Political leaders differed sharply over the question of separate electorates because of differences in opinion. While those supporting the cause of minorities and the dalits believed that only political empowerment would resolve their social backwardness, others like Gandhiji thought that separate electorates would further slow down the process of their integration into society. Also, it was feared that the system of separate electorates would gradually divide the country into numerous fragments because every community or class would then ask for separate representations.

How to fish the way toward helping in the growth of national moment in India

Introduction:
The question of separate electorates was a significant issue during the Indian freedom struggle. It refers to the provision of electing representatives based on religious communities, rather than on a common electorate. Political leaders held differing views on this matter due to several reasons.

1. Communal Representation:
- Some political leaders advocated for separate electorates to ensure representation and safeguard the interests of specific religious communities.
- They argued that in a diverse society like India, communities with smaller populations may get marginalized in a common electorate system.
- Separate electorates were seen as a means to address the concerns of minorities and prevent their political marginalization.

2. Preservation of Identity:
- Another reason for supporting separate electorates was the desire to preserve the cultural and religious identity of different communities.
- Leaders believed that separate electorates would allow communities to elect representatives who could effectively advocate for their unique needs and interests.

3. Fear of Domination:
- Some leaders feared that a common electorate system would lead to the domination of the majority community and the suppression of minority voices.
- They believed that separate electorates would provide a platform for minority communities to assert their political influence and protect their rights.

4. Unity and Nationalism:
- On the other hand, some leaders opposed the idea of separate electorates, emphasizing the importance of unity and nationalism.
- They argued that separate electorates would create divisions within society along religious lines and hinder the development of a united nation.
- These leaders believed in the concept of a common electorate that would promote inclusivity and foster a sense of shared national identity.

5. Secularism and Equality:
- Some leaders opposed separate electorates on the grounds of secularism and equality.
- They argued that a common electorate system would promote a society where individuals are elected based on their merits and ideas rather than their religious affiliations.
- These leaders believed that separate electorates would undermine the principles of secularism and perpetuate divisions among different religious communities.

Conclusion:
The question of separate electorates evoked sharp differences among political leaders due to the concerns of representation, preservation of identity, fear of domination, the importance of unity and nationalism, as well as the principles of secularism and equality. Their diverse perspectives reflected the complex nature of India's social fabric and the challenges of creating a harmonious and inclusive society.