It seems to me that there are
only two important questions which this Round Table Conference is going to
consider. One question is whether India should have responsible
Government, and the second question is to what people that Government
should be responsible. In the Plenary sessions we all joined in one chorus in
demanding that India should have a responsible form of Government, and I for
one, speaking on behalf of the Depressed Classes in that Plenary session,
joined with my friends sitting opposite in demanding responsible Government for
India. However, when I did so, I was under the impression that the Indian
people who came to represent their country at this Round Table Conference were
not only united in120 making a
demand for responsible Government for India, but were also united in the view
as to whom that Government140 should
be responsible. I am sorry to say that I have been deluded. I
find now that although some of160
our people would desire me and others to join them in their demand for Dominion
Status, they do not join with us in demanding that the Government which
will be set up under that Dominion Status shall be responsible to
the people of India as a whole. I never thought there would be this
division of opinion, and that I should have to stand up to defend
the position we take.
Sir, speaking on behalf of the
Depressed Classes, I240
cannot honestly consent to responsible Government or to Dominion Status unless I
can be sure that the people for whom I speak are to have a place in that
constitution. I must make that fact plain to all my friends. 280 As an objection has been raised to the
proposal for adult suffrage by some of my friends, I propose to
deal with the arguments brought forward against it. One of the
arguments brought forward was that we should follow320 the precedent laid down in this
country, that adult suffrage should be reached by stages. It is
suggested that we should follow the stages adopted in this country since 1832.
Those who take their stand on the political history of enfranchisement360 in this country seem to think that
there was some philosophical course of action thought out by the
English people in devising the steps that were taken by them in enfranchising
the people from 1832 onwards. I do not know whether those who use that
argument believe that there was any philosophical belief behind that
fact. But I should like420 to
point out to my friends who base their arguments upon this fact, that if
you read the political history of England, you will find that not only
was there no philosophical belief which determined the stages that were
taken by the British people, but the question of franchise was treated in
this country as a mere matter of party480
politics. Each party tried to extend the franchise because it thought
that as a political catchword it would influence and augment that party.
Perhaps that will be news to my friend who used that argument
with satisfaction to himself, feeling that he is placing an insuperable
obstacle in our path. We will be perhaps pleased to find that one of
the great steps in the political enfranchisement of the people of
England was taken by a Conservative Government in this560 country, and not by the Liberals or the
Radicals.
The second thing I should
like to point out to my friend is this. Does he really mean to tell us
that because the franchise in this country was limited, the600 Government produced under that franchise
was a good Government, the object of which was the welfare of the people and
the prosperity of the masses? Is that the inference he wants to draw
from that fact? Surely that is not the640
case. If my friend only takes the trouble of reading the social and
political history of England, he will certainly find that the unreformed
Parliament was not a blessing to anyone. Thirdly, I should like to point out to
my friend who thinks that the people of India ought not to be given adult
suffrage because they are not700
fit for it, that the only alternative for him is to go back to India and not to
demand Dominion720 Status or
responsible Government. If it is the view of my friend that the
Indian people are not fit to take upon themselves the responsibilities of
Government, then I do not understand in whose name he asks for
responsible Government. Is it for himself? The only argument in favour of
responsible Government and in favour of Dominion Status is the assumption which
must constitute the basis of any such argument, that the people of India are
fit to undertake the responsibility800
of Government. If my friend does not believe that the Indian people are
capable of exercising that responsibility, then the only conclusion is that the
Indian people cannot have Dominion Status and cannot have responsibility.
The second argument840 that
was brought forward was that, although adult suffrage may be an ideal, it
cannot be brought into effect at the present moment, because we do not have
the machinery to give effect to it. Now I have great sympathy with that
argument, but I should like to point out that there are
considerations in opposition to that view. Let us understand what
the franchise does really mean. Surely the franchise does not mean a mere
matter of the ballot box, does not mean a mere matter of polling booths and the
placing of polling officers there. The franchise means something more vital
than that.
Sir, as I understand
it, to me the suffrage and the franchise are nothing else960 but the right of self-defense. It means that
you will create a legislature which will have the amplest power of980 passing laws which will affect the life,
liberty and property of the people. If your legislature is going to have that
power of affecting your life in these most vital matters, then surely every
individual who is going to be subject to that legislation ought to
have the power to defend himself against laws which will probably in the
circumstances invade his liberty, his life and his property. It is not a
mere question of the ballot box; it is not a mere question of polling
booths. If I understand the franchise, I understand it to be the right1080 to regulate the terms of what
one might call associated life in society; that is the essence of the
franchise. When you give a man the franchise, what you mean is that you give
him power to regulate the terms on1120
which he will live in relationship with other individuals in society. Now, if
that is the meaning of the suffrage, surely you cannot give the higher
classes the power to regulate the terms of associated life, and leave the lower
classes at their mercy. They too, must have the power to regulate the terms of
associated life. Just as the capitalist must have the power to
dictate how he shall live on terms of associated life with the labour, the1200 labour is also entitled to have the
power to regulate the terms on which he shall live with his capitalist master. It
cannot be a one-sided bargain; it must not be a one-sided bargain. If you
understand the franchise in the right sense of the word, then it seems to me
the franchise is something which must be regarded as1260 the inherent right of every individual in
the State. If you understand that the franchise is the inherent right of1280 every man or woman who is capable of
understanding it, then surely you cannot make an inherent right of a people
dependent upon the convenience of your administration.
My friend used the argument
that we must not have adult suffrage because we shall not have polling
booths and polling officers. I should like to remind him of what would
be the situation if he were told that he had been wronged by an
individual, that he had a good case, but that he could not be given
redress because we had not sufficient judges in the High Court. How would he
like that position? Surely, if the franchise is an inherent right, and if
there are administrative difficulties in the1400 effectuation of that franchise, then the
remedy is not to curtail the franchise, but the remedy is to provide
the necessary machinery, so that every man or woman capable of enjoying
that franchise shall be in a position to give1440
effect to it. Sir, it seems to me that the difficulties of administering the
franchise which have been placed before us arise from two different
sources. We are told that the constituencies in India are very vast; and,
surely, they are of a most fabulous character. It is said that if you increase
the number of electors in the existing constituencies, the whole
machinery will break down. My submission to this Conference is that this
difficulty can easily be met. It seems to me this difficulty can be met
in this way. It seems to me that the difficulty arises largely because
of the composition and strength of your Legislative Councils today. That
composition is so very limited that you cannot help having the large
constituencies that you have today. It seems to me that from the standpoint of
numbers the existing strength of the legislatures in the provinces is
ridiculous. 1590
