“The report of the Indian Statutory Commission (Simon Commission) was biased in favor of British colonial rule in India.”

Sir John Simon invited representative bodies in India to form Committees which can sit with the Commission on equal terms.

The Simon Commission’s recommendations, presented later, were largely ignored by Indian leaders. The commission’s failure to address Indian demands highlighted the British government’s refusal to recognise Indian aspirations for self-rule. The protests against the Simon Commission not only demonstrated the Indians’ unified stance but also paved the way for subsequent movements, including the Civil Disobedience Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi.

Though offering far more advanced constitutional reforms than ever before, the Government of India Act of 1919 expressed the underlying racial, cultural and social dichotomies of its authors. The continued authority of the British at the center, the reliance on race as an important element of politics, the pedagogical nature of the reforms, and the decision to appoint commissions to review and assess Indian compatibility with democratic institutions clearly reflected Britain's negative opinion of Indian political and intellectual thought. The Simon Commission and constitutional reform in India must be seen within this tension between Britain's political move to provide greater independence in India, through constitutional reform, and its inability to escape the racial, cultural, and social dichotomies that had long justified imperial rule.

The Simon Commission was formally established in November 1927 and deliberately excluded Indian representatives from its membership. This exclusion was a deliberate policy choice by British leadership, including Viceroy Lord Irwin, who feared Indian members would either align with Labour MPs or engage in internal disputes. The commission's final report in 1930 notably failed to address the demand for dominion status, which had been promised by Lord Irwin just months before the report's publication, further demonstrating the gap between British rhetoric and substantive reform.

The report emphasizes the need for India to achieve Dominion Status, which hinges on the Indianization of the military and the establishment of a self-governing ... But here, the external defence of India is a matter in which other parts of the Empire are also closely and directly interested. Imperial foreign policy, Empire communications, Empire trade, the general position of Britain in the East, may be vitally affected.

In 1927, the British government decided to form the Simon Commission to review the constitutional reforms in India. However, it was met with immediate backlash because it included only British members and no Indians. Another significant reason for the opposition was the perceived threat to India's right to self-determination. The Commission was viewed as an attempt by the British to maintain control over India without allowing Indians to participate in the decision-making process.

Indian leaders felt that they were not adequately consulted or involved in the process, and they believed that the commission’s recommendations would not adequately address Indian demands for self-government. Despite the widespread protests and demands for Indian representation, the Simon Commission’s final report, known as the “Simon Report,” was published in 1930 without any significant concessions to Indian demands. The commission’s recommendations... were met with widespread opposition and were rejected by Indian political leaders and nationalist groups.

The Commission published its report in two volumes in 1930 to further criticism and condemnation in India. It was rejected by virtually all parts of the Indian political spectrum... The British Government responded by holding a series of Round Table Conferences held in London between November 1930 and December 1932. This eventually fed into the reforms incorporated into the 1935 Government of India Act.

The Simon Commission recommended changes in 1927 that were a continuation of public representation, abolition of diarchy, an expansion of responsible government in provinces, making of Indian federation of British India and princely states. But after this attempt, the recommendations were failed because the Indian people were not satisfied with the report and recommendations announced, so they protested against Simon.

The commission's mandate was to advise the British government on whether India was ready for future constitutional reforms and along what lines. ... Although constitutional revisions were due only in 1929, the Conservative administration, then in control in Britain, anticipated defeat by the Labour Party and hence did not want to leave the matter of the future of Britain’s most expensive colony in “irresponsible Labour hands”.

The majority of the then Indian leaders discarded the Simon Commission report as biased.

The late 1920s witnessed huge political turmoil and uncertainty in British India, and when the Simon Commission published its two-volume report in 1930, the British government called a series of conferences to discuss the future of India. The Viceroy of India had stated that the solution for India’s political problems would heavily rely on the Simon Commission’s report.

Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms clearly recognised the problem of the Depressed Classes and gave a pledge respecting them. The castes described as Depressed Classes were then estimated at about 45 millions.

In India British imperialist rule rests mainly on the support of the feudal princes, the great landowners, the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, and the ... to expand the social basis of imperialist rule in order to obtain wider native cooperation in its wars of aggression, it resorts to the appointment of 'Royal Commissions' which go out to 'investigate' the situation 'impartially' and then make 'recommendations' of re-