Second Round Table Conference: A Critical Step Toward Indian Self-Rule 1931
1931The Second Round Table Conference is an important conference that took place from September 7 to December 1, 1931, in London. It has been built from the very foundation of the First Round Table Conference held during the years 1930-31, and it’s considered a platform for considerable leaders in India to sit at the negotiating table as regards constitutional reforms and future political structure in India.
Background and Context
When nothing concrete came out of the First Round Table Conference, British government re-opened dialogues.
The scenario entailed Mahatma Gandhi-led Civil Disobedience Movement that was coercing Britain’s government to reassess their stand about India’s self-rule.
By then, March 1931, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact had already been signed, so Viceroy Lord Irwin, along with Mahatma Gandhi suspended the Civil Disobedience Movement, and then all the political prisoners released. Now an opportunity created for Gandhi to attend that conference.
Participants
United Kingdom:-
This British party was represented by then Britain’s Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald and consisted of official members as well as nominees from Conservative, Liberal as well as the Labour Party.
Indian National Congress:-
Gandhi was the only representative for the INC, advocating India as a single unit that should have considerable autonomy
Princely States:-
The princes were also at the conference, though it is not known if the princes were unanimous on forming a federal union
Minority Groups:-
Important groups of minorities such as Muslim, Sikh, Anglo Indian, Indian Christians, and Depressed Classes (popularly known as Dalit) were also represented here to give representation to communal needs
Objectives behind the Conference:-
To work out a constitutional structure for India, providing for greater autonomy within the British Empire.
To outline the federal aspect of the Indian setup and the manner in which power was to be distributed between the different communities, religious groups, and princely states.
To discuss the Indian National Congress’s demand for dominion status and an eventual timeline for the step-by-step process toward independence.
Mahatma Gandhi’s Position
Gandhi was a strong advocate for the INC’s demand for “Swaraj” or self-rule and a single India without separate communal electorates.
He opposed special protections or separate electorates for minority communities, emphasizing unity and integration.
Gandhi emphasized the Congress’s vision of India as a secular nation where all communities could live in harmony under a common representative system.
Muslim League’s Perspective
It again put forth the demand for separate electorates so that Muslims could get adequate representation.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah argued that Muslims needed specific safeguards from the dominating Hindu majority.
The concept of a federal structure with separate electorates was contentious because it had become a symbol of growing communal tensions.
Dalit (Depressed Classes) Representation
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the Dalit representative, who spoke out for the “Depressed Classes” and demanded the separate electorates so that their rights could be protected.
Ambedkar’s demands were based on the age-old social oppression of the Dalit class and their need for just representation in the government machinery.
Gandhi was against separate electorates for Dalits as this would further fragment Indian society, but Ambedkar was firm on protective measures for marginalized groups.
Constitutional Framework Outcome
Discussions were about the possibility of creating a federal system that united British India and princely states into one union.
British government was not keen to give full dominion status and was keen to continue the control over defense, finance, and foreign affairs.
Though there were certain areas of agreement on a few issues, it remained an incomplete agreement on the constitution terms.
Federal Structure Proposals
The suggested federal form dealt much more with achieving balance such that provinces had freedom at their own will, offset by the necessity for strong control at the centre to matters of defense and finances.
Much controversy ensued relating to the extent of what central government should demand for its authority over the province and princely states.
The last proposal proved also an issue of controversy continuing, as participants strongly went by the divide, considering provinces should have control or autonomy against the center of power.
Controversy relating to Communal Award
Communal representation is among the issues most heatedly debated during the conference and forced the British government to introduce the “Communal Award.”
This award of separate electorates introduced for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and the Depressed Classes
Gandhi disagreed as he regarded the same award as dividing the Indian community whereas Ambedkar, it protected the interests of marginalized communities
Conclusion with a Failure
The conference was adjourned without a final agreement mainly due to separate electorates, the federal structure, and powers of the central government.
An impasse developed due to the British government’s refusal to give them full autonomy and Congress’ unwillingness to accept separate electorates.
Failure of this conference resulted in the rebirth of the nationalist zeal in India and ultimately brought about a further demand for complete independence.
Impact on Indian Independence Movement
The inconclusive result led to disappointment in Indian leaders with the negotiations and a turn toward more radical demands for independence.
The conference underlined the communal divide, and the separate electorate issue was one of the debating points that would later lead to the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
The failure to reach a compromise motivated leaders to refocus efforts on mass movements and grassroots activism.
Legacy and Long-Term Significance
Though it did not achieve the purpose of immediate reformation, the conference threw up the key issues that would later become the pillars of the Indian independence movement.
The Second Round Table Conference revealed the challenge of framing a united structure of governance for different communities, and so was the case with the future negotiations that were going to lead to independence.
The Government of India Act, 1935 finally came into being based on these discussions, laying down the bases of federal and provincial governments in India.
Conclusion:-
It was one of the landmark events illustrating the intricacies of the socio-political scenario and the struggle to establish independence for a plural society. Though the conference failed to address the issue of communal and constitutional problems, it was a crucial step for India in its movement toward self-rule and prelude to the eventual conflicts culminating into independence. The outcome of this conference was that the policy debates and decisions there ultimately determined not only future policies but also decided the framework that independent India would follow.
Also Read:- A Battle of Beliefs: Moderates vs. Extremists in the Struggle for Power 1200 Words