UNIT 29 CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS 1921-1935 Structure 29.0 Objectives 29.1 Introduction 29.2 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 All Parties Conference and Nehru Report 29.5 The First Round Table Conference 29.6 Gandhi and the Second Round Table Conference 29.7 Communal Award and Poona Pact 29.8 The Government of India Act of 1935 29.9 Let Us Sum Up 29.10 Key Words 29.1 1 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises 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 I 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. 29.2 EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS OF 1919 Before discussing the effects of the Constitutional Reforms of 1919, let us briefly recapitulate the main features of the Government of India Act of 1919. Under the Government of India Act of 1919 the provincial governments were given more powers under the system of Dyarchy. Some subjects such as finance and law and order b.11 ionelism: Inter War \ dn;tr$- 111 29.2.2 Reform Proposals between 1920-1927 Constitutional Reforms 1921-1935 The reforms introduced by the government of India Act of 1919 disillusioned the Indian nationalists and contributed to a great extent to the growth of nationalist movement in 1920-1921. During the period after the withdrawal of Non-Cooperation movement a political vacuum developed which the Swarajists attempted to fill up. The Gandhian No- changers on the other hand concentrated on constructive work in villages. In the period between 1920 and the formation of Simon Commission many reform proposals were put forward by the Indians. A non-official resolution was introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly in 192 1. The resolution demanded establishment of full responsible government in the provinces. Two other non-official resolutions were introduced in 1923 but to no avail. After entering the assembly the Swarajists introduced a non-official resolution. It recommended to the Governor-General in Council the overhauling of Government of India Act of 1919 to establish self-governing Dominion Status within the British Empire and provincial autonomy in the provinces. The government rej~ctedthis proposal. Home Member Sir Malcolm Hailey pointed out that responsible government as mentioned in the Preamble of Act of 1919 in which executive would be responsible to the legislature with limited powers was to be established. However, full Dominion self-government was to be a further and final step. Swarajists led by Motilal Nehru introduced an amendment in 1924. They demanded the framing of an Indian Constitution by an Indian Constituent Assembly. As a response the government appointed the Reforms Enquiry Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Muddiman, the Home Member in the Executive Council. The Committee published a majority and minority Report. Majority Report declared that Dyarchy had not been established. Minority Report stated that Act of 1919 had failed. However, .the official point of view stated that the Act of 1919 could be improved upon by adopting the suggestions of the Majority Report. But Motilal Nehru stood by his earlier resolution. He asked for the summoning of a Round Table Conference of all Indian (including minority), European and Anglo-Indian interests. Equal' in Rank but lnferior in Status. D .v:tneon~to Motkr Jndta :-Really. Happy. Venerable Mother India, to rea that Hi. Momt Ormcioum Majaaty hma #iron You l glorioum 11, thim Hiatoric Empire Exhibition with us. the "Leer rsarinu Auatralianm. Wh,~atfulCanadians and Oltnch-featherd 8. Africaom. BOLDDoodle :-Proud id& tbr day when In rompoul mhora mad proud Erhtbitio~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 ehEquality in 8tatw. Of what mail ir Equality in mhora or Lwua? Why not make Your Rwal Namr and Rob ~~~rirb.bk In the Indian minb br nantio. mat 7cur Promler bu heon bold mou#h to proml~1 That would rain a mmommom .odur~(h. you . Wonm ID bronle or aIabu(rr. baa Qw&.Qor~'.~od*.' 2. A Cartoon on Reforms in Indian Review 1924. 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 Nationalism: Inter War Years - I11 Muslim League. A separate annual session of the for the appointment of a Royal Commission at the of the Act with the aim of enquiring into the government. o win, the Tory Government was apprehensive about chance to make the appointment of the Statutory Besides the To nted to send the delegation at a time when communal situation had d the Commission should form a low opinion about the All the seven m ission were Englishmen who were members of British gave two arguments for excluding the Indians from I. i) They pointed out that since the committee had to report its proceedings to the British Constitutional Reforms Parliament so it was justified to appoint British members only. This argument did not 1921-1935 hold much weight because there were two Indian Members of British Parliament- Lord 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 II 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% thesuslim 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 ~6nferenceof 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 Non- cooperation 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.