The conflict between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar over the rights of untouchables is often framed as a battle for representation, but it also reveals a darker side: Gandhi's use of moral coercion that many interpret as blackmail. This episode culminated in the Poona Pact of 1932, a compromise that shifted the political landscape for the untouchables but left Ambedkar feeling betrayed.
The clash of ideologies
From the outset, Gandhi and Ambedkar represented two starkly different philosophies regarding the treatment of untouchables. Gandhi, who viewed untouchability through a spiritual lens, believed in integrating untouchables into Hindu society without granting them separate electorates. He famously declared, “I would far rather that Hinduism died than that Untouchability lived,” dismissing Ambedkar’s demands as divisive. In contrast, Ambedkar argued for separate electorates, asserting that this was essential for the political empowerment of the untouchables who had long been marginalized by caste Hindus.
During the Round Table Conference in London in 1931, tensions escalated when Gandhi agreed to separate electorates for Muslims and Sikhs but adamantly opposed them for untouchables. This refusal was not just ideological; it was a strategic move to maintain control over the narrative surrounding Hindu unity. Gandhi's approach effectively marginalized Ambedkar's voice, leading to a perception that he was the rightful representative of the untouchables.
The dramatic hunger strike
The stakes rose dramatically in September 1932 when British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald announced separate electorates for untouchables. From his prison cell, where he was serving time for civil disobedience, Gandhi began a fast unto death on September 20, 1932. His declaration sent shockwaves through India: if Ambedkar did not concede to his demands, Gandhi would starve himself to death. This act of self-sacrifice positioned Gandhi as a martyr in the eyes of many, while simultaneously casting Ambedkar as a villain - someone who could be blamed if Gandhi were to die.
Ambedkar found himself in an impossible situation. He was pressured not only by Gandhi’s moral stance but also by fears from other untouchable leaders who worried about the repercussions if Gandhi died. M.C. Rajah, an influential leader among untouchables, warned that if Gandhi died, it would lead to a severe backlash against their community. Thus, Ambedkar was left with two choices: uphold the political rights of untouchables or save Gandhi's life.
Formation of the Poona Pact
On September 24, 1932, after four days of intense pressure and negotiations, Ambedkar visited Gandhi in Yerawada Jail and signed the Poona Pact. This agreement replaced separate electorates with reserved seats for untouchables in legislative assemblies - 148 seats instead of the 80 initially proposed by the British government. While this was hailed as a victory for Gandhi and his supporters, it left many of Ambedkar's followers feeling betrayed.
In public statements following the pact, Ambedkar expressed gratitude towards Gandhi but later reflected on the coercive nature of the fast. He described it as “the worst form of coercion against helpless people,” condemning it as a “foul and filthy act” that forced untouchables to relinquish their hard-won political rights. His words underscored a deep disillusionment with Gandhi’s tactics and painted him not as a liberator but as someone who manipulated circumstances to maintain control over India's political narrative.
The Poona Pact remains a complex chapter in India's history - one that highlights not only the ideological rift between two towering figures but also raises ethical questions about moral coercion in political discourse. While Gandhi is often celebrated for his nonviolent resistance and moral leadership, this episode reveals a more contentious side: his willingness to leverage personal sacrifice as a means to achieve his vision for Hindu unity at the expense of untouchable representation.
In this light, one can argue that Gandhi effectively blackmailed Ambedkar into submission under the guise of saving Hinduism from disintegration.
Comments