Code No: 215167

CODE NO.: 215167

DATE: 30th November, 2021

TIME: 1:30- 9:30

SUBJECT: Advanced Constitutional History- I

[TO BE FILLED BY THE FACULTY AFTER EVALUATION]

Question Marks [Figures]

No.

TOTAL

Page 1 of 3
Code No: 215167

Question 1: Trace the historical antecedents of the civil rights movement in

Modern India. Was Part III of the Indian Constitution dealing with the
Fundamental Rights based on the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution?

Answer 1: The Civil Rights Movement in Pre-Independent India

India's struggle for independence expressed a desire for self-government and

democratic rights. Civil and democratic rights were advocated in a wide
concept given by nationalism. Demands for civil rights in India, according to
Nilanjan Dutta ('From Subject to Citizen: Towards a History of The Indian Civil
Rights Movement,') date back to the nineteenth century, when educated class of
the subject people demanded 'equality of opportunity in employment, freedom
of the press, and the abolition of racial discrimination in legal proceedings.' In
the early twentieth century, there was a larger push for civil rights. A
declaration of rights was drafted and delivered to the British government at a
special session of the Congress convened in Bombay in 1918, with the hope that
these rights would be incorporated into the new Indian Constitution as promised
under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.

S. Satyamurthy's book 'Rights of Citizens' was another addition to the

expanding awareness of civil rights. Satyamurthy's goal was not just to expose
the colonial state's lawlessness, but also to propagate the notion of civil rights as
a tool of empowerment that could be used to challenge and hold the government
accountable. The statement issued at the Kanpur convention in 1925 added to
these requests for rights. The natural rights sought in this proclamation were
broadened. These rights now encompassed not only political and civil rights like
freedom of speech, expression, and assembly, but also social and cultural rights
like free primary education, religious freedom, gender equality, and others. The
integration of the right to property was severely contested by left-leaning
political figures in the Nehru report on the Indian Constitution, which was

Page 2 of 3
Code No: 215167

published in 1928-29. As a common ground, the right to property was added, as

well as a concession to the working class in the form of providing "trade-union"
rights.

The Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) was founded in Bombay in 1936 as a
result of these theoretical exercises in determining the boundaries of what
comprised fundamental rights and democratic liberties. Rabindranath Tagore
presided over the Union, while Sarojini Naidu was the first working president.
Following that, the Union created branches in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and
Punjab. It's vital to remember, as Dutta points out, that the ICLU's original
focus was 'oppositional.' The ICLU was expressing the 'right to challenge' the
colonial authorities, as defined by Jawaharlal Nehru. The ICLU's work includes
exposing and researching different cases of police brutality and detention abuse,
as well as the suspension of citizens' rights and the imprisonment of political
prisoners. Reports were issued as a result of the investigations. Moreover,
despite their strong anti-colonial philosophy, the ICLU did not limit their efforts
to regions under direct colonial authority, but also included princely States and
provinces with Congress governments in their sphere of influence. It's important
to note that there were several instances of civil rights breaches in the latter
case. However, when the national movement gained traction in the 1940s, the
ICLU's activities became secondary.

Furthermore, because both parties' leadership came from the same pool of
Congress members, there were no other activists who would have carried the
civil rights movement alive. Another point worth noting is that, because the
nationalist and civil rights discourses grew interwoven with both mobilising
against the colonial state, the necessity for a human rights movement was no
longer recognised once India became independence. In reality, the national
government appropriated the role of civil rights protector to the point where any
criticism to the government was labelled as "anti-national." Activists who had
Page 3 of 3
Code No: 215167

previously decried the colonial state's brutality began to utilise it against its
people, justifying their conduct by claiming the defence of "national interest."
The civil rights movement was also troubled, and it is still torn between being
labelled anti-national on the one hand and going out of business on the other.
However, it is critical to recognise that in India, rights awareness arose as a
component of nationalist consciousness.

The Civil Rights Movement In The 1960s

As previously stated, the civil rights movement faded out shortly after India's
independence. What one saw today were widely dispersed initiatives to build
civil rights organisations. The Civil Liberties Committee (CLC), founded in
Bengal, was the first of its kind. The Communists, who reignited the campaign
for civil rights in 1948 by spearheading mass movements, were substantially
responsible for the founding of the CLC. However, the Communists faced two
dilemmas: whether to support or oppose the use of violence, and what Dutta
refers to as the "sectarianism" issue. They began to excuse the use of violence
by claiming that the violence perpetrated by those who revolted was less
harmful than the violence perpetrated by the state. Second, the Communists'
vision remained focused to immediate aims like as releasing their comrades, and
they lacked the motivation to address bigger challenges. As a result, when the
communists were freed from prison in the 1950s, the CLC was disbanded.
The Communists, on the other hand, made the greatest contribution by
continuing to fight for civil rights. The naxalite movement grew in popularity in
various sections of the country during the 1960s. Andhra Pradesh and West
Bengal were the two states where the agitation was strongest and so State
repression was most severe. As a result, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties
Committee (APCLC) was founded in 1974, the Association for the Protection of
Democratic Rights (APDR) in Calcutta was founded in 1972, and the
Association for Democratic Rights (AFDR) in Punjab was founded in 1972.

Page 4 of 3
Code No: 215167

These civil rights groups attempted not only to expose State apparatus crimes
and gather information on civil rights breaches, but also to act on it by
organising demonstrations and rallies. The state, on the other hand, reacted by
harshly persecuting all such groups and activists. In terms of encounter murders,
physically injuring activists, and detaining thousands of political activists, all
sorts of brutalities were unleashed. The movement had clearly developed a
"militant" attitude, and while it had been suppressed for a while due to state
persecution, it had grown in numbers. Furthermore, the nationalists' claim that
once freedom was achieved, all rights would be secured was revealed for what it
was.
The naxalites modified the framework of the civil rights debate to emphasise the
misery of society's socially and economically vulnerable groups, particularly
marginalised farmers and landless labourers, who, quite often, also comprised
the lowest caste positions. Civil rights groups, on the other hand, broke the
State's silence on the inhumane treatment meted out to the former while
continuing to fight for the latter's rights.
Yes, Part III of the Indian Constitution dealing with the Fundamental
Rights based on the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution is true.
The original American constitution, written in 1787, did not include any basic
rights. On this issue, the US Constitution was sharply criticised. Following in
the spirit of the British Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and Citizens of France, the Americans incorporated the Bill of Rights into their
Constitution in the year 1791 in the form of ten amendments, making the
Americans the first to grant the Bill of Rights constitutional status. The
establishment of Fundamental Rights in India is largely influenced by the Bill of
Rights of the United States. These rights are included in the constitution
because they are deemed necessary for the development of each individual's
personality and the preservation of human dignity.

Page 5 of 3
Code No: 215167

Though many Asian nations represent the impact of the American Bill of Rights
and the organisation of judicial review, no other country has had a polity more
responsive to the fundamental rights codified in the American Constitution, nor
a judicial system more considerate in its effort to protect those rights, than
India. The American and Indian Constitutions both promise everyone 'equal
protection under the law.' The fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees this assurance. The Indian Constitution employs
comparable language in Article 14, but expands on the promise of equality by
incorporating the term "equality before the law."
The Indian Constitution differs from the American Constitution as it includes
specific clauses permitting special treatment for minorities, women, children,
and "weaker parts" of community who have suffered. Articles 15 and 16 of the
Indian Constitution expressly provide special treatment. Special treatment in
America has relied largely on court interpretation of the equal protection
principle. While current judicial interpretation of the equal protection clause
permits 'protective' or 'benign' discrimination, the ambiguity inherent in the
American equal protection clause has resulted in extensive litigation on the
question of whether preferential treatment is, in fact, constitutionally authorised,
let alone whether unequal treatment of groups not equally situated is
constitutionally compelled. To avoid controversy over the wording of the
phrase, the Indian constitutional architects specifically approved preferential
treatment.
Despite the reality that 'equal protection of the laws' in Indian Article 14 is
directly lifted from Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution, and despite nearly universal acceptance of the American approach
to equal protection in India, a greater predisposition toward equitable ends
exists. Both the American and Indian ideas of equality deny equal treatment for
people who are not in the same situation. The Indian rejection of formal
equality, on the other hand, appears to have been more comprehensive. One

Page 6 of 3
Code No: 215167

reason for this discrepancy might be that disparities in India differ in kind as
well as degree. Religious theology has been used to justify heinous
discrimination based on caste, economic class, and gender. This prejudice has a
millennia-long history, as opposed to merely two centuries in the United States.
Every act of legislation dealing to the categorization of individuals or groups in
India, like in the United States, must bear a reasonable link to an objective of
government that is not otherwise barred by the Constitution. Consistent with the
principles that underpin representative democracy, the judiciary normally defers
to the legislative; the legitimacy of the government's objective is not questioned
beyond the solitary requirement that it adhere to the purpose of the
constitutional writers.

Question 2: Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, commenting on the absence of a

socio-economic outlook in the India constitution, said, “The constitution, while
it does not commit the country to any particular form of economic structure or
adjustment, gives ample scope for future legislatures and the future parliament
to evolve any economic order and to undertake any economic legislation they
choose in public interest”. Examine the genuineness of this statement with
reference to the commitments of the framers of the Indian Constitution

Answer 2: Marxist historians have frequently criticised the Indian Constitution

and the Indian national movement for not being sufficiently devoted to the
cause of socialism or social justice, despite giving lip service to these goals in
order to gain political support. The remark by AK Ayyar is a direct response to
the claims that the cause of social justice is overlooked in the Indian
Constitution. Ayyar agrees that the national movement stopped short of
comprehensive devotion to social justice, but he believes that the presence of
the DPSPs enabled governments to implement policies that result in social

Page 7 of 3
Code No: 215167

transformation. The DPSPs give the government enough liberty to choose the
economic order it wants to pursue and to advance the cause of Socio-Economic
Justice through its policies, as stated by the preamble. The DPSPs discussed
here are crucial because they provide governments more discretion in enacting
social justice.

Though they are neither justified or enforced, they have been used as
justification to establish public interest in a variety of issues, notably in
environmental law, and can be referred to as a general guide for legislation
creation. They are vital to the government of the state, and according to Article
29, they must be taken into account during the legislative process. No
reasonable government will disregard DPSPs while developing policy. The
Constitution reflects the vision of the Constitution's founders. The judiciary has
long standardised its view of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as
interpreters of the Constitution. In order to include some socioeconomic rights
in the Constitution, the Fundamental Rights have been combined with DPSPs in
its functioning. The DPSPs were realised in oart through FRs. They are a source
of the Indian state's welfarism. Parts III and IV of the Indian Constitution
provide the main constitutional structure for achieving socioeconomic goals.

The Constitution of India requires the government to focus for the welfare of
the people by creating a social order wherein justice, social, economic, and
political principles advise all elements of national life, as well as to decrease
inequality in wealth, status, facilities, and opportunities, not only among
individuals but also among groups of people. It also enables the realisation of
socioeconomic fairness for the people. The intention of the constitutional
framers at the time was to incorporate directive principles into the constitution
as a representation of the people 's willingness and ambition for the country's
core socioeconomic goals.

Page 8 of 3
Code No: 215167

It was drafted with the knowledge that conferring economic rights on millions
of people would be impossible overnight; however, the inclusion of the DPSP
was not unnecessary as it served as a guide to the legislature, guaranteeing that
when it arose that certain economic rights could be imparted or legislation along
lines of economic justice could be enacted, the DPSPs would be considered,
making that directive principle enforceable.

As S.M. Mehta correctly recognised, directive principles were intended as

moral imperatives for state authority with an instructional character.

As a result, A K Ayyar's comment is reflected in the scheme of the DPSPs.

Economic change of the type envisioned by the pre-independence intelligentsia
necessitates growth in the economy, political freedom and awareness, the
human resources development and communities, and the democratisation of
government and institutions. These policies, however, need a degree of radical
revamping that cannot be undertaken immediately or on a defined sequential
timeframe, and the DPSPs give an appropriately flexible plan to achieve these
aims without jeopardising the country's and its people's immediate interests. The
reformation process is gradual and dynamic, and it must completely remodel the
country's socioeconomic system, "having a progressive and evolutionary
character while also being integrative and concurrent."

Eminent figures such as B.R. Ambedkar, K.T. Shah, B.N. Rau, and A.K. Ayyar
argued for the Directive Principle's socialist nature while still advocating a
liberal approach to it.

"In the economic field, the various clauses of the Directive Principles have
remedied the rigours of capitalism, and there are ample of provisions in this
constitution, which if worked well will continue to guide generations and mould
itself according to the needs and demands of time (both social and economic

Page 9 of 3
Code No: 215167

ethos)," A. Ayyangar ascertained on a slightly different note, but with the same
assumption.

Dr. Radhakrishnan's speech to the constituent assembly, in which he proclaimed

that "the future is not of ease or rest, but of perpetual battle to accomplish the
promises expressed today (relating to the constitution)," is critical for
understanding A.K. Ayyar's words holistically. This was a vision of seeing
beyond the present, which was also the goal of employing DPSPs (on economic
justice and development).It imagines the founders of the Constitution's purpose
of providing the ability/liberty to prepare for the future beyond decades of
dynamic change. As a consequence of the architects' conviction that the
Directive Values were a declaration of socialist principles transmitted via
socioeconomic fairness, the constitution's vision of India is one of economic and
social progress.

As a result of the above analysis, and after examining the viewpoints of several
notable constitution makers, I feel it is acceptable to conclude that A.K. Ayyar's
remark truly embodies the spirit of economic justice and growth in India.

It embodies the objective and intention of the constitution's framers, who

wished to include DPSPs as progressive ideals that, while not binding at the
time, have led to different laws and have even been incorporated into
Fundamental Rights.

The Directive principles' essential is to ensure people's economic rights and the
state's obligation to support their growth, and any severe approach would have
been detrimental to the public interest.

As a consequence, this sentence represents the notion that has existed since the
constitution's inception.

Page 10 of 3
Code No: 215167

However, there is an opposite side of the coin to this equation.

The origins of the Directives may be located not just in the 1920s' increasing
socialist current and the Congress' Karachi Declaration, but also in the
Congress' longstanding links to the Irish national cause. The model of [a]
constitutional socialism described in the Irish Directive Principles of Social
Policy was particularly appealing to the vast majority of Assembly members.
[b] Members of the Congress Socialist Party [CSP] supported the concept of
secular socialism/western rationality in the European form; [c] The Hindu
viewpoint and Gandhian experience/Gandhian ideas of rationality also affected
Assembly deliberations and the content of the Directive Principles.

The framers believed that the Directive Beliefs were a declaration of socialist
principles articulated via socioeconomic fairness. However, the debates in the
Assembly revealed an universal understanding of the fact that the Directives did
not go far enough in constructing the preliminary foundations of a socialist state
from the start. To lure conservative members, the Hindu perspective developed
a space for the promotion of socialism under the banner of Sanatan Dharma.

The Directives also demonstrated a lack of commitment to the conditions for

promoting a socialist society. Promises were made but not kept. For example,
the demand for nationalisation of several enterprises, as well as the
establishment of a "socialist order" and "socialist economy," was dismissed.

Amendment (Amendment 894, submitted by V. D. Tripathy) advocated that

profit motivation in production be eliminated totally in due course. Another
amendment [Amendment 866 introduced by A. R. Shastri] sought "effective
control of the state's administrative apparatus in the fields and industry." The
bulk of these initiatives, however, were defeated in Assembly sessions or were
even abandoned by their supporters. The collective wisdom, guided by the

Page 11 of 3
Code No: 215167

Oligarchy, held that in order to create democracy, the principles should be

maintained general, with "enough room for people with varied ways of
thinking," as Ambedkar recommended.

As a result, the Directive principles of state policy are insufficient on their own
to effect radical change, but they can serve as a stepping stone to revolutionary
change. However, the interest groups that hold power in India will not allow for
such fundamental change, and hence the visions of socialist egalitarian
communities remain pipe dreams. The demise of the Soviet Union and the
liberalisation of the Indian economy only serve to highlight this point.

Question 3: Examine the political circumstances under with the word

‘Socialist’ was

inserted in the Indian Constitution. Did the inclusion of the word ‘Socialist’ in
the

Indian Constitution contribute to the changing of the basic structure of the

Constitution?

Answer 3: The term ‘socialist’ was introduced to the Indian constitution due to
the obvious proximity of the Indian leaders with socialism. Nehru was always
adamant that the Constitution be devoted to some type of socialism. In 1947, the
Congress Socialist Party [CSP] declared that "there could be no socialism
without democracy." The political conditions begin with the arrival of Nehru,
who established a relationship with socialism. The Bolshevik Revolution [1917-
18] and its aftermath in Russia also had an impact on Nehru's thinking. The
adoption of the Commonwealth of India Bill, which was developed in India and
unanimously approved by the Executive Committee of the Parliamentary
Labour Party, was yet another source of socialist ideals for the new Indian

Page 12 of 3
Code No: 215167

Congress leadership. Although the Bill failed with the fall of the Labour
administration and the restoration of the Conservatives, it was successful in
changing British and Indian conceptions of India's position from colony to self-
governing dominion.

The next phase in the evolution of socialism in the Indian Constitution was the
idea that the conference method be replaced by a Constituent Assembly chosen
on the basis of the broadest feasible franchise. There was a movement from
constitutionalism and council politics to democracy based on the electoral basis.
In 1933, J.L. Nehru voiced this viewpoint. Nehru always stated that a Grand
Panchayat of the nation, chosen by all our people, would be an essential body.
Thus, he was devoting himself to the advancement of socialism through
Panchayati Raj advocacy, assuring the broadest possible rural franchise. Nehru
maintained his demand until 1937. He eventually persuaded Acharya Kripalani
to submit a resolution and have it approved by the Congress' Working
Committee. The resolution declared that the Act of 1935 should be scrapped
and replaced by a Constitution of free India drafted by the Assembly, which
would contain the demands for adult franchise elections. Throughout the years,
the British authorities rejected India's desire for a Constituent Assembly, as well
as institutionalised equality and socialism. The August Offer of Lord
Linlithgow, under which Indians were granted the task of drafting their own
constitution, followed. The Cripps Mission recommendations, as the
constitutional concessions were known, outlined the mechanism for establishing
the Constituent Assembly.

It specified that soon after the results of the provincial elections were
announced, all members of the lower house of the provincial legislatures were
to convene as an unified electoral college and continue to the election of a
constitution-making body using a proportional representation system. The
following stage began on March 24, 1946, with the introduction of the Cabinet
Page 13 of 3
Code No: 215167

Mission Plan. It was made up of three British government members: Sir

Stafford Cripps, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and A.V. Alexander. The Plan
announced the establishment of a constitution-making apparatus based on adult
franchise elections. Then, delegates from all provinces, as well as
representatives from the Princely States, should meet to finalise the Union
Constitution.

This is the historical backdrop behind the addition of the word "socialist" to the
constitution. Other urgent political reasons for the same, as well as why it does
not modify the underlying framework of the constitution, are as follows:

The terms secular and socialist were added into the Indian Constitution during
the Emergency by Indira Gandhi's administration, which had dubious legitimacy
and was eager to demonstrate its adherence to the spirit of the Constitution.
During the emergency after the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the term "Socialist"
was inserted. Democratic socialism is denoted by the term socialist. It refers to a
politico-economic system that ensures social, economic, and political equality.
Niren De, the government's attorney general, argued before the Supreme Court
that the right to life is limited during an emergency. The phrases secular and
socialist were added to convince the population that minorities would be secure
and that the wealthy would not have a monopoly on the economy.

In other words, the fundamental structural ideology already encompassed the

concepts of secularism and socialism. But Indira Gandhi sought to underline
legislative power over the judiciary, so she amended the Constitution to include
those two notions in the preamble. Another interpretation for her behaviour is
that her administration had significantly limited civil and political liberties, thus
she was likely eager to demonstrate her support for social and economic rights.
And in order to do so, she sought to codify the notion of a socialistic structure
of society and give it a breadth much beyond what her father, Jawaharlal Nehru,

Page 14 of 3
Code No: 215167

had envisioned. During her radical period in the late 1960s, she also eliminated
old princely states' privy purses and nationalised banks.

In the case of 'Excel Wear v. Union of India,' the Supreme Court determined
that the insertion of the word socialist opens the door to decisions favouring
nationalisation and state ownership of the industry. However, the principles of
socialism and social justice cannot overlook the interests of a separate segment
of society, namely private proprietors. The Court stated in the case of 'D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India' that "the main objective of socialism is to give a
reasonable standard of life to the people living in the nation and to safeguard
them from the day they are born till the day they die."

Question 4: Evaluate the importance of the Resolution on Fundamental Rights

and Economic Programmes [1931] as one of the earliest charters of the national
movement that contributed to the establishment of socialism in the Indian
constitution.

Answer 4: In India, socialism had a number of unique traits that contributed to

its early success. When compared to other political philosophies, the philosophy
stands out like a sore thumb.

The ideas of representative democracy and the full range of civil liberties for
individuals coexisted with socialism. It was underlined that parliamentary
democracy and its institutions be established. The mechanism for popular
election was authorised. Democracy included the formation of adult franchise in
this sense. In democratic administrations, socialism acquired a stronghold. On
the other side, democracy gained advances within socialist philosophy. For
example, a socialist party, which was seen as a nationalist response to the
multiple pre-meditated violence broke out by colonial administration in the
1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, placed a strong focus on the safeguarding of press and

Page 15 of 3
Code No: 215167

speech rights. As a consequence, a defence assertion of semi-democratic and

semi-socialist cohabitation fields was made.

The intricate and comprehensive critique of key components of the Indian

colonial economy, notably the subjugation of the Indian economy to British
requirements, reflected socialism. India's commitment to socialism was
evidenced by the wide economic policy of central planning aimed at
overcoming India's backwardness and progress. A vision of a self-sufficient and
autonomous economy was a recurring theme in the critique. The term "self-
reliance" has not been defined. This indicated that world trade and India's
involvement in it were approved. The development of modern agriculture and
industry on the basis of contemporary science and technology was a second
aspect. Complete industrialisation was the objective. The leaders maintained
that industry and agriculture must be closely linked. Industrial growth was
viewed as the most significant step toward lowering population pressure and
eradicating unemployment, as well as a necessity for rural development. Third,
the importance of establishing indigenous large capital goods and machine
manufacturing industries was emphasised. In addition, for the manufacture of
vital consumer items, medium, small, and cottage businesses had to be formed.

The Indian National Congress passed the Karachi Resolution during its Karachi
session in 1931. The Session was held in the context of three major events.
First, as a result of his Salt Satyagraha, Mahatma Gandhi had recently been
released from prison. Second, the Gandhi-Irwin agreement had recently been
struck, thus putting a stop to the civil disobedience campaign. Third, Bhagat
Singh and two of his accomplices were executed by the British government a
week before the session in relation with the Kakori Conspiracy case.

The Resolution is three pages long and written in a quasi-legal tone for the most
part. The Congress Party restated its commitment to 'Purna Swaraj,' or 'complete

Page 16 of 3
Code No: 215167

independence.' The Resolution articulated a set of socioeconomic

principles/rights that the Indian state was compelled to obey for the first time, in
addition to basic rights that protected human liberties.

Industrial worker rights, abolition of child labour , free and basic education,
and agricultural labour legislation were among them. In addition, the Resolution
outlawed intoxicating substances and drugs, which Gandhi appears to have
influenced.

The INC's Karachi session endorsed a resolution on Fundamental Rights and

Economic Programs that said that the sovereign state of India "...would govern
vital industries and services, mineral resources, railway waterway maritime and
other public transportation." Vallab Bhai Patel, J.L. Nehru, and Gandhi have all
approved this resolution.

J.L. Nehru, S.C. Bose, members of the Socialist Congress, communists, and
revolutionary terrorists are the most powerful voices in the Karachi resolution.
The socialists' major aim was to try to shift the national movement to a socialist
direction and to spread the concept of a socialist India after independence. The
purpose of Congress, according to Nehru, is to build a modern state in which all
people have

a. Rights, equal opportunities, and "civilised living standards...",

b. equity and social justice, and

c. social and economic equality.

The purpose of Congress, according to Nehru, is to build a modern state in

which all people have Nehru, the socialists' and other leftists' leader, pushed for
major reforms in society, economics, and politics. This is also the first time
Congress has given the people a clear definition of swaraj. "To halt the
Page 17 of 3
Code No: 215167

exploitation of the masses, political freedom must entail actual economic

freedom for the millions of starving people," the resolution adds.

There were three basic areas in the Resolution where equality was questioned.
The first was economic self-sufficiency. It was aimed at:

a. giving free primary mandatory schooling;

b. reducing taxes for the belonging to the lower income groups;

c. reducing salt taxes along with land revenue;

d. providing debt relief and generating regulations for cheap loans to

agriculturists;

e. safeguarding tenants' rights and elimination of landlordism;

f. offering land to tillers;

h. lesser working hours for workers;

i. according to the resolution, all of this is essential in order to achieve full

economic liberty.

The nationalist movement's opposition to all elements of injustice, prejudice,

and disapproval based on sex and caste is mentioned in the Karachi resolution
as the second part of equality and socialism. This notion was incorporated into
many versions of the Indian Constitution. The potential for women's and lower-
class uplift was investigated. The reform plan includes raising women's social
position, including empowering them via job and education. Political rights
equality is also protected. Women were granted the right to vote for the first
time. The passing of the Hindu Code Bill made the protracted discussion in the
1940s and 1950s easier to bear. In the 1950s, it was passed.

Page 18 of 3
Code No: 215167

The campaign for class abolition, which was approved in the Karachi
resolution, is also documented. That brings us to the third facet of equality.
Since the 1920s, the abolition of untouchability has been a serious issue.
Constituents should be abolished entirely, according to Gandhi. As a result of
this awareness, ideas were sought to create reserves for the castles and
fortresses mentioned in the Constituent Assembly deliberations.

The Karachi Resolution was the first to state explicitly that socialism must be
established before the new India's fundamental framework can be established.
Even if J.L. Nehru and his CSP cohorts were the most visible figures in that
intellectual framework, Gandhi was the one who had the most profound impact
on him. When it came to gender issues and caste, Gandhi's views were the most
significant. Even in terms of economics, Gandhi had a tempering influence on
the resolution's wording.

Page 19 of 3