Constitution: Why and How?
NCERT Solutions • Class 11 Political Science • Chapter 1Objective Type Questions
1. Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
(c) It ensures that good people come to power.
Reason: A constitution lays down procedures for the formation of government and limits on power, but it cannot guarantee the personal moral character of those who get elected.
Reason: A constitution lays down procedures for the formation of government and limits on power, but it cannot guarantee the personal moral character of those who get elected.
2. Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
(c) The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
Reason: The Parliament is a creation of the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the source of the Parliament’s power, its authority is naturally higher.
Reason: The Parliament is a creation of the Constitution. Since the Constitution is the source of the Parliament’s power, its authority is naturally higher.
3. State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.
- (a) Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government. — True
- (b) Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries. — False (Even monarchies or dictatorships can have constitutions).
- (c) Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values. — False (Constitutions embody national values like justice, liberty, and equality).
- (d) A constitution gives its citizens a new identity. — True (It gives a political identity).
Critical Analysis
4. State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons.
- (a) Incorrect. Although not elected by universal suffrage, the Constituent Assembly represented almost all sections of Indian society (religions, castes, and regions) and commanded public respect.
- (b) Incorrect. There were heated debates on almost every provision. The only thing that passed without debate was the introduction of Universal Adult Franchise.
- (c) Incorrect. It was not blind borrowing. The makers adapted provisions from other countries to suit Indian problems and aspirations (e.g., Indian secularism is different from Western secularism).
5. Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:
(a) Made by credible leaders:
1. Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Pt. Nehru, and Sardar Patel had led the freedom struggle and had immense public trust.
2. The debates were open, reasoned, and recorded, showing their dedication to the nation.
(b) Distributed power to prevent subversion:
1. Horizontal distribution of power among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary (Checks and Balances).
2. Independent constitutional bodies like the Election Commission of India.
(c) Locus of people’s hopes:
1. Fundamental Rights (protecting individual liberty).
2. Directive Principles of State Policy (aiming for social and economic justice).
1. Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Pt. Nehru, and Sardar Patel had led the freedom struggle and had immense public trust.
2. The debates were open, reasoned, and recorded, showing their dedication to the nation.
(b) Distributed power to prevent subversion:
1. Horizontal distribution of power among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary (Checks and Balances).
2. Independent constitutional bodies like the Election Commission of India.
(c) Locus of people’s hopes:
1. Fundamental Rights (protecting individual liberty).
2. Directive Principles of State Policy (aiming for social and economic justice).
Theoretical Questions
6. Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
Necessity: To ensure that no single institution (like the army or the police) becomes a monopoly of power. It creates a system of checks and balances.
Consequence of Absence: Without clear demarcation, one branch (e.g., the Executive) might usurp the powers of others, leading to a dictatorship or tyranny, and the rights of citizens would be threatened.
Consequence of Absence: Without clear demarcation, one branch (e.g., the Executive) might usurp the powers of others, leading to a dictatorship or tyranny, and the rights of citizens would be threatened.
7. Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
Necessity of Limitations: To prevent the government from becoming authoritarian and abusing its power against its own citizens (e.g., arbitrary arrests, banning free speech).
Constitution without Citizen Power: Yes, theoretically, a constitution can exist in a totalitarian regime where it only defines the powers of the dictator and gives no rights to citizens. However, such a constitution would not be democratic or just.
Constitution without Citizen Power: Yes, theoretically, a constitution can exist in a totalitarian regime where it only defines the powers of the dictator and gives no rights to citizens. However, such a constitution would not be democratic or just.
8. The Japanese Constitution vs. Indian Experience. Do you see any problem in the Japanese way?
Problem with Japanese Experience: The Japanese constitution was drafted under the supervision of the US occupation army after WWII. This creates a crisis of legitimacy because it was effectively “imposed” by a foreign power, not born from the sovereign will of the Japanese people.
Indian Difference: The Indian Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly composed entirely of Indians, over a period of almost 3 years, through rigorous debate and consensus. It was a sovereign act of the Indian people (“We, the people of India…”).
Indian Difference: The Indian Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly composed entirely of Indians, over a period of almost 3 years, through rigorous debate and consensus. It was a sovereign act of the Indian people (“We, the people of India…”).
Application & Debate
9. Rajat asks: “The constitution is old, outdated, and I didn’t consent to it. Why obey?” How would you answer?
Teacher’s Answer:
“Rajat, you should obey it because:
“Rajat, you should obey it because:
- It is not outdated: The Constitution is a ‘living document’. Through amendments (over 100 so far) and judicial interpretations, it evolves to meet modern needs.
- Moral Consensus: Though you didn’t sign it personally, it represents a historic consensus of our ancestors who fought for our freedom. It provides the very rights (like free speech) you are using to ask this question.
- Rule of Law: Without it, there would be chaos, and ‘might would be right’. The Constitution protects the weak from the strong.”
10. Discussion on the working of the Constitution (Harbans, Neha, Nazima). Do you agree with any?
I agree with Nazima’s position: “The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.”
Why?
The Constitution provides a robust framework for a democratic, secular, and equitable society. It has provisions for affirmative action, fundamental rights, and independent courts.
However, issues like poverty, corruption, and communalism persist not because the document is flawed, but because the people responsible for implementing it (political leaders, bureaucrats, and citizens) have often failed to uphold its spirit. As Dr. Ambedkar stated, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”
I agree with Nazima’s position: “The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.”
Why?
The Constitution provides a robust framework for a democratic, secular, and equitable society. It has provisions for affirmative action, fundamental rights, and independent courts.
However, issues like poverty, corruption, and communalism persist not because the document is flawed, but because the people responsible for implementing it (political leaders, bureaucrats, and citizens) have often failed to uphold its spirit. As Dr. Ambedkar stated, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.”