SIMON COMMISSION [1927] Study Materials

Simon Commission

SIMON COMMISSION [1927]

SIMON COMMISSION [1927]

In this unit

We will delve into the arrival of the Simon Commission, its impact, reactions, and recommendations. We will proceed to the All-Parties Conference, Nehru Report and Jinnah’s 14 points in response.

The Government of India Act, 1919, mandated the formation of a commission after ten years to review progress and recommend necessary reforms.

The Simon Commission, officially called the “Indian Statutory Commission,” was appointed in November 1927, two years early, reflecting the government’s acknowledgment of its reforms’ failure, though unrest in India was cited as the official reason.

In a private letter, Lord Birkenhead informed Viceroy Lord Reading that the Conservatives feared a Labour victory in the next UK general election and wanted to announce the Commission before handing over power.

The Commission’s mandate was to assess the functioning of government, growth in education, development of representative institutions and consider the desirability of expanding or modifying responsible government, including the potential establishment of Second Chambers in local legislatures.

Comprised of seven members of the British Parliament, mostly white, the Commission disappointed Indians and faced a complete boycott by the Congress.

The British justified the exclusion of Indians by claiming that, since the Commission was appointed by their Parliament, its members had to belong to that body.

INDIAN RESPONSE Congress Response

The Madras Session of Congress in December 1927, presided over by M.A. Ansari, resolved to oppose the Simon Commission “at every stage and in every form.”

Other Groups

The liberals of the Hindu Mahasabha and the majority faction of the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, chose to support the Congress in boycotting the Simon Commission.

At the Calcutta session in 1927, Jinnah opposed the Simon Commission, while Muhammad Shafi, at the Lahore session, decided to support the British government.

In contrast, the Unionists in Punjab and the Justice Party in the south chose not to boycott the Commission.

Public Response

A countrywide hartal was organised and mass rallies were held when the commission landed in Bombay on February 3, 1928.

Furthermore, the Commission faced black-flags demonstrations wherever it went in India and had to hear the slogan ‘Simon Go Back’.

Police Repression

The police came down heavily on demonstrators; there were lathi charges not sparing even the senior leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru and G.B. Pant were beaten up in Lucknow. Lala Lajpat Rai received severe blows on his chest in October 1928 which proved fatal and he died on November 17, 1928.

Impact of Appointment of Simon Commission on the National Movement

The impact of the appointment of the Simon Commission on Indian politics was two-fold:

It gave a stimulus to radical forces demanding not just complete independence but major socio-economic reforms on socialist lines.

The challenge of Lord Birkenhead to Indian politicians to produce an agreed constitution was accepted by various political sections, and thus prospects for Indian unity seemed bright at that point of time.

Recommendations of Simon Commission

The report proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of autonomous representative governments in provinces.

It recommended that governors be given discretionary powers for internal security and administrative duties to safeguard various communities.

The number of members in provincial legislative councils should be increased.

The report rejected parliamentary responsibility at the center, suggesting that the governor-general would have full authority to appoint the cabinet members. The Government of India would maintain control over the high court.

It upheld the continuation of separate communal electorates, suggesting their extension to other communities, but only until communal tensions subsided. Universal franchise was not to be introduced.

Dr Ambedkar and the Simon Commission

While accepting the idea of federalism, it indicated that it would not be implemented immediately. A Consultative Council of Greater India, including representatives from British provinces and princely states, was recommended.

It proposed that the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan should have local legislatures and representation at the center.

The report recommended separating Sindh from Bombay and Burma from India, as it was seen as not being a natural part of the Indian subcontinent.

It suggested the Indianization of the army while retaining a presence of British forces, with India being fully equipped for its defense needs.

Dr. Ambedkar was appointed by the Bombay Legislative Council to collaborate with the Simon Commission. In October 1928, he presented his views before the commission.

He advocated for universal adult franchise for both men and women, provincial autonomy in the provinces, and dyarchy at the center.

On behalf of the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha, he submitted a memorandum outlining the rights and safeguards needed for the depressed classes.

Dr. Ambedkar demanded political representation for the depressed classes on the same basis as the Mohammedan minority. He pushed for reserved seats for depressed classes if universal adult franchise was introduced. If not, he planned to campaign for a separate electorate for the depressed classes. advisory guidance to governors Ambedkar emphasized the need for constitutional safeguards, or failing that, regarding the education and employment of depressed classes. The Simon Commission report did grant reserved seats to depressed classes, but it stipulated that candidates must first gain the governor’s endorsement for their competence. Ambedkar was dissatisfied with this condition, and the report itself ultimately remained ineffective and was largely ignored. Despite his efforts, the report did not bring about meaningful change for the depressed classes.

ALL PARTIES CONFERENCE

In February 1928, representatives from various organizations, including Congress, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and others, convened at a conference known as the All-Parties Conference.

The conference was chaired by Dr. M.A. Ansari.

It was agreed that the Constitution of India should be based on the principle of full Dominion responsible self-government.

Following two subsequent meetings in Bombay and Lucknow, the Constitution was ratified, calling for full Dominion Status and including provisions for responsible governance both at the center and in the provinces.

NEHRU REPORT

In May 1928, a committee was formed with Motilal Nehru as its president.

The Nehru Committee was established in response to the Simon Commission and the challenge posed by Lord Birkenhead for Indians to draft a Constitution reflecting a united Indian opinion.

The committee included notable members such as Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Bose, M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Ali Imam, Shaukat Qureshi, and G.R. Pradhan.

The committee’s report presented an outline for a constitution based on the principle of fully responsible government, modeled on the Constitutions of self-governing dominions.

The draft prepared by the committee is famously referred to as the Nehru Committee report.

It made the following recommendations:

India should have the same constitutional status in the British Empire as other dominions with parliament having powers to make laws and should be known as the Commonwealth of India.

The Constitution should define citizenship and declare fundamental rights.

Linguistic provinces.

The legislative powers should vest with the King and bicameral parliament, and executive powers with the king exercisable by the Governor-General and the same provisions should be made for the establishment of responsible governments in provinces in respect of governors and executive councils.

Hierarchy of courts with a Supreme Court as its apex appeal court be established.

It suggested that the Indian Parliament should consist of (a) the Senate elected for seven years, consisting of 200 members elected by the Provincial Councils; and (b) the House of Representatives with 500 members elected for five years through adult franchise.

The Governor General (to be appointed by the British Government but paid out of Indian revenues) was to act on the advice of the Executive Council which was to be collectively responsible to the Parliament.

The Provincial Councils were to be elected, on the basis of adult franchise, for five years and the Governor (to be appointed by the British Government) was to act on the advice of the Provincial Executive Council’.

The proposed Constitution should provide for liberty of conscience and religion.

Complete dissociation of State from religion.

On the principle of self-determination, the Muslim majority provinces should be given distinct politico-cultural identity i.e., Sind was to be separated from Bombay presidency and N.W.F.P. was to be given full provincial status.

The principle of separate electorates should be rejected and all elections should be conducted on the basis of joint electorates subject to reservations of seats for Muslims at centre and in provinces where they were in a minority and for non-Muslims in N.W.F.P.

However, a little later, the Committee made two additional recommendations relating to the communal problem. Communal representation was to be reconsidered after ten years and Baluchistan was to be given full provincial status.

THE MUSLIM AND HINDU COMMUNAL RESPONSES Delhi Proposals of Muslim League

In December 1927, a significant number of Muslim leaders gathered in Delhi at the Muslim League session and formulated four key demands for inclusion in the draft constitution.

These demands, known as the ‘Delhi Proposals’, were later accepted by the Madras session of the Congress.

The proposals included joint electorates with reserved seats for Muslims instead of separate electorates.

Muslims were to be given one-third representation in the Central Legislative Assembly.

Additionally, it was proposed that Muslims be represented in Punjab and Bengal in proportion to their population, and three new Muslim-majority provinces— Sindh, Baluchistan, and North-West Frontier Province— be created.

Hindu Mahasabha Demands

The Hindu Mahasabha strongly opposed the creation of new Muslim-majority provinces and the reservation of seats for Muslim majorities in Punjab and Bengal.

The Hindu communalists agreed to joint electorates with reserved seats for Muslims only in areas where they were in the minority.

Sindh was proposed to be detached from Bombay only after dominion status was granted, with provisions ensuring weightage for the Hindu minority in Sindh.

The political structure outlined in the Nehru Report was broadly unitary, with residual powers remaining with the central government.

Muslim Reaction to Nehru Report

At the All-Parties Convention held in Calcutta in December 1928, M.A. Jinnah demanded one third representation for the Muslims in the Central Legislature. As this was not accepted, he joined the groups led by Agha Khan and Muhammed Shafi. An All-India Muslim Conference was held in Delhi on 1 January, 1929 and it passed a resolution emphasising two principles:

The first principle was that since India was a vast country, with a lot of diversity it required a federal system of government in which the states would have complete autonomy and residuary powers.

The second principle was that the system of separate electorates should continue as long as the rights and interests of Muslims were not safeguarded in the constitution.

JINNAH’S FOURTEEN POINTS

In March 1929 Jinnah put forward before the Muslim League a detailed account of Muslim demands known as the ‘Fourteen Points’. These demands suggested a total rejection

of the Nehru Report because of two reasons. Firstly, a unitary Constitution was not acceptable because it would not ensure Muslim domination in any part of India and secondly the solution to the communal problem as suggested by the Nehru Committee was not acceptable to Muslims. Jinnah's Fourteen Points’-1. Federal Constitution with residual powers to provinces. 2. Provincial autonomy. 3. No constitutional amendment by the centre without the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation. 4. All legislatures and elected bodies to have adequate representation of Muslims in every province without reducing a majority of Muslims in a province to a minority or achieving equality. 5. Adequate representation to Muslims in the services and in self-governing bodies. 6. One-third Muslim representation in the central legislature. 7. In any cabinet at the centre or in the provinces, one-third to be Muslims. 8. Separate electorates. 9. No bill or resolution in any legislature to be passed if three-fourths of a minority community consider such a bill or resolution to be against their interests. 10. Any territorial redistribution not to affect the Muslim majority in Punjab, Bengal an\d NWFP. 11. Separation of Sindh from Bombay. 12. Constitutional reforms in the NWFP and Baluchistan. 13. Full religious freedom to all communities. 14. Protection of Muslim rights in religion, culture, education, and language.

NEHRU REPORT AND THE NATIVE STATES

A complex problem which confronted the Nehru Committee was regarding the status of princely states. In 1927 the people of Princely states formed the State Peoples Conference with a view to introducing self-governing institutions. This move threatened the interests of princes who sought the help of the British in this matter. The result was the appointment of a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Harcourt Butler which laid stress on preservation of princely states through British Paramountcy. The Nehru Committee criticized the appointment of Butler Committee and stated that the rights and obligations of Paramountcy should be transferred to the government of Commonwealth of India and conflicts between Commonwealth of India and Indian states were to be referred to the Supreme Court.

Internal Opposition to Nehru Report

Within the Congress the younger section led by Jawaharlal Nehru and S.C. Bose criticized the Nehru Report because of its acceptance of dominion Status. This reaction by the younger section within the Congress forced leadership at the Calcutta Congress to pass a resolution that if the British government did not accept the Nehru Report on or before 31 December 1929, or spurned it before that date, the Congress would start another mass movement. Since Lord Irwin showed no signs of taking concrete steps in the direction of establishing full Dominion Self- Government, as he had announced in his declaration of 31 October 1929, the Congress declared on 31 December 1929, that the Nehru Report had ceased to be valid.