Could Dyarchy 1919 satisfy the national sentiments of the Indians?

Answer:

The dyarchy introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919 divided provincial subjects into transferred and reserved halves. Far from satisfying national sentiment, its limited and unworkable concessions disappointed every section of Indian opinion.

What dyarchy provided

• Provincial subjects were split between ministers responsible to the legislature and members responsible to the governor.
• Transferred subjects covered education, health, agriculture and local government.
• Reserved subjects retained finance, police, justice and land revenue under official control.
• The franchise was widened to about ten per cent of the adult male population.

Why it failed to satisfy

• Ministers held responsibility without the finance to discharge it.
• The governor's overriding powers and certification could nullify ministerial decisions.
• Real power at the centre remained wholly untouched.
• The Rowlatt Act and Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 destroyed any goodwill it might have earned.
• The Congress rejected the reforms as disappointing and launched Non-Cooperation.
• The Muddiman Committee of 1924 itself acknowledged the scheme's defects.

Its limited value

• It gave Indians some genuine experience of ministerial administration.
• Swarajists entered the councils from 1923 to obstruct from within.
• The Simon Commission of 1927, with no Indian member, provoked fresh agitation.

Dyarchy therefore could not, and did not, satisfy Indian national sentiment. As historians note, it conceded the form of responsible government while withholding its substance, and by raising expectations it could not meet it accelerated rather than contained the nationalist movement.