All-India Muslim League's demand for separate electorates

[chharoonahmad]

Hi

The first and foremost demand by the Muslim League was for separate electorates. Did this mean Muslims would only be able to cast their vote for a Muslim candidate and not for a Hindu candidate in they wanted to? Was it a matter of choice for the voters?

It would be nice of you if you could guide me on this. Thanks.

Regards
Haroon

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Off topic but All India muslim league was formed by freemason Aga Khan a prominent british loyalist.

 

[chharoonahmad]

Off topic but All India muslim league was formed by freemason Aga Khan a prominent british loyalist.

Thanks for the reply.

What about Sir Syed then? At that time being a British loyalist wasn't that bad choice if it was for 'bigger' good. Wasn't it so?

 

[Leader]

Hi

The first and foremost demand by the Muslim League was for separate electorates. Did this mean Muslims would only be able to cast their vote for a Muslim candidate and not for a Hindu candidate in they wanted to? Was it a matter of choice for the voters?

It would be nice of you if you could guide me on this. Thanks.

Regards
Haroon

Im glad you asked, according to 1909 act, it was a privilage to allow seperate electorate in the party system of governance. hence Muslims could vote for anyone they liked but no stopping of Muslim candidate was possible under this privilage.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Its a shame what happened to Muslim League after they got Pakistan - shameful

 

[Leader]

Its a shame what happened to Muslim League after they got Pakistan - shameful

The elements that gathered for one objective that is PAKistan, in their core had conflicting ideologies. The secular,socialist,religious,communist, elite, masses, lawyers and students... when the objective was achieved they all interpretated PAkistan according to their respective ideologies...that is why ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE was not a party but a plateform for PAKISTAN Movement.

it is indeed shamful for us, to sit like ducks, not for them.

 

[chharoonahmad]

Im glad you asked, according to 1909 act, it was a privilage to allow seperate electorate in the party system of governance. hence Muslims could vote for anyone they liked but no stopping of Muslim candidate was possible under this privilage.

Thanks, Leader.

Actually someone was saying at that time separate electorates meant that Muslims could ONLY vote for Muslim candidates. It wasn't so, right?

Is this still the same in Pakistan, too? I mean Christians, or any other minority group, could vote for one of their own candidate or for someone from some other group such as Muslim?

Thanks for all the help and your time.

Best wishes
Haroon

 

[EjazR]

Here is a good over view of what separate electorates, and reserved electorates meant to the major actors.

http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/comments-on-separate-and-joint-electorates

Basically, separate electorates means Muslims could vote only for Muslims, Hindus only for Hindus e.t.c. While reserved constituencies means that although seats are reserved for say a Muslim or SC, everyone can vote for the candidate.

Separate electorates hence leads to division between the people because Muslim politicians would care only about Muslims and Hindus only about Hindus because they would not need vote from either community. While reserved constituency although specifying SC / ST or Muslim seat will force the candidate to canvass vote from all sections of the community in the constituency including those who are not SC or ST or Muslim.

 

[Leader]

Thanks, Leader.

Actually someone was saying at that time separate electorates meant that Muslims could ONLY vote for Muslim candidates. It wasn't so, right?

Is this still the same in Pakistan, too? I mean Christians, or any other minority group, could vote for one of their own candidate or for someone from some other group such as Muslim?

Thanks for all the help and your time.

Best wishes
Haroon

yes Haroon,
and its also true for Christians, hindu,sikhs and parsi in PAKista, they have special representation in National assembly.

 

[chharoonahmad]

Here is a good over view of what separate electorates, and reserved electorates meant to the major actors.

http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/comments-on-separate-and-joint-electorates

Basically, separate electorates means Muslims could vote only for Muslims, Hindus only for Hindus e.t.c. While reserved constituencies means that although seats are reserved for say a Muslim or SC, everyone can vote for the candidate.

Separate electorates hence leads to division between the people because Muslim politicians would care only about Muslims and Hindus only about Hindus because they would not need vote from either community. While reserved constituency although specifying SC / ST or Muslim seat will force the candidate to canvass vote from all sections of the community in the constituency including those who are not SC or ST or Muslim.

Hi Ejaz

That means the person I was having argument with was correct because he was also saying that in separate electorates Muslims could only vote for a Muslim candidate...

What's that "SC", "ST" etc?

Were there reserved constituencies during the British times? I like this idea of reserved constituencies more where the votes could choose any of the candidates for voting. I was wondering why didn't Indian National Congress suggest this idea against the idea of separate electorates by the All India Muslim League?

Are you completely sure about your position? If that was really the case - I mean if Muslims could only vote for a Muslim candidate - then why would All India Muslim lose the elections of 1937?

Thanks for all the help and your time.

Regards
Haroon

 

[divya]

What's that "SC", "ST" etc?

They stand for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

 

[chharoonahmad]

Thanks, divya.

Hi Ejaz

That means the person I was having argument with was correct because he was also saying that in separate electorates Muslims could only vote for a Muslim candidate...

What's that "SC", "ST" etc?

Were there reserved constituencies during the British times? I like this idea of reserved constituencies more where the votes could choose any of the candidates for voting. I was wondering why didn't Indian National Congress suggest this idea against the idea of separate electorates by the All India Muslim League?

Are you completely sure about your position? If that was really the case - I mean if Muslims could only vote for a Muslim candidate - then why would All India Muslim lose the elections of 1937?

Thanks for all the help and your time.

Regards
Haroon

Would someone help me, please, especially with the highlighted part? Thanks.

 

[EjazR]

@chharoonahmad

If you have time you should go through the link that I gave. There is extensive discussions on this. Suffice to say that the British were the main arbitrators on who gets what in the end and their role was very dubious to say the least.

Just high level, the Lucknow pact of 1916 gave 1/3 representation through separate electorates. This was followed by increasingly virulent politics with Hindu Mahasabha lobby at one end speaking against over representation of Muslims and because Muslims didn't need Hindu vote, Muslim politicians didn't have any incentives to build bridges with other non-Muslims in their constituencies.

Under Nehru report by the Congress, it was suggested to do away with separate electorates and reserve seats only with respect to proportion of their population. So for example, Hindus would get reserved seats in NWFP and Balochistan for example, while Muslims would in UP and other Hindu majority provinces, but only with respect to proportion of their population. So the congress HAD suggested this already. http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/nehru-report-1928-excerpts

The Muslim League rejected the Nehru report and the British then introduced the communal award and this time with separate electorates not only for Muslim, but Sikhs, Christians, Anglo Indians and SCs as well.

Later towards, 1946, the idea had moved away from no. of seats to the idea of parity. That is Muslim League would not accept anything short of a parity between Congress and itself and that it should be the sole party to represent Muslims. You have to understand also that Muslim League was a political party and that there were other Muslim parties including Muslims in the Congress and giving that concession was almost impossible. This is where the Cabinet Mission Plan fell through.To get a feeling of the differences, you should read Maulana Azad (the Congress President in1946) and Jinnah's responses on the formula for establishing the preliminary proposals by the British. http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/protocmpjinnahazad

For more info on the Cabinet Mission Plan, check out this link http://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/

 

[chharoonahmad]

Thank you, EjazR.

Let me ask you another question. I hope you won't mind.

In an election Indian National Congress would field its candidates. As Muslims had separate electorates. So, to get Muslim votes the Congress would also field its Muslim candidate against the candidate of the Muslim League who is also Muslim. But would the Muslim League also field its Hindu candidate against the Hindu candidate of the Congress to get the votes of the Hindus? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?

I'm much grateful for all this help. I understand it takes considerable time and energy to help with such things. Thanks.

Regards
Haroon

 

[EjazR]

@Haroon

I don't have clear cut answer to that question, so I will have to say I'm not sure. But I can say that mostly Congress was an umbrella organisation. You could be member of Congress and Muslim League even till 1936, and member of Hindu Mahasabha and Congress till 1937. Other groups like Jamiat Ulema -i- Hind, Khudai Khitmatagar in NWFP and Ahrars supported Congress candidates where they would stand for elections. And Congress by far had huge majorities in Hindu majority areas.

In the 1937 elections, most of the muslim only candidates that won although may not be part of the Congress party aligned themselves with the Congress. Muslim League was no where on the see with recieving less than 4% of muslim only vote, and less than 1% of general vote. I am not sure if Muslim Leauge ever fielded Hindu candidates. They did later try to achieve an understanding with Sikhs and Dalits or SCs but this was after the 1946 elections when Muslim Leauge was able to make massive gains, particularly in collaboration with Bengali workers party and landlords in Punjab.