Framing the Constitution: The Beginning of a New Era

The Objectives Resolution expressed the basic ideals of the Constitution of independent India. It declared India to be an Independent Sovereign Republic. It guaranteed the people justice, equality and freedom. It also promised that adequate safeguards would be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes. In short, it set out the vision of a democratic state built on liberty, equality, justice and protection for weaker sections.

Different groups defined minority in different ways. For some, especially those arguing for separate electorates, minorities were religious communities like Muslims who needed special political safeguards. Others broadened the meaning: N.G. Ranga said the real minorities were the poor and downtrodden masses. Jaipal Singh argued that tribals were not a numerical minority, but they still needed protection because they had been dispossessed and neglected. Depressed Castes members said they were not a minority by number, but were oppressed through caste discrimination. Thus, minority could mean a religious community, a tribal group, a socially oppressed group, or the economically weak.

Those in favour of greater power to the provinces argued that the Centre was being made too strong. K. Santhanam said that if too many powers were added to the Centre, it would become overburdened and ineffective; by transferring some powers to the states, the Centre could actually become stronger. He also argued that the provinces would be crippled without finances, because they would be unable to provide education, sanitation, roads and development. Others feared that excessive centralisation would make the provinces rise in revolt against the Centre. So their main argument was that a balanced distribution of powers was necessary for real federalism and for provincial development.

Mahatma Gandhi believed that Hindustani should be the national language because it was a composite and widely understood language. He saw it as a blend of Hindi and Urdu that had grown out of interaction among different cultures. According to him, it could be understood by people from different regions and could help unite Hindus and Muslims as well as people from the north and south. He also felt that the language should not be confined to Sanskritised Hindi or Persianised Urdu, but should freely absorb words from regional and even foreign languages so that it could become a rich and flexible medium of communication.

Several historical forces shaped the vision of the Constitution. First was the experience of the national movement, which made democracy, equality and justice central ideals. Second was the upheaval of the Partition, communal violence and refugee crisis, which convinced many leaders of the need for a united state and safeguards for minorities. Third was the long history of social reform struggles against child marriage, untouchability, caste oppression and inequality, which shaped ideas of social justice. Fourth was the earlier experience of constitutional reforms under colonial rule in 1909, 1919 and 1935, which expanded representation but remained limited and colonial. Finally, Indian leaders also drew inspiration from foreign revolutions and constitutions such as those of America, France and Russia, but wanted to adapt ideas creatively to Indian conditions rather than simply copy them.

The oppressed groups were protected through different arguments. Linguistic and religious minorities asked for safeguards so their rights and culture would not be ignored. N.G. Ranga said the real minorities were the poor masses, so protection had to be economic as well as legal. Jaipal Singh argued that tribals had been dispossessed of land, forests and pastures, so they needed reservation of seats and measures that would force others to hear their voice. Depressed Castes representatives said their problem was not numerical weakness but centuries of social oppression; they demanded abolition of untouchability, access to temples, reservations in legislatures and jobs, and social change. Women members like Hansa Mehta demanded social, economic and political justice, not privileges. Thus protection was argued for as a means of dignity, representation, equality and real freedom, not merely special treatment.