The people of India agitated against the arrival of Simon Commission because
Contents16
- AIndians never wanted the review of the working of the Act of 1919
- BSimon Commission recommended the abolition of Dyarchyh (Diarchy) in the Provinces
- CThere was no Indian member in the Simon Commission
- DThe Simon Commission suggested the partition of the country
Show answer
Answer: (C) There was no Indian member in the Simon Commission
The Simon Commission (1927) was a seven-member committee appointed by the British Government to review the working of the Government of India Act, 1919, and suggest constitutional reforms.
The main reason for widespread Indian opposition and agitation was that ALL SEVEN members of the Commission were British — there was NO Indian member on the commission.
Indians felt insulted that a commission deciding India's constitutional future did not include a single Indian.
This led to nationwide protests with the slogan 'Simon Go Back'. During one such protest in Lahore, Lala Lajpat Rai was severely beaten by police (lathi charge) and later died.
Option (a) is wrong — Indians did want constitutional reform, just not without representation.
Options (b) and (d) are wrong — these were not the reasons for the agitation (and option b refers to the Commission's later recommendations, while the protest was against its composition from the start).
The Simon Commission controversy established the principle that Indians must be represented in any body deciding India's constitutional future.
This incident directly led to the death of Lala Lajpat Rai during protests in Lahore, making it a pivotal moment in the freedom struggle.
The question tests whether students understand that the protest was about representation, not about constitutional reform itself.
Simon Commission (1927)
Modern Indian History Simon Commission
Simon Commission: Composition, Purpose & Indian Opposition
All 7 members were British — no Indian representation caused nationwide protests
Appointed in 1927 to review Government of India Act, 1919
Led to 'Simon Go Back' slogan and Lala Lajpat Rai's death in protests
Recommended provincial autonomy and dyarchy abolition in provinces
Background & Purpose
The Simon Commission was appointed by the British Government in 1927 to review the working of the Government of India Act, 1919 and suggest further constitutional reforms. The Act had introduced dyarchy in provinces, but after 10 years, the British wanted to assess its effectiveness and plan the next phase of constitutional development.
Commission Details
Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
Chairman | Sir John Simon (British Liberal politician) |
Total Members | 7 members — all British |
Indian Members | None (main cause of opposition) |
Arrival in India | February 1928 |
Final Report | Published in 1930 |
Why Indians Opposed
The core issue was complete lack of Indian representation. Indians felt deeply insulted that a commission deciding their constitutional future had no Indian member. This was seen as racial discrimination and denial of Indian capability to participate in their own governance.
Constitutional reforms affecting Indians should include Indian voices
Indians were capable of constitutional expertise — exclusion was purely racial
Previous committees had included some Indian members
Protest Movement
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Commission Announced (1927)**
All-British composition revealed, immediate criticism`"]
s2["`**Arrival in India (Feb 1928)**
Met with black flags and 'Simon Go Back' slogans nationwide`"]
s3["`**Lahore Protest (Oct 1928)**
Lala Lajpat Rai led demonstration, police lathi charge`"]
s4["`**Lajpat Rai's Death (Nov 1928)**
Died from injuries, became martyr, intensified anger`"]
s5["`**Boycott Continues**
All major political parties boycotted the Commission`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5Commission's Recommendations
Provincial autonomy — end dyarchy, give full responsibility to elected ministers
Separate electorates continued for minorities
Federal structure at center with provinces and princely states
Gradual approach to self-government, not immediate dominion status
Trap: Indians opposed the Commission's composition (no Indian members), not its later recommendations
Trap: Don't confuse with Cabinet Mission (1946) — Simon Commission was much earlier (1927)
Trap: Commission recommended ending dyarchy, but Indians protested before seeing recommendations
Trap: Lala Lajpat Rai died from Simon Commission protest injuries, not other independence movements
Government of India Act 1919
Modern Indian History Act of 1919
Government of India Act 1919: Dyarchy & Constitutional Reforms
Introduced dyarchy in provinces — divided subjects between elected ministers and officials
Based on Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918) — first major constitutional reform
10-year review clause led to Simon Commission appointment in 1927
Created bicameral legislature at center with limited powers
Background
The Government of India Act, 1919 was passed after World War I as Britain's response to growing Indian demands for self-governance. Based on the Montagu-Chelmsford Report (1918), it introduced the concept of 'responsible government' gradually — starting with provinces.
Dyarchy in Provinces
Aspect | Reserved Subjects | Transferred Subjects |
|---|---|---|
Control | Governor + Executive Council | Elected Ministers |
Subjects | Police, Revenue, Justice | Education, Health, Agriculture |
Accountability | To British Government | To Provincial Legislature |
Budget | Not voted by legislature | Subject to vote |
Central Government Changes
Bicameral legislature — Council of State (upper house) and Legislative Assembly (lower house)
Limited law-making powers — Viceroy could veto any bill
Budget restrictions — salary of Viceroy and his council couldn't be voted upon
Communal electorates expanded to include Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians
Why Review Was Needed
The Act included a mandatory review after 10 years to assess its working. By 1927, it was clear that:
Dyarchy was unworkable — constant conflicts between reserved and transferred subjects
Indians wanted full provincial autonomy — not half-measures
Communal tensions had increased due to separate electorates
This review requirement led to the Simon Commission appointment in 1927.
Trap: Act introduced dyarchy in provinces, Simon Commission later recommended ending it
Trap: Montagu-Chelmsford reforms = Government of India Act 1919 (same thing, different names)
Trap: Don't confuse with Government of India Act 1935 — that came after Simon Commission
Trap: Separate electorates were expanded, not introduced (first introduced in 1909 Act)
Nationalist Response to Simon Commission
Modern Indian History Simon Go Back agitated
Indian Nationalist Response: Simon Go Back Movement & Consequences
All major parties boycotted — Congress, Muslim League, Liberal Party united in opposition
Lala Lajpat Rai died from police injuries during Lahore protest (October 1928)
Led to Nehru Report (1928) as Indian alternative to Simon Commission
Black flag demonstrations and hartals wherever Commission went
United Opposition
The Simon Commission achieved something rare — complete unity among Indian political parties. Congress, Muslim League, Liberal Party, and even Hindu Mahasabha all boycotted the Commission. The slogan 'Simon Go Back' became the rallying cry across India.
Key Protest Events
Date | Place | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
Feb 1928 | Bombay | Commission's arrival, black flags | Set pattern for nationwide protests |
Oct 1928 | Lahore | Lala Lajpat Rai leads protest | Police lathi charge on elderly leader |
Nov 1928 | Lahore | Lajpat Rai's death | Became martyr, intensified movement |
Dec 1928 | Calcutta | Massive demonstrations | Commission work disrupted |
Consequences of Opposition
# Simon Commission Boycott
## Political Unity
- Congress-League cooperation
- Hindu-Muslim unity temporarily
- All-party conferences
## Martyrdom
- Lala Lajpat Rai's death
- Revolutionary anger increased
- Bhagat Singh's revenge motive
## Constitutional Response
- Nehru Report 1928
- Indian constitutional draft
- Alternative to Simon proposals
## British Reaction
- Realized need for Indian inclusion
- Round Table Conferences later
- Government of India Act 1935Long-term Impact
The Simon Commission boycott demonstrated Indian political maturity and unity. It forced the British to realize that constitutional reforms without Indian participation were impossible. This led to the Round Table Conferences (1930-32) where Indians were included, and ultimately to the Government of India Act, 1935.
Trap: Lala Lajpat Rai died from Simon Commission protest injuries, not directly in freedom struggle
Trap: Nehru Report (1928) was Indian response to Simon Commission, not related to Nehru family later
Trap: Opposition was to all-British composition, not to constitutional review itself
Trap: Bhagat Singh's revolutionary activities were partly motivated by Lajpat Rai's death in Simon protests