Vague wording in the Poona Pact allowed manipulation of electoral procedure.

Evidence

The seemingly innocuous “panel of four”, Ambedkar felt, could be misused and abused. Should the panel have a minimum of four members or a maximum of four candidates? And what would be the method of voting in the final election? To address such questions a committee, headed by Sir Laurie Hammond, was constituted. According to Ambedkar, the Hindus maintained that the panel of four was intended to be a minimum. This meant that if four candidates were not forthcoming or available, there could be no primary election, and thus there would be no election for the reserved seat. In his deposition before the Hammond Committee, Ambedkar asserted that four in the Poona Pact meant “not more than four”, and not “not less than four”. Ambedkar believed that a baggy panel of four meant the Hindus would be at an advantage “to capture the seat for an election of such a representative of the Untouchable candidate who would be their nominee and who would be most willing to be the tool of the Hindus”. That is, the Hindus would ensure a weak and pliable Untouchable candidate in the panel, and further on elect such a person. Suppose there was no panel, and only Untouchables got to decide who would represent them, such a candidate, according to Ambedkar, “would be the staunchest representative of the Untouchables and worst from the standpoint of the Hindus”. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 1313

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s broader project on how caste-annihilation proposals were diluted and weaponized by the implementing majority once conceded.