CA Debate on Preamble

On November 15, 1948, India was in the midst of a heated debate in the Constituent Assembly, on
the nature of the Constitution.

Secular, Federal, Socialist

Prof K T Shah proposed inserting the words, “Secular, Federal, Socialist”.

• His above-mentioned words to be read as, “India shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of
States.” He was of the opinion that by using such words in the Preamble, it will give an idea
about the governing ideals of the Constitution.
• He proposed the word “Federal” because he wanted the Indian Union not to be a Unitary
State.
• According to him, the word “Federal” implies an agreed association on equal terms
of the states forming part of the Federation. The States in India must be “States
forming part of the Federation”.
• He wanted India to be a Secular State.
• He believed in a clear and emphatic description of the State. He stressed the secular
character of the State because of the bitter experiences of the past. According to
him, this would be an assurance to the people for matters concerning the
governance of the country pertaining to injustice or inequality among citizens.
Finally in the ensuing discourse, while the members agreed on the nature of the Indian state
adhering to secular principles, the word ‘secular’ was dropped from the Preamble.

• Prof. Shah proposed the word socialist which implies or conveys, a state in which equal
justice and equal opportunity for everybody is assured, in which everyone is expected to
contribute by his labour, by his intelligence, and by his work, all that he can to the maximum
capacity, and everyone would be assured of getting all that he needs and all that he wants
for maintaining a decent civilised standard of existence.
• The word socialist is the synonym for curbing social abuses.
• He further said this can be achieved without any violation of peaceful and orderly
progress, and there is no need to fear in the implications of this term the possibility
of a violent revolution resulting in the disestablishment of vested interests.

According to Ambedkar, this proposal was rejected because “What should be the policy of the State,
how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be
decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in
the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the
Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my
judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in
which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist
organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly
possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better
than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow.”

Mr. H.V. Kamath also opposed the amendment proposed by Mr. K.T. Shah.

Sovereign Democratic Republic

When BR Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a sovereign, democratic, republic,” it was vehemently opposed by Maulana
Hasrat Mohani.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani was a leader of the Indian National Congress apart from being a noted Urdu
poet and the man who coined the slogan Inquilab Zindabad.

• According to him, the Objectives Resolution had three words Independent Sovereign Republic.
• But the Drafting Committee had adopted the phrase Sovereign Democratic Republic because
independence is usually implied in the word “Sovereign”.
• He then asked the Constituent Assembly to decide on the following three sets of words that
are to be incorporated in the Preamble before the consideration of the Draft Constitution
clause by clause.
• Sovereign Independent Republic,
• Sovereign Democratic Republic,
• Sovereign Democratic State.”
After due deliberations, ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’ was adopted.

Union of States
The Drafting Committee advised that India shall be the Union of States.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Mishra held that the constitutional literature of the word “State” includes the
idea of sovereignty and absolute independence. He expressed his ambiguity regarding the
connotation of the meaning of State for three words viz., provinces, Pradesh and the nation.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru suggested that the word State should be applied to Pradesh as well as
Provinces.

The motion for inserting the word “Federal” before the word “Union”, and the second to substitute
the word “Pradeshas” for the word “States” was negatived.

Shri Gopi Krishna Vijayavargiya told that Sovereignty is specifically mentioned in the Chinese
Constitution as it is an important power.

• He considered this amendment an important one.

Professor Shibban Lal Saksena also considered it an important amendment.
Thereafter another amendment was proposed. The following aspects were to be decided through
this amendment.

• The Union was named BHARAT;

• The character of Bharat is sovereign, independent, democratic, socialist, republic;
• The government must be established by the Constitution;
• The powers of the government, legislature, executive and judiciary shall be derived from the
people.
The above amendment was supported by Maulana Hasrat Mohani and objected by Shri Prabhudayal
Himat Singka, Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar and Shri Loknath Mishra. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was
of the opinion that sovereignty vests with the people. The said amendment was withdrawn by the
leave of the Assembly.

According to Maulana Hasrat Mohani, the Union of India shall be the Union of Sovereign States.

• He affirmed that the Union of India shall include completely autonomous Provinces and
groups of States in which each state shall contain smaller states merged in the form of
Districts and Provinces.
• According to him, India shall be a federation of independent units.
• By doing so, provincial autonomy shall be gained for each unit under the federation.
• He opposed the move of Dr. Ambedkar because Dr. Ambedkar used the words “Union of
States” instead of “Federal Republic”.
• He clarified the differences in the meaning of the words Union and Federation.
• According to him, the word Union means as that proposed by Kaiser William and Adolf Hitler.
So, under the Union, the States come under the rule. There is no place for Provincial
Autonomy.
• Provincial Autonomy is found under Federation.
• By using the word Union, India is made a Unitary Government or Unity empire. He didn’t want
to promote imperialism in any manner.
Shri B.M. Gupte clarified the intention of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar for using the word “Union” that Dr.
Ambedkar wanted to negate the right of secession.

• If the word “Union” is not used then there remain the chances that the right of secession may
remain open for the Provinces.
• According to him, as far as the Indian states are concerned, those which signed the first
Instrument of Accession, there is a provision in that Instrument which allows them to secede
after they have seen the full picture of the Constitution. But once they accede after the
commencement of the Constitution they may perhaps not have the right. Thus, in the form of
a Union, India can remain a decentralized unitary government.
• According to him, apart from Union, India is a federation because it bears one characteristic
of federation i.e., provinces have jurisdiction over a large number of subjects.

In the name of God

A few members in the Constituent Assembly wanted to include ‘In the name of God’.
 • Many were opposed to this suggestion – it was noted that it was unfortunate to put ‘God’ on
a vote.
• One member believed that the inclusion of ‘God’ would amount to ‘compulsion of faith’ and
violate the fundamental right to freedom of faith.
Conclusion

From the very beginning, the framers of the Indian Constitution wanted India to be a sovereign,
independent and democratic republic apart from a secular, federal and socialistic country. They
wanted India to be completely democratic republic and it must cherish all essential qualities,
characteristics and ingredients of the democratic republic. They have specifically mentioned the
essential qualities of a democratic republic. They wanted that the distribution of material resources
must be made for the common good. They didn’t want any sort of concentration of wealth. They
desired for equitable distribution of means of production.

State means all states forming the Union of India. They have used the word union instead of the
word federation. This shows that they wanted to keep India united forever. Moreover, they did not
favour further partition or assignment of special status to any particular state or states in the long
run. Due to this reason the word “Union” is used. The characteristics of “federal nature” are found in
a slight proportion in the Constitution. It pertains to Provincial Autonomy regarding jurisdiction over
many subjects. The Republican character of the state is also maintained.

There was a slew of other amendments moved, discussed and negatived, or sought to be moved by
various members. The Preamble to the Constitution of India was finalised only pursuant to deep
discussions. Every word of it was debated at length.

Constituent Assembly Debate on Untouchability:- Download PDF Here

CA Debate on Untouchability
The Constituent Assembly Debate on Draft Article 11 (Article 17) started on 29th November 1948.
Draft Article 11 was about the removal of Untouchability. The then Article 11 is Article 17 of the
present Indian Constitution. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad moved an amendment that –

“That for article 11, the following article be substituted

No one shall on account of his religion or caste be treated or regarded as an “untouchable”; and its
observance in any form may be made punishable by law.”

• He moved the above amendment because the word “Untouchability” has no legal meaning.
• He clarified that the word “Untouchability” is not only applied for human beings but it is
applied for a variety of things.
• The said amendment was negatived because the framers were not interested in substituting
the above aspects.
 • Mr. Muniswamy Pillai wanted the abolition of Untouchability. He wanted that the abolition of
Untouchability must be included in Article 11 of the Constitution.
Dr. Mono Mohan Das was of the opinion that the removal of Untouchability is an
important fundamental right.

• At the same time, he explained that any sort of special privileges and safeguards must not
be given to minority communities.
• According to him, the said Article was to save most of the people from humiliation and
disgrace.
• Unlike other countries, he wanted the practice of Untouchability to be made a punishable
crime under the Constitution.
• He explained his point of view by quoting the words of Mahatma Gandhi i.e. “I do not want to
be reborn, but if I am reborn, I wish that I should be born as a Harijan, as an untouchable, so
that I may lead a continuous struggle, a lifelong struggle against the oppressions and
indignities that have been heaped upon these classes of people.”
• He further added that the word “Swaraj” will become meaningless as long as Untouchability
is not abolished.

Mr. Santanu Kumar Das proposed for the removal of social inequality.

• He demanded framing laws in this direction.

Professor K.T. Shah made a suggestion that the definition of Untouchability is nowhere given in the
Constitution.

• Thus, a question arises as to what constitutes Untouchability.

• He said there could be problems in the future for understanding the term Untouchability.
• He suggested making corrections i.e. to use a different word instead of using the word
“Untouchability”.
• According to him, if a person is placed under disability for a period of time, he is treated as
an untouchable.
• His suggestion was not accepted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• Thereafter, the motion regarding Article 11 was adopted and it was added to the
Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution wanted to abolish Untouchability on account of religion or caste. In
the Government of India Act of 1935, “Untouchables” were limited to a set of specifically
enumerated (Hindu) castes. Article 17 of the Constitution, however, contained no such qualification.
Indeed, for this reason, many members of the Assembly – at many stages of the drafting process –
drew attention to the capacious, even vague, nature of the simple word “untouchability”. They
wanted that Untouchability on grounds of religion or caste must be totally prohibited. The framers
revealed their faiths in the great reforms carried by Mahatma Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami
Vivekananda, etc. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar also showed his faith in the abolition of Untouchability in a
complete manner. They wanted the said social inequality to be removed completely. They wanted
Untouchability in any form to be made punishable by law.

CA Debate on Reservations
The Constituent Assembly worked for about three years in framing the largest constitution of the
world. The ideals, about which the freedom movement had spoken, were to be translated into
constitutional provisions. One of them was the protection of socially backward communities. The
rhetoric of establishing an egalitarian society found its vociferous expression in the words of
Jawaharlal Nehru. At that time the issue of reservation was pleaded, explained, accommodated and
accepted with the national spirit to assimilate sections of society including the intended
beneficiaries of the reservation policy into the mainstream of national life.

• Since the Depressed Classes have had limited opportunities in the past, special attempts
should be made, of course, in the educational and economic field and even in the political
field to see that they have a proper place till they find their own legs to stand upon without
the external aid.
• The debate on the resolution moved by Nehru in the Constituent Assembly regarding ‘aims
and objects’ that later formed the Preamble of the Constitution, clearly reveal the sentiments
of different sections of the people.
• Even though the majority of the members wholeheartedly supported the resolution, B.R.
Ambedkar had his own apprehensions.
• The leaders of the Congress Party were very articulate in upholding the rights of the
Depressed Classes and offer them adequate safeguards for exercising those rights.
• But doubts were also expressed regarding the effectiveness of these measures.
• On the one hand, a member from Madras criticized separate electorates as an effective
safeguard for Scheduled Caste reservation and on the other hand, a Harijan member,
Nagappa vociferously argued for reservation for the ancient people who had been exploited
by those who came later and dominated them.
• Quoting the number of Scheduled Caste members and their population in various
parts of the country, he tried to focus on the point that ‘reservation’ was essential
with regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Read other Constituent Assembly debates in the linked article.
Untouchability in the Constitution
The provision regarding ‘Untouchability’ in the draft Constitution was generally welcomed.
Eventually, the fundamental right of ‘not being subjected to any discrimination’ came to be qualified
by the provisions to procure ‘protective discrimination’.

• According to Nesiah, unlike Martin Luther King, Ambedkar was in a position of authority for
as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution and Minister of Law, ‘he was
vested with both real and symbolic authority at the highest level’.
• Hence he was able to intervene effectively for the emancipation of Dalits.
• According to one member, the inclusion of Ambedkar in the cabinet showed that there was a
change of heart on the part of the caste Hindus.
• But later events revealed the fact that it was not really a change of heart, but only political
expediency that made the Congress leadership offer Ambedkar such a position.
• But the relevant question is whether Ambedkar could or did exercise any real power. It would
be safer to say that his skill as a lawyer was utilized by the then Congress Government.
The discussion on reservation revolved mainly around the report on minority rights which was
presented by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

• Speaking on the Report, P.S. Deshmukh said that the report was highly satisfactory; but at
the same time, he voiced the fear that the so-called majority might be marginalized.
• On the other hand, members from the depressed classes, like S. Nagappa and Jaipal Singh,
demanded representation in proportion to their population and representation in cabinets
too.
• With regard to reservation of seats in parliament and state legislatures, originally the
Constitution proposed a time limit of ten years. Though this was not agreeable to the
Scheduled Castes, they accepted the advice of the political masters.
The affirmative action policies which were in place by 1947 have since been strengthened and
enlarged in a manner that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself could hardly have foreseen. The Indian
Constitution of 1950 is the foundation document for the affirmative action in the second half of the
twentieth century.

Conclusion

The Preamble of the Constitution places enormous emphasis on justice, liberty and equality; all of
which resonate positively with a regime that emphasizes the well-being of the disadvantaged
groups. The Constitution sets out to provide … JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of
the thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and opportunity; and to
promote among them all, FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity
of the Nation… The following remarks of Dr. Ambedkar on how this Preamble is to be interpreted are
revealing:

It means a way of life which recognizes Liberty, Equality and Fraternity which are not treated as
separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is
to defeat the very purpose of Democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from Equality and Equality cannot
be divorced from Liberty, nor can Liberty and Equality be divorced from Fraternity.
CA Debate on Federalism
One of the salient features of the Indian Constitution is that it lays down the structure of a federation
just like various other western states. The exact nature of the federation of states that India has
been is up for debate for a very long time. Federalism was also part of intense debate in the
Constituent Assembly. JB Kriplani, who was the President at the historic Meerut Session, 1946 of
the Indian National Congress, while outlining the proposed Constitution stated that it must be
federal in character with maximum autonomy given to the states.

Read more on the Sessions of the Indian National Congress in the linked article.

A trend towards centralization became more irresistible, with the core of the Indian problem being
absent after the Partition. Yet, the Indian situation did not at all rule out the necessity of a federation
as the composite and heterogeneous character of the Indian state was too real to be ignored. A
federal structure of state with considerable autonomy for the provinces and regions was, therefore,
historically imperative although the Union was certainly going to be much stronger than what had
been anticipated by the Cabinet Mission.

• When Dr. Ambedkar presented the Draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly, he
described the Constitution proposed to be federal, even though the word used in Article 1
was Union and the word “federal” was never mentioned in the Preamble or any other
provision.
• There was a fair consensus in the Assembly that in the view of the external conditions as
well as the vastness of the country and its diverse elements, a unitary system was not only
undesirable but also unworkable.
• India, therefore, was going to have a Federal Constitution. This view was carried by the
members till the end, notwithstanding further centralizing elements introduced during the
proceedings.
• After the Partition, the necessity of a strong centre was imperative and going back to a
unitary system of governance was not an option.

Concept of Federalism
The concept of federalism did not go unnoticed by the Constituent Assembly. As with many other
western political concepts such as republicanism, democracy, parliamentary form of government,
the concept of federalism was also adopted in the discussions and later adopted by the drafters of
the Constitution. The federal systems of the then U.S.S.R and the U.S. were being considered. In the
U.S.S.R, for example, their diversity of races, languages, and cultures, the sprawling underdeveloped
tracts, and their primitive areas of economic backwardness, had provided parallel examples of
problems to be solved. But the dictatorial methods used by the Soviets and the monolithic ideology
of communism impelled the non-dogmatic and democratic, Western inclined Indian leaders to copy
more finely the federal scheme of the United States.

With regard to the nature of a federal state, Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar proclaimed that one of
the essential principles of a Federal Constitution is that it must provide for a method of dividing
sovereign powers so that the Government at the Centre and the Governments in the Units are each
within a defined sphere, co-ordinate and independent.

• He said that the orthodox definition of federalism as adopted by other constitutions was not
rigidly followed as there was no clear demarcation between the functions of the centre and
the states and that they had to be dependent on each other.
• This definition would not apply to the Indian context as they were facing problems which
many of the constitution-makers who adopted federalism had not faced historically.
• The problem was to integrate and bring areas which were under the British Crown under one
Federation.
Dr. Ambedkar made it clear that only the President can exercise the power under Articles 250, 352
and 353 of the Constitution and this exercise requires the approval of both Houses of the Indian
Parliament.

• He outlined this view when he opined thus: “These provisions make the Indian Constitution
both ‘Unitary as well as Federal’ according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In
normal times, it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war, it is so designed
as to make it work as though it was a unitary system.”
For more on Constituent Assembly debates, click on the linked article.

India – A Union of States

According to Article 1 of the Constitution, India is a Union of States. As the Chairman of the Drafting
Committee, Dr. Ambedkar was responsible for the word UNION being substituted for FEDERATION.

• The Drafting Committee stated that there were advantages in describing India as a “Union”,
despite its Constitution being federal in structure.
• Reiterating this view in the Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar said that the Unitary Government of
South Africa was called a Union and so it was not contrary to usage to describe India as a
Union.
• Dr. Ambedkar clarified that though India was to be a Federation, the Federation was not the
result of an agreement (or a contract) by the States to join a federation, and that the
Federation, because of not being the result of an agreement, no State had the right to secede
from it. The Federation was a Union because it was indissoluble.
India will prosper only if all its states prosper. If there is discord between the Centre and the States,
the strong foundations of federalism and democracy on which our country has thrived will start
collapsing. What is yet to be seen is how successive governments deal with the problems of
decentralization and demands for autonomy and statehood. There is hope for our polity to build on
what the previous governments left behind and through this, we must create a legacy for the entire
world to see, respect and admire.