The Communal Award of 1932 and the Gandhi–Ambedkar Debate
Background — From Round Table Deadlock to British Intervention
By 1932, the political discussions between Indian leaders and the British government had reached a deadlock.
At the Second Round Table Conference (1931), the central disagreement had been over the representation of the Depressed Classes — the community that would later be called the Scheduled Castes or Dalits.
While Gandhi (representing the Congress) wanted joint electorates with reserved seats, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who represented the Depressed Classes, demanded separate electorates, similar to those enjoyed by Muslims and other minorities.
Since Indian leaders could not arrive at a consensus, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald — using the British government’s claimed role as an “impartial umpire” — announced his own decision.
This came to be known as the Communal Award, declared on 16 August 1932.
The Communal Award — Main Features
The Communal Award was essentially an electoral scheme intended to decide how different communities would be represented in the provincial legislatures under the forthcoming constitutional framework.
Its stated purpose was to ensure minority protection; but politically, it deepened communal divisions in Indian society.
Key Recommendations
- Expansion of Legislatures:
- The total number of seats in provincial legislatures was doubled.
- Retention of Separate Electorates:
- The system of separate electorates for minorities (first introduced for Muslims in 1909 and extended in 1919) was retained and expanded.
- Depressed Classes Recognised as a Minority:
- For the first time, the Depressed Classes were declared a minority community and granted separate electorates — meaning Dalit voters would elect their own representatives separately, not through general Hindu constituencies.
- Women’s Representation:
- 3% of seats were reserved for women within each community (except in NWFP).
- Functional Representation:
- Seats were allocated for labour, landlords, traders, and industrialists, reflecting occupational interests.
- Weightage to Minorities:
- Muslims were given weightage — extra representation — in provinces where they were a minority (for example, U.P., Bihar, and Bombay).
- Special Regional Allocations:
- In some regions, special groups received representation (e.g., Marathas in the Bombay Presidency, with seven seats).
Thus, the Communal Award granted separate electorates not only to Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans, but also, for the first time, to the Depressed Classes.
“Double Vote” for the Depressed Classes
Perhaps the most controversial provision was the “double vote” system for the Depressed Classes:
- A member of the Depressed Classes could vote once in the general constituency (with other Hindus).
- He/she could also vote a second time in a special Depressed Classes constituency, which would elect representatives exclusively from that community.
- This dual voting right was to last for 20 years, and 71 special seats were reserved for the Depressed Classes across provinces.
In theory, this gave Dalits both inclusivity (through general seats) and autonomy (through separate electorates).
In practice, it risked permanently dividing the Hindu community — which is exactly what Gandhi feared.
Gandhi’s Stand — Integration Over Isolation
Mahatma Gandhi’s reaction to the Communal Award was immediate and uncompromising.
He viewed it as a disaster for Hindu unity and an attempt to institutionalise untouchability under the pretext of political representation.
Gandhi’s Core Arguments
- Moral and Social Unity of Hindu Society:
Gandhi argued that the Depressed Classes were an integral part of the Hindu community, not a separate political entity.
Creating a separate electorate for them would, in his words, “vivisect and perpetuate caste divisions” instead of healing them. - Opposition to Political Segregation:
- Gandhi believed that political separation could never solve social discrimination.
- The problem of untouchability required moral reform and social transformation, not electoral isolation.
- Support for Representation, Not Separation:
Gandhi fully supported adequate representation for the Depressed Classes in legislatures, but through joint electorates with reserved seats, not through separate electorates.
In other words, Dalit candidates should be elected by all Hindus, not by Dalits alone. - A Matter of Conscience:
Gandhi saw the issue as deeply spiritual. In his view, the British were exploiting internal divisions to weaken Indian unity. Hence, he decided to resist it with moral force, leading later to his “fast unto death” in Yeravada Jail (which we’ll cover in the Poona Pact context).
Ambedkar’s Stand — Political Safeguards as Survival Strategy
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on the other hand, viewed the situation from the standpoint of social realism rather than idealism.
His position was shaped by the harsh lived experience of the Depressed Classes.
Ambedkar’s Arguments for Separate Electorates
- Economic Dependence and Vulnerability:
- The Depressed Classes were economically dependent on upper-caste Hindus, working mostly as landless labourers and menial workers.
- Without independent political power, they could not protect themselves from exploitation.
- Religious and Social Discrimination:
- Hindu religion had historically treated them as untouchables, excluding them from temples, education, and even public wells.
- Social reformers had tried, but upper-caste resistance persisted.
- Therefore, Ambedkar argued that only political power could empower Dalits to fight social oppression.
- Political Representation as Empowerment:
- He insisted that political representation — through separate electorates — would give Dalits an independent voice in legislatures.
- Without it, upper-caste Hindus would dominate politics, and the Depressed Classes would remain voiceless even in a free India.
- Mistrust of Hindu Orthodoxy:
Ambedkar did not believe that social unity could be imposed from above.
For him, integration without equality was meaningless.
Therefore, separate electorates were not divisive, but protective — a safeguard for a vulnerable community within an unequal society.
Historical Continuity — The Road to the Communal Award
To fully appreciate the controversy, one must see it as part of a longer historical process:
| Reform / Event | Year | Relevance to Representation |
|---|---|---|
| Morley–Minto Reforms | 1909 | Introduced separate electorates for Muslims (first instance). |
| Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms (Govt of India Act) | 1919 | Extended separate electorates to Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians, Europeans — but not to the Depressed Classes. |
| Simon Commission Report | 1930 | Recommended reservation for the Depressed Classes, but not separate electorates. |
| Second Round Table Conference | 1931 | Failed to reach agreement on Dalit representation. |
| Indian Franchise Committee (Lothian Committee) | 1932 | Suggested replacing nomination of Depressed Class members with some form of election, but could not find a consensus. |
| Communal Award (MacDonald Award) | 16 August 1932 | Imposed separate electorates for Depressed Classes, along with other minorities. |
Thus, the Communal Award was the culmination of British policy of “divide and represent” — begun with Muslims in 1909 and extended gradually to nearly every group in India.
The Political Meaning of the Communal Award
While the British presented the Communal Award as an act of fairness and minority protection, its deeper political logic was clear:
- It fragmented the nationalist movement by multiplying identities — religious, caste-based, regional, and occupational.
- It isolated Gandhi, forcing him into a moral confrontation with Ambedkar.
- And it positioned the British government as a supposed “protector” of minorities, allowing them to retain control while claiming to promote “justice.”
This controversy would soon lead to one of the most dramatic moral and political confrontations in modern Indian history — Gandhi’s fast unto death in Yeravada Jail (September 1932) and the resulting Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar, which replaced the separate electorates with joint electorates and reserved seats for the Depressed Classes.
In Summary
| Aspect | Gandhi’s View | Ambedkar’s View |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Integration of Depressed Classes within Hindu society | Empowerment through independent political identity |
| Means | Joint electorates with reserved seats | Separate electorates for Depressed Classes |
| Fear | Permanent division of Hindu community | Continued domination and exclusion by upper castes |
| Approach | Moral and spiritual reform | Political and institutional safeguard |
In Essence:
The Communal Award (1932) was more than a constitutional formula — it exposed the fault lines within Indian society.
While Gandhi saw unity as salvation, Ambedkar saw representation as survival.
Both stood for justice, but through different doors — and their clash would define the moral and political contours of India’s future democracy.
The Poona Pact (1932): Reconciliation between Gandhi and Ambedkar
The Background — From the Communal Award to a National Crisis
The announcement of the Communal Award on 16 August 1932 by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald had created a constitutional earthquake in India.
By granting a separate electorate to the Depressed Classes, the British government had touched the most sensitive nerve of Indian society — the question of Hindu unity and caste division.
To Mahatma Gandhi, it appeared as a moral catastrophe.
To Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, it seemed like the first real recognition of Dalit political identity.
Thus, two great leaders — both committed to justice but through different paths — found themselves on opposite sides of a historic moral and political conflict.
Gandhi’s Reaction — A Moral Protest
Gandhi saw the Communal Award as an attempt by the British to “divide and rule” by creating permanent divisions within the Hindu community.
- He regarded the Depressed Classes (Dalits) not as a separate community, but as an inseparable part of the Hindu social fabric.
- He felt that separate electorates would “vivisect Hinduism” — cutting it into mutually hostile fragments.
- He therefore decided to resist it, not politically, but morally and spiritually.
On 18 August 1932, Gandhi wrote a letter to Ramsay MacDonald, declaring his resolve to fast unto death unless the provision for a separate electorate for the Depressed Classes was withdrawn.
He wrote from Yerwada Jail, where he was imprisoned at that time.
Ambedkar’s Response — Political Realism Over Sentiment
Dr. Ambedkar, on hearing Gandhi’s announcement, reacted sharply.
He called Gandhi’s decision a “political stunt,” asserting that the issue was not about Gandhi’s personal moral will, but about the Depressed Classes’ right to self-representation.
Ambedkar’s stance was firm and pragmatic:
“If Mr. Gandhi wants to fight with his life for the interests of the Hindu community, the Depressed Classes will also be forced to fight with their lives to safeguard their interests.”
To him, Gandhi’s fast was not a moral fight but a political move designed to maintain upper-caste dominance within Hindu society.
Ambedkar believed that if Dalits were denied independent political rights, they would remain perpetually at the mercy of caste Hindus.
The Fast and the Negotiations — A Nation Holds Its Breath
On 20 September 1932, Gandhi began his fast unto death in Yerwada Jail.
The atmosphere across India became charged with emotion.
Temples, ashrams, and public meetings were filled with prayers for Gandhi’s life.
Yet, at the same time, Ambedkar faced enormous moral and political pressure — not only from upper-caste leaders but also from sections of his own community, who feared being blamed for Gandhi’s death.
After days of tense discussions, a compromise formula was worked out between Gandhi and Ambedkar, with the mediation of leaders like C. Rajagopalachari, Madam Sarojini Naidu, and others.
On 24 September 1932, an agreement was finally reached — known as the Poona Pact.
The Pact was signed in the presence of Gandhi, who was lying weak in prison, and Ambedkar, who had been negotiating with Congress representatives.
Rajagopalachari symbolically exchanged his fountain pen with Ambedkar, sealing the understanding.
Two days later, on 26 September, Gandhi broke his fast in the presence of Rabindranath Tagore, who blessed the reconciliation.
The Poona Pact — Main Provisions
The Poona Pact represented a compromise between Gandhi’s ideal of Hindu unity and Ambedkar’s demand for Dalit representation.
Main Terms of the Pact:
- Joint Electorates:
- The system of separate electorates for Depressed Classes was abolished.
- Instead, the Depressed Classes would vote together with caste Hindus in a joint electorate, but they would still have reserved seats for Dalit representatives.
- Increased Representation:
- The number of seats for the Depressed Classes in the provincial legislatures was increased from 71 (under the Communal Award) to 148.
- Thus, although the separate electorate was withdrawn, representation was substantially enhanced.
- Central Legislature Representation:
- The Depressed Classes were allotted 18% of the total seats meant for the general electorate in the Central Legislature.
- Future Review:
- The duration and continuation of these reservations would be decided by mutual agreement in the future.
This was a moral and political middle path — Gandhi’s unity and Ambedkar’s justice found a delicate balance.
The Meaning of the Pact — Two Different Battles
The Poona Pact did not end the ideological difference between Gandhi and Ambedkar; it simply avoided a tragedy and opened a new chapter in the struggle for Dalit rights.
- For Gandhi, the issue was part of a two-pronged struggle:
- One against British colonial rule, and
- The other against social disunity within Hinduism.
He wanted freedom to be built upon social harmony, not further division.
- For Ambedkar, the political empowerment of the Depressed Classes was a matter of survival, dignity, and equality, even more vital than independence itself.
As he later remarked,
“Political power is the key to all social progress.”
Thus, while Gandhi fought to preserve Hindu cohesiveness, Ambedkar fought to ensure Dalit self-respect and agency. Both were right in their own moral universe.
Understanding the “Depressed Classes”
To grasp the full context, we must understand who these Depressed Classes were in colonial India.
- The Hindu social system, structured on the varna hierarchy, placed Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras within the fold of ritual order.
- However, a large section of society — the so-called untouchables — was placed outside the varna system, at the lowest rung of social hierarchy.
- These communities, later known as Dalits or Scheduled Castes, performed occupations considered “impure,” such as scavenging, leather work, and manual cleaning, and were excluded from temples, schools, and public wells.
This exclusion created economic poverty and social humiliation, leaving them voiceless and powerless within Hindu society.
Earlier Reform Movements and Awakening
(a) Reformers’ Efforts
From the 19th century onwards, various socio-religious reform movements — like the Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, and Arya Samaj — began questioning caste discrimination and working for social equality.
They laid the intellectual foundation for the later Dalit awakening by stressing that social reform was as important as political freedom.
(b) The Early Voices of Protest
- Jotirao Phule, a 19th-century social reformer from Maharashtra, in his famous work “Gulamgiri” (Slavery), exposed the hypocrisy of caste oppression disguised as religion.
He argued that caste hierarchy was not divine but man-made bondage. - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, inspired by Phule’s ideas, provided a modern, rational, and constitutional articulation of the same struggle — demanding not pity but equal rights.
(c) Role of the British Government
- The British, in their administrative surveys, began enumerating the Depressed Classes separately in censuses and introduced special educational and job schemes.
- The Government of India Act, 1919 had already permitted nomination of Depressed Class members to provincial legislatures.
- Many Dalit leaders, recognising the possibilities of British reforms, supported the colonial government as a protector of their interests, in contrast to the dominance of upper-caste Hindu politics.
Historical Significance of the Poona Pact
The Poona Pact was not just a political agreement; it was a watershed moment in India’s social evolution.
Its Immediate Impact:
- It averted a potential religious and social rupture within Hindu society.
- It marked Dalit representation as a permanent principle in Indian politics.
- It established a pattern of reserved representation, which continues today in the form of Scheduled Caste reservation in legislatures and public services.
Its Long-term Significance:
- It revealed the moral force of Gandhi’s satyagraha, which could move even his strongest critics.
- It demonstrated Ambedkar’s political maturity, as he prioritized negotiation over confrontation to secure tangible gains for his people.
- It became the foundation for future constitutional provisions on social justice — later enshrined in the Constitution of India (1950) through Articles 15, 17, and 330.
In Summary:
| Aspect | Gandhi’s Perspective | Ambedkar’s Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Core Concern | Unity of Hindu society | Political empowerment of Dalits |
| Approach | Moral & spiritual reform | Institutional & legal safeguards |
| View on Separate Electorate | Divisive and dangerous | Essential for protection |
| Outcome in Poona Pact | Joint electorates with reservation | Increased seats and representation |
| Historical Legacy | Preserved Hindu unity | Established principle of Dalit representation |
In Essence:
The Poona Pact of 1932 was not merely an agreement — it was a moment of moral negotiation between conscience and justice.
Gandhi sought to heal the heart of Hindu society, while Ambedkar sought to empower its most wounded members.
Their dialogue — born in conflict but concluded in compassion — became the moral foundation of modern India’s commitment to equality, inclusion, and social justice.
Gandhi’s Campaign Against Untouchability and His Dialogue with Ambedkar
From Political Freedom to Social Freedom — Gandhi’s Broader Vision
By the early 1930s, Mahatma Gandhi had emerged not just as a political leader but as a moral and social reformer. For him, India’s freedom struggle was not merely about ending British rule; it was about creating a just and self-respecting society.
He declared repeatedly:
“Swaraj will not come for a hundred years if untouchability is not eliminated.”
In other words, India could not be politically free while remaining morally enslaved by caste prejudice.
Gandhi’s South African Experience — The Origin of His Empathy
Gandhi’s sensitivity toward social discrimination had its roots in his South African years (1893–1914).
- There, he faced racial humiliation firsthand — being thrown out of a train at Pietermaritzburg, denied entry to hotels, and treated as an inferior because of his skin colour.
- These experiences made him understand what it meant to be treated as “untouchable”, and upon returning to India in 1915, he saw that his own people were doing to others what whites had done to him.
He later remarked:
“Untouchability has made Indians untouchables in the whole world.”
Thus, Gandhi’s fight against untouchability was both moral and experiential — rooted in empathy rather than mere ideology.
Bringing Untouchability to the Centre of Nationalism
Before Gandhi, Congress leaders had largely avoided social issues, focusing only on political demands. Gandhi changed this.
When he established the Satyagraha Ashram at Sabarmati (1915), he made the abolition of untouchability one of its foundational vows.
He personally lived with members of the so-called “untouchable” community and insisted that social equality was essential for Swaraj.
- Gandhi rejected the old labels — “Panchama,” “Antyaja,” or “Untouchable.”
- Instead, he coined a new term, “Harijan” (Children of God), to restore dignity to these communities.
This was not just a change in vocabulary — it was a change in moral perception.
Gandhi’s Satyagraha for Social Equality
Gandhi’s approach to social reform was always action-oriented.
He organised satyagrahas to ensure temple entry, access to wells and tanks, and use of public roads and schools for Harijans.
He believed that untouchability must be defeated by changing hearts, not by law alone.
For him, spiritual purification of society was as important as political liberation from colonial rule.
Gandhi’s Understanding of Swaraj and Untouchability
For Gandhi, Swaraj was an inner condition before it was an external reality.
True Swaraj, he said, meant the freedom of every individual, not merely the transfer of power from British to Indians.
He declared that unless caste Hindus gave up untouchability and treated Harijans as equals, they did not deserve political independence.
Thus, Gandhi’s nationalism was ethical, not merely political — rooted in dharma rather than rajneeti.
Religion and the Question of Untouchability
Gandhi firmly rejected the idea that Hindu scriptures sanctioned untouchability.
He believed that Hinduism, at its core, stood for compassion, truth, and unity.
Hence, any practice that degraded another human being in the name of religion was “adharma,” not dharma.”
He often said:
“If untouchability lives, Hinduism dies.”
To preserve the moral integrity of his faith, Gandhi made it his mission to purify religion of social evil — not to destroy it but to redeem it.
Gandhi’s Method — Reform Through Personal Conduct
Gandhi’s method was deeply personal and behavioural. He did not ask others to change until he had changed himself.
- He urged caste Hindus to invite Harijans into temples and homes.
- If any temple refused to admit Harijans, Gandhi advised boycotting such temples altogether.
- He emphasised that one’s daily actions — sharing food, drinking from the same wells, showing respect — mattered more than symbolic gestures.
For Gandhi, reform was not about anger or blame; it was about compassion and conscience.
Institutionalising the Anti-Untouchability Campaign
While Gandhi was imprisoned after the Poona Pact, he continued his mission through organisations and publications.
- On 30 September 1932, his followers established the Harijan Sevak Sangh (All-India Anti-Untouchability League).
- On 11 February 1933, he started a weekly newspaper called Harijan, devoted to spreading awareness about social equality.
After his release in May 1933, Gandhi devoted himself almost entirely to this cause.
He undertook a nationwide Harijan Tour (November 1933 – mid-1934), covering nearly 12,500 miles over nine months.
He stayed in Harijan colonies, bathed in their wells, and laid the foundation stone for a temple in Delhi’s Harijan Colony — built not for charity, but for equality.
This was satyagraha in its purest form — transforming social consciousness through personal example.
Gandhi’s View on the Chaturvarna (Fourfold Order)
While Gandhi rejected untouchability and caste-based discrimination, he did not completely reject the Varna system.
- He argued that Chaturvarna — the division of society into Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra — was originally meant to reflect different social functions, not hierarchy.
- In his view, the idea had become corrupted over time and was now wrongly used to justify inequality.
Thus, Gandhi wanted to restore Varna as a principle of division of labour, not division of status.
Ambedkar, however, completely disagreed — a difference that went to the heart of their philosophical divergence.
Gandhi and Ambedkar — Two Visions of Social Justice
By the mid-1930s, Gandhi and Ambedkar had become the two central figures in India’s debate on caste, religion, and equality.
They both wanted the upliftment of the Depressed Classes, but their methods, beliefs, and end goals were fundamentally different.
| Aspect | Mahatma Gandhi | Dr. B.R. Ambedkar |
|---|---|---|
| Religious Orientation | Deeply rooted in Hinduism; saw reform as purification from within. | Rejected Hinduism; saw it as inherently oppressive. Converted to Buddhism (1956). |
| View on Scriptures | Revered the Vedas and Gita; interpreted them ethically, not literally. | Condemned Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti, which he publicly burnt. |
| View on Caste (Varna) | Accepted Chaturvarna as a division of duties, not hierarchy. | Rejected the Varna system as the foundation of inequality. |
| Approach to Reform | Emphasised moral change among upper castes; reform through empathy and service. | Emphasised legal rights and political power for the oppressed; reform through constitutional means. |
| Political Strategy | Opposed separate electorates, stressing unity and social harmony. | Supported separate electorates for Depressed Classes to ensure genuine representation. |
| Ultimate Goal | Moral integration of society — one India, united and compassionate. | Radical reconstruction of society — equality through institutional justice. |
A Philosophical Contrast: Conscience vs. Constitution
In essence, Gandhi and Ambedkar represented two complementary approaches to social emancipation:
- Gandhi appealed to the heart — he sought to awaken compassion and moral responsibility within society.
- Ambedkar appealed to the head — he sought to build laws, rights, and institutions that would make equality irreversible.
Gandhi’s faith lay in moral transformation, Ambedkar’s in constitutional transformation.
Gandhi wanted to reform Hinduism from within; Ambedkar chose to liberate himself from it.
Both, however, aimed at the same moral destination — the dignity and equality of every human being.
Legacy — The Social Soul of Indian Freedom
Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability and his dialogue with Ambedkar expanded the meaning of Indian nationalism.
Freedom was no longer just about political power — it was about human dignity, equality, and conscience.
Through Gandhi’s Harijan movement and Ambedkar’s rights-based activism, the Indian freedom struggle acquired its ethical dimension — one that would later find expression in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution.
In Essence:
The story of Gandhi’s efforts to eradicate untouchability and his debates with Ambedkar reveals that India’s true liberation was both moral and political.
Gandhi sought to change hearts, Ambedkar sought to change structures — and modern India stands today on the foundation built by both their visions: the union of conscience and justice.