The Simon Commission was boycotted by Indians for three key reasons: 1) It had no Indian members, which Indians viewed as embarrassing. 2) It rejected the Muslim demand to separate Sindh from Bombay, angering Muslims. 3) It introduced separate electorates and a federal system of government, which the Indian National Congress opposed.

1. SIR JoHN Simon
The Simon Commission
(1927)
Members of Parliament of
United Kingdom t

3. Why was the Simon commission
boycotted by the Indians?
• firstly the Simon commission, which had no
Indian members, was sent to investigate
India's constitutional problems and make
recommendations to the government on the
future constitution of India, it provoked
Indians as it had no Indian member. Indians
felt this embarrassing and so boycotted the
Simon commission.

4. • 2. Muslims clearly demanded sindh to be
separated from Bombay in the Delhi proposals
whereas British put down that demand of
Muslims and thus enraged the Muslims who
then stood for the opposition

5. • 3.. separate electorates and federal system of
government was introduced, this made the
congress go mad who were against this
system. and so they opposed Simon
commission.

13. MOTILAL NEHRU
• NEHRU REPORT 1928
• Status of dominion
• Parliamentry form of government
• No separate electorates
• One fourth representation of muslims in
central legislature
• Sindh and bombay …….seperate provinces

14. QUAID-I-AZAM MUHAMMAD ALI
JINNAH
• MUSLIM RESPONSE TO NEHRU REPORT

18. • GOVERNMENT…….FEDERAL
• PROVINCES…….EQUAL AUTONOMY
• REPRISENTATION OF
MINOROTIES……LEGISLATURE…..ELECTED
BODIES….PROVINCES
• ONE THIRD MUSLIM REPRISENTATION
• SEPARATE OR JOINT
ELECTORATES….COMMMUNITIES

19. • Muslim majority in Punjab,Bengal,NWFP, must not be
disturbed by any territorial change.
• Religious liberty,observance,education for all.
• Three fourth of community members oppose a bill……will
not be passed
• Sindh……bombay
• NWFP…BALUCHISTAN reforms
• Share in government services
• Muslim culture….gov money
• Central provincial cabinet one third Muslim ministers
• Changes to the constitution must be apprived by states