PSIR Answer Writing Module - Target 2024

Model Answers
Test 7
For any concern related with PSIR Test Series mail at psirtestseries@shubhraranjan.com

Q1. Explain the legacy of British rule on Indian political system and the reasons for its
continuity.
Indian political system has its roots in its past, like other Indian political systems. India
remained under the rule of the British for two hundred years. This long period of the English
domination influenced the Indian political system greatly. India chose to be a democracy and
adopted the Parliamentary model when liberated from the foreign yoke.
With its independence, India adopted various legacies from the British political system. W.H.
Morris Jones divides these legacies of Indian political system into four categories namely-

• Government
• Movement
• Mediating Institutions
• Problems and Process.
These legacies can be discussed as follows-

• Government
It was the British government which strengthened the notion of Government in India. During
the British period, the rule of government reached every nook and corner of the country. As
Morris Jones writes, there was only a Headman and a Patwari in every village, who in these
capacities represented the British government. The government activities were more
numerous in the urban areas than in the rural areas. The increase in the government activity
increased the role of the government in the day-to-day life of the people. This sense of having
a government was surely the legacy of the British.
At the village level, government was synonymous with tax or Revenue Collector. Though the
present government of India is not the same as its predecessor was, yet it has some of its
features. When the new constitution was being prepared, it played an important part, for
instance, in the rejection of proportional representation, in the insertion of emergency
provisions, and qualifications attached to the Fundamental Rights. There was much need of
the Government because the whole process had to work around it. The Indian political system
also inherited certain features of government like Dyarchy, Centralized Bureaucracy and
Federal system of Government.
 • Federal System
The constitution of India is of Federal character but with a number of unitary features. But the
word ‘federal’ has nowhere been used in the constitution. The Government of India Act of
1935 pointed directly in the direction of federalism. For the first time it failed in the federal
structure. No doubt, the Act of 1935 failed to establish any real kind of Provincial Autonomy,
thereby making the concept of federalism eyewash. But it paved the way for the future
emergence of the federalism.
It is also noteworthy that in the present constitution, there are various provisions which give
the Central Government more powers such as-

• Emergency provisions under Articles 352, 356 and 360

• Deployment of armed forces in the States
• Dismissal of State Government according to Article 356
• Inclusion of any subject in the State list on the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.

• Dyarchy
The Montford Reforms of 1919 was mainly responsible for dyarchy. According to these
Reforms, responsible governments were to be introduced in the Provinces. The subjects of
administration were to be divided into two categories viz., Central and Provincial. The Central
subjects were those which were to be kept under the control of Central Government
exclusively. The Provincial subjects were sub-divided into Transferred and Residuary subjects.
The Reserved subjects were to be administered by the Governor and his Executive Council
without any responsibility to Legislature. Though in the present Indian Constitution, the
provisions of dual government are not found in the similar position yet some provisions
resemble them. The federal structure is thus an important part of the legacy of government.

• Centralized Bureaucracy
The centralized bureaucracy, as of today, is a British legacy. British government created a large
bureaucracy to run the government with districts as the units of administration. The
bureaucrats were given special powers during the regime of the British government for various
reasons. They had to tackle with any type of situation which might have emerged from
disobedience movements. Clearly the one reason for the wide powers of the civil servants was
alien nature of the government. Most of the members of the Indian Civil Service were very
much loyal to the British government and the government had also blind-faith in them.
Therefore, it depended upon them to run the administration.
The administration was hierarchical, from the Governor General of India to Tehsildars at the
village level. This hierarchy included various officials such as Governor or Lieutenant-Governor
as the head of the State, Commissioner, Collectors, Tehsildars and village Headmen. The
members of Indian Civil Service were not only appointed as District Collectors, but were also
appointed in the Governor-General's Executive Council. The members of the Indian Civil Service
were recruited by a competitive examination, earlier only in England under the Civil Service
Commissioners.

• Extra Constitutional Measures

Various extra-constitutional measures like, Bandhs, Hartals, Satyagrahas, Hunger strikes,
fast-unto-death have been the legacies of British Indian political system. Satyagraha, which
takes the form of fastings, strikes, bandhs and dharnas, is the legacy of the national movement
under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. However, it is not being agreed that all the above
mentioned forms of extra-constitutional measures are really Gandhian in spirit. Not even
those, who participate in these movements, claim that these extra-constitutional measures
have become legitimate in the Indian context, most probably because of the fact, that the
government against which they are often directed, itself was a party to such measures against
the British Raj.
A large number of such movements have appeared in the Indian Political System. Some
examples are

• Morarji Desai's part to dissolve Gujarat Vidhan Sabha in 1975

• J.P.'s struggle in Bihar (1974-75) for the dissolution of Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Rajni Kothari says that the length and continuity of both the nationalist movement and the
Hindu civilization contributed considerably to the unity of the new India and imparted to it
the modernist design, depth, flexibility and manoeuverability. Had the national movement
been short in duration or shallow in its penetration, such a synthesis in depth, would not have
been there when independence came.

Reason for Continuity

There has been continuity in the Indian Administration after 1947 from the pattern that existed
before independence. At the same time the political background and the psychological
atmosphere and the objectives of administration have changed completely after
independence.
The most important reason for this continuity was the sudden and peaceful transfer of power
from the British rulers to the Indian people. Another reason was that at the time of
independence, most of the cadres in Administration got depleted as most of the Muslims and
European Civil Servants resigned and left the country. So there were neither the resources nor
the people to set up new administrative machinery. A stable and well-founded administrative
organisation comprising departments and civil services was the critical need of the hour. So,
the then existing administrative framework continued after independence.
Thus the Indian political system inherited various legacies from its predecessor, viz. the British
Indian political system, which shaped the making of our Republic and our constitution
substantially.

Q2. Gandhian strategy of the anti-imperialist struggle was not codified in a blue-print or a
manifesto. Comment.

Gandhian strategy was based on his understanding of the British rule and also his experiences
in South Africa.

The Gandhian strategy is the combination of truth, sacrifice, non- violence, selfless service and
cooperation. Gandhi said that "There is no god higher than truth." According to Gandhi's
thoughts, non- violence is ultimate solution of every kind of problem in the world. Gandhi used
non violence in India's freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from
British rule. The Gandhian phase of Indian national movement (1917-1947) radically altered
the nature of the freedom struggle; at the theoretical level, Gandhi creatively redefined the
nature of the movement.

In contrast with the constitutional & extremists’ nationalism, Gandhi introduced the technique
of ‘non-violent satyagraha’ as the only technique capable of meeting the nationalist aims &
aspirations. He used this technique in envisaging the ‘most spectacular mass movement’
based on the strategy of ‘struggle-Truce-struggle’.

However Gandhian could not be codified in a blue-print or a manifesto because it remained

dynamic in its objectivesd a swell as the approach. For example - Quit India movement, was a
militant and least controlled mass movement in the Gandhian phase. It has been called to be
the most unGandhian of all Gandhian movement. This is so because, in a radical departure
from past, where Gandhi emphasized on a non-violent struggle against evil and not evil- doers,
he straightway asked the britishers to quit India and, for the first time, allowed people to use
arms for self-defense. Encouraging Indians to fight, Gandhi called for ‘Do or Die’ but do not
remain alive to see the country in the state of slavery. He refused to condemn violence by the
people and projected it to be reaction to the bigger violence.

Scholars like Francis Hutchins argue that, at the end of the day. Gandhi was a politician and a
strategist. He used non-violence to bring masses within the fold of national movement and
once masses joined freedom struggle, non – violence was no more required. Quit India
movement was the least controlled movement as it was the most spontaneous movement
owing to the fact that top leadership was arrested and it was the grass root leadership and
the common man that become the leader of the movement.

Q3. How MN Roy differed from communist international led by Lenin on the national and
colonial question.
The Second Congress or the Comintern examined a wide range of problems concerning East.
This was at a time when East was under imperialist oppression. It examined from altogether a
different point of view the socio-economic structure of colonial society, the nature of its
freedom struggle, the place of national bourgeoise and the peasantry in this struggle. The role
Comintern was going to play in helping the colonial people to free themselves from colonial
oppression was also examined.
Before the opening of the Congress, Lenin had circulated a preliminary draft of his thesis on
national and colonial question. This was for discussion among the delegates acquainted with
the problems of the East. MN Roy attended the Congress on behalf of Communist party of
Mexico. He discussed with Lenin the problems of liberation and social emancipation of the
colonial countries of the East particularly India.
During the course of discussion Roy seemed to have disagreed with Lenin on a number of
points. Lenin’s thesis on the national and colonial question primarily aimed at two things:

• The communists in the oppressed countries must become an independent force.

• The communists must join hands with bourgeois-democratic forces to form an anti-
imperialist united front in the struggle for national liberation.
MN Roy opposition
Roy disagreed with Lenin on the necessity for the Communists to support the liberation
struggle headed by the national bourgeois. He refused to accept that that the national
bourgeoisie was playing a historically revolutionary role in national struggle.
According to MN Roy bourgeoisie even in most advanced colonial countries like India as a class
was not economically and culturally differentiated from the feudal social order. Therefore the
nationalist movement was ideologically reactionary in the sense that its triumph would not
necessarily mean a bourgeois-democratic revolution.
Roy based his arguments on the assumption that India was already a capitalist country with
its subordination to the power of British imperialist capital. In this the national bourgeoisie
had become an ally and close collaborator of British imperialism. The struggle of Indian people
therefore did not had in the main a national content. It was rapidly acquiring a the nature of
struggle for economic and social emancipation and for abolition of class domination. He
contended that in the colonies especially in India the liberation struggle was essentially an
economic struggle.
The Comintern therefore must not find in the bourgeoisie democrats the media through which
the liberation movements in the colonies should be helped. The mass movements in the
colonies are growing independently of the nationalist movements. The masses distrust the
political leaders who always lead them astray and prevent them from revolutionary action.
Therefore support to the bourgeois-democratic movements in the colonies would amount to
helping the growth of national spirit to the detriment of the awakening of class consciousness
among the masses. Lenin and Roy fundamentally differed on the role of national bourgeoisie.
Lenin believed that the national bourgeoisie were playing historically revolutionary role in the
liberation struggle in colonies and backward countries. It was anti-imperialist and the
communists should support them in the struggle against imperialism. MN Roy on the other
hand believed that they were reactionary and not worthy of support.
Roy asserted that in the colonies there already existed organised socialist and communist
parties in close relation to the mass movement. The relation of the Communist International
with the revolutionary movement of the colonies should be through the medium of these
parties or groups. This is because they are vanguard of the working classes in their respective
countries.
As against this, Lenin believed that there were no proletarian organisations of any
consequence at the time. So the idea of helping the revolutionary movement through the
proletarian parties was out of question.

Q4. What were the major disagreement between Liberal and Dalits perspective on Indian
nationalism.
Introduction
Indian Nationalist Movement was a grand and prolonged struggle launched against British
imperialism. Nationalism was the main ideology and the instrument with whose help this
struggle was launched. In the context of the Indian Nationalist Movement, Indian nationalism
represented two major ideas: anti-imperialism and national unity.
Nationalist and Dalit Perspective on National Movement
Nationalist views on national movement were formed in response to the colonialist view. While
the nationalist writers accepted some of the ideas present in colonialist historiography, they
strongly reacted against colonialist denigration of India and its people. In contrast to the
instrumentalist approach of many colonialist historians, the nationalist historians adopted
an idea-centric approach. There are primarily two views among them: according to some, the
nationalist ideas have been adopted under the influence of the West, while some others argue
that they have been present since the ancient times.
On the other hand, the efforts made by leaders of nationalist movement succeeded in bringing
a section of Dalit leadership in the fold of national movement besides the participation of Dalit
masses in various popular movements against the colonial rule. But majority of Dalit
intelligentsia was critical of the lack of commitment on the part of the Congress to share power
with Dalits and expressed serious doubt about the commitment of upper caste leadership to
bring social equality. The best example of this was Ambedkar’s book he wrote in 1945, titled
‘What Congress and Gandhi had done to Untouchables’.
To Ambedkar, without ensuring equal rights of Dalits political freedom had no meaning.
Gaining political freedom from the British was not adequate to him unless the struggle for
freedom ensured the dignity of life and equal rights to all its citizens. Ambedkar said, ‘the
freedom which the governing class in India was struggling for is freedom that rules the servile
classes in India’.
Nationalist Perspective on India as Nation
Many Indian nationalists and nationalist historians did not consider India as a formed nation
in modern times. They, in line with Surendranath Banerjea, regarded India as ‘a nation-in-the-
making’. According to them, the task of the national movement was to unite Indians from
various regions and different walks of life into a single nation based on their common
grievances. R.C. Majumdar argued that ‘the conception of India as a common motherland
was still in the realm of fancy. There was no India as it is understood today. There were
Bengalis, Hindustanis, Marathas, Sikhs, etc. but no Indian, at the beginning of the
nineteenth century’. He thought that it was the movements launched by the Congress which
‘gave reality to the ideal of Indian unity’. Tara Chand also thought that creation of an Indian
nation was a recent phenomenon which emerged due to ‘the combined economic and political
change’.
However, there was another powerful trend which asserted that India had been a nation since
the earliest times. Radha Kumud Mookerji, in his Fundamental Unity of India and many other
works, most famously put forward the idea that India had been great and unified since ancient
times. According to him, there had existed a sense of geographical unity of India since early
times, and even the idea of nationalism was already present in early India. Har Bilas Sarda, in
his Hindu Superiority, declared that ‘the ancient Hindus were the greatest nation that has yet
flourished in the earth’ . Lajpat Rai asserted in his Young India that ‘fundamentally India has
been a nation for the last 2,000 years’.
Dalit Perspective on India as Nation
The Dalit movement dismissed the premise of the mainstream nationalist movement that
India was a nation. Ambedkar, for instance, repudiated the notion of a nation in a caste society
and challenged it saying that each caste was a nation. Phule, who was Ambedkar's preceptor,
had said that unless all the people in the Balisthan (his term for India), including the Shudras,
Ati-Shudras, Bhill, Koli etc. become educated and are able to think over and unite, they
cannot constitute a nation.
Ambedkar observed that he was of the opinion that in believing that we are a nation, we are
cherishing a great delusion. He questioned," How can people divided into several thousands
of castes be a nation?" and said that "these castes were anti-national."
Nationalist Perspective on Rise of National Movement
The nationalist historians emphasise on a variety of factors for the rise of national movement
– the generally unfriendly attitude of the colonial rulers, reactionary policies of Viceroy Lytton,
Ilbert Bill controversy, the modern education, printing press, modern literature, and finally the
partition of Bengal. The feeling of racial superiority displayed by English people in India and
the official policy of racial discrimination in certain matters humiliated the Indians and created
bitterness in their minds.
The nationalist historians also underlined the economic factors which led to a feeling of
disaffection among Indian people. Exploitation of peasantry, high land revenue, forced
cultivation of indigo and some other cash crops, drain of wealth, wasteful expenditure of
Indian revenue for maintaining a large military force to be used against the Indians or for
fighting wars which did not really concern India, and so on. The nationalist historians also
pointed to the underlying contradiction between the imperialist rule and the Indian people as
a whole. By doing this, they papered over all the class, caste, linguistic, regional and religious
contradictions which existed in Indian society in order to portray a pan-Indian anti-imperialist
front.
Dalit Perspective on Rise of National Movement
Ambedkar was concerned about oppression and exploitation faced by Dalits that any form of
struggle without referring to the abolition of internal oppression had no importance to him. To
Ambedkar, without ensuring equal rights of Dalits political freedom had no meaning. Gaining
political freedom from the British was not adequate to him unless the struggle for freedom
ensured the dignity of life and equal rights to all its citizens. Ambedkar said, ‘the freedom
which the governing class in India was struggling for is freedom that rules the servile classes
in India
It is important to note that strong advocacy of Dalit intelligentsia for giving primacy to their
socio-economic and political rights and not to anti-colonial struggle was primarily rooted in
their experiences of living in an unjust society. Their notion of nationhood was based on
abolition of existing inequalities and also having equal rights in every sphere of life.
Nationalist Perspective on Indian National Congress
C.F. Andrews and Girija Mukerji also wrote in 1938 in their The Rise and Growth of the
Congress in India that ‘The strength of the All-India movement lay in the newly educated
middle class. The national movement, thus begun by the Congress, represented both the social
aspirations of the middle classes in India and also the supreme desire for freedom and racial
justice’
Dalit Perspective on Indian National Congress
Politically Dalit leaders opposed the Indian national Congress as controlled by upper castes
and capitalist as Brahmin and Bourgeois in Ambedkar terms. They sought for an alternative
political front that would represent a kind of left dalit unity with a core base of workers and
peasants. They also insisted to lead to the empowerment of Dalits and other exploited
sections.
The nationalist historians think that the nationalist leaders were dedicated idealists inspired
by patriotism and the welfare of the country. Even while coming from the middle classes, the
nationalist leaders, in this view, possessed no personal or group or class interests and were
devoted to the cause of the nation and Indian people. They acted as selfless spokespersons of
the silent majority who could not speak on their own. They represented all classes,
communities and groups and pursued national, secular and progressive politics.

Q5. What was the ideological basis behind the rise of extremists? What has been the
fundamental difference between extremists and moderates?
The rise of extremism on the Indian political scene was not sudden. In fact it had been growing
steadily since the uprising of 1857. Though the uprising was brutally suppressed by the British,
the ideas of ‘Swadharma’ and ‘Swaraj’, which had kindled the uprising continued to linger on
as an undercurrent among the Indian people.
Ideological Basis Behind rise of Extremists
There were three groups of the Extremists-
The Maharashtra group, headed by B.G. Tilak
The Bengal group represented by B.C. Pal and Aurobindo
The Punjab group led by Lala Lajpat Rai.

• In the latter half of 19th century, the work of leaders like Ramkrishna Paramhansa,
Swami Vivekanand, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, and Vishnusastri Chiplunkar and Sri
Aurobindo instilled a sense of pride in the ancient Indian civilisation. They were
successful, to a certain extent, in promoting political radicalism and bridging the gulf
between the masses and the English educated class.
View of Aurobindo
 He raised patriotism to the pedestal of mother worship. He said that, "I know my
country as my mother. I adore her. I worship her."

• Swami Dayananda’s Arya Samaj and Theosophical Society of Annie Besant gave
impetus to political radicalism. There was instinctive attachment to native culture,
religion and polity. The political radicals who derived inspiration from their traditional
cultural values were ardent nationalists who wanted to have relations with other
countries in terms of equality and self respect.
• To the Extremists, emancipation meant something much deeper and wider than
politics. To them it was a matter of invigorating and energising all departments of life.
They thought that a trial of strength between the ruler and the ruled was inevitable,
and argued for building a new India of their dreams in which the British had no
contribution to make.
• Various international events also gave impetus to the growth of extremism in India.
Revolutionary movements in Ireland, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, China and the Boer War in
South Africa made the Indian leaders aware that the British rule could only be
challenged by putting a united stand against it. The defeat of the Italian Army by the
Ethiopians in 1896, and the Russian Army by the Japanese in 1905, showed that the
Europeans were not invincible. All these instilled a sense of self-respect and self-
confidence in the Indian Nationalists.

Fundamental difference between Extremists and Moderates

Moderates
• The Moderate Phase(1885-1905) saw a general uniformity in objectives/demands and
methods.
• Their demands fell into three categories –
1. Political demands- The principle demand being reform of the Supreme and Local legislative
councils– to introduce 50% Indian elected representatives from local bodies etc, right to discuss
and vote on the budget etc. The immediate Moderates goal was never demanding self
government/swaraj though in the long run they wanted a slow move towards freedom. They
only demanded rights for educated Indians as they didn’t believe the masses were educated
enough to participate in politics.
2. Administrative demands - Demand for indianization of Indian civil services through
simultaneous ICS examinations in England and India and increase in the age limit for appearing
for such exams from 19 to 23. Other demands included –separation of judiciary, extension of
trial by jury, repeal of the Arms Act etc.
3. Economic demands included reduction of military expenditure, cut in home charges, end of
unfair tariffs, enquiry into famines etc.
• The early congress leaders were highly anglicized professionals concerned about politics only
intermittently at the Congress session. They were ambivalent in their attitudes towards the
British while they criticized them on certain policies yet they admired them on the other hand.
• The Moderate methods of political protest were mild and included- petitions, speeches,
articles that stressed presentation of a tight logical case to their primary target audience- the
liberal minded Englishmen in England whose sympathy they hoped to gain.
• Once some other their demands were met they were often prone to complacency. Sarkar
points out they had a disdain for the uneducated masses and cultivated support primarily
amongst the professional intelligentsia, proprieted groups and industrialists.
Extremists
• The Extremists emerged strong from 1905 for various reasons such as –
1. Factionalism as the Cambridge School points out.
2. Frustration with failure of early Moderate policies/methods.
3.The belligerent Curzonian administrative policies – Indian Universities Act-1904 , Indian
Official Secrets Amendment Act(1904) and finally the Partition of Bengal(16th oct1905)
• The Extremists differed greatly in their goals and methods from the Moderates. Shekhar
Bandhopadhyay says their goal was swaraj-self government- which was interpreted
differently by various extremists ranging from Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh. They
defined it complete freedom to some who saw it as self rule within British imperialism.
• Being second generation leaders they differed in their outlook towards British rule and didn’t
see it as beneficial as the moderates did. Thus their methods were highly radical and included
violation of unjust law, boycott of British goods institutions, Swadeshi or self reliance. These
stressed on development of indigenous industry and education and later even revolutionary
terrorism.
• They also stressed involvement of the masses in politics for which some of them used- Hindu
revivalism to garner mass support.
The first twenty-five years of Congress were very important in so much as they witnessed the
articulation of the major demands of the National Movement. Initially the Congress started
with moderate demands and sought to realise these demands through mild constitutional
methods. The early leaders analysed how the British were draining India's wealth in a
systematic manner. They realised that this drain was increasing the poverty of the masses.
Within few years a section of the Congressmen felt that the moderate methods were of little
help. This section wanted more vigorous action against the British rule and put forward Swaraj
(self-rule) as the major demand. This internal conflict led to the split in Congress in 1907.

Q6. Explain the relevance of doctrine of basic structure with respect to the strengthening
of constitutionalism in India.
The concept of constitutionalism is that of a form governed by or under a constitution that
ordains essentially limited government and rule of law. This is contrary to arbitrary
authoritarian or totalitarian rule. Constitutional government, therefore, should necessarily be
democratic government. In other words, Constitutionalism is a political philosophy in which
the functions of government of a state must be in accordance with the provisions of the
constitution meaning thereby the actions of government must reflect constitutionality.
Basic Structure Doctrine
In 1973, a 13-judge Constitution Bench ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that
Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable Parliament to amend the basic framework of
the document. The historic ruling came to be known as the “basic structure” doctrine. It is a
judicial principle that the Constitution has certain basic features that cannot be altered or
destroyed by amendments by Parliament. Over the years, various facets of the basic structure
doctrine have evolved, forming the basis for judicial review of Constitutional amendments.
Granville Austin’s Working of a Democratic Constitution said the basic structure doctrine “is
fairly said to have become the bedrock of constitutional interpretation in India”.

Basic Structure Doctrine and Constitutionalism

The relevance of Basic Structure doctrine in strengthening can be explained through various
cases as:-

• Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case

The basic structure theory was applied for the first time after its introduction in the 1975
case Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. The Allahabad High Court had ruled against Indira Gandhi
and convicted her of electoral malpractices in the Lok Sabha election, after a challenge by rival
Raj Narain. Emergency was declared and Parliament passed the 39th Amendment prohibiting
any challenge to the election of the President, Vice-President, Speaker and Prime Minister,
irrespective of electoral malpractice. The five-judge Bench, categorised the independent
conduct of elections as “basic structure” and ruled that Parliament could not amend the
Constitution if alterations affected basic issues like fundamental rights.
 • Minerva Mills Case
This pertained to the 42nd Amendment Act introduced by the Indira Gandhi government. In a
majority verdict, the top court upheld the power of judicial review of constitutional
amendments. The judgement noted that judicial review is a vital principle of our Constitution.
It cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.
If by a constitutional amendment, the power of judicial review is taken away and it is provided
that the validity of any law made by the legislature shall not be liable to be called in question
on any ground, even if it is outside the legislative competence of the legislature or is violative
of any fundamental rights, it would be nothing short of subversion of the Constitution. This
would make a mockery of the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the
States and render the fundamental rights meaningless and futile.
View of Senior Advocate Raju Ramchandran
On the 50th year of the “basic structure” doctrine that restricts the power of Parliament to
alter the fundamental features of the Constitution, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said
that the doctrine is the only safeguard against a majoritarian government.
It is the only safeguard against amendments that could do away with the secular nature of
the Constitution. Also, with politics becoming increasingly presidential in style, the doctrine
could stand in the way of a wholesale switchover to a presidential form of government.
The basic structure canon is legally legitimate and it is deeply rooted in the Constitution’s text
and history. It also possesses substantial moral value, in that it strengthens democracy by
limiting the power of a majoritarian government to undermine the Constitution’s central
ideals.
We must remember that constitutions are not like ordinary laws. Interpreting one is always
likely to be an exercise fraught with controversy. But such is the nature of our political design
that the court, as an independent body, is tasked with the role of acting as the Constitution’s
final interpreter. It may well be the case that the basic structure doctrine is derived from the
abstract. But that scarcely means it doesn’t exist within the Constitution.

Q7. The preamble of Indian constitution is an exemplary of its kind, depicting the essence
of the entire constitution. Discuss

Introduction
The Constitution of USA is the first of its kind to begin with a Preamble which literally means
preface or introductory part. It depicts the summary or essence of the entire Constitution.
Preamble plays a significant role in the Constitution of India which is the longest written one
in the world. It was based on the Objective Resolutions drafted and placed by Jawaharlal
Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent India, which was unanimously passed and
adopted by the Constituent Assembly. It has been amended only once since its inception. Three
words; Socialist, Secular, and Integrity were added to it by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
An Amalgamation of Ideas and Philosophies
The Preamble of Indian Constitution can be rightly described as an amalgamation of ideas and
philosophies because of its lofty composition. It reveals three ingredients of exemplary nature-

• Source of authority of the Constitution

• Nature of Indian state
• Objectives of the Constitution.

Source of Authority of the Constitution

The Preamble of our Constitution begins with the phrase WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA that
clearly states that its authority was derived from the people of the land. Though it was
influenced by the US Constitution, ours represented a stronger and inclusive version, owing to
the diverse nature of India-multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious. The
beginning part of the Preamble reminds us, the nature of true democracy where the power is
from, for, to and by the people. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the principle of democracy is
enshrined in our Constitution by the beginning phrase. It has also resembled the thought of
Abraham Lincoln on democracy.
Nature of Indian State
Sovereign
It implies that India is neither a dependent territory nor a dominion of any other nation. It
clearly states that India is an independent nation. Interestingly, India is one among the few
countries that gained complete liberation from the European colonialist hegemony. Though it
has full-fledged memberships in international bodies like UNO, Commonwealth and etc., our
Constitution through its Preamble has established that such affiliations will in no way
constitute a limitation on its sovereignty
Socialist
In India there is democratic socialism and not a communistic or state socialism which will
definitely pave the way for authoritarianism. To understand the perspective of Indian Socialism
as embedded in the Preamble, it shall be summed up as a blend of Marxism and Gandhian
ideology which aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality. Ours is the one that
firmly believes in co-existence of both public and private sectors in an inclusive and a
participative mixed economy.
Secular
This too was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976. Indian
secularism is completely different from its western counterpart. It embodies an affirmative
perspective of secularism in which all religions in the country are entitled to have the same
status and support from the state, irrespective of their strength. This seems to be more
inclusive than the western brand of secularism where religion and politics shall be free from
each other.
Democratic
It is based on the doctrine of popular sovereignty that people of the land possess the supreme
power. The makers of Indian Constitution have brilliantly enshrined the terminology-
Democratic that provides for indirect democracy which is representative and parliamentary in
nature. It has patently upheld both co-existence and independence of all three pillars of
democracy- Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. It has also evidently emphasized the civil
authority over the military establishment.
Republic
In a Democratic Republic, the head of the state is elected directly or indirectly for a fixed period.
USA is a Democratic Republic where the President, the head of the state is elected directly by
the people. It is termed as Presidential Democracy. On the other hand, in India, the President,
the head of the state is elected indirectly by the elected representatives of both Parliament
and State Legislatures. In other words, it can be termed as Parliamentary Democracy.
Objectives of the Constitution
The objectives enshrined in Preamble- Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Each objective
specified in the Preamble is derived and largely influenced either by revolutions or popular
movements. We need to understand the deep insights of these objectives.
Justice
The term Justice in the Preamble embraces three distinct dimensions- Social Justice,
Economic Justice, and Political Justice. It is secured through diverse provisions of the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy of our Constitution. The ideal of
Justice with social, economic and political forms has been derived from the Russian Revolution.
Social Justice
It denotes the equal treatment of all citizens without any distinction. Idea of Affirmative Action
or Positive Discrimination comes under the broad perspective of socioeconomic justice.
Reservations in Education and Employment for backward classes (OBC, SC, & ST), disabled,
and women are the key components of Social Justice in India as described in our Constitution.
Economic Justice
It denotes the non-discrimination between people on the of economic factors. Poverty
alleviation, subsidies, welfare schemes and etc., come under the principle of economic justice.
Political Justice
It implies that all citizens should have equal political rights, equal access to all political offices,
and equal voice in the government. All sections of our society must have their representation
in both Parliament and State Legislatures. Political empowerment of all vulnerable sections -
SCs, STs, women, and minorities (both religious and linguistic) is the primary goal of the
Political Justice.
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity
The ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in our Preamble are taken from the French
Revolution. These ideals represent the essence of democracy. Liberty is essential for the
successful functioning of our democratic system. All citizens of India are entitled to liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship through their fundamental rights as mentioned
in the Constitution. It also has certain limitations, making it a qualified one rather than an
absolute one.
The term Equality in the Preamble is attributed to the absence of special privileges to any
section of the society. The provision of adequate opportunities in all aspects particularly
education and employment for all individuals without any discrimination. It embraces three
forms of equality-civic, political and economic. Articles 14-18 under the Fundamental Rights
(Part III) ensure civic equality. Articles 325 & 326 under Elections (Part XV) seek to achieve
political equality. Article 39 under the Directive Principles of State Policy aims to achieve
economic equality.
The term Fraternity in the Preamble propagates the message of brotherhood. Our Constitution
promotes the feeling of fraternity and it is ensured by the system of single citizenship. Article
51A under the Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) makes it clear that every citizen of India shall
promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious,
regional, linguistic, and sectional diversities. Unity in Diversity is the core objective of our
Constitution which can be attained the ideal of Fraternity.
The Preamble of our Constitution stands a testimonial of a real democracy. It propagates not
only the ideals and principles of democracy but also diverse aspects of different ideologies
unified by a common creed, human values. It is the protagonist of the entire Constitution. It is
not only representing our Constitution but also serves as the identity card for India.
Q8. Indian constitution is a document containing the basic rules which should guide the
society in right direction and help imbibing right spirit. Explain.
The makers of our Constitution were well aware of the glaring social inequalities that existed
in Indian society and sought to attain Justice, Liberty, Equality and promotion of Fraternity.
The two revolutions that were running parallels in India before the independence were the
national revolution and the social revolution.
Jawaharlal Nehru had argued that, “The first task of this Constituent Assembly of India is to
free India through a new Constitution, to feed the starving people, and to clothe the naked
masses, and to give every Indian the fullest opportunity to develop himself according to his
capacity.”
The core commitment of the social revolution lies in PARTS III and IV, that is the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy respectively. They give strength to the pursuit
of the social Revolution in India.
In his work, ‘The Indian Constitution: A cornerstone of a nation’ (1966), Granville Austin has
referred to Indian constitution as a social document. The commitments to social change are
contained in Part III - as Fundamental Rights and in Part IV - as Directive Principles of State
Policy or what he calls “the conscience of the constitution.”

The Constitution provided a legal assurance of equality. Not only is the practice of
untouchability banned (Article 17) and equality guaranteed (Article 14), but the generational
inequalities resulting from the complex and regressive caste system are acknowledged and
addressed via the constitutional promise of affirmative action (Article 16(4)).

Part IV of the Constitution furthers the guarantee of ‘Justice- Social, Economic and Political’,
by providing judicially non-enforceable obligations, on ‘the State’ in the form of Directive
Principles of State Policy.

The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India ruled that the core of the commitment
to the social revolution lies in parts III and IV. For Rajeev Bhargava, “it is important to see the
Constitution as a moral document, as embodying an ethical vision.”