MR. GANDHI AND THE EMANCIPATION OF THE UNTOUCHABLES : JOINT V/S SEPARATE ELECTORATES
413
denied that the Untouchable must be a true representative of the Untouchable voters. If this is a correct position then separate electorate is the only mechanism by which real representation can be guaranteed to the Untouchables. The Hindu argument against separate electorate is insubstantial and unsupportable. The premises on which the political demands of the Untouchables are based are admitted by the Hindus. Separate electorate is only a consequence which logically follows from those premises. How can you admit the premise and deny the conclusion? Special electorates are devised as a means of protecting the minorities. Why not permit a minority like the Untouchables to determine what kind of electorate is necessary for its protection ? If the Untouchables decide to have separate electorates why should their choice not prevail ? These are questions to which the Hindus can give no answer. The reason is that the real objection to separate electorates by the Hindus is different from this ostensible objection raised in the name of a nation. The real objection is that separate electorate does not permit the Hindus to capture the seats reserved for the Untouchables. On the other hand the joint electorate does. Let me illustrate the point by a few examples of how joint and separate electorate would work in the constituency. Take the following constituencies from the Madras Presidency.
Seat Total Total No. Ratio of reserved Total No. Name of the number of of Untou- Hindu voters for the of Hindu Constituency seats for chable to Untou- Untou- voters. Hindus voters. chable voters. chables.
- Madras 2 1 40,626 2,577 16 to 1
City South
Chicacole 2 1 83,456 5,125 l6 to 1
Vijayana- 2 1 47, 594 996 49 to 1
gram
- Amalapu- 1 1 52,805 7,760 7 to 1
ram
Ellore 1 1 51,795 5,155 9 to 1
Bandar 1 1 84,191 8,723 10 to 1
Tenali 2 1 1,32,107 5,732 24 to 1