Gandhi and Election: An Exploration

Abstract

How Gandhi viewed elections? Scholars studying Gandhi have focussed on his strategies of ahimsa (non-violence) and satyagrah (insistence on truth), which produced conditions for mass mobilisation leading to successful decolonisation efforts in India. Though Gandhi recorded his views on franchise beginning with his petition to Natal Assembly in 1894, the researchers have not made much attempt to explore its nuances; those shaped Gandhi’s evolution as a democratic crusader in the context of India as a nation. His engagements with the issues of the franchise question in Natal connected him to traditions of elections in India, and his observation of suffragette in England made him conscious of the challenges of struggle in the manner of engagement with a powerful state. This article focuses on Gandhi’s engagement with various facets of elections in his early political days and argues that the ‘franchise question’ allowed him to understand India as a political possibility and the ‘suffragette’ informed his methods of mass engagement with the imperial powers.

Introduction

Gandhi is one of the most studied personalities since his evolution as a leader of masses and resistance. His philosophy, methods, ideals and morality are well scrutinised in scholarly works as well as in popular culture. In this article, there is an attempt to understand Gandhi from the perspective of election, one of the foundational ingredients of democracy. Election, which is the most crucial element in transfer of power from people to the state, regularly appeared in the writings of Gandhi. Starting with the question of franchise, this article covers Gandhi’s idea of universal adult franchise, women on voter list, quality in a candidate, voters’ dilemma, expenditure in elections and the idea of reservation in election. The article argues that the instrumentality of election and its elements have shaped the notion of a nation and its relationship with its people for Gandhi since the beginning.

As the world celebrates the 150 years of the arrival of Gandhi, it is significant to remember that this is also the 125th year of his initiation in the public protest, which was based upon the franchise question, ironically, in a faraway land. His engagement with the matter of election allows us to interpret and appreciate the very existence of democracy. His writings also need to be appreciated in the context of evolution of the idea of election in the democracies of those times.

In 1894, India, as a concept of nation, for the first time, appears in the writing of Gandhi in a petition he wrote to the Natal Legislative Assembly. He took up the public cause of disenfranchisement of Indians from the voter list of Natal, South Africa. It opened up for Gandhi the possibilities of planning and organising protests for public purposes with the engagement of common people. As a meticulous planner and forceful letter writer, he used this opportunity to sharpen up his life skills, which, later on, from the learnings of suffragette, evolved in the form of satyagraha. In his writings of more than 100 thousand pages, time and again, Gandhi acknowledged the effect of brave women of England on his method of resistance.

Gandhi and Franchise Question: Notion of India

The night in Durban in the month of May must be cooler. On Tuesday 22 May 1894, at the second floor of the house of the host, Dada Abdullah, who made his fortune as a trader in a country other than his native, a customary farewell was being organised on that day. The evening belonged to a young barrister of less than a quarter century of age who came on a specific legal assignment for the host a year before, and using his common sense, he settled the dispute outside the court. The gracious host thought to throw this farewell without realising that it would trigger a journey of his guest that would dominate the world beyond his lifetime for generations.

The young guest was unsure of his future, as his success as a barrister in his homeland was not guaranteed. After securing Bar-in-Law in London in 1891, his next 2 years had not been very productive. Shuffling between Bombay and Rajkot, an opportunity brought him to South Africa for 1-year contract with free first-class passage and 100-pound annual fee. Leaving behind his young wife with two children, he left Bombay by S. S. Safari on 22 April 1893, and reached Durban on 24 May 1893. ¹

British Empire was at its zenith. The Colony of Natal was proclaimed a British colony on 4 May 1843. ² The first indentured Indians arrived in Natal in November 1860, and by 1864, sugar exports grew by five times. ³ With a brief gap of 8 years (1866–1874), when the collapse of sugar prices forced to stop the free import of labour, the colony continued to receive Indians, and by 1893, it was 41,208 in comparison to 43,742 white settlers. Indians, claiming themselves as British subjects, assumed equal treatment as proclaimed by the Queen of England in 1858, ⁴ which, inter alia, declared,

And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge.

This was of little help, as settler colonies always believed in white supremacy. On 17 February 1870, the Natal Mercury wrote ⁵ :

The proper destiny of the Anglo-Saxon in South Africa is to be the guardian, the guide, the controller of the coloured people around him. He is to impart to them his civilisation without raising them to his level.

In Settler Colonialism, L. Veracini ⁶ explains it in the form of a triangular relationship between whites, Africans and Indians. Indians formed further categories: indentured, free from indenture and passenger Indians, who came on their own. Faced with competition in business from passenger Indians, the white settlers were eager to use legislative routes to control them. In public spaces, racial supremacy was the order of the day in such colonies. ⁷

The young barrister faced his first cultural shock when, in a Durban court on 25 May 1893, he refused to remove his headgear, which was considered rude as removing hat was a norm. He tried unconvincingly that in his culture, the removal of headgear is not a mark of respect. He was in a different location, facing a different system.

Most famous racial discrimination was the incidence of his removal from first-class rail compartment on 7 June 1893, at Pietermaritzburg, which forced him to spend the cold night on the station. The next day, his travels were arranged by another train. He suffered another incident of discrimination on the stagecoach during his journey. All these incidents would have crossed his mind at the time of his farewell.

Life-changing events are difficult to identify. Chroniclers pick such events to suit their narrations. Somehow, the train incident has been made famous by almost all the biographers, analysts, critics, filmmakers and politicians as ‘the defining incidence’ of the life-changing journey of this young man. This incidence does have enough drama to enrage any young educated individual. For readers, listeners and viewers, it engages and transports them to the period of discrimination that lasted for another century in that country. He also claimed later, ‘My active non-violence began from that day’. After this incident, he lived there for another year, and now he was contemplating to return to his native land in search of a future prospect as a barrister or perhaps for some other vocation back in India.

At the time of the farewell, a news item appeared in the Natal Mercury, titled ‘Indian Franchise’, which drew his attention. It mentioned about a bill being considered in the newly expanded Natal Legislative Assembly to remove Indians from the local voter list. On discussion with traders present there, they expressed helplessness, and one of them proposed him to continue for another month in Durban to help in fighting the bill, which he agreed to without any fee, being a matter of public work.

For the newly expanded Natal Legislative Assembly, an election was held in September 1893, and out of 10,000 registered voters in the entire colonial voters’ roll, only 365 were Indian voters. John Robinson, former editor of Natal Mirror, became the first Prime Minister and immediately he initiated legislation to deal with the Indian question. One of these was Act 25 of 1894: The Political Exclusion of Indians.

The farewell party became a working group, and, as the young barrister would recall, ⁸ thus God laid the foundations of my life in South Africa and sowed the seed of the fight for national self-respect, and within 1 month, on 25 June 1894, a message was sent to the Assembly to postpone the reading of the bill. Encouraged by the progress, the traders urged him not to go to India, which he agreed upon after receiving the assurance of annual retainership fee of 300 pounds from the traders. On 28 June 1894, he was able to send a petition to the Natal Legislative Assembly to stop considering the Franchise Law Amendment Bill. He explained, ⁹

I took considerable pains over drawing up this petition. I read all the literature available on the subject. My argument centred round a principle and on expedience. I argued that we had a right to the franchise in Natal, as we had a kind of franchise in India. I urged that it was expedient to retain it, as the Indian population capable of using the franchise was very small.

This young barrister was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

In the next 2 weeks, Gandhi unleashed a campaign of opposition to the Bill, never witnessed in the history of Natal. ⁵ He approached everybody who mattered in Natal, England and later on in India. He wrote to newspapers in India, England and Natal, gathered signatures of Indians, asked eminent Indians to intervene and approached his British friends to pressurise the British government to uphold justice and equality. Meanwhile, he also formed Natal Indian Congress on 22 August 1894. Now, Gandhi was ready for the long haul.

Decimating the Franchise Law Amendment Bill: Gandhian Way

On 28 June 1894, Gandhi petitioned ¹⁰ the Natal Legislative Assembly against the Franchise Law Amendment Bill (hereinafter the Bill). In the petition, he mentioned that the arguments in favour of disenfranchisement are mainly two:

that the Indians have never exercised the franchise in the land they come from;

that they are not fit for the exercise of the franchise.

Claiming that facts and history do not support these, Gandhi listed out number of scholarly studies and the commitment given by the state to Indians in the petition. Drawing attention to the works (Village Communities) of Henry Summer Main ¹¹ (‘The Indian races have been familiar with representative institutions almost from time immemorial … the Teutonic Mark was hardly so well organized or so essentially representative as an Indian village community until the precise technical Roman form was engrafted upon it’.); Chisolm Anstey ¹² (‘We are apt to forget in this country, when we talk of preparing people in the East by education and all that sort of thing for Municipal Government and Parliamentary Government, that the East is the parent of Municipalities. Local Self-government, in the widest acceptation of the term, is as old as the East itself’.); George Birdwood ¹³ (‘The people of India are in no intrinsic sense our inferiors, while in things measured by some of the false standards, false to ourselves, we pretend to believe in, they are our superiors’.); Thomas Munro ¹⁴ (‘I do not know what is meant by civilizing the people of India … they are not inferior in civilization to the people of Europe’.); Max Muller ¹⁵ (‘If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problem of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant, I should point to India’.); he also mentioned the recent initiatives of the state in the form of municipal local self-government in India (in 1891, it had 755 municipalities and 892 local boards with 20,000 Indian members). He also pointed out that the State of Mysore’s Mysore Assembly is exact model of the British Parliament. Further, he claimed that, in Durban, the trading communities followed the system of panchayat.

He also understood the need to provide extracts of the works of the English authorities to invoke trust in these arguments. Gandhi was forceful in his argument ¹⁶ :

The Indian nation has known, and has exercised, the power of election from times far prior to the time when the Anglo-Saxon races first became acquainted with the principles of representation.

In view of these evidences, he appealed to the finer feelings of the members of the assembly to reconsider the decision of amendment or to appoint a commission.

This landmark petition was straight, evidence-based, focused, virtue-laden (invocation of finer feelings), argumentative, choice-based solutions, convincing and persuasive. This became the Gandhian style of arguing a matter of public importance.

A day later, on 29 June, in a letter to John Robinson, Gandhi suggested, ‘The Bill seems to be so sweeping that even Indian Member of the British House of Commons, did he come here, would not be fit for becoming a voter’. ¹⁷

Subsequently, on 1 July 1894, ¹⁸ he formulated five questions for the members of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly to seek their indulgence:

Do you conscientiously say that the Franchise Law Amendment Bill is a strictly just measure without needing any modification or change?

Do you think it just that those Indians who have not been able from some cause or other to have their names on the Voters’ List, should ever be debarred from voting at the Parliamentary elections, no matter how capable they may be, or what interests they may have in the Colony?

Do you really believe that no Indian British subject can ever acquire sufficient attainments for the purpose of becoming a full citizen of the Colony, or of voting?

Do you think it just that a man should not become a Voter simply because he is of ‘Asiatic extraction’?

Do you wish the Indentured Indian who comes and settles in the Colony to remain in the state of semi-slavery and ignorance for ever, unless he chooses to go back to India?

This was a unique method of gathering (and influencing) opinions of those who mattered in the matter of public policy.

On 3 July 1894, Gandhi wrote ¹⁹ to the Governor of Natal that he should not sanction such a measure (disenfranchisement of Indians) in light of their petition. Again, on 6 July 1894, ²⁰ Gandhi reminded the Legislative Council that, ‘They (Indians) know very well what privilege a right of voting confers, and feel also the responsibility such a privilege carries with it’.

Simultaneously, Gandhi engaged with the local Indian population and organised for their signatures on the petition. In his petition to the Legislative Council, Natal, he claimed ²¹ that at least 10,000 Indians would have signed it. Media in Natal, which covered the issue prominently, questioned some of the claims in the petition. Gandhi was prompt in his response with further evidence and reminded Natal Mirror on 7 July 1894 ²² :

But a thing far higher and far nobler, too, lies within your reach—a thing that would bring you not only greatness, but goodness, and what is more, the gratitude of a nation that has not been crushed under 1,200 years’ tyranny and oppression, a fact by itself a miracle,—and that thing is to educate rightly the Colony about India and its people.

As all these measures were not bearing fruit, Gandhi turned his attention to England for support. On 5 July 1894, he wrote to Dadabhai Naoroji ²³ to use his influence to address the concerns of Indians in Natal as a father. He also mentioned that being young and inexperienced (but doing this work without remuneration), he expected directions and guidance in the matter. He regularly apprised him on the progress of the Bill.

Learning that the Bill was sent for Royal Assent on 14 July, ²⁴ Gandhi and his team petitioned to Lord Rippon, Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Bill is admittedly retrograde in character and that it is manifestly unjust. Giving details of each stage of progress of the Bill, it talked about the exclusive design of the Natal government where Indians, a British subject, would be treated unequally on all footings. Hence, the Bill should not be assented.

These continuous efforts led to the creation of Natal Indian Congress on 22 August 1894, and Gandhi became its Honorary Secretary. Its objectives were to protect Indian interests and to oppose discriminatory legislation. Subsequently, Gandhi published a pamphlet, The Indian Franchise: An Appeal, which was referred to by The Times of India on 27 August 1894. This was ridiculed by the Times of Natal to which Gandhi responded strongly on October 25 ²⁵ :

The Indians do not regret that capable Natives can exercise the franchise.… They assert that they too, if capable, should have the right. You, in your wisdom, would not allow the Indian or the Native the precious privilege under any circumstances, because they have a dark skin. You would look to the exterior only.

By the end of 1894, within 6 months of initiating the petition on Indian franchise in Natal, this question became part of the deliberations of 10th annual session of the Indian National Congress, held on 29 December 1894, in the then Madras, where a resolution was passed in support of franchise for Indians in Natal. ²⁶

After a gap of almost 15 months, in November 1895, Natal was asked to prepare a fresh legislation. This was a face of loss for the Natal administration and a sense of victory for the arguments of Gandhi, but he knew that the task was still incomplete.

On 16 December 1895, he wrote a pamphlet titled An Appeal to Every Briton in South Africa. ²⁷ In this long pamphlet, he appealed to all the Britons present in South Africa to appreciate the facts and evidences, with extracts from speeches and reports of the British government, and help in moulding public opinion. He wrote, ²⁸ ‘to say that the Indian does not understand the franchise is to ignore the whole history of India. Representation, in the truest sense of the term, the Indian has understood and appreciated from the earliest ages’. It is interesting to note that the appeal was more than a request when he said, ‘whether Responsible Government (to Natal) would ever have been granted, had the European Colonists insisted upon disenfranchisement of the Indians is another question.’ ²⁹

In a Memorial to Natal Legislative Assembly submitted on 27 April 1896, ³⁰ Gandhi used recent editorials and opinions to buttress his earlier arguments against the Bill. He quoted The Times (of London) dealing with the Indian franchise in Natal:

The argument that the Indians in Natal cannot claim higher privileges than he enjoys in India and that he has no franchise whatever in India is inconsistent with the facts. The Indian has precisely the same franchise in India which the Englishman enjoys.

There is probably no other country in the world in which representative institutions have penetrated so deeply into the life of the people. Every caste, every trade, every village in India had for ages its council of five which practically legislated for and conducted the administration of the little community which it represented. Until the introduction of the Parish Councils’ Act last year, there was no such rural system of self-administration even in England.

Gandhi continued writing letters and petitions to draw the attention of the authorities towards the pitiable conditions of Indians in Natal and the legislation attempted or passed discriminating against Indians.

Finally, a revised legislation (Act 8 of 1896) was enacted. The distinction between 1894 and 1896 legislation was that the latter addressed the matter of the disability of Indians not having representative institutions in India. Also, Indians could enjoy franchise rights after seeking an order of exemption (from the Governor-in-Council) from the operation of the Act. This was a partial victory for Gandhi and his methods of protest. He used it further to agitate against other legislations concerning the conditions of Indians in Natal during his years in South Africa.

Indian franchise question offered Gandhi opportunities to engage in the matter of public interest. Inquiry into this question led him into the inquiry into India, a nation, its history, culture, socio-political conditions and its indomitable spirit. In this process, he consulted various scholarly works on India available at that time, including statements and speeches of eminent personalities, including political thinkers, reports of commissions on Indian conditions, media reports and editorials and used their relevant extracts to advance his arguments. His legal mind was alert to the need for the collection of facts, evidence and the manner of mobilisation of public support. His organisational capabilities, reaching out to all, engagement with all—all were present in this effort. He wanted justice and equality, but he also invoked the finer feelings amongst human beings.

Years later, in a speech before the Federal Structure Committee on 15 September 1931, he would claim: ‘Time was when I prided myself on being, and being called, a British subject. I have ceased for many years to call myself a British subject; I would far rather be called a rebel than a subject’. The political grounding of Gandhi in South Africa needs to be understood from this prism.

Critics argue that Gandhi addressed the concerns of a particular class of Indians in this process. ⁵ Authors like Joy Brain, ³¹ Maureen Swan, ³² Bhana ³³ and Desai and Vahed ³⁴ point out that the Natal Indian Congress reflected mainly the interests of the Indian merchant trading elite. This is unnecessary and misplaced. As a young 25-year-old, he was seeking justice from a state to extend (or not to take away) a political facility, which was available to similarly situated white settlers. It is true that he did not demand similar facilities for the indigenous African, but his methods guided Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela in later years in achieving political emancipation. It is to credit Gandhi that he sensed an opportunity in the crisis (franchise question) and crafted a strategy to question the state. His views, gradually, evolved. Globally, the concept of universal adult franchise was still involved. Struggle for voting rights for female was a major political event in various democracies at that time. In Britain, its consistent denial witnessed the emergence of a militant movement, termed suffragette, in the first decade of the twentieth century, which Gandhi encountered and took keen interest in the issues it raised as well as the manner it adopted.

Gandhi: Suffragette Exposure

Globally, the journey of adult franchise has witnessed the emergence of organised women’s movements since the latter half of the nineteenth century. ³⁵ In 1893, self-governing British Colony New Zealand ³⁶ became the first country to give full suffrage to women; however, this did not include the right to sit in Parliament. Elsewhere in the USA, the UK, France, Norway and other European countries, women led their own movements for voting rights. These movements allowed the formulation of international associations to articulate political equality as a matter of right for women. ³⁷ In the UK, the movement took a new turn in the early years of the twentieth century, which referred to as suffragette instead of suffragist. Suffragette movement, comparatively violent in nature, dominated the public life of the UK until the law was enacted in 1918 to give some women the franchise. In 1928, the Equal Franchise Act gave equal voting rights to all in the UK.

On 22 October 1906, during his second London visit, he saw the movement for women’s right to vote, which the government was unwilling to concede. Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst (1858–1928), a prominent leader of suffragette, drew the attention of Gandhi in 1907. On 22 February, he wrote, ‘When women are manly, will men be effeminate?’. He writes:

‘I shall never obey any law in the making of which I have no hand; I will not accept the authority of the court executing those laws; if you send me to gaol, I will go there, but I shall on no account pay a fine. I will not furnish any security either’.… They are bound to succeed and gain the franchise, for the simple reason that deeds are better than words.

Incidentally, the motto of suffragette was ‘deeds are better than words’.

In 1909, from London, again he wrote, suffragette courage. ‘Such brave women will never be defeated.’ ³⁸ Gandhi along with Abdul Caadir and Hajee Habib attended a suffragette meeting in St. James Hall, London, on Friday, 30 July 1909. He commented that though movement has been going on for years, it gained momentum only during last the 5 years when the members started going to gaol in order to exert pressure. Mrs Lawrence, a leader of the movement, said in the meeting ³⁹ : ‘There can be no building for progress unless—in the case of every reform or scheme of human good—some men do the building with their blood.’ He admired their determination, enthusiasm and suffering. He observed their methods of protest and their ways of raising the fund. ‘We have much to learn from the suffragettes.’ ⁴⁰ On 7 October 1909, Gandhi found a big gathering of suffragette in Albert Hall. He mentions ⁴¹ : ‘Leaving aside their use of physical force, they deserve to be emulated for their spirit, their enthusiasm and their intelligence.… They have huge army of volunteers.… It will be enough if Indians follow their example’.

The movement also captured the presence of women from India. ⁴² Princess Sophia Alexandrovna Duleep Singh, the daughter of Maharaja Duleep Singh in exile in Britain, became an active suffragette, and her story has been told in a book by Anita Anand. ⁴³ Sushama Sen took part in a Women’s Social and Political Union demonstration in 1910. The novelty of a woman in a sari in a suffragette procession attracted great attention. In 1911, in the coronation suffrage procession in London, there were three Indian women, Lolita Roy, Leilavati Mukherjea (daughter) and Bhagwati Bola Nauth. ^{44 , 45}

In 1918, the Women’s Indian Association had suffrage resolutions introduced in many provincial conferences and national congresses of men, and they were usually passed by large majorities. ⁴⁶ In May 1921, the Madras Presidency, one of the largest divisions of the country, gave the complete franchise to women. It was followed by the Bombay Presidency.

By the time the suffragette movement rose to prominence internationally, ⁴⁷ Gandhi was more settled in his political life in South Africa. Satyagrah and Ahimsa became his methods to protest the actions of an overpowering imperial power. What kind of resolve does one need to imbibe these two elements? Gandhi found the answer in the ongoing suffragette movement in Britain. He wanted: Indians have to fight with the same spirit. ⁴⁸ We can learn quite a few things and draw much inspiration from them. ⁴⁹ On 4 December 1909, he wrote ⁵⁰ :

The campaign that women have been carrying on for the franchise can prove most useful to us, or so I think at least.… The franchise is nowhere in sight yet, but they refuse to accept defeat and go on fighting. This is surely no ordinary spirit.

Gandhi followed the movement keenly. On 19 April 1913, he mentions about Mrs Pankhurst’s sacrifice ⁵¹ : ‘Indians should emulate all this courage, for the British women being without the franchise is nothing compared to the disabilities we suffer’.

Suffragette hastened the extension of voting rights to women in Britain. But, for Gandhi, the movement demonstrated the power of public movement. He did not agree with the method, but he was impressed with the spirit. For a successful movement, one must be ready for sacrifices. In his satyagrah movements, Gandhi imbibed and propagated these virtues. Definitely, this would have also helped him in advancing the case for adult suffrage without any discrimination, which was reflected in his writings of 1920s. By this time, he was fully immersed in the cause of India.

I Am Wedded to Adult Suffrage

In a challenge to Simon Commission, ⁵² the leaders of national struggle produced the ‘Nehru Report ⁵³ in 1928, which, among others, articulated:

We attach no weight to the objections based on the prevailing illiteracy of the masses and their lack of political experience. The proportion of literacy being very small the same objections will apply to the great majority of voters howsoever much the franchise may be restricted. There is no reason or justice in undertaking the political education of a person earning a little less. Political experience can only be acquired by an active participation in political institutions and does not entirely depend upon literacy. There should be equal opportunities available to all to acquire this experience. The most advanced countries in the world did not wait to achieve a hundred percent literacy before introducing adult suffrage. Why should India?

On 16 August 1928, Gandhi complemented ⁵⁴ the Nehru Report. On 31 March 1931, a resolution ⁵⁵ on fundamental rights and economic changes was drafted by Gandhi, which listed adult suffrage as one of the rights in the Constitution. On 16 July 1931, in the proposed communal solution, he elaborated on the congress scheme and announced that ‘The franchise shall be extended to all adult men and women’. ⁵⁶

The Indian National Congress decided to attend the second Round Table Conference in London to discuss the measures for self-rule as well as the recommendations of the Simon Commission (1928–1930). ^{57 , 58}

In a speech ⁵⁹ made before the Federal Structure Committee on 17 September 1931, Gandhi made the forceful reasoning for universal adult franchise:

I can not possibly bear the idea that a man who has got wealth should have the vote, but that a man who has got character, but no wealth and or literacy, should have no vote: or that a man who works honestly by the sweet sweat of his brow day in and day out should not have the vote for the crime of being a poor man.… I would far rather forgo the right of voting myself than that this untouchable brother should not have the vote. I am not enamoured of the doctrine of literacy that a voter must at least have a knowledge of the three Rs I want for my people a knowledge of the three Rs; but I know also that, If I have to wait until they have got a knowledge of the three Rs before they can be qualified for voting, I shall have to wait until the Greek Kalends, and I am not prepared to wait all that time. I know millions of these men are quite capable of voting.

In this statement, Gandhi made it very clear that any barrier in the way of adult franchise was unacceptable. He demolished the argument of illiteracy for not favouring the adult franchise, which was suggested by the Simon Commission. However, the British government continued with the system of limited franchise in the Government of India Act, 1935, ⁶⁰ but, the Constituent Assembly, without much debate, adopted universal adult suffrage in the constitution for the independent India.

Voters’ Duty

Voting is a matter of right; however, Gandhi cautions that it comes with a lot of responsibilities so that the right candidates are elected. On 9 June 1920, Gandhi wrote in Young India: What Should the Voters Do? ⁶¹ Gandhi pointed out need of the following qualities in an elector: impartial, independent and intelligent.

He lamented that for voters, the personal relationships of candidates often weigh more than the candidates’ qualifications. He asked the voters to consider candidates’ views and not their party. His preference was to elect a man of character.

He posed four questions ⁶² to the voters of the council:

Do you approve of the present swadeshi movement? If so, are you prepared to levy heavy import duties on foreign cloth? Will you favour legislation for cheapening the materials and machinery required to produce swadeshi articles?

Do you hold that all the affairs of a province should be conducted in Hindustani– a combination of Hindi and Urdu? If you do, will you endeavour incessantly to introduce the use of the vernaculars in the administration of the respective provinces, and the national language in the Imperial administration?

Do you hold that the present division of the provinces of India was made for administrative and political purposes and that no regard was paid to the people’s wishes? And do you hold that this division has done much harm to the national growth? If you think so, will you try to bring out a redistribution on a linguistic basis as early as possible?

Do you hold that there is not the remotest likelihood of India’s regeneration without Hindu-Muslim unity? And if you think so, are you, if a Hindu, willing to help the Mussulmans in all legitimate ways in their trouble?

He also suggested that the voters need to frame their own questions in alternative ways. His emphasis on the rightful use of the power of voting has remained true for the survival and continuity of democracy.

If no candidate is suitable, Gandhi offered a suggestion. In 1920, Gandhi asked all the enlightened and thoughtful electors to show the courage to abstain from voting if none of the candidates meets their liking. For him, abstention amounts to an exercise of one’s vote. He suggested that intelligent abstention has its own effects. He was of the belief that this was the only way to purify the political atmosphere they lived in. This was akin to the concept of NOTA (none of the above), which is being followed now.

Scheme of Election

Registration as Voter, a Voluntary Exercise

Like a true liberal, Gandhi believed in complete freedom for individuals in a democracy. ⁶³ For him, registration as a voter was a voluntary exercise. He remarked that he never understood the need for registration without the conscious involvement of individual. Recalling the incident of his own registration as a voter in Natal without his knowledge, Gandhi made it clear that he would expect it to be purely voluntary in nature.

I Would Boycott That Legislature (Without Proper Share of Women)

In response to a question about what happens if a legislature does not have any women on it, Gandhi declared that he would boycott it. ⁶⁴ He did not believe in special constituencies for women, but he hoped that if women were not elected in general elections, they would be elected by the elected legislatures before they conducted their proceedings.

Separate Electorate

Separate electorate remained a contentious issue during the period of independence struggle. Introduced in 2016, it was accepted in principle by the Congress in December 2016. An agreement to this effect was signed by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Gandhi was present during this; however, he chose to speak primarily on indentured labour and lingua franca issues. Acceptance by Congress needs to be seen in the context of prevailing political turmoil concerning division in Congress and disagreement with the Muslim League, which were considered far more pressing issues than the separate electorate. Twelve years after the settlement in Lucknow Congress, the Nehru Report was produced, which made scathing comments on the separate electorate:

It is admitted by most people now that separate electorates are thoroughly bad and must be done away with it.

Gandhi’s endorsement of this was also reflected in his fermented opposition to the proposal of a separate electorate for depressed classes, which resulted in the Poona Pact. His engagement with Dr B. R. Ambedkar and the resultant Poona Pact (1932) have been the matter of scholarly works elsewhere. ^{65 , 66 , 67 , 68} Hence, this article does not delve into this issue.

Direct or Indirect Election

In a large country like India, Gandhi believed that the direct election must be limited to the ground-level democratic institutions, where every elector can identify with his public representative. In his speech before the Federal Structure Committee in 1931, he outlined ⁶⁹ his idea of elected institutions and hoped that provincial and federal-level structures could be representative in nature if they were picked up by the representatives who got elected at the ground-level.

Wrongdoings in Election: Expenditure, Malpractices and Rowdyism

Without purity of public life, swaraj is an impossibility. ^{70 , 71} In his speech ⁷² at Federal Structure Committee, Gandhi lamented that candidates are spending ₹60,000 over an election, or even 1 lakh. In his opinion, it was an atrocious figure for the poorest country in the world. Replying to a question of rowdyism resulting in severe damage during one of the recent elections in Bombay, Gandhi hoped that this would be one of incidents and the masses, who had already imbibed the spirit of Ahimsa, would settle down peacefully, giving lesson of peace to the world, once the British leave. ⁷³ He said that wrangling and corrupt practices have today become a common feature of our elections. There can be no room for wrangles when service is ideal. Its existence does not do any good.

Conclusion

Franchise question was one of the main political questions in the countries and settler colonies in the second half of the nineteenth century of the world. Gandhi found his opportunity to blossom as an articulate and convincing political petitioner through the franchise question that was being debated in Natal, South Africa. It altered the course of his life and the history of the world, as he aptly remarked in his autobiography: Man Proposes and God Disposes.

The Indian Franchise question helped him to look into the past of India. His voluminous references to scholarly works and reports in his petitions, letters and speeches demonstrate his ability to investigate in detail and use the findings aptly to advance his arguments. Terming it a public cause distinct from his personal needs, he declined to charge any fee. He was aware of the strength of the adversary(ies), and he designed his methods of protest accordingly. He was relentless in his approach. Gandhi was a remarkable mass mobiliser. He approached all concerned to create and influence public opinion. He cornered the authorities on the issues of justice and equality. He asked for finer feelings to prevail.

Suffragette helped him in refining his methods of resistance. He was clear that violence would not be part of satyagraha, but he wanted to imbibe the courage, commitment, sacrifice and spirit of the brave women of England into his own struggle. He was a keen observer of the happenings around him and a good learner.

Gandhi visualised his idea of election in his writings and speeches during the course of his public life. Some of these seem much ahead of his time. He visualised abstention from voting in the absence of the right candidate in 1920, which has been used as NOTA (none of the above) since 2013 in Indian elections. Concerns about money power and muscle power in elections featured in his works, which are still matter of concerns in elections.

Gandhi identified and understood the significance and importance of elections as an integral element of Indian society as a 25-year-old young lawyer, 129 years ago in 1894. In independent India, the success of elections has enamoured the world; for Gandhi, it was inevitable as the idea of representation is part of Indian DNA, hence its continuance in shaping democracy is no miracle.