All Parties Conference
The All Parties Conference of 1928 was a series of meetings convened by representatives of major Indian political organizations, including the Indian National Congress, Muslim League, and others, to draft a unified constitutional proposal for self-governance under British rule as an alternative to the all-British Simon Commission.[1] Held in sessions at Bombay in May and Lucknow in August, the conference appointed a committee chaired by Motilal Nehru, comprising members from Hindu, Muslim, Parsi, Sikh, and Christian communities, to produce what became known as the Nehru Report.[2] This document recommended dominion status within the British Empire, a federal structure with a bicameral parliament, fundamental rights enforceable by courts, and joint electorates with reserved seats for minorities but without weightage or separate representation for Muslims.[3] The Nehru Report represented a significant nationalist effort to prioritize national unity and parliamentary democracy over communal divisions, incorporating influences from the Government of India Act 1919 while rejecting princely vetoes and emphasizing adult franchise in provinces.[4] Its adoption at Lucknow aimed to present a cohesive Indian demand to the British, but it faced immediate backlash: the Indian National Congress, at its 1928 Calcutta session, conditionally accepted it only if dominion status was not granted by 1929, later repudiating it in favor of purna swaraj (complete independence).[5] Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League criticized it for discarding earlier Lucknow Pact safeguards, such as one-third Muslim representation in the central legislature and separate electorates, prompting Jinnah's Fourteen Points in 1929 as a counter-demand for federalism with provincial autonomy and Muslim-majority protections.[6][7] These divisions underscored the conference's mixed legacy: while it demonstrated potential for cross-party collaboration and influenced later constitutional debates, its failure to reconcile Hindu-majority and Muslim aspirations deepened communal rifts, contributing causally to the Muslim League's shift toward separatism and the eventual push for Pakistan.[8] The report's emphasis on secular nationalism aligned with Congress visions but highlighted irreconcilable priorities in a multi-ethnic society, marking a turning point where consensus on governance proved elusive amid rising demands for sovereignty.[9]Historical Context
British Constitutional Challenges
The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, enacted through the Government of India Act 1919, introduced dyarchy in provincial governments, dividing subjects into transferred (e.g., education, health) under Indian ministers responsible to legislatures and reserved (e.g., finance, police) under British executives accountable to governors.[10] However, this system preserved ultimate British authority, as governors retained veto powers, ordinance-making abilities, and the capacity to override ministers or dissolve legislatures in crises, rendering Indian participation nominal rather than substantive.[11] The electorate remained severely restricted, enfranchising only about 5–10% of adults based on property, tax, or educational qualifications, excluding the majority and fueling demands for broader representation.[12] These reforms failed to quell Indian aspirations for self-governance, exacerbated by contemporaneous events such as the Rowlatt Acts of 1919, which empowered indefinite detention without trial, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, where British troops killed at least 379 unarmed civilians in Amritsar.[13] Central governance stayed centralized under the viceroy, with no elected elements in the bicameral legislature and British dominance in finance, defense, and foreign affairs, prompting critiques that the changes prioritized administrative convenience over political devolution.[14] By the mid-1920s, the Indian National Congress and other groups viewed dyarchy as a stalled experiment, demanding dominion status akin to Canada or Australia, but British commitments remained vague, tied to post-war promises like the 1917 Montagu Declaration of "responsible government" as a distant goal.[15] In response to mounting pressures, the British government announced in November 1927 the appointment of the Indian Statutory Commission, chaired by Sir John Simon, to evaluate the 1919 Act's workings and suggest further reforms, with a report due before the 10-year review period ended.[16] Composed entirely of British Parliament members and excluding Indians despite their stake in the territory's future, the commission provoked unanimous opposition from Indian political leaders, who saw it as an affront to self-determination and a continuation of unilateral imposition.[17] Nationwide protests erupted upon its arrival in February 1928, including hartals, black-flag demonstrations, and the death of Lala Lajpat Rai from injuries during a Lahore lathi charge on October 30, 1928, galvanizing anti-colonial sentiment and underscoring the constitutional impasse.[18] This all-white composition highlighted deeper systemic challenges: Britain's reluctance to concede meaningful autonomy amid fears of fragmentation in a diverse society, reliance on princely states and communal electorates to divide opinion, and prioritization of imperial stability over Indian agency.[19] The boycott unified disparate groups, from moderates to revolutionaries, exposing the limits of incremental reform and pressuring Indians to articulate their own constitutional vision independently of British frameworks.[20]Indian Political Fragmentation Pre-1928
Prior to 1928, British India's political landscape was marked by a proliferation of organizations representing diverse religious, caste, regional, and ideological interests, hindering unified demands for self-governance. The Indian National Congress, established in 1885 as the foremost nationalist body, encompassed moderates seeking gradual reforms through petitions and extremists pushing for swaraj (self-rule), resulting in a schism at its 1907 Surat session that lasted until reconciliation via the 1916 Lucknow Pact.[21] Concurrently, the All-India Muslim League, formed in 1906, prioritized Muslim safeguards against perceived Hindu-majority dominance, while the Hindu Mahasabha, founded in 1915, advocated Hindu political consolidation in response to growing communal assertions.[22] These groups, alongside smaller entities like the Servants of India Society (1905) and emerging labor unions post-World War I, reflected ideological rifts between constitutionalists and revolutionaries, such as Bengal's Anushilan Samiti active in the 1900s-1910s.[23] Religious divisions were deepened by British policies, notably the Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms), which introduced separate electorates for Muslims, institutionalizing communal voting and fostering identity-based politics over national unity.[24] This measure, intended to assuage Muslim elites amid Congress's rising influence, instead amplified Hindu-Muslim tensions, evident in the partition of Bengal (1905, annulled 1911) and subsequent riots, while the 1916 Lucknow Pact's joint electorates for Muslims temporarily bridged gaps but failed to prevent post-Khilafat Movement clashes in the 1920s.[25] The Khilafat agitation (1919-1924), allying Congress with Muslim leaders against British policies, briefly unified fronts but collapsed amid violence, underscoring irreconcilable demands for protections versus assimilation.[26] Caste and regional fissures further fragmented mobilization, particularly in southern India where the Justice Party (1916) championed non-Brahmin interests against Brahmin overrepresentation in Congress and administration, leading to demands for proportional quotas.[27] In the 1910s-1920s, Dalit leaders like B.R. Ambedkar began organizing depressed classes for separate safeguards, mirroring Muslim claims and challenging Congress's unitary Hindu framework, while princely states remained aloof from provincial legislatures under dyarchy introduced by the 1919 Government of India Act.[28] Regional disparities, including Sikh and Parsi representational pushes, compounded these issues, rendering a cohesive Indian front elusive amid British "divide and rule" tactics that exploited cleavages to stall reforms, as seen in the all-British Simon Commission's 1927 boycott by major groups.[29] This mosaic of competing loyalties necessitated inclusive forums like the All Parties Conference to negotiate constitutional proposals.Formation and Sessions
Delhi Conference (January 1928)
The first session of the All Parties Conference convened in Delhi on 12 February 1928, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, president of the Indian National Congress.[30][31] Attended by approximately 100 delegates representing 29 political organizations—including the Indian National Congress, All-India Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, Sikh representatives, and others—the meeting aimed to counter the all-British Simon Commission, appointed in November 1927 to review constitutional progress but boycotted nationwide for excluding Indian members.[32][33] The conference focused on achieving consensus among diverse Indian groups on self-governance principles, rejecting the Simon Commission's framework as inadequate. Delegates debated dominion status versus full independence, with a majority favoring a constitution that ensured responsible government at the center and provinces, federal structure, and safeguards for minorities without separate electorates.[5] Key resolutions included drafting an indigenous constitution to present as an alternative to British proposals, emphasizing adult suffrage, joint electorates, and provincial autonomy.[31] A pivotal outcome was the decision to form a subcommittee to outline constitutional principles, setting the stage for the Nehru Committee established at the subsequent Bombay session in May 1928.[33] This step reflected an attempt at inter-communal unity amid rising Hindu-Muslim tensions, though underlying disagreements on federalism and minority rights foreshadowed later rejections by figures like Muhammad Ali Jinnah.[32] The Delhi meeting underscored the conference's role in channeling nationalist demands into a structured reform agenda, independent of British oversight.[5]Bombay Conference (May 1928)
The Bombay session of the All Parties Conference, held on May 19, 1928, served as a continuation of the constitutional deliberations initiated at the Delhi meeting earlier that year, amid growing demands for self-governing dominion status within the British Empire.[34] Representatives from major political entities, including the Indian National Congress, All-India Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and Sikh organizations, participated to address unresolved issues such as communal electorates, seat reservations, provincial boundaries, and the structure of federal versus unitary governance.[35] Discussions revealed deep divisions, particularly over separate electorates for Muslims and other minorities, as well as the financial viability of creating new provinces like Sind, preventing consensus in open sessions.[36] Faced with these impasses, the conference delegated the task of formulating concrete constitutional principles to a dedicated subcommittee, marking a pragmatic shift from broad debate to expert drafting.[34] Chaired by Motilal Nehru, the committee comprised Tej Bahadur Sapru, Ali Imam, G. R. Pradhan, Shuab Qureshi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Madhao Aney, M. R. Jayakar, N. M. Joshi, and Mangal Singh, selected to represent diverse communal and regional interests.[34] Its mandate focused on determining the framework for full responsible government, including rejection of permanent seat reservations for majorities or minorities, emphasis on joint electorates, and safeguards for minority rights on a temporary basis where necessary, such as proportional reservations for Muslims in non-majority provinces limited to 10 years.[34] This appointment underscored the conference's recognition that empirical assessment of governance structures—drawing from dominion models like Canada and Australia—required detailed analysis beyond immediate political bargaining, prioritizing causal mechanisms of stable federalism over entrenched communal divisions.[34] While no comprehensive resolutions emerged from the session itself, the decision laid the groundwork for the Nehru Report, submitted later in 1928, by empowering the committee to investigate fiscal relations, legislative powers, and executive accountability.[34] The proceedings highlighted systemic challenges in multi-communal negotiation, where ideological commitments to unitary sovereignty clashed with demands for provincial autonomy and proportional representation.[36]Lucknow Conference (August 1928)
The fourth session of the All Parties Conference took place in Lucknow from August 28 to 31, 1928, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, with the primary objective of reviewing and adopting recommendations on India's constitutional framework in response to the ongoing Simon Commission deliberations.[3][37] The conference brought together representatives from diverse political groups, including the Indian National Congress, Muslim League, and other communal and regional organizations, aiming to forge consensus on self-governance amid British reluctance to grant full dominion status.[33] On August 28, 1928, the session received the Nehru Report, prepared by a committee appointed at the Bombay conference on May 19, 1928, and chaired by Motilal Nehru, which outlined a draft constitution emphasizing dominion status, parliamentary democracy, and federalism with a strong central government.[34][3] The report rejected separate electorates for Muslims beyond a transitional period, advocated for joint electorates with reserved seats, and proposed fundamental rights including equality before the law and protection against exploitation, drawing from British and Irish constitutional models while prioritizing Indian unity.[33][37] Delegates debated the report extensively, leading to its adoption with minor modifications, including affirmations of dominion status as the immediate goal and a federal structure balancing provincial autonomy with central authority over defense, foreign affairs, and currency.[33] The conference resolved to submit the adopted recommendations to an All-Parties Convention in Calcutta for further ratification, marking a significant, though contested, step toward a unified Indian constitutional demand independent of British proposals.[34] This session highlighted emerging tensions, particularly from Muslim representatives like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who opposed the dilution of communal safeguards, foreshadowing fractures in inter-communal unity.[3]Nehru Committee and Report
Committee Composition and Mandate
The Nehru Committee was appointed by the All Parties Conference at its Bombay session on May 19, 1928, in response to the ongoing constitutional deliberations amid the Simon Commission's all-British composition.[34] Chaired by Pandit Motilal Nehru, a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress, the committee included representatives from major political and communal groups to ensure broad consultation.[3] Jawaharlal Nehru served as secretary, facilitating the drafting process.[38] Membership comprised ten key figures, predominantly from Hindu backgrounds but with inclusions to reflect communal diversity:- Tej Bahadur Sapru (liberal leader and former judge)
- M. S. Aney (Congress member from the Central Provinces)
- Mangal Singh (Akali Sikh representative)
- Ali Imam (Muslim advocate from Bihar)
- Shu'aib Qureshi (Muslim member from the United Provinces)
- Subhas Chandra Bose (young Congress radical)