Simon Commission: A Newspaper Report

The Arrival and Immediate Reactions

London, 1927 - The Simon Commission, a group of seven British parliamentarians led by Sir John Simon, arrived in India today amidst a charged political atmosphere. This commission has been tasked by the British government to report on the working of the Indian constitution established by the Government of India Act of 1919 and to recommend future constitutional reforms. However, the very composition of the commission has sparked immediate and widespread criticism. Indians are expressing deep dissatisfaction, arguing that no self-respecting Indian has been included in a body meant to decide India's future. This has led to a call for a boycott of the commission by major political parties, including the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. The air is thick with anticipation and apprehension as the commission begins its work, with many wondering if this will be a step forward or a further alienation of Indian aspirations.

The Purpose and Mandate of the Commission

At its core, the Simon Commission's purpose was to review the dyarchical system of government introduced in the provinces by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919. This system, you see, divided subjects into 'reserved' and 'transferred' categories, with the ultimate power resting with the British-appointed governors. The commission was also tasked with examining the functioning of the central government and the relationship between the British government and the princely states. The mandate was broad, encompassing the very structure of governance in British India. However, the British government's decision to exclude Indians from this crucial deliberation has fundamentally undermined its legitimacy in the eyes of the Indian populace. It's like asking someone to judge a competition without letting them be a participant or even a spectator – pretty unfair, right? This perceived slight has turned what could have been a consultative process into a point of contention, setting a contentious tone for the commission's entire tenure in India. The hope, from the British perspective, was to get an unbiased report, but the irony is that by excluding Indians, they've ensured the report will be anything but unbiased in its reception.

Boycott and Protests: The Indian Response

From the moment the Simon Commission set foot on Indian soil, the response has been overwhelmingly negative. Political leaders across the spectrum have united in calling for a complete boycott. The Indian National Congress, at its Madras session, declared that the commission was an insult to India and that all legislative bodies should boycott its proceedings. Similar sentiments were echoed by other prominent organizations, including the All India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasaba, and the Akali Dal. This united front against the commission is a testament to the deep-seated frustration and anger over being excluded from decisions concerning their own country. "Go back, Simon!" became the rallying cry, echoing through the streets of major cities like Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. Black flag demonstrations and hartals (strikes) have become commonplace wherever the commission has attempted to hold its sittings. The commission, it seems, has managed to achieve something unprecedented: a rare moment of unity among diverse Indian political factions, all united by a common cause – the demand for self-determination and the rejection of a constitution imposed without their consent. The commission might be here physically, but its moral authority has been challenged from day one.

The All-Parties Conference and the Nehru Report

In a significant move to counter the Simon Commission and present their own vision for India's future, Indian leaders convened the All-Parties Conference in Delhi in early 1928. This conference aimed to draft a constitution for India, demonstrating that Indians were capable of self-governance and presenting a united alternative to the British proposals. The conference culminated in the presentation of the Nehru Report, named after its main architect, Pandit Motilal Nehru. The Nehru Report was a landmark document, envisioning India as a self-governing dominion within the British Empire, with a parliamentary system, fundamental rights for citizens, and a federal structure. It was a comprehensive blueprint for India's future, prepared entirely by Indians. While it was a monumental achievement, the report itself became a subject of debate among different political groups, particularly on issues like the nature of the dominion status and certain communal clauses. Nevertheless, the Nehru Report stands as a powerful symbol of Indian national aspiration and a direct response to the exclusion felt during the Simon Commission's proceedings. It showed the world that India wasn't just protesting; it was proposing.

The Commission's Work and Encounters

Despite the widespread boycott, the Simon Commission pressed on with its investigations, traveling extensively across the subcontinent. They visited major cities, towns, and even remote villages, meeting with officials, some loyalists, and a select group of individuals who were willing to cooperate. However, the absence of mainstream political participation meant that the commission's findings were based on a skewed perspective. Wherever the commission went, they were met with protests and black flags. Slogans like "Simon, go back!" and "India for Indians!" were omnipresent. The commission's attempts to engage with the public were often met with silence or outright hostility. In Lahore, for instance, a peaceful protest led by Lala Lajpat Rai against the commission turned tragic when the police resorted to lathi charges, resulting in severe injuries to Lala Lajpat Rai, who later succumbed to his wounds. This incident further inflamed public anger and solidified the perception of the commission as an oppressive force rather than a genuine attempt at dialogue. The commission's journey, meant to be an investigative one, became a procession of public outcry and resistance, highlighting the deep chasm between British intentions and Indian expectations.

The Final Report and its Recommendations

After two years of extensive touring and deliberation, the Simon Commission finally submitted its report in two parts, in 1930. The report acknowledged the need for reforms but largely upheld the existing structure of governance. It recommended the abolition of dyarchy in the provinces and the establishment of responsible government, but with significant safeguards and powers retained by the governors. At the center, the report proposed the creation of a federation of British India and the princely states, a concept that was somewhat novel. However, it stopped short of recommending dominion status, suggesting instead a gradual evolution towards responsible self-government. The recommendations were largely seen as disappointing and inadequate by Indian nationalists. They failed to address the core demand for immediate self-rule or dominion status. The report's cautious and conservative approach was criticized for being out of touch with the political realities and aspirations of India. Essentially, the commission had come, seen, and recommended very little that satisfied India's burgeoning desire for independence. It was a report that promised more bureaucracy and less freedom, further fueling the flames of the independence movement.

The Impact and Legacy

The Simon Commission's legacy is complex and perhaps paradoxical. Although it was boycotted by most Indians and its recommendations were largely rejected, it inadvertently played a significant role in the Indian independence movement. The widespread protests and the tragic death of Lala Lajpat Rai galvanized public opinion and strengthened the resolve of nationalist leaders. The commission's failure to include Indians in its deliberations fueled the demand for a constitution drafted by Indians themselves, leading to the Nehru Report. Furthermore, the British government, in response to the reception of the Simon Report and the growing unrest, convened the Round Table Conferences. These conferences, unlike the Simon Commission, included Indian representatives, marking a shift in the British approach. While the Simon Commission itself did not bring about immediate constitutional change, it served as a catalyst. It highlighted the deep political divide and the urgent need for meaningful dialogue, ultimately contributing, albeit indirectly, to the eventual granting of independence to India. The commission's visit, though met with hostility, became a turning point, forcing both the British and Indians to confront the question of India's political future head-on.

The Road to Independence: From Simon to Swaraj

The Simon Commission's report, much to the chagrin of its creators, ended up doing more for the Indian independence movement than perhaps even the commission members intended. By being so out of touch with Indian aspirations, it solidified the resolve of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel. The Congress, which had initially boycotted the commission, now escalated its demands. Mahatma Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience Movement, with the Salt Satyagraha becoming a potent symbol of defiance. The call for Purna Swaraj (complete independence) gained momentum, moving beyond the earlier demand for dominion status. The Nehru Report, born out of the rejection of the Simon Commission, became a foundational document for nationalist aspirations. The subsequent Round Table Conferences, though fraught with their own challenges, represented a crucial step because they did involve Indian voices. The entire episode of the Simon Commission, from its controversial inception to its rejected report, served as a stark reminder that any constitutional arrangement for India had to be decided by Indians. It was a painful but necessary lesson for the British Empire, paving the way for the eventual dismantling of colonial rule and the dawn of a free India. The commission's failure was, in many ways, India's success in articulating its demand for self-determination.