pamphlet containing in broad outline the views which were held with regard to future
constitutional development. When I reached India I showed this pamphlet to my Council
and also to my noble friend, Lord Meston, who was then Lieutenant Governor of the
United Provinces. It contained, what is now known as the diarchic principle.... Both the
Council and Lord Meston, who was then Sir James Meston, reported adversely on the
proposals for constitutional development contained in that pamphlet.”
Lord Chelmsford then goes on to say that Austen Chamberlain combated their
objections with the argument that the Indians must acquire experience in self-
government, so, after the announcement to this effect was made publicly in August 1917,
the officials in India accepted dyarchy.
If Lord Chelmsford believed that the pamphlet was an official document from a
committee in the India Office, he was in error. The other side of the story was revealed
by Lionel Curtis in 1920 in his book
the chapter on India in the planned second volume of
set as its task "to enquire how self-government could be introduced and peacefully
extended to India." The group met once a fortnight in London and soon decided on the
dyarchy principle. This principle, as any reader of Curtis's writings knows, was basic in
Curtis's political thought and was the foundation on which he hoped to build a federated
Empire. According to Curtis, the study group asked itself: "Could not provincial
electorates through legislatures and ministers of their own be made clearly responsible for
certain functions of government to begin with, leaving all others in the hands of
executives responsible as at present to the Government of India and the Secretary of
State? Indian electorates, legislatures, and executives would thus be given a field for the
exercise of genuine responsibility. From time to time fresh powers could be transferred
from the old governments as the new elective authorities developed and proved their
capacity for assuming them." From this point of view, Curtis asked Duke to draw up such
"a plan of Devolution" for Bengal. This plan was printed by the group, circulated, and
criticized in typical Milner Group fashion. Then the whole group went to Oxford for
three days and met to discuss it in the old Bursary of Trinity College. It was then
rewritten. "No one was satisfied." It was decided to circulate it for further criticism
among the Round Table Groups throughout the world, but Lord Chelmsford wrote from
New South Wales and asked for a copy. Apparently realizing that he was to be the next
Viceroy of India, the group sent a copy to him and none to the Round Table Groups, "lest
the public get hold of it and embarrass him." It is clear that Chelmsford was committed to
a program of reform along these or similar lines before he went out as Viceroy. This was
revealed in debate in the House of Lords by Lord Crewe on 12 December 1919.
After Chelmsford went to India in March 1916, a new, revised version of the study
group's plan was drawn up and sent to him in May 1916. Another copy was sent to
Canada to catch up with Curtis, who had already left for India by way of Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. This itinerary was undoubtedly followed by Curtis in order
to consult with members of the Group in various countries, especially with Brand in
Canada. On his arrival in India, Curtis wrote back to Kerr in London:
“The factor which impressed me most in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia was the
rooted aversion these peoples have to any scheme which meant their sharing in the
Government of India.... To these young democratic communities the principle of self-
government is the breath of their nostrils. It is almost a religion. They feel as if there were
something inherently wrong in one people ruling another. It is the same feeling as that
which makes the Americans dislike governing the Philippines and decline to restore order
in Mexico. My first impressions on this subject were strongly confirmed on my recent
visit to these Dominions. I scarcely recall one of the numerous meetings I addressed at
which I was not asked why India was not given self-government and what steps were
being taken in that direction.”
Apparently this experience strengthened Curtis's idea that India must be given
responsible government. He probably felt that by giving India what it and the Dominions
wanted for India, both would be bound in loyalty more closely to Britain. In this same
letter to Kerr, Curtis said, in obvious reference to the Round Table Group:
“Our task then is to bring home to the public in the United Kingdom and the
Dominions how India differs from a country like Great Britain on the one hand and from
Central Africa on the other, and how that difference is now reflected in the character of
its government. We must outline clearly the problems which arise from the contact of