BUTLER COMMITTEE

The Butler Committee was formed in 1927 under the chairmanship of Sir Harcourt Butler. This
Committee was appointed By Lord Irwin who was the viceroy of India in 1927. This Committee gave
its recommendations in a report submitted in 1929. It was formed to give recommendations on
improving the relationship between the Indian states and the British colonial government..

Why the Butler Committee was formed?

On the recommendations of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, a ‘Chamber of Princes’ was formed

as a purely advisory and consultative organisation that had absolutely no say in the internal affairs of
individual States.

However, the form of sovereignty and paramountcy of the states was still not defined until 1927.

Therefore, to review the nature of the cooperation between the British colonial government and
individual states, the Butler Committee was formed in 1927.

The basic aim of this committee was to provide recommendations in order to define the exact
relationship between the Indian states and the Paramount authority of the British colonial
government.

This committee consisted of Sir Harcourt Butler, Professor WS Holdsworth, and S.C. Peel.

This committee was also known as the ‘Indian States Committee’.Explore SuperCoaching

Recommendations of the Butler Committee

The Butler committee recommended that the paramountcy of the British colonial government
should continue to remain supreme.

At the same time, the British colonial government was advised to Carry out its roles and obligations
according to the shifting demands of the time in order to ensure the progressive development of the
states.

Also, as these Indian states were founded by an obligation with the Crown based on a treaty, these
States could not simply be handed over to an Indian government in British-controlled India without
the prior approval of the crown.

The committee recommended that the Viceroy should be the agent of the Crown while dealing with
the states instead of the Governor-General in Council.

The committee also gave in writing about the possible apprehensions of the Indian princes regarding
the transfer of their state rights to an elected Indian legislature in the future.

However, the Indian princes were not happy with the concept of paramountcy not being completely
defined as noted by the Butler Committee.

Moreover, the ‘Conference of the States’ People’ gave a written submission to the Butler Committee
about their final goal to appoint a representative and responsible government in the Indian state
Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929

SHARDA ACT
The Child Marriage Restraint Act was a legislative act passed on 28 September 1929. The act fixed
the marriageable age for girls at 14 years and 18 years for boys. It is popularly known as the Sharda
Act after its sponsor, Harbilas Sarda.

How was the Child Marriage Restraint Act Formed?

Various bills addressing questions on the age of consent were introduced in the Indian legislatures
and defeated. The All India Women’s Conference, Women’s Indian Association and National Council
of Women in India, through their members developed and articulated the argument in favour of
raising of the age for marriage and consent before the Joshi Committee.

Muslim women presented their views to the Joshi Committee in favour of raising the age limit of
marriage even when they knew that they would face opposition from Muslim Ulemas.

The Joshi Committee presented its report on 20 June 1929 and was passed by the Imperial
Legislative Council on 28 September 1929 and became a law on 1 April 1930, after approval from
Lord Irwin extending to the whole of British India.

It fixed 14 and 18 as the marriageable age for girls and boys respectively of all communities.

Objective of Child Marriage Restraint Act

To eradicate the evil of child marriage, the Child Marriage Restraint Act was passed in 1929.

The object is to eliminate the special evil which had the potentialities of dangers to the life and
health of a female child, who could not withstand the stress and strains of married life and to avoid
early deaths of such minor mothers.

What is the significance of the Child Marriage Restraint Act?

The Child Marriage Restraint Act was the first social reform issue taken up by an organized women’s
group in India.

This group pressured many politicians into supporting the act by picketing their delegations, holding
placards, and shouting slogans.

They believed that the passing of this act would show the world that India is serious about social
reforms.

By showing support for this act, women in India were challenging the double standards of the
ancient Shastras. Declaring they would begin to make their own laws, free of male influence, the
women’s organization brought liberal feminism to the forefront.
Although this was a victory for the women’s movement in India, the act itself was a complete failure.
In the two years and five months, it was an active bill, there were 473 prosecutions, of which only
167 were successful.

The list goes on with 207 acquittals, with 98 cases still pending during August 1932. Out of the 167
successful prosecutions, only 17 or so did either all of or part of their sentence.

The majority of cases were in Punjab and the United Provinces.

However, the Act remained a dead letter during the colonial period of British rule in India.

As per Jawaharlal Nehru, this was mainly because the British colonial government did nothing to
propagate awareness of it, especially in smaller towns and villages of India.

In his autobiography, Nehru elucidates that this was largely due to the fact that the British did not
want to earn the displeasure of the communal elements among the Hindus and Muslims.

In the 1930s, the only parties in India that continued to support British rule were these communal
groups. The British government did not wish to lose its support.

Hence, they completely avoided implementing this and similar social reforms, instead of focusing
their attention on preventing the Indian freedom movement. Thus, their infamous “Dual Policy”
prevented any significant social reform in India.

Limitation of the Act

No Court can take cognizance of any offence under this Act after the expiry of one year from the
date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

This further dilutes the efficacy of the law.

HARTOG COMMITTEE –

Reason for Formation

This Committee was formed to examine the development of education in British India. It
placed far more emphasis on mass education than on secondary and university education.

Increase in the number of schools and colleges led to deterioration of education standards
across the country.

The committee was formed to recommend changes to strengthen the education system in
the country.

Findings

The government should be in charge of primary school control and inspection.

It stated that primary school should last four years.

The school schedule and curriculum should be tailored to the environment and conditions of the
community in which they are located, and the subjects chosen should be of practical value to the
students.

To improve the quality of primary school teachers, refresher courses and training programmes
should be offered.

The number and efficiency of school inspections should be increased.

Primary schools should serve as community centres where people in rural areas can get adult
education, medical care, and recreational opportunities.

Students would benefit from the introduction of alternative courses in high schools because they
would be able to choose courses based on their aptitude.

Women’s Education

Concerning women's education, the committee recommended that education for boys and
girls be given equal weight.

More primary schools for girls to be established.

Secondary school curricula should include hygiene, home science, and music.

Women should also be trained for teaching jobs, which should be prioritised.

Hartog Committee - Report

The Committee investigated various aspects of education and presented its report to the
commission in 1929. It made comprehensive recommendations regarding various aspects of
education in India.

First, the Committee made some broad observations about India's educational situation. The
committee observed that education had made significant progress by the time.

People generally saw education as a matter of national importance. Increased primary

school enrollment indicates that people's apathy toward education was fading, and that
people's social and political consciousness was growing.

Women, Muslims, and the lower classes had also awakened, and there had been rapid
growth in numbers. Although there was widespread interest in education, the Committee
was dissatisfied with the country's literacy rate.

The Committee presented a comprehensive report with these ideas in mind. It was valuable
in that it attempted to gauge the pulse of education in India.

It made recommendations for primary, secondary, and higher education, as well as some
other aspects of education
The Hilton Young

Commission (complete title: Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance) was a Commission
of Inquiry appointed in 1926 to look into the possible closer union of the British territories in East
and Central Africa. These were individually economically underdeveloped, and it was suggested that
some form of association would result both in cost savings and their more rapid development. The
Commission recommended an administrative union of the East African mainland territories, possibly
to be joined later by the Central African ones. It also proposed that the legislatures of each territory
should continue and saw any form of self-government as being a long-term aspiration. It did
however reject the possibility of the European minorities in Kenya or Northern Rhodesia establishing
political control in those territories, and rejected the claim of Kenyan Asians for the same voting
rights as Europeans. Although the commission's recommendations on an administrative union were
not followed immediately, closer ties in East Africa were established in the 1940s. However, in
Central Africa, its report had the effect of encouraging European settlers to seek closer association
with Southern Rhodesia, in what became in 1953 the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The Commission's objectives

The East and Central Africa territories were individually rather small and economically
underdeveloped, so some form of association could result in cost savings. The inter-communal
problems in Kenya were also of concern, so in 1927 the Colonial Secretary decided that these
matters should be examined.

The Hilton Young Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies of East and Central Africa, was a
Commission of Inquiry appointed in late 1927 by the Colonial Secretary, Leo Amery, and it reported
to him in January 1929. Its chairman was Edward Hilton Young, later 1st Baron Kennet, and it
included Sir Reginald Mant, a former Financial Secretary to the Government of India, Sir George
Ernest Schuster, a barrister and former Financial Secretary to the Government of Sudan, and J. H.
Oldham, the Secretary of the International Missionary Council. The terms of reference, in
abbreviated form, were:

(1) To make recommendations on whether federation or another form of closer union could lead to
more effective co-operation between the different Central and Eastern African governments, in
particular on developing transport and communications, customs tariffs and administration,
scientific research and defence;

(2) To consider which territories could now or in the future be brought within any closer union,
considering the League of Nations Mandate over Tanganyika Territory;

(3) To make recommendations on changes in the powers and composition of the Legislative Councils
of these territories:

(a) as the result of forming any Federal Council or other common authority;

(b) to associate the immigrant communities more closely in government; and

(c) to secure more direct representation of native interests;

(4) To suggest how the Dual Policy recommended by the Conference of East African Governors could
best be applied in the political as well as the economic sphere.

(5) To make recommendations on what improvements may be required in internal communications

between the various territories to facilitate the working of federation or closer union.

(6) To report on the financial aspects of any proposals they may make.

General recommendations

The Commission interpreted its instructions as raising two main questions:

(1) Should there be either federation or a closer form of union between the territories of Eastern
and Central Africa to secure more effective co-operation between them? and

(2) What form of constitution is suitable for those territories in which non-native immigrant
communities have become permanently domiciled?

It concluded that to achieve effective co-operation, a coherent "native policy" was required. The
principles of this policy should be applied uniformly in all the territories, although adapted to
different local circumstances. Secondly, the relationship between the indigenous African population
and the immigrant communities had to be defined. If those immigrant communities were to be given
a political role, they could not be allowed to change the terms of that native policy. Co-operation in
transport and communications, customs, defence and research were of much less significance.[11]

The "Dual Policy" referred to in the fourth term of reference was that proposed by Lord Lugard in his
book "The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa". In colonies where climate and geography
precluded extensive European settlement, Lugard suggested that their development must benefit
their indigenous population as well as the economic interests of the colonial power. He recognised
African interests as paramount, but encouraged settlement by immigrants if their interests did not
conflict with those of the indigenous population. In East Africa, particularly in Kenya, the policy was
complicated by the existence and political aspirations of both European and Asian settlers. The
Commissioners considered that the policy of the British government towards both indigenous and
immigrant communities should be agreed by all political parties.

The "Dual Policy" and "native policy" both required the creation and maintenance of resources for
African development. The report said that this should be the first duty of the government of each
territory: only after this should any surplus be used to promote immigrant enterprises. The
commissioners considered that the first requirement was for indigenous communities to have
sufficient land to maintain a reasonable living standard using traditional agriculture methods. This
land should be reserved for the African population and protected from encroachment by
immigrants. They also thought it was necessary to deal with land tenure, and anticipated a change
from communal landholding to individual tenure. The commission also considered labour issues,
demanding a limit on the recruitment of more than a fixed percentage if workers as migrant labour
and insisting on the inspection of work contracts and conditions. After considering the need to
promote African development, the commission reviewed the options for federation or closer
union. It rejected any idea of an immediate formal federation in favour of increased regional co-
operation. The Report envisaged the creation of a Central Executive Authority who would at first
be a High Commissioner relying on existing administrative structures and later a Governor-
General supported by an administrative Secretariat. This Central Authority would exercise a
more effective supervisory and co-ordinating control on policy matters than was possible from
London. The Commissioners emphasised the success of their recommendations depended on
the relaxation of Colonial Office control of local legislatures, although Colonial Office officials
would still set-out the main lines of policy. They proposed an initial period in which Kenya,
Uganda and Tanganyika would co-operate, using the existing East African Governors'
Conference (which had been formed in 1926) and its secretariat to advise the Central Authority.
In a second stage, representatives from Zanzibar, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia would join
and the Governor-General's Secretariat would be strengthened. The Commission suggested that
the local legislatures would remain and that no central legislature would be created.

Simon Commission,1927

Introduction

Simon Commission was the Indian Statutory Commission, which was a group of
seven Members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Sir John Simon.

The commission arrived in British India in 1928 to study constitutional reform in

Britain’s largest and most important possession

The Government of India Act of 1919 provided for the appointment of a commission
to study the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps after ten
years

Since the British administration had failed to include even a single Indian in the
Commission, it was strongly opposed by national leaders and freedom

Why Was Simon Commission Sent to India?

To expand the participation of Indians in government affairs, the Parliament of the

United Kingdom had passed an act called ‘The Government of India Act 1919.’

The act introduced the system of diarchy in British India, which was opposed by
Indian nationalist leaders, who demanded the administration to review the system

The act envisaged a system of review of reforms after ten years to study and
analyse the constitutional progress and to bring in more reforms.

Though the review was due in the year 1929, the Conservative government, which
was in power back then, decided to form the Commission that would study the
constitutional progress of India in the late 1920s
The reason behind forming the Commission earlier was the Conservative
government’s fear of losing to the ‘Labour Party’ in the upcoming elections

Other recommendations include:

The special power for the safeguarding of province and the protection of minorities
comes under the Governor powers

The representation of provinces and other areas constituted on the basis of

population at the Federal Assembly ( at the Centre)

Recommended Dominion Status for Burma and should be provided its own
Constitution

Recommended the representation of Council of State could not be chosen on the

basis of Direct Election but by Indirect Election through Provincial Council which is
more or less just like Modern day election procedure as Proportional Representation.

Since the Conservative government did not want the ‘Labour Party’ to take over
British India, it constituted a commission consisting of seven British MPs to study the
constitutional progress in British India as promised earlier.

Why Was Simon Commission Boycotted?

People in India were infuriated and felt insulted, for the Commission, which had
been constituted to analyse and recommend constitutional reforms for India, did not
have a single Indian member.

The Simon Commission was strongly opposed by the Congress and other nationalist
leaders and common people

Many protests were carried out individually as well as in groups, urging the British
administration to review the constitution of the Commission.

In December 1927, the Indian National Congress in its meeting in Madras resolved to
boycott the Commission

Led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, some of the members of the ‘Muslim League’ too, had
made up their minds to boycott the Commission.

Protests and death of Lala Lajpat Rai

The Commission, headed by Sir John Allsebrook Simon, reached India on February
3, 1928.

As soon as the Commission’s arrived in Bombay, it was greeted by thousands of

protestors, who demanded the Commission to go back. Many were seen holding
placards and other sign boards that had the words ‘Go Back Simon’ written on them.
There were nation-wide strikes and people greeted the Commission with black flags.
Wherever the commission went, it received the same response.

On 30 October 1928, the Commission arrived in Lahore where it was met by

protesters waving black flags

The protest was led by the Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a
resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab

The protesters blocked the road in order to prevent the commission members from
leaving the railway station.

In order to make way for the Commission, the local police led by Superintendent
James Scott began beating protestors.

Lala Lajpat Rai was critically injured, and never recovered later and died of cardiac
arrest on 17 November 1928

Aftermath of the Commission

In its May 1930 report, the Commission proposed the eradication of diarchy
system and suggested the establishment of representative government in various
provinces.

Much before the Simon Commission’s report, Motilal Nehru submitted his ‘ Nehru
Report’ in September 1928 to counter the Commission’s charges, which suggested
that Indians still lacked constitutional consensus.

The ‘Nehru Report’ pushed for dominion status for India with complete internal self-
government.

While the report was still to be published, the British government tried to calm down
people by saying that the opinion of Indians will be taken into account in any such
future exercise and that the natural outcome of constitutional reforms will be dominion
status for India

The Government of India Act 1935 was a result of the recommendations of the
Simon Commission.