Simon Commission:

Sir John Simon a British conservative leader was appointed to form a constitution for
the Indians. Mr. Jinnah on March 11 1926, addressing the Indian legislative assembly had
already demanded for the appointment of such commission. This commission had not even a
single Indian member. This created unrest and protest throughout India. Quaid-e-Azam
commented this is All Whitemen commission “I cannot even imagine the appointment of
commission which has been given the task of deciding the future constitution of India and its
350 million inhabitance but which does not contain even a single Indian member”. Quaid
suggested to boycott this commission he said Simon Commission would benefit to those who
have been given a task of misleading Indians. Quaid said: “Jallianwala was a physical butchery
and the Simon Commission is the butchery of our soul”. Quaid’s attitude was based on the
given reasons. Therefore, in March 1928 he presented 2 proposals:

1. The Simon Commission should be changed into joint commission.

2. And Indian commission should be constituted and its powers should be the same as those of
Simon Commission’s.

Under these circumstances, all Indian parties boycotted the commission but league was
again divided in 2 groups. One was Jinnah League and other was Shafi League. Mian Shafi was
in favor of cooperating the commission. Mr. Jinnah held decision of Muslims League to boycott
the commission. Allama Iqbal commented it is unexpected and painful. Simon Commission was
report on 1930. Commission made the recommendations:

1. Dy-archy system in the provinces should be abolished. All the portfolios should be handed
over to the provincial governments.

2. Federal system of government should be introduced.

3. Right to vote should be extended to more people.

Quaid expressed dissatisfaction over the Simon Commission report. On June 24th 1930,
he declared the report unacceptable to Hindus and Muslims including Indian legislative
assembly. This report practically established Hindu Raj under British protection in all provinces
throughout India including Bengal and Punjab.

Nehru report:
It is an important document on the constitutional history of the subcontinent. This helps
an understanding the nature of Hindu Nationalism. Indians were not satisfied with the
structural shape of Simon Commission. Consequently they decided to boycott the commission.
All parties opposed the exception of Shafi League of Punjab. All Indian political parties accepted
this challenge, and called for all parties’ conference. The conference was attended and more
than 100 delegates were present. The prominents were Pandit Madan Mohanlal, Tej Bahadur
Sapru, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu were the main participants from INC side, Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Hasrat Mohani, Abdullah Haroon, Nawab Ismail Khan. Discussion on the
constitution divided them in two groups. One group advocated complete independence and
other agreed dominance status. After long discussion, the conference decided for the
dominance status. Conference also appointed a committee to spill out the basic questions of
fundamental rights, right of vote, position of Indian states and status of parliament.
Committee’s head was Mr. Nehru. Nehru committee finished their task in 3 months and report
was published on august 15 1928, this report is known as Nehru report. The following issues
were decided:

1. Complete independence or dominance status: On this issue total responsibility was put on
the government to decide. Moulana Hasrat Mohani commented it’s a total betrayal. Moulana
said Nehru proposed dominance status and he is traitor.

2. Separate electorate: Muslims had demanded for separate electorate. English government
accepted this demand in Minto Marley reforms also accepted the Lakhnow Pact. Now Hindus
started campaigning against the separate electorate Nehru committee also suggested that the
separate electorate would be dangerous for the minorities.

3. Reservation of seats in Punjab and Bengal: Nehru report did not protect the rights of the
Muslims’ majority and said reservation of seats would be as dangerous as demand of separate
electorate.

4. Reforms in NWFP and Baluchistan: Report proposed constitutional reforms committee first
omitted Baluchistan and later accepted an error.

5. Rejection of 1/3rd representation of the Muslims: Muslims had demanded 1/3rd

representation in the central legislature. Nehru committee rejected this demand. Committee
argued that Muslims in India represent less than 1/4th of population. Therefore, they could not
be given 1/3rd representation.

6. Federal system of government: Muslims thought of constitutional issue would be naturally

given provincial autonomy in Muslims majority provinces. But the Nehru committee suggested
unitary form of government making central government more powerful.

Quaid at this time was in Europe, and he suggested a few amendments in Nehru report.
Quaid proposed:
1. 1/3rd representation in the central legislature

2. Reservation of seats in Punjab and Bengal.

3. All residuary powers to provincial governments.

All these proposals were rejected. All Muslims did not accept this but Jamiat-e-Ulma-e-
Hind accepted Nehru report and INC said therefore no need to accept Jinnah’s view.