Framing The Indian Constitution
An Introduction
The Constituent Assembly produced the constitution, which was signed on January 26, 1950.
Between December 1946 and December 1949, India's Constitution was drafted. The
assembly met for 11 sessions over the course of 165 days.
India became independent on August 15, 1947, yet it was also split. In addition, there were
major protests by workers and labourers in many sections of the country. The degree of
Hindu-Muslim solidarity displayed by this mass movement was one of its most striking
elements.
The Congress and the Muslim League, India's two most powerful political parties, had
repeatedly failed to reach an agreement that would bring religious and social harmony to the
country.
The August 1946 'Great Calcutta Killings' kicked off a year of near-constant rioting in
northern and eastern India.
When India's partition was announced, the violence culminated in the killings that preceded
the population transfer.
On the one hand, there was a fear of unexpected death or the squeezing of opportunities, and
on the other hand, there was a forcible breaking away from their age-old roots among Hindus
and Muslims on both sides.
Millions of refugees fled to East and West Pakistan, while Hindus and Sikhs fled to West
Bengal and Punjab's eastern part.
Another important issue was the integration of princely states, which controlled around one-
third of the subcontinent's land area. These states were autonomous, and following the
partition, some of them desired to maintain their independence.
The Making of The Constituent Assembly
The members were chosen on the basis of the provincial election of 1946. It comprised the
members of the provinces of British India & also the members from the princely states. There
were 300 members in the assembly.
The Muslim League boycotted the early sittings of the meetings. Hence, 82 per cent of the
members of the assembly were members of the Congress party.
The Congress was itself a broad front; these members held a wide range of views. Some were
atheists and secularists; others (in the words of an Anglo-Indian member, Frank Anthony)
were “technically members of the Congress but spiritually members of the RSS and the
Hindu Mahasabha”.
Some were socialists in their economic philosophy, others defenders of the rights of
landlords.
Congress also nominated independent members of different castes and religious groups and
tried to ensure the representation of women.
The discussions within the Constituent Assembly were also influenced by the opinions
expressed by the public.
As the deliberations continued, the arguments were reported in newspapers, and the proposals
were publicly debated. Criticisms and counter-criticism in the press in turn shaped the nature
of the consensus that was ultimately reached on specific issues.
In order to create a sense of collective participation, the public was also asked for
submissions.
The All India Varnashrama Swarajya Sangh (based in Calcutta) asked that the Constitution
“be based on the principles laid down in ancient Hindu works”.
The ban on abattoirs was particularly recommended. Low-caste groups demanded an end to
“ill-treatment by upper-caste people” and “reservation of separate seats on the basis of their
population, in legislatures, government departments, and local bodies, etc.
Also, the linguistic minorities asked for “freedom of speech and the “redistribution of
provinces on a linguistic basis.
Religious minorities demanded more protection. And organisations as diverse as the
'Vizianagaram District Teachers' Guild and the Central Jewish Board of Bombay demanded
"appropriate representation on all public bodies, including legislatures and other bodies."
List some of the dominant voices of the assembly?
The Constituent Assembly had 300 members in total. Six of them had highly important
responsibilities to play. The Congress party included Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel,
and Rajendra Prasad.
Nehru was the one who proposed a "horizontal tricolour of saffron, white, and dark green in
equal proportions" with a navy blue wheel in the centre, as well as the critical "Objectives
Resolution."
V. B. Patel, on the other hand, mostly worked behind the scenes, assisting in the preparation
of numerous reports and striving to reconcile opposing opinions.
As President of the Assembly, Rajendra Prasad's job was to steer the debate in a good
direction while ensuring that all members had a chance to speak.
A key member of the Assembly was B.R. Ambedkar, a lawyer and economist.
During the British government, Ambedkar was a political opponent of the Congress, but after
Independence, on Mahatma Gandhi's recommendation, he was asked to join the Union
Cabinet as a law minister.
He was the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Drafting. K.M. Munshi of Gujarat
and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar of Madras accompanied him and made substantial
contributions to the Constitution's formation.
Two civil servants were instrumental in assisting these six individuals. India's Constitutional
Advisor, B. N. Rau wrote a series of background papers based on a comprehensive
assessment of other countries' political systems.
The other was Chief Draughtsman, S. N Mukherjee.
Although the process required eleven large volumes, it was both time-consuming and
fascinating.
The Constituent Assembly's members were articulate in expressing their frequently radically
opposing ideas.
In their presentations, they discuss a variety of contrasting viewpoints on India, including
what language Indians should use, what political and economic systems the country should
adopt, and what moral standards its citizens should maintain or relinquish.
The Vision of the Constitution
Jawahar Lal Nehru presented “The Objective Resolution” to the constituent assembly on
December 13, 1946.
It was a historic resolution that described the Constitution of Independent India's defining
ideas and established the framework within which the constitution-making process would
take place.
It declared India an "Independent Sovereign Republic," promising justice, equality, and
freedom to its population, as well as "sufficient safeguards" for minorities, backward and
tribal territories, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes.
In returning to the past and referring to the American and French Revolutions, Nehru was
locating the history of constitution-making in India within a longer history of struggle for
liberty and freedom.
The momentous nature of the Indian project was emphasised by linking it to revolutionary
moments in the past. Nehru was not suggesting that those events were to provide any
blueprint for the present; or that the ideas of those revolutions could be mechanically
borrowed and applied in India.
He did not define the specific form of democracy and suggested that this had to be decided
through deliberations.
He stressed that the ideals and provisions of the constitution introduced in India could not be
just derived from elsewhere “We are not going just to copy”, he said.
It was necessary to learn from the people of the West, from their achievements and failures,
but the Western nations too had to learn from experiments elsewhere, they too had to change
their own notions of democracy.
The objective of the Indian Constitution would be to fuse the liberal ideas of democracy with
the socialist idea of economic justice and re-adapt and re-work all these ideas within the
Indian context.
The Will of The People
Somnath Lahiri, a Communist in the Constituent Assembly, sensed the shadow of British
imperialism over their work. As a result, he exhorted the group's members, as well as Indians
in general, to break free of imperial authority.
The British were still in India during the Assembly's deliberations in the winter of 1946-47.
Even though Jawaharlal Nehru was in charge of an interim government, it could only work
with the Viceroy and the British government in London as guidance.
According to Lahiri, the Constituent Assembly was crafted by the British and was "working
the British designs as the British should like it to be worked out.
Nationalist leaders, Nehru conceded, desired a different form of Constituent Assembly than
the one he had proposed.
Furthermore, it was true that the British Government had played a role in the Assembly's
creation by attaching restrictions to its operation.
The desires of people who had taken part in the independence movement were supposed to be
expressed through the Constituent Assembly.
Since the nineteenth century, democratic, equitable, and just societies in India have been
closely identified with these values.
It was out of a desire for social fairness that nineteenth-century social reformers fought
against child marriage and urged that widows be permitted to remarry. Swami Vivekananda
pushed for Hinduism's reform because he wanted it to be a more equitable religion.
Workers and peasants in Maharashtra, such as Jyotiba Phule, demanded economic and social
justice by drawing attention to the plight of depressed castes.
It was inevitable that the national movement against a tyrannical and illegitimate regime
would be one for democracy and justice, for people's rights and equality. Due to an increase
in demand for representation, the British government was obliged to make a number of
constitutional changes.
Indian participation in provincial administrations gradually expanded as a result of a number
of Acts (1909, 1919, and 1935).
In 1919, the executive was made partially accountable to the provincial legislature; by 1935,
this was nearly totally the case. In 1937, following elections mandated by the 1935 Act,
Congress took control of eight of the country's 11 provinces.
Indians did not personally discuss or develop any of the earlier constitutional experiments,
which were in reaction to the growing demand for a representative government.
The colonial authority put them in place. Even though the electorate that chose provincial
organisations had grown over time, the adult franchise remained a privilege only available to
10 to 15 percent of the adult population in 1935.
In the context of colonial authority, the legislatures elected under the 1935 Act were
accountable to the British-appointed Governor.
On December 13, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru attempted to sketch forth a vision of an
independent, sovereign India through the formulation of the Indian Constitution.
Defining Rights
The constituent assembly's main concern was defining what it meant to be right.
Nehru had evoked the "will of the people" in his inaugural speech, declaring that the framers
of the Constitution had to fulfil "the desires that lurk in the hearts of the masses."
This wasn't a simple task. In the run-up to independence, various groups expressed their
desire in a variety of ways and made a variety of demands. Before an agreement could be
reached, these would have to be contested and contradictory perspectives resolved.
What were problems with the separate electorates?
B. Pocker Bahadur of Madras made a convincing case for the continuation of distinct
electorates on August 27, 1947.
Minorities exist in all countries, he continued, and they can't be wished away or "erased out
of existence."
It was necessary to establish a political framework in which minorities could live in peace
with others and community differences could be minimised. Separate electorates are the only
way to ensure that Muslims have a genuine say in the country's government.
Bahadur believed that non-Muslims could not fully comprehend the requirements of
Muslims, and that a legitimate representative of Muslims could not be chosen by those who
did not belong to that community.
Most nationalists were outraged and disappointed by this demand for separate electorates.
Separate electorates were viewed by most nationalists as a deliberate effort by the British to
divide the people.
In the opinion of Govind Ballabh Pant, it was harmful to the nation as well as to minorities.
He agreed with Bahadur that the level of trust that a democracy instils in different groups of
people can be used to measure its success.
As long as we're living in a free state where everyone is treated with respect, the majority
community has an obligation to understand and sympathise with minorities' problems and
aspirations. This includes "not only his material wants, but also his spiritual sense of self-
respect".
Separate electorates, on the other hand, were opposed by Pant.
Isolating minorities and making them vulnerable was a suicidal demand that would deny
them a meaningful role in government.
However, citizens will be granted certain freedoms under the Constitution if they agree to
serve the state.
Cultural rights can be guaranteed to communities that are recognised as cultural entities.
However, in order to avoid splintered loyalties, all citizens of the State were required to act as
equals within the State.
"Not all Muslims backed the call for separate electorates. Begum Aizaas Rasul argues that
segregated electorates are destructive because they separate minorities from the majority.
By 1949, the vast majority of Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly had come to the
conclusion that separate electorates were harmful to the interests of minorities. When it came
to ensuring they had a strong political voice, Muslims took an active role in the democratic
process.
More Than A Resolution
N.G. Ranga, a socialist and former leader of the peasant movement, argued that the term
"minorities" should be construed economically.
He saw the poor and oppressed as the true minorities in society. He praised the Constitution
for the newfound legal protections it provided, but he also emphasised the limitations of those
protections.
According to him, it made no difference to the poor people in the villages if they knew they
now had the fundamental right to live and full employment, or if they could hold their
meetings, conferences, associations, and other forms of civil liberties.
To whom the Assembly was supposed to represent?
The people who make up the bulk of our population. The majority of the people in the
assembly, on the other hand, were not a part of the masses.
The members in the assembly were the trustees and advocates of the people.
How were the rights of the Depressed Castes to be defined by the Constitution?
During the national movement, Ambedkar called for separate electorates for the Depressed
Castes, which Mahatma Gandhi opposed, claiming that doing so would permanently separate
them from the rest of society.
Some Depressed Castes members emphasised that protection and safeguards alone could not
solve the “Untouchables” problem.
Caste society's social norms and moral values caused their disabilities. Society used their
labour but kept them at a social distance, refusing to mix, dine, or let them into temples.
“We have suffered, but we are ready to stop,” said Madras resident J. Nagappa. Our
responsibilities are clear. We can assert ourselves.” Nagappa noted that the Depressed Castes
were not a minority, constituting 20-25% of the total population.
This was not due to their numerical insignificance. They had no access to education or power.
This is the job. He too abandoned separate electorates after the Partition violence.
The Constituent Assembly finally recommended abolishing untouchability, opening Hindu
temples to all castes, and reserving legislative seats and government jobs for the lowest
castes.
Many recognised that this could not solve all issues: social discrimination had to be
eradicated through social change. But the democratic public praised the measures.
The Powers Of The State
The rights of the Central Government and the States were hotly debated in the Constituent
Assembly. Jawaharlal Nehru argued for a strong Centre. The provision of a weak central
authority incapable of ensuring peace, coordinating vital matters of common concern, and
effectively speaking for the entire country in international forums would be detrimental to the
country's interests.
The Union, State, and Concurrent lists of subjects. The first list was reserved for the Centre,
while the second was for the States. Third list: Centre and state responsibility shared.
Some items were placed under Union control exclusively, while others were placed on the
Concurrent list, contrary to province wishes. The Union ruled minerals and key industries,
too. Article 356 also empowered the Centre to take over a state administration on the
Governor's recommendation.
The Constitution required a complex fiscal federalism system. In some cases (like customs
duties and company taxes), the Centre kept all the revenue; in others (like income tax and
excise duties), it split it with the states; and in still others (like estate duties), it gave it all to
the states.
Taxes levied by the states included land and property taxes, sales taxes, and the highly
profitable tax on bottled liquor.
Redistribution Of Power
K. Santhanam from Madras eloquently defended state rights. He believed that redistributing
power would strengthen both the states and the Centre.
“It's almost an obsession to strengthen the Centre by giving it more powers.” This was a
mistake, Santhanam said.
The Centre could not function properly if it was overburdened. The Centre could be
strengthened by transferring some of its functions to the states.
Santhanam felt the proposed power sharing would cripple the states.
Fiscal provisions would impoverish provinces as most taxes, except land revenue, would be
centralised.
The argument for more provincial power drew a strong reaction in the Assembly. Since the
Constituent Assembly's inception, the need for a strong centre has been emphasised.
“A strong and united Centre (hear, hear) much stronger than the Centre we created under the
Government of India Act of 1935,” Ambedkar declared. Reminding the members of the
nation's riots and violence, many members stated that the Centre's powers needed to be
greatly strengthened to stop the communal frenzy.
In response to provincial demands for power, Gopalaswami Ayyangar declared that “the
Centre should be strengthened”.
Balakrishna Sharma, from the United Provinces, argued that only a strong central government
could plan for the country's future, mobilise economic resources, establish a proper
administration, and defend it against foreign aggression.
Before Partition, Congress agreed to give the provinces considerable autonomy. This was
done to reassure the Muslim League that the Centre would not interfere in their provinces.
After Partition, most nationalists changed their minds because they felt the political pressures
for decentralisation had gone.
The colonial government imposed a unitary system. The era's violence pushed centralisation,
seen as necessary to avoid chaos and plan for the country's economic development.
The Constitution thus favoured the rights of the Union of India over those of its states.
The Language Of The Nation
The Congress had accepted Hindustani as the national language by the 1930s. Mahatma
Gandhi believed that everyone should speak in plain English. Hindustani, a composite
language enriched by the interaction of diverse cultures, was widely spoken in India.
As it had evolved over time, it was understood by people from all over the world. This
multicultural language, Mahatma Gandhi believed, could unite Hindus and Muslims, as well
as people from the north and south.
Hindustani as a language had been changing since the late nineteenth century.
As communal strife grew, Hindi and Urdu grew apart.
On one hand, there was a push to Sanskritized Hindi, removing all Persian and Arabic words.
Conversely, Urdu was becoming more Persian. As a result, language became linked to
religious identity politics. But Mahatma Gandhi believed in Hindustani's composite character.
A Plea for Hindi
R. V. Dhulekar, a Congressman from the United Provinces, argued forcefully for the use of
Hindi as the language of the constitution-making process.
On 12 September 1947, almost three years later, Dhulekar's speech on national language
sparked another huge storm.
The Constituent Assembly's Language Committee had already reported and proposed a
compromise solution to end the debate over Hindi as the national language.
Hindi in Devanagari script would be the official language, but that the transition
would be gradual. For the first fifteen years, English would be the official language.
Each province would be able to use one of the regional languages for official
purposes.
The Language Committee of the Constituent Assembly hoped to soothe ruffled
emotions by referring to Hindi as the official rather than the national language.
Dhulekar disliked such a reconciliatory attitude. He wanted Hindi to be a National
Language, not an Official Language. He mocked those who said, in the name of
Mahatma Gandhi, that Hindustani rather than Hindi should be the national language.
The Fear of Domination
Shrimati G. Durgabai from Madras expressed her concerns about the discussion a day after
Dhulekar spoke: Mr President, the question of national language for India has recently
become a highly contentious issue.
Non-Hindi speakers have been made to believe that this fight is a fight to prevent the natural
influence of other powerful Indian languages on the nation's composite culture.
He told the House that opposition to Hindi in the south was fierce: “The opponents feel
perhaps rightly that this Hindi propaganda cuts at the very root of provincial languages...”
But she, like many others, had heeded Mahatma Gandhi's call and spread Hindi propaganda
in the south, overcoming opposition, opening schools and teaching Hindi.
T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar of Madras emphasised that anything done had to be done with
caution; pushing Hindi too hard would harm its cause.
