Simon Commission
The Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission after its chairman Sir John Simon, was a seven-member group of British Members of Parliament dispatched to India in 1928 to examine the working of constitutional reform in India and recommend the next steps to the British Government. Its appointment, and in particular the complete exclusion of Indians from its membership, triggered one of the most widespread and unified waves of protest in the Indian national movement.
Background: Why the Simon Commission Was Appointed
- The Government of India Act, 1919 had introduced the system of dyarchy to govern the provinces of British India.
- The Act itself provided that a commission would be appointed after 10 years to review the progress of this governance scheme and recommend further reforms.
- Even so, Indian public opinion pressed for an early revision of the cumbersome dyarchy system.
- The British Government appointed the Simon Commission in November 1927 — two years ahead of schedule — effectively acknowledging that the Reforms of 1919 had failed to deliver satisfactory governance.
- Although constitutional reform was not formally due until 1929, the Conservative Government then in power in Britain feared electoral defeat by the Labour Party, and did not wish to leave the future of “Britain’s most prized colony” in what it termed “irresponsible Labour hands.”
- It therefore appointed seven MPs, including Chairman Sir John Simon, to constitute the commission promised under the 1919 Act.
- Clement Attlee was one of the Commission’s members — the same Attlee who later became British Prime Minister and oversaw the granting of independence to India and Pakistan in 1947.
- During its inquiry, the Commission became convinced that the constitutional problems of British India could not be considered in isolation from British India’s relations with the Indian States, and this subject was consequently added to its purview.
Exclusion of Indians and the Resulting Outrage
- The Simon Commission was all-white, with not a single Indian member — despite being tasked with determining India’s constitutional future. This exclusion outraged and insulted political opinion across the subcontinent.
- Lord Birkenhead, the Conservative Secretary of State, justified the exclusion on the grounds that since the Commission was appointed by Parliament, its membership had to be confined to sitting Members of Parliament.
- Birkenhead had also repeatedly claimed that Indians were incapable of formulating a concrete scheme of constitutional reform commanding the support of wide sections of Indian political opinion — a challenge that shaped much of the political response that followed.
- What angered Indians most was not merely the absence of Indian members, but the underlying assumption that foreigners could discuss and decide India’s fitness for self-government — a notion seen as a direct violation of the principle of self-determination and a deliberate insult to Indian self-respect.
- The Indian response was immediate and nearly unanimous across the political spectrum.
Parties’ Response
- The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 session in Madras (now Chennai), held under the presidency of M.A. Ansari, resolved to boycott the Commission “at every stage and in every form.”
- At the same session, Jawaharlal Nehru succeeded in getting a snap resolution passed declaring complete independence as the goal of the Congress.
- Support for the Congress boycott call came from the Liberals, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the majority faction of the Muslim League under Mohammed Ali Jinnah.
- Some groups chose not to join the boycott, including the Unionists in Punjab and the Justice Party in South India.
Public Response
- The Commission landed in Bombay on 3 February 1928. That day witnessed a countrywide hartal and mass rallies across the country.
- Wherever the Commission travelled, it was met with black flag demonstrations, hartals, and crowds chanting “Simon Go Back.”
- The Central Assembly, invited to form a Joint Committee to cooperate with the Commission, refused to do so.
- A distinctive feature of this upsurge was the emergence of a new generation of youth experiencing their first taste of organized political action.
- Youth played the most active and militant role in the protests, giving fresh energy to youth leagues and conferences.
- Nehru and Subhas (Chandra Bose) emerged as leaders of this new wave of student and youth activism, travelling extensively and addressing or presiding over numerous conferences.
- This youth upsurge also provided fertile ground for the spread of radical socialist ideas, reflected in the emergence of groups such as the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties, and the Hindustani Sewa Dal (Karnataka).
Police Repression
- The police responded to demonstrators with heavy-handed lathi charges, sparing not even senior leaders — Jawaharlal Nehru and G.B. Pant were both beaten during protests in Lucknow.
- On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore, where it was met, as elsewhere, with massive protests and black flags.
- The Lahore protest was led by Lala Lajpat Rai, who had earlier moved a resolution against the Commission in the Punjab Legislative Assembly in February 1928.
- As police moved to clear the way for the Commission, they beat protestors with lathis, targeting Lajpat Rai with particular brutality.
- Lala Lajpat Rai succumbed to his injuries and died on 17 November 1928.
Aftermath
- Meanwhile, a change occurred in the British political landscape: the Labour Party, under Ramsay MacDonald, came to power, raising high — and at times exaggerated — hopes in Indian political circles.
- The Viceroy visited England and, upon his return, announced on 31 October 1929 that he was authorised to state on behalf of the British Government that it was implicit in the Declaration of 1917 that the natural outcome of India’s constitutional progress was the “attainment of Dominion Status.”
- He further announced that the government had accepted the Simon Commission’s suggestion that, after publication of its report and before examination by a Joint Parliamentary Committee, a Round Table Conference would be convened — bringing together representatives of the British Government, British India, and the Indian States — to seek the widest possible agreement on final proposals before submission to Parliament.
- The Nehru Report (September 1928): Ahead of the Commission’s own findings, Motilal Nehru presented his Nehru Report to counter the charge that Indians could not arrive at a constitutional consensus among themselves. The report advocated dominion status with complete internal self-government for India.
- The Commission’s Report (May 1930):
- The Commission proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of representative government in the provinces.
- It recommended that separate communal electorates be retained, but only until tensions between Hindus and Muslims had subsided.
- Recognizing that educated Indian opinion had turned firmly against the Commission, and that communal tensions had in fact worsened rather than eased, the British Government opted for an alternative approach — committing, ahead of the report’s publication, to take Indian opinion into account and affirming that the natural outcome of the constitutional process would be Dominion Status.
- The eventual outcome of this process was the Government of India Act, 1935, which established representative government at the provincial level in India and forms the basis of many provisions of the present-day Indian Constitution.
- The first provincial elections under this Act were held in 1937, resulting in Congress governments being formed in almost all provinces.
Impact of the Simon Commission’s Appointment
- The controversy surrounding the Commission gave fresh stimulus to radical political forces, which now demanded not merely complete independence but also major socio-economic reforms on socialist lines.
- Lord Birkenhead’s challenge to Indian politicians — to produce an agreed constitutional scheme — was taken up by various political sections, and for a time, the prospects for Indian political unity appeared bright.
