Morley Minto Reforms (Indian Council Act of 1909)

India Council Act of 1892 failed to meet legitimate demands of Congress.
Works of R.C. Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji exposed the policies of British that economically ruined India.
Educated Indians were discontented as they were not getting an adequate share in Government services and administration.
Autocratic policies of Lord Curzon such as Indian Universities Act of 1904, Calcutta Corporation Act of 1899 and Partition of Bengal in 1905 exposed the intentions of colonial rule.
Indians in a foreign land, especially in South Africa were humiliated as an inferior race, which hurt the national sentiment.
Famines and bubonic plague enhanced distress and misery of the masses.
Shattering blow to White man’s prestige in 1904-05, when Japan defeated Russia which awakened new hope.
Intensity of swadeshi and spread of extremism created it necessary to bring constitutional reforms.
Reforms were preceded by Shimla Deputation in October 1906 where a group of Muslim elites led by Agha Khan met Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for Muslims. 1909 reforms were brought by British to rally to its side Moderates and Muslims.

Provisions

Recognition of elective principle for the first time for non-official membership of the councils. Indians could participate in elections of legislative councils.
Separate electorates for Muslims.
In Indian Legislative council and Provincial Legislative councils, membership was extended. In Provincial councils, a non-official majority was introduced.
Elected members were to be indirectly elected. Local bodies would elect an electoral college and then this college would elect provincial legislatures, which in turn would elect Central legislatures.
Legislatures were given power to ask questions, pass resolutions and vote on different items of budget.
One Indian could now be appointed as a member of Viceroy’s executive council. Satyendra Nath Sinha became the first Indian to be appointed in 1909.

Introduction of elective principles laid the groundwork for parliamentary system in India.
Reforms did not address demand for self-government as demanded by the Indians.
Though Indians were allowed to participate in elections qualifications of class, community and property narrowed the franchise.
Separate electorate was the most detrimental step which aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks. Also, the lower income qualification for Muslims created mistrust between the communities.
Budget could not be voted upon. No real responsibility was conceded.
The system of election was made too indirect.

Separate electorates created new problems for national politics. It created a permanent political barrier to the unity of Hindus and Muslims. At the same time, different communities claimed such privileges as Sikhs and Dalits. Appeasement of small sections created divisions among the Nationalist ranks.
Failure of reforms to fulfil the aspirations of Indians. Nationalists realised that popular pressure was required to attain concessions from the government.
Home rule movement came as a reply to the reforms. The movement gathered support from most of the nationalists including Jinnah.
Home-rule movement gave a fresh direction to freedom struggle. The power of struggle was now to be in the hands of masses who were to play an important role during Gandhian phase.