Simon Commission and the Nehru Report (1927–1929)

The mid-1920s presented the British with a dilemma. The Government of India Act (1919) had built in a mandatory review after ten years, but mounting evidence — of dyarchy's failure, agricultural crisis, and nationalist restiveness — made an early reassessment seem urgent. The Conservative government in Britain, fearing electoral defeat to Labour, wanted to control any constitutional review process rather than leave it to a Labour government it considered "irresponsible." The result was the Simon Commission — and its all-white composition triggered a political storm that accelerated India's march toward independence.

---

Appointment and Composition

The Indian Statutory Commission — popularly known as the Simon Commission after its chairman, Sir John Simon — was set up on November 8, 1927, under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government.

It was a seven-member, all-white commission. Not a single Indian was included. Its mandate: to examine how the 1919 Act was working and to recommend whether India was ready for further constitutional reforms.

Why appointed early? The review was constitutionally due in 1929. Three reasons forced the hand of the British:

• The Conservative government feared losing the next election to Labour and wanted the colonial future settled under its watch.
• Multiple parliamentary inquiries (Lee Commission on British officer recruitment; Mudiman Commission on dyarchy deadlock; Linlithgow Commission on agricultural crisis) had highlighted the 1919 Act's failures.
• Lord Birkenhead, the Conservative Secretary of State for India, had provocatively challenged Indians to produce an agreed constitutional scheme — he doubted they could.

Indian Response: Near-Unanimous Boycott

The exclusion of all Indians from a commission that would decide India's constitutional future was seen as:

• A violation of the principle of self-determination.
• A deliberate insult to Indian self-respect.
• Proof that the British considered Indians unfit to decide their own governance.

Congress (Madras session, December 1927, under M.A. Ansari's presidency): 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 — a significant step beyond dominion status.

Muslim League: Split into two factions:

• Jinnah's faction (session at Calcutta, 1927): Decided to oppose the Simon Commission.
• Muhammad Shafi's faction (session at Lahore): Decided to support the Commission and cooperate.

Others who boycotted: Liberals of the Hindu Mahasabha and the majority Muslim League faction under Jinnah.

Others who did NOT boycott: Unionists in Punjab, the Justice Party in the South, and Shafi's Muslim League faction.

Public Agitation

The Commission landed in Bombay on February 3, 1928. A nationwide hartal was organised on that day. Wherever the Commission travelled, it was met with black flag demonstrations, hartals, and the slogan "Simon Go Back."

A defining feature: a new generation of youth got their first taste of political action. Youth leagues and conferences surged. Nehru and Subhash Bose emerged as the leading voices of this militant new generation, travelling widely and presiding over conferences. The Simon Commission agitation also provided fertile ground for radical socialist ideas — the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Workers' and Peasants' Parties, and Hindustani Sewa Dal (Karnataka) all gained strength.

Dr Ambedkar and the Simon Commission

Ambedkar was appointed by the Bombay Legislative Council to work with the Commission. In October 1928, he presented the following demands on behalf of the Bahishkrita Hitakarini Sabha:

• Universal adult franchise for men and women (then not guaranteed in most of Europe).
• Provincial autonomy in provinces, dyarchy at the Centre.
• The depressed classes should be regarded as a distinct and independent minority — with no link to the Hindu community.
• They needed greater political protection than any other minority due to: educational backwardness, economic poverty, social enslavement, and unique political disabilities.
• Reserved seats for depressed classes if universal adult franchise was granted; a separate electorate if it was not.
• Safeguards in the constitution or in the Governor's instrument regarding education and entry into public services.

The Simon Commission's final report did grant reserved seats to the depressed classes — but with the humiliating condition that candidates had first to get their competence endorsed by the provincial governor. Ambedkar was deeply dissatisfied; in any case, the report became a dead letter.

Police Repression

The protests drew fierce police repression. Lathicharges were carried out even against senior leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru and G.B. Pant were beaten up in Lucknow.

Most consequentially, Lala Lajpat Rai received severe blows to his chest during a lathicharge on an anti-Simon Commission procession in October 1928 and died on November 17, 1928. His last words: "The blows which fell on me today are the last nails driven into the coffin of British Imperialism."

His death enraged the revolutionaries of the HSRA (Bhagat Singh, Azad, Rajguru) who subsequently assassinated Saunders in December 1928 in retaliation.

Simon Commission Recommendations (May 1930, Two-Volume Report)

The report was published in May 1930 but by then had been overtaken by events (the Civil Disobedience Movement had already begun). Key recommendations:

• Abolition of dyarchy at the provincial level; establishment of representative responsible government in provinces with provincial autonomy.
• Governor to retain discretionary powers for internal security and protecting different communities.
• Increased membership of provincial legislative councils.
• No parliamentary responsibility at the Centre — Governor-General to retain complete power to appoint cabinet members; Government of India to retain full control over High Courts.
• Communal separate electorates retained (and extended to other communities) until Hindu-Muslim tensions subsided; no universal franchise.
• Accepted the idea of federalism but not in the near future; a Consultative Council of Greater India to be established including both British provinces and princely states.
• Sindh to be separated from Bombay; Burma to be separated from India (deemed not a natural part of the subcontinent).
• NWFP and Baluchistan to get local legislatures and central representation.
• Indian army to be Indianised but British forces to be retained.

---

Origin

Lord Birkenhead's challenge — that Indians could not produce an agreed constitutional scheme — was accepted. An All Parties Conference met in February 1928 and appointed a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru to draft a constitution. This was India's first major indigenous attempt to draft a constitutional framework.

Committee members: Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Bose, M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Ali Imam, Shuab Qureshi, G.R. Pradhan.

The report was finalised by August 1928. There was one internal disagreement: the majority favoured dominion status as the constitutional basis; a minority (including Jawaharlal Nehru) wanted complete independence. The majority gave the minority "liberty of action."

Main Recommendations

(i) Dominion Status: As the form of government desired by Indians — not complete independence. This angered the younger, militant Congress faction.

(ii) Joint Electorates, Not Separate Electorates: Rejected communal separate electorates — the foundation of constitutional reforms since Morley-Minto (1909). Instead proposed joint electorates with reserved seats for Muslims at the Centre and in provinces where they were in minority (not in Muslim-majority provinces like Punjab and Bengal), in proportion to the Muslim population.

(iii) Linguistic Provinces: Provinces to be reorganised on linguistic lines.

(iv) Nineteen Fundamental Rights: Including equal rights for women, right to form unions, and universal adult suffrage.

(v) Responsible Government at Centre and Provinces:

• Central Parliament: 500-member House of Representatives (elected on adult suffrage, 5-year tenure) + 200-member Senate (elected by provincial councils, 7-year tenure).
• Governor-General appointed by British but paid from Indian revenues; to act on advice of central executive council responsible to Parliament.
• Provincial councils: 5-year tenure; governor to act on advice of provincial executive council.

(vi) Full protection to cultural and religious interests of Muslims.

(vii) Complete dissociation of State from religion (secular state).

---

Delhi Proposals of the Muslim League (December 1927)

Before the Nehru Report was drafted, the Muslim League (session at Delhi, December 1927) had evolved four demands — accepted by the Madras Congress session — known as the Delhi Proposals:

• Joint electorates (replacing separate electorates) with reserved seats for Muslims.
• One-third Muslim representation in the Central Legislative Assembly.
• Muslim representation in Punjab and Bengal proportionate to their population.
• Formation of three new Muslim-majority provinces: Sindh (separated from Bombay), Baluchistan, and NWFP.

Hindu Mahasabha Opposition

The Hindu Mahasabha strongly opposed:

• Creation of new Muslim-majority provinces.
• Reservation of seats for Muslim majorities in Punjab and Bengal (which would give Muslims legislative control in both).
• Demanded a strictly unitary constitutional structure (against federalism).

The Nehru Report's Communal Compromises

Caught between Muslim and Hindu communal pressures, the drafters made concessions tilted toward the Hindu Mahasabha:

• Joint electorates everywhere, but Muslim reservations only where in minority (denying them in Punjab and Bengal — precisely what Muslim leaders wanted most).
• Sindh's separation from Bombay made conditional on dominion status being granted AND on weightage being given to the Hindu minority in Sindh.
• Residual powers rested with the Centre — broadly unitary structure.

Jinnah's Three Amendments (All Parties Conference, Calcutta, December 1928)

Jinnah proposed three amendments to save the Nehru Report:

1. One-third Muslim representation in the central legislature.
2. Reserved seats for Muslims in Bengal and Punjab proportionate to population, until adult suffrage was established.
3. Residual powers to vest in provinces (not the Centre).

These were not accommodated.

Jinnah's Fourteen Points (March 1929)

Rejected by the All Parties Conference, Jinnah returned to the Shafi faction of the Muslim League and in March 1929 issued Fourteen Points which became the basis of all future Muslim League propaganda:

1. Federal constitution with residual powers to provinces.
2. Provincial autonomy.
3. No constitutional amendment at the Centre without concurrence of constituent states.
4. Adequate Muslim representation in every legislature without reducing Muslim majorities to minorities or equality.
5. Adequate Muslim representation in services and self-governing bodies.
6. One-third Muslim representation in the central legislature.
7. One-third Muslim ministers in all central and provincial cabinets.
8. Separate electorates (reverting to the pre-Nehru Report demand).
9. No bill or resolution in any legislature to be passed if three-fourths of a minority community considered it against their interests.
10. No territorial redistribution to affect Muslim majority in Punjab, Bengal, and NWFP.
11. Separation of Sindh from Bombay.
12. Constitutional reforms in NWFP and Baluchistan.
13. Full religious freedom to all communities.
14. Protection of Muslim rights in religion, culture, education, and language.

---

Younger Nationalists' Rejection

The Nehru Report satisfied neither communalists nor radical nationalists. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose considered dominion status a step backward. They jointly founded the Independence for India League to push for complete independence as the Congress goal — a demand that would be formally adopted at the Lahore Congress (December 1929).

Overall Impact

The Simon Commission agitation and the Nehru Report episode together produced two decisive outcomes:

1. Radicalisation: The Congress was pushed — by youth pressure, socialist currents, and the failure of the Nehru Report's communal compromises — toward a more radical, mass-based, independence-oriented politics.
2. Communal Polarisation: Jinnah's Fourteen Points marked a hardening of the Muslim League's separatist constitutional demands. The failure to accommodate even Jinnah's moderate three amendments at Calcutta (December 1928) is widely seen as a critical missed opportunity for Hindu-Muslim constitutional accommodation. Jinnah himself later called it "the parting of ways."

---

• GS Paper I — Modern History: The Nehru Report represents a pivotal moment in constitutional history — India's first indigenous constitutional draft, produced not under colonial instructions but as a nationalist assertion. It prefigures many features of the eventual Constitution (fundamental rights, responsible government, secular state).
• Communalism and Partition: The failure of the Nehru Report's communal compromise is a foundational moment in the drift toward Partition. Jinnah's trajectory from constitutionalist to separatist accelerates precisely after December 1928. Critically analyse Jinnah's Fourteen Points as a response to a specific failure of accommodation, not merely as pre-existing separatism.
• Nationalism and Youth: The Simon Commission protests mark the political debut of a generation — Nehru, Bose, Bhagat Singh's PNBS — who would dominate Indian politics for decades. The generational shift from elite petitioners to mass agitators is visible here.
• Ambedkar and Constitutional Rights: Ambedkar's submission before the Simon Commission is his first major constitutional intervention — his demands for separate electorates (if universal franchise was denied) anticipate the Poona Pact controversy (1932). Connect to the larger theme of Dalit politics within the national movement.
• Continuity and Change: The Nehru Report's proposal for joint electorates — reversing the Morley-Minto precedent of 1909 — represents a fundamental challenge to the communal constitutional framework the British had built. Its failure meant the communal framework endured until Partition.

---

• Simon Commission appointment date: November 8, 1927 — NOT 1928 (it arrived in India in February 1928; these two dates are frequently confused).
• Simon Commission chairman: Sir John Simon — a British lawyer and Liberal politician, NOT a Conservative. The government appointing it was Baldwin's Conservative government, but Simon himself was a Liberal.
• Congress session that boycotted Simon: Madras session, December 1927, under M.A. Ansari — NOT under Nehru (Jawaharlal was not yet Congress president at this point).
• Complete independence resolution at Madras (1927): Passed as a snap resolution by Jawaharlal Nehru — NOT the formal Congress goal until Lahore 1929. Do not conflate.
• Jinnah's faction vs Shafi faction: Jinnah opposed the Simon Commission; it was Muhammad Shafi's faction that supported it. After his Calcutta amendments were rejected, Jinnah rejoined the Shafi faction — NOT his own independent party.
• Nehru Report committee chair: Motilal Nehru (the father) — NOT Jawaharlal Nehru (the son, who actually opposed the dominion status recommendation).
• Nehru Report: number of fundamental rights: 19 — not 12, not 21.
• House of Representatives in Nehru Report: 500 members (adult suffrage, 5-year tenure); Senate: 200 members (elected by provincial councils, 7-year tenure). Frequently reversed in options.
• Delhi Proposals (December 1927): Muslim League proposals accepted by the Madras Congress session — these were NOT the same as Jinnah's Fourteen Points (March 1929). The Delhi Proposals sought joint electorates with reserved seats; the Fourteen Points reverted to separate electorates.

---

• Simon Commission: set up November 8, 1927; 7-member all-white; Baldwin government; arrived India February 3, 1928.
• Congress boycott: Madras session, December 1927; M.A. Ansari presiding; Nehru's snap resolution on complete independence.
• Muslim League: Jinnah (Calcutta) — boycott; Shafi (Lahore) — support.
• Lala Lajpat Rai: lathicharge October 1928; died November 17, 1928 → triggered Saunders murder (December 1928).
• Nehru and G.B. Pant beaten up in Lucknow.
• Ambedkar: Bombay LC nominee; demanded universal adult franchise, provincial autonomy, depressed classes as separate minority, reserved seats (or separate electorate if no universal franchise).
• Simon Commission report: May 1930; abolished dyarchy, provincial autonomy, no central responsibility, retained communal electorates, no universal franchise, separate Sindh from Bombay, separate Burma from India.
• All Parties Conference: February 1928; sub-committee under Motilal Nehru.
• Nehru Report: August 1928; dominion status (majority); complete independence (minority — Jawaharlal Nehru).
• 19 fundamental rights; joint electorates (no separate electorates); linguistic provinces; secular state; responsible govt at centre and provinces; 500-member HoR (5 yr); 200-member Senate (7 yr).
• Muslim reservations: only where in minority — NOT in Punjab and Bengal.
• Delhi Proposals (December 1927): joint electorates + reserved seats; 1/3 Muslim at Centre; proportional in Punjab/Bengal; 3 new Muslim-majority provinces.
• Jinnah's 3 amendments (Calcutta, December 1928): 1/3 at Centre; proportional seats Bengal/Punjab; residual powers to provinces — all rejected.
• Jinnah's Fourteen Points: March 1929; reverted to separate electorates; federal with residual powers to provinces; 1/3 Muslim in cabinets; veto on minority-opposed bills.
• Independence for India League: Jawaharlal Nehru + Subhash Bose — against dominion status.
• Lahore Congress (December 1929): Formal adoption of Purna Swaraj as Congress goal.