Consider the following assertion: The genesis of political alliances based on community lay in the very nature of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 1919. Which of the following statements support/supports the above assertion? [2026]

Consider the following assertion: The genesis of political alliances based on community lay in the very nature of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 1919. Which of the following statements support/supports the above assertion?

Reforms retained and extended the principle of separate electorates.
Separate electorates were supposed to counter Indian nationalism, which was growing stronger.
Deprived classes rallied around the favours inherent in separate electorates.

Statement 1 is correct

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (Government of India Act, 1919) retained separate electorates for Muslims (introduced in 1909) and extended them to Europeans, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Sikhs. This was a major step in institutionalising community-based politics.

Statement 2 is correct

This was a clear British strategy of “Divide and Rule”. After the Congress-League Lucknow Pact (1916) and rising nationalist sentiments, the British deliberately promoted communal divisions to weaken unified Indian nationalism.

Statement 3 is correct

Deprived classes viewed separate electorates as safeguards for protecting their interests and securing political representation. Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, 1919 encouraged them to organize politically around the “favours” (special representation) offered by the British, contributing to community/caste-based alliances.

This question can be solved through the central theme itself — the assertion talks about the rise of community-based political alliances after the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. Now check whether each statement strengthens that idea. Statement 1 clearly does, because separate electorates directly promote politics along community lines. Statement 2 also fits, as the British used such divisions to counter growing Indian nationalism. Statement 3 too supports the assertion, since groups receiving political benefits through separate electorates would naturally mobilize around them.