Vol. 17, Part I · pages 446–450

421ELECTION PETITION hesitant manner admitted that it was an organ of the Communist Party and that the two members of the Front in their evidence had also admitted that they had made propaganda to support the candidature of Mr. Dange. On the basis of the submission, he said, there could be no doubt that they were Mr. Dange’s agents. Dr. Ambedkar tried to trace the relationship between Vividh Vritta, a Sunday Marathi weekly, and Dr. Deshpande (Deshmukh), and said that the statement the respondent had published in the paper was not to enlighten voters. In fact, it was given to that particular newspaper and to no other and this, in his contention, proved that there was a link between the paper and the respondent. …... At this stage, Dr. Deshmukh stood up and requested the tribunal that Dr. Ambedkar might be asked to address his question. “I am not asking you any question. In fact, you have raised them and I am only trying to answer them,” was Dr. Ambedkar’s reply which caused laughter in the Court room. Earlier Mr. K. V. Chitre, Registrar of Siddharth College and an agent of Dr. Ambedkar gave evidence. The hearing will be continued on Monday.” (The Times of India, 4-10-1952) 1 “PROPAGANDA FOR WASTAGE OF VOTES IS ILLEGAL” Dr. Ambedkar’s Plea In Election Dispute It was a gross perversion of law to arouse communal feelings among the electorate by frightening it that it would go unrepresented if it distributed votes, declared Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, arguing his petition before the Election Tribunal, composed of Mr. N. J. Wadia, Chairman, Mr. M. D. Lalkaka and Mr. G. P. Murdeshwar, at the Small Causes Court, Bombay, on Monday. He was referring to the communal propaganda that had been carried on in the Bombay City North Constituency by Dr. G. V. Deshmukh, who, he said, was the leader of the Independent Candidates’ Group, comprising 17 candidates. “I cannot find worse propaganda than this,” said Dr. Ambedkar, and added “Because of the realisation of the psychology of Caste Hindus, who did not want Untouchables to occupy important posts 1 Khairmode, Vol. 10, Pp. 298-299.

422 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the legislature, a special provision was made for Scheduled Castes in the Montague - Chelmsford Reforms. There is a similar provision in the Representation of the People’s Act also.” …… The petitioner contended that Dr. Deshmukh has conceded the provisions of Section 54 of the Act from the electorate while the Communist candidate, Mr. S. A. Dange, by preaching the nullification of Section 63, had set the law at naught. He charged both the respondents with adopting corrupt practices and unduly influencing the voters. DISPOSAL OF VOTES Dr. Ambedkar submitted that the disposal of one of the two votes was not left to the wishes of voters or, for that matter, of candidates. The disposal of the second vote was regulated by Section 79 (d) which, he said, gave the electorate the option to vote or not to vote as voting was not compulsory in India. He raised the following points (1) A voter was free to exercise his electoral rights; (2) He could go to the polling booth and receive both his ballot papers and distribute them; (3) He could use one of them and return the other to the Presiding Officer; (4) To use one ballot paper and destroy the other was illegal and an offence according to Section 136(e) (f);(5)To cast one ballot paper in the ballot box and take the other with him would be illegal, according to Section 135, and (6) To insert both the ballot papers in one box was also illegal, according to Rule 25 (1) and a violation of the Act. He stated that Section 100 clearly stated that “an election shall be set aside on the ground of corrupt practices extensively prevailing,” and asked if the Tribunal did not consider the 74,333 votes wasted as the result of the perverse propaganda to be a large figure. “I lost my seat by 13,000 votes. I am not very presumptuous, but out of the 39,000 votes wasted by Mr. Dange, I would certainly have got a large number had it not been for the crucial propaganda of his and that of Dr. Deshmukh,” he said. “CHAPTER OF MISALLIANCE” Mr. A. S. R. Chari, counsel for Mr. Dange, described the petitions of Dr. Ambedkar and Socialist leader, Mr. Ashoka Mehta, as the closing chapter of misalliance between the Socialists and the Scheduled Castes Federation. He said the petitioners’ own witness

423ELECTION PETITION Mr. Bapurao Jagtap, had told the Tribunal that the Left United Front had requested the petitioners “with folded hands” to join the Left United Front, a request they had refused only because they overestimated their strength. Mr. Chari said that there was no legal obligation on a voter to use both his votes as he could either vote or refrain from voting for a candidate in accordance with the clauses of Section 63 of the Act. His arguments were: That the persuasion to vote only one candidate, or not to vote for any one candidate, did not constitute interference with the free exercise of the will of the voters according to the definition of “undue influence.” That any of the acts of Mr. Dange or any other candidate, did not come within the definition of “corrupt practice” as set out in the Representation of the People Act. That what Mr. Dange had done was only to persuade the voter and he had a right to do so. That the petitioners had filed their petitions only to provide a plausible excuse for their defeat before their supporters; and that the defeat of the petitioners in the last election was due to their arrogant refusal to join hands with the Left United Front which wanted to fight the Congress and the communal elements. UNDUE INFLUENCE Mr. T. R. Kapadia, counsel for V. B. Gandhi corroborating Mr. Chari’s argument, said that the petitioners had failed to prove who had exerted undue influence on voters. He asked whether the respondents alone were guilty of that charge or whether the petitioners were also equally guilty of it. Dr. Deshmukh, after obtaining consent “from -the Tribunal that he might be allowed to address it in place of his advocate, said that all parties were responsible for corrupt practices at the last elections. He admitted that the editor of “Vividh Vritta”, a Marathi weekly, was not only his agent but also his intimate friend. Hearing will be continued on Wednesday. The respondents are Mr. S. A. Dange, Dr. G. V. Deshmukh, Dr. V. B. Gandhi, Mr. K. B. Joshi, Mr. N, S. Kajrolkar and Mr. N. B. Parulkar.

424 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. S. S. Kavalekar and Mr. Madhusudhan Vyas, instructed by Kothare and Company appeared for Mr. Ashoka Mehta; Mr. A. S. R. Chari and Mr. T. S. Hegde for Mr. Dange; Mr. Pandit for Dr. G. V. Deshmukh and Mr. T. R. Kapadia for Dr. Gandhi and Mr. Kajrolkar.” 1 zz 1 : The Times of India : dated 7-10-1952 Reprinted Khairmode, Vol. 10, Pp. 300-302.

51 COMMUNISTS IN MAHARASHTRA American Journalist Mr. Seling S. Harrison interviewed Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on 21st and 28th February and 9th October 1953 on the topic of weaknesses of the Communists State of Maharashtra. The interview is as follows: Editors. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who organised Mahars as a political force, accounted similarly for Communist weakness in Maharashtra : “The Communist Party was originally in the hands of some Brahmin boys—Dange and others. They have been trying to win over the Maratha community and the Scheduled Castes. But they have made no headway in Maharashtra. Why ? Because they are mostly a bunch of Brahmin boys. The Russians made a great mistake to entrust the Communist movement in India to them. Either the Russians didn’t want Communism in India—they wanted only drummer boys —or they didn’t understand ”1 zz 1 : Ambedkar on Communism in India — quoted in the book, India : The Most Dangerous Decades, by Seling S. Harrison. Pp.190-91. Quoted : Khairmode, Vol. 11, P. 164.