Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1921-1935
Structure
29.0
29.1
29.2
Objectives
Introduction
Effects of the Constitutional Reforms of 1919
29.2.1 Failure of Dyarchy
29.2.2 Reform Proposals between 1920-1927
29.3
Simon Commission
29.3.1 Appointment
29.3.2 Boycoii
29.4
29.5
29.6
29.7
29.8
29.9
29.10
29.1 1
29.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this Unit is to give you a brief history of the constitutional reforms during the
period 1920-1935. After going through this unit you will be abIe to:
know how the basic character of the Constitution of Free India (the democratic
republic with a parliamentary system of government) has evolved gradually,
explain how the struggle for freedom and the constitutional reforms went together and
were complementary to each other, and
appreciate the efforts of Indian masses and their leaders in facing (he challenge of
communal and minority problems in relation to constitutional reforms.
29.1 INTRODUCTION
In Unit-17, Block-4, you have read about the Constitutional developments during the
period 1892-1920. In this Unit an attempt is made to familiarise you with the
constitutional developments between the period 1920-1935. Here we analyse the effects of
1919 Reforms Act and the circumstances leading to the appointment of Simon
Commission. The Nationalist response to the appointment of Simon Commission as well as
the recommchdations of the Nehru Report are also discussed. It also takes into account the
British initiatives for a compromise with the nationalists through the Round Table
Conferences. It also explains the Nationalist overture in the form of Poona Pact to meet the
challenge posed by communal and minority representation guaranteed by the British.
Finally the main features and limitations of Government of India Act of 1935 are
enumerated.
b.11
\ dn;tr$ 111
Constitutional Reforms
1921-1935
M o t k r Jndta :-Really. Happy. Venerable Mother India, to rea that Hi. Momt Ormcioum Majaaty hma #iron You l glorioum
thim Hiatoric Empire Exhibition with us. the "Leer rsarinu Auatralianm. Wh,~atfulCanadians and Oltnch-featherd 8. Africaom.
BOLDDoodle :-Proud i d & tbr day when In rompoul mhora mad proud E r h t b i t i o ~Your BmcrdSelf i8 mccarddLguality.
But. Your Britannic M.irCy, it will ba the proudest day when Mother India rill have not oelr Equality with tho Domiiolr 1. dorm
but e h Equality in 8tatw. Of what mail ir Equality in mhora or L w u a ? Why not make Your R w a l Namr and R o b
~~~rirb.bk
In the Indian m i n b br nantio. m a t 7cur Promler bu heon bold mou#h t o p r o m l ~1 That would r a i n a m m o m mom . o d u r ~(h. you .
W o n m ID bronle or aIabu(rr.
.v:tneon~to
11,
Around this time the Muslim League under the Presidentship of M.A. Jinnah met at
Lahore. It demanded the establishment of full responsible government, a federal
constitution with full autonomy for provinces and adequate representation for minorities
through separate electorates. When a resolution was introduced in the Council of State for
the abolition of separate electorates Muslim members felt that the moment for doing away
government.
I
I
i) They pointed out that since the committee had to report its proceedings to the British
Parliament so it was justified to appoint British members only. This argument did not
hold much weight because there were two Indian Members of British ParliamentLord Sinha and Mr. Saklatwala.
ii) Secondly, the British government declared that as there was, no unanimity of Indian
opinion on the problem of Constitutional development it was not possible to
appoint any Indian as its member. Actually Birkenhead was afraid that in a mixed
commission there could be an alliance between the Indian and British Labour
representatives.
Irwin declared that Indians had been excluded from the membership of Commission
because they could not give an accurate picture of their capacity to govern to the
Parliament and their judgement was bound to be coloured. However, Prime Minister
Baldwin declared in May, 1927 "in the fulness of time we look forward to seeking her
(India) in equal partnership with the Dominions". Taking cognizance of Baldwin's
declaration Irwin made provisions for expression of Indian opinion on the problem of
constitutional development. In India joint committees consisting of non-official members
from centre and provinces were to make their views known to the commission. Indian
Legislature could send delegations to confer with the Joint British Parliamentary
Committee on the Commission's Report.
29.3.2 Boycott
The announcement of the all-white commission shocked almost all Indians. It was greeted
with strong protest by all parties, i.e., the Congress, a section C% t h e s u s l i m League,
Hindu Mahasabha, Liberals Federation, etc., proving that on the issue of Indian
representation there was unanimity amongst almost all sections of Indian public opinion.
They pointed out that what they had asked for was a Round Table ~ 6 n f e r e n c eof Indians
and British and not an exclusive English Commission. Through the boycott the Congress
tried to revive the Non-Cooperation spirit. However. Indian revolutionaries like Bhagat
Singh and others opposed the Simon Commission on the ground that only Indians should
have a say in framing the constitution of India.
The Muslim League led by Muhammed Shafi as also Justice Party in Madras, Central Sikh
Sangh and All India Achut Federation did not oppose the Commission.
The Simon Commission reached Bombay on February, 3, 1928 and was greeted with the
slogan of 'Go back, Simon'. A hartal call was given and thousands of people gathered to
shout slogans. The boycott turned into a protest movement and the scenes of Noncooperation days were revived. Crowds could not be held back even by bullets and lathis.
A procession led by Lala Lajpat Rai in Lahore was lathi charged and Lalaji succumbed to
his injuries. J. Nehru and G.B. Pant were lathi charged in Lucknow. A revolutionary group
led by Bhagat Singh avenged Lala Lajpat Rai's death by killing Assistant Police
Superintendent, Saunders.
The popular resentment against the Commission reflected the feeling that the future
constitution of India should be framed by the people themselves. The Congress called an
All Parties Conference in February, 1928 and on 19 May appointed a Committee under
Motilal Nehru to draft a Constitution.
The Commission paid two visits to India (February-March 1928, October 1928-April
1929). Each time it faced boycott. It made extensive tours and prepared a Report which
was published in May, 1930.
Constitutional Reforms
1921-1935
Y
Nationalism: Inter War
Years I11
problem. Communal representation was to be reconsidered after ten years and Baluchistan
was to be given full provincial status.
L
At the All Parties Convention held in Calcutta in December 1928 Jinnah demanded one
third representation of the Muslims in the Central Legislature. As this was not accepted at
the convention so he joined the groups led by Agha Khan and Muhammed Shafi. An All
India Muslim Conference was held in Delhi on 1 January, 1929 and it passed a resolution
emphasising two principles:
i) The first principle was that since India was a vast country, with a lot of diversity it
required a federal system of government in which the states would have complete
autonomy and residuary powers.
ii) The second principle was that the system of aeparate electorates should continue as long
as the rights and interests of Muslims were not safeguarded in the constitution.
In March 1929 Jinnah put forward before the Muslim League a detailed account of Muslim
demands known as fourteen points. These demands suggested a total rejection of Nehru
Report because of two reasons.
i) Firstly a unitary constitution was not acceptable because it would not ensure Muslim
domination in any part of India. A federal constitution consisting of a centre with
limited powers and autonomous provinces with residuary powers would enable the
Muslims to dominate in 5 provinces - NWFP, Baluchistan, Sind, Bengal and Punjab,
ii) Secondly the solution to the communal problem as suggested by Nehru Committee was
not acceptable to Muslims. Jinnah did not want to do away with separate electorates.
Within the Congress the younger section led by J. Nehru and S.C. Bose criticised the
Nehru Report because of its acceptance of Dominion Status. As has been stated earlier that,
although the Congress was pledged to the goal of complete independence, which meant
secession from the British Empire but it made a compromise and accepted Dominion
Status as its goal in order to rally all parties behind a common plan. However, due to the
opposition of the younger section the Calcutta Congress Resolution (1928) added that if the
British government did not accept the Nehru Report on or before 31 December, 1929, or
spumed it before that date, the Congress would start another mass movement. Lord Irwin
showed no signs of taking some concrete steps in the direction of establishing full
Dominion Self-Government, as he had announced, in his declaration of 31 October 1929.
Therefore, the Congress declared on 31 December, 1929, that the Nehru Report had ceased
to be valid.
In May 1930 the Simon Commission Report was published. It did not recommend the
establishment of either responsible government or Dyarchy at the centre. Separate
electorates were retained. It proposed reservation of seats for depressed classes. It
recommended scrapping of Dyarchy in the provinces and establishment of responsible
unitary government in provinces. It stated that in order to cope with the diversity of the
country the ultimate character of the Indian government had to be federal. It declared that
the establishment of responsible government at the centre was to wait indefinitely i.e., it
was to be established somewhere in the future. Simon Commission's observations
regarding Dominion status were not very clear. It recommended that a Greater India
consisting of British India and the Princely States as a federal association was to be
established in the future but the clause of British Paramountcy (with Viceroy as the agent
of Paramount power) was to remain. The report was rejected by almost all Indian Parties
and the Indian masses enthusiastically participated in Civil Disobedience Movement.
Constitutional Reforms
1921-1935
3. M.R. Jayakar
were:
leader, C.Y. Chintarnani and T.B. Sapm who
12
..,
rulers, it was a gathering of men who could not be considered real representatives of the
Indian people whose destiny the Conference had to decide. In spite of this handicap from
the point of view of constitutional reforms, the Conference took intitative in favour of
two positive points. It recommended the formation of an All India Federation of the
British Indian Provinces and the Indian States. It also proposed to establish a responsible
government at the centre with certain safeguards for the transitional period. However,
to the disappointment of the nationalists, the period of transition was not clearly
specified.
Constitutional Reforms
1921-1935
The Round Table Conference gave the impression of being a -gathering of communalists
and reactionaries. Anxious to secure the Congress participation, the British Prime Minister
Ramsay Macdonald and the Viceroy of India unconditionally released the Indian leaders so
that they could meet at the residence of the ailing leader Motilal Nehru and deliberate on
the conditions on which the Congress could agree to participate in the next session of the
Round Table Conference.
The Congress scheme tabled by Gandhi was the same as had been suggested earlier by
the Nehru Committee Report. The proceedings of the conference were bogged down by
the communal issues. Gandhi was aware of the fact that the csornmunal problem was so
complex that is defied all immediate solutions. He suggested that the communal settlement
be kept pnding till the constitutional settlement had been arrived at. The suggestion not
only displeased the representatives of the minorities but even hardened their attitude. The
Muslim representatives insisted on separate electorates. The second session thus concluded
in an atmosphere of bitterness and anxiety.
January, 1932, that is, only a week after his arrival in India, and unleashed a reign of
terror. The co~nmunalproblem gripped the nation's attention. The Indian National
4. Dr B.R. Ambedkar
to recognize dep
I 1i
a White Paper on the new constitution of India,
by the British Government contained three major
Autonomy and safeguards which vested special
executives. As it fell far short of complete
criticised and rejected by all the political parties of
White Paper was submitted for consideration to the
e Houses, which submitted its report on 22
port was passed on 2 August 1935 and after
overnment of India Act of 1935.
independence, the
li
1 d
The governors in provinces were invested with special executive powers. They could
exercise discretion in matters like law and order, interests of minorities and the people of
backward areas, the protection of the British commercial interests and those of the rulers of
states.
The Act prescribed federal structure for the Government of India. It was to comprise
provinces and states, with federal central and provincial legislatures. Dyarchy was
introduced at the centre, and departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence were resewed
for the Governor-General and the subjects transferred to the elected ministers were
subjected to safeguards.
The central legislature was to consist of two houses. The Council of States i.e., the Upper
House, was to consist of 156 members from British India and 104 from the Indian States.
Dominion Status was not introduced by the Act of 1935. Therefore, the Act was an
arrangement for the interim period of transition from responsible government to ccmplete
independence. And the provisions regarding the safeguards and special responsibility were
also made for that period of transition.
The Act of 1935 was based on two basic principles, namely, federation and parliamentary
system. Although the federation principle was introduced with a built-in unitary bias yet
the provinces were invested with a coordinate and not a subordinate authority. No doubt,
the federal character was seriously distorted by the provisions of safeguards and special
responsibility which gave extraordinary powers to the executive head at the centre and the
provinces. An important point to be noted is that fully responsible government was not
introduced at the centre. The provincial autonomy envisaged under the Act was also placed
under serious limitations. The Dominion Status for India was still a distant dream. The
incorporation of safeguards was a clever constitutional device to delay the introduction of a
fully responsible government. Although these provisions were made for the transition
period, the extent of the period of transition was not defined.
The Indian National Congress rejected the provision of safeguards and repudiated the idea
of transition. It suspected that there were sinister motives behind them and they were found
to have an adverse effect on the national movement.
The Act was criticized and rejected by the Congress on the ground that in formulating it
the people of India were never consulted, and as such it did not represent their will.
Congress charged the government of formulating the Act in such a way as to stall the
introduction of responsible government, perpetuate their rule and exploit the Indian
masses. In spite of its recognition of the aspirations of the Indians to have a responsible
government, the Act of 1935 did not fulfil those aspirations. It did not concede the right to
vote to all the adults. The property qualifications, the system of separate electorates, the
provisions of safeguard were violative of democratic rights of the people. The Act was,
therefore, denounced as undemocratic in spirit, offensive to people's sovereignty and
institutionally unworkable. The Liberals criticised the Act but were willing to work the
reforms as a step towards responsible government. The Muslim League also criticised the
Act but was ready to give it a trial. On the whole the Congress condemned the Act but
hesitated that they might be prepared to work the provincial part under protest. Thus, the
Congress participated in the elections in 1937 and formed provincial ministries.
Check Your Progress 2
1 What were the main provisions of the Poona Pact? Answer in about five lines.
Constitutional Reforms
1921-1935
.......................................
.........................................................................................
.......................................
I
......................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
1,
I
..........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
......................................
1.. ............... .........................................................................................
......................................1.................
.......................................................
I
UI
29.9 LET US ~ U M
arliamentary democracy.
ent according to which a country is granted selfntinues to owe allegiance to the colonial power.
h there is a division of the functions of state into
cation, health, etc. were transferred to elect
as finance, law and order, etc. were reserved for
. Dyarchy:
A form
two parts. Here
the official bloc.
29.11 A N S W E TO
~
EXERC ES