mixture of history and theory. Further, it maintained that in view of this
historical nature of the relationship, the States should not be transferred
without their own agreement to a relationship with a new government in
British India responsible to an Indian legislature.
     Later the Simon Commission substantially endorsed the Butler
Committee’s findings and agreed that the viceroy, and not the governor-
general-in-council, should be the ‘agent of the Paramount Power’ in its
relations with the Princes. And the Government of India Act 1935 even
stipulated that the two offices of the governor-general and the viceroy were
indeed separate and distinct in their functions.
Nehru Report (1928)
In opposition to the appointment of the Simon Commission, an all-parties
conference was convened at Delhi on February 12, 1928, which was attended
by representatives of 29 organisations. At the Bombay meeting on May 19,
1928, the All-Parties Conference appointed a committee with Motilal Nehru
as its chairman to consider and determine the principles of the constitution
for India.
     The Nehru Committee presented its report to the fourth session of the All-
Parties Conference at Lucknow· in August 1928. The central theme of the
Committee’s recommendations was the assumption that the country’s new
constitution would rest on the solid base of Dominion Status.
     Other important recommendations of the Report were as follows: (i)
provision for freedom of conscience, profession and practice of one’s
religion; (ii) lower houses in the central legislature and the provincial
councils to consist of members elected by joint mixed electorates with
reservation of seats for Muslims or Hindus wherever they were in a minority;
(iii) no reservation of seats for Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal; (iv)
reservation of seats on the basis of population and for a fixed period of 10
years; and (v) provision for adult universal suffrage.
     When it was placed before the All-Parties Convention at Calcutta, there
was a violent clash between Jinnah (representing the Muslim League) and
M.R. Jayakar (who put forth the Hindu Mahasabha view point). The former
demanded, among others, one-third of the total seats in the proposed central