Round Table Conferences [1930-33]

The Indian political community received the Simon Commission Report issued in June 1930 with great resentment. Different political parties gave vent to their feelings in different ways.

The Congress started a Civil Disobedience Movement under Gandhi's command. The Muslims reserved their opinion on the Simon Report declaring that the report was not final and the matters should decided after consultations with the leaders representing all communities in India.

The Indian political situation seemed deadlocked. The British government refused to contemplate any form of self-government for the people of India. This caused frustration amongst the masses, who often expressed their anger in violent clashes.

The Labor Government returned to power in Britain in 1931, and a glimmer of hope ran through Indian hearts. Labor leaders had always been sympathetic to the Indian cause. The government decided to hold a Round Table Conference in London to consider new constitutional reforms. All Indian politicians; Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians were summoned to London for the conference.

Gandhi immediately insisted at the conference that he alone spoke for all Indians, and that the Congress was the party of the people of India. He argued that the other parties only represented sectarian viewpoints, with little or no significant following.

First Round Table Conference

The first session of the conference opened in London on November 12, 1930. All parties were present except for the Congress, whose leaders were in jail due to the Civil Disobedience Movement. Congress leaders stated that they would have nothing to do with further constitutional discussion unless the Nehru Report was enforced in its entirety as the constitution of India.

Almost 89 members attended the conference, out of which 58 were chosen from various communities and interests in British India, and the rest from princely states and other political parties. The prominent among the Muslim delegates invited by the British government were Sir Aga Khan, Quaid-i-Azam, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jouhar, Sir Muhammad Shafi and Maulvi Fazl-i-Haq. Sir Taj Bahadur Sapru, Mr. Jaikar and Dr. Moonje were outstanding amongst the Hindu leaders.

The Muslim-Hindu differences overcastted the conference as the Hindus were pushing for a powerful central government while the Muslims stood for a loose federation of completely autonomous provinces. The Muslims demanded maintenance of weightage and separate electorates, the Hindus their abolition. The Muslims claimed statutory majority in Punjab and Bengal, while Hindus resisted their imposition. In Punjab, the situation was complicated by inflated Sikh claims.

Eight subcommittees were set up to deal with the details. These committees dealt with the federal structure, provincial constitution, franchise, Sindh, the North West Frontier Province, defense services and minorities.

The conference broke up on January 19, 1931, and what emerged from it was a general agreement to write safeguards for minorities into the constitution and a vague desire to devise a federal system for the country.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact

After the conclusion of the First Round Table Conference, the British government realized that the cooperation of the Indian National Congress was necessary for further advancement in the making of the Indian constitution. Thus, Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, extended an invitation to Gandhi for talks. Gandhi agreed to end the Civil Disobedience Movement without laying down any preconditions.

The agreement between Gandhi and Irwin was signed on March 5, 1931. Following are the salient points of this agreement:

1. The Congress would discontinue the Civil Disobedience Movement.

2. The Congress would participate in the Round Table Conference.

3. The Government would withdraw all ordinances issued to curb the Congress.

4. The Government would withdraw all prosecutions relating to offenses not involving violence.

5. The Government would release all persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment for their activities in the civil disobedience movement.

The pact shows that the British Government was anxious to bring the Congress to the conference table.

Second Round Table Conference

The second session of the conference opened in London on September 7, 1931. The main task of the conference was done through the two committees on federal structure and minorities. Gandhi was a member of both but he adopted a very unreasonable attitude. He claimed that he represented all India and dismissed all other Indian delegates as non-representative because they did not belong to the Congress.

The communal problem represented the most difficult issue for the delegates. Gandhi again tabled the Congress scheme for a settlement, a mere reproduction of the Nehru Report, but all the minorities rejected it.

·          As a counter to the Congress scheme, the Muslims, the depressed classes, the Indian Christians, the Anglo-Indians, and the Europeans presented a joint statement of claims which they said must stand as an interdependent whole. As their main demands were not acceptable to Gandhi, the communal issue was postponed for future discussion.

Three important committees drafted their reports; the Franchise Committee, the Federal Finance Committee and States Inquiry Committee.

On the concluding day, the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald appealed to the Indian leaders to reach a communal settlement. Failing to do so, he said, would force the British government would take a unilateral decision.

Quaid-i-Azam did not participate in the session of the Second Round Table Conference as he had decided to keep himself aloof from the Indian politics and to practice as a professional lawyer in England.

On his return to India, Gandhi once again started Civil Disobedience Movement and was duly arrested.

Third Round Table Conference

The third session began on November 17, 1932. It was short and unimportant. The Congress was once again absent, so was the Labor opposition in the British Parliament. Reports of the various committees were scrutinized. The conference ended on December 25, 1932.

The recommendations of the Round Table Conferences were embodied in a White Paper. It was published in March 1933, and debated in parliament directly afterwards, analyzed by the Joint Select Committee and after the final reading and loyal assent, the bill reached the Statute Book on July 24, 1935.

Fourteen Points of M. A. Jinnah [1929]

A positive aspect of Nehru Report was that it resulted in the unity of divided Muslim groups. In a meeting of the council of All India Muslim League on March 28, 1929, members of both the Shafi League and Jinnah League participated. Quaid-i-Azam termed the Nehru Report as a Hindu document, but considered simply rejecting the report as insufficient. He decided to give an alternative Muslim agenda. It was in this meeting that Quaid-i-Azam presented his famous Fourteen Points. These points were as follows:

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 provinces.

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 the Central Legislative, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third.

5. Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorate as at present, provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.

6. Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and the North West Frontier Province.

7. Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.

8. No bill or any resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourth of the members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill resolution 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 feasible and practicable to deal with such cases.

9. Sindh should be separated from the Bombay presidency.

10. Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.

11. Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing 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 protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institution and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.

13. No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.

14. No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the State's contribution of the Indian Federation.

The council of the All India Muslim League accepted fourteen points of the Quaid. A resolution was passed according to which no scheme for the future constitution of the Government of India would be acceptable to the Muslims unless and until it included the demands of the Quaid presented in the fourteen points.

All Parties Muslim Conference

The immediate result of the publication of the Nehru Report was that Muslims of all shades of opinion united in opposition to it. The two wings of the Muslim League that had been split since 1924 came closer. On January 21, 1929, the All Parties Muslim Conference convened in Delhi under Aga Khan. Nearly every shade of opinion was represented. The Conference laid down the Muslims demands in the clearest possible terms:

1. The only form of government suitable to Indian conditions was a federal system with complete autonomy and residuary powers vested in the constituent states.

2. Muslims should not be deprived of the right to elect their representatives through separate electorates without their consent.

3. Muslims should continue to have weightage in the Hindu majority provinces and they were willing to accord the same privilege to non-Muslim minorities in Sindh, the N. W. F. P. and Baluchistan.

4. Muslims should have their due share in the central and provincial cabinets.

5. Muslim majority in all Muslim majority provinces (with particular reference to Bengal and Punjab) should in no way be disturbed.

This resolution was the Muslims' reply to the Nehru Report. The rejection of the Congress-inspired constitution was completely unanimous and clear. On two points the Muslims were adamant: separate electorates must continue and India must have a federal form of government. The Nehru Report was primarily repudiated because it denied these conditions. At this critical juncture, Jinnah made the last attempt to unite the Hindus and the Muslims. At All Parties Convention at Calcutta in 1929, he suggested certain modifications to be made in the recommendations of the Nehru Report. These were as follows:

1. One-third of the elected representatives of both the houses of the central legislature should be Muslim.

2. In the event of adult suffrage not being established in Punjab and Bengal, there should be reservations of seats for the Muslims on the basis of population for ten years; subject to a re-examination after that period, but they shall have no right to contest additional seats.

3. Residuary powers should be left to the provinces and should not rest with the central legislature.

The committee rejected these suggestions. In March 1929, Quaid-i-Azam compiled a set of recommendations that greatly influenced Muslim thinking for the better part of the next decade.

Nehru Report

The Government of India Act 1919 was essentially transitional in character. Under Section 84 of the said Act, a statutory Commission was to be appointed at the end of ten years to determine the next stage in the realization of self-rule in India. Accordingly, the Simon Commission was sent to the Sub-continent under the command of Sir John Simon. All members of the commission were British. This was regarded as highly insulting to the Indians and immediate protest was raised from all the important political parties. When the Simon Commission arrived, the local masses welcomed it by with slogans of "Go back Simon!". All the major political parties of Sub-continent, except the Shafi League of Punjab, boycotted the Simon Commission.

After the failure of Simon Commission, there was no alternative for the British government but to ask the local people to frame a constitution for themselves. They knew that the Congress and Muslim League were the two main parties and that they both had serious difference of opinions. Birkenhead, Secretary of Sate for Indian Affairs, threw the ball in the Indian politicians' court, and asked them to draw a draft of the forthcoming Act on which both Hindus and Muslims could agree. The Indian leaders accepted the challenge and for this purpose, the All Parties Conference was held at Delhi in January 1928. More than a hundred delegates of almost all the parties of the Sub-continent assembled and participated in the conference. Unfortunately, the leaders were not able to come to any conclusion. The biggest hindrance was the issue of the rights of minorities. The second meeting of the All Parties Conference was held in March the same year, but the leaders still had their differences and again were not able to reach a conclusion. The only work done in this conference was the appointment of two subcommittees. But due to the mutual differences between Muslims and Hindus, the committees failed to produce any positive result.

When the All Parties Conference met for the third time in Bombay on May 19 1928, there was hardly any prospect of an agreed constitution. It was then decided that a small committee should be appointed to work out the details of the constitution. Motilal Nehru headed this committee. There were nine other members in this committee including two Muslims, Syed Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi.

The committee worked for three months at Allahabad and its memorandum was called the "Nehru Report". The chairman joined hands with the Hindu Mahasabha and unceremoniously quashed the recent Congress acceptance of the Delhi Proposals. The Nehru Report recommended that a Declaration of Rights should be inserted in the constitution assuring the fullest liberty of conscience and religion.

The following were the recommendations advanced by the Nehru Report:

1. India should be given the status of a dominion.

2. There should be federal form of government with residuary powers vested in the center.

3. India should have a parliamentary form of government headed by a Prime Minister and six ministers appointed by the Governor General.

4. There should be bi-cameral legislature.

5. There should be no separate electorate for any community.

6. System of weightage for minorities was as bad as that of separate electorates.

7. Reservation of Muslim seats could be possible in the provinces where Muslim population was at least ten percent, but this was to be in strict proportion to the size of the community.

8. Muslims should enjoy one-fourth representation in the Central Legislature.

9. Sindh should be separated from Bombay only if the Committee certified that it was financially self-sufficient.

10. The N. W. F. P. should be given full provincial status.

11. A new Kanarese-speaking province Karnatic should be established in South India.

12. Hindi should be made the official language of India.

The recommendations of the Nehru Report went against the interests of the Muslim community. It was an attempt to serve Hindu predominance over Muslims. The Nehru Committee's greatest blow was the rejection of separate electorates. If the report had taken into account the Delhi Proposals, the Muslims might have accepted it. But the Nehru Committee did not consider the Delhi Proposals at all while formulating their report. The Muslims were asking for one-third representation in the center while Nehru Committee gave them only one-fourth representation. It is true that two demands of Muslims were considered in the Nehru Report but both of them incomplete. It was said that Sindh should be separated from Bombay but the condition of self-economy was also put forward. It demanded constitutional reforms in N. W. F. P. but Baluchistan was overlooked in the report.

Of the two Muslim members of the Nehru Committee, Syed Ali Imam could attend only one meeting due to his illness and Shoaib Qureshi did not endorse views of the Committee on the issue of Muslim representation in legislature. Thus the Nehru Report was nothing else than a Congress document and thus totally opposed by Muslims of the Sub-continent. The Hindus under Congress threatened the government with a disobedience movement if the Nehru report was not implemented into the Act by December 31, 1929. This Hindu attitude proved to be a milestone in the freedom movement of the Muslims. It also proved to be a turning point in the life of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. After reading the Nehru Report, Jinnah announced a 'parting of the ways'. The Nehru Report reflected the inner prejudice and narrow-minded approach of the Hindus.

Delhi Muslim Proposals [1927]

Considering separate electorates to be the main hindrance in improving Hindu-Muslim relations, Quaid-i-Azam proposed that if the Hindus agreed to provide certain safeguards, the Muslims would give up this demand. Consequently, the proposals were formally approved at a conference held by the Muslims in 1927 at Delhi, and are now called "The Delhi-Muslim Proposals". Following are the safeguards that were proposed:

1. The formation of a separate province of Sindh.

2. Introduction of reforms in the North West Frontier Province and in Baluchistan on the same footing as in other provinces.

3.Unless and until the above proposals were implemented, the Muslims would never surrender the right of their representation through separate electorates. Muslims would be willing to abandon separate electorates in favor of joint electorates with the reservation of seats fixed in proportion to the population of different communities, if the above two proposals were implemented to the full satisfaction of Muslims and also if the following proposals were accepted.

4. Hindu minorities in Sindh, Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province be accorded the same concessions in the form of reservation of seats over and above the proportion of their population as Muslims would get in Hindu majority provinces.

5. Muslim representation in the Central Legislature would not be less than one-third.

6. In addition to provisions like religious freedom, there was to be a further guarantee in the constitution that on communal matters no bill or resolution would be considered or passed if three-fourth of the members of the community concerned were opposed to it.

These proposals were to be accepted or rejected in toto. So, in effect, the Muslims agreed to give up the separate electorates in form of the reservation of seats. Unfortunately, the Congress first accepted but later rejected the proposals.

Simon Commission

The Government of India Act of 1919 was essentially transitional in character. Under Section 84 of the said Act, a statutory commission was to be appointed at the end of ten years, to determine the next stage in the realization of self-rule in India.

The British government appointed a commission under Sir John Simon in November 1927. The commission, which had no Indian members, was being sent to investigate India's constitutional problems and make recommendations to the government on the future constitution of India.

The Congress decided to boycott the Simon Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India, to produce a constitution acceptable to the various elements in India.

There was a clear split in the Muslim League. Sir Muhammad Shafi, who wanted to cooperate with the commission, decided to convene a Muslim League session in Lahore in December 1927.

The other faction led by Jinnah stood for the boycott of the commission. This faction held a Muslim League session at Calcutta, and decided to form a subcommittee to confer with the working committee of the Indian National Congress and other organizations, with a view to draft a constitution for India.

Khilafat Movement [1919-1924]

Montague-Chelmsford Reforms

In World War I, the British claimed that they stood for the protection of democracy around the world. Thus the Indians, who fought for them in this war, demanded that democracy should also be introduced in their country. In his famous August Declaration presented before the House of Commons on August 20 1917, Montague, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs said that in order to satisfy the local demands, his government was interested in giving more representation to the natives in India. New reforms would be introduced in the country to meet this objective. He came to India and stayed here for six months. During this period he held meetings with different government and non-government people. Finally, in cooperation with the Governor General Lord Chelmsford, Montague presented a report on the constitutional reforms for India in 1918. The report was discussed and approved by the British Parliament and then became the Act of 1919. This Act is commonly known as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms.

The following were the main features of the Act of 1919:

1. The Council of the Secretary of State was to comprise of eight to twelve people. Three of them should be Indian, and at least half of them should have spent at least ten years in India.

2. The Secretary of State was supposed to follow the advice of his council.

3. Part of the expenses of the office of the Secretary of State was to be met by the British Government.

4. The Secretary of State was not allowed to interfere in administrative matters of the provinces concerning the 'Transferred Subjects' and also in the matters on which Governor General and his Legislative were in agreement.

5. The Governor General had the power to nominate as many members to his Executive Council as he wanted.

6. Members appointed to the Executive Council were to have served in India for at least 10 years.

7. The Central Legislature was to consist of two houses i.e. the Council of the State (Upper House) and the Legislative Assembly (Lower House).

8. Council of the State was to consist of 60 members out of which 33 were to be elected and 27 nominated by the Governor General.

9. The Legislative Assembly was to consist of 144 members out of which 103 were to be elected and 41 to be nominated by the Governor General.

10. The franchise was limited.

11. The tenure of the Upper House was five and of the Lower House was three years.

12. Both the houses had equal legislative powers. In case of a tie, the Governor General was to call a joint meeting where the matter was to be decided by majority vote.

13. The Executive Council was not responsible to the Legislature and the Governor General had the right to refuse its advice.

14. Provincial Legislatures were supposed to be unicameral.

15. Seventy percent members of the Provincial Legislative Councils were to be elected and thirty percent were to be nominated.

16. The Governors were given 'Instrument of Instructions' which guided them in carrying out their administrative affairs.

17. The System of Diarchy was introduced in the provinces.

18. Besides Muslims, other minorities including Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Christians and Europeans were also given the right of separate electorate.

19. New reforms were to be introduced after ten years.

The Montague-Chelmsford reforms were not accepted by most quarters in India as they fell far short of the Indian natives' expectations.

History - Minto-Morely Reforms

In 1906, Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, announced in the British parliament that his government wanted to introduce new reforms for India, in which the locals were to be given more powers in legislative affairs. With this, a series of correspondences started between him and Lord Minto, the then Governor General of India. A committee was appointed by the Government of India to propose a scheme of reforms. The committee submitted its report, and after the approval of Lord Minto and Lord Morley, the Act of 1909 was passed by the British parliament. The Act of 1909 is commonly known as the Minto-Morley Reforms.

The following were the main features of the Act of 1909:

1. The number of the members of the Legislative Council at the Center was increased from 16 to 60.

2. The number of the members of the Provincial Legislatives was also increased. It was fixed as 50 in the provinces of Bengal, Madras and Bombay, and for the rest of the provinces it was 30.

3. The member of the Legislative Councils, both at the Center and in the provinces, were to be of four categories i.e. ex-officio members (Governor General and the members of their Executive Councils), nominated official members (those nominated by the Governor General and were government officials), nominated non-official members (nominated by the Governor General but were not government officials) and elected members (elected by different categories of Indian people).

4. Right of separate electorate was given to the Muslims.

5. At the Center, official members were to form the majority but in provinces non-official members would be in majority.

6. The members of the Legislative Councils were permitted to discuss the budgets, suggest the amendments and even to vote on them; excluding those items that were included as non-vote items. They were also entitled to ask supplementary questions during the legislative proceedings.

7. The Secretary of State for India was empowered to increase the number of the Executive Councils of Madras and Bombay from two to four.

8. Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs.

9. The Governor General was empowered to nominate one Indian member to his Executive Council.