Appointment of the Simon Commission and the Indian Response

At a Glance

• Set up 8 November 1927, under Baldwin’s government
• Chairman Sir John Simon; all-white, seven members
• Landed in Bombay 3 February 1928; hartal and black flags
• Response Near-unanimous boycott: Simon Go Back
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Simon Commission and the Nehru Report

Where Does It Fit?

This is the first topic of the category on the Simon Commission and the Nehru Report. The previous topic covered the official reaction to the revolutionaries and their changing ideas. This topic explains why the commission was appointed and how India responded. The next topic covers its recommendations. Previous topic: Official Reaction and Ideological Rethinking of the Revolutionaries.

What Was the Simon Commission?

The Government of India Act, 1919 provided that a commission would be appointed ten years after it to study the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps. The all-white, seven-member Indian Statutory Commission, popularly known as the Simon Commission after its chairman Sir John Simon, was set up by the British government under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin on 8 November 1927. It was to recommend whether India was ready for further constitutional reforms and along what lines. The 1919 Act is described in Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Government of India Act, 1919.

Why Was It Appointed Early?

Constitutional reforms were due only in 1929. The Conservative government then in power feared defeat by the Labour Party and did not want to leave the future of Britain’s most prized colony in what it called irresponsible Labour hands. Also, by the mid-1920s the failure of the 1919 Act to create a stable imperial arrangement had led to several parliamentary reports and inquiries.

The Conservative Secretary of State for India, Lord Birkenhead, had often said that Indians could not formulate a concrete scheme of constitutional reform that had the support of wide sections of Indian opinion, and he was responsible for appointing the commission.

How Did India Respond?

The Indian response was immediate and nearly unanimous. What angered Indians most was the exclusion of Indians from the commission, and the notion behind it that foreigners would discuss and decide India’s fitness for self-government. This was seen as a violation of the principle of self-determination and a deliberate insult to Indian self-respect.

What Happened When the Commission Arrived?

The commission landed in Bombay on 3 February 1928. A countrywide hartal was organised that day and mass rallies were held. Wherever the commission went there were black flag demonstrations, hartals and slogans of Simon Go Back. A significant feature was that a new generation of youth had its first taste of political action. They played the most active part and gave the protest a militant flavour, and youth leagues and conferences received a real boost. Nehru and Subhash Bose emerged as leaders of this new wave and travelled widely, addressing and presiding over conferences.

The upsurge also provided fertile ground for new radical ideas of socialism, seen in groups such as the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, the Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties and the Hindustani Sewa Dal in Karnataka. These currents are described in Spread of Socialist and Marxist Ideas, Youth Activism and Trade Unionism.

How Did the Police Respond?

The police came down heavily on demonstrators. There were lathi-charges that did not spare even senior leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru and G.B. Pant were beaten up in Lucknow. Lala Lajpat Rai received severe blows on the chest in October 1928, from which he died on 17 November 1928. He had said that the blows that fell on him were the last nails in the coffin of British imperialism. His death led to the Saunders murder, covered in Revolutionary Activity in Punjab, United Provinces and Bihar.

What Was the Impact on the National Movement?

The impact of the appointment was two-fold. First, it gave a stimulus to radical forces demanding complete independence and major socio-economic reform on socialist lines. The Congress, which had no active programme, got an issue around which it could again forge mass action. Second, Birkenhead’s challenge to Indian politicians to produce an agreed constitution was accepted by various political sections, and prospects for Indian unity seemed bright at that point.

As an analytical point, one decision, the exclusion of Indians, did two things at once: it united groups that had been divided since the end of non-cooperation, and it gave the Congress a mass issue. The Indian answer to the challenge is described in Nehru Report, 1928, and the commission’s report in Recommendations of the Simon Commission.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Boycott and responses Group-wise responses are a frequent Prelims and Mains point
• Link to Lajpat Rai’s death Connects the commission to the revolutionaries’ actions
• Revival of mass politics Shows how the Congress regained a mass issue

What Came Next?

The next topic describes what the Simon Commission recommended in its report of 1930. Next topic: Recommendations of the Simon Commission.

Key People and Terms

• Indian Statutory Commission The official name of the Simon Commission
• Sir John Simon Chairman of the commission
• Lord Birkenhead Secretary of State who was responsible for its appointment
• Simon Go Back Slogan raised wherever the commission went
• Lee Commission Inquired into recruitment of British officers
• Mudiman Commission Inquired into dyarchy

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask why the commission was boycotted and what followed. These points add depth.

• Reasons Insult to self-respect and self-determination
• Responses Congress and the groups that did not boycott
• Impact Mass action and the challenge to draft a constitution