gandhi-is-self-reliance-and/) (self-rule).

In 1927, the British government appointed the Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission, to review the working of the 1919 Act and suggest further constitutional reforms. The Commission, headed by Sir John Simon, consisted entirely of seven British Members of Parliament, with no Indian representation. This exclusion led to widespread protests and a complete boycott by Indian political parties, who saw it as an insult and a denial of India’s right to determine its own future. “Simon Go Back” became a common slogan.

Despite the boycott, the Simon Commission submitted its report in 1930. Its key recommendations included the abolition of diarchy in the provinces and the establishment of provincial autonomy, the continuation of separate electorates, the establishment of a federation of British India and princely states, and the need for a flexible constitution. While some of its recommendations were progressive, the complete absence of Indian members in the commission alienated Indian public opinion and further strengthened the resolve of nationalist leaders to draft their own constitution.

The Nehru Report and Round Table Conferences

In response to the challenge posed by Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to Indian leaders to draft a constitution acceptable to all, an All Parties Conference convened in 1928 and appointed a committee headed by Motilal Nehru to draft a constitution for India. The resulting 'Nehru Report' was a landmark document, representing the first major attempt by Indians to outline their constitutional framework. It advocated for dominion status for India within the British Commonwealth, a parliamentary system of government, [fundamental rights](/posts/discuss-various-fundamental-rights/) (including adult suffrage, equality, and freedom of expression), joint electorates (rejecting separate electorates), and a federal structure with a strong center. While largely accepted by the Congress, it faced opposition from the Muslim League, which found its demands for separate electorates and a stronger guarantee of Muslim rights unaddressed.

To discuss the Simon Commission report and future constitutional reforms, the British government convened a series of three Round Table Conferences in London between 1930 and 1932. The First Round Table Conference (1930-31) was attended by various Indian political leaders (excluding Congress initially, which was engaged in the Civil Disobedience Movement) and representatives of princely states. Key agreements emerged regarding the establishment of an All-India Federation including princely states, and the introduction of responsible government at the center with safeguards.

The Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931 led to the participation of Mahatma Gandhi, representing the Indian National Congress, in the Second Round Table Conference (1931). However, this conference failed due to irreconcilable differences, particularly on the question of communal representation, with Gandhi strongly opposing the separate electorates and the Muslim League insisting on them. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar also strongly advocated for separate electorates for Depressed Classes. The Third Round Table Conference (1932) was sparsely attended and primarily laid the groundwork for the ensuing white paper that would form the basis of the new Government of India Act.

A significant outcome of the communal impasse at the Round Table Conferences was the ‘Communal Award’ announced by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in 1932. This award provided for separate electorates not only for Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians but also for the ‘Depressed Classes’ (Scheduled Castes). Mahatma Gandhi, believing that this would permanently divide Hindu society, undertook a fast unto death in Yerawada Jail. This led to the ‘Poona Pact’ between Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in September 1932, which retained joint electorates for the Depressed Classes but reserved a larger number of seats for them within the general electorate, averting a deeper social and political schism.

Government of India Act 1935

The most comprehensive and significant constitutional measure enacted by the British Parliament before India's independence was the Government of India Act 1935. It drew heavily from the recommendations of the Simon Commission, the discussions at the Round Table Conferences, and the White Paper of 1933. Though never fully implemented in its federal form, it laid the structural and administrative foundations for much of the future Constitution of independent India.

The Act proposed an All-India Federation consisting of British Indian provinces and princely states. Accession of princely states was voluntary, and since most chose not to join, the federal part of the Act never came into force. However, it introduced ‘provincial autonomy’ at the provincial level, replacing diarchy. Provinces were granted greater self-governance, with elected Indian ministers responsible to their legislatures, administering all provincial subjects. This marked a significant advance towards responsible government in the provinces.

At the center, the Act provided for the introduction of diarchy, dividing federal subjects into ‘reserved’ (defence, external affairs, tribal areas, and ecclesiastical affairs, administered by the Governor-General with his counselors) and ‘transferred’ (all other subjects, administered by the Governor-General with his ministers responsible to the federal legislature). This central diarchy was never implemented. The Act also provided for a bicameral federal legislature, though its powers were limited.

The franchise was further expanded to about 14% of the population, still largely based on property and education qualifications. The Act retained and extended separate electorates, further cementing communal divisions. It also established a Federal Court (which later became the Supreme Court of India) and provided for a Reserve Bank of India. While the 1935 Act was a major constitutional milestone, granting a degree of provincial autonomy and introducing federal principles, it was widely criticized by Indian nationalists for its restrictive nature, lack of a clear timeline for dominion status, and the retention of vast discretionary powers for the Governor-General and provincial governors. They viewed it as an attempt to prolong British rule by creating divisions and maintaining control through safeguards.

World War II and Towards Independence

The outbreak of World War II in 1939 profoundly impacted India's constitutional trajectory. Britain declared India a belligerent without consulting Indian leaders, leading to the resignation of Congress ministries in the provinces. As the war progressed, and with increasing pressure from the Allied powers (especially the USA) to secure Indian cooperation, the British government made several constitutional proposals.

The ‘August Offer’ of 1940, presented by Viceroy Lord Linlithgow, promised dominion status after the war, the establishment of a constituent assembly (largely Indian in composition) to frame a new constitution, and immediate expansion of the Viceroy’s Executive Council to include more Indians. However, it failed to address the immediate demand for a national government and granted minorities the assurance that no future constitution would be adopted without their consent, effectively giving the Muslim League a veto power. Both Congress and the Muslim League rejected the offer.

The ‘Cripps Mission’ of 1942, led by Sir Stafford Cripps, came to India with a proposal for dominion status and the right to secede after the war, and the formation of a Constituent Assembly elected by provincial legislatures (with princely states also participating). However, it did not offer immediate full self-government or a truly national government, and its provision for provinces to opt out of the Indian union after the war was seen as a pathway to partition. The Congress rejected it for not offering real power, and the Muslim League rejected it for not explicitly guaranteeing Pakistan. The failure of the Cripps Mission led to the launch of the ‘Quit India Movement’ in 1942, a mass civil disobedience movement, which saw widespread arrests of Indian leaders.

After the war, with the Labour government coming to power in Britain, determined to grant India independence, efforts for constitutional resolution intensified. The ‘Wavell Plan’ of 1945 aimed at forming an interim government with Indian members, but the Simla Conference called to discuss it failed due to disagreements between Congress and the Muslim League over the composition of the Executive Council, particularly the Muslim League’s demand to be the sole representative of all Muslims.

The Cabinet Mission Plan and the Indian Independence Act

The final phase of constitutional development began with the arrival of the 'Cabinet Mission' in March 1946, comprising Lord Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Stafford Cripps, and A.V. Alexander. Its objective was to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power. The Mission rejected the idea of a fully sovereign Pakistan due to administrative and geographical complexities and proposed a unique three-tiered federal structure for India: 1. **A [Union of India](/posts/discuss-about-puttaswamy-vs-union-of/):** Dealing with foreign affairs, defence, and communications, with powers necessary to raise the finances for these subjects. 2. **Groups of Provinces:** Provinces would be divided into three groups (A: Hindu-majority provinces; B: Muslim-majority provinces in the North-West; C: Muslim-majority provinces in the North-East), which would have their own constitutions and could determine which provincial subjects to take up in common. 3. **Provinces:** Each province would have full autonomy for all subjects not assigned to the Union or the Groups.

The Mission also proposed the formation of an interim government and a Constituent Assembly to draft the new constitution. The Constituent Assembly was to be elected by provincial assemblies, with representatives from princely states. While the Congress accepted the plan for its emphasis on a united India and the Constituent Assembly, the Muslim League initially accepted it but later withdrew its acceptance, insisting on a separate state of Pakistan. This led to “Direct Action Day” in August 1946 and widespread communal riots.

Despite the escalating communal violence and the Muslim League’s non-cooperation, an Interim Government was formed in September 1946, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, marking a significant step towards Indian self-rule. On February 20, 1947, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee declared that British rule in India would end by June 1948. This declaration hastened the process and led to the appointment of Lord Mountbatten as the last Viceroy.

Faced with the intractable communal situation and the impossibility of preserving a united India, Lord Mountbatten put forth the ‘Mountbatten Plan’ on June 3, 1947. This plan proposed the partition of India into two independent dominions, India and Pakistan, based on the principle of self-determination for Muslim-majority areas. It also provided for the accession of princely states to either dominion or to remain independent. The Congress reluctantly accepted the partition as an unavoidable price for independence, while the Muslim League readily accepted it.

The ‘Indian Independence Act 1947’ formalized the Mountbatten Plan. It provided for the creation of two independent dominions, India and Pakistan, from August 15, 1947. It abolished the office of the Secretary of State for India and ended British paramountcy over the princely states. The Act empowered the Constituent Assemblies of both dominions to frame their respective constitutions and repealed the Government of India Act 1935, albeit with a provision for it to continue as a temporary constitution until new ones were framed. The transfer of power on August 15, 1947, marked the culmination of this long and arduous constitutional journey, ushering in an era of sovereign self-governance.

The period from 1919 to 1947 represents a dynamic and complex saga of constitutional evolution in India, characterized by a gradual transfer of power from the British Empire to the Indian populace. Beginning with limited reforms under the Montagu-Chelmsford Act, which introduced diarchy and a semblance of responsible government, the journey progressed through commissions, round table conferences, and mass nationalist movements. The British strategy shifted from incremental concessions aimed at managing dissent to a more earnest effort to grant self-governance, particularly after World War II, albeit often intertwined with the divisive issue of communal representation that ultimately led to partition.

The Government of India Act 1935 stands as the most comprehensive legislative blueprint of this era, establishing provincial autonomy and laying down many structural elements, such as the federal court and a detailed administrative framework, that would later be absorbed into the independent Indian Constitution. However, the consistent Indian nationalist demand for true Swaraj, democratic governance, and fundamental rights often found these British reforms inadequate, propelling further agitation and negotiations. The repeated failures to resolve the communal question amicably within a united framework, despite efforts like the Cabinet Mission Plan, tragically led to the partition of the subcontinent.

Ultimately, this period forged the political consciousness, institutional practices, and foundational ideas that would inform the independent Constitution of India. The experiences with legislative bodies, the struggle for fundamental rights, the debates over federalism versus a strong center, and the challenges of communalism deeply influenced the choices made by the Constituent Assembly post-1947. The constitutional development from 1919 to 1947 was thus a crucible, melting down colonial structures and nationalist aspirations to cast the mould for a sovereign, democratic republic, even as it left a legacy of partition and its accompanying human suffering.