Simon Commission & Round Table Conferences

The period from 1927 to 1935 is one of the most consequential in Indian constitutional history. The Simon Commission, the Round Table Conferences, the Communal Award, and the Poona Pact form a connected chain of events that shaped the political landscape ahead of independence — and ultimately contributed to the demand for partition.

For UPSC, this period tests your ability to connect events: why the Simon Commission triggered such fierce opposition, why the Round Table Conferences failed, and what the Poona Pact meant for Dalit political rights. Know the sequence, the key figures, and the outcomes of each.

The Simon Commission (1927)

Background and Appointment

The Government of India Act 1919 (the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms) had included a provision for a review of India's constitutional progress after ten years. But the Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin appointed the commission two years early, in November 1927, likely to preempt a more nationalist-sympathetic Labour government from doing so.

The commission was headed by Sir John Simon, a senior British Liberal politician. Its seven members — all British Members of Parliament — were tasked with reviewing the working of the 1919 Act and recommending constitutional changes.

The critical fact that ignited Indian politics: not a single Indian was included. All seven members were white Englishmen. The commission would decide India's political future without a single Indian voice at the table.

The Boycott

The reaction was immediate and nearly universal. Both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League called for a complete boycott. When the commission arrived in India in February 1928, it was met at every city with massive protests and the slogan “Simon Go Back” — protesters carrying black flags.

The brutality of the police response at some protests became notorious. In Lahore, the protest was led by Lala Lajpat Rai. Police superintendent James Scott ordered a lathi charge. Lala Lajpat Rai was personally struck by police batons and died of his injuries in November 1928. The event electrified the nationalist movement. Bhagat Singh and his associates later assassinated J.P. Saunders (mistaking him for Scott) in retaliation — an act that made Bhagat Singh a national figure.

Even the Muslim League, under Muhammad Ali Jinnah at this point a committed constitutionalist working within the Congress-League unity framework, joined the boycott. The commission's complete exclusion of Indians was an insult that crossed communal lines.

The Simon Commission Report (1930)

The commission submitted its report in 1930. Its recommendations were modest: dyarchy (divided responsibility between elected ministers and governor-controlled departments) to continue at provincial level, with some expansion; no immediate grant of responsible government at the centre; provinces to remain under British control in key areas.

But by 1930, events had moved so far beyond the Simon Commission — the Lahore Congress declaring purna swaraj, the Salt March, the Civil Disobedience Movement — that the report was largely overtaken. Its main significance was in providing the background material that led to the Round Table Conferences.

The Nehru Report (1928)

The Congress response to the Simon Commission was to show that Indians could draft their own constitution. At the All Parties Conference, Motilal Nehru chaired a committee that produced the Nehru Report in August 1928 — India's first attempt at a self-drafted constitutional framework.

Key Provisions of the Nehru Report

• Dominion Status (not full independence) as the immediate demand — a moderate position that Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose contested
• Fundamental rights for all citizens
• Residual powers with the Centre — not with provinces (a key difference from what Muslim League leaders wanted)
• Joint electorates — elimination of separate electorates for Muslims
• No reservation of seats for religious minorities unless they chose joint electorates without reservation

The joint electorate proposal was the political fault line. It directly challenged the separate electorate system that had been conceded to Muslims in the Lucknow Pact (1916) and that Jinnah and others considered a fundamental protection.

Jinnah's Fourteen Points (1929)

Muhammad Ali Jinnah proposed amendments to the Nehru Report that were rejected by the Congress. He then issued his Fourteen Points in March 1929 as the Muslim League's counter-proposal. They represent Jinnah's last attempt to work within a united India framework — and their rejection marked his decisive shift.

The fourteen points included:

1. A federal constitution with residual powers to provinces (not the centre)
2. All provinces to have equal autonomy
3. Separate electorates for Muslims until they chose otherwise
4. Reservation of one-third Muslim seats in the Central Legislature
5. Muslim representation not below the existing proportion in Punjab (55%) and Bengal (~47%) legislatures
6. Reservation for Muslims in the cabinet at one-third
7. Separation of Sindh from Bombay as a separate province
8. Reforms for North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan
9. Religious freedom for all
10. No territorial changes that would reduce Muslim majorities in Punjab, Bengal, or NWFP
11. No bill to affect a community unless three-fourths of that community's representatives agreed
12. Sindh separate from Bombay
13. Reforms for NWFP
14. No change in constitution without concurrence of provincial legislatures

The Nehru Report's insistence on joint electorates and central residual powers made these points incompatible. The breakdown destroyed the Congress-League cooperation that Jinnah had spent years building. He left India for London, effectively withdrawing from active Indian politics until his return in 1934.

The Round Table Conferences

The British government's response to the breakdown of the Simon Commission process and the mounting Civil Disobedience Movement was to convene a series of constitutional discussions in London — the Round Table Conferences.

First Round Table Conference (November 1930 – January 1931)

Who attended: British government, Indian princes, Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, Liberals, depressed class representatives (B.R. Ambedkar), Sikhs, and other minorities. The Indian National Congress boycotted entirely — Gandhi and most Congress leaders were in jail from the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Outcome: Because Congress was absent, no representative body of Indian nationalism was present. The conference could not produce a meaningful settlement. The princes showed more flexibility than expected on federation. But without Congress, nothing decisive could happen.

Second Round Table Conference (September–December 1931)

Who attended: The Gandhi-Irwin Pact (March 1931) had produced a truce in the Civil Disobedience Movement and Gandhi's release. Gandhi attended as the sole representative of the Congress — a position he insisted on, claiming Congress represented all Indians regardless of religion or caste.

This was the most dramatic of the three conferences. Gandhi clashed directly with:

• B.R. Ambedkar, who argued that Untouchables were not represented by the caste Hindu Congress and deserved separate political representation
• Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muslim League representatives, who pushed for separate electorates and communal reservation
• The British government, which used minority claims to argue that Congress did not represent all Indians and therefore could not be given power

Outcome: Complete deadlock. Gandhi returned to India empty-handed. He declared the conference had failed. The CDM was relaunched in January 1932.

Third Round Table Conference (November–December 1932)

Who attended: The British government and Indian delegates — but Congress was again absent (CDM was active, Congress leaders jailed under the ordinances). The conference was largely irrelevant — a small gathering that produced no significant outcomes.

Outcome: Mostly procedural. Its discussions fed into the drafting of the Government of India Act 1935.

The Communal Award (1932)

In August 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced the Communal Award — a decision on the representation of minorities in the provincial legislatures, since the Round Table Conferences had failed to reach agreement.

Key Provisions

• Separate electorates for Muslims — continued
• Separate electorates for Depressed Classes (Untouchables) — this was the explosive provision. Ambedkar had demanded political representation for Untouchables. The award gave them separate electorates with reserved seats — meaning only Untouchables could vote for Untouchable candidates in certain constituencies
• Separate electorates also for Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans

Gandhi's Response: The Fast unto Death

Gandhi was in Poona's Yeravda Jail when the Communal Award was announced. He declared the separate electorates for Untouchables a catastrophe — not because he opposed their representation, but because he believed separate electorates would permanently sever Untouchables from Hindu society, making their reintegration impossible.

He announced he would fast unto death unless the separate electorates for Untouchables were withdrawn.

This placed Ambedkar in an impossible position. If Gandhi died, the fury of caste Hindus would fall on Untouchables. But accepting Gandhi's terms meant surrendering Ambedkar's hard-won political gain.

The Poona Pact (September 1932)

After intense negotiations — with Ambedkar negotiating directly with Congress and Hindu community leaders, under the shadow of Gandhi's declining health — the Poona Pact was signed on September 24, 1932.

Terms of the Poona Pact

• Separate electorates for Untouchables: abolished
• But: a joint electorate with reserved seats — significantly more reserved seats than the Communal Award had given
• Communal Award: 71 reserved seats for Untouchables
• Poona Pact: 148 reserved seats for Untouchables in provincial legislatures
• Plus 18% of Central Legislature seats
• Primary elections among Depressed Classes voters to select a panel of four candidates, from which all voters in the constituency would elect one — giving Untouchables effective veto power over who represented them

Significance of the Poona Pact

The Poona Pact is one of the most debated agreements in Indian political history.

From Ambedkar's perspective (in his later writings): Gandhi's fast was a form of coercion — using his own life as political leverage to deprive Untouchables of a democratic right. Ambedkar had achieved separate electorates through legitimate constitutional negotiation; Gandhi reversed this through emotional blackmail. Ambedkar signed under duress to save lives. He later wrote that it was the worst day of his political life.

From Gandhi's perspective: Separate electorates would permanently divide Hindus, freeze Untouchables into a separate political category, and destroy the project of Hindu social reform. The Poona Pact kept them within the Hindu electoral fold while giving them more seats.

Historically: The Poona Pact established the principle of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes — a principle that was carried forward into the Indian Constitution (Article 330-332) and the reservation system.

Government of India Act 1935

The Round Table Conferences, the Simon Commission report, and the communal negotiations fed into the Government of India Act 1935 — the longest Act ever passed by the British Parliament (321 sections, 10 schedules).

Key provisions:

• Provincial autonomy with fully responsible government (dyarchy ended in provinces)
• Federal structure — All India Federation proposed, but never implemented because princes refused to join
• Dyarchy at centre — partial responsible government at the federal level
• Separate electorates maintained for minorities
• Reserve powers for Governors and the Viceroy remained extensive

Congress contested the 1937 elections under the Act, won clear majorities in 7 of 11 provinces, and formed governments. Jinnah's Muslim League performed poorly and was largely shut out. The Congress ministries' two-year record (1937–39) and their resignation at the outbreak of World War II set the stage for the League's "Muslim India" demand.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Simon Commission