EXERCISES
1. The following are certain laws. Are they connected with any value? If yes, then what is the underlying value? Give reasons.
a. Both daughters and sons will share in the family property.
Answer: Yes, this law is connected with the value of gender equality and social justice.
Reason: This law ensures that daughters are not discriminated against in matters of inheritance, challenging the traditional patriarchal view where property was passed down only to male heirs. It upholds the principle that all children, regardless of gender, have equal rights.
b. There will be different slabs of sales tax on different consumer items.
Answer: Yes, this law is connected with the value of social and economic justice.
Reason: This system applies higher taxes to luxury goods and lower taxes to essential items. This ensures that the tax burden is distributed equitably, with the wealthy contributing more, while necessities remain affordable for the poor. It reflects the government’s commitment to creating a more balanced and fair society.
c. Religious instructions will not be given in any government school.
Answer: Yes, this law is connected with the value of secularism.
Reason: By prohibiting religious instruction in state-funded schools, the government ensures that it remains neutral in religious matters. This protects the freedom of religion for all students, preventing the state from promoting any single religion and ensuring that public education remains inclusive for children from all faiths and backgrounds.
d. There shall be no begar or forced labour.
Answer: Yes, this law is connected with the values of liberty, freedom, and human dignity.
Reason: This provision, found in the fundamental rights against exploitation, makes it illegal to force someone to work without payment or against their will. It protects the basic dignity and freedom of an individual, ensuring that people cannot be treated as slaves or property.
2. Which of the options given below cannot be used to complete the following statement?
Democratic countries need a constitution to
i. Check the power of the government.
ii. Protect minorities from the majority.
iii. Bring independence from colonial rule.
iv. Ensure that a long-term vision is not lost by momentary passions.
v. Bring social change in a peaceful manner.
Answer: The correct option is iii. Bring independence from colonial rule.
Explanation: A constitution is a framework for how a country will be governed, and it is typically created and adopted after a country has already achieved independence. While the desire for a constitution is a key part of an independence movement, the constitution itself does not bring about independence. Its role begins once independence is won, providing the rules for the new democratic government, protecting citizens’ rights, and limiting government power.
3. The following are different positions about reading and understanding Constituent Assembly debates.
i. Which of these statements argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today? Which statement says that they are not relevant?
ii. With which of these positions do you agree and why?
a. Common people are too busy earning livelihood and meeting different pressures of life. They can’t understand the legal language of these debates.
b. The conditions and challenges today are different from the time when the Constitution was made. To read the ideas of Constitution makers and use them for our new times is trying to bring past in the present
c. Our ways of understanding the world and the present challenges have not changed totally. Constituent Assembly debates can provide us reasons why certain practices are important. In a period when constitutional practices are being challenged, not knowing the reasons can destroy them.
Answer:
i. Statement (c) argues that the debates are relevant today. Statements (a) and (b) argue that they are not relevant.
ii. I agree with the position in statement (c).
Reason: The Constituent Assembly debates are crucial because they reveal the core principles and reasoning behind the Constitution’s provisions. While society has evolved, the fundamental values of democracy, equality, and justice that the framers debated remain the bedrock of our nation. Understanding why certain rules were put in place helps us interpret and apply them to modern challenges. In times of political disagreement, these debates provide an authoritative source to clarify the original intent behind the Constitution, protecting it from being misinterpreted or weakened for short-term political goals. They are a guide to preserving the spirit of our democracy.
4. Explain the difference between the Indian Constitution and western ideas in the light of
a. Understanding of secularism.
Answer: Western secularism typically means a strict separation or “mutual exclusion” of state and religion, where neither interferes in the affairs of the other. The Indian Constitution adopts a different approach of “principled distance.” This allows the state to intervene in religious matters to end oppressive social practices (like untouchability) and also to support religious minorities in preserving their culture, for instance, by allowing them to run their own educational institutions.
b. Articles 370 and 371.
Answer: Western federalism, like in the US, is often symmetrical, meaning all states have equal powers and status. The Indian Constitution incorporates the idea of “asymmetric federalism” through articles like 370 (now abrogated) and 371. These articles grant special provisions and status to certain states to address their unique historical, cultural, or social needs, a flexibility not commonly found in western constitutions.
c. Affirmative action.
Answer: While affirmative action exists in many western countries, the Indian Constitution made it a foundational feature right from its inception. The Indian model of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not just about ensuring equal opportunity; it is a comprehensive measure for social justice, aimed at remedying centuries of historical injustice and ensuring representation in government jobs and legislatures.
d. Universal adult franchise.
Answer: The Indian Constitution introduced universal adult franchise for all citizens in a single stroke. This was a radical and courageous step, as many western democracies granted voting rights in stages, often excluding women, minorities, or those without property for a long time. The Indian founders placed their faith in the wisdom of the common person from the very beginning.
5. Which of the following principles of secularism are adopted in the Constitution of India?
a. that state will have nothing to do with religion
b. that state will have close relation with religion
c. that state can discriminate among religions
d. that state will recognise rights of religious groups
e. that state will have limited powers to intervene in affairs of religions
Answer: The principles adopted in the Constitution of India are (d) and (e).
Explanation: Indian secularism is different from the western model. It does not mean the state has “nothing to do with religion” (a). Instead, it acknowledges the importance of religion in society and protects the rights of religious groups to maintain their own institutions (d). At the same time, it allows the state to intervene in religious affairs to uphold constitutional values like equality and justice (e). This intervention is not unlimited but is based on a “principled distance,” ensuring fairness to all communities.
6. Match the following:
a. Freedom to criticise treatment of widows -> iv. Liberal individualism
b. Taking decisions in the constituent assembly on the basis of reason, not self interest -> ii. Procedural achievement
c. Accepting the importance of community in an individual’s life -> i. Substantive achievement
d. Article 370 and 371 -> v. Attention to requirements of a particular region
e. Unequal rights to women regarding family property and children -> iii. Neglect of gender justice
7. This discussion was taking place in a class. Read the various arguments and state which of these do you agree with and why.
Jayesh: I still think that our Constitution is only a borrowed document.
Saba: Do you mean to say that there is nothing Indian in it? But is there such a thing as Indian and western in the case of values and ideas? Take equality between men and women. What is western about it? And even if it is, should we reject it only because it is western?
Jayesh: What I mean is that after fighting for independence from the British, did we not adopt their system of parliamentary government?
Neha: You forget that when we fought the British, we were not against the British as such, we were against the principle of colonialism. That has nothing to do with adopting a system of government that we wanted, wherever it came from.
Answer: I agree with the positions of Saba and Neha.
Reason: Jayesh’s argument that the Constitution is “borrowed” is an oversimplification. Saba rightly points out that universal values like equality cannot be confined to one geography; they are the common heritage of humanity. Furthermore, the framers did not blindly copy-paste provisions. They engaged in a process of “selective adaptation,” carefully choosing ideas from around the world and modifying them to fit India’s unique social fabric and challenges. Neha makes a crucial point: the freedom struggle was against the oppression of colonialism, not against every idea that originated in the West. Adopting the parliamentary system was a conscious choice because our leaders believed it was the best system for governing a diverse country like India. Therefore, the Constitution is not a “borrowed” document but an original one, built with wisdom gathered from many sources to serve Indian needs.
8. Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.
Answer: The making of the Indian Constitution is sometimes called “unrepresentative” because the members of the Constituent Assembly were not elected through a universal adult franchise (where every adult citizen gets to vote). Instead, they were chosen by the members of the Provincial Legislatures, which themselves had been elected on a restricted franchise limited by property and educational qualifications.
However, this does not make the Constitution unrepresentative in its spirit or substance.
Reasons:
1. Representation of Opinion: The Constituent Assembly, despite its indirect election, was a remarkably diverse body. It included members from nearly every region, religion, and community in India. The leaders made a conscious effort to ensure that all shades of opinion were heard and debated.
2. Inclusivity in Debates: The members did not just speak for their own communities but raised issues concerning all sections of society. The extensive and open debates show a commitment to creating a constitution that everyone could feel was their own.
3. Public Credibility: The Assembly was led by the same credible leaders who had spearheaded the freedom movement and commanded the trust and respect of the Indian people. Their work was seen as a continuation of the struggle for a free and just India.
Thus, while the process of election was not directly representative, the outcome—the Constitution—was deeply representative of the aspirations of the Indian people.
9. One of the limitations of the Constitution of India is that it does not adequately attend to gender justice. What evidence can you give to substantiate this charge? If you were writing the Constitution today, what provisions would you recommend for remedying this limitation?
Answer:
Evidence for the charge:
One of the main pieces of evidence is that while the Constitution grants formal equality, it stops short of addressing deep-rooted gender injustices, particularly within the family. For example, it allowed the continuation of separate personal laws for different religious communities, many of which contain provisions that are discriminatory towards women in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Issues like equal rights to family property were not made a fundamental right and were left to be reformed by future legislation, a process that has been slow and incomplete.
Recommended Provisions:
If I were writing the Constitution today, I would include the following provisions:
1. A Uniform Civil Code: I would make the provision for a Uniform Civil Code (mentioned in the Directive Principles) a fundamental right to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their religion, are governed by the same laws in personal matters, ensuring gender equality.
2. Explicit Right to Marital Property: I would add an explicit fundamental right guaranteeing women an equal share in all property acquired during a marriage.
3. Stronger Protection Against Violence: I would include specific clauses for stricter and faster legal action against all forms of gender-based violence, including domestic abuse and marital rape, recognizing them as violations of fundamental rights.
10. Do you agree with the statement that “it is not clear why in a poor developing country, certain basic socio-economic rights were relegated to the section on Directive Principles rather than made an integral feature of our Fundamental Rights”? Give reasons for your answer. What do you think are the possible reasons for putting socio-economic rights in the section on Directive Principles?
Answer: I agree with the statement to an extent, as the division is a significant point of debate, but there were clear reasons for this decision. It is true that rights such as the right to work, education, and an adequate livelihood are as fundamental to a dignified life as civil and political rights.
Possible reasons for placing them in the Directive Principles:
The primary reason was the lack of resources and state capacity at the time of independence. The framers understood that making socio-economic rights legally enforceable (justiciable) would be impractical for the newly formed, financially strained state. If every citizen could sue the government for not providing a job or a house, the state’s administrative and judicial machinery would collapse.
Therefore, they made these rights non-justiciable directives or goals. The idea was to set a clear agenda for future governments, making it their duty to work towards achieving these goals as the country’s economy and resources grew. They were intended as a moral and political compass, guiding the nation towards becoming a true welfare state.
11. How did your school celebrate Constitution Day on November 26th?
Answer: My school celebrated Constitution Day with great enthusiasm. The day began with a special morning assembly where the Preamble to the Constitution was read aloud by all students and teachers. Our Principal gave a speech on the importance of the Constitution and the contributions of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Following this, an inter-house quiz competition on the Indian Constitution was held for senior classes. The Social Science department also organized a poster-making competition for junior classes on the theme of “Fundamental Rights and Duties.” The day concluded with a screening of a short documentary on the making of the Constitution, which was very informative and inspiring for all of us.
