Simon Commission, 1927-1930

Background

The Government of India Act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, had a provision for the appointment of a commission to review and assess the working of the reforms after ten years. The intention behind this provision was to evaluate the impact of the reforms and to consider further changes or adjustments if needed.

However, the British Conservative Government's decision to appoint the Simon Commission ahead of schedule was driven by political considerations. The fear of losing power to the Labour Party, which was perceived to be more sympathetic to Indian nationalist beliefs, played a significant role in this decision. The Conservative Government aimed to secure its position and ensure that any reforms or changes would be implemented according to their preferences and interests, rather than potentially conceding more to Indian demands under a Labour Government.

By 1927, communalism in India had become a growing concern for both Indian leaders and the British government. Communal tensions and divisions between Hindus and Muslims were on the rise, and the demand for separate electorates for religious communities was exacerbating these rifts. The British government saw these communal tensions as a significant obstacle to achieving political cooperation and stability in India.

In this context, the Simon Commission was appointed to review the constitutional reforms introduced in 1919 and to propose further changes.

Simon Commission

The Simon Commission was a seven-member commission appointed by the British government in November 1927 to review and propose constitutional reforms for India. The commission was chaired by Sir John Simon, a British politician and lawyer, and consisted entirely of British members, with no Indian representation. This lack of Indian representation was a major point of contention and one of the primary reasons for the opposition it faced.

Simon Report and Major Proposals

In 1930, after a thorough study and examination of India's constitutional situation, the Simon Commission released its report, known as the "Simon Report" or "Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms." The report made several major proposals:

1. The Simon Report recommended the continuation and expansion of the diarchy system introduced by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. The diarchy system involved a division of powers between the British-appointed Governor and the elected Indian ministers at the provincial level. However, the report proposed devolving some additional powers to Indian ministers.

2. The report recommended the establishment of a federation in India, where provinces would have greater autonomy and a federal structure would be introduced at the center.

3. The report suggested an extension of the franchise to a limited extent, allowing a small percentage of the Indian population to vote.

4. The report proposed the separation of Burma from British India and granting it a separate administration.

The Simon Report was met with widespread disappointment and criticism in India. Indian leaders felt that the proposals fell far short of the aspirations for full responsible government and self-rule. The lack of Indian representation in the Commission had undermined the credibility and legitimacy of its recommendations, leading to a deepening of the divide between the Indian political leadership and the British government. The discontent and opposition surrounding the Simon Commission further fueled the demand for complete independence and intensified the struggle for freedom in India.

Opposition Faced

The decision of the British Conservative Government to bring forward the appointment of the Simon Commission and the composition of the committee became a significant source of controversy and opposition in India. Indian political parties, including the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League, boycotted the Commission and its proceedings. The boycott was a clear expression of Indian discontent with the lack of Indian representation and a symbol of the growing demand for greater self-rule and autonomy.

The fact that the Simon Commission was entirely composed of British members without any Indian representation was perceived as an insult and a clear indication of the British government's lack of trust in Indian leaders and their political maturity. This exclusion of Indians from the commission was deeply resented by all sections of Indian society, including the Indian National Congress, the All India Muslim League, and other political parties.

The absence of Indian members in the Simon Commission further reinforced the sentiment that the British government was not genuinely interested in understanding the aspirations and grievances of the Indian people. It was seen as a deliberate affront and an attempt to maintain British control over India's political affairs without seeking input from the people of India.

In response to the Simon Commission and its lack of Indian representation, there was a rare moment of unity among various Indian political parties. Indian leaders, regardless of their differences, realized the need to settle their disputes and work together in opposition to the Commission. The demand for a united front against the Simon Commission was based on the belief that only a united stance could effectively convey the message of Indian nationalism and the desire for self-governance. Protests and demonstrations were also held across the country to express opposition to the Simon Commission.

However, it is essential to note that a faction within the All-India Muslim League, led by Sir Muhammad Shafi, broke away from the main party's opposition stance and favored extending cooperation to the Commission. This breakaway faction's stance was met with criticism, and the majority of the Indian political leadership remained united in opposing the Simon Commission.

Overall, the Simon Commission episode deepened the sense of alienation and resentment among Indians towards British rule. It served as a catalyst for the demand for complete independence and hastened the process of India's struggle for freedom from British colonial rule.