Constitutionalism, political exclusion, and implications for Indian constitutional history: the case of Montagu Chelmsford reforms (1919)

Abstract

ABSTRACTUniversally, if the inclusive idea of ‘we the people’ dominates the language of constitutionalism, then, British colonial constitutional reforms in India actually illustrate the dominance of the antithesis of such an inclusive ideal. By revisiting the Montagu Chelmsford reforms of 1919, this essay highlights the emergence of a language of political exclusion, of a majority of the population, on the ground that they were incapable of constitutional politics, a view shared by both the leaders of the colonial administration and the Indian nationalists. Colonial constitutionalism then interrupted not only the projects of colonialism by forcing Britain to legally justify its imperial position and hence exclude a majority from constitutional politics, but also nationalism by inducing the nationalists to speak in a language of exclusion as opposed to their ideological goals of inclusion. In making this argument, this essay draws from recent work on constitutionalism by Stephen Legg and insights from postcolonial theory, and gestures towards rethinking Indian constitutional history not as a series in the colonial devolution of power but one that constantly negotiated the divergences that emerged not only between colonialism and constitutionalism but more importantly between nationalism and constitutionalism as well.