NCERT Summary: Theme-15 The Beginning of a New Era (Class 12) | History for UPSC CSE PDF Download

A Tumultuous Time

The years immediately preceding the making of the Constitution had been exceptionally tumultuous: a time of great hope, but also of abject disappointment. On 15 August 1947, India had been made free, but it had also been divided.

• Fresh in popular memory were the Quit India struggle of 1942 - perhaps the most widespread popular movement against the British Raj - as well as the bid by Subhas Chandra Bose to win freedom through armed struggle with foreign aid.
• An even more recent upsurge had also evoked much popular sympathy - this was the rising of the ratings of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay and other cities in the spring of 1946.
• Through the late 1940s there were periodic, if scattered, mass protests of workers and peasants in different parts of the country.
• One striking feature of these popular upsurges was the degree of Hindu-Muslim unity they manifested.
• In contrast, the two leading Indian political parties, the Congress and the Muslim League, had repeatedly failed to arrive at a settlement that would bring about religious reconciliation and social harmony.
• The Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 began a year of almost continuous rioting across northern and eastern India (see Chapters 13 and 14).
• The violence culminated in the massacres that accompanied the transfer of populations when the Partition of India was announced.
• On Independence Day, 15 August 1947, there was an outburst of joy and hope, unforgettable for those who lived through that time.
• But innumerable Muslims in India, and Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, were now faced with a cruel choice - the threat of sudden death or the squeezing of opportunities on the one side, and a forcible tearing away from their age-old roots on the other.
• Millions of refugees were on the move, Muslims into East and West Pakistan, Hindus and Sikhs into West Bengal and the eastern half of the Punjab.
• Many perished before they reached their destination.
• Another, and scarcely less serious, problem faced by the new nation was that of the princely states.
• During the period of the Raj, approximately one-third of the area of the subcontinent was under the control of nawabs and maharajas who owed allegiance to the British Crown, but were otherwise left mostly free to rule - or misrule - their territory as they wished.
• When the British left India, the constitutional status of these princes remained ambiguous.
• As one contemporary observer remarked, some maharajas now began "to luxuriate in wild dreams of independent power in an India of many partitions".
• This was the background in which the Constituent Assembly met.
• How could the debates within the Assembly remain insulated from what was happening outside?

The making of the Constituent Assembly 

• The members of the Constituent Assembly were not chosen through universal voting.
• In the winter of 1945-46, elections were held in India for the provinces.
• The Provincial Legislatures then selected representatives for the Constituent Assembly.
• The resulting Constituent Assembly was largely controlled by one group: the Congress Party.
• The Congress achieved victory in the general seats during the provincial elections, while the Muslim League won many of the designated Muslim seats.
• However, the Muslim League decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly, insisting on its demand for Pakistan and a separate constitution.
• The Socialists also hesitated to participate, believing that the Constituent Assembly was a product of British influence and could not be truly independent.
• As a result, around 82 percent of the members in the Constituent Assembly were also part of the Congress.
• Nevertheless, the Congress was not a monolithic party; its members had different views on important issues.
• Some members were influenced by socialism, while others supported landlordism.
• Some were aligned with community-based parties, while others were strongly secular.
• Through their experience in the national movement, Congress members learned to discuss their ideas publicly and resolve their differences.
• During the discussions in the Constituent Assembly, Congress members actively participated and voiced their opinions.
• The debates in the Constituent Assembly were also shaped by public opinion.
• As the discussions progressed, the arguments were covered in the newspapers, leading to public debates on the proposals.
• Critiques and responses in the press influenced the nature of the agreements made on various issues.
• To foster a sense of collective involvement, the public was invited to share their views on necessary actions.
• Many linguistic minorities sought protection for their mother tongues, while religious minorities requested special safeguards.
• Dalits called for the end of caste oppression and the reservation of seats in government.
• Key issues related to cultural rights and social justice raised in public debates were discussed within the Assembly.

The dominant voices 

• The Constituent Assembly consisted of 300 members.
• Among them, six members were particularly significant:
  • Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel, and Rajendra Prasad represented the Congress party.
  • Nehru was responsible for introducing the important "Objectives Resolution" and suggested that the Indian National Flag should be a "horizontal tricolour of saffron, white, and dark green in equal parts" with a navy blue wheel in the center.
  • Patel played a vital role behind the scenes, helping to draft many reports and working to bring together different opinions.
  • Rajendra Prasad served as the President of the Assembly, guiding discussions and ensuring that every member had an opportunity to speak.
• Another key figure was B.R. Ambedkar, a lawyer and economist.
  • Although he had opposed the Congress during British rule, he joined the Union Cabinet as law minister after Independence, following Mahatma Gandhi's advice.
  • Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Constitution.
• Two other important lawyers who assisted him were:
  • K.M. Munshi from Gujarat
  • Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar from Madras
• These six members received significant help from two civil servants:
  • B. N. Rau, who was the Constitutional Advisor to the Government of India, prepared background papers by studying political systems in other countries.
  • S. N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draughtsman, was skilled at translating complex ideas into clear legal terms.
• Ambedkar was responsible for guiding the Draft Constitution through the Assembly, a process that took three years and resulted in eleven volumes of discussions.
• The discussions were lengthy but very engaging, as members of the Assembly expressed their differing opinions.
• From their debates, many conflicting ideas about India emerged, including:
  • What language should be spoken in India.
  • What political and economic systems the country should adopt.
  • What moral values its citizens should embrace or reject.

The vision of the Constitution

• On December 13, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the "Objectives Resolution" in the Constituent Assembly.
• This resolution was very important as it laid out the main ideals of the Constitution of Independent India.
• It provided a framework for the process of creating the Constitution.
• The resolution declared India to be an "Independent Sovereign Republic".
• It promised justice, equality, and freedom for all citizens.
• It also stated that "adequate safeguards shall be provided" for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes.
• After explaining these objectives, Nehru reflected on the historical efforts to create documents that protect rights.
• Nehru's speech deserves close attention.
• He looked back at history and referenced the American and French Revolutions to show the broader context of India's constitution-making.
• He emphasized the significance of India’s project by connecting it to past revolutionary moments.
• However, Nehru did not imply that these past events were templates to follow for India.
• He did not specify a particular type of democracy, suggesting it should be determined through discussion and debate.
• Nehru stressed that the ideals and features of the Indian Constitution should not be copied from other countries.
• He stated, "We are not going just to copy", indicating the need for a unique approach.
• The government system in India had to "fit in with the temper of our people" and be acceptable to them.
• He acknowledged the importance of learning from the West, including their successes and failures.
• Yet, he also believed that Western nations should learn from other parts of the world and adapt their views on democracy.
• The goal of the Indian Constitution would be to combine liberal democratic ideas with the socialist concept of economic justice.
• Nehru called for creative thinking to determine what was suitable for India.

The will of the people 

• A Communist member, Somnath Lahiri, noticed the influence of British imperialism during the discussions of the Constituent Assembly.
• He encouraged the members and all Indians to completely free themselves from the effects of imperial rule.
• In the winter of 1946-47, while the Assembly was meeting, the British were still present in India.
• An interim government led by Jawaharlal Nehru was in charge, but it operated under the guidance of the Viceroy and the British Government in London.
• Lahiri pointed out that the Constituent Assembly was created by the British and was basically following their plans.
• Nehru acknowledged that many national leaders had desired a different kind of Assembly.
• He also recognized that the British Government had influenced the Assembly's formation and imposed conditions on how it should operate.
• However, Nehru emphasized that it is essential to remember the source of the Assembly's strength.
• He stated that governments are shaped by the will of the people, not just by official documents.
• Nehru noted that the Assembly exists because of the support from the Indian people and will go as far as the people want.
• He stressed the importance of understanding and addressing the desires of the Indian masses.
• The Constituent Assembly was expected to reflect the hopes of those involved in the struggle for independence.
• Democracy, equality, and justice were ideals deeply connected to social movements in India since the 19th century.
• In the 19th century, social reformers fought against child marriage and advocated for widows to remarry, seeking social justice.
• Swami Vivekananda called for reforms in Hinduism to promote justice in religion.
• Jyotiba Phule highlighted the struggles of the depressed castes, while Communists and Socialists organized for the rights of workers and farmers, aiming for economic and social justice.
• The national movement against colonial rule was a fight for democracy, justice, and citizens' rights.
• As the demand for representation increased, the British were compelled to implement several constitutional reforms.
• Various Acts were introduced (in 1909, 1919, and 1935) that gradually allowed more Indian involvement in provincial governments.
• The executive became partially accountable to the provincial legislature in 1919, and almost completely so under the Government of India Act of 1935.
• The Congress party won power in eight out of eleven provinces during the elections held in 1937 under the 1935 Act.
• However, there should not be an assumption of a clear connection between earlier constitutional changes and the events of 1946.
• Earlier constitutional efforts responded to the rising demand for representative governance but were not created by Indians, as they were passed by the colonial government.
• While the electorate expanded over time, by 1935, it still included only about 10 to 15 percent of the adult population, lacking universal adult suffrage.
• The legislatures formed under the 1935 Act functioned within the framework of colonial authority, being accountable to a Governor appointed by the British.
• Nehru's vision on December 13, 1946, was for a Constitution of an independent and sovereign Republic of India.

Defining Rights

• How should the rights of individual citizens be defined?
• Should oppressed groups have special rights?
• What rights should minorities possess?
• Who can actually be considered a minority?
• During the discussions in the Constituent Assembly, it became clear that there were no clear answers to these questions.
• The answers developed through a mix of differing opinions and personal interactions.
• In his opening speech, Nehru spoke about the "will of the people" and said that those who created the Constitution needed to address the "passions that lie in the hearts of the masses".
• This was a challenging task.
• As independence approached, various groups showed their desires in different ways and made various demands.
• These demands needed to be discussed, and the conflicting views had to be resolved before reaching an agreement.

The problem with separate electorates 

• On 27 August 1947, B. Pocker Bahadur from Madras made a strong argument for keeping separate electorates. He claimed that minorities exist in every country and cannot simply be ignored or eliminated.
• Bahadur emphasized the need to create a political system where minorities could coexist peacefully with others, aiming to reduce differences between communities.
• He argued that having separate electorates was essential for ensuring that Muslims had a significant voice in the country's governance.
• Bahadur believed that non-Muslims could not fully understand the needs of Muslims, nor could they choose a true representative for the Muslim community.
• This demand for separate electorates upset many nationalists. During the heated debates, various arguments were made against it.
• Most nationalists viewed separate electorates as a tactic used by the British to create divisions among the people. R.V. Dhulekar told Bahadur that the British had misled minorities with promises of protection.
• The fear of ongoing civil conflicts, riots, and violence after the Partition made nationalists strongly oppose separate electorates.
• Sardar Patel called separate electorates a “poison” harming the nation, stating that the demand had turned communities against each other and caused bloodshed, ultimately leading to the tragic division of the country.
• Patel urged that to achieve peace, separate electorates must be abolished.
• Govind Ballabh Pant also argued against separate electorates, saying it was detrimental not only to the nation but also to minorities.
• He agreed with Bahadur that a successful democracy should inspire confidence among all groups and that every citizen should have their material and spiritual needs respected.
• Despite this, Pant believed that separate electorates would isolate minorities, making them vulnerable and limiting their influence in government.
• The overarching concern was to create a unified nation-state. For political unity, every individual needed to be integrated as a citizen, and all groups should be included in the nation.
• The Constitution would provide rights to citizens, but citizens also had to pledge loyalty to the state.
• Communities could be acknowledged as cultural groups with cultural rights, but politically, all community members needed to act as equals within one state.
• Pant criticized the tendency to think in terms of communities rather than citizens, stressing the importance of individual citizens in the social structure.
• While recognizing the significance of community rights, many nationalists were worried it could lead to divided loyalties, hindering the formation of a strong nation and state.
• Not all Muslims supported the idea of separate electorates. For example, Begum Aizaas Rasul believed that separate electorates were harmful because they separated minorities from the majority.
• By 1949, most Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly agreed that separate electorates were not in the best interest of minorities.
• Instead, they argued that Muslims should engage actively in the democratic process to ensure they had a strong voice in the political system.

“We will need much more than this Resolution” 

• N.G. Ranga, a socialist and leader of the peasant movement, supported the Objectives Resolution but insisted that the term minorities should be understood in terms of economic status.
• For Ranga, the real minorities were the poor and the downtrodden.
• He appreciated the legal rights the Constitution was giving to everyone but pointed out its limitations for the poor.
• Ranga believed it was pointless for poor villagers to know they had fundamental rights to live, work, and enjoy civil liberties if they couldn’t effectively use those rights.
• He stated that the poor needed support and protection to truly benefit from their rights, saying, “They need props. They need a ladder.”
• Ranga highlighted the disconnect between the common people and those representing them in the Constituent Assembly.
• He questioned who was truly representing the ordinary people, noting that many representatives did not come from the same backgrounds as the masses they intended to represent.
• Ranga emphasized their role as trustees and champions for the people, trying to advocate for their needs and voices.
• One of the groups Ranga mentioned was the tribals, represented by the eloquent speaker Jaipal Singh.
• Singh, speaking as an Adibasi, admitted he did not grasp all the legal details of the Resolution but felt strongly that everyone should strive for freedom and fight together.
• He pointed out that his community had faced discrimination and neglect for the past 6,000 years.
• Singh described the ongoing exploitation and dispossession of his people by non-aboriginals, which had led to a history of rebellions and unrest.
• Despite this, he expressed hope in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and others' promises of a new era in independent India with equality of opportunity and no neglect.
• Singh stressed the importance of protecting the tribes and creating conditions that would help them integrate with the general population.
• He argued that tribes were not a numerical minority but required protection due to their history of being stripped of their land, forests, and pastures.
• Singh called for breaking the emotional and physical barriers between tribes and the rest of society, saying, “Our point is that you have got to mix with us. We are willing to mix with you…”
• He did not ask for separate electorates but believed that reservation of seats in the legislature was necessary for tribal representation.
• Singh felt that this reservation would ensure that the voices of tribals were heard and encourage others to engage with them.

“We were suppressed for thousands of years”

• How should the rights of the Depressed Castes be defined in the Constitution?
• During the national movement, Ambedkar requested separate electorates for the Depressed Castes.
• Mahatma Gandhi opposed this idea, believing it would keep these groups apart from the rest of society permanently.
• The challenge for the Constituent Assembly was to find a way to resolve this disagreement.
• What kind of protections were to be provided for the Depressed Castes?
• Some members of the Depressed Castes argued that the issues faced by the “Untouchables” could not be fixed just with protections and safeguards.
• They believed that their problems stemmed from the social norms and moral values of the caste system.
• Society had utilized their labor and services but kept them at a distance, refusing to associate with them, share meals, or allow them into temples.
• J. Nagappa from Madras stated, “We have been suffering, but we are prepared to suffer no more.”
• He emphasized that they understood their responsibilities and knew how to stand up for themselves.
• Nagappa highlighted that the Depressed Castes were not a small minority; they made up about 20 to 25 percent of the population.
• Their hardships were due to being systematically marginalized, not because of their numbers.
• They lacked access to education and had no representation in government.
• K.J. Khanderkar from the Central Provinces remarked, “We were suppressed for thousands of years.”
• He expressed that this suppression had harmed their minds and bodies, leaving them unable to move forward.
• After the violence from the Partition, Ambedkar stopped advocating for separate electorates.
• The Constituent Assembly ultimately suggested abolishing untouchability, opening Hindu temples to all castes, and reserving seats in legislatures and jobs for the lowest castes.
• Many acknowledged that while these measures were significant, they could not resolve all issues; social attitudes needed to change as well.
• Nonetheless, these actions were welcomed by the democratic public.

The powers of the states

• One of the main topics debated in the Constituent Assembly was the rights of the Central Government compared to the states.
• Jawaharlal Nehruwas a strong supporter of a powerful Centre. He expressed in a letter to the President of the Constituent Assembly that:
  • After partition was settled, having a weak central authority would harm the country's interests.
  • A strong Centre was necessary to maintain peace, coordinate important issues, and represent the nation effectively internationally.
• The Draft Constitution included three lists of subjects:
  • The Union List, which was under the Central Government's control.
  • The State List, which was under the states' control.
  • The Concurrent List, where both the Centre and states shared responsibilities.
• More subjects were assigned to the Union List compared to other federations, and there were also more items on the Concurrent List than the provinces wanted.
• The Union had control over minerals and key industries.
• Article 356 allowed the Centre to take control of a state's administration if the Governor recommended it.
• The Constitution set up a complex system of fiscal federalism.
  • For some taxes, like customs duties and Company taxes, the Centre kept all the revenue.
  • For other taxes, like income tax and excise duties, the Centre shared the revenue with the states.
  • Some taxes, such as estate duties, were entirely given to the states.
• The states could also collect certain taxes on their own, including:
  • Land and property taxes
  • Sales tax
  • Tax on bottled liquor
• K. Santhanamfrom Madras strongly defended the rights of the states. He believed that:
  • A redistribution of powers was essential to strengthen both the states and the Centre.
  • Adding more powers to the Centre would not necessarily make it stronger; instead, it could overwhelm the Centre.
  • By transferring some responsibilities to the states, the Centre could actually become more effective.
• Santhanam warned that the proposed power distribution would weaken the states. He stated that:
  • The financial rules would make the provinces poorer, as most taxes were assigned to the Centre.
  • Without adequate funds, states couldn't invest in development projects.
  • He expressed concern about a scenario where states would have to ask the Centre for help with basic services like education and sanitation.
  • He suggested that if things continued this way, it might be better to abandon the federal system altogether and have a Unitary system.
• Santhanam foresaw a troubling future if the proposed power distribution wasn't carefully reviewed. He predicted that:
  • All provinces might eventually rise in revolt against the Centre.
• Many others from the provinces shared similar concerns and argued for fewer items to be included in the Concurrent and Union lists.
• A representative from Orissa cautioned that:
  • The Centre might collapse due to excessive centralization of powers in the Constitution.

“What we want today is a strong Government”

• The call for more power to the provinces led to a strong response in the Assembly.
• The importance of a strong central government had been emphasized multiple times since the start of the Constituent Assembly sessions.
• Ambedkar stated that he wanted "a strong and united Centre" that was much more powerful than the one created under the Government of India Act of 1935.
• Many members reminded the Assembly of the riots and violence affecting the nation, arguing that the Centre needed to be strengthened to control the communal unrest.
• Gopalaswami Ayyangar responded to the push for provincial power by insisting that "the Centre should be made as strong as possible."
• Balakrishna Sharma, a member from the United Provinces, explained that only a strong Centre could:
  • Plan for the country's well-being,
  • Utilize available economic resources,
  • Establish effective administration,
  • Defend the country against foreign threats.
• Before the Partition, the Congress had agreed to give significant autonomy to the provinces to reassure the Muslim League that the Centre would not interfere where they were in power.
• After the Partition, many nationalists changed their stance, believing that the earlier push for decentralization was no longer necessary.
• A unitary system was already in place, enforced by the colonial government.
• The violence during that period further encouraged centralization, which was seen as necessary to prevent chaos and plan for economic development.
• The Constitution displayed a clear preference for the rights of the Union of India over those of its individual states.

The language of the nation

• How could a nation be built when people from different areas spoke different languages, each linked to its own culture?
• How could individuals communicate or connect with one another if they did not understand each other’s language?
• The issue of language was discussed for many months in the Constituent Assembly, often leading to heated debates.
• By the 1930s, the Indian National Congress had agreed that Hindustani should be the national language.
• Mahatma Gandhi believed that everyone should use a language that was easy for the common people to understand.
• Hindustani, a mix of Hindi and Urdu, was widely spoken by many people in India and represented a blend of different cultures.
• Over time, Hindustani adopted words from many sources, making it understandable for people from various regions.
• Gandhi thought that this multi-cultural language would effectively connect different communities, uniting Hindus and Muslims, as well as people from the north and south.
• However, since the late 19th century, Hindustani had been undergoing changes.
• As tensions between communities grew, Hindi and Urdu began to diverge.
• There was a push to make Hindi more like Sanskrit, removing Persian and Arabic words.
• At the same time, Urdu was becoming more influenced by Persian.
• As a result, language started to be linked with religious identities and politics.
• Despite these changes, Gandhi continued to believe in the mixed nature of Hindustani.

A plea for Hindi 

• In one of the first sessions of the Constituent Assembly, R. V. Dhulekar, a Congressman from the United Provinces, strongly argued that Hindi should be used as the language for creating the constitution.
• When he was told that not everyone present in the Assembly understood Hindi, Dhulekar replied, “People who are here to create a constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not fit to be members of this Assembly. They should leave.”
• His comments caused a stir in the House, but he continued his speech in Hindi.
• The situation calmed down only after Jawaharlal Nehru intervened, but the controversy over the language persisted and upset members for nearly three years.
• Almost three years later, on September 12, 1947, Dhulekar’s remarks about the national language stirred up another significant debate.
• By this time, the Language Committee of the Constituent Assembly had released its report and proposed a compromise to address the disagreement between supporters of Hindi and its opponents.
• The committee planned to make Hindi in the Devanagari script the official language, but the change would happen gradually.
• For the first fifteen years, English would still be used for all official matters.
• Each region would have the option to select one of its local languages for official business within the province.
• By designating Hindi as the official language instead of the national language, the Language Committee aimed to soothe tensions and find a solution that everyone could accept.
• However, Dhulekar preferred a declaration that Hindi should be considered a National Language rather than just an official one.
• He criticized those who claimed that Hindi was being imposed on the country and mocked those who suggested that Hindustani, not Hindi, should be the national language, citing Mahatma Gandhi.
• Dhulekar expressed, “I am very pleased that Hindi has become the official language of the country... Some say it is a concession to the Hindi language. I disagree. It is the result of a historic process.”
• Many members were troubled by the way Dhulekar presented his argument.
• Throughout his speech, the President of the Assembly interrupted him, saying, “I do not think you are helping your case by speaking like this.”
• Despite the interruptions, Dhulekar persisted with his speech.

The fear of domination

• G. Durgabai from Madras expressed her concerns about the ongoing discussion.
• She pointed out that the issue of national language for India, which was once widely accepted, has suddenly become controversial.
• People in non-Hindi-speaking regions now feel that the push for Hindi is an attempt to undermine the influence of other important languages in India.
• Durgabai mentioned that there is strong opposition to Hindi in the south, as many believe that promoting Hindi threatens their local languages.
• Despite this, Durgabai and others followed Mahatma Gandhi's call to promote Hindi in the south, facing challenges by starting schools and offering Hindi classes.
• She questioned the outcome of these efforts, stating, “I am shocked to see this agitation against the enthusiasm we had for Hindi earlier.”
• While she accepted Hindustani as a language for everyone, she noted that changes were being made to it, with words from Urdu and other regional languages being removed.
• Durgabai believed that any action that diminishes the inclusive nature of Hindustani would cause anxiety among different language communities.
• As tensions rose during the discussion, some members called for a spirit of understanding.
• Shri Shankarrao Deo from Bombay, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, stated he accepted Hindustani as a national language, but warned that any actions that raised suspicion would not earn his full support for Hindi.
• T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar from Madras stressed the importance of being cautious in promoting Hindi, suggesting that an aggressive approach would not benefit the cause.
• He mentioned that even if fears about Hindi were unjustified, they needed to be addressed to avoid leaving behind bitter feelings.
• Chettiar concluded by saying, “To live together as one nation, there should be mutual adjustment and no forcing.”