{"id":3495,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/different-social-and-political-perspectives-on-the-constitution\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T02:57:57","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T21:27:57","slug":"different-social-and-political-perspectives-on-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/different-social-and-political-perspectives-on-the-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Different social and political perspectives on the Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-B Indian Government and Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Different social and political perspectives on the Constitution<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Indian Government and Politics<\/div>\n

Different social and political perspectives on the Constitution<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-B \u00b7 2<\/b> \u2014 Making of the Indian Constitution : Legacies of the British rule; different social and political perspectives.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

The Constituent Assembly<\/h3>\n

Constituted under the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946<\/span>; members indirectly elected<\/span> by the provincial legislatures in July 1946; original strength 389<\/span>; membership changed after Partition; the Muslim League<\/span> initially boycotted.<\/p>\n

From plan to drafting \u2014 the road the Assembly travelled.<\/span> Cabinet Mission<\/span> (1946) \u2192 Elections<\/span> (July 1946 \u00b7 indirect) \u2192 Assembly<\/span> (strength 389) \u2192 Objectives Resolution<\/span> (13 Dec 1946) \u2192 Drafting Committee<\/span> (chaired by Ambedkar)<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Member<\/th>\nRole in the Assembly<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Dr. Rajendra Prasad<\/span><\/td>\nPermanent Chairman (President) of the Assembly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span><\/td>\nMoved the Objectives Resolution; pressed a strong Centre and parliamentary democracy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel<\/span><\/td>\nLed work on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and the Provincial Constitution; opposed separate electorates<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span><\/td>\nChairman, Drafting Committee<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, T.T. Krishnamachari<\/span><\/td>\nLeading lawyer-members across the drafting and debates<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dakshayani Velayudhan<\/span><\/td>\nWomen members who strengthened gender-equality concerns<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
H.N. Kunzru, N.G. Ayyangar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee<\/span><\/td>\nOther prominent voices in the debates<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

T.T. Krishnamachari<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Was it representative? The legitimacy debate<\/span><\/p>\n

Charge<\/span>: not elected by universal adult franchise; Congress dominance; the Muslim League boycott; a limited electorate. Defence<\/span>: the Assembly held many communities and viewpoints; Congress deliberately included diverse and non-Congress candidates; debates were elaborate; consensus and accommodation<\/span> guided the work.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThere was hardly any shade of opinion not represented in the Assembly.\u201d<\/p>\n

K. Santhanam<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cCongress was India and India was Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

Granville Austin<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Granville Austin<\/span> read consensus<\/span> and accommodation<\/span> as \u201ctwo wholly Indian concepts\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Objectives Resolution \u2014 the soul before the structure<\/h3>\n

Moved by Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span> on 13 December 1946<\/span>. It laid the philosophical foundation of the Constitution and made drafting a project of social transformation, not only legal drafting.<\/p>\n

Core principles<\/span><\/p>\n

Sovereign independent republic \u00b7 Justice \u2014 social, economic, political \u00b7 Equality of status & opportunity \u00b7 Freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship \u00b7 Vocation, association & action \u00b7 Safeguards for minorities, backward & tribal areas \u00b7 Depressed & backward classes \u00b7 World peace & welfare of mankind<\/p>\n

\n

\u2018\u2026May 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\u2019<\/p>\n

Jawaharlal Nehru<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How the Resolution became the Constitution.<\/span> Objectives Resolution<\/span> (13 Dec 1946) \u2192 Preamble<\/span> \u2192 Fundamental Rights<\/span> \u2192 Directive Principles<\/span> \u2192 Minority & social-justice safeguards<\/span><\/p>\n

UPSC 2024 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Comment on the Objective Resolution of the Constituent Assembly in 150 words.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

The Great Debates \u2014 where the Constitution was argued into shape<\/h3>\n

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:<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Question<\/th>\nPositions in the Assembly<\/th>\nHow it was settled<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Form of government<\/span><\/td>\nJawaharlal Nehru<\/span> and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span> for parliamentary democracy; Gandhians for panchayati raj<\/td>\nParliamentary democracy adopted; village panchayats placed in the Directive Principles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Federation<\/span><\/td>\nSardar Vallabhbhai Patel<\/span> and Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span> for a strong Centre; Partition and the princely states made unity central<\/td>\nIndia became a Union of States<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Separate electorates<\/span><\/td>\nB. Pocker Sahib<\/span> demanded separate electorates; Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel<\/span>, G.B. Pant<\/span> and Begum Aizaz Rasul<\/span> opposed them<\/td>\nSeparate electorates rejected; minority rights accepted without communal fragmentation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Uniform Civil Code<\/span><\/td>\nFor: Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, K.M. Munshi<\/span>. Against: B. Pocker Sahib, Ismail Sahib<\/span><\/td>\nPlaced in the Directive Principles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Directive Principles<\/span><\/td>\nN.G. Ranga<\/span>, Jaipal Singh<\/span> and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span> pressed for stronger social-economic guarantees<\/td>\nMade non-justiciable<\/span> for want of state capacity, but treated as morally binding<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Judiciary<\/span><\/td>\nDr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span> opposed judges appointing judges as an \u201cimperium in imperio\u201d<\/td>\nAn integrated judiciary with appointment by consultation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Governor<\/span><\/td>\nPandit Thakur Das Bhargava<\/span> wanted clear qualifications rather than reliance on convention alone<\/td>\nOffice retained with constitutional provisions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Unity, Diversity and Federalism \u2014 one nation out of many<\/h3>\n

The Constitution was framed amid Partition<\/span>, communal violence, more than 540 princely states<\/span> to integrate, secessionist fears and deep linguistic, tribal, regional and religious diversity. The makers feared Balkanization \u2014 and answered it on two tracks at once.<\/p>\n

One Union, many diversities \u2014 how the document holds together<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n
UNITY \u2014 the hard core<\/th>\nACCOMMODATION \u2014 the soft federation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Unity provisions<\/span>: Article 1<\/span> (Union of States) \u00b7 Article 2<\/span> (admission) \u00b7 Article 3<\/span> (formation & alteration by Parliament) \u00b7 strong Union List \u00b7 emergency provisions \u00b7 Articles 352<\/span> & 365 \u00b7 integrated judiciary \u00b7 All India Services \u00b7 single citizenship<\/td>\nAccommodation provisions<\/span>: federal structure \u00b7 State List \u00b7 linguistic reorganization \u00b7 Articles 29\u201330<\/span> \u00b7 Fifth Schedule<\/span> \u00b7 Sixth Schedule<\/span> \u00b7 Article 371<\/span> provisions \u00b7 panchayati raj through the 73rd & 74th Amendments<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

James Manor<\/span> reads the internal heterogeneity of each linguistic region \u2014 cut again by caste, class and sub-region \u2014 as a force for national unity, since no single cleavage can align a whole region against the rest.<\/p>\n

Key idea<\/span><\/p>\n

Indian federalism is a holding-together federation<\/span>: unity is secured through hard central provisions and soft accommodation together, so national integration and State autonomy can coexist.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2019 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Unity and integrity of India was perhaps the single uppermost factor in the minds of the Constitution makers. Comment.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n
UPSC 2021 \u00b7 10m<\/span>\u201cThe Constitution makers faced the great task of forging a common national identity in the face of unparalleled social and cultural diversity in India.\u201d Comment.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Social Inequality and the Social Revolution<\/h3>\n

The makers set out to transform an unequal society, not merely to govern it. K. Santhanam<\/span> read the project as three revolutions in sequence:<\/p>\n

Santhanam\u2019s three revolutions.<\/span> Political revolution<\/span> (independence) \u2192 Social revolution<\/span> (exit from medievalism of birth, religion, custom & community) \u2192 Economic revolution<\/span> (scientific agriculture & industry)<\/p>\n

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span> warned of three dangers to this project: social and economic inequalities<\/span>, unconstitutional methods<\/span>, and hero-worship<\/span>. Political democracy, he held, could not survive without social democracy.<\/p>\n

The provisions that carry the revolution<\/span><\/p>\n

Preamble (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity) \u00b7 Article 14<\/span> (equality before law) \u00b7 Article 15<\/span> (non-discrimination) \u00b7 Article 16<\/span> (equality of opportunity) \u00b7 Article 17<\/span> (abolition of untouchability) \u00b7 Article 32<\/span> (constitutional remedies) \u00b7 Articles 36\u201351<\/span> (Directive Principles) \u00b7 Article 39<\/span> (distribution of material resources, equal pay) \u00b7 Article 41<\/span> (work, education, public assistance) \u00b7 Article 325<\/span> (no exclusion from electoral rolls on religion, race, caste or sex) \u00b7 Article 326<\/span> (universal adult franchise).<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Granville Austin<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cFreedom and power bring responsibility\u2026 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jawaharlal Nehru<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

UPSC 2020 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Indian Constitution maker\u2019s concern on social inequality.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n
UPSC 2022 \u00b7 15m<\/span>The making of the Indian Constitution is described as an attempt towards \u2018social revolution\u2019. Comment.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Legacies of the National Movement \u2014 what the Constitution inherited<\/h3>\n

The Constitution did not arrive from nowhere. It gave legal form to a political inheritance built over decades of struggle. The major legacies:<\/p>\n

Anti-imperialism \u00b7 National unity \u00b7 Pluralism \u00b7 Democracy \u00b7 Mass participation \u00b7 Civil liberties \u00b7 Secularism \u00b7 Economic planning \u00b7 Social justice \u00b7 Independent foreign policy<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Legacy<\/th>\nWhat the movement built \u2014 and passed on<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
National unity<\/span><\/td>\nThe Indian nation was actively constructed; British denial of India\u2019s nationhood was defeated politically; Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span> stressed emotional integration and development<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Democracy<\/span><\/td>\nThe 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Civil liberties<\/span><\/td>\nRights consciousness from Gopal Krishna Gokhale<\/span>, Surendranath Banerjea<\/span> and Mahatma Gandhi<\/span>; the Indian Civil Liberties Union, 1936<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Economic development<\/span><\/td>\nModernization through science and state-led planning \u2014 Karachi Resolution, 1931<\/span>, National Planning Committee, 1938<\/span>, Planning Commission, 1950<\/span>. The Gandhian alternative<\/span>: village industries, decentralization, khadi, minimal technology, rural autonomy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Secularism<\/span><\/td>\nEqual respect for all religions; separation of religion from state affairs; anti-communalism; protection of minorities. Mahatma Gandhi<\/span> distinguished moral Religion from denominational religions; Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span> warned against religion in politics while accepting its ethical dimension<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Foreign policy<\/span><\/td>\nEarly nationalism opposed imperial policy in Persia, Turkey and colonized nations; Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span> attended the International Congress of Oppressed Nationalities, 1927<\/span>; continuity in anti-colonialism, non-alignment, sovereignty and peaceful relations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Weaknesses of the inheritance<\/span><\/p>\n

It failed to prevent Partition<\/span>; could not fully defeat communalism; caste hierarchy, gender inequality and class contradictions persisted; and a loose organization allowed divergent local interpretations.<\/p>\n

The \u2018Lawyers\u2019 Paradise\u2019 charge<\/h3>\n

Sir Ivor Jennings<\/span> criticized the Constitution as a \u201cLawyers\u2019 Paradise\u201d. His reasons:<\/p>\n

Very long and detailed \u00b7 Legalistic language \u00b7 Administrative provisions included \u00b7 Complex interpretation \u00b7 Many lawyers in the Assembly \u00b7 Frequent litigation<\/p>\n

The charge had domestic echoes: P.R. Deshmukh<\/span> attacked the draft as too wordy, and many leading framers were themselves lawyers \u2014 Dr. Rajendra Prasad<\/span>, Jawaharlal Nehru<\/span>, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel<\/span>, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span>, K.M. Munshi<\/span> and Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIf I may say so, the draft is really a lawyer\u2019s paradise.\u201d<\/p>\n

H.K. Maheshwari<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The defence<\/span><\/p>\n

India\u2019s 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<\/span> defended the detail directly \u2014 it was necessary because it was possible to pervert the Constitution<\/span> through ordinary administration.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2018 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Indian Constitution is a \u2018Lawyers\u2019 Paradise\u2019 \u2014 Ivor Jennings.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Constitutional Morality<\/h3>\n

Working definition<\/span><\/p>\n

Constitutional morality<\/span> means fidelity to the values, procedures and limits of the Constitution \u2014 not mere obedience to the legal text, and not deference to prevailing social morality.<\/p>\n

Its elements<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice \u00b7 Liberty \u00b7 Equality \u00b7 Fraternity \u00b7 Rule of law \u00b7 Rights \u00b7 Minority protection \u00b7 Self-restraint \u00b7 Respect for plurality \u00b7 Public reason \u00b7 Criticism within constitutional limits<\/p>\n

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<\/span> used the idea to warn that democracy needs settled habits of constitutional conduct, not just constitutional forms. Upendra Baxi<\/span> treats it as a restraint that keeps political leaders from subverting constitutional values.<\/p>\n

How the courts have used it<\/span><\/p>\n

The principle has done real work in the case law: Kesavananda Bharati<\/span> (basic structure), Naz Foundation<\/span>, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India<\/span> (2018), the Sabarimala case<\/span> (2018), and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India<\/span> (privacy) \u2014 using constitutional morality to protect individual dignity against majoritarian social morality.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2024 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Comment on the Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution in 150 words.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Framing the Constitution \u2014 the challenges<\/h3>\n

The framers worked in a difficult moment.<\/p>\n

Partition and national integration<\/h4>\n