On 20th September 1932, Mahatma Gandhi began a fast unto death in Yerawada Jail, protesting against the British government’s proposal for separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, representing the interests of the lower castes, initially supported separate electorates but later agreed to reservations for the Scheduled Castes in the Poona Pact under immense pressure.
Background
- In 1932, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald introduced the Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for different social communities and religions in India. This system of separate electorates allowed specific groups to elect their own representatives.
- The foundation for separate electorates in British India was laid in the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909. These reforms granted separate electorates for Muslims, allowing them to elect representatives exclusively from their own community. Over time, the concept was extended to other groups, such as women, Sikhs, and other marginalised classes.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Course
Gandhi vs. Ambedkar on Caste
- Mahatma Gandhi: Mahatma Gandhi’s views on caste evolved throughout his life. Initially, he adhered to certain orthodox practices, such as not explicitly condemning practices like separate dining or opposing inter-caste marriages, considering these personal choices guided by morality. Gandhi often viewed restrictions on inter-caste marriages as justifiable, stemming from his belief in the social utility of caste in maintaining societal order.
- However, over time, Gandhi began to denounce untouchability and referred to the oppressed as “Harijans” (children of God). While he condemned the inhumane treatment of the untouchables, Gandhi did not challenge the institution of caste itself. He saw caste as a social framework with some functional purpose, believing that it could be reformed without dismantling the entire system. For Gandhi, the emphasis was on improving the condition of the lower castes within the existing structure.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: In contrast, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar took a much more radical stance. Ambedkar viewed caste as the root cause of untouchability and firmly believed that true social change could only occur if the caste system itself was abolished.
- He argued that caste had deep roots in the authority of Hindu scriptures (shastras), which legitimised and perpetuated the caste hierarchy. For him, only by rejecting the authority of these scriptures could the system of caste, and consequently untouchability, be dismantled.
- According to Ambedkar, meaningful reform required not just calling the untouchables by a different name like “Harijan” but a direct challenge to the religious and social foundations of caste. In 1932, during the Round Table Conference, he advocated for separate electorates for the Depressed Classes (later called Scheduled Castes).
Concept of Separate Electorates with Double Vote
The proposal for separate electorates involved a double vote system. For example, in a constituency like Patna, where there is a separate electorate for the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, SC voters would cast two votes:
- First Vote: Scheduled Caste (SC) voters would elect a representative exclusively from their community. This representative would be an SC member, and only SC voters would participate in this election.
- Second Vote: SC voters would also participate in the general electorate. Here, they could vote for any candidate standing in the general election, alongside voters from other communities.
Various Views and arguments concerning Separate electorates
- Ambedkar’s Argument: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised the crucial need for political power for the lower castes, arguing that their social and economic conditions could only improve if they had control over their political representation. Ambedkar strongly advocated for separate electorates for the Depressed Classes (Scheduled Castes), presenting this idea even before the Simon Commission and during the Round Table Conferences.
- Opposition to Separate Electorates: Many political leaders opposed separate electorates, advocating instead for a system of joint electorates with increased reservations for SC candidates. Their argument was that joint electorates would integrate the Depressed Classes into the broader Hindu community, fostering unity while still providing reserved seats for lower-caste representatives.
- Ambedkar’s Concerns: Ambedkar opposed joint electorates because he feared that, even with reserved seats, the majority Hindu community would influence the election of Scheduled Caste representatives. This, in his view, would render SC candidates tools of the majority rather than genuine representatives of their community. Ambedkar believed that separate electorates would eliminate this interference, ensuring that SC representatives were chosen independently by their own community, without the control or manipulation of the majority.
- Gandhiji’s Opposition to Separate Electorates: Mahatma Gandhi strongly opposed the idea of separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes (Depressed Classes), viewing it as a short-term solution that wouldn’t truly address the problems of caste discrimination. He believed that granting a few reserved seats in the legislature would not significantly improve the condition of the lower castes. Instead, Gandhi argued that lower castes should aspire to much greater political empowerment—even to “rule the kingdom of the whole world”—rather than settling for limited representation.
- Gandhiji’s Concerns
- Fear of Fragmenting Hindu Society: Gandhi’s primary concern was that separate electorates would fragment Hindu society and drive a permanent wedge between different communities, particularly between upper-caste Hindus and the Scheduled Castes. He feared that by isolating the lower castes politically, it would solidify their exclusion from mainstream Hindu society and hinder the larger goal of national unity. In Gandhi’s view, this division would play into the British “divide and rule” strategy, which sought to exploit social divisions in India to maintain colonial control. The British had already introduced separate electorates for Muslims, and Gandhi feared that creating separate electorates for the Depressed Classes would further fracture Indian society, weakening the anti-colonial struggle.
- Rising Hindu-Muslim Tensions: Another factor influencing Gandhi’s opposition was the rising tensions between Hindus and Muslims at the time. Gandhi believed that adding separate electorates for the lower castes, in addition to those already granted to Muslims, would further erode the power of caste Hindu leadership. This fragmentation, in Gandhi’s view, would weaken the consolidated Hindu bloc, reducing its ability to resist colonial rule and destabilising efforts for Indian independence.
Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store
The Poona Pact and Its Aftermath
The disagreement between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar culminated in Gandhi’s fast unto death, which began on September 20, 1932. Gandhi framed his fast as a final sacrifice for the downtrodden, exerting immense pressure on Ambedkar. Despite Ambedkar’s initial support for separate electorates, Gandhi’s stature as the nation’s most beloved leader forced him to reconsider his position. Ultimately, Ambedkar abandoned the demand for separate electorates and signed the Poona Pact.
| Note: Gandhiji did not personally sign the Poona Pact; instead, it was signed by Madan Mohan Malviya on Gandhi’s behalf. |
Conclusion
The Poona Pact was hailed by many as a victory for Gandhi and a significant step towards Indian unity. Prominent figures, including poet laureate Rabindranath Tagore, praised Gandhi’s sacrifice, stating, “It is worth sacrificing precious life for the sake of India’s unity and her integrity.” However, while the Pact was celebrated publicly, Ambedkar felt cornered and dissatisfied with the outcome. In his 1945 essay, Ambedkar criticised the Poona Pact and the concept of joint electorates, arguing that it ultimately did not benefit the Depressed Classes. He contended that the arrangement allowed upper-caste Hindus to maintain control over Dalit representation. Although there were reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes, he believed that these representatives would merely serve as tools of the majority, nominated by upper-caste leaders rather than truly representing the interests of the lower castes.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes
September 21, 2024
