POONA PACT

In September 1932, at Yerawada Central Jail in Pune, Mahatma Gandhi commenced a fast unto death to protest the granting of separate electorates to the Scheduled Castes. This protest ultimately led to the signing of the Poona Pact between Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

B.R. Ambedkar is widely recognized for awakening political awareness among Dalits, which fueled their struggle for representation and power. His political agenda focused on ensuring that lower castes gained political influence. As Ambedkar noted, “No one can address your grievances better than you, and these cannot be resolved unless political power rests in your hands.”

During the plenary session of the First Round Table Conference in London, Ambedkar emphasized that the Depressed Classes would remain politically powerless unless the constitutional framework provided mechanisms designed to empower them. He proposed separate electorates as a form of affirmative action to strengthen lower-caste representation.

The idea of separate electorates entailed a dual voting system—allowing Scheduled Castes to vote both for their own candidates and in the general electorate.

Ambedkar argued that joint electorates might superficially aid the integration of lower castes into Hindu society but would do little to challenge their subordinate status. He believed that in a joint electorate, the majority could control the election of Dalit representatives, preventing them from defending their community against “majority tyranny.”

Although Gandhi was concerned about the conditions of the untouchables, he opposed separate electorates for them. He felt such arrangements offered too limited a benefit, and instead believed that lower castes should aim for broader leadership opportunities rather than just a restricted quota of seats.

Gandhi’s opposition was also motivated by the fear that separate electorates would fragment Hindu society, posing a threat to the unity of the community. This stance had strategic reasoning:

(i) Gandhi understood that the British had long exploited divisions within Indian society for their colonial objectives, and separate electorates could further facilitate this “divide and rule” approach.

(ii) Additionally, at a time of growing Hindu-Muslim tensions, granting separate electorates to lower castes alongside those for Muslims could weaken consolidated Hindu leadership, reducing its collective political influence