‘British reforms in India between the two World Wars were designed to avoid fundamental change in India’s status.’

The British were unquestionaby reluctant in implementing any meaningful reform during the interwar period. Following the end of the First World War, Indians were vocally protesting for their right to self determination, as Woodrow Wilson was adocating, whilst the elites remained unconvinced by the very limited 1909 Morley Minto Reforms. The 1919 Government of India Act, for instance introduced separate electorates for different religious groups, arguably creating deeper political divisions in Indian society and reinforcing existing tensions, playing off different groups against one another. The Amritsar massacre in April 1919, in which a British army officer opened fire on a crowd of unarmed protesters, killing 379 llustrates the attitude of the time. especially amongst the traditional British elite. Indeed, the 1935 Government of India Act could only pass due to the Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's presence. The British's main interest in India remained commerical, it suited their interest to keep the different factions of Indian society politically disunited, as can be seen in the specificity of the legal protections given, unlike guaranteed rights for all citizens (which of course, was uncommon for the period) the legislation utilised classic 'divide and conquer' tactics, guaranteeing all minorities some form of representation. Whilst this seems like a positive step on the surface, it has reinforcing undertones of separatism and communalism, all of which were positive for the ruling British classes; for example, the disunity produced by the 1937 Provincial Elections, whereby the Muslim majority provinces voted en masse for the Muslim League, vocal for an unspecified idea of 'Pakistan' emerging in multireligious areas. Furthermore, whilst the 1935 Act did introduce an elected Indian Assembly, the British retained  key sovereign power over defence and foreign affairs. Overall, the reforms were limited in their scope, especially in the face of the overwhelming pressure for greater democratic reforms from the politically engaged Indians.