The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 were opposed by many Indians for several reasons:
1. Insufficient representation: The reforms proposed a limited form of self-government in India, but the Indian National Congress and other nationalist leaders felt that the level of Indian representation was inadequate. They believed that the reforms did not provide enough power or control to the Indian people.
2. Separate electorates: The reforms introduced separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, and other religious minorities, which many Indians saw as a divisive policy. They feared that this would create divisions and hinder the unity of the Indian population in their struggle for independence.
3. Lack of complete self-rule: The reforms fell short of granting India full self-rule and did not satisfy the growing demand for independence. Indians wanted more control over their own affairs and saw the reforms as a token gesture rather than genuine empowerment.
4. Limited scope for Indian participation: The reforms still allowed for significant British control and reserved key positions of power for British officials. Indians felt that the reforms did not go far enough in transferring decision-making authority to Indian leaders and limited their ability to govern their own country.
5. Repressive measures: The reforms came in the aftermath of the repressive Rowlatt Act, which allowed for the detention of political activists without trial. The discontent caused by this act further fueled opposition to the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.
In summary, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 were opposed by Indians due to the perceived lack of sufficient representation, the implementation of separate electorates, the absence of complete self-rule, limited Indian participation, and the backdrop of repressive measures. These factors contributed to the belief that the reforms did not adequately address the aspirations of the Indian people for freedom and self-governance.