The Morley Minto reforms , on 1909 India councils act gave Indians more representations of executive, central and provincial levels of government. Source 1 suggests the reforms were to destroy India whereas source 2 tells us the Raj aimed to diffuse the forces of Indian nationalism. It will be argued that the Monty Minto reform had a real purpose to divide the nationalist rank because they feared that they were losing influence and hold over the Indians and so created a ‘reform which was in fact a fig leaf. It was to divert the attention from the real purpose which was to split the parties.
There is a case to suggest that the real purpose of the Morley Minto reforms was to ‘divide the nationalist rank. This view is expounded by source 1 where it states ‘means of destroying the influence of the Indian educated classes in national politics. The author suggests that the Morley Minto reform was to limit the power of the educated Indians and place a reform which was a ‘fig leaf. They didn't want educated Indians because it will make them look like they had power when they didn't. Furthermore, source 1 is supported by source 3 where it states ‘the real purpose of the Morley Minto reforms was to divide the nationalist ranks which implies that the reforms had true intentions of dividing the groups. They weren't actual reforms but a plan to split the Muslims and Hindus by giving them a ‘separate electorates so that they aren't united. This shows that the purpose of the reforms was to ‘divide the nationalist congress because it was said that it was to give a voice but it didn't. Also, the British used the cast system to split the Indians. The right to vote was restricted to the rich and privileged so the poor Indians were not given a say. The British hand picked who could vote and used the rich Indians because they knew they would vote for the Raj. After all the Raj made them rich.
In the same way , the real purpose of the Morley Minto reform was to ‘divide the nationalist rank. This view is expounded by source 3 where it states ‘separate