| Latest History NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 8th to 12th) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th | |||||||||||||||
Chapter 12 Framing The Constitution
Introduction
The Indian Constitution, effective from 26 January 1950, is notably the world's longest. Its extensive nature reflects India's immense size, diversity, and the profound divisions it faced at Independence (Fig. 12.1 shows the signing of the Constitution).
The Constitution was meticulously drafted to unite the country, heal past wounds, and encourage people from diverse backgrounds (classes, castes, communities) to participate in a shared political future. It also aimed to foster democratic institutions in a society historically structured by hierarchy and deference.
The Constitution was framed between December 1946 and November 1949 within the Constituent Assembly of India. The Assembly held eleven sessions over 165 days, with various committees refining drafts between sessions. This chapter explores the historical context and intense debates behind the Constitution, using the voices within the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) as primary sources to understand the process and the vision for the new nation.
A Tumultuous Time
The period immediately preceding constitution-making was marked by immense hope (Independence on 15 August 1947) and deep disappointment (Partition). Recent history included mass movements like the Quit India struggle (1942), armed struggle attempts by Subhas Chandra Bose, and the Royal Indian Navy ratings' uprising (1946). Scattered protests by workers and peasants also occurred.
These popular movements often showed Hindu-Muslim unity, contrasting sharply with the failure of Congress and the Muslim League to achieve reconciliation. The Great Calcutta Killings (August 1946) initiated a year of violence, culminating in the massacres during Partition. Millions of refugees migrated, facing death or forced displacement from ancestral homes (Fig. 12.2 shows images of desolation from Partition).
Another challenge was integrating the princely states (approx. one-third of India's area), ruled by princes who owed allegiance to the British Crown but had relative autonomy. With the British departure, their status became ambiguous, with some princes contemplating independence, potentially leading to further fragmentation ("an India of many partitions"). This was the turbulent backdrop against which the Constituent Assembly worked, reflecting the external turmoil in its internal debates.
The Making Of The Constituent Assembly
The Constituent Assembly members were not directly elected by universal adult franchise. Instead, they were chosen by representatives of the Provincial Legislatures, who were themselves elected in the provincial elections of 1945-46 (based on a limited franchise).
The Assembly was largely dominated by the Congress, which won most general seats. The Muslim League won most reserved Muslim seats but boycotted the Assembly, demanding a separate constitution for Pakistan. Socialists initially hesitated, viewing the Assembly as a British creation. Consequently, about 82% of the Assembly members were from the Congress.
However, the Congress was not a monolithic party; its members held diverse views (socialist vs. pro-landlord, secular vs. communal). Having debated publicly during the national movement, they continued to express differing opinions within the Assembly. Public opinion also influenced debates, as deliberations were reported in newspapers and publicly debated, with feedback sought from the public. Demands from linguistic minorities (protection of language), religious minorities (safeguards), and Dalits (end to caste oppression, reservations) were debated in the Assembly, highlighting key issues of cultural rights and social justice.
The Dominant Voices
Out of the 300 members, six played particularly significant roles in the Constituent Assembly (Fig. 12.4 shows the Assembly in session). Three were Congress representatives: Jawaharlal Nehru (moved the Objectives Resolution and resolution for National Flag), Vallabh Bhai Patel (worked behind the scenes, drafted reports, reconciled views), and Rajendra Prasad (President, steered discussions, ensured everyone had a voice). (List of Important Committees outlines key committees and presidents).
Beyond this trio, B.R. Ambedkar, a lawyer and economist, was highly influential. Despite being a political opponent of the Congress under British rule, he joined the Union Cabinet as law minister at Gandhi's recommendation and chaired the crucial Drafting Committee (Fig. 12.5 shows Ambedkar). He was assisted by two other lawyers, K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, who provided significant input.
Vital support was provided by civil servants: B. N. Rau (Constitutional Advisor, prepared background papers based on other political systems) and S. N. Mukherjee (Chief Draughtsman, translated complex proposals into clear legal language). Ambedkar guided the Draft Constitution through the Assembly over three years (eleven bulky volumes of debates). The debates reveal divergent views on fundamental issues: language, political and economic systems, and moral values for citizens.
The Vision Of The Constitution
On 13 December 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the "Objectives Resolution" in the Constituent Assembly. This pivotal resolution outlined the core ideals and framework for the Constitution of independent India. It declared India an "Independent Sovereign Republic," guaranteeing citizens justice, equality, and freedom, and ensuring "adequate safeguards" for minorities, tribal areas, and backward classes. Nehru placed the Indian project within a broader historical context, referencing past efforts to create similar documents of rights.
We Are Not Going Just To Copy
Nehru's speech (Source 1) reflected on historical constitution-making, citing the American and French Revolutions, linking India's project to a long history of struggle for liberty (Source 1 is excerpts from Nehru's speech).
Source 1. We are not going just to copy
This is what Jawaharlal Nehru said in his famous speech of 13 December 1946:
My mind goes back to the various Constituent Assemblies that have gone before and of what took place at the making of the great American nation when the fathers of that nation met and fashioned out a Constitution which has stood the test of so many years, more than a century and a half, and of the great nation which has resulted, which has been built up on the basis of that Constitution. My mind goes back to that mighty revolution which took place also over 150 years ago and to that Constituent Assembly that met in that gracious and lovely city of Paris which has fought so many battles for freedom, to the difficulties that that Constituent Assembly had and to how the King and other authorities came in its way, and still it continued. The House will remember that when these difficulties came and even the room for a meeting was denied to the then Constituent Assembly, they betook themselves to an open tennis court and met there and took the oath, which is called the Oath of the Tennis Court, that they continued meeting in spite of Kings, in spite of the others, and did not disperse till they had finished the task they had undertaken. Well, I trust that it is in that solemn spirit that we too are meeting here and that we, too, whether we meet in this chamber or other chambers, or in the fields or in the market-place, will go on meeting and continue our work till we have finished it.
Then my mind goes back to a more recent revolution which gave rise to a new type of State, the revolution that took place in Russia and out of which has arisen the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, another mighty country which is playing a tremendous part in the world, not only a mighty country but for us in India, a neighbouring country.
So our mind goes back to these great examples and we seek to learn from their success and to avoid their failures. Perhaps we may not be able to avoid failures because some measure of failure is inherent in human effort. Nevertheless, we shall advance, I am certain, in spite of obstructions and difficulties, and achieve and realise the dream that we have dreamt so long …
We say that it is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereign republic. India is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it is bound to be a republic … Now, some friends have raised the question: “Why have you not put in the word ‘democratic’ here.?” Well, I told them that it is conceivable, of course, that a republic may not be democratic but the whole of our past is witness to this fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviously we are aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy. What form of democracy, what shape it might take is another matter. The democracies of the present day, many of them in Europe and elsewhere, have played a great part in the world’s progress. Yet it may be doubtful if those democracies may not have to change their shape somewhat before long if they have to remain completely democratic. We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give to that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope. The House will notice that in this Resolution, although we have not used the word “democratic” because we thought it is obvious that the word “republic” contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words, but we have done something much more than using the word. We have given the content of democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of democracy but the content, if I may say so, of economic democracy in this Resolution. Others might take objection to this Resolution on the ground that we have not said that it should be a Socialist State. Well, I stand for Socialism and, I hope, India will stand for Socialism and that India will go towards the constitution of a Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way.
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES (CAD), VOL.I
Answer:
Jawaharlal Nehru explains that the term "democratic" was not explicitly used in the Objectives Resolution because he believed the word "republic" inherently contains the idea of democracy. He states, "... it is obvious that the word 'republic' contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words...". He asserts that while a republic *could* conceivably not be democratic, India's history and the spirit of the movement indicate a clear commitment to "democratic institutions" and "aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy." Furthermore, he argues that the Resolution goes beyond merely using the word by providing the actual "content of democracy" and even the "content of economic democracy" within its clauses, making the explicit inclusion of the word "democratic" redundant in their view.
Nehru referenced the American and French Revolutions to emphasise the project's significance but stressed that India would not simply copy them. The form of democracy had to be determined through deliberations, and the system of government must "fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them." Learning from other nations' successes and failures was necessary, but India's constitution should creatively adapt and rework ideas of democracy, economic justice (socialism), and liberty within the Indian context.
The Will Of The People
Somnath Lahiri, a Communist member, viewed the Constituent Assembly as being under the influence of British imperialism, urging members to declare independence immediately and fight British control which still held "the whip hand." He argued that the Assembly was "working the British plans" (Source 2 is Lahiri's speech).
Source 2. “That is very good, Sir – bold words, noble words”
Somnath Lahiri said:
Well, Sir, I must congratulate Pandit Nehru for the fine expression he gave to the spirit of the Indian people when he said that no imposition from the British will be accepted by the Indian people. Imposition would be resented and objected to, he said, and he added that if need be we will walk the valley of struggle. That is very good, Sir – bold words, noble words.
But the point is to see when and how are you going to apply that challenge. Well, Sir, the point is that the imposition is here right now. Not only has the British Plan made any future Constitution … dependent on a treaty satisfactory to the Britisher but it suggests that for every little difference you will have to run to the Federal Court or dance attendance there in England; or to call on the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee or someone else.
Not only is it a fact that this Constituent Assembly, whatever plans we may be hatching, we are under the shadow of British guns, British Army, their economic and financial stranglehold – which means that the final power is still in the British hands and the question of power has not yet been finally decided, which means the future is not yet completely in our hands. Not only that, but the statements made by Attlee and others recently have made it clear that if need be, they will even threaten you with division entirely. This means, Sir, there is no freedom in this country. As Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel put it some days ago, we have freedom only to fight among ourselves. That is the only freedom we have got …
Therefore, our humble suggestion is that it is not a question of getting something by working out this Plan but to declare independence here and now and call upon the Interim Government, call upon the people of India, to stop fratricidal warfare and look out against its enemy, which still has the whip hand, the British Imperialism – and go together to fight it and then resolve our claims afterwards when we will be free.
CAD, VOL.I
Answer:
According to the speaker (Somnath Lahiri) in Source 2, the Constituent Assembly was under the shadow of British guns for several reasons:
- Presence of British Military: "we are under the shadow of British guns, British Army". This suggests the continued physical presence of British forces exerted pressure.
- Economic and Financial Control: The British maintained an "economic and financial stranglehold," implying control over India's economy limited the Assembly's autonomy.
- External Authority: The British Plan made the future Constitution dependent on a treaty satisfactory to the British, and suggested seeking resolution of differences through external British bodies ("Federal Court or dance attendance there in England; or to call on the British Prime Minister"). This shows the British retained authority over the constitutional process.
- Threat of Division: Recent statements from British officials threatened further division of the country if the Assembly didn't comply, indicating continued British leverage and power over India's future.
These factors combined meant that "the final power is still in the British hands and the question of power has not yet been finally decided," leading Lahiri to believe the Assembly was not truly free and independent.
Nehru acknowledged the British role in setting up the Assembly but argued its strength derived from "the strength of the people behind us" and that it would go as far as the people wished. He believed governments express the will of the people, not merely state papers. The Assembly was expected to embody the aspirations of the independence movement, which had long fought for democracy, equality, and justice.
Social reformers, nationalists, and various movements had championed social and economic justice, citizen's rights, and equality since the 19th century. British reforms (Acts of 1909, 1919, 1935) allowed increasing Indian participation in provincial governments, but were colonial enactments with limited franchise and responsibility to British Governors. Nehru's vision aimed for a Constitution of an independent, sovereign, democratic Republic based on universal adult franchise.
Defining Rights
Defining the rights of individual citizens, oppressed groups, and minorities was a complex task for the Constituent Assembly, with no easy consensus. Answers emerged through debates and reconciliation of conflicting demands, fulfilling the "will of the people" invoked by Nehru.
The Problem With Separate Electorates
B. Pocker Bahadur advocated for continuing separate electorates for Muslims, arguing they were necessary for adequate representation and for Muslims to have a meaningful voice in governance (Source 3 is Bahadur's plea).
Source 3. It is for the majority community to satisfy the minorities
On 27 August 1947, B. Pocker Bahadur from Madras made a powerful plea for continuing separate electorates. Minorities exist in all lands, argued Bahadur; they could not be wished away, they could not be “erased out of existence”. The need was to create a political framework in which minorities could live in harmony with others, and the differences between communities could be minimised. This was possible only if minorites were well represented within the political system, their voices heard, and their views taken into account. Only separate electorates would ensure that Muslims had a meaningful voice in the governance of the country.
The needs of Muslims, Bahadur felt, could not be properly understood by non-Muslims; nor could a true representative of Muslims be chosen by people who did not belong to that community.
Source 4
Answer:
In Source 3, the arguments put forward in favour of continuing separate electorates are:
- Reality of Minorities: Minorities are a reality and cannot be simply ignored or made to disappear.
- Harmony through Representation: To ensure harmony and minimise differences between communities, minorities need to be well-represented in the political system, with their voices heard and views considered.
- Meaningful Voice for Muslims: Separate electorates are presented as the only way for Muslims to have a significant and effective voice in the country's governance.
- Lack of Understanding by Majority: Non-Muslims cannot properly understand the specific needs of Muslims.
- Ensuring True Representation: A true representative of Muslims can only be chosen by members of their own community, not by people from outside the community.
These arguments are based on the premise that communities have distinct interests that can only be represented by members of that community, and that political power sharing requires guaranteed representation for minorities through separate electorates to prevent majority domination.
Most nationalists strongly opposed separate electorates, seeing them as a divisive British tool that led to Partition (Source 3 details this opposition). Sardar Patel called it a "poison" that caused conflict and bloodshed. Govind Ballabh Pant argued it was harmful for both the nation and minorities, fearing it would isolate minorities and prevent them from becoming part of the mainstream, making them vulnerable (Source 4 is Pant's argument).
Source 4. “I believe separate electorates will be suicidal to the minorities”
During the debate on 27 August 1947, Govind Ballabh Pant said:
I believe separate electorates will be suicidal to the minorities and will do them tremendous harm. If they are isolated for ever, they can never convert themselves into a majority and the feeling of frustration will cripple them even from the very beginning. What is it that you desire and what is our ultimate objective? Do the minorities always want to remain as minorities or do they ever expect to form an integral part of a great nation and as such to guide and control its destinies? If they do, can they ever achieve that aspiration and that ideal if they are isolated from the rest of the community? I think it would be extremely dangerous for them if they were segregated from the rest of the community and kept aloof in an air-tight compartment where they would have to rely on others even for the air they breath …
The minorities if they are returned by separate electorates can never have any effective voice.
CAD, VOL.II
Answer:
The different arguments being put forward against separate electorates (from Sources 3 and 4) are:
- Perpetuation of Division: Separate electorates were seen as a British tool deliberately introduced to divide communities ("The English played their game under the cover of safeguards," Source 3), a "poison" that had already led to Partition ("poison that has entered the body politic," Source 3).
- Harmful to Minorities: Pant argues they are "suicidal to the minorities" and will do them "tremendous harm" (Source 4). They will isolate minorities, making them unable to ever become a majority or an integral part of the nation.
- Lack of Effective Voice: Pant states that minorities elected through separate electorates "can never have any effective voice" in the government (Source 4).
- Prevents Unity: Patel argues that separate electorates "turned one community against another" and caused bloodshed (Source 3). Doing away with them is necessary for peace and potential future unity.
- Prevents Integration: Pant argues that minorities will be "isolated for ever," "segregated," and "kept aloof in an air-tight compartment," preventing them from achieving their aspiration of guiding the nation's destiny as an integral part (Source 4).
- Undermines Loyalty: Separate electorates could lead to "divided loyalties," making it difficult to forge a strong, unified nation-state (implied by the emphasis on citizens acting as equal members of one state).
These arguments highlight the deep conviction among nationalists that separate electorates were a barrier to national unity and, paradoxically, harmful to the long-term interests and integration of the minorities themselves.
I Believe Separate Electorates Will Be Suicidal To The Minorities
See the discussion under "The Problem With Separate Electorates" (Source 4).
The Will Of The People
Govind Ballabh Pant, countering the demand for separate electorates, argued for forging a unified nation-state where every individual is a citizen loyal to the state, rather than primarily thinking in terms of communities (Source 5 is Pant's statement on divided loyalty).
Source 5. “There cannot be any divided loyalty”
Govind Ballabh Pant argued that in order to become loyal citizens people had to stop focusing only on the community and the self:
For the success of democracy one must train himself in the art of self-discipline. In democracies one should care less for himself and more for others. There cannot be any divided loyalty. All loyalties must exclusively be centred round the State. If in a democracy, you create rival loyalties, or you create a system in which any individual or group, instead of suppressing his extravagance, cares nought for larger or other interests, then democracy is doomed.
Answer:
According to G.B. Pant, the attributes of a loyal citizen in a democracy are:
- Self-discipline: Training oneself in the art of self-discipline is essential.
- Altruism: Caring "less for himself and more for others."
- Undivided Loyalty to the State: Loyalty must be exclusively centred around the State, with "no divided loyalty."
- Prioritising Larger Interests: Caring about "larger or other interests" instead of individual or group extravagance.
He links these attributes directly to the success of democracy, arguing that rival loyalties or excessive self-interest doom democracy.
While community rights were recognised (cultural rights), the fear existed that focusing too much on community identity could hinder forging a strong nation and state. Begum Aizaas Rasul, a Muslim member, agreed that separate electorates were self-destructive and advocated for Muslims' active participation in democracy.
We Will Need Much More Than This Resolution
N.G. Ranga, a socialist peasant leader, argued that the term "minorities" should primarily refer to the poor and downtrodden ("the masses"), who were the real minorities needing protection. While welcoming legal rights, he stressed that they were meaningless without conditions allowing effective enjoyment, requiring "props" and a "ladder" for these groups (Source 6 on Ranga's definition of minorities).
Source 6. “The real minorities are the masses of this country”
Welcoming the Objectives Resolution introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru, N.G. Ranga said:
Sir, there is a lot of talk about minorities. Who are the real minorities? Not the Hindus in the so-called Pakistan provinces, not the Sikhs, not even the Muslims. No, the real minorities are the masses of this country. These people are so depressed and oppressed and suppressed till now that they are not able to take advantage of the ordinary civil rights. What is the position? You go to the tribal areas. According to law, their own traditional law, their tribal law, their lands cannot be alienated. Yet our merchants go there, and in the so-called free market they are able to snatch their lands. Thus, even though the law goes against this snatching away of their lands, still the merchants are able to turn the tribal people into veritable slaves by various kinds of bonds, and make them hereditary bond-slaves. Let us go to the ordinary villagers. There goes the money-lender with his money and he is able to get the villagers in his pocket. There is the landlord himself, the zamindar, and the malguzar and there are the various other people who are able to exploit these poor villagers. There is no elementary education even among these people. These are the real minorities that need protection and assurances of protection. In order to give them the necessary protection, we will need much more than this Resolution ...
CAD, VOL.II
Answer:
Ranga defines the notion of minority not primarily by religious or numerical criteria, but in economic and social terms. For Ranga, the real minorities are "the masses of this country," the "poor and the downtrodden." He explicitly states they are not defined by religious identity (not Hindus, Sikhs, or even Muslims in the conventional sense). Instead, he identifies minorities as those who are "depressed and oppressed and suppressed" to such an extent that they cannot even utilise basic civil rights. He gives examples like tribal people whose lands are alienated by merchants despite traditional laws, and ordinary villagers exploited by moneylenders and landlords. These groups lack education and are vulnerable to exploitation. Thus, his definition centers on economic vulnerability, lack of power, and social oppression rather than religious or numerical status.
Ranga highlighted the Assembly's class composition, noting that most members, while intending to represent the masses, did not come from those backgrounds. He saw Assembly members as trustees speaking for the masses until they could represent themselves.
We Were Suppressed For Thousands Of Years
Defining the rights of the Depressed Castes was a critical issue. Some members like J. Nagappa from Madras argued that constitutional protection wasn't enough; the root cause was social norms and caste system's moral values that had historically marginalised them despite their significant population (20-25%). They faced social distance, exclusion from temples, and lack of access to education and administration (Source 8 is a quote from Nagappa and Khanderkar).
Source 8. “We were suppressed for thousands of years”
Addressing the assembly, K.J. Khanderkar of the Central Provinces said:
We were suppressed for thousands of years. ... suppressed... to such an extent that neither our minds nor our bodies and now even our hearts work, nor are we able to march forward. This is the position.
Source 7
Answer:
In Source 7, Dakshayani Velayudhan argues that the problem of the Depressed Castes is not primarily a lack of safeguards but the need for the "immediate removal of our social disabilities." She believes that moral safeguards and social change are more crucial than just legal or political protection. She refuses to view the Depressed Castes as a minority based on their numbers (seventy million Harijans) but rather as a group suffering from deep social disabilities.
In Source 8, K.J. Khanderkar emphasises the long history and severity of the oppression faced by the Depressed Castes ("suppressed for thousands of years"). He describes this suppression as affecting not just their minds and bodies but even their "hearts," crippling their ability to progress. His argument focuses on the profound physical, mental, and emotional impact of historical oppression, highlighting the scale of the challenge in enabling their advancement.
Both Velayudhan and Khanderkar speak from the perspective of the Depressed Castes, detailing the severe impact of the caste system. Velayudhan focuses on the social disabilities and the need for their removal as the key to protection, seeing moral safeguard as paramount. Khanderkar emphasizes the long-term, crippling effects of historical suppression on the community's overall capacity for progress. They both highlight the need for more than just superficial safeguards, pointing towards fundamental social change.
K.J. Khanderkar described the crippling effect of millennia of suppression on the Depressed Castes' minds, bodies, and spirits. After the Partition violence, Ambedkar dropped his demand for separate electorates. The Assembly recommended abolishing untouchability, opening Hindu temples to all castes, and reserving seats in legislatures and government jobs for the lowest castes. While recognised as insufficient for complete social change, these measures were welcomed by the democratic public (Source 7 also quotes Dakshayani Velayudhan on social disabilities, Source 7 also quotes Hansa Mehta on women's rights).
We Want Removal Of Our Social Disabilities
See the discussion under "We Were Suppressed For Thousands Of Years" (Source 7).
We Have Never Asked For Privileges
See the discussion under "We Were Suppressed For Thousands Of Years" (Source 7).
The Powers Of The State
A key debate concerned the distribution of powers between the Central Government and the states. Jawaharlal Nehru advocated for a strong Centre, arguing that Partition necessitated a strong central authority to ensure peace, coordinate vital matters, and represent the country internationally.
The Draft Constitution provided for three lists: Union (exclusive Central control), State (exclusive state control), and Concurrent (shared responsibility). The Union list was more extensive than in other federations, and the Concurrent list was larger than provinces desired. The Centre also controlled minerals and key industries and had powers to take over state administration (Article 356) on the Governor's recommendation.
Fiscal federalism involved a complex system of tax distribution: Centre retained some taxes fully, shared others with states, and assigned some entirely to states. States could levy and collect certain taxes (land, property, sales, liquor).
The Centre Is Likely To Break
K. Santhanam from Madras strongly defended states' rights, arguing that overburdening the Centre with responsibilities would weaken it. He believed transferring some functions to states would strengthen both levels. He criticised the proposed fiscal provisions, fearing they would impoverish states, making them dependent on the Centre for funds, potentially leading to a unitary system. Santhanam predicted states would "rise in revolt against the Centre" if the power distribution wasn't re-examined.
Other provincial members shared concerns, arguing for fewer items on the Union and Concurrent lists. A member from Orissa warned that the Centre might "break" due to excessive centralisation (Source 9 is A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar's statement).
Source 9. Who is a better patriot?
Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar from Mysore said during the debate on 21 August 1947:
Let us not lay the flattering unction to our soul that we are better patriots if we propose a strong Centre and that those who advocate a more vigorous examination of these resources are people with not enough of national spirit or patriotism.
Answer:
Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar is arguing against the notion that supporting a strong Centre is the sole measure of patriotism, and that those who advocate for stronger states or a closer examination of resource distribution are less patriotic. He is challenging the idea that there is a simple, single definition of a "better patriot" based solely on one's stance on centralisation. His point is that advocating for the interests of the states or a different distribution of power does not necessarily mean a lack of national spirit; it could stem from a genuine belief about what is best for the nation as a whole, perhaps in ensuring effective governance and development at the provincial level.
What We Want Today Is A Strong Government
Arguments for a strong Centre received strong support, particularly in the context of the violence and chaos following Partition. Ambedkar advocated for a "strong and united Centre." Many members believed a strong centre was necessary to stop communal violence, plan economic development, establish effective administration, and defend the country. Gopalaswami Ayyangar argued the Centre should be "as strong as possible." Balakrishna Sharma reasoned that only a strong centre could ensure national well-being and defence.
Before Partition, Congress had agreed to considerable provincial autonomy to placate the Muslim League. After Partition, most nationalists favoured a stronger centre, believing external pressures for decentralisation were gone and a strong centre was necessary to prevent chaos and promote development. The Constitution ultimately biased towards the Union government's rights over states.
The Language Of The Nation
The language issue was intensely debated, as India's diverse languages posed a challenge to forging a unified nation. How could people communicate and connect across linguistic barriers?
By the 1930s, Congress favoured Hindustani as the national language, seeing it as a blend of Hindi and Urdu, enriched by diverse cultures, and widely understood. Gandhi believed it could unify Hindus and Muslims, and people from north and south.
However, Hindustani had been changing. With deepening communalism, Hindi became increasingly Sanskritised (purging Persian/Arabic words), while Urdu became Persianised. Language became tied to religious identities. Gandhi, however, maintained faith in Hindustani's composite character (Source 10 is Gandhi's view on national language qualities).
Source 10. What should the qualities of a national language be ?
A few months before his death Mahatma Gandhi reiterated his views on the language question:
This Hindustani should be neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised Urdu but a happy combination of both. It should also freely admit words wherever necessary from the different regional languages and also assimilate words from foreign languages, provided that they can mix well and easily with our national language. Thus our national language must develop into a rich and powerful instrument capable of expressing the whole gamut of human thought and feelings. To confine oneself to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against intelligence and the spirit of patriotism.
Answer:
According to Mahatma Gandhi (Source 10), the qualities of a national language should be:
- Composite Nature: It should be a "happy combination" of Hindi and Urdu, avoiding excessive Sanskritisation or Persianisation.
- Inclusiveness: It should be able to "freely admit words" from various regional languages of India and even assimilate suitable words from foreign languages.
- Adaptability: It should only incorporate words that can "mix well and easily" with its existing structure.
- Richness and Power: It must develop into a "rich and powerful instrument" capable of fully expressing human thoughts and feelings.
- Unifying: While not explicitly stated as a quality here, his overall advocacy for Hindustani was based on its potential to unify diverse communities (as mentioned in the main text).
Gandhi believed that being confined to either Hindi or Urdu would limit the language's potential and be unpatriotic, highlighting his vision of a national language that reflects India's diverse linguistic heritage and serves as a strong communication tool.
A Plea For Hindi
R.V. Dhulekar aggressively advocated for Hindi as the language of constitution-making, even suggesting members unfamiliar with Hindi should leave the Assembly. This sparked commotion but highlighted the strong pro-Hindi sentiment (Source of quote by Dhulekar).
Later, the Language Committee proposed a compromise: Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language, with a gradual transition over fifteen years, during which English would also be used. Provinces could choose a regional language for internal official work. By designating Hindi as 'official' rather than 'national,' the committee hoped to resolve the conflict. However, Dhulekar continued to demand Hindi be the National Language, criticising those who preferred Hindustani and arguing its adoption was a historical inevitability rather than a concession (Source of quote by Dhulekar).
The Fear Of Domination
The aggressive push for Hindi caused anxiety, particularly among non-Hindi speaking members. Shrimati G. Durgabai from Madras expressed concern that the Hindi advocacy felt like an attempt to suppress the influence of other regional languages. She noted strong opposition in the south, despite efforts to promote Hindi there, arguing that eroding Hindustani's composite character would create fear among language groups.
Many appealed for accommodation. Shri Shankarrao Deo (Bombay) accepted Hindustani but warned against aggressive Hindi promotion that could raise fears. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras) stressed caution and mutual adjustment to avoid bitterness. The Constitution emerged through intense debate, compromise, and finding a middle ground on issues like language.
Despite debates, there was substantial agreement on two key features: universal adult franchise (unprecedented globally for its immediate adoption) and secularism. While not explicitly named in the Preamble, secularism was enshrined through fundamental rights guaranteeing religious freedom (Arts 25-28), cultural/educational rights (Arts 29-30), and equality rights (Arts 14, 16, 17). The state guaranteed equal treatment for all religions, banned compulsory religious instruction in state institutions, and prohibited religious discrimination in employment. However, it allowed legal space for social reform within communities (e.g., abolishing untouchability, changing personal laws), reflecting a unique Indian model of secularism involving judicious distance, not absolute separation, between state and religion (Fig. 12.9 shows Ambedkar and Prasad at Constitution handover).
The Constituent Assembly debates reveal the conflicting voices and demands negotiated during the framing process, highlighting the ideals and principles guiding the constitution-makers. However, ideals were adapted to context, and members' views evolved over three years due to debates, exposure to different arguments, and reactions to external events.