BACKGROUND

The history of the Constituent Assembly of India begins with the Indian National
Congress’ inclusion of the demand for an “Indian” Constituent Assembly in its official
policy in 1934. Following this, Congress strengthened and advertised this resolve in its
campaigns throughout the War years. During this time, the nationalist urges of the
Indian people and the desire for Independence had also soared. Moreover, by the end
of the Second World War, Britain’s power was significantly drained and it had lost its
leverage against a newer, stronger “war-augmented” India. In light of these, the Attlee
government sent the Cabinet Mission to India to install a plan for India’s future as a
self-governing nation. This Mission would, however, prove to be disastrous.

The original Constituent Assembly, as planned by the Cabinet Mission, had its members
indirectly elected from the provinces of present-day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
However, as negotiations between the INC and Muslim League subsequently broke
down and the possibility of a Partition became a reality, this Constituent Assembly lost
its original purpose as well as structure. The departure of Constituent Assembly
members from what was now to be Pakistan remarkably altered the structure and
ideological compositions of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly was
now majoritarily from the INC membership and Hindu males. There were, however 15
women members and at least 2 members from each religious community. There was
also more room for other ideologies now. The Communist Party, Hindu Mahasabha and
Socialist Party were all represented, although from within the Congress.

The Constituent Assembly met from 9 December 1946 to 24 January 1950 in 11

sessions spanning 165 days. The deliberations and discussions over the contents of the
Constitution and their respective guiding philosophies during these meetings have been
recorded as the Constituent Assembly debates. The relevance of these debates in
present times may be questioned, as many understand them to be peripheral relics, but
as Bhargava argues, the context of these debates, although historical, is not completely
alien from today’s world. These debates are not imperative just to any initiative into
understanding the provisions of the Constitution but also to understand the principles on
which the Constitution makers foresaw Indian polity to stand. These considerations must
be kept in mind as we discuss some of the significant debates behind the
establishments of the Constitution.

DEBATES ON THE PREAMBLE

The preamble of the Constitution is largely understood to be the essence of its guiding
philosophies. To the proposed Preamble by the Drafting Committee, there were several
suggestions. Professor KT Shah wished for the inclusion of “Secular, Federal, Socialis​t”
to be added to the preamble. These proposals were rejected with Dr. BR Ambedkar
giving the argument that these principles should be left to the discretion of the
governments as elected by the people. Inclusion of these words would go against the
principle of democracy in the State.
There were arguments to include the mention of ‘God’ in the preamble, which was
rejected in the spirit of the Right to Freedom of Religion that was guaranteed in the
Constitution.

UNIVERSAL ADULT FRANCHISE

The Constitution in 1950, gave all citizens of India above the age of 21 years of age the
right to vote and contest in elections. This had been denied by the Government Of India
Acts of 1919 & 1935. The essence of this decision, Bhargava argues, lies in three
reflections. Firstly, the granting of Universal Adult Franchise was due to the liberal
individualist commitments of the makers. Secondly, India was an ethnically and
religiously diverse country, with large numbers. The exclusion of certain peoples would
negatively impact the political interests of ruling the Hindu elite. Thirdly, the nationalist
movement in India was founded upon the strong humiliation of being externally
subjugated in a world of largely independent nations. This humiliation was felt equally
by all Indians, and thus all Indians had a right to the freedoms of Independent India.

The Constitution of India Bill (1895), better known as the Swaraj Bill first introduced the
idea of Universal Adult Franchise as a possibility to the Indian process: “Every citizen
has a right to give one vote for electing a member to the Parliament of India and one to
the Local Legislative Council.” This idea was further propagated by the Motilal Nehru
Report which says that every citizen of India who is not a naturalized citizen of any other
country, and age of 21 years has a right to be elected to Parliament. Other draft
constitutions such as the Gandhian Constitution of Free India by Gandhian economist
Shriman Narayan Agarwal and M.N Roy’s Constitution of Free India: A Draft both had
provisions granting Universal Adult Franchise. Evidently, this was a decision that was
largely echoed by most. Yet some argued against its granting. H.N. Kunzru, for instance,
did not want non-tax-payers, non-property owners to have the right to vote. He wanted a
more gradual expansion of the franchise. He called for the education of electorates by
political parties themselves. Given that this was a minority opinion, a universal adult
franchise was granted by the constitution.

INDIVIDUAL V/S GROUP RIGHTS

The Constitution was framed with the background of deep communal violence from the
Partition. Within the Constituent Assembly itself as well, there was conflict between
ideologies of members on grounds of community and religion. The structure of Indian
society was at the time and continues to be largely a hierarchy of communities. This led
to competition and conflict between the interests of different communities. To guarantee
equality and to serve the specific interests of the individuals of these communities, it
was considered necessary to provide certain community rights. This would also provide
for some level of safeguarding against communalism. The debates on these group
rights were essentiallly on the individualist and non-individualist perspectives. The
debates also took into consideration the question of which communities should these
rights extend to. For instance, the debates concerning Article 29 saw some debate on
the extension of the protection of minorities to include linguistic groups. Another
proposal was to include provisions for the right to development of the cultures of
minorities. The latter proposal was rejected.

CASTE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The Constitution makes its commitment to caste-based affirmative action apparent
through its inclusion of reservation policies for the Depressed Classes. This was based
on the liberal leanings and spirit of social justice embedded in the Constitution. To
thinkers like Panniker, the history of liberalism in India started with the ideas of a
casteless society by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the ideas of Swami Vivekanand who
looked to what he felt were the values of social justice within Hindu philosophy. The
debate over the correct approach of affirmative action can be traced back to the times of
the Poona Pact and the initial provisions of a separate electorate for Depressed
Classes(later rejected). The inclusion of affirmative action within the structure of the
Constitution, instead of leaving it up to the discretion of future policymakers and
executives(as is the case in the USA) was considered necessary to ensure that it was
not sidelined or ignored.

Apart from debates over specific provisions of the Constitution, there were also
criticisms in the Constituent Assembly over the influences and philosophies of the Draft.
There were members in the Constituent Assembly who felt that the Constitution drew
too heavily from foreign influences and thus could not truly be the guide for a ‘sovereign’
in India. This claim can be easily argued against. Despite the influences of the
Constitution, the framers of the Constitution were Indian citizens who were familiar with
the Indian context. The provisions of the Constitution also mostly adhere to the
conditions and specific needs of India. Despite the presence of an overwhelming
majority in terms of political party, social status; the Constituent Assembly was
successful in ensuring that its decisions came consensually and not just by the vote of
the majority.
Sources:
1)Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation: The
Constituent Assembly-Microcosm in Action
2)Rajeev Bhargava, Politics & Ethics of Indian Constitution, Introduction: Outline of a Political Theory of
the Indian Constitution

3)Arun K Thiruvengadam, The Constitution of India: A Contextual Analysis, Origins and Crafting of the
Constitution
4)https://www.constitutionofindia.net