A political battlefield

September 19, 2023

In 1931, more than four decades after his first trip, Gandhi arrived in London for the last time, for the second Round Table Conference. The conference was, in theory, an attempt to reevaluate the relationship between India and the British Empire. Where he’d once been a timid 18-year-old, he was now an international celebrity (thanks to the Salt March) and mobbed by reporters.

On September 19, 1931, a short editorial appeared in The Daily Mail. Written by Gandhi, and titled, What I Want, he explained he was there representing the Indian National Congress, “the oldest political organization in India.” He explained that it knew “no distinction between classes or creeds or the sexes,” and was working to “hasten[] the destruction of untouchability.” On behalf of the people of India, Gandhi claimed “Complete independence for India.”

Unfortunately, the government refused to concede that independence was open for discussion.

What they did want to discuss was what a federal structure might look like. Among the dozens of delegates summoned to the conference were representatives of India’s minorities; Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, and so-called ‘untouchables,’ known today as Dalits. Given the united opposition that the British had recently faced over the tax on salt, they fell back on a classic strategy: divide and rule.

Identity politics was an effective way to do this. A proposal was made to give all of these groups their own separate electorates. They would have their own list of voters and elect their own candidates, guaranteeing that each would have a minimum number of seats in the legislature.

In speaking to the committee on September 17, Gandhi sketched out what national elections should look like. He advocated for universal suffrage (“who wants the vote can have it”) and a unicameral legislature, opposed any sort of literacy test for voters, and was willing to accept a small poll tax to defray the cost of elections. He also argued against codifying separate seats for minority groups. Landlords were a minority of the population, couldn’t they contend that they deserved special protection as well? It was unnecessary.

Eternal optimist that he was, Gandhi believed since the Indian National Congress was “cultivating a spirit of absolute equality,” the voters would “elect all classes of people and not become clannish or be caste-ridden.” If they failed to elect a sufficiently diverse legislature, that legislature could then elect the necessary minorities to join them in office. As a former legislator myself, I’m a little skeptical about how this would work.

As it turned out, the British were skeptical as well, and the following year announced that all the minorities would get special electorates. Gandhi objected, and picked this issue as a battle worth fighting. More on that tomorrow.

Gandhi objected to a bicameral legislature because it was more expensive than a unicameral legislature and set up a potentially adversarial system between the upper and lower chambers. Do you agree or disagree?