NCERT Solutions Class 12 History Chapter 12 Framing the Constitution

Concept used. The Objectives Resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It was a momentous resolution that outlined the defining ideals of the Constitution and set the ground rules within which constitution-making would proceed. "Ideals" here means the guiding values and goals it proclaimed for the new nation.

The Objectives Resolution expressed these ideals:

1. An independent sovereign republic. It proclaimed India to be an "Independent Sovereign Republic". Nehru insisted India was bound to be sovereign, independent and a republic.
2. Justice, equality and freedom. It guaranteed to all citizens justice, equality and freedom, the core promises of a democratic order.
3. Safeguards for the weak. It assured that "adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and Depressed and Other Backward Classes", protecting those most likely to be left behind.
4. Democracy and economic justice. Though the word "democratic" was not used (Nehru said "republic" already contained it), he claimed the resolution gave the content of democracy and even of economic democracy, fusing liberal democracy with the socialist idea of economic justice.
5. An Indian path, not a copy. Nehru placed the project in the line of the American and French revolutions, but stressed "We are not going just to copy": the system had to fit the temper of the Indian people.

The Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 13 December 1946) proclaimed India an "Independent Sovereign Republic"; guaranteed its citizens justice, equality and freedom; assured adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and the Depressed and Other Backward Classes; gave the content of democracy and economic democracy; and insisted India would not just copy other constitutions but build one fitting its own people.

Concept used. A minority is usually a group smaller in number than the majority and so at risk of being ignored. In the Constituent Assembly, "Who could be defined as a minority?" had no shared answer; different speakers stretched the term in different directions.

The term was defined in these different ways:

1. Religious minorities (B. Pocker Bahadur). For B. Pocker Bahadur of Madras, minorities meant religious communities, above all Muslims, whose needs could not be understood by non-Muslims. He pleaded for separate electorates so that minorities could have a meaningful voice.
2. Economic minority: the masses (N. G. Ranga). The socialist N. G. Ranga argued the term should be read in economic terms. "The real minorities are the masses of this country", the poor, tribals and villagers exploited by money-lenders, landlords and merchants. They "need props a ladder."
3. Tribals (Jaipal Singh). The Adivasi orator Jaipal Singh said tribals were not a numerical minority but still needed protection, having been dispossessed of land, forests and pastures and treated as primitive.
4. The Depressed Castes (Nagappa, Dakshayani Velayudhan). J. Nagappa noted the Depressed Castes were 20–25 per cent of the population, not a minority by number; their suffering was from systematic marginalisation. Dakshayani Velayudhan refused to see seventy million Harijans as a minority, asking instead for the removal of social disabilities.

Different groups defined "minority" differently. Bahadur meant religious communities (especially Muslims) and wanted separate electorates. Ranga read it in economic terms, the poor masses, tribals and villagers, as the real minorities. Jaipal Singh said tribals, though not a numerical minority, needed protection. Nagappa and Dakshayani Velayudhan argued the Depressed Castes (20–25 per cent of the people) were not a minority by number but suffered from caste marginalisation.

Concept used. Federalism divides power between a central government and the states. The Draft Constitution leaned heavily towards the Centre, placing many subjects under exclusive Union control. Some members argued the balance should tilt back towards the provinces (states).

The arguments in favour of greater power to the provinces were:

1. A strong Centre needs strong states (K. Santhanam). K. Santhanam of Madras argued that piling all powers on the Centre was a misconception: an overburdened Centre could not function effectively. By transferring some functions to the states, the Centre itself would actually become stronger.
2. The fiscal provisions would cripple the states. Most taxes, except land revenue, had been made the preserve of the Centre. Without finances the provinces could not undertake development. As Santhanam put it, no state should have to come to the Centre begging "I cannot educate my people give me a dole".
3. Fewer items on the Union and Concurrent lists. Many members from the provinces fought hard for fewer subjects to be placed on the Concurrent and Union lists, so that the states kept more authority of their own.
4. Over-centralisation risks revolt. A member from Orissa warned that "the Centre is likely to break" because powers had been excessively centralised. Santhanam predicted that within a few years the provinces would "rise in revolt against the Centre".

Those favouring provincial power, led by K. Santhanam, argued that an overburdened Centre could not work well, so giving functions to the states would make even the Centre stronger; that the fiscal provisions, with most taxes going to the Centre, would impoverish the provinces and stop development; that fewer items should be on the Union and Concurrent lists; and that excessive centralisation risked the provinces rising in "revolt", since "the Centre is likely to break".

Concept used. Hindustani was a blend of Hindi and Urdu, a popular spoken language enriched by the interaction of many cultures. A national language is the language meant to unite the whole nation. The question asks why Gandhi wanted this composite tongue, not pure Hindi, to play that role.

Mahatma Gandhi favoured Hindustani for these reasons:

1. Common people could understand it. Gandhi felt everyone should speak a language that ordinary people could easily understand. Hindustani was the everyday language of a large section of Indians.
2. It was a composite, multi-cultural language. Over the years Hindustani had absorbed words from many sources, so it was understood across different regions. Its very richness came from mixing, not purity.
3. It could unite Hindus and Muslims. Because it blended Hindi and Urdu, Gandhi believed it could unify Hindus and Muslims, the two communities then drifting apart as Hindi was Sanskritised and Urdu Persianised.
4. It could join north and south. Gandhi saw Hindustani as the ideal medium of communication between diverse communities, able to bring together people of the north and the south.

A few months before his death (Harijan Sevak, 12 October 1947), Gandhi insisted this Hindustani should be "neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised Urdu but a happy combination of both", freely admitting words from regional and even foreign languages.

Gandhi thought Hindustani, a composite blend of Hindi and Urdu, should be the national language because ordinary people across India could easily understand it; because it was a multi-cultural language enriched by many sources; and above all because, by combining Hindi and Urdu, it could unify Hindus and Muslims and connect the people of the north and the south, unlike a Sanskritised Hindi or a Persianised Urdu tied to a single religious identity.

Concept used. The vision of the Constitution, democracy, equality, justice, rights, was not invented in 1946. It grew out of decades of struggle and ideas. "Historical forces" means the long-running movements and events that shaped what the framers wanted.

1. The national movement. The struggle against a government "seen as oppressive and illegitimate" was inevitably a struggle for democracy and justice, for citizens' rights and equality. Through it, Congress members had learnt to debate ideas in public and negotiate differences, a habit carried into the Assembly. Democracy, equality and justice had become intimately associated with Indian social struggles since the nineteenth century.

2. Nineteenth-century social reform. The reformers shaped the demand for social justice: those who opposed child marriage and asked that widows be allowed to remarry, Vivekananda's reform of Hinduism, Jyotiba Phule's attack on the suffering of the depressed castes, and the Communists and Socialists organising workers and peasants for economic and social justice.

3. Earlier constitutional reforms. As the demand for representation grew, the British passed Acts in 1909, 1919 and 1935, slowly enlarging Indian participation. Under the 1935 Act the Congress came to power in eight of the eleven provinces in 1937, giving Indians real experience of self-government, though the franchise stayed limited to 10–15 per cent.

4. The example of world revolutions. In moving the Objectives Resolution, Nehru looked to the American and French Revolutions and to the Russian Revolution, locating India's effort within a long history of struggle for liberty, while insisting "We are not going just to copy".

5. The trauma of Partition. The violence, refugee crisis and division of 1947 pushed the framers towards a strong Centre and a secular order that could hold a divided country together.

Conclusion. The vision fused the liberal idea of democracy with the socialist idea of economic justice, re-worked for India, drawing on the national movement, social reform, the experience of the 1909–35 Acts, world revolutions and the shock of Partition.

The vision was shaped by the national movement (which made democracy, rights and equality central goals and taught the leaders to debate and negotiate); by nineteenth-century social reform (Phule, the reformers, Socialists demanding social and economic justice); by the earlier constitutional Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935 that gave Indians limited self-government; by the example of the American, French and Russian revolutions; and by the trauma of Partition. These forces fused liberal democracy with economic justice, re-worked for India.

Concept used. Oppressed groups in the debates meant the minorities, the tribals, the Depressed Castes and women, those long denied rights, dignity or a fair share. "Protection" meant special measures so they could enjoy equality in practice, not just on paper.

1. Minorities need a real voice. B. Pocker Bahadur argued minorities could not be "erased out of existence"; democracy's success is judged by the confidence it gives all sections. They needed to be well represented and heard, though his remedy, separate electorates, was rejected as divisive.

2. The masses are the real minority (Ranga). N. G. Ranga said legal rights alone were meaningless to poor villagers. The exploited masses, tribals robbed of their land, villagers in the grip of money-lenders and zamindars, "need props a ladder". They required economic and social protection to make their rights real.

3. Tribals must be brought into the nation (Jaipal Singh). Jaipal Singh, an Adivasi, said tribals had been "neglected for the last 6,000 years", dispossessed of land, forests and pastures. They were not a numerical minority but needed protection. He asked not for separate electorates but for reservation of seats so tribals could represent themselves and be brought near the rest of society: "you have got to mix with us."

4. The Depressed Castes want dignity, not just safeguards. Speakers like J. Nagappa and Dakshayani Velayudhan stressed that the Depressed Castes (20–25 per cent of the people) suffered from caste society's moral values, not from being few. They wanted the "immediate removal of social disabilities", temple entry and an end to untouchability.

5. Women want equality, not privilege (Hansa Mehta). Hansa Mehta demanded justice for women: "We have never asked for privileges What we have asked for is social, economic and political justice", the equality on which mutual respect rests.

Conclusion. The arguments ranged from political representation (Bahadur) to economic support (Ranga), reservation for tribals (Jaipal Singh), the abolition of untouchability (the Depressed Castes) and equality for women (Hansa Mehta). The Assembly finally chose to abolish untouchability, throw open temples, and reserve seats and jobs for the lowest castes and tribals, while recognising that law alone could not change social attitudes.

Different speakers argued for protecting different oppressed groups: Bahadur for a real political voice for minorities; Ranga for economic "props and a ladder" for the exploited masses; Jaipal Singh for reservation of seats so neglected tribals could represent themselves and join the nation; Nagappa and Dakshayani Velayudhan for the removal of social disabilities, temple entry and the end of untouchability for the Depressed Castes; and Hansa Mehta for equality and justice (not privilege) for women. The Assembly responded with abolition of untouchability and reservation of seats and jobs.

Concept used. A strong Centre is a central government holding more powers than the states. The "political situation of the time" was the aftermath of Partition: communal violence, a refugee crisis and the problem of the princely states. Several members linked this turmoil directly to the case for centralising power.

Members made these connections:

1. Partition removed the reason for decentralisation. Before Partition the Congress had agreed to grant considerable autonomy to the provinces to reassure the Muslim League that the Centre would not interfere where the League ruled. After Partition, most nationalists changed their position, since "the earlier political pressures for a decentralised structure were no longer there".
2. Nehru: a weak Centre would injure the country. In a letter to the President of the Assembly, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote that "now that partition is a settled fact", it would be injurious to provide for a weak central authority incapable of ensuring peace, coordinating common concerns, and speaking effectively for the whole country abroad.
3. A strong Centre to stop the communal frenzy. Reminding members of the riots and violence ripping the nation apart, many argued the Centre's powers had to be greatly strengthened to halt the communal frenzy. Ambedkar declared he wanted "a strong and united Centre, much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act of 1935".
4. A strong Centre to plan and defend. Gopalaswami Ayyangar said the Centre "should be made as strong as possible". Balakrishna Sharma reasoned that only a strong Centre could plan for the country's well-being, mobilise economic resources, run a proper administration and defend the country against foreign aggression.

Conclusion. Members connected the violence, the refugee crisis and the need for unity, peace and planning directly to centralisation. The Constitution therefore showed "a distinct bias towards the rights of the Union of India over those of its constituent states".

Members linked the post-Partition turmoil to the need for a strong Centre. Partition removed the earlier reason to decentralise (reassuring the Muslim League); Nehru warned a weak Centre would be injurious now that partition was settled; the communal riots convinced many, including Ambedkar, that the Centre had to be far stronger than under the 1935 Act to stop the violence; and only a strong Centre could plan the economy, administer well and defend the country. So the Constitution leaned towards the Union over the states.

Concept used. The language controversy pitted those who wanted Hindi as the national language (like R. V. Dhulekar) against those, especially from the south and the non-Hindi areas, who feared the domination of Hindi over their own languages. The Assembly's task was to find a compromise all could accept.

The Assembly sought to resolve the controversy in these ways:

1. Through a Language Committee and a compromise formula. The Language Committee of the Constituent Assembly produced a report with a compromise formula to bridge the deadlock between the supporters and opponents of Hindi.
2. "Official" language, not "national" language. The Committee carefully called Hindi the official language rather than the national language. This change of word was meant to "placate ruffled emotions" and reassure those who feared one language being imposed as supreme.
3. Hindi in Devanagari, but a gradual transition. It decided that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official language, but the shift would be slow. For the first fifteen years, English would continue for all official purposes.
4. Room for the regional languages. Each province was to be allowed to choose one of its regional languages for official work within the province, protecting linguistic diversity.

Yet the compromise did not silence the fears. Dhulekar still wanted Hindi declared a national language; G. Durgabai and others from the south warned that aggressive Hindi propaganda "cuts at the very root of the provincial languages". Members like Ramalingam Chettiar pleaded that nothing be "forced on people", so that "there should be mutual adjustment".

Through its Language Committee, the Assembly framed a compromise: Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official (not national) language; the word "official" was chosen to calm fears of imposition; the transition would be gradual, with English continuing for all official purposes for the first fifteen years; and each province could pick one of its regional languages for its own official work. This middle ground tried to satisfy both Hindi supporters and the non-Hindi areas, though some fears remained.

Concept used. This is a map-work and comparison task. On a present-day political map you mark each state's main spoken language and its official language, then compare with an early-1950s map (before the linguistic reorganisation of states) and explain the link between language and state boundaries. Below is the guide; do the marking on your own outline maps.

1. Mark each state's language on the present map. For every state, write the chief spoken language and underline the one chosen for official communication, for example Tamil (Tamil Nadu), Telugu (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana), Kannada (Karnataka), Malayalam (Kerala), Marathi (Maharashtra), Gujarati (Gujarat), Bengali (West Bengal), Hindi (across the northern states), and so on.
2. Draw an early-1950s map. Show the larger, multi-lingual provinces of the early 1950s (such as the old Madras, Bombay and Central Provinces), before states were redrawn on language lines.
3. Note the differences. The present map has many more, smaller states, each centred on one main language; the 1950s map had fewer, larger provinces mixing several languages. New states (Andhra Pradesh in 1953, then the wider reorganisation of 1956, and later Telangana) appear only on the present map.
4. Explain the link. The differences show that language became the basis for organising the states: people demanded states where their own language was dominant, so the map was redrawn so that state boundaries largely matched language boundaries.

On the present map, mark each state's main spoken language and underline its official language (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, Hindi and so on). On the early-1950s map, show the larger multi-lingual provinces (old Madras, Bombay, Central Provinces). The difference is that today there are many more, smaller, mostly single-language states. This shows that language became the basis for reorganising the states, so boundaries were redrawn to match language regions.

Concept used. This is a project (constitutional change). You pick one important amendment or change to the Constitution in recent years, then study why it was made, the arguments for and against it, its historical background, and how the issue was discussed in the original Constituent Assembly Debates. There is no single right answer; you are marked on research and balanced argument.

1. Choose a change and explain why it was made. Pick one well-documented change, for example the 73rd and 74th Amendments (panchayats and municipalities), the Right to Education (86th Amendment), the GST (101st Amendment), or the abrogation of Article 370. State the problem it was meant to solve.
2. Set out the arguments for and against. Gather the different arguments put forward, supporters' reasons and critics' objections, so your account is balanced, just as the chapter shows clashing views on every issue.
3. Give the historical background. Trace how the issue arose: the social, political or economic conditions that led to the demand, and any earlier attempts at reform.
4. Look at the Constituent Assembly Debates. Check whether the original framers discussed the same theme (for instance, local self-government, the right to education, or Centre-state powers) and compare their views with the later change.
5. Write up your findings. Present a short report: the change, why it was made, the arguments, the background, and the link (or contrast) with the original debates.

Pick one important recent constitutional change (such as the 73rd/74th Amendments, the Right to Education, GST, or Article 370). Report on why it was made (the problem it addressed), the different arguments for and against it, its historical background, and how the same theme was discussed in the Constituent Assembly Debates. Write up a short, balanced account linking the recent change to the founders' original thinking.

Concept used. This is a comparative project. You choose one foreign constitution (the USA, France or South Africa) and compare it with the Indian Constitution on any two of three themes, secularism, minority rights, and Centre-state relations, then link the differences to each country's history. There is no fixed answer; the marks are for careful comparison.

1. Choose a country and two themes. For example, compare India with the USA on Centre-state relations and secularism, or with France on secularism and minority rights.
2. Compare secularism. India has a "judicious distance" between state and religion, with no absolute separation but equal treatment of all faiths; the USA has a "wall of separation"; France has strict laicite. Note where India's model differs and why.
3. Compare minority rights. India gives cultural and educational rights to minorities (Articles 29–30) and reservation for the Depressed Castes and tribals; the USA relies on individual equality; South Africa, after apartheid, built strong group protections into its constitution. Compare the approaches.
4. Compare Centre-state relations. India is a strong-Centre federation (more items on the Union list, Article 356); the USA is a more classic federation with greater state autonomy. Set the difference side by side.
5. Link to history. Explain the differences by history: India's Partition and diversity pushed it towards a strong Centre and a protective secularism; America's history of independent colonies gave it stronger states; France's revolution shaped its strict secularism; South Africa's apartheid past shaped its emphasis on minority and group rights.

Choose one country (USA, France or South Africa) and any two themes (secularism, minority rights, Centre-state relations). Compare them with India: for example, India's "judicious distance" secularism versus the US "wall of separation" or French laicite; India's cultural rights and reservation versus US individual equality or South Africa's group protections; India's strong-Centre federalism versus US state autonomy. Then explain the differences by history, India's Partition and diversity, America's colonial origins, France's revolution, South Africa's apartheid past.