EXERCISES
Exercise 1: Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
- It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen.
- It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government.
- It ensures that good people come to power.
- It gives expression to some shared values.
Answer: The correct option is c. It ensures that good people come to power.
Explanation: The constitution is like the rulebook of a country that sets out how the government works. It guarantees the rights of citizens, divides powers among different branches of government, and expresses the shared values of the people, such as justice, equality, and freedom. However, it does not ensure that good people come to power—that responsibility lies with the citizens through elections. Therefore, the statement “It ensures that good people come to power” is not a function of the constitution.
Exercise 2: Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament?
- The constitution was framed before the parliament came into being.
- The constitution makers were more eminent leaders than the members of the parliament.
- The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
- The constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.
Answer: The correct option is c. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
Explanation: The constitution has higher authority than parliament because it clearly lays down how the parliament should be formed and what powers it will have. This means that parliament itself exists and works only according to the rules of the constitution. It is not because the constitution was made earlier, or because its makers were more important people, or because parliament cannot amend it. Therefore, the best reason is that the constitution specifies how parliament is created and what it can do.
Exercise 3: State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False.
a. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.
Answer: False.
Explanation: The statement “Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government” is False because not all constitutions are written. For example, the United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution based on customs, traditions, and laws. A constitution is not just a written document—it is the overall framework that defines how the government is formed, how power is distributed, and what rights citizens have.
b. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.
Answer: False.
Explanation: The statement “Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries” is False because constitutions are found in both democratic and non-democratic countries. Even in countries that are not fully democratic, there is usually a constitution that sets out how the government is organized and how power is exercised. The difference is that in democracies, the constitution also protects citizens’ rights and limits government power.
c. The Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.
Answer: False.
Explanation: The statement “The Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values” is False because the constitution is not just about legal rules; it also reflects the ideals and values of the people. For example, principles like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are written into constitutions to guide the nation. So, it is both a legal framework and a document that expresses shared ideals and values.
d. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
Answer: True.
Explanation: The statement “A constitution gives its citizens a new identity” is True because the constitution defines the principles, values, and rights that all citizens share, no matter their individual differences. It brings people together under one common framework and gives them a collective identity as members of the same nation.
Exercise 4: State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
a. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens.
Answer: Incorrect.
Explanation: The statement “The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens” is Incorrect because even though the Assembly was not elected by universal adult franchise, it still represented the Indian people in a fair way. Its members were chosen by the provincial assemblies, which themselves were elected by the people of India. The Assembly also included representatives from different regions, communities, and social groups, making it broadly representative of the Indian population.
b. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.
Answer: Incorrect.
Explanation: The statement “Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework” is Incorrect because making the Constitution required many important and difficult decisions. The leaders had to settle debates on sensitive issues like federalism, minority rights, the role of religion in politics, and the balance of power between different branches of government. While there was broad agreement on values like democracy and equality, the process still involved intense discussions and compromises on major issues.
c. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
Answer: Incorrect.
Explanation: The statement “There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries” is Incorrect because although the Indian Constitution drew inspiration from the experiences of other nations, it was not a simple copy. The framers carefully adapted borrowed ideas to suit India’s unique history, diversity, and social conditions. Features like universal adult franchise, special provisions for minorities and disadvantaged groups, and an independent judiciary showed great originality. Thus, the Constitution is a blend of borrowed principles and innovative ideas designed specifically for India.
Exercise 5: Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution:
a. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.
- The immense public credibility of the Constituent Assembly’s members, who were also leaders of the national movement, is a key reason for the Constitution’s success. The Assembly was drawn up by people who had the capacity to negotiate and command the respect of a wide cross-section of society.
- Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Patel, and B.R. Ambedkar, despite their differences, worked together to draft the Constitution. The final document was a reflection of the broad national consensus at the time, which was built and commanded by these leaders.
b. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
- The Constitution fragments power across different institutions through an intelligent system of checks and balances. Power is horizontally distributed among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, as well as independent statutory bodies like the Election Commission. This ensures that if one institution attempts to subvert the Constitution, others can check its transgressions.
- The Constitution also strikes a vital balance between being a rigid, authoritative document and being flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances. The ability to amend its provisions while preserving its core values ensures that it remains a “living document” that can survive without breaking under the weight of change.
c. The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.
- The Constitution provides a framework for fulfilling the aspirations of a society. This is seen in its enabling provisions, which empower the government to take positive welfare measures to overcome inequality and deprivation. The inclusion of Fundamental Rights guarantees citizens basic liberties, which no government can violate.
- The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are a prime example of the Constitution enshrining the aspirations of a society. These principles enjoin the government to create conditions for a just society by progressively ensuring adequate housing, healthcare, and education for its citizens.
Exercise 6: Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
Answer:- It is necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of Powers and responsibilities in the constitution:-
- Ensures a stable and functional government.
- Clearly specifies who makes decisions and how the government is formed.
- In a diverse society, it prevents disputes over whose rules should apply.
- Guarantees predictable governance and avoids concentration of power in one institution.
- Creates a system of checks and balances, protecting the constitution from being subverted.
# What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
- Institutions would struggle for power, leading to instability and chaos.
- Governance would become ineffective, and the rule of law would weaken.
- Citizens would feel insecure about their rights.
- Example: The Iraqi constitution-making process showed how lack of clarity leads to dysfunction and conflict.
Exercise 7: Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
Answer:- It is necessary for a constitution to place limitations on rulers because an unrestrained government could pass laws that are patently unfair and unjust. These limitations, often expressed as fundamental rights, prevent the government from arbitrarily arresting citizens, prohibiting the practice of their religion, or discriminating against certain groups. Without these fundamental limits, a government could become a “monster” that threatens the very liberties it is supposed to protect. The constitutional limits ensure that the government can never trespass upon the basic rights of its citizens.
A constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens cannot exist in a meaningful sense. Such a document would fail to provide the most fundamental functions of a constitution: coordination and assurance. The authority of a constitution is derived from the people’s voluntary allegiance to its provisions. If citizens have no power, they have no reason to follow the rules, and the constitution would exist only on paper, with no real impact on their lives. A constitution, by its nature, is an agreement on how one should be governed, and its authority flows from the people.
Exercise 8: The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Answer:- There is a significant problem with the way the Japanese constitution was made. A constitution’s effectiveness is tied to its “mode of promulgation”—how it came into being. When a constitution is crafted and imposed by an external power, it lacks the authority that comes from a genuine national consensus. The people may not feel a sense of ownership, and the document may lack real impact on their lives because it is perceived as an instrument of foreign control rather than an expression of a shared national identity.
The Indian experience was fundamentally different. The Indian Constitution was formally created by a Constituent Assembly that drew immense legitimacy from a long history of the nationalist movement. The Constituent Assembly was an indigenous body that had the capacity to negotiate and command the respect of a wide cross-section of society. The Constitution was a product of extensive, open, and reasoned deliberation by its members, reflecting a broad national consensus forged over decades. Unlike the Japanese experience, the Indian Constitution was not an instrument for the advancement of any external power but was seen by the people as their own because they abided by its provisions.
Exercise 9: Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
Answer:-
“That is an excellent set of questions, Rajat, and you are not the first to ask them. Let’s break down each point.
- About the Constitution being outdated: The Constitution is not just an old book; it is a living document. This means it was designed to adapt to new situations. In fact, it has already been amended many times to suit the changing needs of our society. Its core values—like liberty, equality, and justice—are timeless and always relevant.
- About your consent: It’s true that you personally weren’t asked when the Constitution was made. But it was created by representatives chosen by the people of India after independence, and since then, every generation, including ours, has continued to accept and follow it. By enjoying the rights and protections it gives you, you too are part of the ongoing consent that keeps it alive.
- About the tough language: The Constitution is written in precise legal terms so that there is no confusion in interpreting rights and responsibilities. That makes it a bit difficult to read, but its purpose is to be clear and exact in law. The good thing is, there are simplified versions, textbooks, and explanations—like the one we are having now—that help us understand its real meaning. And remember, it is this very Constitution that gives you the freedom to ask such questions and the right to education to understand it better.
So, the Constitution is not outdated, it still protects your rights, and it remains the foundation of our democracy. That’s why we should respect and obey it.”
Exercise 10: In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:
a. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.
b. Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.
c. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position?
Answer:- Each of the three positions holds a degree of validity, and a comprehensive understanding requires integrating them rather than choosing just one.
Harbans’ position is correct in its assertion that the Constitution has provided a successful framework for democratic governance. The chapter explains that the Constitution created a system of checks and balances through the horizontal fragmentation of power among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. This robust institutional design has facilitated the success of Indian democracy by preventing the subversion of the Constitution by any single group.
Neha’s position is also partially correct in identifying the gap between the Constitution’s promises and their full realization. The Constitution does indeed enshrine lofty aspirations like liberty, equality, and fraternity. The text acknowledges that no constitution by itself achieves “perfect justice”. The Constitution is an enabling document that provides the tools for progress, but the journey towards fulfilling its promises is ongoing and requires continuous effort from society.
Nazima’s position is the most insightful and aligns most closely with the chapter’s ultimate message. The Constitution is a document that provides a framework and enables the government to fulfill aspirations, but its effectiveness depends on whether it has a real impact on the lives of people. The Constitution provides the blueprint, but its success or failure ultimately rests on the political will of the government and the commitment of the people to its principles. We have the framework, but we have to actively work to create a just society and ensure the promises of the Constitution are fulfilled.
