“History is the story of events, with praise or blame,” says American writer and  politician Cotton Mather. No doubt but who gets praised or blamed are shaped by the social locations and power wielded by the characters involved. 

The path of peace and nonviolence in the independence movement earned Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi the title Mahatma (the great soul), but allegations of racism against blacks during his two decades stint in South Africa, and charges of sabotaging the Dalit rights and their struggle for independent socio-political identity in India, continues to cast a shadow on his larger than life image.

In the backdrop of widespread protests over the Simon Commission report on constitutional reforms in 1930, the British government decided to hold discussions with leaders from India. They were seeking considerations pertaining to the changes to be adopted in “the Government of India Act in 1935”. The discussions held as part of the second round table conference in the city of London in 1931 are significant because it debated the need for separate electorates for religious minorities and for the untouchables (Dalits).

While arguing that mere religious reforms wouldn't assure the safety and welfare of Untouchables (Dalits), who are out of the Hindu fold and a political minority, Ambedkar wanted the British to accord separate electorates for Dalits to help them elect their representatives on par with other religious minorities. Irked by the demand and arguments of Dr BR Ambedkar, Gandhi opposed separate electorates for the Dalits stating that “changing the heart of caste Hindus” is the only solution to their problem, and that his Congress party would advance measures in that direction. 

Ambedkar saw Gandhi's “Swaraj” as a project that aims for an independence to India while retaining the caste status quo. Their fierce encounter at the round table conference  further positioned both of them as staunch political rivals. 

Subsequently, in tune with the demands of Ambedkar, on August 4, 1932, the British government under Prime Minister Ramsey Mac Donald announced separate electorates for the Dalits, who were then officially referred to as the Depressed Classes. 

Gandhi, who was already imprisoned in Poona (Pune) jail, expressed his dissent stating that the separate electorates for the Dalits would destabilise the Hindu social order and demanded its withdrawal. As the British expressed their intent to accord such political rights to the Dalits, at least temporarily, given the deserving conditions, Gandhi began a fast unto death. The deteriorating health of Gandhi caused concerns among his followers in the Congress party. They blamed Ambedkar for Gandhi’s situation and said he’d be responsible for the consequences in the event of his death. Parallelly, Congress also orchestrated a group against Ambedkar’ to put pressure on him to set aside his demand for separate electorates for Dalits.

Coming down heavily on Gandhi’s fast unto death and political developments surrounding it, Ambedkar wrote in What Gandhi And Congress Have Done to Untouchables: “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards (of which they had become possessed under the Prime Minister’s Award) and agree to live on the mercy of the Hindus. It was a vile and wicked act. How can the untouchables regard such a man as honest and sincere ?”

Ambedkar was left to choose between the political future of the Dalits and Gandhi on his death bed amid the warnings of violence against the former. He set aside his battle for separate electorates and entered into a pact with Gandhi's followers at the Pune jail on September 24, 1932, relieving Gandhi not only from death but also from his fear of the fall of the Hindu social order.  As a result, reserved electorates or constituencies ratified by the Government of India Act 1935., which we follow today, were established in place of separate electorates.

As anticipated by Ambedkar, Gandhi's assurance that the Congress would take measures to protect the interests of the Dalits soon faded away. In Madras, Congress leaders compelled the party’s Dalit representatives to raise voice against the legislation that seeks temple entry rights of the Dalits. MC Rajah, a Dalit and Congress leader who opposed separate electorates for Dalits in line with Gandhis’ wishes was quoted saying: “I am forced to think that our entering the joint electorate with the caste Hindus under the leadership of the Congress, led by caste Hindu leaders, to destroy our independence, and to use us to cut our own throats.” The quote appears in a history research paper titled “The Poona Pact and The Issue of Dalit Representation” by Swaraj Basu. 

With his political clout, power over media and following Gandhi had an upper hand in swaying the opinion in favour of joint/common electorates but the promise of changing the hearts of caste Hindus was neither attempted nor delivered. Neither the Congress party nor the party, which is the ideological successor of those who assassinated him, have shown any interest in confronting the issue of caste. No mainstream political party has attacked caste or has shown commitment to uproot it. 

The shackles Gandhi placed on Dalits 92 years ago, while he was in Pune jail, are still an impediment for their quest for liberation, self respect, identity and autonomous political representation. As a direct result of Gandhi’s action against separate electorates, till today, the candidates elected from the reserved constituencies have to remain loyal to their political parties and take care not to upset the sentiments of caste-Hindus as they decide their political future. They're often expected to refrain from any action that hurts the caste-Hindus even if it is for the sake of the dignity and interests of Dalits.

The Poona Pact has doomed the future of Dalits by caging them in a fancy trap of Hindu fold. It has neither given legitimacy to the political representation of Dalits nor made any advancement in changing their social conditions. 

Charan Teja is a journalist and researcher. He writes on rural affairs, caste, politics, and forest rights from both the Telugu speaking states.

Views expressed are the author’s own.