DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
ROLE PLAYED BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS IN FRAMING THE
CONSTITUTION

SUBJECT
HISTORY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

VISWACHANDRA MADASU

NAME- SHLOKA DIKSHIT

ROLL NO.- 2019LLB052

SEMESTER-2nd

Page 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-

I would like to thank Viswachandra Madasu sir for giving me an opportunity for deeply studying
about women status in India. This project is a result of dedicated effort. It gives me immense
pleasure to prepare this project report on “Role played by Constituent Assembly Members in
framing the Constitution ”.

My deepest thanks to our Lecturer VISWACHANDRA MADASU SIR, the guide of the project
for guiding and correcting various documents with attention and care. I thank him for consultative
help and constructive suggestion in this project. I would also like to thank my parents and
colleagues who have helped me for making the project a successful one.

Page 2
CONTENTS-

1.COVER PAGE
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3.PROJECT SUMMARY
4.OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
5.SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF STUDY
6.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
8. LITERATURE REVIEW
9. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
10. HYPOTHESIS
11. BODY OF THE PROJECT
12. OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT
13. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Page 3
CONTENTS UNDER THE BODY OF THE PROJECT-

1. Introduction
2. Jawaharlal Nehru

Page 4
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY-

Herein the researcher through this project is trying to highlight the role played by the Constituent
Assembly member i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru in framing the Constitution.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY-

The research was helpful in gaining knowledge about the role played by the Constituent Assembly
makers in framing the Constitution. It also gave the researcher immense exposure of various
difficulties that the makers had to go through.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

The researcher is limiting the scope only up to the role played by the following Constituent
Assembly member in framing the Constitution for the Indian society:

• Jawaharlal Nehru

REVIEW OF LITERATURE-

This research paper is prepared by referring many books, articles from magazines, journals,
newspaper, internet sources etc.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

This is a doctrinal research.

Page 5
 INTRODUCTION

The Constituent Assembly of India was established for the purpose of framing the Constitution for
India. Following the independence of our country, the framers of the Constitution were actually a
part of our nation’s first parliament.

The Constituent Assembly Debates (CADs) are a record of the debates and proceedings
of Constituent Assembly of India which sat for 165 days from December 9, 1946 to January 24,
1950. These debates which are organized in 12 volumes are an important guide to the method of
drafting and creating the Constitution of India, 1950.

The Constituent Assembly of India was elected to write down the Constitution of India and served
as its first Parliament as an independent nation. it had been established due to negotiations between
the leaders of the Indian independence movement and members of British Cabinet Mission. The
constituent assembly was elected indirectly by the members of the Provincial legislature , which
existed under British Raj. It first met on December 9, 1946, in Delhi. On August , 1947, India
became an independent nation, and therefore the Constituent Assembly started functioning as
India's Parliament. Dr. Ambedkar drafted the Constitution of India in conjunction with the requisite
deliberations and debates of the Constituent Assembly. The Assembly approved the Constitution
on November 26, 1949 (celebrated as Constitution Day), and it took effect on January 26, 1950-
which is now commemorated as Republic Day in India. Once the Constitution took effect, the
Constituent Assembly became the Provisional Parliament of India.

The seats to British Indian provinces and princely states were allotted in proportion of their
respective population and were to be divided among Muslims, Sikhs and remainder of the
communities. All sections of the Indian society got representation within the Constituent
Assembly in spite of limited suffrage.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly happened on December 9, 1946 at New
Delhi with Dr. Sachidanand being elected as the interim President of the Assembly. However, on
December 11, 1946, Dr. Rajendra Prasad was elected because the President and H.C.
Mukherjee because the Vice-President of the Constituent Assembly.

Functions of the Constituent Assembly:

Page 6
1. Framing the Constitution.

2. Enacting laws and involved within the deciding process.

3. It adopted the National Flag on July 22, 1947.

4. It accepted and approved India's membership of British Commonwealth in May 1949.

5. It elected Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the first President of India on January 24, 1950.

6. It adopted the anthem on January 24, 1950.

7. It adopted the National song on January 24, 1950.

Committees of the Constituent Assembly:

The Constituent Assembly appointed eight major committees, which are mentioned below:

1. Constitution Making Union Powers Committee

2. Union Constitution Committee

3. Provincial Constitution Committee

4. Drafting Committee

5. Advisory Committee on Fundamental rights and Minorities

Page 7
6. Rules of Procedure Committee

7. States Committee

8. Jawaharlal Nehru Steering Committee

Among these eight major committees, the most significant was the Drafting Committee. On 29th
August 1947, the Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee under the chairmanship of
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a Draft Constitution for India.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

Early Life:
Jawaharlal Nehru was born on 14 November 1889 in Allahabad. He was a barrister trained in
Cambridge. After his return from London in 1912, Nehru enrolled himself as an advocate of the
Allahabad supreme court .

Role in India’s independence movement:

Nehru led the Non-Cooperation movement and therefore the Kisan movement within the United
Provinces in 1920, participated within the protest against the Simon Commission in 1928, moved
the Purna Swaraj Declaration in 1930, lead the direct action movement in United Provinces in
1930 and took part within the Quit India movement in 1942. He held the post of the President of
the Indian National Congress repeatedly and was the Prime Minister during the interim Indian
Government between 1946 and 1950.

Contribution to Constitution making:

Nehru was elected to the Constituent Assembly from United Provinces on a Congress Party ticket
and held important positions that included being Chairman of the subsequent States Committee,
Union Powers Committee and therefore the Union Constitution Committee. He actively
participated within the Assembly debates and spoke on objectives resolution and national
language.

Page 8
Key writings:
Nehru's notable works include: Towards freedom; the Autobiography of Nehru (1936); the
invention of India (1946); Glimpses of World History (1934).

Later Contributions:
Nehru served as India’s Prime Minister for 17 years from 1947 to 1962. As Prime Minister, he
played a critical role within the Indian economy: he was instrumental within
the adoption important substitution and therefore the development of the heavy industries sector.
He established many academic institutions that included: the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Management and therefore
the National Institutes of Technology.
Nehru played a key role in India adopting an independent policy through its support and
membership of the Non-Alignment movement. However, his handling of the India-China
relationship during the first late 1950s and early 1960s was considered a failure.
He died on 27th May 1967 in New Delhi because of coronary thrombosis.

Committee memberships:

• States Committee
• Union Powers Committee
• Union Constitution Committee
• Sub-Committee on Minority Problems affecting East Punjab and West Bengal

On 13th December 1946, four days after Assembly's first session, he moved ‘Objectives
Resolution’ that might inform the constitution-making process.

In response to the Hindu enthusiasts, Nehru argued for resolving the national language issue
through democratic principles instead of an authoritarian approach.

He put up a robust case for India to hitch the Commonwealth of countries .

On the eve of Independence Day , he addressed the Assembly and therefore the nation with his
famous ‘Tryst with destiny’ speech.

Page 9
The long-term proposals, among others, suggested the setting up of a Constituent Assembly
indirectly chosen (by members of the provincial legislative assemblies) with provision for the
inclusion of the representatives of the princely states. Coming in the wake of a drastically altered
situation in the immediate after math of a drastically altered situation in the immediate aftermath
of world war II, though this proposal of the Cabinet Mission fell short of the Indian nationalist
leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru did not hesitate to the Indian Constituent Assembly not only
demonstrated and reinforced the old antagonism between the Congress and Muslim League but
also reiterated the numerically superior-position of the Congress in the assembly. The subsequent
birth of the interim government and later entry of the league into the interim government not only
paralyzed its working but considerably affected the prospects of the Constituent Assembly being
summoned, let alone it’s working. Prime Minister Attlee’s efforts of convening the London
Conference in December 1946 failed to defuse the Indian crisis. The Constituent Assembly was
convened to meet on 9th December 1946. By the time the Constituent Assembly met in its first
session Nehru had developed clear-cut and definite views on the type of Constitution that India
should have and the objectives and aims of the State. Undeterred by the odds coming in the way
he moved the historic objectives resolution on 13 December 1946. This resolution, which provided
a brilliant insight into the political mind of Nehru and his conception of new India, sought to
proclaim India an Independent Sovereign Republic and to draw up a Constitution for her future
governance; to constitute the territories of India in to the independent.

The objectives resolution moved by Nehru and the debate that ensued in the Constituent Assembly
provided a clear in sight into the philosophical values and fundamentals of the Constitution which
the Assembly was called upon to formulate. Either in shaping the philosophical contents of his
objectives resolution or in conceiving and shaping the basic philosophical value and principles
underlying the Constitution which the assembly was to frame, enact and adopt, Nehru as a
farsighted statesman and socio-political pragmatist, looked upon the Constitution as a positive
instrument to rejuvenate and modernize a heterogeneous society pervaded by the forces of social
primordialism, an under developed polity and a backward and stagnant economy. This approach
of Nehru to the process of constitution Assembly in shaping the philosophy and the fundamentals
of the Constitution. For Nehru, the Constitution was not an inexplicable or unrealizable end in
itself couched in a metaphysical language, but it was only an effective means to provide people
with reasonably adequate opportunities to develop themselves to the maximum extent possible.

Page 10
He looked upon the state as only a politico-administrative apparatus to accomplish social
good/welfare on the largest possible scale. To him, the individual human being and the maximum
development of his personality constituted the supreme end for the relation between the state and
the individuals decisively influenced the task of the state and the reconstruction of the influence
the task of the assembly in conceiving and formulating in an eloquent and vibrant manner the
philosophy and the fundamentals of the constitution. In his approach to the mighty task of
constitution-making, Nehru differed in a fundamental sense from that of the approach of the
founding fathers of the U.S.A. Constitution in 1787. Nehru looked upon the Constitution not only
as a political, administrative and legal instrument to ensure the political governance of the country,
which was not unimportant but also an effective and positive instrument pervaded by the
considerations of welfare state to bring in effect the goals of social justice, which have come to be
engrafted on the constitutional document. This point needs to be stressed in the context of the
growing ascendancy of the concept of social welfare state. His approach to the task of constitution-
making and positive role of the state in alleviating the miseries of people and redressing their
grievances and making their lives worth living were greatly influenced by the considerations of a
welfare state, social justice and socio-economic democracy. His approach to constitution-making
was not only positive and overwhelming influence by the considerations of modernization and
political development but also by the socio-economic and political compulsions of the third world
countries in general and India in particular. If the Constitution that was to be framed by the
assembly, Nehru knew well was to have any decisive impact on India’s heterogeneous society,
stagnant economy and polity, and to accomplish the goal of social revolution, the new constitution
was to be framed in such as was as to meet to fulfill the ‘needs of the many instead of representing
the views of the few. The perception of Nehru as to the making of the Constitution that was finally
enacted and adopted on November 26, 1949. While shaping the nature and scope of the
Constitution, he was very much inspired by the Wilsonian saying, “No more vital truth was ever
uttered than that freedom and free institutions, he cannot any longer be maintained by any people
unless they understand the nature of their own political institutions.” Not only should they
understand the nature of their political institutions, he felt earnestly, but these institutions should
also provide adequate “opportunities without which it is not possible for the people to develop
fully their faculties”. In fact, the combined effects of the past and present, and aspirations of the
future in influencing the nature and scope of the constitution could very well be amplified by citing

Page 11
the preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy and their far-reaching
implications.

Every major theme and aspect of the Constitution bears the profound influence of Nehru on
constitution-making, the theme of citizenship was one such basic thing, and in influencing and
shaping the same Nehru brought to bear enormous influence. His aristocratic upbringing and
western education and impact made him not only an inveterate opponent of the impenetrable forces
of social primordialism and heterogeneity but also cosmopolitan in his temperament, outlook and
approach. He always looked at the problems of India and reconstruction of her society and polity
from a wider angle. He knows that one of the basic weaknesses of India was her heterogeneity
characterized by parochialism and conspicuous absence of wider nationalism. In fact, one of the
most pressing needs of the hour was how to withstand her formidable forces of social
primordialism and instill in the minds of the people of India. Irrespective and instill in the minds
of the people of India, irrespective of their racial, religious, cultural and linguistic diversities and
provincial feelings, a cosmopolitan feeling that they constituted one distinct common political
nationality - the socio-psychological and political trait of India, as a nation. In accomplishing this
elusive goal, he rightly felt that a constitutional provision for one single citizenship was the
appropriate panacea. In this respect, the constitution-makers led by Nehru resolved to have one
single citizenship for the entire country. By dint of this constitutional arrangement, an earnest
attempt was made to oblige the people to feel that they were one irrespective of racial, religious,
cultural, linguistic and regional considerations.

The socio psychological and political implications of this constitutional arrangement need to be
analyzed in the context of India’s social heterogeneity and primordialism which Nehru rightly
thought, would pose a very formidable challenge to the country’s democratic political system.
Nehru’s vision of history, commitment to the basic principles and values of democratic system,
and keen desire to modernize the society and polity were substantially responsible in devising the
constitutional provisions providing for single citizenship. With the appointment of the advisory
committee on fundamental rights the constituent assembly commenced its work in examining and
shaping the theme of fundamental rights.

His supreme faith in democracy as a socio-political system, cause of social justice, and his
adherence of the forces of social heterogeneity and primordialism and the imperatives of an

Page 12
underdeveloped country like India considerably influenced and conditioned his thoughts and views
on fundamental rights. He rightly recognized the right to freedom that came to be embodied in
Article 19 and also Articles 20-22. Though he readily subscribed to the right to freedom of speech
and other basic civil and political and other facets of the right to freedom covered by Articles 20-
22 his abiding faith in democracy did not prevent him from recognizing the imperative necessity
of subjecting the right to freedom to reasonable restrictions in the larger interests of society.

Where the abiding interests of society warranted, he did not hesitate to subject individual liberty
to the authority of the state. His recognition of an Independent judiciary as the protector of the
individual’s rights, and his vehement opposition to the weapon of ex post facto legislation led to
the incorporation into the constitution of the basic principles of the doctrine of rule of law. Though
he supremely believed in the imperative necessity of individual liberty- the - sheet anchor of
democracy- formidable challenges posed by the anti- democratic forces to the country’s political
system, integrity and viability obliged him to countenance the conferment of extraordinary powers
on the Union Parliament to enact preventive detention legislation. He profoundly believed in the
constitutional efficacy of the doctrine of the due process of law to protect the individual liberty.
But in the light of the realistic appraisal of such celebrated legal luminaries as Mr. Justice Felix
Frank Further of the U.S.A. Supreme Court and B.N. Rao, and the procedure established by law
enshrined in the Japanese Constitution and also the existing social, political and constitutional.
Thus what he definitely aimed at was to eliminate the judicial roadblocks that were likely to be
created by the anomalous and permissive interpretation by judiciary of a very vague and under
finable judicial doctrine of the due process of law but certainly not to jettison or erode the
individual liberty.

His approach to the subject of property was very substantially and pervading influence by his
socialist leanings and tenets of democratic socialism, and imperatives of justice and social
revolution, and his opposition to the continuance of ideas of landlords and Zamindari System,
which he vowed to end. In contrast to the stand taken by leaders like Sardar Patel and such of those
who in the assembly concurred with the stand taken on the right to property, Nehru was not for
making the right to property. Nehru was nor for making the right to property a very absolute or
deeply entrenched right. He was obliged to support the right to property but with a specific
constitutional provision empowering the state to acquire private property if the same was

Page 13
warranted by public interest, and they could do so by means of law and providing for compensation
to the party concerned. The wider implications of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment
in 1951 and 1955 respectively which considerably eroded the scope of the right to property could
be cited as the most pertinent examples to point out his attitude towards the right to property
sacrosanct.

He endorsed the inclusion in the constitution of such specific provisions concerning the
administration of the scheduled areas, and control of the union government over the administration
of the scheduled and tribal areas. His supreme concern for the backward classes (and weaker
sections) did not fail to have its impact on the constitution. Mainly, with the object of mitigating
the severity of social wrongs which had been afflicted for long on these back-ward classes and
weaker sections something had to be done. Guided by the lofty notions of social justice, national
cohesion and social revolution, he was not averse to the idea of inserting into the constitution
certain provisions to protect and further the social, educational and economic interest of the back-
ward classes and weaker sections. A sense of realism and concern displayed by Nehru in the matter
of protecting and furthering the interests of the back-ward classes and weaker sections to accelerate
the cause of social justice and national cohesion has necessitated the description of the Indian
Constitution as “the fore most social document.” He rightly felt that neither rights nor democracy
would be complete as long as they were viewed only from a political angle. Socio-economic
contents of rights and democracy are as important as the political ones. Fundamental Rights
included in Part III were only political in character.

His political sagacity and realism prompted him to opt for the British system of Parliamentary
democracy. This choice of Nehru was in consonance with the Assembly’s preference for the Euro-
Anglo-American political traditions and institutions. His decision to go in for the west minister
model of British brought in its wake certain problems not unfamiliar to the dynamics of
parliamentary democracy in Britain was an excellent synthesis of history and customs and well-
established conventions that played a very crucial role in conditioning and influencing the working
of parliamentary democracy. He acted in a very imaginative and far-sighted manner in reducing to
writing the most essential conventions especially those relating to the constitutional obligation of
the ceremonial head of state to have a council of ministers headed by a Prime Minister to aid and
advise him in the exercise of his functions, confidential character of the ministerial advice to the

Page 14
President which was kept beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, appointment by the President or
the Prime Minister and on his advice the appointment of other minister towards the President, and
the exalted position of the Prime Minister under the country’s political system.

Thus, in view of this stark reality what the Constitution-makers like Nehru felt was that in the
matter of relations between the President and Prime Minister, it would not be desirable for the
former to have a literal look at the pertinent provisions of the Constitution but to recall the
sagacious advice of Walter Bagehot that no monarch should ever aspire for more that the right to
be consulted, right to encourage and right to be consulted, right to encourage and right to warn.
They saw to it that there was adequate scope for the Indian President to have all these three rights.
An objective analysis of Article 78 would not fail to convince how leaders like Nehru were
meticulously careful in designing the relevant constitutional provision to put on a sound basis the
relation between the President and Prime Minister.

He was vehemently opposed to the continuation of any practice or policy which would perpetuate
compartmentalization in Indian Society. But the vital considerations of social justice and social
cohesion and enduring social order prompted Nehru in endorsing the reservation of legislative
seats and nomination of the members of the Anglo – Indian community in terms of Articles 330 to
333. The wider implications of the documentary character of the Indian constitution of powers,
and justifiable fundamental rights, an array of formidable constitutional aspects prevailed on him
in not subscribing substantially to the thesis of Parliamentary sovereignty. However, the
paramount necessity of creating a new social order pervaded by the goals of social economic and
political justice and rendering smooth the necessity of getting enacted a variety of collectivist
legislation in this regard obliged him to bring about a sort of reconciliation between parliamentary
sovereignty and judicial supremacy. In shaping the Parliament, he allowed himself to be influenced
by the best traditions surrounding the British Parliament. His supreme faith in the punctiliousness
in observing scrupulously and respectfully the parliamentary traditions and entitled him to the well
deserving description that he was ‘a prince parliamentarian’. Compulsions of federal polity, polity,
democratic political system and justifiable fundamental rights of citizens, and the imperativeness
of justice as the basis of a modern secular and democratic polity made him subscribe to the
necessity of an independent judiciary- the sine qua non of democracy and raison de etre of federal
polity. His unique role as Chairman of the Union Constitution Committee and Union Powers

Page 15
Committee gave him the much-needed insight into nature and necessity of an independent
judiciary as the balancing wheel of the Indian federal system, and the supreme protector and
vanguard of the democratic rights of citizens.

In determining the place and role of judiciary under the constitution, and judiciary’s independence
vis-a-vis the other two branches of government Parliament executive, left no stone unturned in
ensuring and establishing the independence of judiciary on a firm and sound basis. Nehru’s attitude
towards the erstwhile states that became an integral part of India played a crucial role in the
framing of the constitution. In fact, his role in establishing and guiding the Indian States’ peoples
conference, his active encouragement to the peoples’ movement and struggle for responsible
government, and constitutional and democratic reforms in the princely states should be an integral
part of free India, and that the nationalist demand for independence was for both British India and
native India, and his dogged opposition to the British stand that the British paramountcy over the
princely states would lapse on India attaining independence, and the princely states would be left
free influenced in a very powerful manner his approach to the states’ issue in the shaping of the
constitution. He stood firmly for the establishment of a parliamentary system and of a responsible
government in the princely states. This came to be 86 embodied in Article 238 of Part VII. He
played a major role in the shaping of constitutional provisions embodied in the proviso to Articles
131, 291, 362, 363, 370, and 371, and in a nutshell, the incorporation of part ‘B’ category, States
and States Union into the Indian constitution. His cautious approach to the subject of the
reorganization of states which hastened the enactment of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 and
Seventh Constitution (Amendment) Act 1956 necessitated the throwing of the princely order into
the museum of antiquities. Language was one of the most complicated subjects that taxed the
intellectual resources and statesmanship of leaders like Nehru in the mighty task of constitution-
making Nehru’s profound sense of history and his brilliant insight into the unusable forces of social
primordialism and heterogeneity greatly influenced his cautious approach to the language
question. He knew well that in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous country like India, it
would be most unrealistic, imprudent, unimaginative and suicidal a policy to force one language
on the entire country. He was aware that political stability was highly elusive in the plural society
of India. Overwhelmed by the paramount considerations of national unity, solidarity and integrity,
he had to view the most vexed subject of (national) language with extraordinary care. While
shaping the language provisions, he was literally sandwiched between the vital considerations of

Page 16
the country’s unity, integrity and future on the one hand, and linguistic ethnocentrism and jingoism
and cultural pluralism on the other. In spite of meticulous care and far - sighted statesmanship
shown by him in handling the subject of language, the irresistible considerations of the primordial
and heterogeneous society of India obliged him to pursue in the matter of language a policy which
was socially pernicious, culturally and linguistically permissive and politically flexible and
precarious. This came to be reflected in the language provisions that were enshrined in the
Constitution. It would be a hazardous task, he realized, to prescribe one common Lingua franca
for the entire country vividly characterized by linguistic diversity. But in the larger interests of
emotional unity and national integration it was extraordinarily perilous to ignore the absolute
necessity of one common language at the national level. In this most difficult Nehru’s task was
made as perilous as the exercise of walking on the tight rope. His role in this respect was made
still more difficult because of the extremely rigid, relentless and unyielding attitudes adopted by
the pro - Hindi, and the anti - Hindi groups. Because the former was bent upon providing Hindi as
the sole common lingua franca for the entire country, and the latter actuated by the narrow
considerations of linguistic ethnocentrism and utter reluctance to accept Hindi as the only common
language for the entire country fought tooth and nail against all attempts of the enthusiasts of the
pro-Hindi groups. Under this kind of embarrassing and helpless situation deeply surcharged with
psychological prejudices and emotional sentiments, it became inevitable for adopting some kind
of dual or bigamous policy in respect of the question of language at the national level which
envisaged the use of English for a period of 15 years even after the commencement of the
Constitution but switching over to Hindi after this period. Notwithstanding that Hindi being his
mother tongue, he allowed himself to be tremendously influenced and shaped emotionally and
culturally be western culture and education through the medium of English. With the result he
could neither endorse Hindi to be the sole common language forthwith nor discontinue / dispense
with the use of English language. Whatever ambivalence, permissiveness and indecisiveness that
could be seen in the sphere of language was the outcome of linguistic heterogeneity and
psychological barriers and far – reaching socio-political implication which Nehru and other elites
found extremely difficult to overcome or ignore. In spite of his dominating position, charismatic
leadership and dynamic and imaginative statesmanship, Nehru could not devise as lasting solution
to the complicated task of one common language for the entire country. In fact, this is very well
reflected in the existing provisions pertaining to language (vide Articles 343 to 350 and 350A and

Page 17
350B) and also the Language Act of 1963. Nehru’s role in constitution-making needs to be stresses
in the context of emergency provisions. These provisions envisage three different kinds of
emergency; national emergency likely to be caused by war or invasion; local emergency, the
occurrence of which was not unlikely unless the constitutional machinery of the government were
to collapse in any of the constituent states; and financial emergency, that may be necessitated by
threat to the country’s financial stability and credit.

India’s experiment with democracy and constitutionalism in the Post-independence period, her
experience necessitated recourse to the emergency provisions will eloquently testify to the vision,
imagination and far-sighted statesmanship of Nehru who did not and could not grumble at the
inclusion of the emergency provisions. Procedure to be followed for amending the Constitution
and parliament’s power in this matter was another very important aspect of constitution-making
which was decisively influence by Nehru.

Though the Constitution provided for a parliamentary system of a responsible government within
the parameters of a federal polity, while devising the constitutional procedure for amending the
constitution, Nehru was obliged to favor a via media approach. In favoring the adoption of this
approach, Nehru was overwhelmingly influenced by such vital considerations as; (1) Pivotal role
of the state in the nation building activities, (2) Paramount necessity of effectual sing the goals of
social revolution and new social order based on justice, social, economic and political, (3)
Imperatives of a reasonably flexible and reasonably rigid constitution, (4) Urgency of eliminating
the grave defects of rigidity and legalism inherent in federalism, (5) Implications of the legislative
paramountcy of the Union Parliament, (6) Acute – felt necessity of adapting and adjusting the
constitution to the growing needs and requirements of society and hastening the realization of the
change and development oriented constitution.

Apart from these pressing considerations, Nehru’s role as Chairman of the Union Constitution
Committee and Union Powers Committee, and his firsthand experience as the head of government
during the most cataclysmic phase in the post-Independence period tremendously influenced
Nehru’s thinking and approach to the adoption of the amending procedure. In fact, this came to be
vividly expressed in the Provisions of Article 368 which empowered the Union Parliament to
amend the Constitution and procedure to be followed in that respect. It would not be wholly out
of context to reiterate that the amending procedure envisaged by Article 368 in the shaping of

Page 18
which, Nehru had a crucial role to play, was further buttressed by the socio-political and
constitutional implications of the First, Fourth Seventeenth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-and Forty-
second Constitutional Amendments that considerably affected among others, the right to property
and sought to demonstrate the precedence of the Fundamental Rights. In spite of Nehru’s relentless
sustained and determined efforts in shaping and molding the amending procedure under which
Parliament secured the plenary power to amend the Constitution, but as later events converged to
establish, Parliament was restrained from interfering with the basic structure of the Constitution.
However, in spite of this startling development, Parliament’s power to amend the chapter on
Fundamental Rights has remained intact and unmotivated. This in fact, was not derogatory to the
socio-political philosophy of Nehru in respect of matters constitutional. An objective and
dispassionate analysis of the amending procedure establishes conclusively the unique role of
Nehru in shaping this procedure which was neither too rigid nor too flexible to preserve and further
the constitutional sanctity and stability but also to arrest the constitutional dysfunctionalism, and
to enable the change and development oriented constitution to with stand the onslaughts of the
modern social welfare state and accelerate the creation of a new social order pulsating with the
noble ends of socials justice and social revolution.

Unity of India was the foremost factor that tremendously influenced Nehru’s thinking on the
approach to the task of Constitution-making. His profound insight into the various aspects of
Indian history, and the impact of the centrifugal and centripetal forces on society and polity at
various stages in the long and chequered history of India, and his firm conviction that political
stability, unity and feeling of coherence would be highly elusive and impossible to accomplish in
the highly primordial and heterogeneous society of India profoundly convinced him that no price
was great or unbearable in preserving and promoting the unity of India, and no stone should be left
unturned and no sacrifice should be considered unbearable to extraordinary in preserving the unity
of India. This supreme concern for the country’s unity and its preservation stands out very
conspicuously in his task of influencing the framing of the Constitution. He stood for the political
emancipating of the entire country that included both the British Indian provinces and princely
states of native India. His firm view that the princely states of native India were an integral part of
India and that Indian independence, which was unnegotiable, would be incomplete unless the
princely states were simultaneously emancipated from the iron grip of British paramountcy. This
comprehensive from the iron grip of British paramountcy. This comprehensive perspective of

Page 19
Nehru on the unity of India stood him in good stead not only in his task of spearheading the
country’s freedom struggle but also in the mammoth task of shaping the Constitution of India
which when it finally emerged from the portals of the Constitution of India which when it finally
emerged from the portals of the Constituent Assembly excellently symbolized and personified the
unity of India. His supreme concern for the country’s unity remarkably influenced the framing of
the Constitution in all its aspects. His penchant for the country’s unity might provoke critics to
describe or characterize this as his obsession which resulted in the creeping in of many non-federal
features into the Constitution which provided for a federal polity.

Nehru showed his remarkable and astute statesmanship and political acumen to retain the
membership of the Commonwealth organization. This extraordinary decision of Nehru created one
peculiar problem for India. This was how could a republic like India where the head of state was
to be chosen by an electoral college, not appointed by the British monarch, remain in the (British)
Commonwealth of Nations. In order to disabuse the minds of his critics, Nehru clarified that
India’s decision to remain in the (British) Common wealth would in no way affect the status of
India as a sovereign country, her membership of the commonwealth would not obligate her to owe
any kind of 95 allegiance to Britain or British Monarch who would only symbolize a free
association of sovereign nations, and India’s membership of his organization was based on free
consent and not coercion. But India’s decision was of a far-reaching character. This was
responsible not only for changing the very name of the organization but also its character. What
man’s club became a multiracial, multilingual, multi-cultural and multireligious organization
based on consent? Thus Nehru was not only the founding father of the Indian Constitution, but he
was also the architect of the modern Commonwealth of Nations which organizationally and
ideologically underwent a radical change after 1949. This extraordinary decision of Nehru did not
in any manner affect the socio - political and legal fabric of the new Constitution. While retaining
intact, in an undiluted manner, the sovereign status and character of the Constitution, he paved the
way for transforming in a radical manner the organizational character, ideological basis and
functional utility of the (Modern) Commonwealth of Nations.

NEHRU : SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

When India attained freedom in 1947, Nehru adopted Non-alignment as the guiding principle of
India's foreign policy. One of the major charges against him at that time was that his nonalignment

Page 20
policy was really a policy of appeasement in the international politics. This charge set people to
think about Nehru's socialistic ideas which he so dearly cherished before 1947. It was said again
and again that he had given up his ideas of socialism and communism and had become a political
reactionary using non-alignment as a weapon to retain his Prime Minister ship. If we think of
socialism as the post-Marxian doctrine generally called communism, Nehru was definitely not
seriously aware of it before his visit to Soviet Russia in 1927. Before 1927 he was socialism, or if
one likes to call it so, Utopian Socialism, which reached Gandhi through Plato. Thomas More and
of course through the Indian tradition on the basis of which Gandhi evolved his concept of the
Daridranarayan. When he was in England, Nehru had come in contract with yet another kind of
socialism which was called Fabian socialism. When of Nehru came to India he got an opportunity
to see the people of India and their poverty. It created in his mind disgust for British imperialism.
It was during his impressionable years that he visited Russia and had the opportunity of studying
Leninist Socialism, which was itself a new version of Marx's scientific socialism. Nehru was
impressed by the progress made by Russia after the 1917 Revolution. At that time he thought that
it would perhaps be very useful if the same kind of socialism or communism could be applied to
India also. In a state of confusion and conflict, Nehru thought at the time probably Marxism could
solve some of his problems which the Vedanta could nor". But, he said that even accepting that
approach, the consequences that flow from it and the interpretation of past and present happening
were by no means always clear. Marx's general assessment of social development seems to have
been remarkably correct and yet many developments took place later which did not fit in with his
outlook for the immediate future. Nehru was deeply under the influence of Marx and Lenin from
his visit to Russia in 1927 to 1940 or so. After 1940 he had to play the role of a senior statesman
and any sort of theoretical arrogance on his part would have been unfavorable. That is why his
earlier emotional attitude to communism had to undergo a change. That is not mean, however.
That he was not a socialist after 1940 or 1947. He was never in favor of socialism as a political
structure or socialism as a method of action in political life. It was more to him a philosophy rather
than an economic dogma. That is why it finally emerged into a sort of compromise between
socialism and capitalism. He never believed in the communist methods of social change. He
always followed Gandhi's moral concept as a way of life. He did not always agree with Gandhi.
He even called Gandhi's principle of trustee ship as " metaphysical rubbish." But his brand of
socialism was not what it was practiced by people like Stalin in Russia. Nehru, though a socialist

Page 21
in his way of thinking, always attached great value to individual freedom and democracy. It was
at this point that Nehru had to differ from basic communistic premises. Any system in which-as-
in communism individual freedom and democracy are sacrifices and only state becomes a reality
was not acceptable to Nehru. That is why he laid stress on the socialistic pattern of society rather
than in adopting a socialistic system and impose it upon India our objective should be, he said," a
society in which there is equality of opportunity and the possibility for everyone to live a good
life." He can have freedom of conscience and mind, freedom of enterprises, and even the
possession of private property on a restricted scale. Thus Nehru had a great contribution in Indian
Politics. Nehru was not a philosopher in the technical sense of the term, but he was definitely a
great thinker. Politicians generally act according to the exigencies of situations as 15 they arise
and try to get over the difficulties that they face through clever manipulations. Nehru was not a
petty politician. All his political activities during his career had a stamp of careful and deep
thinking. A haphazard political behavior, which we have had the misfortune of having seen in
recent years, would have ruined India sooner than later, if the reins of power had not been in the
hands of such a man as Nehru. Gandhi had realized this fact well in advance, That was the reason
that he named Nehru as his spiritual heir and prepared him for shouldering the responsibility of a
new born nation. Before actually launching a host of new programs for the development of the
country, Nehru deeply and carefully studied the political and social conditions prevailing in India
at that time. He was a professed socialist before taking overcharge as the Prime Minister, and as a
powerful man of that time, he could easily hare imposed a purely socialistic system on India. If he
so desired. He, therefore, made a rather " hesitant start" towards the socialistic goal. In the field of
economics he called it mixed economy, party, Capitalistic, party socialistic but quite in keeping
with the prevailing situations at that time. What could be greater example of Nehru's Political
wisdom ? He did not sacrifice the demands of socialism but left enough scope for private initiative
at the same time. One of the greatest achievements of Nehru was his ability to act as a powerful
commenting force in a multi-racial, multi communal and multilingual country like India. The
greatest need of that hour was national integration. Nehru believed in a classless and caste-less
society. He was sometimes irritated by the attitude of fundamentalists and caste leaders, but he
succeeded in creating an atmosphere of unity and peace. It is sure that he could not do all that was
required. Some people that Nehru's secular policy turned out to be a policy of appeasement. Too
many Concessions were granted to the minorities and in their turn, they started developing at

Page 22
tendencies, Similarly, the caste system-stricken areas, mostly inhabited by the depressed classes,
were not allowed to develop economically. These are some of the problems which exist 16 in India
even after forty-four years of India's independence. Should one blame Nehru for their persistence
? whatever is on record is an ample proof to the fact that Nehru did more for national integration
than any other leader after him. Nehru, as an author of the policy of non-alignment and the Panch
sheel, succeeded in placing India in a respectable position in the community of nations. When he
formulated his policy of non-alignment some people laughed at it and called it a poor weapon of
self-defense. Some people called it immoral, because it would not serve the interest of the group
they favored. Now that the policy of non-alignment has already stood the test of time. (Even in
1992 some Asian Nations such as china, and Nepal have renewed their pledge to follow the
principles of the Panch Sheel.) People realize what a great achievement it was . Nehru had the
courage to assert the claims of the third world countries and he vociferously propagated the cause
of Afro-Asian Unity. In spite of his obvious communist learning, Nehru did not throw India into
the leftist block, nor did he want India to be a stooge of the capitalist block. He showed the guts to
be in favor of what he thought was the right cause. Even during the Chinese invasion of India,
Nehru did not shake off the policy of non-alignment.

Page 23