The Philosophy of the Constitution

• (a) Both daughters and sons will have share in the family property:
  Value: Gender Equality / Social Justice.
  Reason: It breaks the patriarchal tradition where only males inherited property, ensuring equal economic status for women.
• (b) Different slabs of sales tax on different consumer items:
  Value: Economic Justice / Equity.
  Reason: Essential goods used by the poor are taxed less, while luxury items used by the rich are taxed more, reducing the burden on the vulnerable.
• (c) Religious instructions will not be given in any government school:
  Value: Secularism.
  Reason: The state maintains a principled distance from all religions and does not promote any specific faith in public institutions funded by taxpayers.
• (d) There shall be no begar or forced labour:
  Value: Right against Exploitation / Human Dignity.
  Reason: It protects the individual freedom and dignity of the poorest sections who were historically subjected to bonded labour.

(iii) Bring independence from colonial rule.
Reason: A Constitution is a document for governance, checks on power, and protecting rights. While it often follows independence, the Constitution itself is not the tool that “brings” independence; independence is achieved through political struggle or war. A country can be independent without a democratic constitution (e.g., a monarchy).

(i) Identification:

• Relevant: Statement (c) (“Constituent Assembly debates can provide us reasons…”).
• Not Relevant: Statements (a) and (b).

(ii) My Position:
I agree with Statement (c).
Reason: The Constituent Assembly debates are the “original intent” of our nation’s founders. They explain why a provision exists (e.g., why we chose parliamentary democracy over presidential). Without understanding the reasoning (the “Philosophy”), we might interpret the Constitution narrowly or incorrectly. They act as a guiding light when the text is ambiguous.

The correct principles adopted are:

• (d) that state will recognise rights of religious groups: (e.g., Article 30 – Minority Educational Institutions).
• (e) that state will have limited powers to intervene in affairs of religions: (e.g., State can intervene to stop social evils like Sati or Untouchability, but cannot dictate worship rituals).

Note: (a) is incorrect because Indian secularism allows principled intervention. (b) is incorrect as it doesn’t mean “close relation” but “distance”. (c) is strictly incorrect as the state cannot discriminate, though it can classify.

I agree most with Saba and Neha.

Why?
Supporting Saba: Values like equality and freedom are universal human values, not “Western” property. Adopting them enriches us. Rejecting a good idea just because it originated elsewhere is narrow-minded.
Supporting Neha: Our struggle was against Colonialism (domination), not against Western Modernity. We adopted the parliamentary system not because the British forced it, but because our leaders found it best suited for India’s diverse representation after debating various models. It was a conscious national choice, not a blind copy.

Why it is said: The Constituent Assembly was not directly elected by the people of India on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise (which didn’t exist then). It was elected indirectly by Provincial Assemblies (elected on limited franchise) and included nominees from Princely States. Thus, technically, it represented only a minority of the elite/educated population.

Does it make the Constitution unrepresentative? No.
Reason: Even though the process was indirect, the members (Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Prasad) enjoyed immense public support and moral authority across the nation. They acted as trustees of the public will. Furthermore, the Constitution was accepted by the people in the first General Elections (1952) and has been upheld for over 70 years, proving its popular legitimacy.

Evidence of Neglect:

• The original Constitution focused on “individual” rights but ignored the fact that family laws (marriage, divorce, inheritance) were governed by religious personal laws, which were heavily discriminatory against women.
• It did not explicitly ensure equal pay or protection from domestic violence in the Fundamental Rights.

Remedy (If writing today):

• Make Uniform Civil Code (UCC) a justiciable Fundamental Right rather than a Directive Principle to ensure gender equality in family matters.
• Explicitly include “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” in Article 15 (Anti-discrimination).
• Mandatory reservation for women in Parliament (Lok Sabha) and State Assemblies.

Reasons for relegation to DPSP:

• Resource Constraints: In 1947, India was extremely poor. Making rights like “Right to Work” or “Right to Health” justiciable (legally enforceable) was impossible because the State simply didn’t have the money to provide them to everyone immediately.
• Flexibility: The Constitution makers wanted to leave it to future governments to decide the pace of implementation based on available resources and priorities.

Agreement: Yes, I agree it was a pragmatic decision at that time. However, today, as India develops, many DPSPs (like Right to Education) are rightly being shifted to Fundamental Rights.

(Student Activity. Sample Answer:)
On November 26th, our school organized a special assembly.

• Preamble Reading: All students and teachers stood up and read the Preamble aloud to reaffirm our commitment to Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
• Quiz: A quiz competition was held on the history of the Constituent Assembly.
• Mock Parliament: Senior students enacted a debate on Fundamental Duties.