Overview
On 3 February 1928, the Simon Commission arrived in Bombay to examine the constitutional future of British India. Its seven members were all British Members of Parliament, led by Sir John Simon. The absence of a single Indian member turned what was intended as an official review into a major political confrontation.
The commission had been appointed to study the effects and operation of the constitutional reforms introduced by the Government of India Act 1919. It was also expected to recommend further reforms. Although it received support from some Indian political figures, the Indian National Congress, prominent nationalist leaders, and a faction of the Muslim League rejected it. Demonstrations followed the commission across the country, often under black flags carrying the words “Simon Go Back”.
The commission’s report, published in two volumes in June 1930, recommended the abolition of diarchy and an extension of provincial autonomy. It nevertheless preserved substantial emergency powers for British governors and did not mention dominion status. Its recommendations contributed to the Government of India Act 1935, which established responsible government at the provincial level.
Background
The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced diarchy in the provinces of British India. Under this system, provincial responsibilities were divided, and Indian opinion increasingly demanded a review of how the arrangement worked. The Act itself provided that a commission would be appointed after ten years to investigate the progress of the constitutional scheme and suggest new reforms.
The expected timetable would have placed the review around 1929. In November 1927, however, the British government appointed the commission two years ahead of schedule. The decision was connected to political fears in Britain. F. E. Smith, the Secretary of State for India, feared that an imminent electoral defeat for the Conservative government might bring Labour MPs and sympathisers into the commission. He therefore supported the early appointment of seven MPs.
Smith also opposed including Indian members. He believed Indian representatives might act together with Labour members. Viceroy Lord Irwin supported the exclusion for similar reasons, while also believing that Indian representatives might disagree among themselves. The result was a commission intended to assess India’s constitutional development without Indian participation.
This composition caused widespread anger. Many Indians regarded the arrangement as insulting because the body charged with considering India’s political future contained no Indian representative. The question was not merely who would provide evidence to the commission, but who possessed the authority to define the country’s constitutional needs.
Prelude
The Indian National Congress responded at its December 1927 meeting in Madras, now Chennai, by resolving to boycott the commission. It also challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution acceptable to the Indian people. A faction of the Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah likewise decided to boycott the body.
Opposition was not completely uniform. Some members of the Muslim League favoured cooperation. The Hindu Mahasabha and members of the Central Sikh League also included supporters. An All-India Committee for Cooperation with the Simon Commission was established through the Council of India and the selection of Lord Irwin. Its members included C. Sankaran Nair, Arthur Froom, Nawab Ali Khan, Shivdev Singh Uberoi, Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Hari Singh Gour, Abdullah Al-Mamun Suhrawardy, Kikabhai Premchand, and M. C. Rajah.
Among the most prominent Indian supporters were Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, and Chaudhary Chhotu Ram. Their support demonstrated that Indian political opinion did not divide simply into “British” and “Indian” positions. Different leaders assessed the commission according to their views of representation, social reform, provincial interests, and constitutional change.
The British government also attempted to publicise meetings with what it described as “representative Muslims”. F. E. Smith wanted these encounters to create apprehension among Hindus that the commission might be influenced by Muslims and produce a report harmful to Hindu interests. This effort reflected the political importance of communal representation in constitutional discussions.
The Event
The Simon Commission left England in January 1928 and reached Bombay on 3 February. It was met by large demonstrations, though some supporters were also present. A strike began, and protesters displayed black flags with the slogan “Simon Go Back”.
The protests were not confined to Bombay. Demonstrations occurred in every major Indian city visited by the seven British MPs. In Patna, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi led opposition demonstrations. The commission’s tours therefore became public political events, allowing the question of constitutional representation to reach large crowds.
The Lahore Protest
The most infamous confrontation occurred in Lahore on 30 October 1928. Protesters carrying black flags blocked the road to prevent the commission members from leaving the railway station. The demonstration was led by Lala Lajpat Rai, a prominent Indian nationalist who had moved a resolution against the commission in the Punjab Legislative Assembly in February of that year.
The local police, led by Superintendent James Scott, began beating the protesters in order to clear a passage. Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured. He died of a heart attack eighteen days later, on 17 November 1928. His death became closely associated with the Lahore protest and gave the opposition to the commission an especially powerful symbol.
The events in Lahore illustrated the intensity of the confrontation. The commission had been created as a constitutional instrument, but its travels through India were marked by mass demonstrations, strikes, police action, and deep political hostility.
Burma
Burma, then included within the commission’s terms of reference, had its own concerns. There was strong suspicion that the unpopular union between Burma and India might continue, or that the constitution recommended for Burma would be less generous than the one chosen for India. These fears contributed to tension and violence, including the rebellion of Saya San.
Participants
The British Commission
The commission consisted of seven British MPs:
- Sir John Simon, Liberal MP for Spen Valley and chairman
- Clement Attlee, Labour MP for Limehouse
- Harry Levy-Lawson, 1st Viscount Burnham
- Edward Cadogan, Conservative MP for Finchley
- Vernon Hartshorn, Labour MP for Ogmore
- George Lane-Fox, Conservative MP for Barkston Ash
- Donald Howard, 3rd Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal
Clement Attlee’s later career gave the commission an additional historical connection. He became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951. His experience on the commission deeply affected him. Although he endorsed its final report at the time, by 1933 he argued that British rule was alien to India and incapable of carrying out the social and economic reforms necessary for India’s progress.
Indian Opponents and Supporters
The Indian National Congress led the general boycott, with prominent leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi opposing the commission’s composition. Mohammed Ali Jinnah and a faction of the Muslim League also rejected it.
Lala Lajpat Rai led the Lahore protest and became the most prominent casualty of the demonstrations. On the other side, B. R. Ambedkar, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, and Chaudhary Chhotu Ram were among the commission’s prominent Indian supporters. Cooperation also attracted some members of the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Central Sikh League.
Aftermath
The political debate did not end with the commission’s visits. In September 1928, before its report was published, Motilal Nehru presented the Nehru Report. It answered the British suggestion that Indians could not agree on a constitutional framework and advocated dominion status with complete internal self-government.
Jinnah rejected the Nehru Report as a “Hindu Document” and presented his Fourteen Points in response. These were described as the minimum demands of Muslims under British rule. The controversy showed that opposition to the Simon Commission did not produce a single constitutional programme. Instead, it opened competing debates over dominion status, representation, and the political safeguards required by different communities.
The commission published its two-volume report in June 1930. It recommended abolishing diarchy and extending provincial autonomy by establishing representative government in the provinces. At the same time, it allowed British governors to retain extensive emergency powers. In practice, therefore, the proposed provincial autonomy remained limited.
The report also recommended retaining separate electorates while tensions between Hindus and Muslims continued. Most notably, it did not mention dominion status. By the time of publication, it had also been overshadowed by Lord Irwin’s declaration of 31 October 1929. Irwin presented India’s attainment of dominion status as the final goal of British policy and called for a round-table conference in London, although the declaration remained controversial and was regarded as vague and distant.
Historical Significance
The Simon Commission intensified the Indian demand for a constitutional settlement shaped by Indians themselves. Its all-British membership transformed a technical review into a national political issue. The slogan “Simon Go Back” expressed opposition not simply to the commission’s recommendations, but to the principle that Britain could decide India’s constitutional future without Indian participation.
The commission also helped bring constitutional disagreements into sharper focus. The Nehru Report sought to demonstrate that Indians could formulate a constitutional alternative, while Jinnah’s Fourteen Points set out Muslim political demands in response. These documents reflected the widening debate over the balance between national self-government and communal safeguards.
The commission’s recommendations contributed to the Government of India Act 1935. That Act provided for “responsible” government at the provincial level, meaning a government responsible to the Indian community rather than to London, but it did not establish responsible government at the national level. The first provincial elections were held in 1937, and Congress governments were returned in almost all provinces.
The Act also became the basis for many parts of the Constitution of India. In this way, a commission rejected by much of Indian political opinion nevertheless influenced the institutional arrangements through which provincial government developed.
Legacy
The commission is remembered through the protests that greeted it, particularly the black flags and the cry “Simon Go Back”. Lala Lajpat Rai’s injuries and death made the Lahore demonstration a defining episode in the political response to the commission.
Its longer legacy lies in the constitutional chain linking the Government of India Act 1919, the commission’s investigation, the Nehru Report, Jinnah’s Fourteen Points, and the Government of India Act 1935. The episode also connects to the later history of independence through Clement Attlee. His changing assessment of British rule prepared him for his role in deciding on Indian independence as British Prime Minister in 1947.
Historiography
The commission’s history contains a clear tension between its formal purpose and its political reception. British authorities presented it as a review of constitutional progress and a means of recommending further reform. Many Indian leaders viewed its composition as proof that the British government was unwilling to allow Indians a decisive role in determining their own future.
Indian opinion was nevertheless divided. Congress, prominent nationalist leaders, and a faction of the Muslim League supported a boycott, while Ambedkar, Periyar, Chhotu Ram, and several other political groups supported cooperation. This division cautions against treating the commission as an issue on which all Indian political actors held the same position.
Its recommendations were also limited in character. Provincial autonomy and the abolition of diarchy represented constitutional change, but the retention of emergency powers and separate electorates restricted the extent of that autonomy. The omission of dominion status further widened the gap between the commission’s report and the aspirations of many Indian nationalists.
Timeline
See Also
- Nehru Report
- Government of India Act 1919
- Government of India Act 1935
- Lala Lajpat Rai
- B. R. Ambedkar
- Clement Attlee