254 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
Reducing the above figures to the basis of a thousand we have the following interesting result :
Group I Group II
Proportion of voters of a caste to every thousand of voters
Proportion of voters of a caste to every thousand of the population of the same caste
Names of Castes Propor tion of popula tion of a caste to every thousand of the popula tion covered
Proportion of voters of a caste to every thousand of the popula tion of the same caste
Proportion of voters of a caste to every thousand of voters
Proportion of population of a caste to every thousand of the population covered
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Brahmins . . 30.2 53.7 197.2 50.8 49.8 367.4
Lingayats . . 329.4 13.6 545.7 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marathas . . 90.2 4.2 46.0 248.8 8.2 300.9
Mahars . . 69.5 0.1 0.9 74.5 0.2 2.7
Mohammedans . . 104.4 2.2 28.3 59.2 10.9 95.9
Others . . 376.2 3.9 181.3 562.2 2.8 232.8
So arranged, the conclusions to be drawn from these figures are highly important.
(1) The Brahmins, given a uniform franchise for all, though a small minority so far as numbers are concerned becomes a majority so far as the total of voters is concerned as is the case in Group II.
(2) Though with an uniform franchise the non-Brahmin communities like the Lingayats and Marathas do not fail to figure on the voters’ list, the proportion of their voters to their population is insignificant as compared with the proportion which the Brahmin voters bear to the Brahmin population.
- The proportion of the Brahmins to their voters is really extravagant. It is justified neither by faith in them nor by their own numbers. The Lingayats though they can legitimately complain that the proportion of their voters is small will succeed in securing personal representation. The Marathas though larger in numbers than the Brahmins, besides the very small proportion of their voters suffer on the voters’ list and very likely will fail to secure personal representation for themselves.