NCERT Solutions for Class 12 History Themes in Indian History III Chapter 4: Framing the Constitution: The Beginning of a New Era

Chapter at a glance

Exercises – Answer in 100–150 words

Answer

On 13 December 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly. It was a momentous resolution that outlined the defining ideals of the Constitution of independent India and provided the framework within which the work of constitution-making was to proceed.

Ideals expressed: 1. Independent sovereign republic – it proclaimed India to be an “Independent Sovereign Republic”. 2. Justice, equality and freedom – it guaranteed its citizens justice, equality and freedom — social, economic and political justice; equality of status and opportunity before law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action, subject to law and public morality. 3. Safeguards – it assured that “adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes”. 4. Union and autonomy of units – the territories would form a Union, with residuary powers and autonomy to the units as per the Constitution. 5. All power from the people – all power and authority of the sovereign India derived from the people. 6. Integrity of territory – the integrity of the territory of the republic and its sovereign rights on land, sea and air would be maintained according to justice and the law of civilised nations. 7. World peace – India would make its full contribution to the promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind.

Nehru said that the Indian Constitution would draw on the democratic ideals of the French and American Revolutions, and the Russian Revolution’s ideal of economic justice, but would adapt them to Indian conditions (he called the objectives “a declaration, a firm resolve, a pledge and an undertaking”).

The Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 13 December 1946) proclaimed India an independent sovereign republic deriving all power from the people; guaranteed citizens social, economic and political justice, equality of status and opportunity, and freedoms of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation and association; promised adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas and depressed and other backward classes; and pledged to promote world peace.

Answer

1. Religious minorities (Muslims) – B. Pocker Bahadur from Madras made a powerful plea for continuing separate electorates for Muslims, arguing that minorities exist everywhere and needed a voice in the political life of the nation; only separate electorates would ensure that Muslims had a meaningful say in governance. (Most nationalists opposed this, blaming separate electorates for partition and communal division — e.g. Sardar Patel and Govind Ballabh Pant, who said separate electorates would make minorities permanently isolated. Begum Aizaz Rasul felt that separate electorates were self-destructive since they isolated minorities from the majority.)
2. Economic minorities (peasants and the poor) – N.G. Ranga, a socialist and leader of the peasant movement, argued that the term minorities must be interpreted in economic terms. The real minorities were the masses of this country — oppressed and suppressed; they were the poor, the tribals, the peasants who did not have access to their rights or the legal system. They were the true minorities who needed protection.
3. Tribals – Jaipal Singh, a tribal leader (Adivasi), spoke on behalf of the tribes: tribals had been “harassed, neglected and disgraced for the last 6,000 years”; they were not a numerical minority but needed protection; he demanded reservation of seats in the legislature so that tribals could represent themselves; they had been dispossessed and pushed into forests.
4. Depressed Castes (Dalits) – members of the Depressed Castes (e.g. J. Nagappa, K.J. Khand Lal, and Dr B.R. Ambedkar) emphasised that the problem of “untouchables” could not be resolved through protection and safeguards alone; their disabilities were caused by social norms and moral values of caste society. They were not a numerical minority (they were about 20–25% of the population) but they had suffered systematic marginalisation and lacked access to education and power. They demanded reserved seats and measures against untouchability.
5. Women – some argued for women’s rights and representation.

The Constitution finally rejected separate electorates but provided reservations for SCs and STs, and abolished untouchability.

Minorities were defined in different ways: B. Pocker Bahadur saw Muslims as a religious minority needing separate electorates (opposed by Patel, Pant and Begum Aizaz Rasul); N.G. Ranga argued that the real minorities were the poor masses and peasants — an economic definition; Jaipal Singh spoke of tribals as a marginalised, dispossessed group needing reserved seats; and J. Nagappa and Ambedkar argued that the Depressed Castes, though numerous, were oppressed by caste norms and needed reservations and the abolition of untouchability.

Answer

The Constitution provided for three lists — Union, State and Concurrent — with a strong Centre. Some members argued for greater power to the provinces. K. Santhanam from Madras was one of the most powerful defenders of the rights of the states:

1. Not only the Centre needs strengthening – Santhanam argued that not only the states but also the Centre needed to be strengthened; it was a fallacy to think that the Centre would become stronger if it were given more responsibilities. An overburdened Centre would not function effectively.
2. Need for a reallocation of powers – he felt that the Centre should not be given too many powers; if the Centre was overburdened, it would not be able to function effectively. By being relieved of some functions and transferring them to the states, the Centre could be made stronger.
3. Fiscal provisions – he argued that the proposed allocation of powers (and especially of revenue) would cripple the states. Most taxes, except land revenue, had been made the preserve of the Centre; without finances, how could the states undertake any project of development? Provinces would be at the mercy of the Centre.
4. “Dark future” – he said that if the allocation was accepted without modification, in a few years all the provinces would rise in revolt against the Centre — “I do not want any Constitution in which the Unit has to come to the Centre and say ‘I cannot educate my people. I cannot give them sanitation, give me a dole …’”.
5. Unity through autonomy – some members feared that a strong Centre would destroy the federal principle; India’s diversity required greater provincial autonomy; others from the provinces echoed similar fears.

K. Santhanam argued that the Centre would not become stronger by taking on more responsibilities — an overburdened Centre would be ineffective, so some functions should go to the states; that the fiscal provisions, leaving most taxes with the Centre, would cripple the states and make them beg for doles for education and sanitation; and that without provincial autonomy and resources, the provinces might revolt against the Centre.

Answer

1. Language of the common people – Gandhi felt that everyone should speak a language that common people could easily understand. Hindustani — a blend of Hindi and Urdu — was a popular language of a large section of the people of India.
2. Composite culture – it was a composite language enriched by the interaction of diverse cultures. Over the years it had incorporated words and terms from many different sources (Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit, regional languages) and was understood by people from various regions.
3. Bridge between Hindus and Muslims – Gandhi thought that such a multicultural language would be the ideal language of communication between diverse communities: it could unify Hindus and Muslims, and people of the north and the south.
4. Against communal divisions – from the end of the 19th century, Hindustani as a language had been gradually changing. As communal conflicts deepened, Hindi and Urdu also started growing apart: on the one hand, there was a move to Sanskritise Hindi, purging it of all words of Persian and Arabic origin; on the other, Urdu was being increasingly Persianised. As a result, language became associated with the politics of religious identities. Gandhi, however, retained his faith in the composite character of Hindustani.
5. National unity – in his view, Hindustani would be a symbol of national unity, unlike English, which was a foreign language understood only by the elite.

Gandhi favoured Hindustani — a blend of Hindi and Urdu — because it was the language of a large section of common people, a composite language enriched by many cultures, and could serve as a bridge between Hindus and Muslims and between regions. As Hindi was being Sanskritised and Urdu Persianised amid communal tensions, he kept faith in Hindustani’s composite character as a symbol of national unity, unlike elite English.

Exercises – Short essay (about 250–300 words)

Answer

1. The national movement – the Constitution reflected the ideals of the long freedom struggle: democracy, equality, liberty, justice and secularism. The Nehru Report (1928) and the Karachi Resolution (1931) of the Congress on Fundamental Rights and economic policy had already articulated many of these ideas (universal adult franchise, right to freedom and equality, protection of minority rights).
2. Colonial legislation and institutions – the Government of India Act of 1935 and earlier Acts (1909, 1919) provided the institutional framework — federal structure, provincial legislatures, a strong Centre; many provisions of the Constitution were drawn from the 1935 Act. Indians had experience of working in elected provincial governments (1937 elections).
3. Democratic revolutions abroad – Nehru said the Constitution would draw on the democratic ideals of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, fraternity), the American Revolution (constitutional rights), and the Russian Revolution (economic and social justice); also British parliamentary traditions, the Irish Constitution (Directive Principles), etc.
4. Social reform movements – the struggles against caste discrimination (Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar), the women’s movement and peasant movements shaped provisions on equality, abolition of untouchability, reservations and protection of weaker sections.
5. Partition and communal violence – the turbulent times of Partition (1947) and communal riots, the Muslim League’s demands, made the Constituent Assembly reject separate electorates, emphasise national unity and a strong Centre, and adopt secularism.
6. Integration of princely states – the problem of integrating 500+ princely states shaped the federal structure and emphasis on unity.
7. Socio-economic conditions – widespread poverty and inequality led to the inclusion of Directive Principles and the ideal of a welfare state.
8. Debates and compromises – the Constitution emerged through intense debate and discussion in the Constituent Assembly, reflecting public opinion (members received petitions and suggestions from the public) and the views of diverse groups.

The Constitution was shaped by the ideals of the national movement (Nehru Report 1928, Karachi Resolution 1931), colonial institutions like the Government of India Act 1935, democratic revolutions abroad (French, American, Russian) and other constitutions, social reform movements against caste and for women’s rights, the trauma of Partition and communal violence (leading to rejection of separate electorates, a strong Centre and secularism), the integration of princely states, widespread poverty, and intense debate and compromise in the Assembly.

Answer

1. Depressed Castes – members argued that untouchables had been systematically marginalised by caste society and denied access to education, temples, wells, public places; their problem could not be solved only through legal protection. J. Nagappa said: “We have been suffering, but we are prepared to suffer no more … We are the harijans … we are not a minority … we are numerically the largest group.” He argued that if untouchables were given economic and educational opportunities and political power, they would rise. K.J. Khand Lal of Madhya Pradesh said: “We are the people who have been suppressed for thousands of years … we have been held in ignorance.” Dr Ambedkar had demanded separate electorates earlier (Poona Pact compromise); in the Assembly, he argued for reserved seats and legal abolition of untouchability.
   • Outcome: untouchability was abolished, Hindu temples were thrown open to all castes, and seats in legislatures and jobs in government offices were reserved for the lowest castes. Many recognised that this would not solve all problems — social discrimination could only be erased by a change in attitudes — but it was a start.
2. Tribals – Jaipal Singh argued that tribals were not a numerical minority, but needed protection because they had been dispossessed of their land and pushed into forests, treated as primitive and backward by others; they needed to be integrated with the mainstream while protecting their culture. He demanded reserved seats in legislatures so that tribals could voice their concerns: “We have been harassed, neglected and disgraced for the last 6,000 years … I take you at your word that we are going to start a new chapter.”
3. Economic minorities – N.G. Ranga argued that the poor and the peasants were the real minorities; they needed protection and economic rights, as they could not use the rights given by the Constitution without access to schools, legal systems, and economic resources.
4. Religious minorities – B. Pocker Bahadur argued for separate electorates for Muslims; the Assembly rejected them, but provided cultural and educational rights (Articles 29 and 30).
5. Women – arguments for equal rights and representation.

General argument: a just society required that historically oppressed groups be given special protection and opportunities (affirmative action) to make equality real, not just formal.

Depressed Caste members like J. Nagappa and K.J. Khand Lal argued that they had been suppressed for centuries by caste society and needed education, economic opportunity and political power, leading to the abolition of untouchability and reservations in legislatures and jobs. Jaipal Singh argued that dispossessed tribals needed reserved seats and protection. N.G. Ranga argued that the poor and peasants were the real minorities needing economic rights; Muslims’ demand for separate electorates was rejected, but cultural and educational rights were given.

Answer

1. Partition and violence – the debates took place in the context of Partition (1947), accompanied by communal riots and massive violence, and the mass migration of millions. Many members felt that only a strong Centre could restore order, ensure peace and maintain the unity of the country.
2. Dr B.R. Ambedkar declared that he wanted “a strong and united Centre”, “much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act of 1935”.
3. Gopalaswami Ayyangar declared that “the Centre should be made as strong as possible”.
4. Balakrishna Sharma (United Provinces) reasoned at length that only a strong Centre could plan for the well-being of the country, mobilise the available economic resources, establish a proper administration and defend the country against foreign aggression.
5. Reminding members of the riots – members referred to the violence that was ripping the nation apart; e.g. one member said that the Centre should be strong to stop communal frenzy. Many felt that the earlier idea (Cabinet Mission plan) of a weak Centre with considerable provincial autonomy had become irrelevant after Partition.
6. Integration of princely states – a strong Centre was needed to integrate more than 500 princely states.
7. Economic development and planning – a strong Centre was needed for national planning and development.

Result: the Constitution gave the Centre extensive powers — a long Union List, the Concurrent List (where Union law prevails), residuary powers, control over major taxes, emergency powers, and the power to dismiss state governments (Article 356).

Amid Partition, communal riots, mass migration and the integration of princely states, members linked the troubled political situation to the need for a strong Centre: Ambedkar wanted a Centre stronger than under the 1935 Act, Gopalaswami Ayyangar wanted it “as strong as possible”, and Balakrishna Sharma argued that only a strong Centre could plan development, mobilise resources, maintain order and defend the country — leading to extensive Union powers in the Constitution.

Answer

The controversy: 1. By the 1930s, the Congress had accepted Hindustani as the national language. But as communal conflicts deepened, Hindi and Urdu grew apart; Gandhi retained his faith in Hindustani. 2. In the Assembly, R.V. Dhulekar (United Provinces) made an aggressive plea that Hindi be used as the language of constitution-making; he said “people who do not know Hindustani are not worthy to stay in India”. This created an uproar. 3. The Language Committee of the Assembly produced a compromise formula: Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official language, but the transition to Hindi would be gradual — for the first fifteen years, English would continue to be used for all official purposes. Each province was to be allowed to choose one of the regional languages for official work within the province. By calling Hindi the “official language” rather than “national language”, the committee hoped to placate emotions. 4. Opposition from non-Hindi areas – Shrimati G. Durgabai (Madras) said that opposition to Hindi in the south was very strong; non-Hindi speakers feared that Hindi would cut at the root of provincial languages; she had worked for Hindi propaganda in the south following Gandhi’s call, but was shocked at the agitation by Hindi supporters, which made Hindi appear to be imposed; Hindustani was being changed by removing Urdu and regional words. Shankarrao Deo (Bombay) warned that he would support Hindi wholeheartedly only if nothing was done to raise his suspicions. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras) emphasised caution and accommodation: “when we want to live together and form a united nation, there should be mutual adjustment and no question of forcing things on people”.

Resolution (compromise – Munshi–Ayyangar formula): 1. Hindi in Devanagari declared the official language of the Union (not “national language”). 2. English to continue for official purposes for 15 years (till 1965), and Parliament could extend its use. 3. Regional languages – states could adopt their own regional languages for official work; the Eighth Schedule listed the major Indian languages. 4. The state would promote the spread of Hindi, with words drawn from Hindustani and other languages to keep its composite character.

Thus the Constitution was arrived at through a process of give-and-take, forging a middle ground between opposing positions.

After heated debate — R.V. Dhulekar demanding Hindi, and Durgabai, Shankarrao Deo and T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar voicing southern fears and urging accommodation — the Assembly adopted a compromise: Hindi in Devanagari became the official (not national) language, English would continue for official purposes for 15 years, states could use regional languages (listed in the Eighth Schedule), and Hindi would be developed with a composite character.

Exercises – Map work and Projects

Answer

Present-day states and official languages (selected)

Early 1950s map: states were organised largely on the basis of British-era provinces and princely state unions — e.g. Madras State (Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada speakers together), Bombay State (Marathi and Gujarati speakers), Hyderabad State (Telugu, Marathi, Kannada), Part A, B, C, D states (e.g. Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh, PEPSU, Saurashtra, Travancore-Cochin, Mysore).

Differences noticed: - Andhra State was created in 1953 after Potti Sriramulu’s fast; the States Reorganisation Act 1956 reorganised states on linguistic lines (Kerala, Mysore/Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madras/Tamil Nadu); Bombay split into Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960); Punjab split into Punjab and Haryana (and Himachal) in 1966; north-eastern states created (Nagaland 1963, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura 1972, Mizoram, Arunachal 1987); Goa statehood (1987); Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand (2000); Telangana (2014).

Relationship between language and states: the changes show that language became the main basis for organising states — linguistic identity was a powerful force, and creating linguistic states accommodated diversity and strengthened administration and democracy. Later, other factors (tribal identity, regional development, administrative convenience) also shaped new states (e.g. Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Telangana, which speak languages shared with neighbours).

Today most states have their own regional official language (e.g. Tamil in Tamil Nadu, Marathi in Maharashtra, Bengali in West Bengal, Hindi in the Hindi belt, English in some north-eastern states). In the early 1950s, states followed old provinces and princely unions (e.g. multilingual Madras, Bombay and Hyderabad states). Andhra (1953), the 1956 reorganisation, Maharashtra–Gujarat (1960), Punjab–Haryana (1966) and later states show that language became the main basis of organising states, though tribal identity and development also shaped newer states.

Answer

(Sample: the 106th Constitutional Amendment — Women’s Reservation Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam).)

The change: reserves one-third of seats in the Lok Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies and the Delhi Legislative Assembly for women (including within seats reserved for SCs and STs). It will come into effect after the next Census and delimitation, for 15 years (extendable).

Why the change was made: women’s representation in Parliament was very low (about 14–15% in the Lok Sabha in 2019), despite women being about half the population; to promote gender justice, empower women and improve policy-making on issues affecting women.

Arguments for: - Ensures fair representation and gender equality; women’s experience in panchayats (33–50% reservation since the 73rd Amendment, 1992) has been positive. - Helps overcome patriarchal barriers in politics.

Arguments against/concerns: - Demand for a sub-quota for OBC and minority women (raised by some parties). - Delay in implementation (linked to Census and delimitation). - Fear of “proxy” representation; rotation of seats may affect accountability.

Historical background: the demand dates back to the national movement; the Towards Equality report (1974); bills introduced in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2008 (passed by Rajya Sabha in 2010 but lapsed in Lok Sabha); finally passed in September 2023.

Constituent Assembly Debates: women members like Hansa Mehta, Durgabai and Renuka Ray generally opposed reservation for women, arguing that women wanted equality and justice, not special privileges; Renuka Ray said women did not want reservations as they hoped to win on merit. The Assembly instead guaranteed equality before law and universal adult franchise. Views have changed since then because formal equality did not lead to adequate representation.

Sample — the Women’s Reservation Act 2023 (106th Amendment) reserves one-third of Lok Sabha and Assembly seats for women after the next Census and delimitation, because women’s representation remained very low. Supporters cite gender justice and the panchayat experience; critics raise OBC sub-quota demands and delays. The demand goes back to the national movement and bills since 1996; in the Constituent Assembly, women members like Renuka Ray and Hansa Mehta had opposed reservation, seeking equality rather than privilege.

Answer

(Sample: India and the USA — secularism and Centre–state relations.)

1. Secularism: - USA: the First Amendment (1791) says Congress shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — a “wall of separation” between church and state; the state does not fund or intervene in religion. History: early settlers fled religious persecution in Europe and wanted to prevent any state church. - India: no state religion; freedom of religion (Articles 25–28); but the state maintains a “principled distance” — it may intervene in religion to promote social reform and equality (e.g. abolition of untouchability, temple entry, reform of personal laws), and can support religious communities equally (e.g. aid to minority educational institutions). History: a deeply religious, diverse society; experience of Partition and communal violence; caste discrimination embedded in religious practice required state intervention. - Similarity: both prohibit a state religion and guarantee religious freedom. Difference: strict separation (USA) vs judicious distance with intervention (India).

2. Centre–state relations: - USA: a federation formed by the coming together of 13 independent colonies (1787); states retain considerable powers; the federal government has enumerated powers, and residuary powers lie with the states (Tenth Amendment); dual citizenship; states have their own constitutions; equal representation of states in the Senate. - India: a “Union of States” with a federal structure but a strong Centre — three lists (Union, State, Concurrent), residuary powers with the Centre, single citizenship, single constitution (mostly), emergency powers, Article 356, states can be reorganised by Parliament; Rajya Sabha representation by population. History: framed amid Partition, communal violence and the integration of 500+ princely states; need for unity and planned development (“holding together” federation). - Similarity: both are federal with a written constitution, division of powers and an independent judiciary. Difference: the US gives more autonomy to states; India has a strong, unitary bias.

Conclusion: the differences reflect the different historical experiences — the USA’s origin as a union of independent states and its religious history, and India’s diversity, colonial legacy and the trauma of Partition.

Sample — India vs USA: on secularism, the US First Amendment builds a “wall of separation” between church and state (rooted in settlers’ flight from religious persecution), while India keeps a “principled distance” that allows intervention for reform and equality (rooted in religious diversity, caste and Partition). On Centre–state relations, the US is a “coming together” federation with residuary powers in the states, while India is a “Union of States” with a strong Centre, residuary powers with the Union and emergency provisions — reflecting Partition and the integration of princely states.

Topic checklist

• ☒ Objectives Resolution and the vision of the Constitution (Q 1, 5)
• ☒ Minorities and oppressed groups (Q 2, 6)
• ☒ Centre–state relations (Q 3, 7)
• ☒ Language controversy (Q 4, 8, 9)
• ☒ Projects: constitutional change and comparison (Q 10, 11)

Total questions answered: 11 of 11