Communal Award, 1932

At a Glance

• Announced 16 August 1932 by Ramsay MacDonald
• Based on Indian Franchise Committee, the Lothian Committee
• Key feature Separate electorates for many groups, including the depressed classes for 20 years
• Response Congress neither accepted nor rejected it; Gandhi fasted
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences

Where Does It Fit?

This is the eleventh topic of the category on the Civil Disobedience Movement and Round Table Conferences. The previous topic assessed the Civil Disobedience Movement. This topic covers the Communal Award. The next topic covers the Poona Pact. Previous topic: Evaluation of the Civil Disobedience Movement.

How Did the Communal Award Come About?

The Communal Award was announced by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, on 16 August 1932. It was based on the findings of the Indian Franchise Committee, also called the Lothian Committee. It set up separate electorates and reserved seats for minorities, including the depressed classes, who were granted seventy-eight reserved seats. It gave separate electorates to Muslims, Europeans, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, the depressed classes and even the Marathas for some seats in Bombay. The national leaders led by the Congress saw it as another sign of the British policy of divide and rule.

At the second Round Table Conference there had been no agreement among Indian delegates on minority representation, and MacDonald, who chaired the minorities committee, offered to mediate on condition that the other members supported his decision. The Award was the result of that mediation. The conference is in First and Second Round Table Conferences.

What Was the Background of the Depressed Classes’ Demand?

Dr Ambedkar had earlier told the Simon Commission that the depressed classes should be treated as a distinct, independent minority separate from caste Hindus, as described in Dr Ambedkar and the Simon Commission. The Bengal Depressed Classes Association had also asked for separate electorates, with seats reserved in proportion to population, and for adult franchise. The Simon Commission rejected separate electorates for the depressed classes but kept the idea of reserved seats.

At the second conference Ambedkar raised the issue again. He had tried to compromise with Gandhi on reserved seats in a common electorate, but Gandhi, who had declared himself the sole representative of India’s oppressed masses, rejected the proposal and denounced the other delegates as unrepresentative. Gandhi also tried to strike a deal with the Muslims, offering to support their demands if they voted against separate electorates for the depressed classes. It is argued that political considerations may have motivated this stand. No consensus was reached.

What Were the Main Provisions?

How Did the Congress and Gandhi Respond?

Though opposed to separate electorates, the Congress was unwilling to change the Award without the consent of the minorities. So, while strongly disagreeing with it, the Congress decided neither to accept nor to reject it. All nationalists vehemently opposed the effort to separate the depressed classes from the rest of the Hindus as a separate political entity.

Gandhi saw the Award as an attack on Indian unity and nationalism. He thought it harmful to both Hinduism and the depressed classes, since it offered no answer to their degraded social position. Once the depressed classes were treated as a separate political entity, he argued, the fight against untouchability would be undermined, and separate electorates would ensure that untouchables remained untouchables in perpetuity. What was needed was not protection of the so-called interests of the depressed classes but the root and branch eradication of untouchability.

Gandhi demanded that the depressed classes be elected through joint and, if possible, wider electorates on universal franchise, while saying he had no objection to a larger number of reserved seats. To press the demand he began an indefinite fast on 20 September 1932. This led to the Poona Pact, described in Poona Pact and Its Impact on Dalits.

As an analytical point, the two sides were arguing about different things: the British were counting groups and seats, while Gandhi was arguing about whether the depressed classes were a separate political group at all, and Ambedkar was asking how they could be protected in a system in which they were outnumbered. The Muslim and Hindu communal positions of the same period are in Mahasabha Opposed new Muslim-majority provinces; wanted…">Muslim and Hindu Communal Responses to the Nehru Report.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Provisions Double vote and separate electorates are stock Prelims facts
• Gandhi’s fast Leads directly to the Poona Pact
• Divide and rule A key Mains argument on British policy

What Came Next?

The next topic covers the Poona Pact of September 1932 and its impact on Dalits. Next topic: Poona Pact and Its Impact on Dalits.

Key People and Terms

• Communal Award The August 1932 decision on minority representation
• Lothian Committee The Indian Franchise Committee
• Double vote One vote in a separate electorate and one in the general electorate
• Weightage Extra seats given to a minority
• Separate electorate A voter list limited to one community
• Depressed classes The term then used for what are now Dalit groups

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions ask about the Award and the responses to it. These points add depth.

• Provisions Separate electorates for many groups
• Congress stand Neither accept nor reject
• Gandhi Unity and the fight against untouchability