Under section 84 of the Government of India Act, 1919, a statutory commission was to be appointed in 1929 to inquire into ‘the working of the system of government, and the development of representative institutions in India, with a view to extend, modify or restrict the degree of Responsible Government then existing in India.

The all-white commission was appointed in Nov, 1927, two years before it was due. It consisted of seven members of the British Parliament, with Sir Simon as its chairman. The Government claimed that it anticipated the setting up of the commission as a concession to the Indian demand for an early revision of the Constitution. Two other explanations are offered, which are not so laudable. One is that India had gone through the worst communal riots in 1927, and the Government desired the Commission to form a poor impression of the Indian social and political situation. Another is that general elections were due in England in 1929. The Conservatives, then in Government, feared that the Labour party would come into power, and a commission appointed by Labour might not safeguard the imperial interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.

Indians protested the appointment of the commission because all its members were Englishmen; no Indian was included. The commission implied denial to Indians of the right to participate in determination of the Constitution while Britain posed as the sole arbitrator of India’s destiny.

The Congress party opposed the commission at every stage. When the commission landed in Bombay on 7 February 1926, it was greeted with a country-wide hartal. Wherever it went, the commission was confronted with demonstrations, black flags and slogans of ‘Simon, go back’. In Lahore, Lajpat Rai led a mammoth demonstration against the commission. He was beaten up by the police, which resulted in his death some weeks later. The police oppression further angered the people.

It was in this atmosphere of non-compromising hostility that the commission continued and completed its inquiry and submitted its report.

Provisions of the report (on March 30, 1930)

1.    A strong and stable government at the centre was essential, ‘while the Provincial Councils were learning by experience to bear the full weight of new and heavy responsibilities’.

2.    The existing unitary type of government was unsuitable for India.

3.    The power of India Council was to be limited.

4.    The central legislature was to be enlarged and elected by the Provincial Councils.

5.    The method of indirect election, through the Provincial Councils, was recommended for both houses of the central legislature.

6.    Dyarchy was inherently defective. It needed to be scrapped. The whole provincial administration needed to be entrusted to ministers responsible to the legislature.

7.    For some specific purposes like the maintenance of peace and tranquility of a Province and the protection of the legitimate interest of the ministry, safeguards were necessary.

8.    The method of periodical parliamentary inquiry needed to be abandoned, and the new Constitution needed to be so elastically framed as to enable it to develop by itself.

9.    To help the growth of people’s political consciousness ‘franchise should be extended, and the legislature enlarged’.

10.  Burma was to be separated from India and Sind from the Bombay Presidency.

Appraisal

The wholly irresponsible Central Government and the indirect election to the central legislature were retrograde recommendations.

Most recommendations of the commission found a place in the subsequent Act of 1935.The safeguards against full responsible government in the Provinces that were enacted in 1939 turned out to be even worse than what the commission had recommended.The commission failed to mention the future goal of India’s dominion status, which was resented in India.

Nehru report and Jinnah’s fourteen points

The demand for swaraj had been mounting. To counter this demand, the Conservative Secretary of State for India, Birkenhead, threw a challenge to the Indian leaders to produce a Constitution. The Congress decided to meet this challenge and at the Madras Congress (Feb, 1927), a committee was constituted, with Motilal Nehru as the president, to frame a Constitution of India. The Nehru Report, which was accordingly drawn up, was approved by the All Parties Conference in August 1928 at Lucknow.

Recommendations

Acceptance of adult franchise, joint electorates with reservation of seats in some areas only for a ten year period, accountability of the Executive to the Legislature and provincial autonomy were some of the features of the Nehru Report. Other main recommendations were:

1.    India was to remain within the empire, with dominion status.

2.    A responsible government was to be established.

3.    The fundamental rights of speech and association of citizens were to be guaranteed.

4.    The House of the People was to consist of 500 members chosen on the basis of adult franchise.

5.    The Upper House (or Senate) was to consist of 200 members chosen by the Provincial Assemblies or Councils.

6.    The principle of separate electorate was not accepted except to a limited extent.

Comparison with Simon Commission Report

1.    The Nehru Report accepted dominion status and responsible government. The Simon report recommended an irresponsible centre, but limited responsible government at the provincial level.

2.    The Nehru Report accepted adult franchise. The Simon report rejected it.

3.    The Nehru Report provided only for the reservation of seats. The Simon report retained the provisions of separate electorate.

4.    The Nehru Report provided for the fundamental rights of the citizen and a Supreme Court. The Simon report was silent on both.

Reactions

The Nehru Report convincingly demonstrated Indian legal and political expertise. It marked an important advance in the direction of Constitution making.

However, even within the Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose were dissatisfied with the Nehru Report. Mainly, they were not satisfied with the demand of mere dominion status.

Though the All Parties Conference at Lucknow had accepted the report, the Muslim League later opposed it. Its demands wee elaborated by Jinnah in the form of an amendment at the representative convention of Calcutta (22 December 1928), which reviewed the report. The amendments proposed were as follows:

1.    The Muslims should have one-third representation in the Central Legislature.

2.    The Punjab and Bengal legislatures should have Muslim representation on the basis of population for ten years in the event of adult suffrage not being granted.

3.    Residuary powers should be vested in the Provinces and not in the Centre.

The League later repudiated the report. Its meeting at Delhi (28 March 1929) elaborated the minimum Muslim demands in the form of ‘the fourteen points’. There were:

1.    The form of the future Constitution of India should be federal with residuary powers vested in the Provinces.

2.    A uniform measure of autonomy should be granted to all Provinces.

3.    All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every Province without reducing the majority in any Province to a minority or even equality.

4.    In the Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third.

5.    Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorates as at present.

6.    Any territorial redistribution that might any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and NWFP.

7.    Full Religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education shall be guaranteed to all communities.

8.    No bill or resolution shall be passed in any legislature if three-fourth members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill as injurious to that community.

9.    Sind shall be separated from the Bombay Presidency.

10. Reforms should be introduced in the NWFP and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other Province.

11. Provision should be made in the Constitution for giving the Muslims adequate share in all services and in local self-governing bodies.

12. The Constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture, education, language, religion, etc.

13. No Cabinet, Central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim members.

14.  No change shall be made in the Constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation.