Framing the Constitution
NCERT Class 12 History • Theme 12 • Exercises
Short Answer Questions (100-150 words)
1. What were the ideals expressed in the Objectives Resolution?
The Objectives Resolution, moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946, outlined the foundational ideals of the Constitution:
1. Sovereignty: It proclaimed India as an “Independent Sovereign Republic,” breaking all allegiance to the British Crown.
2. Democratic Rights: It guaranteed all citizens justice (social, economic, and political), equality of status and opportunity, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.
3. Protection: It promised adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes.
4. Source of Power: It declared that all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India are derived from the people.
This resolution provided the philosophical framework for the drafting of the entire Constitution.
1. Sovereignty: It proclaimed India as an “Independent Sovereign Republic,” breaking all allegiance to the British Crown.
2. Democratic Rights: It guaranteed all citizens justice (social, economic, and political), equality of status and opportunity, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.
3. Protection: It promised adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes.
4. Source of Power: It declared that all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent India are derived from the people.
This resolution provided the philosophical framework for the drafting of the entire Constitution.
2. How was the term minority defined by different groups?
The definition of “minority” was fiercely debated in the Constituent Assembly:
1. N.G. Ranga (Peasant Leader): He argued that minorities were not defined by numbers or religion but by economic condition. The real minorities were the poor and the downtrodden masses who were exploited.
2. Jaipal Singh (Tribal Representative): He defined Adivasis as a minority not necessarily numerically, but because they were “disgracefully treated,” neglected, and socially isolated for 6,000 years.
3. Dakshayani Velayudhan (Dalit Leader): She argued that Harijans were not a minority in the numerical sense (as they formed a large chunk of the population) but suffered from social disabilities that required special protection.
4. B. Pokert Bahadur (Muslim League): He defined minorities in religious terms, arguing that Muslims were a distinct group requiring separate electorates to ensure representation.
1. N.G. Ranga (Peasant Leader): He argued that minorities were not defined by numbers or religion but by economic condition. The real minorities were the poor and the downtrodden masses who were exploited.
2. Jaipal Singh (Tribal Representative): He defined Adivasis as a minority not necessarily numerically, but because they were “disgracefully treated,” neglected, and socially isolated for 6,000 years.
3. Dakshayani Velayudhan (Dalit Leader): She argued that Harijans were not a minority in the numerical sense (as they formed a large chunk of the population) but suffered from social disabilities that required special protection.
4. B. Pokert Bahadur (Muslim League): He defined minorities in religious terms, arguing that Muslims were a distinct group requiring separate electorates to ensure representation.
3. What were the arguments in favour of greater power to the provinces?
K. Santhanam from Madras was a vocal proponent of states’ rights. His arguments were:
1. Efficiency: If the Centre was overburdened with too many responsibilities, it would crack under its own weight and function inefficiently.
2. Fiscal Autonomy: He argued that the proposed allocation of taxes crippled the states. If provinces had to beg the Centre for money for every development project (like education or sanitation), development would stall.
3. Local Needs: Provinces were better positioned to understand and address local issues than a distant central authority.
Others argued that decentralization was the essence of democracy and that a unitary constitution would lead to totalitarianism.
1. Efficiency: If the Centre was overburdened with too many responsibilities, it would crack under its own weight and function inefficiently.
2. Fiscal Autonomy: He argued that the proposed allocation of taxes crippled the states. If provinces had to beg the Centre for money for every development project (like education or sanitation), development would stall.
3. Local Needs: Provinces were better positioned to understand and address local issues than a distant central authority.
Others argued that decentralization was the essence of democracy and that a unitary constitution would lead to totalitarianism.
4. Why did Mahatma Gandhi think Hindustani should be the national language?
Mahatma Gandhi championed Hindustani because he viewed it as a unifying force:
1. Composite Culture: Hindustani was a blend of Hindi and Urdu. It was a rich product of the confluence of Hindu and Muslim cultures, representing the shared heritage of North India.
2. Language of the Masses: Unlike Sanskritized Hindi or Persianized Urdu, which were languages of the elite, Hindustani was the language of the common people.
3. Communal Unity: Gandhi believed that using a language that borrowed freely from different sources would help cool communal passions and unite Hindus and Muslims, who were increasingly being divided by the “Hindi vs. Urdu” political battle.
1. Composite Culture: Hindustani was a blend of Hindi and Urdu. It was a rich product of the confluence of Hindu and Muslim cultures, representing the shared heritage of North India.
2. Language of the Masses: Unlike Sanskritized Hindi or Persianized Urdu, which were languages of the elite, Hindustani was the language of the common people.
3. Communal Unity: Gandhi believed that using a language that borrowed freely from different sources would help cool communal passions and unite Hindus and Muslims, who were increasingly being divided by the “Hindi vs. Urdu” political battle.
Long Answer Questions (250-300 words)
5. What historical forces shaped the vision of the Constitution?
The vision of the Indian Constitution was not created in isolation; it was the culmination of specific historical forces:
1. The Freedom Struggle: The values of democracy, liberty, and equality had been internalized during the long struggle against the British. The Karachi Resolution (1931) and the 19th-century social reform movements laid the groundwork for fundamental rights and social justice.
2. The Trauma of Partition: The Constitution was framed against the backdrop of the Partition violence. This immediate historical force pushed the makers towards a Strong Centre. They feared that a weak central government would lead to anarchy and further disintegration (Balkanization) of the country.
3. The Problem of Princely States: The integration of over 500 princely states required a federal structure that was flexible yet strong enough to hold the Union together, influencing the distribution of powers.
4. Social Inequality: Centuries of caste oppression and the demands of leaders like Jyotiba Phule and Ambedkar shaped the “Social Justice” aspect of the Constitution, leading to provisions for reservations and the abolition of untouchability.
5. British Legacy: The Government of India Act (1935) provided the structural skeleton (administrative details, federal structure), which the Constituent Assembly adapted to suit Indian needs.
1. The Freedom Struggle: The values of democracy, liberty, and equality had been internalized during the long struggle against the British. The Karachi Resolution (1931) and the 19th-century social reform movements laid the groundwork for fundamental rights and social justice.
2. The Trauma of Partition: The Constitution was framed against the backdrop of the Partition violence. This immediate historical force pushed the makers towards a Strong Centre. They feared that a weak central government would lead to anarchy and further disintegration (Balkanization) of the country.
3. The Problem of Princely States: The integration of over 500 princely states required a federal structure that was flexible yet strong enough to hold the Union together, influencing the distribution of powers.
4. Social Inequality: Centuries of caste oppression and the demands of leaders like Jyotiba Phule and Ambedkar shaped the “Social Justice” aspect of the Constitution, leading to provisions for reservations and the abolition of untouchability.
5. British Legacy: The Government of India Act (1935) provided the structural skeleton (administrative details, federal structure), which the Constituent Assembly adapted to suit Indian needs.
6. Discuss the different arguments made in favour of protection of the oppressed groups.
The debate on the protection of oppressed groups moved beyond religion to social and economic disability.
1. The Case for Adivasis (Jaipal Singh): Jaipal Singh argued that Adivasis were the original inhabitants of India but had been “disgracefully treated.” They were expelled from the forests and their lands were seized. He argued that democracy meant nothing to them without specific protection. He demanded reservation of seats in the legislature, not to segregate them, but to ensure their voice was heard in the governance of the country.
2. The Case for Depressed Classes (Dalits): Leaders like J. Nagappa and B.R. Ambedkar argued that the problem of Dalits was unique. They were not a numerical minority but suffered from social ostracism. They were systematically kept out of society and administration for thousands of years.
Nagappa noted that while they were numerically significant (20-25% of the population), their lack of education and economic power made them vulnerable. Therefore, they argued for the abolition of untouchability and political safeguards (reservations) to share power.
3. The Economic Argument (N.G. Ranga): Ranga argued that the true oppressed group was the poor peasant. He stated that constitutional rights were meaningless if the merchant or zamindar could still exploit the peasant. He demanded protection in the form of economic rights and the abolition of the zamindari system.
1. The Case for Adivasis (Jaipal Singh): Jaipal Singh argued that Adivasis were the original inhabitants of India but had been “disgracefully treated.” They were expelled from the forests and their lands were seized. He argued that democracy meant nothing to them without specific protection. He demanded reservation of seats in the legislature, not to segregate them, but to ensure their voice was heard in the governance of the country.
2. The Case for Depressed Classes (Dalits): Leaders like J. Nagappa and B.R. Ambedkar argued that the problem of Dalits was unique. They were not a numerical minority but suffered from social ostracism. They were systematically kept out of society and administration for thousands of years.
Nagappa noted that while they were numerically significant (20-25% of the population), their lack of education and economic power made them vulnerable. Therefore, they argued for the abolition of untouchability and political safeguards (reservations) to share power.
3. The Economic Argument (N.G. Ranga): Ranga argued that the true oppressed group was the poor peasant. He stated that constitutional rights were meaningless if the merchant or zamindar could still exploit the peasant. He demanded protection in the form of economic rights and the abolition of the zamindari system.
7. What connection did some of the members of the Constituent Assembly make between the political situation of the time and the need for a strong Centre?
The political situation of 1946-49—marked by Partition, communal riots, and the integration of Princely states—strongly influenced the argument for a powerful Central Government.
1. Fear of Disintegration: Members like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar argued that a weak centre (as envisaged in the Cabinet Mission Plan to appease the Muslim League) would be disastrous. Now that Partition was a reality, there was no need to keep the Centre weak. A strong Union was necessary to prevent any further secessionist movements.
2. Maintenance of Order: Balakrishna Sharma from the United Provinces argued that only a strong Centre could plan for the well-being of the country, mobilize available economic resources, and most importantly, establish a proper administration to defend the country against aggression. The violence of the Partition made “law and order” a priority.
3. Economic Planning: Members argued that to modernize India, huge centralized planning was required. Only a strong central government could manage the economy, build heavy industries, and ensure equitable development across regions.
Consequently, the Constitution tilted heavily towards the Centre, giving it control over key subjects (Defence, Communication, Finance) and the residual powers, deviating from the traditional federal model.
1. Fear of Disintegration: Members like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar argued that a weak centre (as envisaged in the Cabinet Mission Plan to appease the Muslim League) would be disastrous. Now that Partition was a reality, there was no need to keep the Centre weak. A strong Union was necessary to prevent any further secessionist movements.
2. Maintenance of Order: Balakrishna Sharma from the United Provinces argued that only a strong Centre could plan for the well-being of the country, mobilize available economic resources, and most importantly, establish a proper administration to defend the country against aggression. The violence of the Partition made “law and order” a priority.
3. Economic Planning: Members argued that to modernize India, huge centralized planning was required. Only a strong central government could manage the economy, build heavy industries, and ensure equitable development across regions.
Consequently, the Constitution tilted heavily towards the Centre, giving it control over key subjects (Defence, Communication, Finance) and the residual powers, deviating from the traditional federal model.
8. How did the Constituent Assembly seek to resolve the language controversy?
The language issue was one of the most divisive, splitting the assembly between the “Hindi-wallahs” (who wanted Hindi as the sole national language immediately) and members from the South (who feared Hindi domination).
1. The Conflict: R.V. Dhulekar famously declared that “those who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India,” provoking strong reactions. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar warned that aggressive imposition of Hindi would push the South to secede.
2. The Munshi-Ayyangar Formula (Compromise): To resolve the deadlock, the Language Committee evolved a compromise:
1. The Conflict: R.V. Dhulekar famously declared that “those who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India,” provoking strong reactions. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar warned that aggressive imposition of Hindi would push the South to secede.
2. The Munshi-Ayyangar Formula (Compromise): To resolve the deadlock, the Language Committee evolved a compromise:
- No “National” Language: Hindi was designated as the “Official Language” of the Union, avoiding the term “National Language.”
- Transition Period: English would continue to be used for all official purposes for a period of 15 years to allow non-Hindi states time to adapt.
- Regional Autonomy: Provinces were free to choose their own regional language for official work within the state.