Communal Award and Poona Pact: Analyzing Minority Representation and Unity in Colonial India

The Communal Award, unveiled by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald on August 16, 1932, was based on the recommendations of the Indian Franchise Committee, also known as the Lothian Committee. This award introduced separate electorates and reserved seats for various minorities, including the depressed classes, who were allocated seventy-eight reserved seats. The separate electorates were designated for Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, depressed classes, and even Marathas for certain seats in Bombay. National leaders, led by the Congress, perceived this award as another manifestation of the British policy of divide and rule.

Ambedkar’s Struggle for Separate Electorates

Demand for Separate Minority Status for Depressed Classes: It’s noteworthy that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had previously emphasized, in his testimony to the Simon Commission, the need to treat the depressed classes as a distinct, independent minority separate from the caste Hindus. 

• The Bengal Depressed Classes Association had also advocated for separate electorates with seats reserved based on the proportion of depressed class members to the total population, along with the adult franchise. 
  • However, the Simon Commission rejected the idea of a separate electorate for the depressed classes but retained the concept of reserving seats.
• During the second Round Table Conference in London, Ambedkar again raised the issue of a separate electorate for the depressed classes. 
  • Despite attempting to compromise with Gandhi on reserved seats in a common electorate, Gandhi, declaring himself the sole representative of India’s oppressed masses, rejected Ambedkar’s proposal and denounced other delegates as unrepresentative. 
• Gandhi’s Political Maneuvering: Gandhi also sought a deal with Muslims, offering support for their demands in exchange for voting against separate electorates for the depressed classes. 
  • Political considerations might have motivated Gandhi’s stance, but despite these efforts, a consensus on minority representation could not be reached among Indian delegates. 
• Ramsay MacDonald’s Mediation: In response, Ramsay MacDonald, who chaired the committee on minorities, offered to mediate, with the condition that other committee members supported his decision. This mediation resulted in the Communal Award.

Key Provisions of the Communal Award

Separate Electorate: Separate electorates were designated for Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, depressed classes, women, and even the Marathas. This arrangement for the depressed classes was to be in effect for 20 years.

• Seats in provincial legislatures were to be distributed on a communal basis.
• The existing seats in provincial legislatures were to be doubled.
• Muslims, wherever in the minority, were to be granted a weightage.
• Except in the North West Frontier Province, 3 percent of seats were to be reserved for women in all provinces.
• The depressed classes were to be declared/accorded the status of a minority.
• The depressed classes were entitled to a ‘double vote,’ with one to be used through separate electorates and the other in general electorates.
• Allocation of seats was to be made for laborers, landlords, traders, and industrialists.
• In the province of Bombay, 7 seats were allocated for the Marathas.

Congress Position

Despite its opposition to separate electorates, the Congress did not advocate altering the Communal Award without the agreement of the minorities. 

• Consequently, while strongly disapproving of the Communal Award, Congress chose neither to accept nor reject it.

Nationalist Resistance

The attempt to isolate the depressed classes by treating them as distinct political entities faced vehement opposition from all nationalists. Gandhi, in particular, strongly opposed this move.

Gandhi’s Reaction

Gandhi perceived the Communal Award as an assault on Indian unity and nationalism. 

• He believed it was detrimental to both Hinduism and the depressed classes, providing no solution to the social degradation of the latter. 
• Gandhi argued that treating the depressed classes as a separate political entity would undermine efforts to abolish untouchability. Moreover, separate electorates would perpetuate the status of the untouchables. 
• According to Gandhi, the essential goal was not to protect the so-called interests of the depressed classes but to eradicate untouchability.
• Gandhi insisted that the depressed classes be elected through a common and, if possible, a broader electorate through universal franchise. 
• He expressed no objection to the demand for a larger number of reserved seats. 

To emphasize his demands, he initiated an indefinite fast on September 20, 1932. Leaders of various perspectives, including B.R. Ambedkar, M.C. Rajah, and Madan Mohan Malaviya, collaborated to devise a compromise, culminating in the Poona Pact.

The Poona Pact

The Poona Pact, endorsed by B.R. Ambedkar on behalf of the depressed classes on September 24, 1932, marked a departure from the concept of separate electorates for the depressed classes. However, it concurrently raised the reserved seats for the depressed classes from 71 to 147 in provincial legislatures and to 18 percent of the total in the Central Legislature.

Pact’s impact on Dalits

Accepted by the government as an amendment to the Communal Award, the Poona Pact’s impact on Dalits fell short of achieving the desired emancipation for several reasons.

• The Pact turned the depressed classes into political tools for majoritarian caste Hindu organizations.
• Depressed Class Leaderless: It rendered the depressed classes leaderless, as authentic representatives struggled against those chosen and supported by caste Hindu organizations.
• This situation led the depressed classes to acquiesce to the status quo in political, ideological, and cultural domains, hindering the development of independent and genuine leadership to challenge the Brahmanical order.
• The Pact subordinated the depressed classes, denying them a separate and distinct existence within the Hindu social order.
• It posed obstacles to the realization of an ideal society based on principles of equality, liberty, fraternity, and justice.
• By refusing to recognize Dalits as a separate and distinct element in national life, the Poona Pact preempted the rights and safeguards for Dalits in the independent Indian Constitution.

Joint Electorates and Its Impact on Depressed Classes

Critique of Joint Electorate System: The Working Committee of the All India Scheduled Caste Federation contended that in the last elections conducted under the Government of India Act, 1935, the joint electorate system denied the scheduled castes ability to elect authentic and impactful representatives to the legislatures. 

• Concerns Over Hindu Majority: Additionally, the committee asserted that the provisions of the joint electorate essentially granted the Hindu majority the authority to nominate members from the scheduled castes who were willing to serve as instruments for the Hindu majority. 
• Demand for Separate Electorate: Consequently, the federation’s working committee called for the reinstatement of the separate electorate system and the annulment of the joint electorates and reserved seats. 
  • Even after the endorsement of the Poona Pact, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar consistently criticized the agreement until 1947.

Conclusion

The Communal Award and the Poona Pact exemplify the complexities of minority representation in colonial India. While the Communal Award introduced separate electorates, its divisive nature sparked intense debate. The Poona Pact, although a compromise, did not fully address the needs of the depressed classes, leading to criticisms about its failure to empower them effectively. Both events underscore the challenges of balancing representation with unity in a diverse society, highlighting the ongoing struggle for equitable political solutions.

DOWNLOAD PDF