Modern2.......

 19.6 ECONOMIC NATIONALISM AND SWADESHI MOVEMENT

Launch of Anti-Partition Movement under Moderates On 16th October 1905, Bengal was par- titioned by Curzon on the pretext of it being too big to administer. Instead of dividing it on the basis of non- Bengali areas, the division was on the basis of Hindus and Muslims. British thought that by partitioning, they would succeed in dividing Hindu politicians of West and East Bengal and increase Hindu-Muslim tensions. The tremor of partition was felt throughout India and was regarded as an insult and challenge to Indian na- tionalism. A movement was launched under the mod- erates. Militant and revolutionary leadership took over in the later stages. Swadeshi and Swaraj became the slogan of the common man and the whole of India was drawn into the National movement.

boycott of foreign goods to eventually, all kinds of association with the colonial rulers. The moderates were opposed to all these ideas. Matters nearly came to a head at the Calcutta Congress in 1906, over the question of its presidentship. A split was avoided by choosing Dadabhai Naoroji, who was respected by all the nationalists as a great patriot. Four compromise resolutions on the Swadeshi, Boycott, National Edu- cation and Self-Government demands were passed. Throughout 1907, the two sides fought over different interpretations of the four resolutions. By the end of 1907, they were looking over each other as their main political enemy.

Course of the Split

Role of Hardliners of Both Sides The extremists

were convinced that the battle of independence has begun as the people had been roused. They felt that this was the time for the big push and the moderates were a big drag on the movement. Most of them, led by Aurobindo Ghosh, thought that the time has come to part ways with the moderates, push them out of the leadership of the Congress, and split the organisation if the moderates could not be deposed. Most of the moderates led by Pherozeshah Mehta, were no less determined on a split. To remain with the extremists was, they felt, to enter dangerous waters. They were afraid that the Congress, built carefully for the past twenty years, would be shattered. Government was bound to suppress any large-scale anti-imperialist movement, why invite premature repression?

Attempts of Top Leadership at Reconciliation

The main public leaders of the two wings, Tilak (for the extremists) and Gokhale (for the moderates) were mature politicians who had a clear grasp of the dan- gers of disunity in the nationalist ranks. Tilak could foresee that a powerful national movement could not be built at this juncture without the unity in the nationalist ranks. His tactics was to organise massive support for his political line and force the moderates to a favourable compromise. But having roused his followers in Maharashtra and pushed on by the more extreme elements of Bengal, Tilak found that he could not dismount from the tiger he found himself riding.

revolutionary conspiracy case and immediately after Being judged innocent, left politics and setuled doter in French Pondicherry and took up religion. B.C. Pal temporarily retired from politics and Lala Lajpat Rat left for Britain in 1908. After 1908 the national move- ment as a whole, declined. But while the upsurge was gone, the aroused nationalist sentiments did not dis- appear. The people waited for the next phase. In 1914. Tilak was released and he picked up the threads of the movement

19.7 THE ACT OF 1909 AND BRITISH POLICY OF DIVIDE AND RULE

Background of 1909 Act

Popularly known as the Minto-Morley Reforms, they took their name after their official sponsors, Minto, the Governor-General and John Morley, Secretary of State for India. In 1908, the British Parliament ap- pointed a Royal Commission on Decentralisation to inquire into relations between the Government of In- dia and the provinces and suggest ways and means to simplify and improve them. More specifically, it was asked to suggest 'how the system of government could be better adapted both to meet the requirements and promote the welfare of the different provinces. Later in the year, on the basis of its recommendations a Bill was introduced in Parliament which, in May 1909 emerged as the new scheme of constitutional reform.

Provisions of 1909 Act

Its authors claimed that the chief merit of the Act, lay in its provisions to further enlarge the legislative councils and at the same time make them more representative and effective. This was sought to be done under two main heads-constitutional and functional. Constitutionally, the councils were now bigger, their numbers doubled in some cases and more than doubled in others. Thus, whereas the Indian Councils Act of 1892 had authorized only a maximum of 16 additional members, that figure was now raised to 60. In much the same manner, the number of additional members for the Presidencies of Madras, Bombay and Bengal were raised, from 20 to 50.

The proportion of official to non-official members in the Governor-General's Council was substantially reduced, the new figures were 36 to 32. Of the latter 27 were to be elected and 5 nominated. In this way, the Council continued to have the official majority. This was a deliberate policy. In the Provinces, there was to be a non-official majority for the first time. In Bengal there was even an elected majority, outnumbering both the official as well as nominated nonofficial blocs-28 to 20 and 4 respectively.

The system of election was introduced in an ingenious manner. The Act enabled certain recognised bodies and associations to recommend candidates who, even though there was no obligation to accept them, were in practice rarely rejected. Provision was also made for some members to be elected in accordance with regulations made under the Act with regard to the principle of representation. A necessary corollary of this was the provision for separate electorates for Muslims, landholders, chambers of commerce and universities on the plea that 'with varying and conflicting interests, representation in the European sense was an obvious impossibility. The separate electorates thus introduced for Muslims were later viewed by the Simon Commission as 'a cardinal problem and ground of controversy at every revision of the Indian electoral system'. Apart from their constitution, the functions of the councils also underwent a change. They could now, for instance, discuss the budget before it was finally settled, propose resolutions on it and divide upon those resolutions. The budget apart, members could discuss matters of public importance through resolutions and divisions. Additionally, the right to ask questions was enlarged and supplementaries allowed. It may be noted that the resolutions were in the nature of recommendations and were not binding on the government.

A much trumpeted change was the appointment of an Indian to the Executive Council of the Governor- General; Indians were also appointed to the councils in Madras and Bombay. Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, later Lord Sinha, was the first Law Member. Two Indians were appointed to the Council of the Secretary of State in London. In Madras and Bombay, the Executive Councils were enlarged from 2 to 4. Such councils were also to be formed in provinces ruled by Lieutenant Governors. An executive council was thus constituted in Bengal (1909), Bihar, Orissa (1912) and the United Provinces (1915).

Evaluation of the Act

The 1909 Reforms did not envisage a responsible government. The executive could not be driven out of office by an adverse vote of the legislature and the Governor-General-in-Council remained responsible to the British Parliament through the Secretary of State for India. It was this bottleneck which made the authors of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report confess that the 1909 reforms 'afforded no answer and could afford no answer, to Indian political problems'.

Morley however was quite clear as to what his objective was 'If I were attempting to set up a parliamentary system in India, or if it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I for one would have nothing to do with it.' The idea of India emerging as a self-governing colony was, Morley noted, 'a mere dream'.

British Policy of Divide and Rule

The British adopted different policies to counter and contain the rapidly growing nationalist movement. They encouraged pro-English individuals like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Raja Siva Prasad to start an anti- Congress movement. Later, they fanned the Hindu- Muslim communal rivalry, first among the educated Indians and, then, among the common people through the introduction of communal electorates. They even exploited the controversy around Hindi and Urdu and the cow-protection movement.

Relentless efforts were made to create a split in the nationalist ranks by adopting a more friendly approach towards the more conservative or moderate sections. In the 1890's efforts were made to separate the radicals of yesterday like Justice Ranade and others from leaders such as Dadabhai Naoroji who came to be considered extremists. Similarly, in the first two decades of the 20th century moderates were sought to be played against extremists.

The British also succeeded in turning the traditional feudal classes like princes and zamindars against the new intelligentsia and the common people. Princes were won over by the creation of the Chamber of Princes in 1921. Zamindars were already won over by the introduction of the Permanent Settlement. At- tempts were also made to turn one caste against an- other even among the Hindus. For example, the Communal Award of 1932 attempted to treat Harijans as a separate political entity.

Policy of Carrot and Stick

 The British also followed the policy of apparent concession or conciliation, on the one hand, and ruthless repression on the other to check the growth of nationalism. Some were appeased by making concessions in recruitment of the Indian Civil Service, passing the Indian Councils Act of 1892 and 1909, Acts of 1919 and 1935. Simultaneously, a policy of repression was followed to frighten the weak-hearted. This policy was relentlessly pursued throughout the freedom struggle and knew no bounds particularly during the Anti-partition, Non- cooperation, Civil Disobedience and Quit India Movements.

Policy of Appeasement of Reactionary Forces 

The British authorities felt that the spread of modern education had been a major cause of the growth of nationalism. So, they deliberately followed a policy of joining hands with the socially and intellectually reactionary forces in order to prevent the spread of modern ideas. Plans were now set afoot to impose greater government control over education and to change its modern liberal character into a conservative and reactionary one. Modern secular education was sought to be replaced by a system based on religious and moral training. This new system was reactionary as it did not cultivate a forward looking modern spirit among the Indian youth.

19.8 CONGRESS-LEAGUE PACT OF 1916

Signed by the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League at Lucknow in 1916, the Lucknow Pact marked an important step forward in the Hindu-Muslim unity. The pact, which resulted largely due to Tilak's efforts, enabled the two political organisations to demand a common scheme of political reforms from the British government and in fact succeeded in get- ting the Montford Reforms. It was, however, baseger the acceptance of the communal electorates which was 1 to prove disastrous for the country later.

Against some minor losses in the Muslim majority Es provinces, in the Muslim minority provinces they obtained  a representation almost double of what they in would have got on a purely numerical basis. Similarly, S at the centre they obtained 1/3 representation in the L legislative council from separate Muslim constituencies. Subsequently, most of these principles as well as other constitutional provisions provided for in the pact were incorporated later in the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919.

The significance of the pact was that it was considered to be a mutually acceptable solution of the Hindu- Muslim problem. In retrospect, however, it is necessary to realise that it contained within it seeds of the country's future discord and disunity. While the Muslims became dissatisfied with the fixed and dispro- portionate percentage of the seats they had earlier ac- cepted, by recognising the separate political identity of the Muslims the Hindus had unintentionally com- mitted themselves to the idea of a separate state for them.

Evaluation of Extremism

Achievements The main achievements of the extremists can be summed up as follows:

1. First to demand swaraj or independence as a matter of the birth right of every Indian.

2. First to advocate the involvement of the masses in the freedom struggle, and thus broadened the social base of the nationalist movement.

3. Evolved a higher concept of the forms of struggle (passive resistance) in order to improve the techniques of political action. 

4. First to organise an all India political movement, viz. the Anti-Partition movement.

Failures 

1.The extremists met with the following two main failures:

2.Though they believed in mass agitation, they failed to reach and mobilise the real masses, viz., the peasants, agricultural labourers and workers.

3.Despite evolving a higher concept of the forms of struggle, they could not implement it fully.

19.9 HOME RULE MOVEMENT (1916-17)

Establishment of two Home Rule Leagues

 Two home rule leagues were established, one by B G Tilak in April 1916 and the other by Mrs Annie Besant in September 1916. The idea of starting a Home Rule League originated with Mrs Besant as early as 1914 and she announced it publicly in September 1915 though Tilak started the league before Besant could.

Main Causes for their Foundation 

The main causes for their foundation were the nature of the Indian National Congress, which continued to remain under the moderates as purely deliberative body un- suitable for any sustained political agitation and the inspiration derived from the Irish Home Rule movement. Mrs. Besant moved a resolution for starting a Home Rule League in the Bombay Session (1915) of the Congress, but it was overruled by its president.

Main Objective 

The main objective was to attain home-rule for India within the British Empire (on the lines of the autonomous colonies of Australia, New Zealand, etc). For instance, Tilak, who had demanded complete independence for India during the Anti-Partition movement had, however, made it very clear in 1916 when he declared: 'The swaraj of today is within the Empire and not independent of it'.

Activities of the Leagues

 They consisted in organising discussion groups and reading-rooms in cities, mass sale of pamphlets and lecture tours. These were not very different in form from the older moderate activities, but significantly new insofar as their in- tensity and extent.

Cooperation between the two Leagues

 The two leagues cooperated with each other as well as with the Congress and the Muslim League (after the Lucknow Reunion and the Lucknow Pact) in putting forward their demand of home-rule for India. While Tilak's League concentrated on Maharashtra and Central Provinces, Mrs. Besant's League carried on the movement in the rest of the country.

Significance

 The real significance of the two leagues and their movement lay in the extension of the nationalist movement to new areas and groups; (urban professional groups like the Kayasthas and Kashmiri Brahmins in the United Provinces; the Hindu Amil minority in Sind; younger Gujarati industrial- ists, traders and lawyers in Bombay city and Gujarat) and to a new generation (Jawaharlal Nehru in Allahabad, Satyamurti in Madras, Jitendralal Banerji in Calcutta, Jamnadas Dwarakdas, Umar Sobhani and others in Bombay and Gujarat).

End of the Movement

 The Home Rule movement soon died because Mrs. Besant overnight became a pro-British in late 1917 after Montague's promise of responsible government, and Tilak became increasingly involved in a libel suit against Valentine Chirol and left for England to fight his case in September 1918. Above all, emergence of Gandhi totally eclipsed the Home Rule movement.

August (1917) Declaration 

On August 20, 1917, Montague, then secretary of state for India, made a momentous declaration in the House of Commons on the British policy towards future political reforms in India. Growing pressure from Indian militant nationalists and the advocates of Home Rule made the British government to consider some political concessions for India.

According to the declaration, the policy of the British government was that of 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 realisation of 'responsible government' in India as an integral part of the British empire. The declaration, in effect, signified the transformation of the empire into a commonwealth of nations.

Government of India Act of 1919

Background

1.The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, named after their principal co-sponsors, E. S. Montagu, then Secretary of State for India and Lord Chelmsford, then Governor-General, were a logical sequel to the historic Declaration of 20 August 1917.

2.Prior to it, the accepted principle of government had been that both authority as well as responsibility for the governance of India was vested in the King-in-Parliament, who exercised it through the agency of the Secretary of State in London, the Governor-General-in-Council in India and the governors in council in the different provinces.

3.The association of Indians in the legislative sphere was designed only to acquaint the rulers with the thoughts and aspirations of the governed. It was clearly appreciated that, to the extent power had been constitutionally transferred to Indian hands, intervention by Parliament and its agents should cease.

4.Thus the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled in 1921, that parliamentary criticism should not extend to 'transferred subjects in the provinces. As for the central government and the 'reserved' subjects in the provinces, since legal responsibility for them vested in Parliament, there could be no abrogation of control.

5.Even here, the Joint Select Committee on the India Bill (1919) ruled that "in the exercise of his responsibility to Parliament, which he cannot delegate to anyone else, the Secretary of State may reasonably consider that only in exceptional circumstances should he be called upon to intervene in matters of purely Indian interest where the government and legislature of India are in agreement".

6.This was to be particularly so in matters of fiscal policy. The Committee had expressed the view that the relations of the Secretary of State and the Governor General-in-Council should be regulated by similar principles so far as 'reserved' subjects were concerned.

Central Administration

Two Cardinal Principles 

regard to central ad- ministration, the two cardinal principles of the Act were:

1.The Government of India was to remain responsible to Parliament, although the Imperial Legislative Council was to be enlarged and popular representation and influence in it enhanced;

2. The control of Parliament and the Secretary of State over the Government of India and the provinces was to be relaxed in proportion to the changes contemplated in (i)

 Devolution Rules 

The 'devolution rules' which were part of the Act, distinguished carefully between the spheres of the central and provincial governments, even though the demarcation was not as rigid as it usually is in a federal set up.

1.In the sphere of financial devolution, the provinces now framed their own budgets, whereas previously, provincial budgets were part of the central budget. L Additionally, they made their own taxation proposals; previously, prior sanction of the Governor General was necessary to do so.

2.In legislative devolution, a measure of central control was exercised. Thus, an authentic copy of every Act to which the governor had given his assent had to be sent to the Governor General, who may or may not accord his assent to it. If the Governor General gave his assent, a copy of the Act had to be sent to the Secretary of State who, again, may or may not give his assent.

Executive Power

1 As there was no transfer of power at the Centre, the Governor General-in-Council continued to be responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State-in-Council in respect of all matters.

2. Before the 1919 Act, the strength of the Governor General's Executive Council was 6 ordinary members and 1 extraordinary member.

3. Under the new Act, there was greater elasticity in the size of the Council, while the number of Indians on it was raised from 2 to 3.

Central Legislature

1.Bicameralism The legislature at the Centre was bi- cameral, consisting of the Legislative Assembly, the lower house, and the Council of State, the upper house.

2.Elections to the lower house were direct, the principle of communal or separate representation was recognised, while industry, commerce and land- holders were given special representation.

3.The Legislative Assembly was to have 145 members, although its strength could be increased, if necessary. At least five-sevenths of its total membership

4. The control of Parliament and the Secretary of State over the Government of India and the provinces was to be relaxed in proportion to the changes contemplated in  Devolution Rules The 'devolution rules', which were part of the Act, distinguished carefully between the spheres of the central and provincial governments, even though the demarcation was not as rigid as it usually is in a federal set up.

5. In the sphere of financial devolution, the provinces now framed their own budgets, whereas previously, provincial budgets were part of the central budget. L Additionally, they made their own taxation proposals; previously, prior sanction of the Governor General was necessary to do so.

In legislative devolution, 

a measure of central control was exercised. Thus, an authentic copy of every Act to which the governor had given his assent had to be sent to the Governor General, who may or may not accord his assent to it. If the Governor General gave his assent, a copy of the Act had to be sent to the Secretary of State who, again, may or may not give his assent.

Executive Power As there was no transfer of power at the Centre, the Governor General-in-Council continued to be responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State-in-Council in respect of all matters.

1.Before the 1919 Act, the strength of the Governor General's Executive Council was 6 ordinary members and 1 extraordinary member.

2. Under the new Act, there was greater elasticity in the size of the Council, while the number of Indians on it was raised from 2 to 3.

Central Legislature

Bicameralism 

The legislature at the Centre was bi- cameral, consisting of the Legislative Assembly, the lower house, and the Council of State, the upper house.

1. Elections to the lower house were direct, the principle of communal or separate representation was recognised, while industry, commerce and land- holders were given special representation.

2.The Legislative Assembly was to have 145 members, although its strength could be increased, if necessary. At least five-sevenths of its total membership was elected, while one-third of the remainder were to be non-officials.

3.The representation of communities and special interests were broadly on similar lines to those fol- lowed for the provincial legislatures.

4.Except in special constituencies, elected members of both houses were returned through territorial constituencies on the basis of a high property franchise-qualifications in respect of the upper house being set much higher than those for the lower house.

Legislative Procedure.

 As in the provincial legislatures, normal procedure laid down that all legislative measures as well as the annual budget relating to the Centre, should be passed by the central legislature.

1.But insofar as the Governor General's ultimate responsibility was to the Parliament-and not to the central legislature-he was, in his individual capacity, empowered to certify bills and restore grants that had not been approved. He was also empowered to issue ordinances.

2.In the legislative field, the powers of the Council of State were coordinate with those of the Assembly. Since the government could always depend upon a majority of the Council to support its measures, the popular majority in the Assembly could not enforce its will against it in any legislative matter.

3.In the budget, a number of items were non-votable, with the result-that the legislature was not even allowed to discuss them.

Governor General's Powers 

The Governor General's powers in the legislative field were extensive.

1.He could refuse permission to introduce certain bills where such advance permission was necessary.

2.If the legislature rejected a bill recommended by him, he could certify its being essential 'for the safety, tranquillity and interests' of British India.

3.The only check on him was that such Acts were required to be laid before the Parliament for at least 8 days prior to their receiving Royal assent.

4.He could refuse assent to bills passed by the legislature whenever he deemed it necessary.

5.In financial matters, he could restore, if necessary, any grant rejected or cut by the Assembly.

Diarchy

Purpose of Diarchy 

Since, in Jerms of the August Declaration, there was to be a gradual transfer of authority to Indian hands, the mode and measure of such transfer required to be worked out. Again, to the extent that transfer of responsibility in the provincial sphere as a whole was considered premature, a system of Diarchy was established.

Contribution of Curtis and His Round Table Group 

      A signal contribution in working out the de- tails was made by Lionel George Curtis and his Round Table group and finds its fullest elaboration in his work entitled Diarchy (1920). Under it, ministers responsi- ble to the legislature held charge of such subjects as were 'transferred' to popular control, while the gov- ernor and his councillors were to be in charge of 're- served' subjects for which they were responsible to Parliament.

Division of Provincial Subjects

1.'Transferred' subjects included: local self-govern- ment, medical administration, education other than European and Anglo-Indian, agriculture, fisheries, co-operative societies, excise, the development of industries and religious endowments.

2.'Reserved' subjects comprised land revenue ad- ministration, famine relief, administration of jus- tice, police and prisons. The broad criteria for 'transferred' subjects were:

           a. those which afforded most opportunity for local knowledge and service;

           b.in which Indians had shown themselves to be keenly interested;

           c. in which mistakes, even though serious, would not be irremediable;

           d. which stood most in need of development;

           e. which concerned the interests of classes that would be adequately represented in the                                 legislature (and not those which could not be so represented).

Sources of Revenue

 While the functions of the 'reserved' and 'transferred' areas were clearly defined, their sources of revenue were combined. The alloca- tion of expenditure by the two was a matter of agree- ment; the Governor acting as an arbiter in case of differences.

1.A taxation measure or proposal was to be discussed by the entire government, but a decision on it was to be taken only by the part that initiated it.

2.The governor was to regulate business in such a manner as to make sure that responsibility of the two halves in respect of matters under their respec- tive control was kept 'clear and distinct'.

3.He was to encourage the habit of joint deliberation between his ministers and councillors.

Governor's Powers

 Even though power had been transferred in certain areas, the governor could yet refuse his ministers' advice 'if [he had] sufficient cause to dissent from their opinion'.

1.He could over-rule them, and act on his own, if by accepting the advice in question-the safety and tranquillity of the province was likely to be threat- ened; the interests of the minority communities- communal or racial or of the members of the pub- lic services were affected; or when unfair discrimi- nation was made in matters affecting commercial or industrial interests.

2. In all this, the governor was to keep the major ob- jective of the reforms constantly in view, viz. that people were trained to acquire such habits of po- litical action and respect such conventions as will best, and soonest, fit them for self-government'.

3.As with provincial administration, there was also to be complete popular control 'so far as possible', in the field of local government; it was, largely in- dependent of the Government of India and responsible, if partly, to popular representatives.

Provincial Legislatives

Enlargement and Democratisation of Councils 

On the legislative side, the councils were consider- ably enlarged. The proportion of elected members was not less than 70%, and of officials not less than 20%.

1.In 1926, the composition of the legislatures of all the provinces taken together was: 14.5% officials; 8.6% non-officials nominated to represent aborigines, backward tracts, depressed classes, Anglo-Indians, labour, 9.9% elected members representing special interests landholders, universities, commerce and industry; and 67% elected members, returned through territorial constituencies.

2.The last category, members elected through territorial constituencies, comprised 'general', Muslims, Sikhs (in the Punjab), Indian Christians (in Madras), Anglo-Indians (in Madras and Bengal) and Europeans (in all the provinces except the Punjab, the Central Provinces and Berar and Assam).

3.The 'general' constituency included such voters as did not find a place in any of the communal or special constituencies. In the distribution of seats, the minority communities were given weightage-viz. representation in excess of their population ratio.

4. As for franchise, property qualifications were considerably lowered and women given the right to vote in all the provinces. In 1926, the proportion of those enfranchised to the total population stood at 2.8%.

5.Since uniform territorial constituencies were deemed unsuited to Indian conditions, constituencies were designed to represent particular communities (e.g. Muslims) or special interests (e.g landholders or chambers of commerce).

6.Franchise was restricted. It revolved around:

a. residence in the constituency for a minimum period of time;

b. ownership or occupation of a house which had a minimum rental value; and

c. payment of a minimum municipal tax or in come tax or some other tax or receipt of a mil tary pension.

 Legislative Procedure 

Normally, all legislative measures and annual budgets were to be passed by the provincial councils. However, insofar as the 're- served' half was outside the purview of a council, the Governor was empowered to certify such bills and re- store such grants as had been rejected by the legislature if he considered such action necessary for the proper fulfilment of his responsibility to Parliament.

1.While the 1909 Act had laid down the maximum number of seats in the councils, the Act of 1919 specified the minimum. Thus, as against a maxi- mum of 50 in the provinces, the new chambers had a minimum of over 100. Madras had 118, Bom- bay, 111 and Bengal, 125.

2.Members could ask questions as well as supplementaries. They could discuss resolutions to venti- late public grievances and move for adjournment to take note of matters of urgent public interest.

3.Not only did they have a general discussion on the budget but they also voted on grants.

4.Their major limitation lay in the special powers with which the Governor was vested, both in law-making, as well as voting on the budget.

5.The term of a council was three years. After its dissolution, a new council was to be elected within a period of 6 months.