Question

Read the given passage and answer the following questions: [4]

Countering the demand for separate electorates, Govind Ballabh Pant declared that it was not only harmful for the nation but also for the minorities. He agreed with B. Pocker Bahadur that the success of a democracy was to be judged by the confidence it generated amongst different sections of people. He agreed too that every citizen in a free state should be treated in a manner that satisfied “not only his material wants but also his spiritual sense of self-respect”, and that the majority community had an obligation to try and understand the problems of minorities and empathise with their aspirations. Yet Pant opposed the idea of separate electorates. It was a suicidal demand, he argued, that would permanently isolate the minorities, make them vulnerable, and deprive them of any effective say within the government.

1. Why were the national leaders countering demand for separate electorates?  (1)
2. Imagine you were a member of the Constituent Assembly. Would you have supported the idea of separate electorates? Give reasons to justify your answer.  (2)
3. What was the argument given by B. Pocker Bahadur to which Govind Ballabh Pant agreed?   (1)

Answer 1

1. National leaders countering demand for separate electorates because there was the underlying concern with the making of a unified nation state. It divided the nation, caused bloodshed, and led to partition.
2. One would not support separate electorates as it breeds separatism. It would isolate the minorities, and they would not be able to effectively influence their voice within the government. It is harmful for both the nation and the minorities. It will be a hindrance to a united nation.
3. On 27 August 1947, B. Pocker Bahadur from Madras made a powerful plea for continuing separate electorates. Govind Ballabh Pant agreed with Bahadur that the success of a democracy was to be judged by the confidence it generated amongst different sections of people. He agreed too that every citizen in a free state should be treated in a manner that satisfied “not only his material wants but also his spiritual sense of self-respect”, and that the majority community had an obligation to try and understand the problems of minorities and empathise with their aspirations.