Nehru Report, 1928

Nehru Report, 1928, drafted by an All-Parties Conference (APC) convened in response to the British Simon Commission, marked a crucial step in the evolution of India’s constitutional aspirations. In this article, you will learn why Nehru report was formed, recommendations, responses, etc.

This article will provide key insights for GS Paper-I Indian History    of UPSC IAS Exam.

Table of Content

• Why was Nehru Report, 1928 formed?     
• Recommendations of Nehru Report, 1928
• Responses on Nehru Report, 1928
• Criticism of Nehru Report, 1928
• Conclusion          
• Frequently Asked Questions         
• Reference           

Why was Nehru Report, 1928 formed?

• Lord Birkenhead had challenged Indians that Indians can’t frame their own constitution.
• Responding to the challenges, an All-Parties Conference was convened in February 1928.
• TheConference had constituted a subcommittee, chaired by Motilal Nehru, for the purpose of crafting a constitution.
• This was a pivotal endeavour undertaken by the Indian that had aimed at conceptualizing a foundational framework for the nation.
• The committee comprised individuals such as Tej Bahadur Sapru, Subhash Bose, M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Ali Imam, Shuab Qureshi, and G.R. Pradhan.
• By the August 1928, the report had reached its final form.
• The recommendations by the Nehru Committee were harmonious, except for one point of contention that is the majority voiced for “dominion status” to be enshrined in the Constitution, a subset of the committee had advocated for “complete independence“.
  • The majority faction had granted the latter group liberty in their approach.
• The Nehru Report had maintained its focus within the boundaries of British India, as it had envisaged that in future British India and the princely states can be aligned through a federal arrangement.

Recommendations of Nehru Report, 1928

• It had advocated dominion status, similar to the other self-governing dominions, aligning with Indian aspirations.
  • Younger section of National Indian Congress had emphasised complete independence, prominently led by Nehru.
• It had discarded separate electorates for Muslims which was previously the foundation of constitutional reforms.
• The separate electorates were discarded in favour of unified electorates with seats allocated for Muslims at the national and provinces level where they were a minority.
  • This was excluded for the regions where Muslims were a majority, such as Punjab and Bengal.
  • The allocation was to mirror the Muslim population and granting them the right to contest additional seats.
• It had introduced the concept of linguistic provinces.
• It had articulated 19 fundamental rights, including gender parity, the right to form associations, and universal adult voting rights.
• It had advocated for responsible governance both at the national and provincial levels:
  • The Central Indian Parliament must comprise of:
    • 500 members in the House of Representatives who are elected via adult suffrage
    • 200 members in the Senate who are chosen by provincial councils
  • The tenure of House of Representatives shall be 5 years, and the Senate for 7 years.
  • The central administration would be overseen by a governor-general, appointed by the British government but financed from Indian funds.
  • The governor-general shall operate under the guidance of the central executive council and shall be responsible to the Parliament.
• The provincial councils shall be constituted with a 5-year tenure and headed by a governor who would act upon the advice of the provincial executive council.
• It pledged to safeguard the Muslims’ cultural and religious interests.
• It stressed the complete separation of the State from religious affairs.

Responses on Nehru Report, 1928

• Though there was unity in initiation for crafting a constitutional framework by political leaders, the communal discord had casted a shadow on the Nehru Report and precipitated disputes regarding communal representation.

Delhi Proposals of Muslim League:

• During the December of 1927, Muslim leaders had gathered in Delhi for a Muslim League session.
• This assembly had proposed four outlines as their demands to be integrated into the constitution.
• The Madras session of the Congress had accepted them in the same month came to be known as the ‘Delhi Proposals.’
• Delhi Proposalsincluded following demands:
  • Adoption of collective electorates by replacing the isolated ones, yet upholding reserved seats for Muslims.
  • Allocation of one-third representation to Muslims within the Central Legislative Assembly.
  • Allocating proportional representation to Muslims in Punjab and Bengal, in accordance with their demographic presence.
  • Creation of 3 new provinces dominated by Muslim majorities—Sindh, Baluchistan, and the North-West Frontier Province.

Hindu Mahasabha demands:

• The Hindu Mahasabha had opposed the notions of creating new Muslim-majority provinces and reservation of seats for Muslim majorities in Punjab and Bengal.
• These provisions, in their view, can potentially bestow Muslim control over legislative bodies in both the regions.
• It had also demanded a unitary structure.
• This had compounded the complexities further.

Compromises:

• The Muslim League had distanced itself from the All-Parties Conference as it had adhered to their plea for seat reservations for Muslims within the central legislative body and the provinces where Muslims were a majority.
• A decision that had favoured the demands of the Muslim communal sentiment had alienated the Hindu communalists.
• The concessions made in the Nehru Report to accommodate Hindu communalist were:
  • Joint electorates were proposed but seats were reserved for Muslims only in regions where they were a minority.
  • Sindh will be detached from Bombay solely after the fulfilment of grant of dominion status, and subject to equitable representation for the Hindu minority in Sindh.
  • The political framework outlined was predominantly unitary, as residual powers were vested in the central authority.

Criticism of Nehru Report, 1928

• The discontent extended not only to the Muslim League but also to the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Sikh communalists regarding the Nehru Report.
• The discontent also encompassed the youth faction of the Congress, led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose.
• Within this youth faction, the notion of dominion status as suggested in the report was regressive, which had further intensified the occurrences at the All-Parties Conference.
• As a collective response, both Nehru and Subhash Bose had collaboratively established the Independence for India League.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Nehru Report, 1928, despite its shortcomings, was a landmark achievement. It demonstrated India’s preparedness for self-governance, fostered national unity, and provided a framework for the future Indian Constitution. It stands as a testament to the evolving strategies and growing confidence within the Indian independence movement. It demonstrated the capability of Indians to draft a constitution, a crucial step towards self-governance. The report brought together leaders with differing ideologies on a common platform, fostering national unity. The report’s framework provided a foundation for discussions and eventually, India’s Constitution.

Ref:Source-1

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)