CHAPTER III

THE ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE (1930-1932)

(1)

Demands of Dalit Leadership at the Round Table

Conference

In the Government of India Act of 1919 there was a

provision which read that the British Government would appoint at

the end of ten years a Royal Commission to investigate into the

working of the constitution and report upon such change as may be

found necessary.1 Consequently the Simon Commission was

appointed in 1928, which was purely a parliamentary commission

excluding Indian members. The Indian National Congress, therefore,

opposed the Commission and carried on a great agitation against it

throughout the country. To assuage this feeling of opposition of the

Congress it was announced by the British Government that after he

work of the Commission was completed, representatives from India

would be assembled for a discussion before the new constitution for

the country was settled. In accordance with this announcement

representative Indians were called to London at a Round Table

Conference along with the British representatives.

 151

On 12 Nov. 1930, the King George V formally

inaugurated the Round Table Conference. The Round Table

Conference was an event of great significance to Indians as well as

to the Depressed Classes. Its significance lay in the recognition by

the British of the right of Indians to be consulted in the matters of

framing a constitution of India. As regards the Depressed Classes,

they were for the first time allowed to be represented separately by

their delegates. These delegates were Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and

R. Srinivasan. The question arises how the Depressed Classes

succeeded in getting representation in the Round Table Conference,

a platform, where the future constitution of the country was to be

discussed ?

Indeed, the constitution of 1919 had recognised the

Depressed Classes as “statutory minorities”. Provisions related to

their safety and security were embodied in it.3 The Montage

Chelmsford Report which preceded the Constitution of 1919 had said

it in quite clear terms that the provision must be made in the

constitution for their protection.4 Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of

State for India delivered a speech in the House of Lords on 30 March

1927 on the appointment of Statutory Commission. In this speechs he

took up the “Case of the Depressed Classes” in the following words :

 152

“... Let me take the case of the Depressed Classes. There

is in India a vast population even in relation to the numbers with

which we are dealing, a population of sixty millions of the

Depressed Classes Their condition in not quite as terrible, quite a

poignant as it has been in the past, but it is still terrible and

poignant. They are repelled from all social inter-course. If they come

between the gracious light of such and one who despised them, the

sun is disfigured for that man . . . They are sixty millions of them in

India. Am I to have a representative of them upon this Commission ?

Never, never would I form a Commission nor would anyone in a

democratic country, nor would my friends opposite recommend

it.... f
Despite this touching appeal of the Sec. of State on

behalf of the Depressed Classes the British Government did not

included in the Statutory Commission any Indian including the Dalit.

The Commission, however, did not ignore the cause of the Depressed

Classes It’s reported vis-a-vis Depressed Classes was as follows :

“The poverty and want of education which so widely

prevent amongst them make it extremely doubtful whether a large

number of adequately equipped members could be at once provided

and it is far better that they should be represented by qualified

 153

spokes-men rather than by a large number of ineffectives who are

only too likely to be subservient to higher castes.”6

When the Commission completed its work, the

Government as it promised earlier, invite the representative Indians

in a Round Table Conference for the discussion of future

constitution. Among such representative Indians, the “qualified

spokesmen” on behalf of the Depressed Classes would also now be

invited by the British at the Round Table Conference.

But it should equally be remembered that it was also due

to the ceaseless struggle on the part of Dalit leadership for the rights

of the Depressed Classes, that the British Government had to invite

them at the Round Table Conference. The new Dalit leadership, of

them Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was most prominent, enlightened, and

militant, was struggling for a long time for recognition of their

political demands. As we have stated earlier, they put forth their

demands on the eve of the Reforms of 1909 and 1919. They also

presented their addresses from different places of country to the

Prince of Wales, who visited India in 1925. When the Somon

Commission visited India in 1928 they again submitted their

evidences to him.

Further, they convinced many Depressed Class

Conferences at different place of the country, e.g. Bombay, Nasik,

 154

Madras etc. in 1929 and early 1930, in which they put forth their

demands, very strongly by passing strong resolutions. Most

significant among these Conferences was Nasik Conference, held

under the presidency of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, which called not only

for separate rights of the Depressed Classes but also independence

for India.”7

By their witnesses, addresses, evidences and resolutions

they always demanded for separate representation and separate rights

for them. The selection of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar from Bombay and R.

Srinivasan from Madras as “qualified spokesmen” on behalf of the

Depressed Classes at the Round Table Conference was the result of

all this political action on the party of Depressed Classes.

It should be remembered that the Congress leaders, had

boycotted the Round Table Conference and launched a Civil

Disableinence Movement against the British. In 1930 Mahatma

Gandhi began Salt Satyagraha which ended by a jail sentence to him.

The other leaders of the Congress, however, continued the Civil

Disobjectience Compaign, which ended only in 1931 after the

conclusion of well-known Gandhi Irwin Pact.

The first session of the Round Table Conference began in

November, 1930 at London. In this very session Dr. B.R. Ambedkar,

put forth the cause of Depressed Classes as well as their position on

 155

Indian matters clearly and seriously. In this session Dr. Ambedkar

greatly emphasised on Dalit demands which only due to the huge

pressure, of the awakened Dalit people of India and the demands

which he raised were actually the demands of common enlightened

Daits. As we have witnessed earlier before 1930 a common conscious

had emerged among the politically awakened Dalits on the demand of

o

their separate representation” and “separate rights”

In this way Dr. Ambedkar, who demanded either separate

electorates or reservation of seats with adult suffrage before the

Simon Commission, now emphasised only on the demand of separate

electorates. In the first session of the Round Table Conference, he

made a powerful introduction of the Dalit demands. He spoke on

behalf of the Depressed Classes of India in the 5th sitting of the

Round Table Conference on 20 November, 1930 to “put the point of

view of Depressed Classes” :

“The point of view I will try to put as briefly as I can. It

is that that the bureaucratic form of Government in India should be

replaced by a Government which will be the Government of the

people, by the people and for the people. This statement of the view

of the Depressed people, I am sure will be received with surprises in

some quarters.... We have judged the existing administration solely

in the light of our own circumstances and we have found it

 156

wanting.”9 This was a “surprise” to the Congress, who believed that

Depressed Classes leaders were “anti-national”. He again surprised

the Congress as well as the British by attacking the British Raj in the

following words :

“The Government of India does not realise that the

landlords are squeezing the masses dry and that the capitalists are

not giving the labourers a living wage and decent conditions of work.

Yet it is a most painful thing that it had not dared to touch any of

these evils. Why ?... The reason why it does not intervene is

because it is afraid that its intervention to amend the existing code

of social and economic life, will give rise to resistance of what good

is such a Government to anybody ?.... We feel that nobody can

remove our grievances as well as we can and we cannot remove them

unless, we get, political power in our own hands. No share of this

political power can evidently come to us so long as the British

Government remains as it is. It is only the Swaraj Constitution that

we stand any chance of getting the political power in our own hands,

without which we cannot bring salvation to our people. . . . We know

that political power is passing from the British into the hands of

those who wield such tremendous economic, social and religious 5

way over our existence. We are willing that it may happen, though

the idea of Swaraj recalls to the mind of many the tyrannies,

 157

oppressions and injustices practised upon us in the past . . ,”.10 The

above remarks of Dr. Ambedkar against the British and for the

Swaraj, are answer to historians like Arun Shoure who uttered that

he was a “pro-British” and “anti-nationalist” leader.11 In his

introductory speech, Dr. Ambedkar emphasised chiefly on two

points. Firstly, Depressed Classes were totally with their countrymen

on the demand of independence from the British rule. Secondly, the

Dalit problem was mainly a political problem, which could be talked

only politically. The second point was never accepted by the

Congress. They only described this problem as a social problem.

Actually the political recognition of the problem would mean the

recognition of the separate political rights of the Depressed Classes.

This was not acceptable to the Congress, at it would challenge the

political hegemony of the Congress as well as the Caste Hindu in the

Country. But to the view point of the Depressed Classes the political

recognition of the problem was a question great significance,

because, by only this their representation could be ensured in the

future elections and legislatures. Dr. Ambedkar stressed very

forcefully on this aspect :

“We are often reminded that the problem of the

Depressed Classes is a social problem and that its solution lies

elsewhere than in politics. We take strong exception to this view. We

 158

hold that the problem of Depressed Classes will never be solved

1 0
unless they get political power in their own hands.”

During the same session, Dr. Ambedkar then submitted a

“scheme of political safeguards” to the Minorities Committee for the

protection of the Depressed Classes in the future constitution of

India. He described these “political safeguards” necessary for the

protection of the Depressed Classes. This scheme presented the main

“terms and conditions” on which the Depressed Classes would

“consent to place themselves under a majority rule in a self

governing India.”13 These “terms and conditions” were briefly as

follows :

Condition I Equal Citizenship and Fundamental Rights,

Condition II Free Enjoyment of Equal Rights,

1. Offence of Boycott Defined 2. Punishment for Boycotting,

3. Punishment for instigating or Promoting a Boycott,

4. Punishment for Threatening a Boycott,

Condition III Protection Against Discrimination,

Condition IV : Adequate Representation in the Legislatures,

Condition V Adequate Representation in the Services,

Condition VI Redress Against Prejudicial Action or Neglect of

Interests,

Condition VII : Special Departmental Care,

 159

Condition VIII : Depressed Classes And the Cabinet.14

Needless to say that all above “terms and conditions”

presented by Dr. Ambedkar at the Round Table Conference on the

part of the Depressed Classes included near about all the demands

raised by political awakened Dalits in different parts of India.

Dr. Ambedkar’s role at the Round Table Conference was only to

raise systematically and strongly these subaltern aspirations of the

common Depressed Classes. But to get recognition of these demands,

particularly on the part of the Congress, was not an easy task.

The Minorities Committee discussed all Dalit demands

and recognised many to them. The Committee submitted its report to

the Round Table Conference, which read regarding the Depressed

Classes as follows :

“...They should be deducted from the Hindu population

and be regarded for electoral purposes, as a separate community.”13

It should be noticed that although agreements on details

was lacking, in the first session of the Round Table Conference, it

was unanimously accepted that the Depressed Classes were entitled

to recognition as a separate entity for political and constitutional

purposes.
 160

(2)

Confrontation Between

Mahatma Gandhi & Dr. Ambedkar

The First Round Table Conference (1931) was followed

by the calling off of the Civil Disobedience Movement and the

Gandhi-Irwin Pact leading to the appearance of Mahatma Gandhi at

the second Round Table Conference. The ground for preparation of

the Congress to participate in the Round Table Conference was

prepared through a series of meetings between Mahatma Gandhi and

the Viceroy Lord Irwin, which resulted their in the settlement in

March 1931. In Karachi session of the Congress in 1931 his

understanding with the Viceroy was endorsed and he was chosen as

the sole representative of the Congress to the second Round Table

Conference. At the working Committee meeting held in July 1931 a

resolution was adopted by the Congress on their future stand at the

Round Table Conference on the question of communal problem and

separate electorates. Historians like K. Santhanam and Ravindra

Kumar have argued that Gandhiji by was bound to this resolution ta

take a stand against separate elecotrates.16 The text of this resolution

read as follows :

“3(a) Joint electorates shall form the basis of

representation in the future constitution of India.

 161

(b) For the Hindus in Sind, the Muslims in Assam, and

the Sikhs in Punjab and NWFP and for the Hindus and Muslims in

any province where they are less than 25% of the total population,

seats shall be reserved in the Federal and Provincial Legislature on

the basis of population with the right to contest additional seats.”17

This resolution, was the result of the influence of so-

called socialist leaders of the Congress, whom neither the communal

problem nor untouchability were “problems” at all. That is why,

the Karachi resolution did not even mentioned untouchability. But

even, then the above resolution was never strictly followed by

Mahatma at the Round Table Conference vis-a-vis minorities and the

Depressed Classes and he finally agreed to accept their demands of

separate representation. But as regards the Depressed Classes he was

even not ready to gives them reservation of seats with joint

electorates. He adopted an obstinate attitude against the Depressed

Classes’ demands which resulted in ironic and tragic development at

the Round Table Conference. The second Conference and later on

the Ramsey Mac. Donald Award developed into of all things, a

confrontation between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar.

In between the two Conferences, Dr. Ambedkar met with

Mahatma Gandhi at London in August 1931. According to

B.C. Kamble’s description, quoted by Gail Omvedt Mahatma Gandhi

 162

treated Dr. Ambedkar with a lack of even normal politeness, while

Dr. Ambedkar responded with a criticism of the Congress walking

out with the famous statement, “Mahatmaji, I have no homeland.”19

It was hoped at the time of the Congress advent at the

Round Table Conference that it would contribute to the solution of

many problems confronting the Conference. The friends of Congress

were saying that if the 1st session did not produce an agreement it

was because of the absence of the Congress, Every body was,

therefore, looking forward to the Congress to lead the Conference to

a success. The second session of the Round Table Conference

opened on 7 September 1931. During this session the attitude of

Mahatma Gandhi, who always presented himself as a man of full of

humanity, was very uneven regarding the demands of the down

trodden. Even his very first speech in the Conference he vehemently

opposed the Dalit demands. His opposition to the Depressed Classes’

demands was perhaps, due to his personal bias with Dr. Ambedkar

which grew probably after their recent meeting at London. During

this session, he even challenged the Dalit leaders that they were

nobodies and he alone, as the delegate of the Congress, represented

the all classes of the country, including the Depressed Classes.20

 163

In the second setting of the Federal Structure Committee

on 17 September, 1931, his remarks on Dalit demands were as

follows :

The Congress has reconciled itself to the special

treatment of the Hindu-Muslim-Sikh tangle. But the Congress will

not extend this doctrine in any other shape or form. They (the

interests of the Depressed Classes) are as clear to the Congress as

the interest of any other body or any other individual throughout the

length and breadth of India. Therefore, I would most strongly resist

any further special representation.”21 The logic of the

Gandhi/suppress for this stand need objective analysis.

Dr. Ambedkar described this attitude of the Mahatma as a

“declaration of war by Mr. Gandhi and the Congress against the

Untouchables.”22 Dr. Ambedkar has pointed out in his book that

Mahatma Gandhi, who was totally against any political

representation of the Depressed Classes, wanted to by pass the

Depressed Classes and to close the minorities problem by bringing

about a settlement between three parties, the Hindus, the Muslims

and the Sikhs. He had been even carrying on negotiations privately

with the Muslims but evidently they had not been concluded due to

the alert intervention of Dr. Ambedkar.23

 165

heads is an act of self-restraint on his part. He is totally so much

saturated with suspicion that he cannot see anything” or he sees in

every Hindu a determined opponent of the Untouchables and it is

quite natural.”31 Actually Mahatma Gandhi was of the view that the

Depressed Classes should behave according to his ages and

perception and not independently according to their own desire.

That’s why, giving answer to a question that communities all the

over world insist on being represented by their own people, he

insistently repeated his claim to represent the Depressed Classes at

the Round Table Conference. He repeated his viewpoint again and

again.

The matter was then discussed in the meeting of

Minorities Committee. This committee met on 8 October, 1931, in

which Mahatma Gandhi again questioned the nominated members at

the Round Table Conference where Dalit leaders were also

included.32 At this Dr. Ambedkar criticised him by claiming that, “I

have not the slightest doubt that even if the Depressed Classes of

India were given the chance of electing their representative to this

Conference. I would, all the same, find a place here.”33 He also

presented in evidence a resolution of the Depressed Classes Union,

against the Congress claim to represent the Depressed Classes.34 0.

 166

The confrontation between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.

Ambedkar was becoming more and more serious. The Prime Minister

in his concluding observations suggested the minorities to reach on

any agreement. Acting on the suggestion of the Prime Minister, the

minorities tried and reached on a settlement which was submitted to

the Prime Minister on 12 November, 1931. This settlement was

known as Minorities Pact. It was put forward jointly by the Muslims,

the Depressed Classes, Indian Christians, Anglo Indians and

Europeans, demanding inter-alia that these communities “shall have

representation in all legislatures through separate electorates...with

regards to the Depressed Classes no change to joint electorates...

shall be made until after 20 years.”36 this settlement war signed by

Aga Khan, Dr. Ambedkar Pannir Selvam, Henery Gidney and Hurbert

Carr/ There were two parts of this settlement, firstly the common

claims of all minorities and secondly, the special claims of different

minorities. As regards the special claims of the Depressed Classes

accepted in this settlement, they read as follows :

“A - The Constitution shall declare invalid any custom or

usage by which any penalty or disadvantage or disability is

imposed upon or any discrimination is made against any

subject of the State in regard to the enjoyment of the civil

rights on account of untouchability.

 167

B - Generous treatment in the matter of recruitment to Public

Services and the opening of enlistment in the Police and

Military Service.

C - The Depressed Classes in the Punjab shall have the

benefit of the Punjab Land Alienation Act extended to them.

D - Right of Appeal shall lie to the Governor or Governor

General for redress of prejudicial action or neglect of interest

by any executive authority.

E - The Depressed Classes shall have representation not less

■y n

than set forth in the Annexure.”

In the Annexure, entitled “Representation in Legislature”

the Depressed Classes were provided seats in Centre (Upper House)

20 out of 200, in Centre (Lower House) 45 out of 300, in Assam 13

out of 100, in Bengal 35 out of 200, in Bihar and Orissa 14 out of

100, in Bombay 28 out of 200, in CP 20 out of 100, in Madras 40 out

of 200, in Punjab 10 out of 100 and in UP 20 out of 100.39

This settlement indicated that the Dalit leaders were

worried not merely about the political representation of the

Depressed Classes but equally about their civil, social and economic

rights.

On 13 November, 1931 the next meeting of the

Minorities Committee took place. In this meeting Agahan, the

 168

Muslim deligate, presented the document of the Minorities Pact,

stating : “...This agreement has been arrived at after careful and

anxious consideration . . All parts of the agreement are

interdependent and agreements stand or fall as a whole.”40

The Minorities Pact was merely a mutual agreement

among the minorities, It was not a statutory agreement at all. This

was just a scheme agreed at by the minorities for the solution of

question of communal representation. Mahatma Gandhi himself had

been carrying on negotiations privately with the Muslims before the

Minorities Committee met, which evidently had not been

concluded.41 But Mahatmaji now responded to the Minorities Pact

very furiously. His reservations on the Pact were not due to the

reason that his consent was not sought before the conclusion of this

settlement. He was particularly unhappy for the recognition given to

the political claims of the Depressed Classes in this agreement. He

said : “...The Congress will always accept any solution that may be

acceptable to the Hindus, the Muhammadans and he Sikhs. The

Congress will be no party to the special electorate for any other

minorities.”42

Then he clearly put his stand point to the Depressed

Classes’ claims : “One word more as to the so-called Untouchables. 1

can understand the claims advanced by the other minorities, but the
 169

claims advanced on behalf of the untouchables, that time, is the

‘unkindest cut of all’. It means the perpetual bar-sinister. I would

not sell the vital interests of the untouchables even for the sake of

winning the freedom of India. I claim myself in my own person to

represent the vast masses of the untouchables.”43

In this way Gandhiji once again reteriated his stand on

the Dalit question and assessed his claim to be the well wisher of the

Depressed Classes. He then openly attacked Dr. Ambedkar :

“With all my regard for Dr. Ambedkar ...I must say in all

humility that here the great wrong under which he has laboured and

perhaps the better experiences that he had undergone have for the

moment warped his judgement. It hurts me to have to say this, but I

would be untrue to the cause of the untouchables, which is as dear to

me as life itself, if I did not say it I will not bargain away their

rights for the Kindom of the whole world. I am speaking with due

sense of responsibility and I say that it is not a proper claim which is

registered by Dr. Ambedkar, when he seeks to speak for the whole of

the untouchables of Inida.”44

Mahatma Gandhi not only put his claim to be the

champion of Depressed Classes, he similarly claimed to be so when

he attacked Dr. Ambedkar. The his attack on Dr. Ambedkar, whose

“judgement” was “Warped” due to his bitter experiences”, could be,

 170

of course, challenged, but his sincerity to the interests of the

Depressed Classes was unquestionable. The Mahatma Gandhi, who

proudly claimed that he “would get, if there was a referendum of the

untouchables, their vote” in the position to “top the poll ”45 was

contested by his opponents and they even argued that Gandhiji was

determined to water down the claims of radical Dalits who were

opposed to his lime of thinking. Why Mahatma Gandhi adopted this

stand against only the Dalit demands, leaving aside the similar

demands put forth by the Muslims, the Sikhs and the Europeans, and

the Christians ? His main arguments was as follows :

“We do not want on our, register and on our Census

untouchables classified as a separate class. Sikhs may remain as such

in perpetuity, so may Muhammadans, so may Europeans Will

untouchables remain untouchables in perpetuity ? ... It will create a

division in Hinduism, which I cannot possibly look forward to with

any satisfaction whatsoever. I do not mind untouchables if they so

desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity. I should tolerate

that, but I cannot possibly tolerate what is in store for Hinduism if

there are two divisions set forth in the villages.”46

This argument of the Mahatma was unacceptable to the

Dalit leadership. According to these leaders his plea that separate

political representation of Depressed Classes would “create a

 171

division in Hinduism” was not right because the division between the

caste Hindus and the Untouchables was already prevalent for

centuries. Secondly, their political representation would never lead

to their social separation from the Caste Hindu. It would only help

the Depressed Classes in ensuring them empowerment, which was

very necessary for their psyco-economic liberation. The Depressed

Classes were indeed, the real minority in India. Prejudice and hatred

in the form of untouchability was even worse than the communal

hatred. As regards, other minorities like Muslims and Sikhs, they

were well strengthen of and well organised. But the humble

Untouchables were not. Their conditions were even worse than that

of the slaves and wild animals. Only political empowerment would

provide them proper protection from the prejudices of the Caste

Hindus. It would equally be helpful for the cause of Hinduism,

which could be strengthened by the empowerment of the

Untouchable Hindus. But Mahatma Gandhi was opposing their

political representation even on the cost of their convertion to Islam

or Christianity. This stand would never be justified by the any point

of view i.e. the Hindu, the Dalit, the humanitarian or the secular. In

this way, it seems that Mahatma Gandhi’s stand was not just. It was

not but his personal bias to Dr, Ambedkar, which led to him to adopt
 172

such a stand. He even went on to declare that, “I would resist it with

my life ”47

This stand of Mahatma Gandhi paved the way of his total

conformation with Dr. Ambedkar. It was to his stand against the

radical Dalit demands, thought there was no hope of getting a

solution. So adjourned the minorities Committee since die. But he

convinced all of the delegates of the Round Table Conference to sign

a request to him to settle the community question and pledge

yourself to accept my decision.”49

Thus ended the efforts by the Minorities Committee to

bring about a solution of the Communal problem. So much of the

energy and attention did Mahatma Gandhi concentrate on the

question the of Depressed Classes that it seemed that the main

purpose for which he came to the Round Table Conference was to

oppose the demands of the Depressed Classes. Even the friends of

the Congress could not understand his attitude to the demands of the

Depressed Classes. To give recognition to demands of the Muslims

and the Sikhs and to refuse it to the Depressed Classes came to them

as a surprise and a puzzle.50 He himself could not give a logical

defence of his opposition to the Depressed Classes demands. Inside

the Round Table Conference, his defence was that the Congress had

seriously taken up the cause and that, therefore, there was no reason
 173

to give them political safeguards. But outside the Round Table

Conference, he gave some different reasons :

“There is a very little political consciousness among

them (the Depressed Classes) and they are so horribly treated that 1

want to save them against themselves. If they have separate

electorate, their lives would be miserable in villages which are the

strongholds of Hindu orthodoxy”51

This argument was also easily refutable, and of course,

refute by Dalit leaders, as the political protection was very much

necessary for a supposed and neglected people like the Depressed

Classes.

It was quite clear from the stand of Mahatma Gandhi that

he would neither agree to separate electorates nor to reservation of

seats. Then what was his own scheme for the Depressed Classes?

Yes, put forth a “scheme” for the Depressed Classes. This way out of

Mahatmaji read as follows : “The only thing needed is to put them on

the voters list and provide for fundamental rights for them in the

Constitution. In case they are unjustly treated and their

representative is deliberately excluded, they would have the right to

special election tribunal, which would give them complete

protection. It should be open to these tribunals to order the unseating

of an elected candidate and the election of the excluded men.”52

 174

How generous and beneficial was the scheme suggested

by the Mahatma. In fact, he was not willing to give any separate

political representation to the Depressed Classes. When he heard that

at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, the minorities were about to

reach a settlement and that this settlement could have the effect of

the Depressed Classes getting the support of other minorities,

particularly the Muslims, he planned to convince the Muslims, by

agreeing to their 14 Demands, which he was not in the beginning

prepared to argee. He was willing to agree to the 14 Demands of the

Muslims on the condition that they would with drew their support

from the Dalit demands. The agreement war even drafted. On 6 Oct.,

1931. In this “Gandhi-Muslim Pact”, Mahatma Gandhi insisted on

*

the proposal, “no special reservation to any other community save

f -3

Sikhs and Hindu Ministers. The Depressed Classes were not

mentioned in this draft, But that Muslim were bound not to support

any other minority except the Sikhs. Their leaders made it clear that

they were not to support the Depressed Classes demands.54 It is

surprising that the Congress, the Hindu Mahsabha and even the

Simon Commission had rejected the 14 Points of the Muslims. But

the Mahatma was now eager to accept these demand on the cost of

the interests of the Depressed Classes.55

 175

Before the dissolution of the second session of the Round

Table Conference, the Prime Minister put a proposal to the delegates

of the Minorities Committee. This proposal was put in a signed

requisition authorising the Prime Minister attribute to give his

decision on the communal issue.56 Many delegates did it including

Mahatma Gandhi. There was nothing left for the delegates but to

return to India and await the decision of the Prime Minister and

having made him the sole arbitrator to accept it with good cheer. It

is noted that Dr. Ambedkar alone did not make any such requisition

as he felt that the demands of the Depressed Classes were so

reasonable that no arbitration was necessary.58 But Mahatma Gandhi,

who felt the need for arbitration on the problem, was now principally

bound to accept the sole arbitration of the Prime Minister.

Mahatma Gandhi, who had threatened to resist the Dalit

demands “with life” was, however, equally anxious about the Prime

Minister’s decision vis-a-vis the Depressed Classes. In such state of

mind he left England for India. On account of a statement which he

was alleged to have made in an interview he gave to a newspaper

correspondent in Rome, wherein he threatened to revive his

campaign of Civil Durobedience, he was arrested on his arrival to

India and put in the Yaravada Jail.

 176

(3)

Position of The Raj

It is amazing to note that Dr. Ambedkar who is oftenly

charged that he adopted an ‘aggressive attitude’ towards Mahatma

Gandhi at the Round Table Conference did not even answer the

Mahatma’s severe attack on him as well as on his demands. He was,

of course hurt by Mahatma Gandhi’s attitude. He was, perhaps,

convinced that he had put the Dalit demands at the Round Table

Conference in such a strong way that now nobody, including

Mahatma Gandhi could succeed in his efforts to stop the government

in accepting these demands. Mahatma Gandhi, who also realised this

fact was, therefore, equally aggressive to the Raj. He opined : “I am

certain that the question of separate electorates for the untouchables

is a modern manufacture of the Satanic Government”59

Most of the historians have blindly supported this

argument of Mahatma Gandhi. This argument is the product of a very

common and generalistic theory namely the “divide and rule” theory,

which is the result of the nationalist bias in history writing. Let us

read a description of the ‘colonial role’ theory, quoted form

Ravindra Kumar, who is the best representative of this theory, so far

the case of the Depressed Classes was concerned.

 177

“Pitted against the Mahatma, in this Conference (RTC),

were numberons British leaders of distinction as well as follow

Indians, hand picked by the Imperial authorities to represent their

counterpoised (to nationalism) constituencies of class, community

and religion, whom the British relied to retort the constitutional

progress of India ... Gandhi argued the demand of the Congress for

Purna Swaraj... (and insisted) the Congress could be trusted to

protect the interests of all classes and communities in the country . .

The British Government needles to say, entertained a very different

view... The Prime Minister told the assembled delegates the real

challenge before them lay in devising a system of representation,

whereby power could be equally shaped by different classes,

communities and religious groups before the shape of independent

all-India policy was hummered out. The Prime Minister’s statement

immediately prompted Ambedkar to put before the Minorities

Committee a document setting out a quantum of representation. ..

However, the members of the Minorities Committee took a decision

slightly later to... put before the Prime Minister a join proposal (i.e.

the Ministries Pact), not only setting out the quantum of

representation adequate for their constituents in different

legislatures, but also demanding on their behalf to elect their

spokesmen through any agency of separate electorate.... Ramsay Mac

 178

Donald observed that in the absence of any agreement... he would be

obliged to take note of its (Minorities Pacts) provisions in any

decisions which H.M.Q. took regarding the constitutional future of

India. Gandhi saw in Ramsay Mac Donald’s declaration a clear

reflection of the Divide and Rule policy.”60

The similar observations are made by other historians

who criticised the “divide and rule” theory and on the role played by

the Raj at the Round Table Conference. Is this theory justifiable?

Before seeking an objective answer for this question, lot us discuss

an another well-argued theory namely the theory of safety valve” on

the genesis of the Congress, Like “divide and rule” theory the theory

of ‘safety valve’ was also believed by many schools of the

historians, particularly the Marxist and the Nationalist. But

fortunately Bipan Chandra, has condemned this theory by pointing

out that this was the product of the mind of William Weddenburn,6'

The biographer of A.O. Hune. But regarding the theory of ‘divide

and rule’, no such eminent historian (excluding the ‘neo-colonial’

historians, who are again biased to India) have explored in the

historical facts.

Of course, the British Raj was colonial power. In India,

The Raj, for India, meant a political organisation as Gail Omvedt,

has rightly pointed out that shaped the traditional caste-feudal

 179

structures and Mughal bureaucracies to the need of a new British-

controlled colonial state.62 In their process of colonialization, they

used, trans formed and even strengthened the traditional caste-feudal

social structure. They soon sought the support of powerful caste-

feudal sections of Indian society in order to ensure the systematic

exploitation of the peasants, artisants and lower classes. It is not

amazing that during this process of colonialization, the British

sought the support of land lords, money lenders and other traditional

elites, who normally belonged to the high or dominant castes and

classes. As regards, the subaltern masses particularly the Depressed

Classes, the colonial interests of the British could never allow them

to come closer with them, as their whle colonial system was itself

based on the exploitation of these classes.

Dalit leaders, particularly Dr. Ambedkar was aware of

this fact. The following are the remarks of Dr. Amebedkar on the

British colonialism which he made in the Depressed Classes

Conference, held at Nagpur in 1930 and which is sufficient to give

answer to the historians like Arun Shorie, who biasly observe that he

was a fool of the Raj.63

As against let us see what Dr. Ambedkar had to say about

the role of British Imperialism via-a-vis the Depressed Classes. He

observed :
 180

“In the first quarter of the 19th century when British rule

become a reality, five fammes occurred, that took the life of about a

million people. In the second twenty-five years, there were two

famines, and about four hundred thousand died. In the third twenty

five years, there were six famines and he toll of death became five

millions. And in the last twenty five years of that century what we

do see ? Eighteen Famines ! And the estimated death toll of from 15

million to 20 millions !... It’s the (result of) Government policy the

British have followed. The aim has always remained to limit the

growth of trade and industry in the country. This was not simply a

logical fault, but the effort to rule India in such a way that it will

always remain a customer of the British goods.... 1 cannot

understand how your can expect the British Government to liberate

people from the exploitation of the capitalists and land lords.... Has

the British Government done anything to remove your

untouchability. Before the British came, you could not take water

from village wells. Has the British Government made any effort to

give you this right? Before the British came, you could not enter

temples. Can you do this today? Before the coming of the British,

you could not be employed in the police service. Does the British

Government give employment now ? Before the British came, you

have no permission to be in army. Is this opportunity open to you

 181

now ?... During the British period, the faults of the social structure

and the patches of the Varna system have kept as they were ?64

The above cited observation are of Dr. Ambedkar, who is

generally deemed as a liberal pro-British Dalit elite is significant a it

makes it clear that for Dr. Ambedkar fully understood the miseries of

British rule to India. Moreover, the remarks, of course, proved that

the British Raj was never sympathetic to the Depressed Classes,

rather it was established on their exploitation. But even then this

fact does not justify the “divide and rule” theory.

The basis of the ‘divide and rule’ theory is that the

British always exploited and excited the internal divisions of

Indians, e g. community, caste, region, etc. in order to easily govern,

this country. It is merely a generalization and like other

generalization of history, it is conceived many by a historian as a

true fact. But this generalization is partly true, which cannot be

early applied in all events of modern Indian history, as the most of

the historians have done. The British of course, emphasised,

exploited and even sharpened the existing internal divisions of

Indian society for their colonial purposes. But the question arises.

Were these division not a reality? These were four most prominent

divisions among Indian people, namely that of caste, communal

region and sub-cultural. This divisions were not only very ancient
 182

and deep rooted, in history, but also a serious social reality. Roots of

all the political as well as social problem of modern India lie into

these divisions. It is true that the British exploited this divisions for

their interests. But it is equally true that the Congress always tried

to ignore these divisions and did nothing to sort out these divisions.

It resulted in the emergence of such socio-political forces, which

were the product of these internal divisions of Indian society. The

Congress even than, did not try to consider seriously these divisions.

It not did not recognise existence the of the new socio-political

forces but also began to blame the British for the genesis of these

forces, simply uttering that they were following the policy of “divide

and rule” in India by promoting these forces.

As regards the Dalit politics it was the outcome of the

caste-communal division between the Caste Hindu and the out-castes

based on the cruel and vicious institution of untouchability. The

institution of untouchability dragged the Untouchables into the

social, economic and psychological subjection and exploitation. It

made the Caste Hindus their undisputed masters, who regarded and

behaved with the Untouchables not only as their slaves but even as

for their enemies. Due to the institution of untouchability, the

out-caste problem emerged as a caste-communal problem, which

deserved only a political solution. The radical Dalit leaders

 183

discovered that though the British Raj was not in favour of them, the

Congress led nationalist politics, was equally not representing their

interests and sufferings. Rather the Congress which was dominated

by new middle classes sprang from the traditional elites, was

indirectly representing the interests of the Caste Hindus, who were

socially hostile to the Depressed Classes. They wanted protection of

the Depressed Classes through political safeguards, but the Congress

was never willing to accept their demand. In such circumstances they

were forced to seek help from the British for the liberation and

political empowerment of these people. The British being a

governing power, could alone insure the Depressed Classes their

political rights. Consequently Dr. Ambedkar exploited this

contradiction for the benefit of the Depressed Classes, however, he

still ideologically he strongly believed that the British Government

which was “squeezing the masses dry” could not “remove our

greivances.”65

As regards the British, who undoubtedly and naturally

exploited the internal divisions of Indians supported Dr. Ambedkar

even then, when he was equally very critical of them, as they

realized that he represented the most exploited masses of India,

political revolt of which could be greatly harmful to them. But it was

equally true that they had hardly any sympathy with the sufferings of
 184

the Depressed Classes. If they had, they could easily provide them

with their socio-civil and political rights. When Dr. Ambedkar raised

the demand of separate electorates for the Depressed Classes, they

very cautiously moved and later on allowed a very small number of

reservator to the Depressed Classes whose population was equal to

the Muslim population in India.

The Congress charges against the Raj during the Round

Table Conference vis-a-vis instead of criticizing the British

Government should have the Dalit problem seemed, however, untrue.

The Congress could not charge the British of dividing Indians tried

to win over Dr. Ambedkar against the British by accepting or at least

considering his demands. In Contrary to it, the Congress leadership

severely objected the Depressed Classes demands at the Round Table

Conference, even at the cost of accepting all the 14 Demands of the

Muslims, which were never accepted by anyone. It even agreed to

accept separate electorates for all communities, excluding the

Depressed Classes. Mahatma Gandhi clearly said that he could

understand the claims of separate representation advanced by the

“other minorities” but as regards the claims of the Depressed Classes

they were to him, the “unkindest cut of all”.66 He even went on to

threaten that, “I am not afraid of the failure of the Conference” and

“I would resist it with my life.”67 But even such threats could not
 185

challenge the strongest case and the claim of the Depressed Classes

put forward by Dr. Ambedkar for their political representation. The

British however, did not at once accept the Dalit demands. This was

only due to the opposition of Mahatma Gandhi who was to them (the

British) no doubt, a big threat in comparison to the Depressed

Classes, they assured him to arbitrate.68 The British now moved very

cautiously on this issue. After the adjournment of the 2nd session of

the Round Table Conference, the Prime Minister appointed in

December 1931, a Franchise Committee with Lord Lothian as its

Chairman. Beside the general task assigned to this Committee, it had

to enquire about the population of the Depressed Classes in different

provinces. The Prime Minister instructed to Lord Lothian, the

Chairman of this Committee that, “there is a difference of opinion

whether the system of separate electorates should be instituted for

the Depressed Classes....”69 The above instruction was the result of

the Mahatma’s threats against political representation to the

Depressed Classes. The similar sensitiveness to Mahatma Gandhi’s

threats was also witnessed when the Prime Minister finally declared

his scheme, which provided a very little number of seats to the

Depressed Classes, though their population was 1/5 of the total.

In short we can conclude finally that the British position

the Dalit demands during the Round Table Conference, was not
 186

affected by their political relation with the Congress. They were

forced to discuss their demands, as Dr. Ambedkar put forth these

demands very strongly and ably. Though they wanted to consider the

Dalit demands, they were equally afraid of the Mahatma’s threats

and, therefore, moved and cautiously on this issue. But they could

not totally ignore or deny the political interests of the Depressed

Classes, which Mahatma Gandhi opposed. This complicated

phenomenon resulted the very unfortunate and dramatic and ironic

events in due course of time. In the next chapter we will discuss all

of the events in detail.

The views as represented by the radical Dalits leaders

had been contradiction, to the views of Mahatma Gandhi. Was there

any justification of what Mahatma Gandhi believed and desired his

view should be accepted by all the parties participating in the Round

Table Conferences, Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of all the

classes, castes and communities who were fighting against the

British Raj on the plank of anit-imperialism. His intention was to

consolidate the United Front for the Indian Independence. He was

not a social leader representing one set of social problems as against

the other. Any attempt to do so would have fragmented the polity of

India what was his prime concern. The limits imposed on his

leadership obviously, frustrated the radical leadership from the

 187

Depressed Classes. Moreover Dr. Ambedkar had a life time

opportunity to protect his leadership as the concrete siuation was

favourable to him. The British Government and also the various

groups of the intersts had stakes in weeking the position of Mahatma

Gandhi. As such if Dr. Ambedkar who was fully, connected for the

upliftment of this people, wanted to change the traditional cause of

Indian polity, one can be justify from the point of view of history

from below - though from the nationalist angle one may have certain

reservations - Need to have few paragraphs on Ambedkar road to

power and the position of 1930, when he came into limelight of

Indian politics.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol.9, p.40.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 41.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 326.

6. Ibid., p. 327.

7. Eleanor Zelliot, “Congress and Untouchables, 1917-1947”, in

Richard Sission and Stenly Wolbert, Congress and Indian
Nationalism, p. 188.

8. H.N. Mitra, Indian Quarterly Review, 1929, Vol. 1, p. 410.

 188

9. Bhagwan Dass (compiled), Selected Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb

B.R. Ambedkar, Vol. 1, pp. 8-11.
10. Ibid.
11. see Arun Shourie, Worshipping False Gods : Ambedkar and the
Facts which have been Erased, pp. 1-165.
12. Bhagwan Dass, op. cit.

13. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol. 9,

p.42.

14. Ibid. pp. 42-51.

15. Ibid., p. 53.
16. K. Santhanam, Ambedkar’s Attack, pp. 27-28 & Ravindra
Kumar, “Gandhi, Ambedkar and the Poona Pact”, Occasional
Papers on History and Society, NMML, pp. 213.

17. K. Santhanam, op.cit., p. 27

18. Eleanor Zelliot, op. cit., p. 189.

19. Gail Omvedt, Dalits and Democratic Revolution Dr.

Ambedkar and Dalit Movement in Colonial India. P. 170.

20. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol.9,

p. 55.

21. Ibid.,? 51.

22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., pp.57-59.
24. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.48, p. 148.
25. Ibid., p. 257.
26. Ibid., pp. 160-161.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., p. 170.
29. Ibid., pp. 160-161.
 189

30. Ibid., p. 179.

31. Ibid., pp. 223-224.

32. Ibid., p. 63.

33. Ibid., p. 65.

34. Ibid.

35. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol.9, p. 66

36. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 48, p. 393.

37. Ibid.

38. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol. 9,

p. 309.

39. Ibid., p. 310.

40. Ibid., pp. 67-68.

41. Ibid., p. 57.

42. RTC (2nd Session) Proceedings of Federal Structure

Committee, Vol. 1, pp. 530-531.

43. Ibid.

44. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol. 9,

pp. 68-69.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid., p. 69.

50. Ibid., p. 70.

51. Ibid.
 190

52. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 48,

pp. 223-224.

53. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol. 9,

p. 53.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., p. 74.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.48, pp. 223-224.

60. Ravindra Kumar, op. cit., pp. 13-15.

61. Bipin Chandra,Bharat Ka Swatantrata Sangharsh (Hindi),

pp. 32-42.

62. Gail Omvedt, op. cit., p. 83.

63. Arun Shourie, op. cit., pp. 1-165.

64. Gail Omvedt, op. cit., p. 81.

65. Ibid., p. 168.

66. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 48, p. 297.

67. Ibid., pp. 273 & 298.

68. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar : Writings and Speeches, Vol. 9,

p. 74.

69. Ibid., p. 75.