[On
the 80th anniversary of the infamous Poona Pact, we are publishing an edited
excerpt from Vishal Mangalwadi’s India: The Grand Experiment that sheds light on the
role played by the British rulers, Indian nationalist elites and leaders of
India’s “Depressed Classes” in paving – and blocking – the road to social and
political emancipation of the Indian masses. – EDITORS]
Many upper-caste Indians believe that the Dalits in India
were liberated by the Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. The fact is
that the Congress’ involvement with the plight of the oppressed began only in
1917, and from the beginning Congress’ integrity was doubtful. A sketch of that
history is enlightening.
On 20 August 1917, during the First World War, the then
Secretary of State for India,
Edwin Montagu, made a formal announcement on behalf of the British Government.
He declared that his government’s post-war intention for India was to develop “self governing
institutions with a view to progressive realization of responsible government
in India as an integral part
of the British Empire.” The announcement was
understood to mean that India
would be given the kind of autonomy already enjoyed by Canada, Australia
and New Zealand.
Indian politicians had been expecting this kind of a
declaration and were preparing schemes for changes in the constitutional
structure of India
that would suit their interests. Two of the schemes that had attracted special
attention during 1916–1918 were “the Congress–League scheme” which was based on
presidential theory of government and the “Montagu–Chelmsford Plan” which
relied on the parliamentary theory of government.
The Congress needed the endorsement of the lower castes
to be able to push forward its scheme as the “national demand”. Its
problem was that although the Muslim league had approved its proposal, the
“depressed classes” did not trust the upper-caste leadership of the Congress.
In 1895, some Congress leaders had been willing to allow the leaders of the Social
Conference to use its platform to oppose the enslavement of the Indians by
the Hindu social order. The idea was dropped when Mr Tilak’s followers
threatened to burn down the Congress pandal if anyone dared to oppose Hindu
customs from that platform. The “untouchables” retaliated by protesting against
the Congress and by burning its effigy. Understandably, their antipathy against
the Congress had continued till 1917 when the Congress needed their support.
That distrust made it difficult for the Congress to
obtain the endorsement of the backward classes for the Congress–League scheme..
Instead of apologizing for its earlier timidity and indifference, the Congress
tried deception to obtain Dalit endorsement for its scheme. It wrote a resolution
of its own and used a highly respected figure – Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, the
President of the Depressed Classes Mission Society – to get it passed along
with other resolutions in a meeting held on 11 November 1917, in Bombay. The highlights of
the key resolutions read as follows:
First Resolution affirmed “Loyalty to British
Government” and prayed for victory to the Allies in the First World War then
going on.
Second Resolution carried at the meeting by an
overwhelming majority, the “dissentients being about a dozen,” expressed
approval for the scheme of reform in the administration of India
recommended by the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League.
Third Resolution carried unanimously said: “… this
public meeting of the Depressed Classes strongly feels that in the scheme of
reform and reconstitution of the Legislative Councils which Government may be
pleased to adopt, due regard be paid to the interest of the said classes. This
meeting therefore prays the British Government to be so gracious as to protect
those interests by granting to those classes the right to elect their own
representatives to the said Councils in proportion to their numbers.”
Fourth Resolution unanimously carried at the
meeting was: “That the Government be prayed for the adoption … of a compulsory
and free system of education….”
Fifth Resolution also carried unanimously read:
“That the Chairman of this public meeting be authorised to request the Indian
National Congress to pass at its forthcoming session a distinct and independent
resolution declaring to the people of India at large the necessity, justice and
righteousness of removing all the disabilities imposed by religion and custom
upon the Depressed Classes …. These disabilities, social in origin, amount in
law and practice to political mission and propaganda of the Indian National
Congress.”
Sixth Resolution prays all Hindus … of the higher
castes, who claim political rights, to take steps for the purpose of removing
the blot of degradation from the Depressed Classes….”
The Indian National Congress followed up the above-mentioned
meeting with its own meeting, and passed the following high-sounding
resolution:
“This Congress urges upon the people of India the
necessity, justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by
custom upon the Depressed Classes, the disabilities being of a most vexatious
and oppressive character, subjecting those classes to considerable hardship and
inconvenience.”
A few years later, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar called the above
resolution a “strange event”. The Congress had functioned for 32 years, it had
championed the cause of India’s
political independence, it had campaigned against the British Raj, but it had
never spoken up for the freedom of the lower castes. Now, only when it needed
their political support, it found itself speaking up for them – but only to get
their vote. Mr Kanshi Ram, the President of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and
Dr. Ambedkar’s de facto successor, described this “deceptive” appeal for
justice “mischievous”. … Later events showed that the Congress had no intention
of doing anything about the oppressiveness of Hindu society. Nevertheless,
the resolution had compelled Congress to admit that the internal atrocities of
the Indian society had to be dealt with, as well as the immorality of the alien
rule.
A few days after the first meeting in Bombay,
the dozen “dissentients” organized another meeting of the lower castes, again
in Bombay. It
was this meeting that shaped the attitude of Dr Ambedkar and Mr Kanshi Ram
towards the upper-caste politicians. Bapuji Namdeo Bagade, a leader of the
non-Brahmin party, chaired the meeting. The resolutions passed in this meeting
nullified some of the resolutions passed in the first. Following are the key
resolutions passed in the second meeting:
(1) Resolution of loyalty to the British Throne.
(2) That this
meeting cannot give its support to the Congress-League scheme in spite of its
having been declared to have been passed at the meeting of 11th November 1917
by an overwhelming majority.
(3) That it is the sense of this meeting that the
administration of India should be largely under the control of the British till
all classes and specially the Depressed Classes, rise up to a condition to
effectually participate in the administration of the country.
(4) That if the
British Government have decided to give political concessions to the Indian
Public, this meeting prays that Government should grant the Untouchables their
own representatives in the various legislative bodies to ensure to them their
civil and political rights.
(5) That this
meetings approves of the objects of the Bahiskrit Bharat Samaj (Depressed India
Association) and supports the deputation to be sent on its behalf to Mr.
Montagu.
(6) That this
meeting prays that Government looking to the special needs of the Depressed Classes,
should make primary education both free and compulsory. That the meeting also
requests the Government to give special facilities by way of scholarships to
the students of the Depressed Classes.
(7) That the meeting authorises the President to forward
the above resolutions to the viceroy and the Government of Bombay.
What this meeting said in effect was that the Dalits
would rather remain under the British rule, than gain political independence
only to be ruled by the Brahmins. As Dr Ambedkar was to put it later in his
book Annihilation of Caste, “Swarajya (Independence) has got no significance,
without establishing a caste-less society.” This is because he knew from his
experience that “Political brutality is nothing when compared with social brutality.”
This sentiment of the lower castes made it imperative for
Mahatma Gandhi to work for their “emancipation”.
Dr Ambedkar refuted that claim in his book, What
Gandhi and the Congress have done For the Untouchables. He presented the
case that even during the struggle for national independence, Mahatma Gandhi
and the Congress did all that they could to deceive the lower castes, and to
keep them under the control of the upper castes. It is not necessary to restate
their case here. An important fact on which the case rests follows:
After Lord Irwin announced in 1929 that the British government
would honour the 1917
commitment to give self-rule to India,
Round Table Conferences were held in London
in 1930–32 to settle the modalities of transfer of power. Leaders of the
scheduled castes demanded that, given the fact that the upper castes were not
concerned for them, they should be allowed to select their own legislators, so
that their representatives would represent their point of view.
Mahatma Gandhi opposed the proposal because he feared
that such a scheme would reinforce the walls that already separated the upper-
and lower-caste Hindus. His proposal was that certain electorates should be
reserved for candidates from the scheduled castes, but that all voters must
exercise their franchise to elect the legislator. This way he or she would
represent the entire constituency, not just the scheduled castes.
Although Gandhi’s proposal sounded good, it had a
problem. It meant that the scheduled-caste candidates would fight amongst
themselves, but that the candidate backed by the higher castes would always
win. So, any scheduled-caste candidate who wanted to win an election would
always need to be subservient to the upper-caste voters. The Round Table
Conference failed in resolving the issue, and all participants – including
Gandhi – agreed that they would leave the matter to be decided by the British
Prime Minister, and that his decision would be accepted by all.
The British
Government announced its “Communal Award” in favour of Dr Ambedkar’s proposal
on 17 August 1932. Gandhi saw fresh dangers in Dr Ambedkar’s scheme. What if Dr
Ambedkar’s Republican Party joined hands with Mr Jinnah’s Muslim League?
Together, it would not be difficult for the Muslims and the lower castes to
beat the upper-caste Hindus in a battle of numbers. Democracy – the number game
– would then be to the disadvantage of the upper castes.
Mahatma Gandhi, therefore, went on his longest ever
“fast-unto-death” in Poona
(Pune). This was not directed against the Colonial Raj. Dr Ambedkar described
its purpose in a statement on 19 September 1932:
“I should have thought that a well-wisher of the
Depressed Classes would have fought tooth and nail for securing to them as much
political power as might be possible in the new Constitution . . . He not only
does not endeavour to augment the scanty political power which the
Depressed Classes have got under the Communal Award, but on the contrary he has
staked his very life in order to deprive them of little they have got.”
National and international pressure was mounted on Dr
Ambedkar to surrender this possibility of freedom and save Gandhi’s life. The
upper-caste followers of Mahatma Gandhi threatened dire consequences should he
die. Dr Ambedkar’s statement confirms:
Whether he knows it or not, the Mahatma’s act will result in nothing but terrorism by
his followers against Depressed Classes all over the country . . . the
Mahatma is releasing reactionary and uncontrollable forces, and is fostering
the spirit of hatred between the Hindu Community and the Depressed Classes by
resorting to this method and thereby widening the existing gulf between the
two.
Dr Ambedkar realized that a large number of the
untouchables might be forced to pay with their lives if Mahatma Gandhi died. So
to save his life and theirs he surrendered their political power through the
“Poona Pact” of 24 September 1932. As a result, during most of the 50 years of Independence the lower
castes have had to play second fiddle to the upper caste rulers.
Gandhi succeeded politically, but only in ensuring that
the lower castes remain subservient to the upper castes in free India.
As Dr Ambedkar put it, the policy of the “Joint Electorate” which Mahatma
Gandhi had enforced by staking his life is, “. . . from the point of view of
the Hindus to use a familiar phrase a ‘rotten borough’ in which Hindus get the
right to nominate an untouchable to sit nominally as a representative of the
untouchables but really as a tool of the Hindus.”
In his book India: The Grand Experiment (Pippa Rann Books, Surrey,
1997), Vishal Mangalwadi challenges our official myth that it was Gandhi
and his Congress that brought freedom to India.
(Published in Forward Press, September, 2012 Issue)
Forward Press.
