IJEAR Vo l . 2, Is s u e 2, Ju l y - De c e m b er 2012 ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print) Simon Commission- Why Appointed Sukhchain Kaur Research Scholar, Shinghania University, Pacheri Bari, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India

In accordance with law, the Parliament of England was vested readily imagine what kind of a Commission in its personnel with the power and responsibility of shaping India’s political would have been appointed by Colonel Wedgewood, 11 and his future. It, therefore, felt to demand clear guidance on the action, friends. I have, therefore throughout been of the clear opinion that it should take, after the ten-year period of trial, laid down in, the it would be necessary for us as a matter of elementary prudence Act of 1919, had expired. Section 841-A of this Act provided that to appoint a Commission not later than the summer of 1927. I at the expiration of ten years from the institution of reforms, a should, therefore, like to receive your advice if at any moment you Royal Commission should be sent out to India in order to report discern an opportunity for making this a useful bargain counter to Parliament as to their progress and effects [1] In 1927, the or for further disintegrating the Swarajist Party..... I am sure that Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had been in operation’ for the last having regard to political contingencies in this country, we must eight years and the statutory period as laid down in the Act, had keep the nomination of the personnel of the Commission in our not yet expired. But considerable pressure, agitation and criticism own hands. In this matter, we cannot run the slightest risk. My mounting from numerous patriotic Indian elements decided to present view, therefore, is an I believe that the Prime Minister anticipate the date of the Statutory Commission’s appointment. shares it-that we shall in any event, be playing for safety if-we It was indeed the fear of the probable adverse results of the general are driven to nominate the Commission in the middle of 1927. If elections in 1929 in Great Britain which prompted the Conservative such acceleration affords you any bargaining value, use it to the Party, headed by Stanley Baldwin, to think of accelerating the full and with the knowledge that you will be supported by the appointment of the Statutory Commission before the scheduled Government” [12]. time. Lord Birkenhead, wrote to Lord Irwin ... ‘We must not The personnel of the Statutory Commission was selected solely run the slightest risk of the delay in selection. It is, of course, from the British Community without any Indian representative, obvious that the mare anti-dating of the Commission, while it although it was the future constitution of India: which was to would probably give satisfaction in India, would deprive us of be the subject of enquiry, discussion and decision. This was nothing valuable. We can play with the time as we wal~t,’ [3], obviously a wrong precedent which was bound to give offence obviously, it was the common belief in the high echelons of British to the patriotic; sentiments of the people of India. In the past, in politicians that the coming elections would return the Labour every Commission, dealing with Indian affairs, Indians were given Party to power. The Conservatives, therefore, wanted to gain a proportional representation. In the Lee Commission [13] and the tactical advantage and could not afford to ‘run the slightest risk Skeen Commission [14]. Indians were duly represented and all this that the nomination of the Commission should be in the hands of led to satisfactory results without any feelings of opposition. our successors.’ Therefore” ‘the Secretary of State felt that the The exclusion of Indians from the Statutory Commission was acceleration of the Commission was our one card left and that it anticipated some time before the actual announcement was made was a pity to play it until we were certain it would take a trick [15]. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who had returned from England [4] Besides, it was the general belief amongst the Conservatives shortly before the announcement of the Commission, declared that that a Labour Government would be more helpful, sympathetic he was not at all surprised at the action of the British Govemment. and considerate in acceding to the political demands of Indian [16 ]. When the names of the Commissioners were made .. public, leaders, and it might also go a step further in granting them such he said in the course· of an interview:-’During my recent visit concessions as would be compatible with the vested interests of to England, short as my stay was, there it became abundantly Britain in India. They, therefore, thought that it would be a safe plain to me that the mind of Government had already been made and prudent measure to appoint the Commission forthwith and up, that India could not hope for any support for its view-point thus forestall the Labour Government. There was another reason from the Conservatives or Liberals, and that, at any rate, so far which also hastened the appointment of the Statutory Commission. as some of the Labour leaders were concerned, they had placed The Swaraj Party, und.er the leadership of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, serious limitations upon their liberty of action’[17]. He further [6], considered to be the most balanced politician in our country said: ‘I cannot understand why this scheme could not have fitted and a broad-minded nationalist, was unhappy at the working of in with adequate representation of Indians on the personnel of the reforms of 19197 and expressed much dissatisfaction in this the Commission. The fear of minority reports is as naive as it is regard. This party had been pressing very hard, time and again, for disingenuous. Nor can I believe’ that Government could not find more and more autonomy in the provinces and responsibility at the in the whole of the country even three or four Indians who could centre. The objective, therefore, of the Conservative Government inspire confidence generally [18]. was to utilize the appointment of the Commission as a bargain ‘It can only mean a complete want of confidence in the judgement counter and to disintegrate the Swaraj Party [8] and capacity of Indians to serve on a Commission which is to Besides, Lord Birkenhead was seriously concerned over the determine the future Government of their country. The utmost that changing political trends both in England and India. According can be said in favour of this ‘scheme is that they want to associate to Lord Halifax, “the legal minds of Birkenhead and Reading were us with them at some stages only to the extent of representing outraged that anyone should speak about Dominion Status” [9]. In our views, but they deny to us the right of participation in the his private letter,10 which he wrote to Lord Reading, on December responsibility of framing our constitution. I have no doubt that 10, 1925, he mentioned that in suggesting the acceleration of this Commission, even though it be presided over by Simon, the Commission, “1 always had it plainly in mind that we could will inspire no confidence and will command no public support not afford to run the slightest risk that the nomination of 1928 ‘[19]. Commission should be in the hands of our successors. You can

126 International Journal of Education and applied research www.ijear.org ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print) IJEAR Vo l . 2, Is s u e 2, Ju l y - De c e m b er 2012

The excuse given for not appointing any Indian on the Commission the opposition it would create. He was quite sure that it would was that the framers of the Act of 1919 intended to confine the be badly received in India, [32] that its appointment would unite Commission to only Members of Parliament. But it was a mere all Hindu opinion in opposition, and that its failure to produce pretext [20]. The Act, it is obvious, did-? to specify any such an agreed report would have the most damaging results. If restriction. But even if the British Government wanted to restrict such unanimity could not be achieved, he opined that a mixed the membership of the Statutory Commission to only the members Commission, although it would produce more ‘ than a report, of Parliament, the availability of two prominent Indians in the would be far more favour ably received; that it would diminish the British Parliament was the relevant answer to this sudden and probability of uniting all Indian opinion against the Commission; hasty decision of the Conservative Government. There were two and that its minority report would be ‘less injurious than one well-known Indian members at the time to the British Parliament. proceeding from a Parliamentary Commission’ [33]. One was Sir Satyendra Parshad Sinha, later Lord S.P. Sinha [21] With all information in hand, the Viceroy was prepared to announce and the other was Shapurji Saklatwala. In fact, S.P. Sinha had been the appointment of the Statutory Commission. In preparation for closely connected with the various stages of the constitutional the announcement, Lord Irwin invited a number of leaders of Indian reforms in India and his inclusion as a member of the Commission political life to explain the decision of the British Governmel1t would have been of great consequence [22]. These two Indian and the reasons for it [34]. The Viceroy had been spending four members were excluded from Statutory Commission and ignored or five days rather unpleasant days, in trying to induce leaders of simply because of their race, and their exclusion thus saved the Indian opinion to be reasonable about the scheme of procedure British Government from any future controversy and criticism suggested for the Statutory Commission [35]. which might have emanated from their prejudicial findings in In this regard, he informed V.J. Patel, President of the Legislative the final recommendations of the Commission [23]. According to Assembly of India, and Dr. M.A. Ansari, of his willingness to C.Y. Chintamani, the stamp of inferiority was fixed on the ‘brow meeting Gandhi. ‘I cannot agree to any statement regarding subject of Indians merely because they were not God’s own Englishmen matter or interview, as this would inevitably impair confidential [24 ]. Their exclusion from the Commission left no doubt in, character of meeting [36]. Soon after he sent a telegram to Gandhi their minds, that there was not to be found in India a statesman of and Ansari in which he explained: II I am anxious to have a sufficient caliber to sit in conference with men of the Commission. talk with you on certain important rather urgent matters, and if Thus the intense desire of Indians to convince themselves that they it is convenient to you, I should be very glad if you could come were the equals of the British and their almost pathetic amour- and see me in Delhi. The most convenient date for me would be propre were deeply affronted by this further implication of their Wednesday, November 2nd, at 11.30. I realize that I am giving unworthiness. you very short notice and that this must inevitably cause you C.F. Andrews [25] who was’ instrumental in sponsoring the inconvenience, but I hope -it will not make it impossible .for you patriotic sentiments of Indians in their struggle for Swaraj, opined to come. Please wire whether you can come on that date’’ [37]. that Lord Birkenhead’s statements and decision in regard to this Gandhi had made the long journey from Manglore in the South vital matter was akin to that of ‘a conqueror imposing his sway, of India. Probably he came with the impression that his presence upon a conquered and subject people.’ He condemned it as an was needed to discuss the present unhappy communal situation in undemocratic action as it was like ‘a racial superior acting with the country and he was, of course, ever anxious to impress on the arrogance towards a racial inferior. authorities the economic value of his Charkha scheme [38]. It was There was another significant instance which focused the anger, at this meeting that Irwin met Gandhi for the first time, and found resentment and criticism of the people of India still magnified. The him an interesting,. personality [39]. It is stated by one of Gandhi’s fact that the Labour Party of England had agreed [26-27] to serve biographers, Louis Fischer, that Irwin merely handed Gandhi the on the Commission of this character gave to enlightened public document announcing the impending arrival of an official British opinion in India a very grave shock indeed. Lord Birkenhead’s Commission led by John Simon to report on Indian conditions attitude and line of thinking were considered as unfavourable and make recommendations for political, reforms [40]. The ‘real towards India, and it could hardly be appreciated that the British point at issue was the nature of enquiry to be undertaken by the Labour Party of England would accord its open sanction; and Simon Commission and the best from in which the Indian opinion support his policy and measures [28]. as expressed’ by the Central Legislature could be associated with The selection of a Chairman for the Statutory Commission was it during the formative and final legislative stages. Soon thereafter, anxiously discussed in Lord Birkenhead’s private correspondence the Viceroy dismissed him with a few curt words, thus missing with the Viceroy [29] by July 1927, he had agreed with the Prime an opportunity or discussing the issues that lay between them Minister that Sir John Simon was by far the ablest man available. [41]. Gandhi was most disappointed, because he never imagined Birkenhead called John Simon a very adroit, patient, tactful, and a that the Simon Commission would form the dominant topic of successful person imbued with great subtlety, acuteness, quickness, discussion. If he had know this, probably he would have excused industry and tact [30]. In this regard, Ramsay MacDonald readily himself as his other engagements were very pressing. helped the Secretary of State in the Choice on two more members The other Indian leaders were called only to be informed by the from the labour party in the persons of Stephen Walsh [31] and Viceroy that the nature of the Commission had already been finally Clement Richard Attlee, and on July 21, Lord Birkenhead was decided upon by the British Government. Irwin’s biographer, Alan in a position to assure the Viceroy that the British cabinet had Campbell Johnson describes this episode as ‘a deplorable ‘lack of ratified his selection. tact in the handling of the Indian leaders’, who did not disguise On receipt of information of the Secretary of State, the Viceroy, of from the Viceroy the fact that the Commission as constituted course, began to guess in his mind about the probable, outcome of would be boycotted [42]. the appointment of the Statutory Commission. He was confirmed In fact, in undertaking such a step, the Viceroy was actuated by in his opinion that such a Commission, it likely to produce a the desire to ensure that these leaders should be in possession unanimous report, would have a advantages that would outweigh of all and accurate facts and figures in regard to the momentous www.ijear.org International Journal of Education and applied research 127 IJEAR Vo l . 2, Is s u e 2, Ju l y - De c e m b er 2012 ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print) political decision taken by the Home Government in order that for was not so much the intension of taking evidence as for the there might be no risk of their being taken by surprise and having members to gain some experience of the working of legislatures, to form their judgment on possibly misleading information. On local-Government institutions, educational centres and any other official level, the Viceroy had confidential discussions, in this public department which mainly concerned the problem they had regard, with a Committee of the Government of India, consisting been set to unravel and also to ‘form in the mind’s eye’, a clear of S.R. Das Sir Alexander Muddiman. Sir Basil Blackett and Sir picture of Indian conditions with which they were asked to deal John Thompson [43]. The Viceroy wrote to Governor of Punjab [50]. on October 20, 1927. The following persons were appointed as members of the Statutory’ ...... ,’We must be careful to avoid giving the impression that we Commission [51] feel our case is weak one. If we appear to apologize for the Honble 1. Sir John Allsebrook Simon [52] (Chairman) Government’s decision, we shall probably encourage Indian 2. Viscount Brunham [53] opinion to make a grievance o! it, I see that there .is a danger that 3. Baron Strathcona [54] extremists may be encouraged to take up an intransigent attitude if 4. George Richard Land-Fox [55] we give them ground or believing that we have a bad conscience 5. Edward Cecil George Cadogn [56] in the matter and are callous about the consequences” [44]. 6. “Vernon Hartshorn [57] On November 7, 1927, the Secretary of State sent a ‘private 7. Clement Richard Attlee [58] and personal’ telegram to the ‘Viceroy; “Statutory Commission J.W. Bhore ap,d S.F. Steward were appointed as Secretaries, of announcement 5 P.M. Indian time, Tuesday, November 8th will the Commission [59]. be suitable time of release in India” [45]. The Composition of the Statutory Commission was one for the The Viceroy gave an important announcement on November decision of Parliament and His Majesty’s Government,60 and 8, 1927 in connection with the appointment of the Statutory its procedure was settled by the Commission itself and did not Commission. He stated that the previous Statute enacted by the form the subject of correspondence with the Governor-General- British Parliament eight years. ago had regulated the conditions in-Counci1 [61]. under which Indian might learn by actual experience, whether On the 24th November, the resolution was moved in the House of or not the western system of representative Government was the Commons by Earl Winterton that the cost of the Commission would appropriate means through Which she might attain responsible be borne by the Indian revenues, but His Majesty’s Government self-government and report upon the progress made in the past, the would contribute a sum of $20,000 towards it [62] The Secretary of appointment of a Statutory Commission was thought to be essential, State also made it clear to the Viceroy that the Commission’s hands at the end of ten years. The Commission was to be presided over should not only be free, but should be known to be free [63]. by one whose public position was due to his outstanding ability, It was an affront to India to appoint a Parliamentary Commission and intelligence and character, and its was hoped that the Commission to exclude Indians. Indians were not prepared to accord welcome would bring fresh, unbiased, unaffected and impartial judgment to to such a Commission. A lot of agitation, criticism and anger bear upon an immensely complex constitutional issue [46]. were shown by the people of India soon after the announcement While appointing the Statutory Commission, it was not feasible, of the appointment of the Statutory Commission. Indeed, India of course, to dictate to the Commission what procedure it should was in the midst of a great political upheaval brought about by follow during its duration of investigations in India; but it was the announcement of an all-British Commission to work at the opined that its task in taking evidence would be greatly facilitated future constitution of India. Not only was the whole procedure if it were to invite the Central Legislature to appoint a Joint Select proposed by the ‘Government condemned by Ind.ian leaders Committee, chosen from its elected and nominated non-official from the extreme left to I the extreme right, but there was a clear members which would draw up its views and proposals in writing indication that if the proposals were persisted in, the Government and lay them before the Commission for examination in such would have to reckon with a, vigorous and widespread boycoft. manner as the latter may decide. The Committee night remain for any consultation which the Commission might desire at subsequent References stages of the enquiry. It was also suggested that as far procedure Ph.D” Research Scholar, Deptt. of History of Singhania should be adopted with the Provincial Legislatures [47]. University. The procedure of consulting Indian opinion was thought to be easy’ [1] Home - Public, File, 603, December 8, 1927. and effective and it was to assure to Indians a’ better opportunity [2] Cadogan, Edward: The India we Saw, p.l. than they could have enjoyed in any other way of influencing the [3] Secretary of state to Viceroy, September 23, 1926, Haliflax passage of these great events. Moreover, this procedure would Papers. enable them to express ‘themselves freely to the Commission, [4] Viceroy to Governor:-of Bombay, January 26, 1927, Halifax and it would also be within their power to challenge in detail any Papers. of the proposals made by His Majesty’s Government before the [5] Majumdar, R.C., History of the Freedom Movement in India, Joint Select Committee of Parliament, and thesis advocate .their Vol. III, p. 3089. own solutions [48]. [6] Law Member or Viceroy’s Council 1920-23; President, It was also made clear that when the Commission had reported National Liberal Federation of India, 1923 and 1927. and its’ report had been examined by the Government of India, it [7] Besider Sapru, other leaders of India also criticized the would be the duty of the latter to present proposals to Parliament working of the reforms. to adopt those proposals without first giving a full opportunity [8] Setalvad, C.H., Racoolections and Reflections, p. 341, ‘It for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute its view upon was thought, however, that if the Statutory Commission them [49] was, as everybody seems to expect, appointed earlier than- It was decided that the Statutory Commission should proceed 1929, the Swarajists would claims, this as a concession -by to India early in the next year. The purpose of this preliminary Government to their demands and would make it the excuse

128 International Journal of Education and applied research www.ijear.org ISSN: 2348-0033 (Online) ISSN : 2249-4944 (Print) IJEAR Vo l . 2, Is s u e 2, Ju l y - De c e m b er 2012

for abandoning pure obstruction. (See letter from Viceroy to [37] Ibid. Governor of Bombay, January 3, 1927, Halifax Papers). [38] Irwin wrote to Viscount Halifax: ‘It was rather like talking [9] Halifax, Lord, Fullness of Days, p. 121. to some one who had stepped off one planet on to this for a [10] Quoted in Birkenhead, The Earl of Birkenhead, Last Phase, short visit of a fortnight, and whose whole mental outlook pp. 252-53. was quite other to that which was regulating most of affairs [11] Colonel JosiahWedgewood was a friend and sympathizer of on the planet to which he had descended’, (Irwin to Viscount Indian nationalists Halifax, November 6, 1927, Halifax Papers). [12] Last Phase, pp. 252-53. [39] See Times of India, November 5, 1927. [13] For complete list of members see Mitra, H.N., Annual [40] Fischer, Louis, Mahatma Gandhi, pp. 273-74. Register, Vol. II 1923, p. 21. [41] Ibid. [14] See Mitra, H.N. [42] See Times of India, November 6, 1927. [15] Liberal, A., The Commission, and After, p. 4. [43] Debates, Legislative Assembly, Vol. IV, August 18, 1927. [16] Ibid. [44] Vicerqy to Governor of Punjab, October 20, 1927, Hailifax [17] See The Tribune, Lahore, December 28, 1927. Papers. [18] Ibid. [45] Secretary of State to the Viceroy, November 7, 1927, Halifax [19] Ibid. Papers [20] Chintamani, C.Y., Indian Problems Since the Mutiny, p. [46] Reforms Office, F. 15-17/Misc. 1929. See Halifax Papers: 171. and Times of India, November 10, 1927. [21] S.P. Sinha was a Member in the House of Lords. [47] Ibid. [22] Setalvad, C.H., op.cit., p.342. [48] Ibid. [23] Gopal, S., Viceroyalty of Lord Irwin, p. 19. [49] Ibid. [24] Chintamani, C,Y., op.cit., p. 171. [50] Home-Public, F. 603, 1927 and Debates, House of Commons, [25] B. 1870; started his career as a lecturer in St. Stephen’s Vol. 210, pp. 19 ff. Nov. 1927. College, Delhi; disciple of Gandhi, helped India in many [51] Ibid. ways, author of numerous books, d. 1940. [52] He was a celebrated constitutional lawyer in England. [26-27] Birkenhead wrote to Viceroy, ‘My greatest anxiety at [53] A member of the House of Lords. this end was relieved when Ramsay Macdonald consented [54] A member of the House of Lords. On his appointment as a to appoint two members of the Labour Party. If, under member of the Statutory Commission for India, he relinquished the influence of the extremists, he had refused to make an his office as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party appointment, the situation would indeed have been serious, Organization. (Times of India, Nov. 9, 1927). (Secretary of State to the Viceroy, November 3, 1927, Halifax [55] A member or the House of Commons. Papers). [56] A member of the House of Commons and was, the Secretary [28] Ibid. of the Speaker. [29] At one time Lord Hewart’s name was proposed for [57] He replaced Stephen Walsh, (Home Pub. F. 603, 1927) and Chairamanship of Statutory Commission. (Secretary of State Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 211, p. 1129, Nov.-Dec., to the Viecroy, January 27, 1927, Halifax Papers). 1927. [30] Secretary of State to Viceroy, June 16, June 23,1927 and [58] A Labour Member in the House or Commons. January 1928, Halifax Papers. Lord, Birkenhead and John [59] Home, Public, F.603, 1927. Simon had been friends from their College days. [60] Home, Public, F. 1/15, 1928. [31] A Labour Member of Parliament from Lancashire who soon [61] Home, Public, F. 1/70, 1928. resigned for reasons of ill-health and was replaced by Vernon [62] Home, Public, F. 603, 1927. Hartshorn (Home-Public, File 603, January 5, 1928) . [63] Secretary of State to the Viceroy, December 23, 1927, Halifax [32] “The only alternative would, I think, be a mixed Commission, Papers. and this type of body would no doubt be more likely to receive a favourable reception from certain classes in India whose views cannot be considered negligible .... The Muslims almost certainly would not boycott and this will be bound to affect the decision of the Hindus. At the same time, the effects of the boycott would be serious and might gravely exacerbate the issues between British and Indian Opinion. (Irwin to Governor of Burma, June 15, 1927, Halifax Papers). The Viceroy further informed Viscount Halifax: There win accordingly be a great row, when the Government’s procedure for the Commission is announced, but I hope this may gradually yield to more reasonable courses. (Viceroy to Viscount Halifax, November 6, 1927, Halifax Papers). [33] Birkenhead, Earl of; Halifax Papers, pp. 238-39. [34] The Earl of Halifax; Fullness of Days, p.119. [35] Irwin to Viscount Halifax, November 6,1927, Halifax Papers. [36] Telegram of Irwin to Gandhi, October 24, 1927, Halifax Papers. www.ijear.org International Journal of Education and applied research 129