Answer:

The debate over separate electorates for Scheduled Castes highlighted fundamental differences between B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi. While Ambedkar saw separate electorates as a path to genuine political representation for Dalits, Gandhi opposed the idea, fearing it would divide Hindu society. Their differing approaches culminated in the Poona Pact of 1932, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats for Scheduled Castes in a joint electorate system.

B.R. Ambedkar’s Perspectives on Separate Electorates:

• Empowerment Through Political Representation: Political representation was essential for the social upliftment of Dalits, and separate electorates would ensure Dalits had independent representatives.
  For instance: Ambedkar argued for separate electorates during the Round Table Conferences.
• Fear of Majority Domination: In a joint electorate, the dominant Hindu majority would influence Dalit representatives, preventing them from acting independently.
  For instance: Dalit candidates in joint electorates would be dependent on upper-caste voters for support.
• Advocacy at the Simon Commission: Ambedkar emphasised that Dalits needed political autonomy to safeguard their interests.
• Double Vote System: One for electing their own representative and one for the general electorate, to ensure fair representation without isolation.
  For instance: This proposal allowed Dalits to vote for both Dalit and non-Dalit candidates, ensuring wider political engagement.
• Response to Poona Pact: Ambedkar reluctantly agreed to the Poona Pact feeling  it didn’t fully address Dalit concerns.
  For instance: In later writings, criticised the Poona Pact, arguing it allowed upper-caste Hindus to control Dalit political representation.

Mahatma Gandhi’s Perspectives on Separate Electorates:

• Opposition to Separate Electorates: Gandhi believed it would divide Hindu society and hinder national unity.
• National Unity Over Division: Colonial strategy to weaken India’s independence movement by promoting social fragmentation.
  For example: Gandhi’s concerns about British tactics of “divide and rule” influenced his stance against separate electorates.
• Reforming Caste from Within: Gandhi believed the caste system could be reformed, and advocated for social reforms that would elevate the Dalits within Hindu society.
  For example: He referred to Dalits as Harijans (Children of God), hoping to uplift them within the Hindu community.
• Fear of Permanent Divisions: Gandhiji feared separate electorates would permanently segregate Dalits from the rest of Hindu society, making them politically isolated.
  For example: Isolation would worsen Dalits’ conditions and prevent their full integration into Indian society.
• Fast Unto Death: In protest against the Communal Award, Gandhi began a fast unto death in Yerawada Jail , pressuring Ambedkar to abandon separate electorates in favour of reserved seats.
  For example: Gandhi’s fast led to the Poona Pact, where separate electorates were replaced by reserved seats in joint electorates.

Fundamental Differences Between Ambedkar’s and Gandhi’s Perspectives:

• Political Autonomy vs. Integration: While Ambedkar saw separate electorates as a tool for Dalit political autonomy, Gandhi feared it would politically isolate Dalits and weaken the national movement.
  For example: Ambedkar wanted independent Dalit representation, whereas Gandhi aimed for Dalits’ integration within the Hindu community.
• Views on Caste Reform: Ambedkar believed the caste system should be dismantled, while Gandhiji advocated for reforming the system from within, maintaining some of its social structure.
  For example: Gandhiji’s focus was on eliminating untouchability, but he didn’t call for the complete abolition of caste.
• Representation vs. National Unity: Ambedkar prioritised Dalit representation, whereas Gandhi prioritised national unity and feared that separate electorates would weaken Hindu society’s cohesion.
• British Divide and Rule Concerns: Gandhi believed that separate electorates played into the British strategy of “divide and rule”, while Ambedkar was more focused on ensuring Dalit rights.
  For instance: Gandhi feared that separate electorates would further weaken Hindu-Muslim unity.
• Poona Pact Impact: Gandhi saw the Poona Pact as a victory for Indian unity, but Ambedkar felt it was a compromise that didn’t fully serve Dalit interests.
  For example: Ambedkar claimed the joint electorate system gave upper castes control over Dalit representatives.

The debate between B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi highlighted their fundamentally different visions for Indian society. While Ambedkar sought political empowerment through separate representation, Gandhi focused on national unity and social reform. The Poona Pact, though a compromise, reflected the complexity of addressing caste-based inequalities in India

DOWNLOAD PDF