Different social and political perspectives on the Constitution
The Constituent Assembly
Constituted under the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946; members indirectly elected by the provincial legislatures in July 1946; original strength 389; membership changed after Partition; the Muslim League initially boycotted.
From plan to drafting — the road the Assembly travelled. Cabinet Mission (1946) → Elections (July 1946 · indirect) → Assembly (strength 389) → Objectives Resolution (13 Dec 1946) → Drafting Committee (chaired by Ambedkar)
| Member | Role in the Assembly |
|---|---|
| Dr. Rajendra Prasad | Permanent Chairman (President) of the Assembly |
| Jawaharlal Nehru | Moved the Objectives Resolution; pressed a strong Centre and parliamentary democracy |
| Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel | Led work on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and the Provincial Constitution; opposed separate electorates |
| Dr. B.R. Ambedkar | Chairman, Drafting Committee |
| K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, T.T. Krishnamachari | Leading lawyer-members across the drafting and debates |
| Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dakshayani Velayudhan | Women members who strengthened gender-equality concerns |
| H.N. Kunzru, N.G. Ayyangar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee | Other prominent voices in the debates |
“The burden of drafting this Constitution fell upon Dr. Ambedkar, and we are grateful to him for having achieved this task in a manner which is undoubtedly commendable.”
T.T. Krishnamachari
Was it representative? The legitimacy debate
Charge: not elected by universal adult franchise; Congress dominance; the Muslim League boycott; a limited electorate. Defence: the Assembly held many communities and viewpoints; Congress deliberately included diverse and non-Congress candidates; debates were elaborate; consensus and accommodation guided the work.
“There was hardly any shade of opinion not represented in the Assembly.”
K. Santhanam
“Congress was India and India was Congress.”
Granville Austin
Granville Austin read consensus and accommodation as “two wholly Indian concepts”.
The Objectives Resolution — the soul before the structure
Moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It laid the philosophical foundation of the Constitution and made drafting a project of social transformation, not only legal drafting.
Core principles
Sovereign independent republic · Justice — social, economic, political · Equality of status & opportunity · Freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship · Vocation, association & action · Safeguards for minorities, backward & tribal areas · Depressed & backward classes · World peace & welfare of mankind
‘…May this Resolution bear fruit and may the time come when in the words of this Resolution, this ancient land attains its rightful and honored place in the world and makes its full and willing contribution to the promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind’
Jawaharlal Nehru
How the Resolution became the Constitution. Objectives Resolution (13 Dec 1946) → Preamble → Fundamental Rights → Directive Principles → Minority & social-justice safeguards
The Great Debates — where the Constitution was argued into shape
The Assembly was not a drafting shop alone; it was an argument about what kind of state India would be. The major fault-lines and how they were settled:
| Question | Positions in the Assembly | How it was settled |
|---|---|---|
| Form of government | Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar for parliamentary democracy; Gandhians for panchayati raj | Parliamentary democracy adopted; village panchayats placed in the Directive Principles |
| Federation | Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru for a strong Centre; Partition and the princely states made unity central | India became a Union of States |
| Separate electorates | B. Pocker Sahib demanded separate electorates; Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, G.B. Pant and Begum Aizaz Rasul opposed them | Separate electorates rejected; minority rights accepted without communal fragmentation |
| Uniform Civil Code | For: Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, K.M. Munshi. Against: B. Pocker Sahib, Ismail Sahib | Placed in the Directive Principles |
| Directive Principles | N.G. Ranga, Jaipal Singh and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pressed for stronger social-economic guarantees | Made non-justiciable for want of state capacity, but treated as morally binding |
| Judiciary | Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed judges appointing judges as an “imperium in imperio” | An integrated judiciary with appointment by consultation |
| Governor | Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava wanted clear qualifications rather than reliance on convention alone | Office retained with constitutional provisions |
Unity, Diversity and Federalism — one nation out of many
The Constitution was framed amid Partition, communal violence, more than 540 princely states to integrate, secessionist fears and deep linguistic, tribal, regional and religious diversity. The makers feared Balkanization — and answered it on two tracks at once.
One Union, many diversities — how the document holds together
| UNITY — the hard core | ACCOMMODATION — the soft federation |
|---|---|
| Unity provisions: Article 1 (Union of States) · Article 2 (admission) · Article 3 (formation & alteration by Parliament) · strong Union List · emergency provisions · Articles 352 & 365 · integrated judiciary · All India Services · single citizenship | Accommodation provisions: federal structure · State List · linguistic reorganization · Articles 29–30 · Fifth Schedule · Sixth Schedule · Article 371 provisions · panchayati raj through the 73rd & 74th Amendments |
James Manor reads the internal heterogeneity of each linguistic region — cut again by caste, class and sub-region — as a force for national unity, since no single cleavage can align a whole region against the rest.
Key idea
Indian federalism is a holding-together federation: unity is secured through hard central provisions and soft accommodation together, so national integration and State autonomy can coexist.
Social Inequality and the Social Revolution
The makers set out to transform an unequal society, not merely to govern it. K. Santhanam read the project as three revolutions in sequence:
Santhanam’s three revolutions. Political revolution (independence) → Social revolution (exit from medievalism of birth, religion, custom & community) → Economic revolution (scientific agriculture & industry)
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned of three dangers to this project: social and economic inequalities, unconstitutional methods, and hero-worship. Political democracy, he held, could not survive without social democracy.
The provisions that carry the revolution
Preamble (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) · Article 14 (equality before law) · Article 15 (non-discrimination) · Article 16 (equality of opportunity) · Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) · Article 32 (constitutional remedies) · Articles 36–51 (Directive Principles) · Article 39 (distribution of material resources, equal pay) · Article 41 (work, education, public assistance) · Article 325 (no exclusion from electoral rolls on religion, race, caste or sex) · Article 326 (universal adult franchise).
“The Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social document. The majority of its provisions are either directly aimed at furthering the goals of social revolution by establishing the conditions necessary for its achievement yet despite the permeation of the entire Constitution by the aim of national renaissance, the core of the commitment to the social revolution lies in Part III and In Part IV in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. These are the conscience of the Constitution.”
Granville Austin
“Freedom and power bring responsibility… It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us; but as long as tears and sufferings, so long our work will not be over.”
Jawaharlal Nehru
Legacies of the National Movement — what the Constitution inherited
The Constitution did not arrive from nowhere. It gave legal form to a political inheritance built over decades of struggle. The major legacies:
Anti-imperialism · National unity · Pluralism · Democracy · Mass participation · Civil liberties · Secularism · Economic planning · Social justice · Independent foreign policy
| Legacy | What the movement built — and passed on |
|---|---|
| National unity | The Indian nation was actively constructed; British denial of India’s nationhood was defeated politically; Jawaharlal Nehru stressed emotional integration and development |
| Democracy | The movement drew in peasants, workers, women, students, tribals and urban groups; Congress built democratic decision-making; universal adult suffrage after independence reflected faith in ordinary people |
| Civil liberties | Rights consciousness from Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and Mahatma Gandhi; the Indian Civil Liberties Union, 1936 |
| Economic development | Modernization through science and state-led planning — Karachi Resolution, 1931, National Planning Committee, 1938, Planning Commission, 1950. The Gandhian alternative: village industries, decentralization, khadi, minimal technology, rural autonomy |
| Secularism | Equal respect for all religions; separation of religion from state affairs; anti-communalism; protection of minorities. Mahatma Gandhi distinguished moral Religion from denominational religions; Jawaharlal Nehru warned against religion in politics while accepting its ethical dimension |
| Foreign policy | Early nationalism opposed imperial policy in Persia, Turkey and colonized nations; Jawaharlal Nehru attended the International Congress of Oppressed Nationalities, 1927; continuity in anti-colonialism, non-alignment, sovereignty and peaceful relations |
Weaknesses of the inheritance
It failed to prevent Partition; could not fully defeat communalism; caste hierarchy, gender inequality and class contradictions persisted; and a loose organization allowed divergent local interpretations.
The ‘Lawyers’ Paradise’ charge
Sir Ivor Jennings criticized the Constitution as a “Lawyers’ Paradise”. His reasons:
Very long and detailed · Legalistic language · Administrative provisions included · Complex interpretation · Many lawyers in the Assembly · Frequent litigation
The charge had domestic echoes: P.R. Deshmukh attacked the draft as too wordy, and many leading framers were themselves lawyers — Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer.
“If I may say so, the draft is really a lawyer’s paradise.”
H.K. Maheshwari
The defence
India’s diversity required detail; an infant democracy needed clarity; arbitrariness had to be prevented; social-justice provisions demanded precision; and the Constitution has survived the test of time. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended the detail directly — it was necessary because it was possible to pervert the Constitution through ordinary administration.
Constitutional Morality
Working definition
Constitutional morality means fidelity to the values, procedures and limits of the Constitution — not mere obedience to the legal text, and not deference to prevailing social morality.
Its elements
Justice · Liberty · Equality · Fraternity · Rule of law · Rights · Minority protection · Self-restraint · Respect for plurality · Public reason · Criticism within constitutional limits
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar used the idea to warn that democracy needs settled habits of constitutional conduct, not just constitutional forms. Upendra Baxi treats it as a restraint that keeps political leaders from subverting constitutional values.
How the courts have used it
The principle has done real work in the case law: Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure), Naz Foundation, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Sabarimala case (2018), and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (privacy) — using constitutional morality to protect individual dignity against majoritarian social morality.
Framing the Constitution — the challenges
The framers worked in a difficult moment.
Partition and national integration
- Partition brought large-scale violence, especially in Punjab and Bengal — communal fear and administrative breakdown.
- More than 500 princely states had to be integrated; Junagadh, Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir posed special difficulty.
Diversity and marginalised expectations
- Over 10% of India’s Muslim population remained after Partition; minority confidence had to be secured without weakening unity.
- Many languages, faiths, customs, castes and regions had to be welded into one political community.
- The freedom struggle had raised hopes among SCs, STs, OBCs and the poor — a promise of a new social order, not only political independence.
Commitment to liberal democracy
- Jawaharlal Nehru and others accepted universal adult franchise despite doubts about readiness — full democracy, not gradual democracy.
- Democratic government, rule of law, secularism and fundamental rights became core commitments.
The Constitution as a Social Document
The Indian Constitution is more than a legal text. It is a political settlement, a social document and a transformative framework for a deeply diverse society. It binds together democratic government, fundamental rights, social justice, federal accommodation, secularism, constitutional morality and national unity.
“First and foremost a social document.”
Granville Austin
Granville Austin reads its central purpose as the marriage of three aims: national unity and integrity; the institutions and spirit of democracy; and a social revolution to better the masses. The text sits at the meeting point of law, politics, morality and social change.
A Social Document — Promise & Contradiction
The social commitment runs through two Parts. Fundamental Rights end coercion by state and society, universalise liberty, abolish untouchability, prohibit discrimination and supply justiciable remedies. Directive Principles seek welfare of the masses, social and economic justice, and positive freedom by removing poverty and social barriers. The machinery: reservations, abolition of social disabilities, adult franchise, legal remedies, welfare policies and social-reform laws.
“The Constitution’s aim is almost entirely political and not at all social or economic.”
K.T. Shah
K.T. Shah pointed to non-justiciable social provisions, unenforceable Directive Principles and flexible language that allows weak implementation.
“On 26th January, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we have equality, and in social and economic rights, we have inequality.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Rajeev Bhargava, in Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution, holds that even non-justiciable principles carry moral authority and empower marginalised groups. M.C. Chagla observed that “our country would indeed be a heaven on earth if all these principles are fully carried out.”
UPSC 2023 — The Constitution of India is the ‘cornerstone of a nation’ (Granville Austin). Analyze.
Constitutional Morality
Constitutional morality means loyalty to the values, procedures and spirit of the Constitution — not merely formal obedience to its text. Ambedkar drew the idea from George Grote, who described it as “paramount reverence” for constitutional forms, combined with obedience to authority within those forms and free speech within legal limits.
Ambedkar’s meaning: Respect for constitutional procedures · self-restraint by political actors · rejection of violence and extra-constitutional methods · acceptance of pluralism · rational debate over hero-worship · commitment to social democracy.
Ambedkar warned against the “grammar of anarchy” and against hero-worship in politics. Constitutional morality, he held, is not natural to a society; it has to be cultivated — especially where caste, religion, region, class and minority rights all press on democracy.
Views of scholars
- Pratap Bhanu Mehta — it protects democracy from degenerating into majoritarianism.
- Rajeev Bhargava — it links institutions with foundational values, not mere procedure.
- Upendra Baxi — it counters executive authoritarianism and protects civil liberties.
- Faizan Mustafa — calls it a “normative compass” for judging law and public morality.
The doctrine has done real work in Puttaswamy (privacy, autonomy, dignity), Navtej Singh Johar (decriminalising consensual same-sex relations) and the Sabarimala entry case.
Criticism
- Abhishek Manu Singhvi, in The Trenches, argues that the subjectivity of constitutional morality can be harmful.
- K.K. Venugopal compared it to another divisive doctrine, the Basic Structure.
- Tushar Mehta warned it could turn the judiciary into a “Third Chamber”.
Assessment — how to frame it in the answer
The one-line verdict
The Constitution is constitutional in outcome but revolutionary in social ambition — a peaceful legal instrument built to transform an unequal society.
Pull the arc together when you write: historical antecedents supplied the material; the Assembly supplied the deliberation; the Objectives Resolution supplied the purpose; and the drive for social revolution supplied the ambition. The Constitution gave those foundations legal form and directed them towards justice, liberty, equality and fraternity — a document held together by constitutional morality and still working as a transformative force.