Simon Commission

The Simon Commission, appointed in 1927 under the Government of India Act, aimed to assess India's readiness for constitutional reforms. Its controversial composition, comprising solely British members, sparked unanimous opposition among Indians, leading to widespread protests and boycotts. The commission's early appointment reflected British fears of losing power to the Labour Party. Indians viewed the exclusion as a violation of self-determination. The Simon Commission's recommendations, submitted in 1930, proposed limited reforms, maintaining British control. Despite its failures, the commission fueled the momentum of India's independence movement and exposed the growing rift between Indian aspirations and British policies.

The Simon Commission, established under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, was mandated to assess government schemes and propose new measures after a decade, with the due date set for 1929. However, raising eyebrows, the Indian Statutory Commission, also known as the Simon Commission, was appointed on November 8, 1927, two years earlier than anticipated. This premature decision was primarily driven by the Conservative government's apprehension of potential defeat by the Labour Party in upcoming elections. Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, expressed skepticism about the capacity of Indians to reach a consensus on constitutional reforms, leading to the decision for an early appointment of the Simon Commission. He even challenged to come up with a constitutional framework.

The commission, formally known as the Indian Statutory Commission, was appointed in November 1927 by the British government to propose constitutional reforms for India. However, its composition and purpose sparked widespread controversy and opposition, ultimately fueling the momentum of India's fight for independence.

Composition and Controversy: The Simon Commission comprised seven members, all of whom were British parliamentarians. Its chairman was Sir John Simon, a British politician with no prior experience or understanding of Indian affairs.

The All-Party Opposition: The Indian reaction to the Simon Commission was unanimous and vehement. The exclusion of Indians from the commission was viewed as insulting and a violation of the principle of self-determination.

• Congress: In December 1927, during the Congress session in Madras presided over by M.A. Ansari, a resolution was passed to boycott the commission at every stage and in every form. Notably, even the Hindu Mahasabha and the majority faction of the Muslim League under Jinnah supported the Congress's resolution.
• Muslim League: Within the Muslim League, there were two factions: one led by Jinnah in Calcutta, which opposed the Simon Commission, and another under Muhammad Shafi in Lahore, which backed the government
• However, there were some groups that did not participate in the boycott, such as the Unionists in Punjab and the Justice Party in the south.

Upon the Simon Commission's arrival in Bombay in February 1928, nationwide protests erupted. Mass rallies, hartals, and black flag demonstrations characterized the opposition. It was met with demonstrations with banners saying “Simon Go Back”.Notably, the youth, led by figures like J.L. Nehru and Subhash Bose, played a significant role. This period also witnessed the rise of socialist and radical ideas, reflected in the emergence of various youth organizations.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, appointed by the Bombay Legislative Council, participated in the Simon Commission proceedings. He advocated for universal adult franchise, provincial autonomy, and dyarchy at Centre. Ambedkar demanded reserved seats for the depressed classes and certain safeguards in the new constitution to address their educational, economic, and social conditions.

The Simon Commission submitted its report in May 1930, proposing significant reforms.

• At the provincial level, it recommended the abolition of dyarchy and establishment of responsible Government , with certain discretion retained by the governor in relation to internal security and other matters.
• At the central level, parliamentary responsibility was rejected, and the governor-general was granted powers to appoint cabinet members.
• The Simon Commission acknowledged the concept of federalism but deferred its implementation for the foreseeable future. Instead, it recommended the establishment of a Consultative Council of Greater India, comprising representatives from both British provinces and princely states.
• It advocated for the separation of Sindh from Bombay and Burma from India.
• It also granted reserved seats to the depressed classes. However, it stipulated that candidates from these reserved seats must have their competence endorsed by the governor of the province before participating in elections
• Continuation of the communal electorate and so on

The Nehru Report was formulated as a response to Lord Birkenhead's challenge during an All Parties Conference held in February 1928. Motilal Nehru chaired the conference, and a subcommittee was appointed to draft a constitution. The subcommittee comprised members such as Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Bose, M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Ali Imam, Shuab Qureshi, and G.R. Pradhan.

This marked the inaugural significant endeavor by Indians to draft a constitutional framework for the country. By August 1928, they had compiled the report. While they were in agreement on most recommendations, there was a divergence of opinions regarding the notion of "dominion status." A minority advocated for "Complete Independence" instead.

The Nehru Report's failure stemmed from various factors:

• The Muslim League, Hindu Maha Sabha, and Sikh community expressed discontent with the Nehru Report.
• Younger Congress members, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose, opposed the notion of dominion status proposed in the report, viewing it as a regressive measure.
• Nehru and Subhash Bose declined to accept the Congress' revised objective and instead established the Independence for India League together.

The motives of the British behind appointing the Simon Commission were multi-faceted. Firstly, they aimed to delay the transfer of power to Indian hands, thereby prolonging British control over India. Secondly, the British pursued a divide-and-rule policy, exploiting existing religious and social divisions within Indian society to maintain their hegemony. Lastly, while ostensibly presenting the impression of granting political autonomy through the commission's recommendations, the British ensured that the proposed reforms retained significant control in British hands, particularly in matters of economic autonomy, thereby maintaining their economic dominance over India.