Gandhi and Separate electorates - 2

On HP's question of Gandhi taking a position on separate electorates for Depressed Classes and Hindu electorate.

On Congress speaking on Hindu electorate: why not? If as a secular party the Congress was supposed to accommodate the separate communal concerns of Muslims, Sikhs, Christians then why was it barred from accommodating the separate communal concerns of Hindus alone? If on the other hand, a secular party was expected to speak only about common concerns of all religious communities, then the reality is that Congress was itself denied legitimacy to speak on common concerns by the British, the Muslims, the Sikhs, etc. Gandhi had been promised by Irwin that he would be allowed to take Congress Muslims with him to the Conference. That promise to Gandhi had not been kept.

So in that situation, it comes down to this common sense reason- as the predominant party representing Hindus and Indians, Congress had the right to speak on any subject of national importance. So Gandhi did.

But you are correct historically. Those who call themselves secular nationalists label it as communal act when the predominant party of the country speaks on matters affecting the predominant community of the country while they ALSO call it an secular act when a Muslim-only party speaks only for Muslims.

For example. Congress is called communal for not wanting the Hindu electorate to be split and voting in split electorates. Muslim League is called secular for demanding that it should represent all Muslims and all Muslims should be allowed to vote only for itself. In both cases, the actual 'secular' or other implications of both positions are not relevant. It is enough that the Congress was majority Hindu so it was communal and it is enough that the Muslim League was 100% Muslim so it was secular.

Now since those value judgments are taken care of, what of the implications of separate electorates for Depressed Classes for them and rest of the Hindu community. It is analogous to the implications of Muslims having separate electorates:

1. At the basic level, the Muslims/Depressed Classes can act politically as an insular community with no accountability to citizens of other communities they live among including Caste Hindus.Caste Hindus would also act politically as an insular community with no accountability to citizens of other communities they live among including Muslims and Depressed Classes.

2.If at the lowest grassroots level, Depressed Classes politicians and Caste Hindu politicians have no accountability to the other's electorate, the community which is weaker numerically and politically becomes more vulnerable than if their politicians were accountable to each other's electorate and seeking each other's votes.

3. At the highest level, British officialdom would make alliances and give sops to top level Depressed Classes
leaders to keep them away from Congress-led or Caste-Hindu nationalism aimed at ousting the British from India.(Same as happened with Muslim leaders).

4. In view of 3, nationalist Depressed Class leaders who want to get British out of India have a very hard time fighting elections and garnering support at the grassroots because they are defying not only British officialdom, but also defying the Depressed Classes leadership. (same as happened to nationalist Muslim leaders). Depressed class voters are effectively denied a nationalist leadership or nationalist voting option due to alliances between the British and Depressed Class leadership(same as happened to Muslim voters).

5.The nationalist Congress is thus deprived of elected Depressed Class nationalist leaders to show a united front to the British. The Congress is labeled a Caste Hindu body and when it puts up nationalist Depressed Class candidates for elections it is warned against canvassing among Depressed Class voters on nationalist issues by Depressed Class leadership saying 'Hindus keep your hands off Depressed Classes'(as Jinnah and Muslim League told Congress 'Hindus keep off Muslims')

6. The nationalist majority in any legislature is thus reduced. Until the Congress leadership is able to promise Depressed Class leadership more than the British are willing to give, Depressed Class leadership prefers to side with the British. Same as happened with the Muslims and Congress. Decades are spent by Depressed Class leadership threatening the British 'give us what we want or we will join the Congress in opposing your rule', same as happened with Muslim leadership.

7. Meanwhile, since the power of Depressed Class leadership comes from the patronage of the British and not from winning Depressed Class votes on their concerns or party platform(whats a party platform anyway?), the Depressed Class leadership can ignore the concerns of Depressed Class masses in the name of protecting Depressed Class rights from nationalist Caste Hindus.

As said in 4, Depressed Class voters have no alternatives to vote for except British-patronized Depressed Class leaders (same as happened with Muslims).

8. Meanwhile to hold off the nationalist Congress majority from taking power at national or provincial level which can throw the British out, the British keep granting more and more quotas and vetos in legislature and govt to Depressed Classes(along with other loyalist groups), beyond their population strength.

The more the Caste Hindus are vilified and the more the Caste Hindu threat to Depressed Classes is tom-tommed by Depressed Class leaders who are allies of the British, the more they are rewarded by the British with reduction of Caste Hindu representation in government to accomodate their fears. (same as happened with Muslims).

9. In the Muslim case, a separate state is granted to accommodate these fears. Secular nationalists spend the next 60 years talking of the nationalist Indian majority being an instrument of oppression of its neighbouring state.

Ha! This is where the Scheduled Castes and Muslims diverged. B.R.Ambedkar opposed Gandhi as much as Jinnah did. But B.R.Ambedkar was not Jinnah. He understood that Scheduled Castes in every village of India had to live among Hindus and a separate state for some Scheduled Castes 1000 plus miles away would not solve the problem.

Secondly Ambedkar was a fair-minded man and understood that each community can safely lay claim to only that much state power as was proportional to their population after the British left, not more. Muslim leaders just wanted everything they demanded for their "fears" here and now irrespective of the affects of their demands on other communities and adverse consequences could always be blamed by the Muslim leadership on Hindus anyway. (Like East Pakistan is still blamed on Indians and Hindus)

Thirdly, B.R.Ambedkar was a nationalist at heart and knew that continuance of British power in India was inimical to Indian interests, unlike the Muslim leadership such as Jinnah who wanted the British to stay on longer and maintain an equipoise between Muslims and Hindus.

B.R. Ambedkar was also a pragmatist and accepted that freedom for the Indian nation was inevitable even if he didn't like to be left at the mercy of Caste Hindus who actually had oppressed Scheduled Castes for centuries, unlike the Muslim leadership who claimed to be oppressed from 1937-1939 and have been demanding protection from world community for Pakistan on that basis ever since.

So what did Gandhi achieve from getting B.R. Ambedkar to give up separate electorates and accept reserved constituencies instead? Gandhi prevented 2-8 from happening. Was he merely protecting Hindu interests and power? He was protecting nationalist Hindu interests and power, certainly and also, sharing that power with the Depressed Classes.