No More Learning

Rowlatt, two Bills were introduced in the Imperial Legislature in
February 1919 and passed into law by the official majority in spite
of opposition from the people. Mahatma Gandhi appealed to the
people of India to offer Satyagraha against the oppressive laws.
Hartals were held all over the country. Disturbances took place
at various places. Martial Law was declared in the Punjab. On
the Baisakhi day (April 13, 1919), there occurred the Jallianwala
Bagh tragedy. General Dyer ordered the opening of fire on a
peaceful crowd at Amritsar. 1,650 rounds were fired and about
400 persons were killed and 1,200 wounded. The people were
subjected to great humiliations. The “crawling order” was most
resented. The people were required to pass through a street like
four-footed animals. The Punjab leaders were put in jails. At
many places in the Punjab, bombs were thrown on innocent per.


## p. 617 (#657) ############################################

DEMAND FOR CHANGE
617
sons. All this resulted in resentment against the Government.
Certain events brought the Congress and the Muslims together.
The Muslims of India protested against the harsh terms imposed
on Turkey after the First World War. Mahatma Gandhi joined
hands with the Muslims and started his non-violent Non-Coopera-
tion Movement for the redress of the Khilafat and the wrongs of
the Punjab and the establishment of Swarajya in India. The
Calcutta session of the Congress in September 1920 endorsed the
policy of Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the people to give up
their titles and honorary offices and also boycott schools, law courts,
Legislative councils and British goods. The movement was very
strong for two years. However, the events of Chauri Chaura in
U. P. where 22 policemen were burnt alive by a mob, made
Mahatma Gandhi suspend the movement. The Mahatma was
himself arrested in March 1922 and the movement collapsed.
Although the Moderates “were prepared to do everything in
their power to make the new Constitution a success," they were
themselves not satisfied with it. It was felt that the Reforms did
not go far enough. On September 23, 1921, a resolution was mov-
ed in the Central Assembly by Rai Jadunath Mazumdar Bahadur
for the establishment of autonomy in the provinces and introduc-
tion of responsibility in the Central Government. To that resolu-
tion, an amendment was moved by Mr. Jamnadas Dwarkadas in
which he asked the Governor-General-in-Council “to appoint a
Committee consisting of officials and non-officials, including mem-
bers of Indian Legislatures, to consider the best way of bringing
about provincial autonomy in all the Governors' Provinces and of
introducing responsibility in the Central Government and to make
recommendations. ” Sir William Vincent, the Home Member, sug-
gested the following formula which was adopted by the Assembly:
"That this Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in
Council that he should convey to the Secretary of State for India
the views of this Assembly that the progress made by India on the
path of responsible Government warrants a re-examination and
a
revision of the Constitution at an earlier date than 1929. "
The Government of India submitted a Report of its debates to
the Secretary of State for India for necessary action. The latter
was of the opinion that the possibilities of the new Constitution had
not been exhausted. He maintained that progress was possible
under the existing Constitution. The merits and capabilities of the
electorate had not been tested by time and experience. The new
constitutional machinery had still to be tested in its working as a
whole. The reply of the Secretary of State was followed by a reso-
lution moved in the Assembly by Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar in
a


## p. 618 (#658) ############################################

618 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
February 1923 expressing extreme dissatisfaction with it. Another
resolution was moved by Dr. Hari Singh Gour in July 1923 which
recommended to the Governor-General to move the Secretary of
State for India to carry out his suggestions with regard to further
reforms possible under the Constitution.
At this stage, the Swarajists appeared on the scene. So far, the
Indian National Congress had followed a policy of non-co-opera-
tion. However, certain of its leaders led by Sarvashri C. R. Dass
and Motilal Nehru turned to a new method of embarrassing the
Government. That method was ‘of wrecking legislatures from
within. " The members of the Swarajist party took the pledge of
"uniform, continuous and sustained obstruction with a view to
making the Government through the Assembly and the Council
impossible” and they had great success in the elections.
In the newly elected Assembly, Diwan Bahadur Rangachariar
moved a resolution recommending to the Governor-General-in
Council that he be pleased to take, at a very early date, the neces-
sary steps (including, if necessary, appointment of a Royal Com-
mission) for revising the Government of India Act so as to secure
for India full Self-Governing Dominion Status within the British
Empire and provincial autonomy in the provinces. The Govern-
ment opposed the resolution but proposed to make a serious attempt
to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the
scheme in practice, to
the causes and to examine the
necessary remedies. Neither the original resolution nor the propo-
sal of the Government was acceptable to the Swarajist Party and
consequently Pt. Motilal Nehru, leader of the Swarajist Party,
moved the following amendment and the same was carried :-
"This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General-in-Council
to take steps to have the Government of India Act revised with a
view to establish full responsible Government in India and for the
said purpose
“(a) to summon at an early date a representative Round Table
Conference to recommend with due regard to the protec-
tion of the rights and interests of important minorities
the scheme of a Constitution for India; and
“(b) after dissolving the Central Legislature to place the said
scheme for approval before a newly elected Indian Legis-
lature for its approval and submit the same to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. "
assess
MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
Although the Government of India did not accept the resolution


## p. 619 (#659) ############################################

MUDDIMAN COMMITTEE REPORT
619
>
of the Central Assembly, it set up a Committee under the chair-
manship of Sir Alexander Muddiman
“(1) to enquire into the difficulties arising from or defects in-
herent in the working of the Government of India Act and
the Rules thereunder in regard to the Central Govern-
ment and the Governments of Governors provinces; and
(2) to investigate the feasibility and desirability of securing
remedies for such difficulties or defects, consistent with
the structure, policy and purpose of the Act;
(a) by action taken under the Act and the Rules, or
(b) by such amendments of the Act as appear necessary to
rectify any administrative imperfections. ”
The Muddiman Committee did not submit a unanimous Report.
The majority view was that the existing Constitution was working
in most provinces and was affording valuable political experience.
As the new Constitution had been in existence only for a short
period, it was not possible to say definitely as to whether it would
succeed ultimately or not. Detailed recommendations were made
for improving the machinery of the Government. The minority
view was that dyarchy had completely failed and could not succeed
at all in future. It was only a fundamental change of the Constitu-
tion which could improve matters. To quote, “It has been urged
than an advance could be made by action under S. 19A of the Act
and without any radical amendment of the Act itself. With all
respect to those who maintain this view, we entirely differ from it.
In the first place, it is obvious that under S. 19A, the Secretary of
State can only ‘regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of
superintendence, direction and control vested in him. In the
second place, such a regulation and restriction of powers must be
with a view to give effect to the purposes of the Government of
India Act. These purposes are defined in the Preamble and we
think that even if the Secretary of State felt so disposed, he could
not, by the mere exercise of his powers under this section, abolish
dyarchy. In the third place, reading the second and third parts
of S. 19A with the first part, it seems to us that the relaxation of
the control contemplated by S. 19A can only be with regard to
provincial Governments and cannot have any relation to the Cen-
tral Government. . . . . . We also think that the relaxation of con-
trol provided by this section cannot mean the same thing as divest-
ment. ”
In September 1925, the Report of the Muddiman Committee
was discussed in the Central Assembly. The Government of India
proposed to accept the principle underlying the majority report and
proceeded with the consideration of its recommendations. Shri


## p. 620 (#660) ############################################

620 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Motilal Nehru moved the following amendment which was carried
in the Assembly in spite of opposition from the Government: “That
immediate steps should be taken to move His Majesty's Govern-
ment to make a declaration in the Parliament embodying such
fundamental changes in the Constitution of India as would make
Government fully responsible; and that Round Table Conference
or Convention of representatives of all interests should be held to
frame a detailed scheme which should be placed before the Legisla-
tive Assembly for approval and afterwards submitted to the British
Parliament to be embodied in a statute. ”
THE SIMON COMMISSION
In November 1927 was appointed the Simon Commission.
Different views have been expressed as to why the Statutory Com-
mission was appointed earlier than ten years as stipulated in the
Government of India Act, 1919. One view is that the British
Government was forced to appoint the Commission earlier on
account of the agitation carried on in India. However, the real
reason seems to have been different. In December 1925, Lord
Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India in the Conservative Minis-
try, referred to the possibility of accelerating the Commission. The
whole object of Lord Birkenhead and the Conservative Government
was not to leave the Commission to be appointed by the Labour
Government which, it was felt, would almost certainly come to
power at the next general elections. Another object was to use the
appointment of the Commission as a bargaining counter and to
disintegrate the Swarajist Party.
The Commission consisted of 7 members and was presided over
by Sir John Simon. All of its members were Englishmen. The
Commission was boycotted by the Indians on the ground that it
had no Indian member. The Commission was boycotted not only
by the Congress and other representative organisations but also by
other distinguished leaders of India. Resolutions were passed con-
demning the composition of the Commission. To quote, “We have
come to a deliberate conclusion that the exclusion of the Indians
from the Commission is fundamentally wrong. The underlying
principle of the scheme that Indians are to have no authoritative
voice either in the collection of proper material and evidence or in
taking of decisions by way of recommendations of the Commission
to Parliament is of such a character that India cannot, without any
self-respect, acquiesce in it. Unless a commission on which British
and Indian statesmen are invited to sit on equal terms is set up, we
cannot conscientiously take any part or share in the work of the


## p. 621 (#661) ############################################

THE NEHRU REPORT
621
Commission as at present constituted. ” The excuse put forward
for not appointing any Indian on the Commission was that the
intention of the framers of the Government of India Act, 1919 was
to confine the Commission to members of Parliament. However,
the Act did not lay down any such restriction. But even if the
British Government wanted to restrict the nomination to members
of the British Parliament, there were two Indian members at that
time. Lord Sinha was a member of the House of Lords and Mr.
Shapurji Saklatwala was in the House of Commons. Lord Sinha
had been closely associated with the various stages of constitutional
reforms in India. His presence on the Commission would have been
very valuable. The real reason seems to be that the Conservative
Government did not want any Indian to be on the Commission.
The Simon Commission was appointed "for the purpose of in-
quiring into the working of the system of Government, the growth
of education and development of representative institutions in
British India and matters connected therewith and reporting as
to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the prin-
ciple of responsible government or to extend, modify or restrict the
degree of responsible government then existing therein, including the
question whether the establishment of second chambers of the local
legislatures is or is not desirable. ” As the enquiry was coming to
a close, the members of the Commission “were increasingly impress-
ed by the impossibility of considering the constitutional problems
of British India without taking into account the relations between
British India and the Indian States. " With the approval of the
British Government, the Commission also considered the relations
between British India and the Indian states.
The day on which the Commission landed in India, there was a
Hartal all over the country. Wherever the members of the Com-
mission went, they were greeted with black flags and cries of "Simon
go back. ” The Central Assembly was invited to set up a committee
to cooperate with the Commission but it refused to do so. A large
number of persons were arrested and prosecuted. However, the
prosecutions did not damp the enthusiasm of the people against the
Commission.
THE NEHRU REPORT
The Indians had condemned the appointment of the all-White
Simon Commission and Lord Birkenhead, while justifying the ex-
clusion of Indians from the Commission, challenged the latter to
produce an agreed constitution and submit the same to the British
Parliament for consideration. The challenge was accepted by the


## p. 622 (#662) ############################################

622 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Indians and an All-Parties Conference was held in Bombay on May
19, 1928, under the Presidentship of Dr. M. A. Ansari. The Con-
ference appointed a Committee with Pandit Motilal Nehru as
Chairman to consider and determine the principles of a constitu-
tion for India. The terms of the resolution appointing the Com-
mittee were in these words: “This Committee shall give the fullest
consideration to the resolution of the Madras Congress on com-
munal unity in conjunction with those passed by the Hindu
Mahasabha, the Muslim League, the Sikh League and other political
organisations represented at the All Parties Conference at Delhi
and the suggestions that may hereafter be received by it; the Com-
mittee will give due weight to the recommendations made by the
various Sub-Committees of the All Parties Conference at Delhi. ”
Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Ali Imam, Shri M. S. Aney, Sardar
Mangal Singh, Shri Shuaib Qureshi, Shri G. R. Pradhan and Shri
Subhash Chandra Bose were its members. The Committee pro-
duced a report which has gone down in history as the Nehru Report.
The recommendations of the Report were unanimous except in
regard to the basis of the constitution. While the majority favour-
ed Dominion Status not only as a distant goal but as "the next
immediate step,” it gave liberty of action to all those groups and
parties which made complete independence their goal. Although
the report envisaged a future linking up of the Indian states with
the rest of India in a federal polity, it confined itself to British India.
It was provided in the report that all treaties made between the
East India Company and the Indian States and all such subsequent
treaties so far as they were in force, would be binding on the Com-
monwealth of India which would exercise the same right in rela-
tion to and discharge the same cbligations towards the Indian states
as the Government of India exercised and discharged previously. In
case of differences between the Commonwealth and the Indian
states on any matter arising out of treaties, engagements, Sanads or
similar other documents, the Governor-General-in-Council may,
with the consent of the state concerned, refer such matters to the
Supreme Court for its decision.
As regards the communal question, many basic recommenda-
tions were made. Joint electorates with reservation of seats for
minorities on population basis with the right to contest additional
seats were recommended. No seats were to be reserved for any
community in the Punjab and Bengal. Full protection was to be
given to the religious and cultural interests of the Muslim com-
munity. New provinces on linguistic basis were to be created with
a view to the “planning of Muslim majority provinces against Hindu
majority provinces. ”


## p. 623 (#663) ############################################

THE NEHRU REPORT
623
The Report enumerated 19 fundamental rights which were to be
embodied in the statute. It was to be declared that all powers of the
Government and all authority were derived from the people. No per-
son shall be deprived of his liberty, nor shall his dwelling or property
be entered, sequestered or confiscated, save in accordance with law.
Freedom of conscience and free profession and practice of religion
shall be guaranteed to all. The right of free expression of opinion and
the right to assemble peacefully and without arms and to form
associations or unions shall be guaranteed for purposes not opposed
to public order or morality. All citizens shall have the right to free
elementary education. All citizens shall be equal before law and
possess equal civic rights. There shall be no penal law of a discri-
minatory nature. No person shall be punished for any act which
is not punishable under the law at the time it is committed. No
corporal punishment or other punishment involving torture of any
kind shall be lawful. Every citizen shall have the right to a writ
of Habeas Corpus. There shall be no state religion for the Com-
monwealth of India or for any province nor shall any state endow
any religion or give preference to any religion. No person attend-
ing any school receiving state aid or other public money shall be
compelled to attend religious instruction that may be given in the
school. No person shall, by reason of his religion, caste or creed,
be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment, office
of power or honour and the exercise of any trade or calling. All
citizens shall have an equal right of access to and use of public
roads, public wells and all other places of public resort. Freedom
of combination and association for maintenance and improvement
of labour and economic conditions shall be guaranteed to every
All agreements and measures tending to restrict or obstruct
such freedom shall be illegal. No breach of contract of service or
abetment shall be made a criminal offence. Parliament shall make
suitable laws for the maintenance of health and fitness for work
of all citizens, securing of a living wage for every worker, the pro-
tection of motherhood, welfare of children and the economic conse-
quences of old age, infirmity and unemployment. Every citizen
shall have the right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the
regulations made for that purpose. Men and women shall have
equal rights as citizens.
The report provided for a Parliament of two houses: the Senate
and House of Representatives. The Governor-General was to be
appointed by the British Government but paid out of the Indian
revenues. His salary was not to be altered during his continuance
in office. The Senate was to consist of 200 members elected by
the Provincial Councils. The House of Representatives was to con-
one.


## p. 624 (#664) ############################################

624 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
sist of 500 members. It was to be elected on adult franchise basis.
The life of the Senate was to be seven years and that of the House
of Representatives five years.
The Governor-General was to act on the advice of the Execu-
rive Council. The Prime Minister was to be appointed by the
Governor-General and the other ministers were to be appointed on
the advice of the Prime Minister. The Executive Government was
to be collectively responsible to Parliament. The Governor-Gene-
ral-in-Council was to appoint High Commissioners and other
foreign representatives similar to those appointed by Canada and
other Dominions. The Governor-General was also to appoint the
Auditor-General of India.
The Governors of the Provinces were to be appointed by the
King of England. They were to be paid out of the provincial reve-
nues. Provision was to be made for a Legislative Council elected
on an adult franchise basis. The Provincial Legislative Council
was to sit for 5 years but could be dissolved earlier by the Gover-
nor. The latter was also given the authority to extend its life under
special circumstances. Provision was also made for a President and
a Vice-President of the Legislative Council. The Governor was to
act on the advice of the Provincial Executive Council whose num-
ber was not to exceed 5. The Governor was to select the Chief
Minister but the other members of the Executive Council were to
be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister.
Provision was made for a Supreme Court of India which was to
consist of Lord President and other Justices. The Judges of the
Supreme Court were to be appointed by the Governor-General-in-
Council and were not liable to be removed from office except on an
address from both Houses of Parliament praying for such removal
on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity. The Supreme Court
was to have both original and appellate jurisdiction. Provision
was also made for the taking of appeals to the King-in-Council
under certain circumstances.
The Governor-General-in-Council was to appoint a Committee of
Defence consisting of the Minister of Defence, Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Commander-in-Chief, Commander of Air Forces, Com-
mander of Naval Forces, Chief of the General Staff and two other
experts. The Prime Minister was to be the Chairman of the Com-
mittee. The functions of the Committee were to advise the Gov-
ernment and the various Departments concerned on question of
defence and general policy.
As regards the Civil Services, all officers of public services at
the time of the establishment of the Commonwealth were to become
the officers of the Commonwealth. The Governor-General was to


## p. 625 (#665) ############################################

ALL PARTIES CONFERENCE
625
appoint a Public Service Commission. All officers of the Army
Services were to retain all their existing rights regarding their sala-
ries, allowances and pensions. They were also to get compensation
for any loss incurred by them.
The Nehru Report was submitted on August 10, 1928 and the
All Parties Conference met at Calcutta on December 22, 1928 to
consider it. As regards the communal question, Mr. Jinnah, on
behalf of the All-India Muslim League, moved amendments to the
Report. The first amendment was that 1/3rd of the elected repre-
sentatives of both the Houses of the Central Legislature should be
Muslims but the amendment was rejected. The second amend-
1. The amendment was in these words: “We propose that one-third
of the elected members of the Central Legislature should be Musalmans,
and that the seats should be reserved for them, to that extent in the joint
electorates of the country. Now the Nehru Report has stated that ac-
cording to the scheme which they have formulated, the Musalmans are
likely to get one-third in the Central Legislature and more. It is argued
there that the Punjab and Bengal will get many more seats over and above
their proportion and the other minority provinces in India will get the
representation of the Musalmans according to their population under the
scheme propounded by the Nehru Report. What we feel is this. If it is
conceded that Musalmans should be enabled to secure one-third of the re-
presentation in the Central Legislature, the method which is adopted is
neither quite fair to the provinces where the Musalmans are in a mino-
rity, nor does it guarantee that we shall obtain one-third representation in
the Central Legislature.
Therefore the two Muslim Majority Provinces,
Punjab and Bengal—will get more than their population which means you
are giving more to the rich who will, under normal conditions, get the
largest number of Muslim representations and you are depriving the Mus-
lim Minority Provinces of great importance, and restricting them to get no
more than the ratio of their population; whereas we wish to restrict the
Punjab and Bengal according to their population and desire that the ex-
cess should be distributed amongst the Muslim Minority Provinces. In
other words, we propose that you let us carve out of this one-third as the
Musalmans wish. Take the case of Madras and Bombay. It is not always
the only criterion, viz. , counting of heads, but the importance of those two
Provinces. Take the case of the United Provinces again; it is the centre
of Musalman Culture and its heart, and it will be unfair that they should
be restricted according to the number of their population in their repre-
sentation in the Central Legislature. These three Provinces, Sind being
separated, will then, so far as the population goes, be in this position: the
United Provinces with the 14 per cent Musalmans, Bombay about 8 per
cent and Madras about 6 or 7 per cent. The method that we want to be
adopted is that the excess between one-third and one-fourth should be dis-
tributed amongst the other Provinces according to the relative position of
their importance to the Musalmans and not according to population. I am
sure indeed that, besides counting our heads, there are other weighty and
important considerations, which must not be lost sight of. It is not only
a question of getting votes in the Legislatures, but it is also essential that
various parts of the Provinces which are themselves vast, should be repre.
(Continued on next page)


## p. 626 (#666) ############################################

626 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
ment was that in the event of an adult franchise not being estab-
lished in the Punjab and Bengal, there should be reservation of
seats for the Muslims on population basis for 10 years subject to
ie-examination after that period, but the Muslims should have no
right to contest additional seats. This amendment was also re-
jected. The third amendment moved by Mr. Jinnah was that the
residuary powers should vest in the provinces. This amendment
was also not accepted. Another amendment moved by him was
that no amendment of the Constitution should be made unless it
was first passed by both Houses of Parliament separately by a majo-
rity of four-fifths and was approved by a similar majority of both
the Houses in joint session. This amendment was unanimously
accepted. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru pressed the Conference to accept
this amendment with a view to secure a settlement. To quote him,
“The simple position is that for the sake of settlement, you are
invited by Mr. Jinnah, however illogical and unreasonable, to
agree to this proposition which I consider not inconsistent with the
Nehru Report. Speaking for myself, I would like you to picture
Mr. Jinnah whom I have known intimately for 15 years as a spoilt
child. If he is a spoilt child, naughty child, I am prepared to say,
give him what he wants and be finished with it. I am not going
to ask him to be reasonable; but we must, as practical statesmen,
try to solve the problem and not be misled by arithmetical figures.
It is worthy of note that Shri M. R. Jayakar who represented the
Hindu point of view, was opposed to the demands of Mr. Jinnah.
A session of the All-India Muslim League was convened in March,
1929 and the Subjects Committee of the Muslim League which met
on March 31, 1929 approved of the Nehru Report by a majority
subject to certain specified safeguards which Mr. Jinnah had ad-
vocated at the Calcutta meeting. At the open session of the League
also, the resolution was adopted by a majority.
The Muslims criticized the Nehru Report on the ground that
there was no provision for separate electorates for the Muslims in
it and they were determined to retain what was given to them in
1909 and 1919. They were of the view that separate electorates
were more advantageous to them than a chapter on fundamental
(Continued from previous page)
sented, so that questions affecting the people for their grievances may be
ventilated properly and thoroughly on the floor of the Legislature. Very
often proper facts and arguments are placed by one single representative
which, when they are convincing, carry away the entire Legislature. It
really comes to this that the Nehru Report makes a gift of the extra seats
over and above the population basis to the Punjab and Bengal; whereas
we propose that this extra seven or eight seats should be distributed
amongst the Minority Muslim Provinces. "


## p. 627 (#667) ############################################

JINNAH'S FOURTEEN POINTS
627
rights in the Nehru Report guaranteeing social and religious liberty
to all sections of the people of India. The provisions in the Nehru
Report that “no person shall by reason of his religion, caste or
creed be prejudiced in any way in regard to public employment,
office of power or honour or the exercise of any trade or calling"
was not considered enough by them. Another ground of attack
on the Report was that the Muslims had made up their minds that
the ultimate Constitution of India must be federal and not unitary
because in a federal Government alone the Muslims could have com-
plete control in some of the Provinces where they were in a majo-
rity. The Nehru Report took away that advantage also from them.
It is pointed out that Mr. Jinnah was sadly disappointed with the
recommendations of the Nehru Report and his subsequent efforts
were to bring about unity among the several groups among the
Muslims with a view to present a united front to the Congress. He
was able to bring together His Highness the Aga Khan, Sir Muham-
mad Shafi, Abul Kalam Azad, T. A. K. Sherwani and Dr. Ansari
at the All Parties Muslim Conference held at Delhi under the Presi-
dentship of High Highness the Aga Khan. A resolution was pass-
ed at that Conference on 1 January 1929. It aimed at securing all
the advantages the Muslims had been able to procure “under the
existing law. ” Some of the clauses of that resolution revived the
old device of three-fourths' majority rule in the legislatures, con-
ceded weightage to the Hindu minority in Sind, the North-West
Frontier Province and Baluchistan, insisted on a due proportion of
the Muslims in civil services and on all statutory self-governing
bodies and demanded safeguards for “the protection and promo-
tion of Muslim education, languages, religion, personal law and
Muslim charitable institutions. " It is true that the Nehru Report
was intended to serve as a fitting reply to the racial arrogance of
Lord Birkenhead but it ultimately resulted in national humiliation.
Mahatma Gandhi admitted this fact in these words: “The Nehru
constitution having lapsed, the communal solution has naturally
lapsed. ”
JINNAH'S FOURTEEN POINTS (1929)
At a meeting of the All-India Muslim League held in Delhi in
1929, Mr. Jinnah put forward the following 14 points as the mini-
mum Muslim demands for any political settlement:-
1. The form of the future constitution should be federal with the
residuary powers vested in the provinces.
2. A uniform measure of autonomy shall be granted to all pro-
vinces.


## p. 628 (#668) ############################################

628 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
3. All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall
be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective
representation of minorities in every province without reducing the
majority in any province to a minority or even equality.
4. In Central Legislature, Muslim representation shall be one-
third.
5. Representation of communal groups shall continue to be sepa-
rate electorates as at present, provided it shall be open to any com-
munity, at any time, to abandon its separate electorate in favour
of joint electorates.
6. Any territorial re-distribution that might at any time be neces-
sary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Pun-
jab, Bengal and North-West Frontier Province.
7. Full religious liberty, i. e. , liberty of belief, worship and obser-
vance, propaganda, association and education shall be guaranteed
to all communities.
8. No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any
legislature or any elected body if three-fourths of the members of
any community in that particular body oppose such a bill, resolu-
tion or part thereof on the ground that it would be injurious to the
interests of that community, or in the alternative such other method
is devised as may be found possible and practicable to deal with
such cases.
9. Sind should be separated from the Bombay presidency.
10. Reforms should be introduced in the N. W. F. Province and
Baluchistan on the same footing as in other provinces.
11. Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims
an adequate share along with other Indians in all the services of
the State and in local self-government bodies having due regard to
the requirements of efficiency.
12. The constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the
protection of Muslim culture and for the promotion of Muslim
education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable
institutions and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by
the State and by the self-governing bodies.
13. No Cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed
without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim Min-
jsters.
14. No change shall be made in the constitution of the Central
Legislature except with the concurrence of the States constituting
the Indian Federation.
There was a change of Government in England and the Labour
Party headed by Ramsay MacDonald came to power. High hopes
were entertained regarding the future of India. That was partl


## p. 629 (#669) ############################################

DECLARATION OF 1929
629
due to the fact that while in opposition Ramsay MacDonald had
always sympathised with the Indian aspirations and advocated their
cause. Lord Irwin, the then Governor-General and Viceroy of
India, was convinced that it was not possible to maintain an irres-
ponsible Government at the Centre for long. He paid a hasty visit
to England to confer with the new Labour Government and on his
return issued the following statement on October 31, 1929: “In
"
view of the doubts which have been expressed both in Great Britain
and in India regarding the interpretation to be placed on the inten-
tions of the British Government in enacting the statute of 1919, I
am authorised on behalf of His Majesty's Government to state
clearly that in their judgment, it is implicit in the declaration of
1917 that the natural issue of India's constitutional progress as
there contemplated is the attainment of the Dominion Status. " He
also stated that the Simon Commission had suggested to His
Majesty's Government and the latter had accepted the suggestion
that after the publication of their Report and before its examina-
tion by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, they should summon
a Conference “in which His Majesty's Government meet the repre-
sentatives both of British India and of the States for the purpose of
seeking the greatest possible measure of agreement for the final
proposals which it would later be the duty of His Majesty's Gov-
ernment to submit to Parliament. " It is pointed out that what-
ever may be said about the statesmanship of this declaration, it
should not have been made until the Commission had concluded its
labours. It left that unfortunate body in the air and at the same
time stole its thunder. Moreover, the phrase "Dominion Status”
”
was unhappily so ambiguous that it could be given various inter-
pretations. The Government of India seems to have used the phrase
in the sense in which it was employed in the Preamble to the Gov-
ernment of India Act, 1919 as applicable to the Constitution of a
dependency enjoying responsible Government. The Congress lea-
ders were not satisfied with the limited scope and purpose of the
Round Table Conference. What they demanded was the conven-
ing of a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of drafting a Consti-
tution for India. It was obvious that the views of the people of
India and the British Government differed radically from each
other. In spite of it, an interview was arranged between Mahatma
Gandhi and Lord Irwin with a view to exploring the possibility of
a compromise. The interview failed to achieve its object. The
result was that when the Indian National Congress met at Lahore
in December 1929 under the Presidentship of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru,
it passed resolutions boycotting the Round Table Conference, dec-
laring the object of the Indian National Congress the demand of


## p. 630 (#670) ############################################

630 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Swarajya or complete independence for India and authorising the
All India Congress Committee to start Civil Disobedience Move-
ment. January 26, 1930 was observed as Independence Day and
the Civil Disobedience Movement was started in March 1930.
Mahatma Gandhi started his historic march to Dandi to violate the
salt laws. Thousands of people all over the country violated cer-
tain laws of the country and courted arrest. There were Lathi
charges by the police. Repression was in full swing. Ordinances
were issued in quick succession by the Government to meet the
situation. Editors and proprietors of newspapers and printing
presses were arrested and fined. Their presses were confiscated in
many cases. There seemed to be a complete breach between the
Government and the leaders of the nationalist movement in the
country.
SIMON COMMISSION REPORT (1930)
The Report of the Simon Commission was published in May,
1930. First of all, the Report considered as to what should be the
ultimate constitutional framework of India and what should be the
place of the provinces in that framework. The Report declared
that the framework could not be of a unitary type. That must be
federal, not merely in response to the growth of provincial loyalties
but primarily because it must embrace all India. It was only in a
federation that Indian States could be expected in course of time
to unite with British India.
The Report recommended that dyarchy should be abolished
in the provinces and the whole field of provincial administration
should be entrusted to Ministers responsible to their Legislatures.
“Each province should, as far as possible, be the mistress in her own
house. ” It was pointed out that the retention of reserved subjects
implied the continuance of control over that part of the provincial
administration by the Central Government and the Secretary of
State for India and that was not a desirable thing.
In the new
provincial set up, the Ministries were not to be formed entirely on
the British model. The Governor was to be allowed to select those
Ministers who commanded a majority in the Legislature. He was
not to appoint a Ministry on the advice of the Prime Minister or
the Chief Minister. In all legislation and administration, Ministers
were to be free from interference by the Governor except for such
stated vital reasons as the maintenance of the safety of the province
or the protection of the minorities. It was recommended that fran-
.
chise should be extended and the legislature be enlarged.
The Report recommended that the question of making Sind


## p. 631 (#671) ############################################

SIMON COMMISSION REPORT
631
and Orissa as separate provinces should be given further expert
examination. However, it should be decided forthwith to separate
Burma from India. The North-Western Frontier Province was
considered to be ripe for the first step in constitutional advance-
ment. That province should be given a Legislative Council and
its representation in the Central Legislature should be strengthened.
The Report made certain recommendations which aimed at pre-
paring the case for an All-India Federation. The Central Legisla-
ture was to be refashioned on the federal principle. The members
of the Federal Assembly were to be representatives not of sections
of the people of India at large but of the provinces. They were
to be elected by the Provincial Councils. The elections and nomi-
nations to the Council of State were also to be on a provincial basis.
The distribution of seats amongst the various provinces for the
Federal Assembly was to be roughly on population basis. Each pro-
vince was to have 3 members on the Council of State.
So far as the Central Executive was concerned, there was a note
of “gradualness” in the Report. No substantial change was re-
commended. There was to be no responsible Government at the
centre. There was to be no dyarchy even at the centre. It was
pointed out that there was the need of keeping the centre strong
and stable "while the provincial Councils were learning by experi-
ence to bear the full weight of new and heavy responsibilities. ”
The reason given for this was not the immediate need of the politi-
cal situation in India, but the ultimate needs of the Federation.
It was stated that the provinces must find themselves before the
nature of their participation in a federal government could be deter-
mined. To quote, “It is necessary to take a long view of the deve-
lopment of Indian self-government. . . . . . A pre-mature endeavour
to introduce a form of responsible government at the centre before
the conditions for its actual practice have emerged, would in the
end result not in advance but in retrogression. ”
An All-India Federation was to be set up in the distant future.
The idea that "the Federation of Greater India can be artificially
hastened or that when it comes, it will spring into being at a
bound," was rejected. For the present only one new step was re-
commended. In order to "foster the sense of need for further
developments and bring more nearly within the range of realisation
other steps which are as yet too distant and too dim to be entered
upon and described,” a Council for Greater India should be set up,
representing both British India and the Indian States. That Coun-
cil should have authority to discuss in a consultative capacity all
matters of common concern which were to be drawn up in the
form of a list and given as Schedule. The preamble of the new


## p. 632 (#672) ############################################

632 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FROM 1919 TO 1969
Act should record the desire to bring about a closer association
between the two parts of India.
The Government of India Act, 1919, had provided for setting
up a Commission after every 10 years for enquiring into the work-
ing of the reforms and the naming of the recommendations for the
future. The Report recommended that the method of periodical
enquiry should be given up. The new constitution should be so
elastically framed as to enable it to develop by itself. The Provin-
cial Legislatures should have power to modify their own composi-
tion and procedure and self-government should grow not by mak-
ing laws but by usages and conventions.
The view of P. E. Robert is that the Simon Commission Report
"will always stand out as one of the greatest of India State Papers.
The impressive unanimity of the commissioners who from their
known party antecedents must clearly have sacrificed all but their
deepest convictions to attain it, ought to have commended their
Sagacious and temperately worded conclusions to men of goodwill
(British India, page 598). However, the Report was condemned
by the Indians. The British Government itself had also partly
forestalled it and ultimately side-tracked it, although some of its
recommendations were ultimately embodied in the Government of
India Act, 1935. Dr. A. B. Keith observes: “It was probably foolish
of Indian opinion to repudiate the Report out and out. If it had
been accepted, the British Government could hardly have failed to
work on it and responsible government could in the provinces have
been achieved much earlier than it could be under any later
scheme. Moreover, the pressure of such Governments on the Centre
would doubtless have operated strongly in the direction of inducing
the British Government to aim at federation and the states to come
to terms with the Indian political leaders. " (Constitutional His-
tory of India, p. 293).
ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES (1930-31)
After the publication of the Simon Commission Report and its
condemnation by the people of India, the British Government call-
ed the first Round Table Conference in London. The conference
met in November 1930. As the Congress leaders were in jail, the
Government appointed safe men belonging to other parties, com-
munities and interests to represent India. Representatives from the
Indian states were also invited to participate in the deliberations
and included men like Sir Mirza Ismail, Sir Akbar Hydari and the
Maharaja of Bikaner. There were lengthy discussions on question
of the future form of the Government of India. Ultimately, three


## p. 633 (#673) ############################################

ROUND TABLE CONFERENCES
633
basic principles were settled and accepted by the British Govern-
ment. The form of the new Government of India was to be an
All-India Federation in which the British India provinces and the
Indian states were to join. Subject to special reservations and safe-
guards as might be considered necessary for the transitional period,
the Federal Government was made responsible to the Federal Legis-
lature. Provinces were to be given autonomy in their own affairs.
At the end of the first Round Table Conference, Prime Minister
Ramsay MacDonald made the following important statement:
“The view of His Majesty's Government is that responsibility for
the Government of India should be placed upon legislatures, Cen-
tral and Provincial, with such provisions as may be considered
necessary to guarantee, during period of transition, the observance
of certain obligations and to meet other special circumstances, and
also with such guarantees as are required by minorities to protect
their political liberties and rights. In such statutory safeguards as
may be made for meeting the needs of the transitional period, it
will be a primary concern of His Majesty's Government to see that
the reserved powers are so framed and exercised as not to prejudice
the advance of India through the new Constitution to full respon-
sibility for her own Government. Pledge after pledge had been
given to India that British Raj was there not for perpetual domina-
tion. Why did we put facilities for education at your disposal?
Why did we put in your hands text-books from which we draw
political inspiration? If we meant that the people of India should
for ever be silent and negative, subordinated to our rule, why have
our Queens and Kings given you pledges? Why has our Parlia-
ment given you pledges? Finally, I hope and trust, and I pray
that by our labours together India will come to possess the only
thing which she now lacks, to give her the status of a Dominion
amongst the British Commonwealth of Nations—what she now
lacks for that—the responsibilities and the cares, the burdens and
difficulties, but the pride and the honour of responsible self-
government. "
As it was not considered advisable to proceed with the work of
the final form of the future constitution of India in the absence of
the representatives of the Indian National Congress, it was decided
to call a Second Round Table Conference and in the meanwhile,
efforts were to be made to bring about a reconciliation between the
Congress and the Government. The efforts of Sir Tej Bahadur
Sapru and M.