The Simon Commission and Its Impact

The Simon Commission: Assessing India's Constitutional Progress

The aftermath of the Government of India Act in 1919 saw the establishment of a provision for a commission to evaluate the advancements in the governance framework and propose potential new directions. A significant development in this context was the formation of the Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission, named after its chairperson, John Simon. Initiated by the British Government during Stanley Baldwin's premiership on November 8, 1927, this commission was established two years ahead of schedule. Its central task was to assess India's readiness for further constitutional reforms and outline potential avenues for such reforms.

In 1930, the Simon Commission released its comprehensive report. This report made several crucial recommendations that shaped subsequent discussions and actions. The British Government convened three Round Table conferences to deliberate on these recommendations.

Subsequently, in March 1933, a White Paper on Constitutional Reforms was issued, outlining provisions for a federal framework and provincial autonomy. This process led to the formation of a joint committee within the British Parliament, led by Linlithgow, to further evaluate the proposed scheme.

The committee's report, presented in 1934, stated that a federation would be established if at least 50 percent of the princely states expressed their willingness to participate.

This report formed the basis for the Government of India Act in 1935, which was subsequently passed by the British Parliament.

Key Recommendations of the Simon Commission

The Simon Commission's report, published in May 1930, presented a comprehensive set of recommendations that had far-reaching implications for India's governance:

Provincial Autonomy and Representative Government: The commission advocated for the elimination of dyarchy and the introduction of representative government in the provinces, granting them increased autonomy. It recommended that provincial legislative councils be expanded in terms of membership. This recommendation aimed to grant greater autonomy to provinces, empowering them to manage their affairs more independently.

Governor's Powers and Community Protection: The report proposed that the governor should possess discretionary powers related to internal security while also holding administrative authority to safeguard the interests of various communities.

Central Authority and Cabinet Appointments: The concept of parliamentary responsibility at the center was rejected. The Governor-General was envisaged to have full authority to appoint cabinet members, thus centralizing power. Additionally, the Government of India was slated to have complete control over the high court.

Communal Electorates and Franchise: The Simon Commission endorsed the continuation of separate communal electorates, suggesting their extension to other communities. However, this arrangement was intended to be temporary, contingent on the resolution of tensions between Hindus and Muslims. The idea of universal franchise was not supported.

Federalism and Consultative Council: While federalism was acknowledged, the report did not foresee its immediate implementation. Instead, the commission proposed the establishment of a Consultative Council of Greater India, comprising representatives from British provinces and princely states.

Regional Representation and Separation: The commission recommended the provision of local legislatures for the North-West Frontier Provinces and Baluchistan. Moreover, both these regions were suggested to have representation at the central level. Additionally, the report advised the separation of Sindh from Bombay and the separation of Burma from India, due to geographical considerations.

Indianization of the Army: The Simon Commission endorsed the idea of Indianizing the army, although British forces were to be retained to some extent.

In conclusion, the Simon Commission played a pivotal role in shaping the discourse around India's constitutional evolution. Its recommendations set the stage for subsequent negotiations, leading to the Government of India Act in 1935. These deliberations marked significant milestones in India's journey toward self-governance and autonomy.

The Simon Commission, with its recommendations and implications for India's constitutional future, triggered a wide range of responses from both Indian and British perspectives. These responses encompassed both positive endorsements and critical appraisals, reflecting the diverse opinions and interests of the time.

Indian Responses

Positive Responses:

Support for Reforms: Some Indian leaders and groups welcomed the Simon Commission's recommendations as a step towards further constitutional reforms. They believed that the proposed changes could pave the way for greater self-governance and representation in provincial and central bodies.

Autonomy and Responsible Government: Those favoring the recommendations appreciated the emphasis on provincial autonomy and the concept of responsible government. They saw these as important steps towards empowering Indian regions and communities to govern their own affairs.

Negative Responses:

Boycott and Protest: A significant portion of the Indian population, particularly the Indian National Congress and other nationalist groups, rejected the Simon Commission's composition. The absence of Indian members in the commission was perceived as a sign of British insensitivity and lack of trust in Indian representation. This led to widespread protests and boycotts of the Commission's proceedings.

Communal Representation: Critics of the Commission's recommendations expressed concern about the continuation of communal electorates, arguing that these electorates perpetuated divisive politics along religious lines and hindered the growth of a united national identity.

Lack of Full Autonomy: The proposal to retain certain discretionary powers with the Governor and the absence of full parliamentary responsibility at the center were criticized as insufficient steps towards genuine self-governance.

British Responses

Positive Responses:

Step towards Reforms: Some British policymakers and officials welcomed the Simon Commission as a means to evaluate India's progress and readiness for constitutional reforms. They saw it as a way to potentially guide India towards greater self-governance while maintaining British influence.

Federation and Stability: Supporters of the proposed federation between British India and Princely States believed it could create a more stable and united administrative framework, potentially easing governance challenges.

Negative Responses:

Indian Exclusion: Critics within the British establishment expressed concern about the Commission's composition, which lacked Indian members. This exclusion was seen as a missed opportunity to involve Indian voices in shaping their own constitutional future.

Communal Electorates and Tensions: The Commission's recommendation to continue communal electorates was questioned by those who believed it perpetuated divisions and could lead to ongoing communal tensions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims.

Limited Progress: Some British voices felt that the Commission's recommendations fell short of adequately addressing India's aspirations for self-governance. They perceived the proposals as maintaining British control to a significant extent, which could potentially fuel discontent.

In summary, the responses to the Simon Commission were multifaceted and reflected the complex dynamics of the time. While some individuals and groups on both sides saw potential in its recommendations, others expressed reservations about its composition, intentions, and the perceived limitations in promoting true self-governance and unity in India. The Commission's outcomes continued to influence subsequent discussions and actions in the lead-up to India's eventual independence.