| Non-Rationalised History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 6th to 12th) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chapter 15 Framing The Constitution
The Indian Constitution, effective from January 26, 1950, is the longest in the world, reflecting the country's vast size and diversity. At Independence, India was large, diverse, and deeply divided.
The Constitution was designed to unite the country and foster its progress. It was a carefully drafted document created between December 1946 and November 1949, with drafts debated clause by clause in the Constituent Assembly.
The Assembly held eleven sessions over 165 days, with various committees refining drafts between sessions. The Constitution aimed to heal past and present wounds, bring together diverse Indians in a shared political experiment, and nurture democratic institutions in a historically hierarchical society.
Studying the history behind the Constitution and the debates within the Constituent Assembly provides insight into the vision for the new nation and the process of its formulation.
A Tumultuous Time
The years leading up to the Constitution's making were marked by great hope but also significant challenges and disappointments. India gained freedom on August 15, 1947, but it was also divided through Partition.
Recent history included the widespread Quit India struggle of 1942, Subhas Chandra Bose's attempt at armed struggle with foreign aid, and the rising of the Royal Indian Navy ratings in 1946.
Despite instances of Hindu-Muslim unity in popular uprisings, the leading political parties (Congress and Muslim League) failed to achieve religious reconciliation. The Great Calcutta Killings (August 1946) marked the start of widespread communal rioting, culminating in the massacres during Partition.
On Independence Day, joy and hope coexisted with the reality that millions faced displacement and violence, forced to leave their homes and roots. Millions of refugees migrated between India and Pakistan, with many perishing.
Another challenge was the integration of princely states, which constituted about one-third of British India's area and were ruled by nawabs and maharajas under British allegiance but with considerable internal autonomy. Their status was ambiguous after British departure, leading some rulers to dream of independence.
This turbulent background significantly influenced the debates within the Constituent Assembly.
The Making Of The Constituent Assembly
Members of the Constituent Assembly were chosen by representatives elected in the provincial elections of 1945-46, not through universal adult suffrage.
The Assembly was largely dominated by the Indian National Congress, which won most general seats. The Muslim League won most reserved Muslim seats but boycotted the Assembly, demanding a separate Pakistan.
Socialists initially also boycotted, viewing the Assembly as British-made and not truly autonomous. Consequently, 82% of members were from the Congress.
However, the Congress itself was not monolithic; members held diverse views on key issues (socialism vs. landlordism, secularism vs. communalism). Having debated publicly during the national movement, Congress members continued this practice in the Assembly.
Discussions were influenced by public opinion reported in newspapers. Deliberations were public, proposals debated, criticisms/counter-criticisms in the press shaped consensus. Public participation was encouraged; views were solicited on needed actions. Linguistic minorities sought mother tongue protection, religious minorities special safeguards, dalits demanded end to caste oppression/reservation. Issues of cultural rights and social justice were debated in the Assembly.
The Dominant Voices
Out of the 300 members, six played particularly significant roles:
- Jawaharlal Nehru: Congress representative, moved the "Objectives Resolution" and the resolution for the National Flag (tricolour with wheel).
- Vallabh Bhai Patel: Congress representative, worked behind the scenes, drafted reports, reconciled opposing views.
- Rajendra Prasad: Congress representative, President of the Assembly, steered discussions, ensured all members could speak.
- B.R. Ambedkar: Lawyer and economist, formerly Congress opponent but joined Union Cabinet on Gandhi's advice. Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Guided the Draft Constitution through the Assembly.
- K.M. Munshi: Lawyer from Gujarat, member of Drafting Committee, provided crucial inputs.
- Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar: Lawyer from Madras, member of Drafting Committee, provided crucial inputs.
These six were aided by two civil servants:
- B. N. Rau: Constitutional Advisor, prepared background papers based on studies of other countries' political systems.
- S. N. Mukherjee: Chief Draughtsman, translated complex proposals into clear legal language.
Ambedkar guided the Draft Constitution over three years (discussions filled eleven volumes). Deliberations were interesting; members expressed divergent views, reflecting conflicting ideas about India's language, political/economic systems, and moral values.
The Vision Of The Constitution
On December 13, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the "Objectives Resolution" in the Constituent Assembly. This pivotal resolution outlined the fundamental ideals and framework for the Constitution of Independent India.
The resolution proclaimed India as an "Independent Sovereign Republic" and guaranteed its citizens justice, equality, and freedom. It also pledged to provide "adequate safeguards" for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes.
Nehru placed the Indian constitution-making project within a broad historical context, drawing parallels to past efforts to establish rights and create constitutions in other parts of the world.
Source 1: Excerpt from Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech on the Objectives Resolution (December 13, 1946).
Nehru recalls American/French Constituent Assemblies (struggle for liberty), notes standing test of time/creating great nations. Mind goes to Russian revolution creating new state type (USSR), mighty country, neighboring India, playing tremendous part. Learn from their success/avoid failures. Resolution declares independent sovereign republic. India bound to be sovereign, independent, republic. Why not "democratic"? Republic contains word. Whole past witnesses stand for democratic institutions. Aiming at democracy, nothing less. Form/shape another matter. Present democracies (Europe/elsewhere) great part in progress. May need change shape to remain democratic. Not just copy, hope to improve. System must fit temper of people, acceptable. Stand for democracy, House determines shape, fullest democracy hoped. Haven't used "democratic" (obvious, republic contains it, avoid redundant words). Given content of democracy, economic democracy. Some object not Socialist State. Stands for Socialism, hopes India/world go that way to Socialist State constitution.
Answer:
Jawaharlal Nehru explains that he did not explicitly use the term "democratic" in the Objectives Resolution because he believed it was implicitly included within the term "republic." He stated, "...we thought that it is obvious that the word 'republic' contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words..." He further emphasized that the Resolution did something more significant than just using the word; it provided the actual "content" of democracy, including the content of "economic democracy," within its provisions, reflecting the ideals and principles they aimed to enshrine in the Constitution.
The Will Of The People
Nehru's speech revealed his perspective on the origin of the Constitution's ideals. By referencing the American and French Revolutions, he placed India's constitution-making process within a larger global history of struggles for liberty. He emphasized the monumental nature of India's project by linking it to these revolutionary moments, suggesting India was participating in a long-standing tradition of seeking freedom and rights.
However, Nehru did not advocate for simply copying past models. He emphasized that the specific form of democracy for India had to be decided through careful deliberation within the Assembly and had to "fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them." He stressed creative thinking, adapting ideas from elsewhere (learning from Western achievements and failures), but also suggested that even Western nations could learn from India's experiment.
Nehru articulated a vision to fuse liberal democratic ideals with the socialist idea of economic justice, adapting these within the Indian context. His plea was for original thought appropriate for India's unique circumstances, rooted in the collective will and aspirations of its people.
Somnath Lahiri, a Communist member, criticized the Constituent Assembly, viewing it as British-made and lacking true autonomy while British power remained. He urged members to declare independence immediately. Nehru admitted the Assembly's origin but emphasized its strength came from "the will of the people" behind it, not state papers. He declared they would go as far as people wished, fulfilling their passions for democracy, equality, and justice.
Source 2: Somnath Lahiri's speech excerpt from the Constituent Assembly Debates, critiquing the Assembly as being under British influence.
Lahiri congratulates Nehru's bold words on not accepting British imposition, readiness for struggle valley. Says imposition here now. British Plan makes future Constitution dependent on treaty satisfactory to Britisher. For difference run to Federal Court or dance attendance in England/call British PM Attlee. Under shadow of British guns, army, economic/financial stranglehold. Final power in British hands, power question not decided, future not completely in hands. Attlee/others statements clear: threaten with division entirely if need be. No freedom in this country. Patel: freedom only to fight among ourselves. Humble suggestion: not working Plan but declare independence here now. Call on Interim Govt, people to stop fratricidal war, look out against enemy (British Imperialism), fight together, resolve claims after free.
Answer:
The speaker in Source 2 believes the Constituent Assembly was under the shadow of British guns because, despite the formation of an interim government, the British were still physically present in India with their army and weapons ("under the shadow of British guns, British Army"). Furthermore, he argues that the British still held ultimate power and control ("economic and financial stranglehold," "final power is still in the British hands"). He points out that the British Plan for the transfer of power explicitly made the future Constitution dependent on a treaty with Britain, and even suggested that disputes would have to be resolved by appealing to British institutions or leaders ("Federal Court or dance attendance there in England; or to call on the British Prime Minister"). He also highlights that recent statements by British leaders (like Attlee) indicated the possibility of further division, implying that the future of India was not fully in the hands of the Assembly members. All these factors led him to conclude that the Assembly's work was constrained and supervised by the British, hence under their "shadow."
Ideals like democracy, equality, justice were central to social struggles from the 19th century (social reformers, religious reformers, workers/peasants movements). Demand for representation led British to introduce reforms (Acts of 1909, 1919, 1935), increasing Indian participation in provincial governments. Electorate expanded but limited (10-15% adults in 1935). Legislatures under 1935 Act within colonial framework, responsible to British Governor. Nehru's vision (Dec 13, 1946) was for independent, sovereign Republic, distinct from earlier limited self-governance.
Defining Rights
Defining rights of citizens, oppressed groups, and minorities sparked vigorous debate. No pre-agreed answers; consensus evolved through clashes of opinion and individual encounters. Makers had to fulfill people's aspirations, reconciling conflicting demands.
The Problem With Separate Electorates
Demand for continuing separate electorates (introduced by British for Muslims) was powerfully argued by B. Pocker Bahadur. Argued minorities exist, need political framework for harmony, requires representation. Separate electorates ensure Muslims voice heard, needs understood, true representatives chosen by own community.
This demand provoked anger/dismay among nationalists. Seen as British tactic to divide. Partition heightened opposition ("poison," caused bloodshed, divided nation). Sardar Patel urged doing away with it for peace.
Source 3: Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel’s statement on separate electorates, emphasizing it caused nation's division and British legacy of mischief.
Patel says no use claiming separate electorates are good; heard it long, result is separate nation. Asks for example of free country with separate electorates; willing to accept if shown. If persisted after division, woe to country, not worth living. Says for own good, forget past. Hope for unity. British gone, left mischief. Don't want to perpetuate. British introduced for easy admin, didn't expect to go soon. Left legacy. Need to get out or not?
Answer:
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel's statement strongly argues that separate electorates were a divisive tool introduced by the British for their administrative convenience, which ultimately led to the tragic partition of India. He sees the demand for separate electorates as having culminated in the creation of a separate nation ("we are now a separate nation"), despite being harmful in the long run. He challenges proponents to find examples of other free countries with such a system, implying its incompatibility with true independence and unity. He urges minorities to abandon this demand for their own good and for the peace and unity of the country, describing it as a "mischief" left behind by the British that should not be perpetuated. His argument reflects the nationalist desire to build a single, unified nation-state, viewing separate electorates as a fundamental obstacle to this goal and a threat to the country's future stability after the trauma of Partition.
Govind Ballabh Pant argued separate electorates harmful for nation and minorities. Agreed democracy needs confidence, citizens treated with self-respect, majority understand minority problems. Opposed separate electorates: suicidal demand, isolates minorities, makes vulnerable, deprives effective government voice. Permanent isolation leads to frustration, inability to become integral part of nation, guide its destiny.
Source 4: Govind Ballabh Pant’s argument against separate electorates (August 27, 1947), stating they are suicidal to minorities and hinder integration.
Pant believes separate electorates suicidal to minorities, tremendous harm. Isolated forever, never convert into majority. Frustration cripples from beginning. Asks minority desires, ultimate objective (remain minorities or integral part of great nation, guide destiny?). If latter, achieve aspiration if isolated? Extremely dangerous segregated in air-tight compartment, rely on others for air they breath. Minorities returned by separate electorates never have effective voice.
Answer:
Govind Ballabh Pant's arguments against separate electorates are based on the idea that they would condemn minorities to permanent political isolation and powerlessness. He views separate electorates as a "suicidal demand" because they would segregate minorities into "air-tight compartment[s]," preventing them from becoming part of the mainstream political life and eventually participating in guiding the nation's destiny. His argument is that by being elected only by their own community, minority representatives would have limited influence in the legislature and would always remain a minority block, whereas participation in joint electorates could allow them to build alliances and have a more effective voice. He suggests that true empowerment and fulfillment of aspirations for minorities lie in becoming an "integral part of a great nation" with equality of opportunity, which he believes is impossible if they are segregated politically. The core of his argument is that separate electorates hinder integration, perpetuate minority status, and ultimately deprive minorities of meaningful political power and influence.
Concern for unified nation-state. Citizen loyalty to State required. Communities cultural entities with rights, but politically equal members of one State. Fear of divided loyalties hindering strong nation/State forging. Pant: degrading habit of community-based thinking, citizen must count, base/summit of social pyramid. Lurking fear community rights lead to divided loyalties, difficult to forge strong nation/State.
Not all Muslims supported separate electorates. Begum Aizaas Rasul saw them as self-destructive, isolating minorities. Most Muslim members agreed by 1949, needed active participation in democracy for decisive voice.
“We Will Need Much More Than This Resolution”
Welcoming Objectives Resolution, N.G. Ranga (socialist, peasant leader) interpreted "minorities" economically: poor/downtrodden the real minorities. Welcomed legal rights but noted limits for poor. Meaningless knowing rights without conditions for enjoyment. Needed "props," "ladder."
Source 6: N.G. Ranga's speech excerpt (Welcoming Objectives Resolution) on minorities as masses, downtrodden, needing protection beyond legal rights.
Ranga says lots of talk about minorities (Hindus in Pakistan, Sikhs, Muslims). Real minorities: masses of country (depressed, oppressed, suppressed), unable to take advantage of ordinary civil rights. Tribal areas: traditional law land cannot be alienated, merchants snatch lands in free market, turn tribals into slaves by bonds, make hereditary bond-slaves. Ordinary villagers: moneylender gets villagers in pocket, landlord/zamindar/malguzar exploit poor. No elementary education. These are real minorities needing protection/assurances. Need much more than Resolution.
Answer:
Ranga defines "minority" not just by religious or numerical criteria, but primarily in economic and social terms. According to him, the real minorities are the impoverished and oppressed masses of the country ("the masses of this country," "depressed and oppressed and suppressed"). He includes tribals (facing land alienation and bond-slavery by merchants despite protective laws) and ordinary villagers (exploited by moneylenders and landlords/zamindars). His definition highlights the vulnerability and powerlessness of these groups due to their lack of resources, economic exploitation, absence of education, and inability to effectively exercise their rights or protect themselves within the existing social and economic structures. They are minorities in the sense that they are marginalized, exploited, and lack access to opportunities, even though they constitute a large portion of the population. This definition emphasizes the socio-economic dimensions of marginalization beyond conventional categories of minority status.
Ranga also noted gulf between masses and Assembly representatives: most not from masses, acted as trustees/champions. Called for conditions enabling enjoyment of rights (protection, props, ladder).
“We Were Suppressed For Thousands Of Years”
Rights of Depressed Castes: Ambedkar initially demanded separate electorates, opposed by Gandhi. Constituent Assembly debate on resolving opposition, providing protection. Some members emphasized problem not just safeguards but social norms/caste values. Society used services/labor but maintained social distance, denied mixing/entry to temples. J. Nagappa: Depressed Castes not minority numerically (20-25% population), suffering from systematic marginalization, lack of education/administration share. K.J. Khanderkar: Suppressed thousands of years, minds/bodies/hearts incapacitated, unable to march forward.
After Partition violence, Ambedkar no longer argued for separate electorates. Assembly recommended abolishing untouchability, opening temples to all castes, reserving legislative seats/government jobs for lowest castes. Measures welcomed, but recognized not all problems solved; needed change in societal attitudes. Indian variant of secularism: no absolute State-religion separation, but "judicious distance." Legal space for social reform (ban untouchability, change personal/family laws).
Source 7: Dakshayani Velayudhan (from Madras), argues against safeguards for Depressed Castes, emphasizes moral safeguard, removal of social disabilities.
Velayudhan argues: Not all kinds of safeguards wanted. Moral safeguard wanted, gives protection to "underdogs." Refuses 70 million Harijans considered minority. Want immediate removal social disabilities.
Answer:
Dakshayani Velayudhan argues against emphasizing safeguards and instead calls for the fundamental removal of social disabilities faced by the Depressed Castes. By "moral safeguard," she likely means a change in the conscience and attitudes of society, a commitment to social justice that is internalized and practiced by people themselves, rather than solely relying on external legal protections or special provisions. She challenges the idea of considering "seventy million Harijans" as a minority based on numbers, highlighting their significant population proportion, but also emphasizes their desire for social acceptance and equality ("want immediate removal of our social disabilities," not privileges). She advocates for a transformation in the moral and social fabric of the country that would eliminate discrimination at its root, making legal safeguards less necessary or more effective. This perspective emphasizes the need for a societal shift in values and behavior towards the Depressed Castes as the true path to their emancipation, rather than focusing on numerical minority status or legal protections alone.
Source 8: K.J. Khanderkar (from Central Provinces) speaks on the historical suppression of Depressed Castes, rendering them incapacitated.
Khanderkar says: Suppressed thousands of years... to such extent neither minds nor bodies/hearts work... unable to march forward. This is position.
Answer:
K.J. Khanderkar's statement describes the profound and crippling impact of thousands of years of suppression on the Depressed Castes. By saying "neither our minds nor our bodies and now even our hearts work, nor are we able to march forward," he articulates how the long history of oppression has incapacitated them on multiple levels: intellectually (minds), physically (bodies), emotionally/spiritually (hearts), and in terms of progress or agency ("unable to march forward"). This goes beyond just economic or political deprivation, describing a state of deep psychological and societal damage resulting from centuries of being held down and denied opportunities. He emphasizes that their current disadvantaged position is a direct consequence of this prolonged historical suppression ("This is the position"), making a powerful case for the necessity of compensatory measures and active intervention to overcome such deep-seated historical injustices and enable the Depressed Castes to achieve equality and progress in the new nation.
Constituent Assembly debates: demonstrate conflicting voices, demands, ideals, principles. Ideals re-worked within context. Members changed ideas as debate unfolded, influenced by others' arguments, events. Process of give-and-take, forging middle ground.
Substantial agreement on granting vote to every adult Indian (unprecedented). Other democracies granted vote slowly, in stages (men of property, education, working-class, women). Second feature: emphasis on secularism. No absolute separation, but "judicious distance" between State/religion. Freedom of religion, cultural/educational rights, equality rights guaranteed. Equal treatment for all religions by State, right to maintain charities. State distance from communities: no compulsory religious instruction in State schools, no religious discrimination in employment. Legal space for social reform (ban untouchability, change personal/family laws).
Debates help understand conflicts, demands, ideals, principles. Ideals re-worked according to context. Members changed ideas over time, influenced by debate/events.