Simon Commission: Class 10 Questions & Answers

Hey guys! Ever wondered about the Simon Commission and why it stirred up so much buzz back in the day? If you're a Class 10 student, chances are you've stumbled upon this topic in your history lessons. Let's break it down in a way that's easy to understand and totally relatable. Get ready to ace those exams!

What was the Simon Commission?

So, what exactly was the Simon Commission? Picture this: it's 1927, and the British government sets up a commission to look into constitutional reforms in India. The official name? The Indian Statutory Commission. But it's widely known as the Simon Commission, named after its chairman, Sir John Simon. The main gig of this commission was to review the Government of India Act of 1919 and suggest further constitutional changes. Basically, they were supposed to figure out how India could be governed better. Sounds straightforward, right? Well, not quite.

The big issue was that every single member of the commission was British. Can you imagine a group of people deciding the future of a country without having any locals involved? That's like trying to bake a cake without knowing what flour is! Indians felt completely sidelined and ignored. They believed that since it was their country and their future at stake, they should have had a say in the commission's deliberations. This lack of Indian representation became the major sticking point and the primary reason for the widespread outrage and eventual boycott.

Think about it: if someone came to your house and started rearranging everything without asking you, wouldn't you be upset? That's precisely how Indians felt. They viewed the Simon Commission as an imposition, a clear sign that the British weren't really interested in hearing what Indians wanted for their own country. The commission's formation was seen as a blatant disregard for Indian opinions and aspirations, fueling the fire of the independence movement even further.

Furthermore, the exclusion of Indian members flew in the face of the growing demand for self-governance. Indian leaders had been actively pushing for greater autonomy and a more significant role in shaping their own political destiny. The Simon Commission, with its all-British composition, seemed to slam the door on those aspirations. It reinforced the perception that the British were unwilling to treat Indians as equals or to trust them with the responsibility of governing themselves. This perception was a major catalyst for the commission's ultimate failure and the strong opposition it faced.

What were the recommendations of the Simon Commission?

Okay, so the Simon Commission did its thing and came up with some recommendations. What were they? Despite the controversy, the commission did propose some changes. One of the key suggestions was the abolition of dyarchy in the provinces. Dyarchy, implemented by the Government of India Act of 1919, divided governmental responsibilities between elected Indian ministers and appointed British officials. The commission felt this system was inefficient and proposed giving more autonomy to the provinces. They suggested that provincial governments should be responsible for maintaining law and order and managing their own finances.

Another important recommendation was the establishment of a federal system of government in India. This meant that power would be divided between the central government and the provincial governments. The idea was to create a more decentralized system that would give the provinces greater control over their own affairs. However, the commission didn't fully address the crucial issue of how much power should be allocated to the central government versus the provinces, which remained a point of contention.

The commission also advocated for the separation of Burma (now Myanmar) from India. They argued that Burma had distinct cultural and administrative needs and would be better off as a separate entity. This recommendation was eventually implemented, and Burma became a separate British colony in 1937. While this might seem like a minor point, it had significant implications for the political landscape of the region.

Additionally, the Simon Commission suggested extending the franchise, meaning more people would get the right to vote. They proposed lowering property qualifications and other restrictions that had limited the number of eligible voters. This was seen as a step towards greater democratic participation, although it still fell short of universal suffrage. The commission's recommendations aimed to broaden the base of political representation but stopped short of fully empowering the Indian population.

However, none of these recommendations really addressed the core issue that Indians were concerned about: self-governance and a meaningful role in shaping their own future. The commission's proposals were seen as too little, too late, and ultimately failed to satisfy the aspirations of the Indian people. The lack of Indian representation on the commission itself tainted the entire process, making it difficult for any recommendations to be accepted as legitimate or truly beneficial to India.

Why was the Simon Commission boycotted in India?

Now, let's dive into why the Simon Commission faced such massive opposition in India. The main reason, as we've already touched on, was the complete absence of Indian members. Imagine being told that a group of foreigners is going to decide your future without even asking for your input! That's exactly how Indians felt. This exclusion was seen as a blatant disregard for Indian opinions and aspirations. Indian leaders and the general public felt that they were perfectly capable of determining their own destiny and should have been included in the decision-making process.

The boycott was a widespread and powerful movement. Across the country, people organized protests, strikes, and demonstrations against the commission. Slogans like "Go Back Simon" echoed in the streets, becoming a rallying cry for the independence movement. The Indian National Congress, along with other political organizations, played a crucial role in mobilizing public opinion and coordinating the boycott. They called for a complete rejection of the commission and its recommendations.

Many prominent Indian leaders actively participated in the boycott, facing arrest and imprisonment for their defiance. These acts of resistance further galvanized the public and strengthened the resolve of the independence movement. The boycott was not just a political statement; it was a powerful expression of Indian nationalism and a determination to achieve self-governance.

The boycott of the Simon Commission also served as a catalyst for the development of alternative constitutional proposals by Indian leaders themselves. The Nehru Report, drafted by a committee headed by Motilal Nehru, was one such effort. It aimed to present a vision of a self-governing India that reflected Indian aspirations and values. While the Nehru Report ultimately faced its own challenges and criticisms, it demonstrated the ability of Indian leaders to articulate their own vision for the future.

In conclusion, the boycott of the Simon Commission was a pivotal moment in the Indian independence movement. It highlighted the deep-seated resentment towards British rule and the unwavering determination of the Indian people to achieve self-governance. The commission's failure to include Indian members ultimately undermined its legitimacy and fueled the flames of nationalism, paving the way for further struggles and eventual independence.