Simon Commission

The Simon Commission: A Turning Point in India’s Struggle for Self-Governance

The Simon Commission, officially known as the Indian Statutory Commission, holds a significant place in the history of India’s freedom struggle. Appointed in 1927 by the British government under Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, the Commission was tasked with reviewing the functioning of the Government of India Act of 1919 and suggesting reforms for the future governance of India. However, the circumstances under which it was formed, its composition, and its reception by Indians triggered a wave of national unrest and played a crucial role in intensifying India’s demand for complete self-rule.

Background and Formation

After the First World War, the British government introduced the Government of India Act, 1919, which provided for limited self-governance through a system of diarchy in the provinces. It was agreed that the Act would be reviewed after ten years to assess its working and recommend future steps towards responsible government. However, in 1927—two years ahead of schedule—the British announced the appointment of the Simon Commission to undertake this task. The decision to set up the Commission early was largely driven by political concerns within Britain, especially to address the challenges posed by the Labour Party and to retain control over Indian reforms.

Also read : Jallianwala bagh massacre...

Composition of the Commission

One of the most controversial aspects of the Simon Commission was its composition. The Commission consisted of seven members, all of whom were British parliamentarians. The members were Sir John Simon (Chairman), Clement Attlee (who would later become the British Prime Minister), Harry Levy-Lawson, Edward Cadogan, Vernon Hartshorn, George Lane-Fox, and Donald Howard. The absence of any Indian member was seen as a direct insult to Indian aspirations. By excluding Indians from a body meant to decide the future of their own country, the British government revealed its reluctance to truly involve Indians in governance.

Indian Response and Nationwide Protests

The announcement of the Simon Commission led to widespread anger and disappointment across the Indian political spectrum. Leaders of all major parties—whether Congress, Muslim League, or Hindu Mahasabha—condemned the Commission and decided to boycott it. The idea of Indians having no voice in shaping their political future was intolerable to both moderates and extremists in Indian politics.

When the Commission arrived in India in 1928, it was met with black flag demonstrations, hartals (strikes), and mass protests in every major city it visited. The cry of "Simon Go Back!" echoed across the country, symbolizing the Indian people's rejection of the Commission’s legitimacy. One of the most tragic incidents during these protests occurred in Lahore, where police baton-charged a peaceful procession. Lala Lajpat Rai, a prominent nationalist leader, was severely injured during this lathi charge and succumbed to his injuries a few weeks later. His martyrdom became a rallying point for revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, who vowed to avenge his death.

Also read : Champaran satyagraha...

Recommendations of the Commission

Despite the intense opposition, the Simon Commission went ahead with its work and submitted its report in 1930. The report recommended several constitutional changes, including:

1. Abolition of diarchy and introduction of provincial autonomy.
2. Establishment of federal government structures with princely states and British provinces.
3. Continuation of separate electorates for different communities.
4. Strengthening of the British control over central administration, particularly in defense and foreign affairs.

Although some of these recommendations, like provincial autonomy, were in line with Indian demands, most were seen as inadequate. The continued division of the electorate and lack of substantial Indian control at the central level made it clear that the British were not ready to grant real self-rule.

Impact and Legacy

The Simon Commission may not have provided any immediate relief to Indian aspirations, but its rejection by Indians marked an important phase in the national movement. The widespread protests against the Commission were among the first instances of united action by various Indian political groups and communities, setting the stage for greater cooperation in the struggle for independence.

Additionally, in response to the failure of the Simon Commission to meet Indian expectations, the Indian National Congress in its Lahore session of 1929, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, declared Purna Swaraj (complete independence) as its goal. This historic resolution represented a significant shift from seeking dominion status within the British Empire to demanding total freedom.

The Simon Commission also indirectly led to the convening of the Round Table Conferences between 1930 and 1932 in London, where Indian leaders were invited to discuss constitutional reforms. Eventually, many of the Commission’s recommendations, especially regarding provincial autonomy, were incorporated into the Government of India Act, 1935.

Conclusion

The Simon Commission was more than just a body for constitutional reform; it became a symbol of colonial arrogance and disregard for Indian opinion. Its rejection united Indians in unprecedented ways, strengthening the resolve for self-governance. Although the Commission failed to address the real demands of Indians, it contributed to accelerating the pace of the freedom struggle. The slogan "Simon Go Back" continues to remind us of a critical chapter in India’s journey towards independence—a chapter that highlighted both the failures of colonial policy and the growing power of Indian nationalism.