Vol. 2 · pages 586–590

565IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. VI which gives some sort of suffrage to only a class of the people and postpones the fact of self-Government to a large mass for a time to come. But, having said that, I cannot, as I say, give whole-hearted support to the suggestion, because I find there are certain difficulties. But, because I think that probably the noble Marquess will come to our help in meeting the difficulties which some of us feel, I propose to make one or two observations. One thing I see : that if this system of indirect elections by groups is adopted, it seems to me the Depressed Classes probably will not fare better under that system. I say that for this reason : the Depressed Classes are scattered throughout India in small numbers in every village ; their life is practically dominated on all sides by powerful bodies of villagers who hold over them social and economic sway. It is possible, and I think it is also probable, that when this indirect election comes to be applied to them, such an amount of pressure may be applied by the village community on the Depressed Classes that, in exercising their vote, so to say, in the primary election, they may be compelled to select people who may not be their best representatives. That is a fear which I certainly have. Another thing which I find is that if this system is to be adopted in preference to the graduated system of extending the vote by instalments, I do not understand why we should confine this to the propertied class or to any other Class ; I do not see why we should not extend the system in such a manner that adult suffrage should become the foundation of the system. A Member: That is the intention. Dr. Ambedkar : I am glad to hear that. With regard to the difficulties that have been suggested, that this would complicate the matter of separate electorates, I do not think it will, because with indirect election you can still maintain separate registers for such communities as may desire to have them. I do not think that will create any difficulty in the matter. But, as I say, we cannot, for instance, give support to this principle unless we know really how this principle is going to work in practice, unless we know all the details about it. My concrete suggestion, therefore, is that this Committee should appoint a small Sub-Committee in order to consider this system and to report upon it, so that we may be better able, with full knowledge and information, to recommend this to a Franchise Committee that may hereafter be left to work out the system. It seems to me in its raw form, if the noble Lord will excuse my using that expression, it is somewhat difficult, and it is too much of a large order for anyone of us—speaking, at any rate, for myself to give out support to this principle. ***** †Mr. Basu: But is it necessary to put a maximum figure at all, because the Franchise Committee will be there, they will have to consider it and go into details. I think we should put the minimum figure ; that is all that is required. As regards the maximum, they may decide as to what † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. VI (Franchis ), pp. 74-75.

566 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the maximum should be. Dr. Ambedkar : I should like to make the observation with regard to the first paragraph in your summarisation. I should like to have it stated in the paragraph which you have drawn up that the opinion of the Committee was that the extension of the franchise should be limited by considerations of administration and machinery. That was the only limitation that we thought should be put in. Sir C. Setalvad : It is not merely administration ; there are other considerations as well. Mrs. Subbarayan : What is practicable ? Dr. Ambedkar: Practical means machinery. I mean the Committee might find that it was practicable with the present machinery that 50 per cent of the population should be enfranchised. Mr. Zajrullah Khan: Do you mean 50 per cent of the total population ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes. Mr. Zajrullah Khan : That would be slightly more than universal adult franchise. Chairman : It is suggested that we should leave out the maximum. The whole thing is conditional on the expert Committee finding it practicable and desirable ; so that we need not have a maximum. Let us leave out the maximum. Does anyone wish me to read it again? Mr. K. T. Paul: If you leave out 25 per cent, if it weakens our statement I would not agree to it. Chairman: It does not weaken it. Mr. Chintamani: Very often in these matters when a minimum is stated it comes to be a maximum in actual practice. If we indicate the figure 10 per cent in our Report, it will show the Franchise Committee that is appointed that we should be contented if they secure a maximum of 10 per cent. Those of us who mentioned the figure of 25 per cent did so as a sort of unsatisfactory compromise between the present position and adult franchise. I, for one, shall not be happy if you take it out. Mr. Foot: Mr. Chintamani mentioned 25 per cent of the adult population ? Mr. Chintamani: Of the total population. Mr. Foot: I beg your pardon. Mr. Joshi: Sir, I am very sorry to say that you should not put down in the Report that the suggestion is a unanimous one, because I for one would not agree to it, and I reserve to myself the right of re-opening the question of adult suffrage in the full Conference. Dr. Ambedkar: That is my position too. Mr. Joshi: It should be put down in the Report. ***** †Dr. Ambedkar: It would be a second best, provided we knew it was going to work. (Universal adult suffrage.) † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. VI (Franchise), pp. 76-78.

567IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. VI Chairman: Subject to that, are the rest of the Committee agreed? Sir C. Jehangir: I cannot agree to this figure, 25 per cent until we have the whole of the facts before us. Chairman: We are suggesting that an expert Franchise Committee be set up. Sir P. C. Mitter: Before we fully know the facts it would not be right for us to commit ourselves. Chairman : It would not do for us to hand over our job to the expert Franchise Committee. We are in the unfortunate position of having to make some recommendation, and we cannot say that we recommend merely that somebody else should take over our job. Sir P. C. Mitter: I am expressing only my own personal opinion. I suggest to the Franchise Committee that there should be an increase, as large an increase as possible, and I would not have objected to 10 or 20 or 50 per cent. If I know all the facts before hand on which to base an opinion. Chairman: Would you like, Sir Provash, to put in such qualification as you desire, to the effect that any recommendation both as to maximum and minimum should be entirely subject to the discretion of the Franchise Committee ? I feel that we ought to give that Committee some guidance. However, we have got near enough now, and we will take an opportunity of speaking with you about this afterwards. Mr. Chintamani: I do not know, Sir, whether you will agree to what I am about to suggest, but there is also before us an important proposal that the Franchise Committee should be asked to devise such qualifications as will ensure, as far as possible, the same proportion of voters to population in the different communities. This was proposed by the Simon Commission, and it has been supported by several local Governments. Could that be considered new ? If the Franchise Committee find it not possible they will reject it. Chairman: I think it comes under the next head, namely, “general basis of franchise, (i) Should the franchise qualifications be the same for all communities in the same area ?” I call your attention to those words “in the same area”. Do not let us embark now on the subject of women’s suffrage or anything of that sort. Sir P. C. Mitter: I thought from what you ruled that the special interests and communal interests came under the Minorities Committee. Chairman: We shall very likely know more about that after tomorrow. For the moment we are discussing the general basis of the franchise, and whether the qualifications should be the same for all communities. Diwan Bahadur Ramachandra Rao: You said that you would speak to the Prime Minister and let us know whether this matter came within the province of our Committee or of the other. Dr. Ambedkar: I should like to make one proposal. Although the question of universal adult suffrage has been pointed out by certain members

568 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES of this Committee to be for the present not possible or practicable, it seems to me that it may be possible to have, at any rate, adult suffrage for the Depressed Classes. There is no reason why, for instance, all communities should have the same franchise—in fact, there may even be cases which we find in the practical affairs of life, that in order to reach equality of status, we may have to adopt, so to speak, methods of inequality. In the matter of treating the richer class as against the poorer, for example, we do enact certain special measures for the benefit of the latter. We tax the richer class at a higher rate than the poorer, the object being that the principle of ability to pay the tax may be realised in practice. I think that the same consideration might be applied to the Depressed Classes. If the object of the Committee is that all communities should be represented in equal proportion in the electorate, there is no reason why one class of people may not be treated differently from another class of people if a different sort of treatment is the only means available for the purpose. It seems to me that if, for instance, adult suffrage were applied to the Depressed Class and not to other communities, but other communities had a system such as Lord Zetland has suggested, it would not be in reality any difference at all, and it would not put any great pressure on the electoral machinery available in the Provinces, having regard to the peculiar position of the Depressed Classes, and having regard also to the consensus of opinion that no other system of franchise would give them the vote and without the vote there would be no solicitude expressed for them by any candidate who stands for the Legislature at the present time. I think that the Committee would not do any great harm if it recognised the application of this principle to the Depressed Classes. Third Sitting—30th December 1930 †Chairman: We are now discussing the question of the educational qualification. I may just remind you that the second conclusion to which we came was this : “We recommend that in any given area the franchise qualification should be the same for all communities, but we desire that the Expert Franchise Committee, in making their proposals, should bear in mind that the ideal system would as nearly as possible give each community a voting strength proportional to its population and this Committee should so contrive their franchise as so far as practicable to bring about this result.” I am afraid that is rather a counsel of perfection, but at the same time the only way in which we can possibly expect them to carry that out is if we give them a certain latitude ; that is manifest. Therefore, in considering all these questions of educational qualifications and so on, you have to remember that unless you authorise the Franchise Committee † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. VI (Franchise), p. 94.

569IN SUB-COMMITTEE NO. VI to take these into account, you are restricting and not enlarging their possibility of action. Dr. Ambedkar: I should like, if I may, to ask one question with regard to the conclusion which you, Sir, have read out, and at which you said the Sub-Committee had arrived. Does that conclusion imply that the Franchise Committee will have the liberty to consider a variety of franchises for different communities, to arrive at the result that the voting strength shall be proportional to the strength of those communities ? Chairman: I do not think that is it. We have to give guidance to the Franchise Committee ; they will fill in the details. We are, as it were, the architects, and they are the masons and builders. Dr. Ambedkar: I understand that, but what I should like to know is whether that conclusion gives liberty to the Franchise Committee to have a different franchise for the different communities with the object of securing equality. Chairman: No. The first sentence says that we recommend that in any given area the franchise qualification should be the same for all communities. We will now proceed with our discussion on the educational qualification. ***** †Mr. Jadhav : Would any Legislative Council have the power to go back after ten years and restrict the franchise? Some of them might wish to do that. Chairman : Their powers would be powers of extension, not of diminution. Dr. Ambedkar: I should like to say a word on this subject, without prejudice to the position we have taken all along. It seems to me that as compared with the alternatives which have been suggested, one by Mr. Joshi that there should be some law providing for automatic extension, and the other, the main proposal, that the matter should be left to the sweet will of the Legislatures, the recommendations made by the Simon Commission seems to me to be better and to be more readily acceptable from my point of view. It might be much better, as I say, to have some authority which will investigate at the end of a definite period exactly what has been the result of the working of the franchise up to that period. That body will be able to see what disparity there has been as between the different provinces. That body will be able to see what is the machinery existing at the end of the ten years, in order to cope with the elections if the franchise were to be altered, and that body, being impartial itself, will be able to deal with the rights of the mass of the people much more readily, in a much more just and equitable way, than the class-conscious people who may be installed as a result of the limited franchise which we are introducing today. For these reasons it seems to me that the proposals of the Simon Commission are better than the alternatives. Sir Cowasji Jehangir: Who is to set that up ? † Proceedings of the Sub-Committee No. VI (Franchise), pp. 138-39.