A throwback to 1907 -- Sardar Ajit Singh's peasant movement in Punjab

Sardar Ajit Singh 

Over the last two days, thousands of farmers from North India have begun a “Delhi Chalo” march, to protest against the farm law amendments passed by Parliament in September. The farmers continued their march despite facing water cannons and tear gas from the Haryana Police. Led by organizations such as the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee, the farmers have shown fierce resistance to the Police forces and the barricades, making this among the most significant farmer movements we have witnessed in recent years.

This post aims to draw parallels with another farmer movement that took place 113 years ago, during the British Raj.

The ‘Pagdi Sambhal Jatta’ movement

In 1907, Sardar Ajit Singh, a freedom fighter and nationalist revolutionary, led a peasant movement in Punjab – which was popularly referred to as the ‘Pagdi Sambhal Jatta’ movement – to protest against the British Empire’s decision to pass the Punjab Colonisation Bill, 1907. The genesis of this Bill goes back to 1879, when the British constructed the Bari Doab Canal for drawing water from the Chenab River. This water was to be transported to Lyallpur, in Punjab (After the partition of Punjab in 1947, Lyallpur is now a part of Pakistan. It was renamed as Faisalabad in 1977).

The British requested peasants and servicemen from places such as Jalandhar and Amritsar to settle in Lyallpur, and promised to allot them free land for cultivation. The peasants settled in Lyallpur and toiled for more than a decade to make the land fertile for agriculture. In 1907, when the land had become fertile, the British proposed to enact the Punjab Colonisation Bill. This Bill took away the farmers’ right to own the lands that they had cultivated, and would transfer the ownership rights to the British Empire.

The farmers were reduced to the status of sharecroppers, and could not directly sell or purchase the land. If the farmers violated the provisions of the proposed Bill, they faced the prospect of being evicted from their lands. The Bill hence nullified the efforts that the farmers had put, to make this land fertile.

To oppose this Bill, Sardar Ajit Singh began the Pagdi Sambhal Jatta movement – which was also joined by retired Indian soldiers and other freedom fighters such as Lala Lajpat Rai. The movement witnessed mass rallies and protests, where calls were also made for a permanent end to colonial rule.

Lala Lajpat Rai

Along with mobilizing Punjabi farmers, Ajit Singh also gathered the support of serving Sikh soldiers. This popular support resulted in a situation where many serving Indian soldiers refused to open fire at the protesting peasants – and defied the orders of their British masters. However, the British continued to brutally repress the movement.

On 9^th May, 1907, Sardar Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai were deported to Mandalay jail in Myanmar. Despite the repression faced at the hands of the Empire, the movement was partially successful, as the Colonisation Bill was vetoed by the Governor-General, and ultimately withdrawn.

Interestingly, the name ‘Pagdi Sambhal Jatta’ was derived from a song introduced by Banke Dayal, who was the editor of the Jhang Syal newspaper. The words of the song -“Pagdi sambhal Jatta, Pagdi Sambhal oye” became so popular among the masses that it defined and symbolized the soul of this movement. 

Parallels to 2020

After the Indian Constitution came into force in 1950, Indians got the right to be citizens of their own country, and were no longer only the subjects of their British masters. The farmers, led by Ajit Singh, who protested during the Pagdi Sambhal Jatta movement were not Indian citizens, and were only subjects of the British Empire. Contrast this to the present march to Delhi, where the farmers facing repression at the hands of the Delhi and Haryana Police are Indian citizens – who have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

But, the ferocity with which the Police obstructed their movement with tear gas and water cannons makes one wonder whether fundamental rights such as Article 19(1)(b) continue to merely be freedoms that are available at the pleasure of the State. 71 years after our Constitution was adopted, as we witness fundamental rights trampled upon on a daily basis, it is time to question – is there any difference between 1907 and 2020?

-----

Postscript: After being released from Mandalay Jail, Sardar Ajit Singh faced yet another arrest warrant from the British. To evade arrest, he escaped to Iran in 1909, and subsequently went to Europe – to gather support for the Indian independence movement.

During the Second World War, Ajit Singh was in Italy. After Italy’s defeat, he was arrested in May 1945 by the Allied Forces, and was moved across multiple jails in Germany and Italy. Prolonged incarceration in multiple jails had an adverse impact on his health. In 1946, when independence from colonial rule was on the horizon, he was released and sent back to India.

He breathed his last on 15^th August 1947 – the day India became independent.  

Historical origins of equal voting rights in US and India

This month, we have witnessed two closely fought elections – first in the United States, and then in Bihar. Both these elections saw significantly high voter turnouts, despite the difficulties brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. In Bihar, women voter turnout was higher than men – in 166 out of 243 constituencies. In the US, there was a record voter turnout of 67% - which is the highest voting percentage in 120 years.

Such extensive democratic participation is possible only because both US and India have universal adult suffrage – which allows all adults to vote, and grants equal voting rights to both men and women. This parity in voting rights was not always present, and has been achieved after vigorous activism and debate. In this post, we shall revisit the historical origins of equal voting rights, in the US, and in India.

Historical origins of equal voting rights in the US

When the US Constitution was drafted in 1787, it did not envisage equal voting rights. The US Constitution legitimized the practice of slavery, where African-Americans (Blacks) were treated as the ‘property’ of their owners. Along with all African-Americans, even White women were denied the right to vote. In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln pioneered the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution, which abolished the practice of slavery. 5 years later, in 1870, Black men were granted the right to vote, through the 15^th Amendment. While the 15^th Amendment permitted all men to vote, it still did not grant voting rights to American women.

It took 50 further years of struggle for all American women to receive the right to vote – via the 19^th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1920. The 19^th Amendment was brought before the US Senate for the first time in October, 1918. The Amendment would require a two-thirds majority to be passed i.e. 54 votes in its favor. Despite having the backing of then US President Woodrow Wilson, it failed to pass the Senate by a small margin of 2 votes.

The amendment was brought before the Senate once again in June 1919. This time, the Amendment was passed by the Senate with a vote of 56-25 (56 in favor and 25 in opposition). This was just 2 votes more than the minimum number of votes required! Even after equal voting rights were granted on paper, the Southern States of America (such as Alabama and Texas) would continue to discriminate against Black men and women, and would devise additional criteria for voter eligibility, that would disenfranchise the Black community.

This was done through methods such as arbitrary registration requirements, payment of poll taxes, and literacy tests. ‘Poll taxes’ were a fee that eligible voters would have to pay, before being allowed to cast their ballot. While this fee would be relatively small, it would still be unaffordable for a large segment of the Black community.

Under the garb of conducting ‘literacy tests’, electoral registration officials in Southern States would deliberately ask African-Americans to recite the entire Constitution, and explain complex provisions of State laws. Even a small error on their part would give the electoral officer a reason for refusing to add their name to the list of eligible voters. This was a travesty, where Blacks would have to recite the entire Constitution before being ‘eligible’ to gain access to their constitutional rights.

These practices prevailed during what is known as the “Jim Crow era” – where the Southern States of US enforced racial segregation through their local laws. These local laws mandated separate public facilities for Blacks and Whites. This meant that there would be separate restaurants, schools, buses, housing apartments etc for Blacks and Whites. The facilities accessible to White Americans were undoubtedly better. But, Blacks would not be able to access these public facilities, as they were exclusively reserved for Whites.

The era of ‘Jim Crow’ laws continued until 1964. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed, which put an end to racial segregation of public facilities. Even after the end of the Jim Crow era, Southern States like Alabama continued to discriminate against the Black community, and suppressed their voting rights.

In 1965, with the goal of ending suppression of the Black vote, civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began a movement for a national voting rights law – that would put an end to voter suppression methods such as literacy tests. Dr. King led three 54-mile marches in the State of Alabama. The first two marches were met with fierce resistance from State troops, as well as White supremacist groups. This left Dr. King with no choice but to retreat, as he feared large-scale violence.

Dr. Martin Luther King leads a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama - to demand the passage of the Voting Rights Act. 

But, his movement had the requisite impact, and President Lyndon Johnson announced that he would be introducing a new voting rights legislation in Congress, that would outlaw practices such as literacy tests. During his nationwide address, Lyndon Johnson remarked –

“Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negros (i.e. Blacks), but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome”.

Dr. King followed this up with his third march across the State of Alabama, which further fortified his demands. Subsequently, in August 1965, the US Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which provided for federal oversight of voter registration, and also prohibited practices like voter literary tests.

While the situation has improved considerably after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, certain States continue to take advantage of America’s decentralized election system, to devise new ways of suppressing the Black vote. This is done through stricter Voter ID requirements, photographic identification procedures, and by placing curbs on voter registration drives. Hence, while the US has made significant progress to fructify equal voting rights, a lot more needs to be done to ensure that Blacks and minorities can vote without harassment.

Historical origins of universal adult suffrage and equal voting rights in India

Through Article 326 of our Constitution, the Indian Constituent Assembly guaranteed universal adult suffrage – which meant that everyone above the age of 21 was eligible to vote after the Indian Constitution came into force. [In 1988, this voting age was reduced from 21 to 18].

In the Constituent Assembly, some members did express concerns with respect to whether universal adult suffrage should be granted immediately – as around 85% of the Indian population was illiterate. The members also debated on whether it would be better to gradually give voting rights to different segments of the population. The Assembly ultimately agreed on granting universal adult franchise immediately upon the founding of the Republic - as parliamentary democracy would be meaningless if segments of the population lacked the right to elect their representatives. They also felt that illiteracy shall be eventually tackled through steps taken by the Government.

While the Constituent Assembly granted us universal adult franchise right from the founding of the Republic, demands were also made to secure equal voting rights for men and women, during the British Raj. During the British Raj, the right to vote in local and provincial elections could be availed only by those who owned property, and satisfied other criteria relating to educational qualifications, place of residence etc. Until 1921, women were not permitted to vote in these local and provincial elections. This made social reformers like Annie Besant and Sarojini Naidu push for equal voting rights for women.

In 1921, Madras became the first Legislature of British India to grant women the right to vote. The Bombay Legislature followed soon thereafter. Among the princely States, the Kingdom of Travancore was the first to grant voting rights to women. This voting right was not universal. Just like male voters, women could vote only after they fulfilled the qualification criteria laid down by the provinces - which were based on educational standards, place of residence, ownership of property etc.

Along with social reformers and activists, an Indian bureaucrat of the British Empire also made a significant contribution to secure equal voting rights. This bureaucrat was V.P. Menon – who later played a crucial role in integrating the princely States into the Indian Union, along with Sardar Vallabhai Patel.

V.P. Menon 

In 1935, as an Under-Secretary in the Reforms Department of the British Raj, V.P. Menon was tasked with implementing the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. Under this law, elections were scheduled to be held in 1937 – in provincial legislatures such as Bombay, Madras, and Bengal. V.P. Menon began work on constructing an electoral role, and also made a recommendation that the name of every adult women should be put on the electoral roles.[1] While this recommendation was not accepted in its entirety, the 1937 provincial legislature elections had significantly enlarged the size of the electorate.

Menon also got his superiors to approve a clause that allowed women whose marriages had been dissolved to retain their names on the electoral roles – deeming them eligible to vote.[2] While V.P. Menon’s contribution in integrating princely States such as Hyderabad, Kashmir and Junagarh has been well-documented, his contribution in expanding the scope of the right to vote has largely been forgotten.

While the Constituent Assembly granted us universal adult suffrage, the seeds of equal voting rights were sown during the final years of the British Raj itself – due to contributions made in different capacities by V.P. Menon, Sarojini Naidu, Annie Besant etc. These initial steps were taken forward by the Constituent Assembly, which agreed to make a specific provision in Article 326 of the Constitution, that would secure non-discriminatory access to voting.

The high percentage of women voter turnout that we witnessed in Bihar is a salute to this vision of our founders. This vision can now be taken forward, and sufficient steps must be taken to make the polling booth even more accessible to the Indian voter – irrespective of caste, gender and economic status.

---

[1] Narayani Basu, V.P. Menon – The Unsung Architect of Modern India, Simon & Schuster Publishers (2020), Pg. 97.

[2] V.P. Menon – The Unsung Architect of Modern India, at Pg. 120.

Breaking down the US Electoral College system

Yesterday, Joe Biden was ‘called’ as the winner of the US Presidential election, as soon as it was certain that he would win at least 270 seats in the ‘electoral college’. The US media outlets who ‘called’ the election in favor of Joe Biden focused solely on whether he was definitely winning 270 electoral college seats, and did not focus on whether he had won a simple majority of the total number of votes cast.

So, what exactly is this electoral college system, and why is the election not decided simply by determining which candidate receives more national votes in total? In this post, we shall discuss certain features of the electoral college system, which shall help us understand the election result better.

Let us begin by discussing certain essential features of the electoral college system, along with some relevant stats:

• The total number of seats in the electoral college is 538. These 538 seats are divided and allocated amongst every State in the US. The allocation of seats is done on the basis of the population of each State. For instance, as California is the State with the largest population, it has 55 seats in the electoral college – which is more than any other State. On the other hand, Delaware and Hawaii have only 3 seats each in the electoral college, as their population is significantly less when compared to a large State like California. The number of seats in the electoral college also equals the number of representatives a State sends to the US Congress (i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate).

• The presidential candidate who wins more votes in a particular State wins all the seats of that State’s electoral college. For instance, as Joe Biden received more votes than Donald Trump in California, he won all the 55 electoral college seats. This system of granting all electoral college seats to the winning candidate is known as the ‘winner-takes-all’ system. 

• As there are a total of 538 electoral college seats, a candidate has to win at least 270 seats to be elected as the President. Now, a candidate can win 270 seats based on the number of States where he receives a majority of the vote. Hence, the outcome is decided based on the number of seats won, and not by whether the candidate receives more of the total national vote.

• This implies that a candidate can win the presidential election even if he does not win the total national vote, but wins at least 270 electoral college seats. This happened in the 2016 presidential election, where Donald Trump lost the total national vote, but still won 306 seats of the electoral college. Hillary Clinton received a total of 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump. But, she lost the election as she could only win 232 electoral college seats. This is one of the main reasons why the electoral college system has been criticized – as a candidate can win the election even if he loses the total national popular vote.

• Apart from 2016, there have been 4 other instances where a candidate won the election even after losing the total national vote. In 2000, George Bush Jr. won the election even though Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, won the popular vote. In fact, George Bush Jr won the State of Florida by a small margin of 537 votes, and became President only after the United States Supreme Court barred the State of Florida from recounting the votes! A small margin can hence determine the difference between victory and defeat – irrespective of which candidate wins a simple majority of the total national vote.

Source: TheConversation.com

‘Swing States’

Now, most States in the US vote consistently for either the Democrats or the Republicans. For instance, as California has consistently voted for the Democratic Party, it is categorized as a ‘Blue State’. On the other hand, as Texas is a stronghold of the Republican party, it is categorized as a ‘Red State’. There are only a handful of ‘Swing States’, where there is a greater possibility of the vote swinging between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

In this election, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and Georgia were considered as the major swing States, where the vote could swing between either of the parties. Arizona and Georgia were late entrants to this list, as both of these States have also traditionally voted for the Republican Party in the past.

The presence of these swing States also throws light on the campaigning patterns of the presidential candidates, and why they spent a disproportionate amount of time campaigning in the Swing States. While Biden and Trump barely visited California or Texas (where the outcome was certain), they spent considerable amount of time in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida – where the vote could shift in small, but decisive margins.

In 2016, Donald Trump managed to cross the 270-barrier only after he won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by very small margins. Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by only 44,292 votes, and won Wisconsin by an even smaller margin of 22,748 votes. Even in the current election, Joe Biden is likely to win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by a small margin of approximately 40,000 votes each.

The presence of such swing States with small victory margins leads to a situation where certain States get a greater weightage in determining the outcome of the Presidential election. If the electoral college is abolished, the candidate who wins a simple majority of the total national votes can be directly adjudged as the winner. This would directly reduce the disproportionate significance that a handful of Swing States have, in determining the outcome of the election. For this reason, there have been multiple demands for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college system.

But how did such a system originate in the first place?

The historical origins of the electoral college system

The United States Constitution was drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, which took place between May 25 and September 17, 1787. The framers of the Constitution decided to allocate a specific number of electoral college seats to each State – based on its population. The number of electoral college seats allocated would also be equal to the number of representatives that the State would send to the US Congress.

While the Constitution was being drafted and debated, a majority of America’s white citizens lived in cities such as Boston and Philadelphia – which are in the North. As the Northern States had a higher population of Whites – they would be allotted a higher number of seats in the electoral college. The Southern States (such as Alabama and Texas) had less Whites when compared to the North. But, a majority of African-Americans, who were slaves and were treated as the ‘property’ of their ‘owners’ – stayed in these Southern States. The Northern States had a very small proportion of African Americans.

As African-Americans were considered to be the ‘property’ of their ‘owners’ – they did not have voting rights, and were not treated as equal citizens. But, the Southern States wanted them to be included while calculating the total population of a State, as an increase in that number would grant them more seats in the electoral college. The Northern States rejected this demand.

This stalemate led to the ‘three-fifths compromise’ – which was codified in Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution. As per the ‘three-fifths compromise’ – every African-American would be considered as ‘three-fifths’ (60%) of a White person. Hence, as an example, for every 100 African-Americans, the State’s population would be deemed to increase by 60. This significantly increased the number of seats Southern States received in the electoral college. The practice of slavery, where Blacks were treated as property and not as human beings – is one of the founding pillars of this electoral college system.

In 1816, a formal proposal was moved before the US Congress for the first time – to elect the President by determining the winner of the national popular vote, and abolish the electoral college system. This proposal was shot down by Senators from the Southern States - who felt that this would reduce the influence that Southern States had in the electoral process.

In 1969, the House of Representatives voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to dismantle the electoral college system. But, this amendment could not pass the Senate as a bipartisan consensus could not be achieved. The electoral college system, conceptualized in the dark era of slavery, has hence survived the test of two centuries, while 270 continues to be the magic number.

Postscript: While we discuss the US elections, it is significant to note that African-American men were conferred the right to vote only in 1870, 5 years after the practice of slavery was abolished. Also, all adult women got the right to vote only in 1920, after the 19^th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. For a Constitution that was drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789, it took more than 130 years of effort to achieve equal voting rights, even on paper.