2.3.3. The Limits of Civil Disobedience

Not all social groups were moved by the abstract concept of swaraj. One such group was the nation’s ‘untouchables’, who from around the 1930s had begun to call themselves dalit or oppressed. For long the Congress had ignored the dalits, for fear of offending the sanatanis, the conservative high-caste Hindus. But Mahatma Gandhi declared that swaraj would not come for a hundred years if untouchability was not eliminated. He called the ‘untouchables’ harijan, or the children of God, organised satyagraha to secure them entry into temples, and access to public wells, tanks, roads and schools. He himself cleaned toilets to dignify the work of the bhangi (the sweepers), and persuaded upper castes to change their heart and give up ‘the sin of untouchability’. But many dalit leaders were keen on a different political solution to the problems of the community.

The dalits, historically marginalized in society, began to organize themselves around the concept of swaraj, not merely as a struggle for independence from British rule but for their own rights and dignity. Gandhi, viewing the elimination of untouchability as essential for true swaraj, engaged in activities to raise awareness about their plight and worked to integrate them into the national movement. However, many dalit leaders felt that this focus was insufficient and advocated for political empowerment, such as reserved seats in governance to directly address their community's needs. This difference in perspective highlights the complexity of the term 'swaraj' and how it was understood differently by various groups.

Think of a community facing long-standing discrimination, like students advocating for their rights in a school where they face unfair treatment. While some students push for changes in the rules to create a more inclusive environment, others seek representation in student governance to ensure their voices are heard in decision-making. Just as the students may have differing views on how to achieve their goals, the dalit leaders had different approaches on achieving their political aims within the larger national movement.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who organised the dalits into the Depressed Classes Association in 1930, clashed with Mahatma Gandhi at the second Round Table Conference by demanding separate electorates for dalits. When the British government conceded Ambedkar’s demand, Gandhiji began a fast unto death. He believed that separate electorates for dalits would slow down the process of their integration into society. Ambedkar ultimately accepted Gandhiji’s position and the result was the Poona Pact of September 1932. It gave the Depressed Classes (later to be known as the Schedule Castes) reserved seats in provincial and central legislative councils, but they were to be voted in by the general electorate. The dalit movement, however, continued to be apprehensive of the Congress-led national movement.

The disagreement between Gandhi and Ambedkar illustrates the tensions within the fight against untouchability and the struggle for political representation. Ambedkar pushed for separate electorates to give dalits direct representation, while Gandhi believed this would further alienate them from mainstream society. The Poona Pact was a compromise that allowed reserved seats without the division of electorates, although it did not fully satisfy all dalit leaders, reflecting a broader anxiety within the community regarding their place in the national strife for independence.

Imagine two leaders of a student group—one wants to form a separate association for marginalized students while the other believes that integrating into the existing student body is essential for progress. They argue over which approach will be more effective, trying to find common ground while being concerned about the implications of their choices. The eventual agreement they reach might include representation in the existing association while ensuring specific rights for marginalized students, much like the Poona Pact.

Some of the Muslim political organisations in India were also lukewarm in their response to the Civil Disobedience Movement. After the decline of the Non-Cooperation-Khilafat Movement, a large section of Muslims felt alienated from the Congress. From the mid-1920s the Congress came to be more visibly associated with openly Hindu religious nationalist groups like the Hindu Mahasabha. As relations between Hindus and Muslims worsened, each community organised religious processions with militant fervour, provoking Hindu-Muslim communal clashes and riots in various cities. Every riot deepened the distance between the two communities.

The Muslim response to the Civil Disobedience Movement was complicated by historical tensions and the changing political landscape. As the Congress aligned more with Hindu nationalistic agendas, many Muslims felt marginalized. Tension turned into violence, as religious processions led to riots that only served to widen the divide, demonstrating that the struggle for independence was not merely a unified front but included various rifts and divisions among communities. This atmosphere made it difficult for the Civil Disobedience Movement to gain widespread participation from all sections of society.

Consider a group project in school where students from different backgrounds must work together. If members begin to form cliques based on personal interests instead of teamwork, tensions can rise, particularly if one group feels overlooked or misrepresented. If conflicts emerge during discussions, it may result in a loss of focus on the common goal of completing the project, just as the communal tensions disrupted the unified struggle for independence.

The Congress and the Muslim League made efforts to renegotiate an alliance, and in 1927 it appeared that such a unity could be forged. The important differences were over the question of representation in the future assemblies that were to be elected. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one of the leaders of the Muslim League, was willing to give up the demand for separate electorates, if Muslims were assured reserved seats in the Central Assembly and representation in proportion to population in the Muslim-dominated provinces (Bengal and Punjab). Negotiations over the question of representation continued but all hope of resolving the issue at the All Parties Conference in 1928 disappeared when M.R. Jayakar of the Hindu Mahasabha strongly opposed efforts at compromise.

This chunk reflects the complexities of coalition-building among political parties during the independence movement. Jinnah’s willingness to compromise highlights an attempt at unity, but differences over representation continued to pose a significant challenge. The opposition from the Hindu Mahasabha indicates that the path to a collaborative approach was fraught with difficulties, as various factions had their vested interests and ideals about the future of India.

Think of a group trying to establish a new club in school comprised of diverse interests. Some members might argue for equality in participation, while others push for specific roles based on past experiences. Tensions often arise when negotiations stall, leading to frustration similar to the political environment between the Congress and the Muslim League, highlighting the challenges of merging different perspectives into a cohesive plan.

When the Civil Disobedience Movement started there was thus an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust between communities. Alienated from the Congress, large sections of Muslims could not respond to the call for a united struggle. Many Muslim leaders and intellectuals expressed their concern about the status of Muslims as a minority within India. They feared that the culture and identity of minorities would be submerged under the domination of a Hindu majority. In 1930, Sir Muhammad Iqbal, as president of the Muslim League, reiterated the importance of separate electorates for the Muslims as an important safeguard for their minority political interests.

This part outlines the deepening rift between Hindus and Muslims during the Civil Disobedience Movement, resulting in a lack of cohesive participation. The fear of losing identity as a minority compelled many Muslim leaders to advocate for separate electorates, illustrating the critical need for representation in a potentially oppressive political landscape. This skepticism reflects broader communal tensions that often impeded nationalistic unity necessary for independence.

Imagine a debate in a community about new regulations that may disadvantage a smaller group. Members of the community may grow suspicious of each other, leading those feeling threatened to advocate for provisions that protect their interests at all costs. This reflects how Muslims within the context of the Civil Disobedience Movement sought to safeguard their identity, as Iqbal articulated in his advocacy for separate electorates.

--