THEME Framing the Constitution FIFTEEN The …ncert.nic.in/NCERTS/l/lehs306.pdfFRAMING THE CONSTITUTION 405 Framing the Constitution The Beginning of a New Era The Indian Constitution,

405FRAMING THE CONSTITUTION

Framing the ConstitutionThe Beginning of a NThe Beginning of a NThe Beginning of a NThe Beginning of a NThe Beginning of a Neeeeew Erw Erw Erw Erw Eraaaaa

The Indian Constitution, which came into effect on 26 January 1950,has the dubious distinction of being the longest in the world. Butits length and complexity are perhaps understandable when oneconsiders the country’s size and diversity. At Independence, Indiawas not merely large and diverse, but also deeply divided.A Constitution designed to keep the country together, and to take itforward, had necessarily to be an elaborate, carefully-worked-out,and painstakingly drafted document. For one thing, it sought toheal wounds of the past and the present, to make Indians of differentclasses, castes and communities come together in a shared politicalexperiment. For another, it sought to nurture democratic institutionsin what had long been a culture of hierarchy and deference.

The Constitution of India was framed between December 1946and December 1949. During this time its drafts were discussed clauseby clause in the Constituent Assembly of India. In all, the Assembly

THEME

FIFTEEN

Fig. 15.1The Constitution was signed in December 1949 after three years of debate.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed

THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY – PART III406

1. A Tumultuous TimeThe years immediately preceding the making of theConstitution had been exceptionally tumultuous: atime of great hope, but also of abject disappointment.On 15 August 1947, India had been made free, but ithad also been divided. Fresh in popular memory werethe Quit India struggle of 1942 – perhaps the mostwidespread popular movement against the BritishRaj – as well as the bid by Subhas Chandra Bose towin freedom through armed struggle with foreign aid.An even more recent upsurge had also evoked muchpopular sympathy – this was the rising of the ratingsof the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay and other citiesin the spring of 1946. Through the late 1940s therewere periodic, if scattered, mass protests of workersand peasants in different parts of the country.

One striking feature of these popular upsurges wasthe degree of Hindu-Muslim unity they manifested.In contrast, the two leading Indian political parties, theCongress and the Muslim League, had repeatedly failedto arrive at a settlement that would bring about religiousreconciliation and social harmony. The Great CalcuttaKillings of August 1946 began a year of almostcontinuous rioting across northern and eastern India(see Chapters 13 and 14). The violence culminatedin the massacres that accompanied the transfer ofpopulations when the Partition of India was announced.

On Independence Day, 15 August 1947, there wasan outburst of joy and hope, unforgettable for thosewho lived through that time. But innumerableMuslims in India, and Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan,were now faced with a cruel choice – the threat of

Fig. 15.2Images of desolation and destructioncontinued to haunt members of theConstituent Assembly.

held eleven sessions, with sittings spread over 165 days. Inbetween the sessions, the work of revising and refining the draftswas carried out by various committees and sub-committees.

From your political science textbooks you know what theConstitution of India is, and you have seen how it has workedover the decades since Independence. This chapter will introduceyou to the history that lies behind the Constitution, and theintense debates that were part of its making. If we try and hearthe voices within the Constituent Assembly, we get an idea of theprocess through which the Constitution was framed and the visionof the new nation formulated.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


sudden death or the squeezing of opportunities onthe one side, and a forcible tearing away fromtheir age-old roots on the other. Millions of refugeeswere on the move, Muslims into East and WestPakistan, Hindus and Sikhs into West Bengal andthe eastern half of the Punjab. Many perishedbefore they reached their destination.

Another, and scarcely less serious, problem facedby the new nation was that of the princely states.During the period of the Raj, approximately one-thirdof the area of the subcontinent was under the controlof nawabs and maharajas who owed allegiance tothe British Crown, but were otherwise left mostlyfree to rule – or misrule – their territory as theywished. When the British left India, the constitutionalstatus of these princes remained ambiguous. As onecontemporary observer remarked, some maharajasnow began “to luxuriate in wild dreams of independentpower in an India of many partitions”.

This was the background in which theConstituent Assembly met. How could the debateswithin the Assembly remain insulated from whatwas happening outside?

1.1 The making of the Constituent AssemblyThe members of the Constituent Assembly were notelected on the basis of universal franchise. In thewinter of 1945-46 provincial elections were held inIndia. The Provincial Legislatures then chose therepresentatives to the Constituent Assembly.

The Constituent Assembly that came into beingwas dominated by one party: the Congress. The

Fig. 15.3Jawaharlal Nehru speaking in theConstituent Assembly at midnighton14 August 1947It was on this day that Nehru gavehis famous speech that began withthe following lines:“Long years ago we made a trystwith destiny, and now the timecomes when we shall redeem ourpledge, not wholly or in fullmeasure, but very substantially.At the stroke of the midnight hour,when the world sleeps, India willawake to life and freedom.”

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Fig. 15.4The Constituent Assembly insessionSardar Vallabh Bhai Patel is seensitting second from right.

Congress swept the general seats in the provincialelections, and the Muslim League captured most ofthe reserved Muslim seats. But the League chose toboycott the Constituent Assembly, pressing itsdemand for Pakistan with a separate constitution.The Socialists too were initially unwilling to join,for they believed the Constituent Assembly was acreation of the British, and therefore incapable of beingtruly autonomous. In effect, therefore, 82 per centof the members of the Constituent Assembly werealso members of the Congress.

The Congress however was not a party with onevoice. Its members differed in their opinion on criticalissues. Some members were inspired by socialismwhile others were defenders of landlordism. Somewere close to communal parties while others wereassertively secular. Through the national movementCongress members had learnt to debate their ideasin public and negotiate their differences. Within theConstituent Assembly too, Congress members did notsit quiet.

The discussions within the Constituent Assemblywere also influenced by the opinions expressed bythe public. As the deliberations continued, thearguments were reported in newspapers, and theproposals were publicly debated. Criticisms and© N

CERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


counter-criticisms in the press in turn shaped thenature of the consensus that was ultimatelyreached on specific issues. In order to create a senseof collective participation the public was also askedto send in their views on what needed to be done.Many of the linguistic minorities wanted theprotection of their mother tongue, religiousminorities asked for special safeguards, while dalitsdemanded an end to all caste oppression andreservation of seats in government bodies. Importantissues of cultural rights and social justice raisedin these public discussions were debated on the floorof the Assembly.

1.2 The dominant voicesThe Constituent Assembly had 300 members. Of these,six members played particularly important roles.Three were representatives of the Congress, namely,Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel and RajendraPrasad. It was Nehru who moved the crucial“Objectives Resolution”, as well as the resolutionproposing that the National Flag of India be a“horizontal tricolour of saffron, white and darkgreen in equal proportion”, with a wheel in navyblue at the centre. Patel, on the other hand, workedmostly behind the scenes, playing a key role in thedrafting of several reports, and working to reconcileopposing points of view. Rajendra Prasad’s role wasas President of the Assembly, where he had to steerthe discussion along constructive lines whilemaking sure all members had a chance to speak.

Besides this Congress trio, a very important memberof the Assembly was the lawyer and economist B.R.Ambedkar. During the period of British rule,Ambedkar had been a political opponent of theCongress; but, on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi,he was asked at Independence to join the UnionCabinet as law minister. In this capacity, he servedas Chairman of the Drafting Committee of theConstitution. Serving with him were two otherlawyers, K.M. Munshi from Gujarat and AlladiKrishnaswamy Aiyar from Madras, both of whomgave crucial inputs in the drafting of the Constitution.

These six members were given vital assistance bytwo civil servants. One was B. N. Rau, ConstitutionalAdvisor to the Government of India, who prepareda series of background papers based on a close studyof the political systems obtaining in other countries.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Discuss...Look again at Chapters 13 and 14. Discuss how thepolitical situation of the time may have shaped thenature of the debates within the Constituent Assembly.

Fig. 15.5B. R. Ambedkar presiding over adiscussion of the Hindu Code Bill

The other was the Chief Draughtsman, S. N. Mukherjee,who had the ability to put complex proposals in clearlegal language.

Ambedkar himself had the responsibility ofguiding the Draft Constitution through the Assembly.This took three years in all, with the printed recordof the discussions taking up eleven bulky volumes.But while the process was long it was also extremelyinteresting. The members of the Constituent Assemblywere eloquent in expressing their sometimes verydivergent points of view. In their presentations wecan discern many conflicting ideas of India – of whatlanguage Indians should speak, of what political andeconomic systems the nation should follow, of whatmoral values its citizens should uphold or disavow.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


2. The Vision of the ConstitutionOn 13 December 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru introducedthe “Objectives Resolution” in the ConstituentAssembly. It was a momentous resolution that outlinedthe defining ideals of the Constitution of IndependentIndia, and provided the framework within which thework of constitution-making was to proceed. Itproclaimed India to be an “Independent SovereignRepublic”, guaranteed its citizens justice, equality andfreedom, and assured that “adequate safeguards shallbe provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas,and Depressed and Other Backward Classes … ” Afteroutlining these objectives, Nehru placed the Indianexperiment in a broad historical perspective. As hespoke, he said, his mind went back to the historicefforts in the past to produce such documents of rights.

“We are not going just to copy”

This is what Jawaharlal Nehru said in his famous speech of13 December 1946:

My mind goes back to the various Constituent Assemblies thathave gone before and of what took place at the making of thegreat American nation when the fathers of that nation met andfashioned out a Constitution which has stood the test of so manyyears, more than a century and a half, and of the great nationwhich has resulted, which has been built up on the basis of thatConstitution. My mind goes back to that mighty revolution whichtook place also over 150 years ago and to that ConstituentAssembly that met in that gracious and lovely city of Paris whichhas fought so many battles for freedom, to the difficulties thatthat Constituent Assembly had and to how the King and otherauthorities came in its way, and still it continued. The Housewill remember that when these difficulties came and even theroom for a meeting was denied to the then ConstituentAssembly, they betook themselves to an open tennis court andmet there and took the oath, which is called the Oath of theTennis Court, that they continued meeting in spite of Kings,in spite of the others, and did not disperse till they hadfinished the task they had undertaken. Well, I trust that it isin that solemn spirit that we too are meeting here and thatwe, too, whether we meet in this chamber or other chambers,or in the fields or in the market-place, will go on meetingand continue our work till we have finished it.

Then my mind goes back to a more recent revolution which

Source 1

contd

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


gave rise to a new type of State, the revolution that took place in Russia and outof which has arisen the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, another mightycountry which is playing a tremendous part in the world, not only a mighty countrybut for us in India, a neighbouring country.

So our mind goes back to these great examples and we seek to learn from theirsuccess and to avoid their failures. Perhaps we may not be able to avoid failuresbecause some measure of failure is inherent in human effort. Nevertheless, weshall advance, I am certain, in spite of obstructions and difficulties, and achieveand realise the dream that we have dreamt so long …

We say that it is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereignrepublic. India is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it isbound to be a republic … Now, some friends have raised the question: “Whyhave you not put in the word ‘democratic’ here.?” Well, I told them that it isconceivable, of course, that a republic may not be democratic but the whole ofour past is witness to this fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviouslywe are aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy. What form ofdemocracy, what shape it might take is another matter. The democracies of thepresent day, many of them in Europe and elsewhere, have played a great partin the world’s progress. Yet it may be doubtful if those democracies may nothave to change their shape somewhat before long if they have to remaincompletely democratic. We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certaindemocratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. Wemay improve upon it. In any event whatever system of government we mayestablish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable tothem. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shapeto give to that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope. The House will noticethat in this Resolution, although we have not used the word “democratic”because we thought it is obvious that the word “republic” contains that wordand we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words, but wehave done something much more than using the word. We have given thecontent of democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of democracybut 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 notsaid 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 ofa Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way.

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES (CAD), VOL.I

Source 1 (contd)

Oath of the Tennis Court

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Nehru’s speech (Source 1) merits careful scrutiny.What exactly was being stated here? What did Nehru’sseemingly nostalgic return to the past reflect? Whatwas he saying about the origin of the ideas embodiedin the vision of the Constitution? In returning to thepast and referring to the American and FrenchRevolutions, Nehru was locating the history ofconstitution-making in India within a longer historyof struggle for liberty and freedom. The momentousnature of the Indian project was emphasised by linkingit to revolutionary moments in the past. But Nehruwas not suggesting that those events were to provideany blueprint for the present; or that the ideas of thoserevolutions could be mechanically borrowed andapplied in India. He did not define the specific form ofdemocracy, and suggested that this had to be decidedthrough deliberations. And he stressed that theideals and provisions of the constitution introducedin India could not be just derived from elsewhere. “Weare not going just to copy”, he said. The system ofgovernment established in India, he declared, had to“fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptableto them”. It was necessary to learn from the people ofthe West, from their achievements and failures, butthe Western nations too had to learn from experimentselsewhere, they too had to change their own notions ofdemocracy. The objective of the Indian Constitutionwould be to fuse the liberal ideas of democracy withthe socialist idea of economic justice, and re-adapt andre-work all these ideas within the Indian context.Nehru’s plea was for creative thinking about what wasappropriate for India.

2.1 The will of the peopleA Communist member, Somnath Lahiri saw the darkhand of British imperialism hanging over thedeliberations of the Constituent Assembly. He thusurged the members, and Indians in general, to fullyfree themselves from the influences of imperial rule.In the winter of 1946-47, as the Assembly deliberated,the British were still in India. An interimadministration headed by Jawaharlal Nehru was inplace, but it could only operate under the directionsof the Viceroy and the British Government in London.Lahiri exhorted his colleagues to realise that theConstituent Assembly was British-made and was“working the British plans as the British should likeit to be worked out”.

What explanation doesJawaharlal Nehru give for notusing the term “democratic”in the Objectives Resolutionin Source 1?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Fig. 15.6

“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 ofthe Indian people when he said that no imposition from the British will be accepted bythe Indian people. Imposition would be resented and objected to, he said, and he addedthat 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, thepoint is that the imposition is here right now. Not only has the British Plan made any futureConstitution … dependent on a treaty satisfactory to the Britisher but it suggests that forevery little difference you will have to run to the Federal Court or dance attendancethere 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, weare under the shadow of British guns, British Army, their economic and financialstranglehold – which means that the final power is still in the British hands and the questionof power has not yet been finally decided, which means the future is not yet completely inour hands. Not only that, but the statements made by Attlee and others recently havemade 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 workingout this Plan but to declare independence here and now and call upon the InterimGovernment, call upon the people of India, to stop fratricidal warfare and look out againstits enemy, which still has the whip hand, the British Imperialism – and go together to fightit and then resolve our claims afterwards when we will be free.

CAD, VOL.I

Source 2

Members of the Interim GovernmentFront row (left to right): Baldev Singh, John Mathai, C Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru,Liaquat Ali Khan, Vallabhbhai Patel, I.I. Chundrigar, Asaf Ali, C.H. Bhabha.Back row (left to right): Jagjivan Ram, Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Rajendra Prasad, Abdur Nishtar

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Nehru admitted that most nationalist leaders hadwanted a different kind of Constituent Assembly. Itwas also true, in a sense, that the British Governmenthad a “hand in its birth”, and it had attached certainconditions within which the Assembly had to function.“But,” emphasised Nehru, “you must not ignore thesource from which this Assembly derives its strength.”Nehru added:

Governments do not come into being by StatePapers. Governments are, in fact the expressionof the will of the people. We have met here todaybecause of the strength of the people behind usand we shall go as far as the people – not of anyparty or group but the people as a whole – shallwish us to go. We should, therefore, alwayskeep in mind the passions that lie in thehearts of the masses of the Indian people andtry to fulfil them.

The Constituent Assembly was expected to expressthe aspirations of those who had participated in themovement for independence. Democracy, equality andjustice were ideals that had become intimatelyassociated with social struggles in India since thenineteenth century. When the social reformers inthe nineteenth century opposed child marriage anddemanded that widows be allowed to remarry, theywere pleading for social justice. When SwamiVivekananda campaigned for a reform of Hinduism,he wanted religions to become more just. WhenJyotiba Phule in Maharashtra pointed to the sufferingof the depressed castes, or Communists and Socialistsorganised workers and peasants, they were demandingeconomic and social justice. The national movementagainst a government that was seen as oppressive andillegitimate was inevitably a struggle for democracyand justice, for citizens’ rights and equality.

In fact, as the demand for representation grew, theBritish had been forced to introduce a series ofconstitutional reforms. A number of Acts were passed(1909, 1919 and 1935), gradually enlarging the spacefor Indian participation in provincial governments. Theexecutive was made partly responsible to the provinciallegislature in 1919, and almost entirely so under theGovernment of India Act of 1935. When elections wereheld in 1937, under the 1935 Act, the Congress cameto power in eight out of the 11 provinces.

Fig. 15.7Edwin Montague (left) was theauthor of the Montague-ChelmsfordReforms of 1919 which allowedsome form of representation inprovincial legislative assemblies.

Why does the speaker inSource 2 think that theConstituent Assembly wasunder the shadow ofBritish guns?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Yet we should not see an unbroken continuitybetween the earlier constitutional developments andwhat happened in the three years from 1946. Whilethe earlier constitutional experiments were in responseto the growing demand for a representative government,the Acts (1909, 1919 and 1935) were not directly debatedand formulated by Indians. They were enacted by thecolonial government. The electorate that elected theprovincial bodies had expanded over the years, but evenin 1935 it remained limited to no more than 10 to 15per cent of the adult population: there was no universaladult franchise. The legislatures elected under the 1935Act operated within the framework of colonial rule, andwere responsible to the Governor appointed by theBritish. The vision that Nehru was trying to outline on13 December 1946 was of the Constitution of anindependent, sovereign Republic of India.

3. Defining RightsHow were the rights of individual citizens to be defined?Were the oppressed groups to have any special rights?What rights would minorities have? Who, in fact, couldbe defined as a minority? As the debate on the floor ofthe Constituent Assembly unfolded, it was clear thatthere were no collectively shared answers to any of thesequestions. The answers were evolved through the clashof opinions and the drama of individual encounters. Inhis inaugural speech, Nehru had invoked the “will ofthe people” and declared that the makers of theConstitution had to fulfil “the passions that lie in thehearts of the masses”. This was no easy task. With theanticipation of Independence, different groups expressedtheir will in different ways, and made different demands.These would have to be debated and conflicting ideaswould have to be reconciled, before a consensus couldbe forged.

3.1 The problem with separate electoratesOn 27 August 1947, B. Pocker Bahadur from Madrasmade a powerful plea for continuing separate electorates.Minorities exist in all lands, argued Bahadur; they couldnot be wished away, they could not be “erased out ofexistence”. The need was to create a political frameworkin which minorities could live in harmony with others,and the differences between communities could beminimised. This was possible only if minorites were wellrepresented within the political system, their voices heard,

Discuss...What were the ideasoutlined by JawaharlalNehru in his speech on theObjectives Resolution?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Source 3

and their views taken into account. Only separateelectorates would ensure that Muslims had ameaningful voice in the governance of the country. Theneeds of Muslims, Bahadur felt, could not be properlyunderstood by non-Muslims; nor could a truerepresentative of Muslims be chosen by people whodid not belong to that community.

This demand for separate electorates provokedanger and dismay amongst most nationalists. In thepassionate debate that followed, a range of argumentswere offered against the demand. Most nationalistssaw separate electorates as a measure deliberatelyintroduced by the British to divide the people. “TheEnglish played their game under the cover ofsafeguards,” R.V. Dhulekar told Bahadur. “With the helpof it they allured you (the minorities) to a long lull. Giveit up now … Now there is no one to misguide you.”

Partition had made nationalists fervently opposedto the idea of separate electorates. They were hauntedby the fear of continued civil war, riots and violence.Separate electorates was a “poison that has enteredthe body politic of our country”, declared Sardar Patel.It was a demand that had turned one communityagainst another, divided the nation, caused bloodshed,and led to the tragic partition of the country. “Do youwant peace in this land? If so do away with it (separateelectorates),” urged Patel.

Fig. 15.8In the winter of 1946 Indian leaderswent to London for what turned outto be a fruitless round of talks withBritish Prime Minister Attlee. (Left toright: Liaquat Ali, Mohammad AliJinnah, Baldev Singh and Pethick-Lawrence)

“The British element is gone, but theyhave left the mischief behind”

Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel said:

It is no use saying that we ask for separate electorates, because it is good for us. Wehave heard it long enough. We have heard it for years, and as a result of thisagitation we are now a separate nation … Can you show me one free countrywhere there are separate electorates? If so, I shall be prepared to accept it. But inthis unfortunate country if this separate electorate is going to be persisted in,even after the division of the country, woe betide the country; it is not worthliving in. Therefore, I say, it is not for my good alone, it is for your own good thatI say it, forget the past. One day, we may be united … The British element is gone,but they have left the mischief behind. We do not want to perpetuate that mischief.(Hear, hear). When the British introduced this element they had not expectedthat they will have to go so soon. They wanted it for their easy administration.That is all right. But they have left the legacy behind. Are we to get out of it or not?

CAD, VOL.V

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Countering the demand for separate electorates,Govind Ballabh Pant declared that it was not onlyharmful for the nation but also for the minorities. Heagreed with Bahadur that the success of a democracywas to be judged by the confidence it generatedamongst different sections of people. He agreed toothat every citizen in a free state should be treated ina manner that satisfied “not only his material wantsbut also his spiritual sense of self-respect”, and thatthe majority community had an obligation to try andunderstand the problems of minorities, and empathisewith their aspirations. Yet Pant opposed the idea ofseparate electorates. It was a suicidal demand, heargued, that would permanently isolate the minorities,make them vulnerable, and deprive them of anyeffective say within the government.

“I believe separate electorates willbe suicidal to the minorities”

During the debate on 27 August 1947, Govind BallabhPant said:

I believe separate electorates will be suicidal tothe minorities and will do them tremendous harm. Ifthey are isolated for ever, they can never convertthemselves into a majority and the feeling offrustration will cripple them even from the verybeginning. What is it that you desire and what is ourultimate objective? Do the minorities always want toremain as minorities or do they ever expect to forman integral part of a great nation and as such to guideand control its destinies? If they do, can they everachieve that aspiration and that ideal if they areisolated from the rest of the community? I think itwould be extremely dangerous for them if they weresegregated from the rest of the community and keptaloof in an air-tight compartment where they wouldhave to rely on others even for the air they breath …The minorities if they are returned by separateelectorates can never have any effective voice.

CAD, VOL.II

Behind all these arguments was the concern withthe making of a unified nation state. In order to buildpolitical unity and forge a nation, every individual hadto be moulded into a citizen of the State, each group

Source 4

Read Sources 3 and 4.What are the differentarguments being put forwardagainst separate electorates?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


had to be assimilated within the nation. TheConstitution would grant to citizens rights, but citizenshad to offer their loyalty to the State. Communitiescould be recognised as cultural entities and assuredcultural rights. Politically, however, members of allcommunities had to act as equal members of one State,or else there would be divided loyalties. “There is theunwholesome and to some extent degrading habitof thinking always in terms of communities and neverin terms of citizens,” said Pant. And he added: “Let usremember that it is the citizen that must count. It isthe citizen that forms the base as well as the summitof the social pyramid.” Even as the importance ofcommunity rights was being recognised, there was alurking fear among many nationalists that this maylead to divided loyalties, and make it difficult to forgea strong nation and a strong State.

Not all Muslims supported the demand forseparate electorates. Begum Aizaas Rasul, forinstance, felt that separate electorates were self-destructive since they isolated the minorities fromthe majority. By 1949, most Muslim members of theConstituent Assembly were agreed that separateelectorates were against the interests of theminorities. Instead Muslims needed to take an activepart in the democratic process to ensure that theyhad a decisive voice in the political system.

3.2 “We will need much more than this Resolution”While welcoming the Objectives Resolution,N.G. Ranga, a socialist who had been a leader of thepeasant movement, urged that the term minorities beinterpreted in economic terms. The real minoritiesfor Ranga were the poor and the downtrodden. Hewelcomed the legal rights the Constitution was grantingto each individual but pointed to its limits. In hisopinion it was meaningless for the poor people in thevillages to know that they now had the fundamentalright to live, and to have full employment, or thatthey could have their meetings, their conferences,their associations and various other civil liberties. Itwas essential to create conditions where theseconstitutionally enshrined rights could be effectivelyenjoyed. For this they needed protection. “They needprops. They need a ladder,” said Ranga.

“There cannot be anydivided loyalty”

Govind Ballabh Pant arguedthat in order to become loyalcit izens people had tostop focusing only on thecommunity and the self:

For the success ofdemocracy one musttrain himself in theart of self-discipline. Indemocracies one shouldcare less for himself andmore for others. Therecannot be any dividedloyalty. All loyalties mustexclusively be centredround the State. If in ademocracy, you createrival loyalties, or youcreate a system in whichany individual or group,instead of suppressinghis extravagance, caresnought for larger or otherinterests, then democracyis doomed.

CAD, VOL.II

Source 5

How does G.B. Pantdefine the attributes of aloyal citizen?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


“The real minorities are themasses of this country”

Welcoming the Objectives Resolution introduced byJawaharlal Nehru, N.G. Ranga said:

Sir, there is a lot of talk about minorities. Who arethe real minorities? Not the Hindus in the so-calledPakistan provinces, not the Sikhs, not even theMuslims. No, the real minorities are the masses ofthis country. These people are so depressed andoppressed and suppressed till now that they are notable 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, theirtribal law, their lands cannot be alienated. Yet ourmerchants go there, and in the so-called freemarket they are able to snatch their lands. Thus,even though the law goes against this snatchingaway of their lands, still the merchants are able toturn the tribal people into veritable slaves byvarious kinds of bonds, and make them hereditarybond-slaves. Let us go to the ordinary villagers.There goes the money-lender with his money andhe is able to get the villagers in his pocket. Thereis the landlord himself, the zamindar, and themalguzar and there are the various other peoplewho are able to exploit these poor villagers. Thereis no elementary education even among thesepeople. These are the real minorities that needprotection and assurances of protection. In orderto give them the necessary protection, we will needmuch more than this Resolution ...

CAD, VOL.II

Ranga also drew attention to the gulf that separatedthe broad masses of Indians and those claiming tospeak on their behalf in the Constituent Assembly:

Whom are we supposed to represent? Theordinary masses of our country. And yet most ofus do not belong to the masses themselves. Weare of them, we wish to stand for them, but themasses themselves are not able to come up tothe Constituent Assembly. It may take some time;in the meanwhile, we are here as their trustees,as their champions, and we are trying our bestto speak for them.

Source 6

How is the notion ofminority defined by Ranga?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


One of the groups mentioned by Ranga, the tribals,had among its representatives to the Assembly thegifted orator Jaipal Singh. In welcoming the ObjectivesResolution, Singh said:

... as an Adibasi, I am not expected tounderstand the legal intricacies of theResolution. But my common sense tells methat every one of us should march in thatroad to freedom and fight together. Sir, if thereis any group of Indian people that has beenshabbily treated it is my people. They havebeen disgracefully treated, neglected for thelast 6,000 years. … The whole history of mypeople is one of continuous exploitation anddispossession by the non-aboriginals of Indiapunctuated by rebellions and disorder, andyet I take Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at hisword. I take you all at your word that now weare going to start a new chapter, a newchapter of independent India where there isequality of opportunity, where no one wouldbe neglected.

Singh spoke eloquently on the need to protect thetribes, and ensure conditions that could help themcome up to the level of the general population. Tribeswere not a numerical minority, he argued, but theyneeded protection. They had been dispossessed of theland they had settled, deprived of their forests andpastures, and forced to move in search of new homes.Perceiving them as primitive and backward, the restof society had turned away from them, spurned them.He made a moving plea for breaking the emotional andphysical distance that separated the tribals from therest of society: “Our point is that you have got to mixwith us. We are willing to mix with you … ”. Singhwas not asking for separate electorates, but he felt thatreservation of seats in the legislature was essential toallow tribals to represent themselves. It would be away, he said, of compelling others to hear the voice oftribals, and come near them.

3.3 “We were suppressed for thousands of years”How were the rights of the Depressed Castes to bedefined by the Constitution? During the nationalmovement Ambedkar had demanded separateelectorates for the Depressed Castes, and MahatmaGandhi had opposed it, arguing that this would

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Source 8

permanently segregate them from the rest of society.How could the Constituent Assembly resolve thisopposition? What kinds of protection were theDepressed Castes to be provided?

Some members of the Depressed Castesemphasised that the problem of the “Untouchables”could not be resolved through protection andsafeguards alone. Their disabilities were causedby the social norms and the moral values of castesociety. Society had used their services and labourbut kept them at a social distance, refusing tomix with them or dine with them or allow thementry into temples. “We have been suffering, but weare prepared to suffer no more,” said J. Nagappafrom Madras. “We have realised our responsibilities.We know how to assert ourselves.”

Nagappa pointed out that numerically the DepressedCastes were not a minority: they formed between20 and 25 per cent of the total population. Their sufferingwas due to their systematic marginalisation, nottheir numerical insignificance. They had no accessto education, no share in the administration.Addressing the assembly, K.J. Khanderkar of theCentral Provinces said:

We were suppressed for thousands of years. ...suppressed... to such an extent that neither ourminds nor our bodies and now even our heartswork, nor are we able to march forward. This isthe position.

After the Partition violence, Ambedkar too nolonger argued for separate electorates. The ConstituentAssembly finally recommended that untouchabilitybe abolished, Hindu temples be thrown open to allcastes, and seats in legislatures and jobs ingovernment offices be reserved for the lowest castes.Many recognised that this could not solve allproblems: social discrimination could not be erasedonly through constitutional legislation, there had tobe a change in the attitudes within society. But themeasures were welcomed by the democratic public.

Discuss...What were the different arguments that JaipalSingh put forward in demanding protectivemeasures for the tribals?

Dakshayani Velayudhan fromMadras, argued:

What we want is not allkinds of safeguards. It isthe moral safeguard whichgives protection to theunderdogs of this country ...I refuse to bel ieve thatseventy mill ion Harijansare to be considered as aminority ... what we want isthe ... immediate removalof our social disabilities.’

CAD, VOL.I

Source 7

“We want removal of oursocial disabilities”

We have never askedfor privileges

Hansa Mehta of Bombaydemanded justice for women,not reserved seats, or separateelectorates.

We have never asked forprivileges. What we haveasked for is social justice,economic just ice, andpolitical justice. We haveasked for that equali tywhich alone can be thebasis of mutual respect andunderstanding, withoutwhich real cooperation isnot possible between manand woman.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


4. The Powers of the StateOne of the topics most vigorously debated in theConstituent Assembly was the respective rights of theCentral Government and the states. Among thosearguing for a strong Centre was Jawaharlal Nehru. Ashe put it in a letter to the President of the ConstituentAssembly, “Now that partition is a settled fact, … itwould be injurious to the interests of the country toprovide for a weak central authority which wouldbe incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vitalmatters of common concern and of speaking effectivelyfor the whole country in the international sphere”.

The Draft Constitution provided for three lists ofsubjects: Union, State, and Concurrent. The subjectsin the first list were to be the preserve of the CentralGovernment, while those in the second list werevested with the states. As for the third list, hereCentre and state shared responsibility. However,many more items were placed under exclusive Unioncontrol than in other federations, and more placedon the Concurrent list too than desired by theprovinces. The Union also had control of mineralsand key industries. Besides, Article 356 gave theCentre the powers to take over a state administrationon the recommendation of the Governor.

The Constitution also mandated for a complexsystem of fiscal federalism. In the case of some taxes(for instance, customs duties and Company taxes) theCentre retained all the proceeds; in other cases (suchas income tax and excise duties) it shared them withthe states; in still other cases (for instance, estate duties)it assigned them wholly to the states. The states,meanwhile, could levy and collect certain taxes on theirown: these included land and property taxes, sales tax,and the hugely profitable tax on bottled liquor.

4.1 “The centre is likely to break”The rights of the states were most eloquently defendedby K. Santhanam from Madras. A reallocation of powerswas necessary, he felt, to strengthen not only the statesbut also the Centre. “There is almost an obsession thatby adding all kinds of powers to the Centre we can makeit strong.” This was a misconception, said Santhanam.If the Centre was overburdened with responsibilities,it could not function effectively. By relieving it ofsome of its functions, and transferring them to thestates, the Centre could, in fact, be made stronger.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Source 9 As for the states, Santhanam felt that the proposedallocation of powers would cripple them. The fiscalprovisions would impoverish the provinces sincemost taxes, except land revenue, had been made thepreserve of the Centre. Without finances how couldthe states undertake any project of development?“I do not want any constitution in which the Unit hasto come to the Centre and say ‘I cannot educate mypeople. I cannot give sanitation, give me a dole for theimprovement of roads, of industries.’ Let us rather wipeout the federal system and let us have Unitary system.”Santhanam predicted a dark future if the proposeddistribution of powers was adopted without furtherscrutiny. In a few years, he said, all the provinces wouldrise in “revolt against the Centre”.

Many others from the provinces echoed the samefears. They fought hard for fewer items to be puton the Concurrent and Union lists. A member fromOrissa warned that “the Centre is likely to break”since powers had been excessively centralised underthe Constitution.

4.2 “What we want today is a strong Government”The argument for greater power to the provincesprovoked a strong reaction in the Assembly. The needfor a strong centre had been underlined on numerousoccasions since the Constituent Assembly had begunits sessions. Ambedkar had declared that he wanted“a strong and united Centre (hear, hear) much strongerthan the Centre we had created under the Governmentof India Act of 1935”. Reminding the members of theriots and violence that was ripping the nation apart,many members had repeatedly stated that the powersof the Centre had to be greatly strengthened toenable it to stop the communal frenzy. Reacting to thedemands for giving power to the provinces,Gopalaswami Ayyangar declared that “the Centreshould be made as strong as possible”. One memberfrom the United Provinces, Balakrishna Sharma,reasoned at length that only a strong centre could planfor the well-being of the country, mobilise the availableeconomic resources, establish a proper administration,and defend the country against foreign aggression.

Before Partition the Congress had agreed to grantconsiderable autonomy to the provinces. This had beenpart of an effort to assure the Muslim League thatwithin the provinces where the Muslim League came

Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliarfrom Mysore said during thedebate on 21 August 1947:

Let us not lay the flatteringunction to our soul that weare better patriots if wepropose a strong Centre andthat those who advocate amore vigorous examinationof these resources arepeople with not enough ofnational spirit or patriotism.

Who is a better patriot?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


to power the Centre would not interfere. AfterPartition most nationalists changed their positionbecause they felt that the earlier politicalpressures for a decentralised structure were nolonger there.

There was already a unitary system in place,imposed by the colonial government. The violence ofthe times gave a further push to centralisation, nowseen as necessary both to forestall chaos and toplan for the country’s economic development. TheConstitution thus showed a distinct bias towardsthe rights of the Union of India over those of itsconstituent states.

5. The Language of the NationHow could the nation be forged when people in differentregions spoke different languages, each associatedwith its own cultural heritage? How could people listento each other, or connect with each other, if they did notknow each other’s language? Within the ConstituentAssembly, the language issue was debated over manymonths, and often generated intense arguments.

By the 1930s, the Congress had accepted thatHindustani ought to be the national language.Mahatma Gandhi felt that everyone should speak in alanguage that common people could easily understand.Hindustani – a blend of Hindi and Urdu – was a popularlanguage of a large section of the people of India, andit was a composite language enriched by the interactionof diverse cultures. Over the years it had incorporatedwords and terms from very many different sources,and was therefore understood by people from variousregions. This multi-cultural language, MahatmaGandhi thought, would be the ideal language ofcommunication between diverse communities: it couldunify Hindus and Muslims, and people of the northand the south.

From the end of the nineteenth century, however,Hindustani as a language had been graduallychanging. As communal conflicts deepened, Hindi andUrdu also started growing apart. On the one hand,there was a move to Sanskritise Hindi, purging it ofall words of Persian and Arabic origin. On the otherhand, Urdu was being increasingly Persianised. Asa consequence, language became associated with thepolitics of religious identities. Mahatma Gandhi,however, retained his faith in the composite character

Discuss...What different argumentswere put forward by thoseadvocating a strong Centre?

A few months before his deathMahatma Gandhi reiteratedhis views on the languagequestion:

This Hindustani should beneither Sanskritised Hindinor Persianised Urdu buta happy combination ofboth. It should also freelyadmit words wherevernecessary from the differentregional languages andalso assimilate words fromforeign languages, providedthat they can mix well andeasily with our nationallanguage. Thus our nationallanguage must developinto a rich and powerfulinstrument capable ofexpressing the whole gamutof human thought andfeelings. To confine oneselfto Hindi or Urdu would bea crime against intelligenceand the spirit of patriotism.

HARIJANSEVAK, 12 OCTOBER 1947

Source 10

What should thequalities of a national

language be ?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


of Hindustani.

5.1 A plea for HindiIn one of the earliest sessions of the ConstituentAssembly, R. V. Dhulekar, a Congressman from theUnited Provinces, made an aggressive plea that Hindibe used as the language of constitution-making. Whentold that not everyone in the Assembly knew thelanguage, Dhulekar retorted: “People who are presentin this House to fashion a constitution for India anddo not know Hindustani are not worthy to be membersof this Assembly. They better leave.” As the House brokeup in commotion over these remarks, Dhulekarproceeded with his speech in Hindi. On this occasionpeace in the House was restored through JawaharlalNehru’s intervention, but the language issue continuedto disrupt proceedings and agitate members over thesubsequent three years.

Almost three years later, on 12 September 1947,Dhulekar’s speech on the language of the nation onceagain sparked off a huge storm. By now the LanguageCommittee of the Constituent Assembly had producedits report and had thought of a compromise formulato resolve the deadlock between those who advocatedHindi as the national language and those who opposedit. It had decided, but not yet formally declared, thatHindi in the Devanagari script would be the officiallanguage, but the transition to Hindi would be gradual.For the first fifteen years, English would continue tobe used for all official purposes. Each province was tobe allowed to choose one of the regional languages forofficial work within the province. By referring to Hindias the official rather that the national language,the Language Committee of the Constituent Assemblyhoped to placate ruffled emotions and arrive at asolution that would be acceptable to all.

Dhulekar was not one who liked such an attitude ofreconciliation. He wanted Hindi to be declared notan Official Language, but a National Language. Heattacked those who protested that Hindi was beingforced on the nation, and mocked at those who said,in the name of Mahatma Gandhi, that Hindustanirather than Hindi ought to be the national language.

Sir, nobody can be more happy than myself thatHindi has become the official language of thecountry … Some say that it is a concession toHindi language. I say “no”. It is a consummation

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


of a historic process.

What particularly perturbed many members wasthe tone in which Dhulekar was arguing his case.Several times during his speech, the President of theAssembly interrupted Dhulekar and told him: “I donot think you are advancing your case by speakinglike this.” But Dhulekar continued nonetheless.

5.2 The fear of dominationA day after Dhulekar spoke, Shrimati G. Durgabaifrom Madras explained her worries about the waythe discussion was developing:

Mr President, the question of national languagefor India which was an almost agreedproposition until recently has suddenly becomea highly controversial issue. Whether rightlyor wrongly, the people of non-Hindi-speakingareas have been made to feel that this fight, orthis attitude on behalf of the Hindi-speakingareas, is a fight for effectively preventing thenatural influence of other powerful languagesof India on the composite culture of this nation.

Durgabai informed the House that the oppositionin the south against Hindi was very strong: “Theopponents feel perhaps justly that this propagandafor Hindi cuts at the very root of the provinciallanguages ...” Yet, she along with many others hadobeyed the call of Mahatma Gandhi and carried onHindi propaganda in the south, braved resistance,started schools and conducted classes in Hindi.“Now what is the result of it all?” asked Durgabai.“I am shocked to see this agitation against theenthusiasm with which we took to Hindi in the earlyyears of the century.” She had accepted Hindustanias the language of the people, but now that languagewas being changed, words from Urdu and otherregional languages were being taken out. Any movethat eroded the inclusive and composite character ofHindustani, she felt, was bound to create anxietiesand fears amongst different language groups.

As the discussion became acrimonious, manymembers appealed for a spirit of accommodation.A member from Bombay, Shri Shankarrao Deo statedthat as a Congressman and a follower of MahatmaGandhi he had accepted Hindustani as a language ofthe nation, but he warned: “if you want my whole-

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


hearted support (for Hindi) you must not do nowanything which may raise my suspicions and whichwill strengthen my fears.” T. A. Ramalingam Chettiarfrom Madras emphasised that whatever was donehad to be done with caution; the cause of Hindi wouldnot be helped if it was pushed too aggressively. Thefears of the people, even if they were unjustified,had to be allayed, or else “there will be bitter feelingsleft behind”. “When we want to live together andform a united nation,” he said, “there should bemutual adjustment and no question of forcing thingson people ...”

The Constitution of India thus emerged through aprocess of intense debate and discussion. Many ofits provisions were arrived at through a processof give-and-take, by forging a middle ground betweentwo opposed positions.

However, on one central feature of theConstitution there was substantial agreement. Thiswas on the granting of the vote to every adult Indian.This was an unprecedented act of faith, for in otherdemocracies the vote had been granted slowly, andin stages. In countries such as the United Statesand the United Kingdom, only men of property werefirst granted the vote; then, men with education werealso allowed into the charmed circle. After a longand bitter struggle, men of working-class or peasantbackground were also given the right to vote. Aneven longer struggle was required to grant this rightto women.

A second important feature of the Constitutionwas its emphasis on secularism. There was no ringingpronouncement of secularism in the Preamble, butoperationally, its key features as understood inIndian contexts were spelled out in an exemplarymanner. This was done through the carefully draftedseries of Fundamental Rights to “freedom of religion”(Articles 25-28), “cultural and educational rights”(Articles 29, 30), and “rights to equality” (Articles14, 16, 17). All religions were guaranteed equaltreatment by the State and given the right to maintain

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Fig. 15. 9B. R. Ambedkar and RajendraPrasad greeting each other at thetime of the handing over of theConstitution

charitable institutions. The State also sought todistance itself from religious communities, banningcompulsory religious instructions in State-runschools and colleges, and declaring religiousdiscrimination in employment to be illegal. However,a certain legal space was created for social reformwithin communities, a space that was used to banuntouchability and introduce changes in personaland family laws. In the Indian variant of politicalsecularism, then, there has been no absoluteseparation of State from religion, but a kind ofjudicious distance between the two.

The Constituent Assembly debates help usunderstand the many conflicting voices that had tobe negotiated in framing the Constitution, and themany demands that were articulated. They tell usabout the ideals that were invoked and the principlesthat the makers of the Constitution operated with.But in reading these debates we need to be awarethat the ideals invoked were very often re-workedaccording to what seemed appropriate within acontext. At times the members of the Assembly alsochanged their ideas as the debate unfolded overthree years. Hearing others argue, some membersrethought their positions, opening their minds tocontrary views, while others changed their views inreaction to the events around.© N

CERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Timeline

ANSWER IN 100-150 WORDS

1945

26 July Labour Government comes into power in Britain

December-January General Elections in India

1946

16 May Cabinet Mission announces its constitutional scheme

6 June Muslim League accepts Cabinet Mission’s constitutional scheme

16 June Cabinet Mission presents scheme for the formation of anInterim Government at the Centre

2 September Congress forms Interim Government with Nehru as theVice-President

13 October Muslim League decides to join the Interim Government

3-6 December British Prime Minister, Attlee, meets some Indian leaders; talks fail

9 December Constituent Assembly begins its sessions

1947

29 January Muslim League demands dissolution of Constituent Assembly

16 July Last meeting of the Interim Government

11 August Jinnah elected President of the Constituent Assembly ofPakistan

14 August Pakistan Independence; celebrations in Karachi

14-15 August At midnight India celebrates Independence

1949

December Constitution is signed

1. What were the ideals expressed in the ObjectivesResolution?

2. How was the term minority defined by differentgroups?

3. What were the arguments in favour of greater powerto the provinces?

4. Why did Mahatma Gandhi think Hindustani shouldbe the national language?

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


If you would like to knowmore, read:

Granville Austin. 1972.The Indian Constitution:The Cornerstone of a Nation.Oxford University Press,New Delhi.

Rajeev Bhargava. 2000.“Democratic Vision of aNew Republic”in F. R. Frankelet al. eds, Transforming India:Social and Political Dynamicsof Democracy.Oxford University Press,New Delhi.

Sumit Sarkar. 1983.“Indian Democracy:The Historical Inheritance”in Atul Kohli ed.,The Success of India’sDemocracy.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Sumit Sarkar. 1983.Modern India: 1885-1947.Macmillan, New Delhi.

Project

You could visit:parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm

(for a digitalised version of the

Constituent Assembly Debates)

Write a short essay(250-300 words) on the following:

5. What historical forces shaped the vision of theConstitution?

6. Discuss the different arguments made in favourof protection of the oppressed groups.

7. What connection did some of the members of theConstituent Assembly make between the politicalsituation of the time and the need for a strongCentre?

8. How did the Constituent Assembly seek to resolvethe language controversy?

9. Choose any one important constitutional changethat has happened in recent years. Find out whythe change was made, what different argumentswere put forward for the change, and the historicalbackground to the change. If you can, try and lookat the Constitutional Assembly Debates (http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm)to see how the issue was discussed at that time.Write about your findings.

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed


Credits for Illustrations

InstitutionsAlkazi Foundation for the Arts, New Delhi

(Figs. 11.6; 11.8; 12.12; 12.13)Collection Jyotindra and Juta Jain, CIVIC Archives,

New Delhi (Fig. 13.15)Photo Division, Government of India, New Delhi

(Figs. 14.3; 14.10; 15.3; 15.4; 15.5; 15.9)Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi

(Fig. 15.6)The Osian’s Archive and Library Collection, Mumbai

(Figs. 11.9; 11.18; 13.17)Victoria Memorial Museum and Library, Kolkata

(Figs. 10.6, 10.7)

JournalsBuilder (Fig. 12.26)Punch (Figs. 11.13; 11.14; 11.17)The Illustrated London News (Figs. 10.1; 10.10;

10.11; 10.12; 10.13; 10.14; 10.16; 10.17; 10.18;10.19; 11.15; 11.16 )

BooksBayly, C.A., The Raj: India and the British 1600-1947

(Figs. 10.4; 11.10; 11.11; 12.27)Dalrymple, William, The Last Mughal (Fig. 11.1)Daniell, Thomas and William, Views of Calcutta

(Figs. 12.7; 12.8; 12.9; 12.19)Evenson, Norma, The Indian Metropolis: A View

Toward the West (Figs. 12.14; 12.16; 12.20;12.22; 12.22; 12 23; 12.25; 12.29; 12.30)

Metcalf, T.R., An Imperial Vision: Indian Architectureand British Raj (Fig. 12.28)

Publications Division, Mahatma Gandhi (many ofthe Figs. in Ch.14)

Ruhe, Peter, Gandhi (Figs. 13.7; 13.11; 13.12)Singh, Khushwant, Train to Pakistan (Figs. 15.1;

15.4; 15.12; 15.13; 15.15)

© NCERT

not to

be re

publi

shed

Documents

THEME Framing the Constitution FIFTEEN The …ncert.nic.in/NCERTS/l/lehs306.pdfFRAMING THE CONSTITUTION 405 Framing the Constitution The Beginning of a New Era The Indian Constitution,