NCERT Solutions Class 12 History
Chapter 12 Framing the Constitution
The Beginning of a New Era
Updated
Syllabus for 2024-2025 Exams
Short Answer Questions (100-150 words)
Q.1 What were the ideals expressed in the Objectives
Resolution?
Answer: The Objectives Resolution was
introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It declared India to be an
“Independent Sovereign Republic” and outlined the principles of
justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as the foundation of the new
constitution. It also guaranteed its citizens’ rights and proposed safeguards
for minorities, backward areas, and oppressed classes. The resolution
emphasized the vision of India as a democratic nation, committed to the welfare
of all its citizens, and set the framework for the constitution-making process.
Q.2 How was the term minority defined by different
groups?
Answer: Different groups had varying
perspectives on the term “minority.” For example, Bahadur from Madras
argued for separate electorates for Muslims, seeing them as a minority needing
political representation. In contrast, Govind Ballabh Pant felt that separate
electorates would isolate minorities. N.G. Ranga emphasized economic
minorities, focusing on the oppressed and downtrodden, such as the poor and
tribal groups. Jaipal Singh represented the tribals, not as a numerical
minority but as people needing protection from exploitation and displacement.
Q.3 What were the arguments in favor of greater power to
the provinces?
Answer: The argument for greater provincial
power centered around concerns that an overly centralized government would be
ineffective and unable to address local needs. K. Santhanam from Madras argued
that overburdening the Centre with responsibilities would weaken it. He
emphasized that fiscal provisions were unfair to the provinces, as the Centre
retained most taxation powers. Without sufficient financial resources, the
provinces would struggle to develop infrastructure and services like education,
leading to dissatisfaction and possible rebellion against the Centre.
Q.4 Why did Mahatma Gandhi think Hindustani should be the
national language?
Answer: Mahatma Gandhi believed that
Hindustani, a blend of Hindi and Urdu, should be the national language as it
was widely understood by the masses and represented India’s composite culture.
He argued that Hindustani, enriched by diverse cultures and languages, could
serve as a unifying force for different communities, including Hindus and
Muslims. Gandhi saw language as an instrument of national integration and
believed that Hindustani, being inclusive and accessible, was the ideal choice
to foster communication and harmony.
Long Answer Questions (250-300 words)
Q.5 What historical forces shaped the vision of the
Constitution?
Answer: The vision of the Indian Constitution
was shaped by a variety of historical forces. The experience of British
colonial rule and the struggle for independence played a pivotal role. The
nationalist movement emphasized democratic values such as justice, equality,
and liberty, which became core principles of the Constitution. The horrors of
partition and communal violence underscored the need for a secular and inclusive
framework that would protect minorities and prevent further division.
The Constituent
Assembly debates were influenced by global examples, such as the American and
French revolutions, which stressed the importance of individual rights and
democratic governance. Leaders like Nehru and Ambedkar were also inspired by
socialist ideas, aiming to create a Constitution that promoted social justice,
economic equality, and the upliftment of marginalized groups. The challenges of
managing India’s vast diversity, including linguistic and cultural differences,
were also key factors shaping the Constitution’s vision.
Q.6 Discuss the different arguments made in favor of
protection of the oppressed groups.
Answer: Several arguments were made in the
Constituent Assembly for the protection of oppressed groups like Dalits and
tribals. B.R. Ambedkar, who chaired the Drafting Committee, emphasized the need
for constitutional safeguards, such as the abolition of untouchability and
reservation of seats in legislatures and government jobs. He believed these
measures were essential to ensure the social and political integration of
Dalits.
N.G. Ranga
advocated for the economic protection of marginalized groups, arguing that the
real minorities were the poor, who had been oppressed for centuries. Jaipal
Singh, representing the tribals, demanded protection for his people, who had
been dispossessed of their land and resources. He called for reservation of
seats in the legislature to give tribals a voice in the political system. These
arguments highlighted the need for affirmative action to address historical
injustices and ensure equal opportunities for all.
Q.7 What connection did some of the members of the
Constituent Assembly make between the political situation of the time and the
need for a strong Centre?
Answer: Many members of the Constituent
Assembly linked the turbulent political situation of the time, especially the
communal violence following Partition, to the need for a strong central
government. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar argued that a
strong Centre was essential to maintain law and order, prevent further communal
strife, and ensure national unity. The violence and disorder of the time made
it clear that the Centre needed the authority to act decisively in matters of
national security and development.
Gopalaswami
Ayyangar and Balakrishna Sharma further emphasized that only a strong central
government could effectively mobilize resources for economic planning and
protect the country from external threats. The experience of Partition, which
had weakened the provinces and fueled communal tensions, reinforced the belief
that the Centre must have sufficient power to maintain the integrity and
stability of the newly independent nation.
Q.8 How did the Constituent Assembly seek to resolve the
language controversy?
Answer: The language controversy in the
Constituent Assembly was intense, with Hindi speakers advocating for Hindi to
be the national language and others, particularly from non-Hindi-speaking
regions, fearing the imposition of Hindi. The Language Committee of the
Constituent Assembly proposed a compromise: Hindi in the Devanagari script
would be the official language, but English would continue to be used for
official purposes for a transitional period of 15 years. Each province was also
allowed to choose its own regional language for official use within the state.
This compromise
aimed to placate both Hindi and non-Hindi-speaking members. Leaders like
Durgabai from Madras expressed concerns that promoting Hindi too aggressively
would undermine the cultural and linguistic diversity of the nation. The
Assembly, therefore, sought to strike a balance between promoting a common
language for communication and respecting the linguistic diversity of India.
Q.9 On a
present-day political map of India, indicate the different languages spoken in
each state and mark out the one that is designated as the language for official
communication. Compare the present map with a map of the early 1950s. What
differences do you notice? Do the differences say something about the
relationship between language and the organisation of the states?
Answer: In present-day India, each state has
a designated official language, which is often the most widely spoken language
in that region. For instance:
- Andhra Pradesh: Telugu
- Assam: Assamese
- Bihar: Hindi
- Goa: Konkani
- Gujarat: Gujarati
- Karnataka: Kannada
- Kerala: Malayalam
- Maharashtra: Marathi
- Odisha: Odia
- Punjab: Punjabi
- Rajasthan: Hindi
- Tamil Nadu: Tamil
- Telangana: Telugu
- Uttar Pradesh: Hindi
- West Bengal: Bengali
Many states
also have secondary official languages to accommodate linguistic diversity,
like English, Urdu, or other regional languages.
When comparing
this map to one from the early 1950s, significant differences can be observed.
After independence, India was reorganized largely based on linguistic lines.
This process began with the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 for
Telugu-speaking people and continued with the States Reorganisation Act of
1956, which reorganized state boundaries to better align with linguistic
communities.
In the 1950s,
states were often multilingual, and boundaries were drawn based on
administrative and political considerations rather than linguistic ones. Over
time, as linguistic movements gained momentum, states were reorganized to
reflect linguistic identities more accurately. For example, the bifurcation of
Bombay State led to the creation of Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960, based on
linguistic differences between Gujarati and Marathi speakers.
These
differences reflect a strong relationship between language and the organization
of states in India. The redrawing of state boundaries based on linguistic
identity was crucial in promoting regional autonomy and reducing tensions. It
acknowledged language as a vital part of cultural identity and governance,
leading to a more stable and cohesive political structure in the country.
Q.10 Choose any one important constitutional change that
has happened in recent years. Find out why the change was made, what different
arguments were put forward for the change, and the historical background to the
change. If you can, try and look at the Constitutional Assembly Debates (http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm)
to see how the issue was discussed at that time. Write about your findings.
Answer: One of the most significant
constitutional changes in recent years is the abrogation of Article 370
in 2019, which granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and
Kashmir. The provision was included in the Indian Constitution under temporary
measures, with the intention that the region’s status would be finalized later
through mutual dialogue.
Reasons for the
Change: The
government argued that Article 370 had prevented the full integration of Jammu
and Kashmir with the rest of India, creating legal and political barriers.
Proponents of the abrogation felt it was necessary to bring Jammu and Kashmir
in line with other Indian states to promote national unity, development, and
better governance.
Arguments For: Supporters of the change argued that
Article 370 was an obstacle to investment and development in the region. They
also believed that the provision allowed separatist sentiments to thrive and
hindered the government’s ability to effectively administer the region. By
removing Article 370, they argued that the state would benefit from the same
laws and economic policies as other Indian states, fostering growth and
stability.
Arguments
Against: Critics of
the move, including many in Jammu and Kashmir, saw the abrogation as a breach
of trust. Article 370 had been seen as a guarantee of the region’s autonomy
when it acceded to India in 1947. Some also feared that the change could
exacerbate tensions and unrest, with the potential for communal and regional
conflicts to escalate.
Historical
Background: During the
Constituent Assembly debates, Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was a
contentious issue. Article 370 was initially intended as a temporary provision,
reflecting the unique circumstances under which the state joined India.
However, over time, the provision became a symbol of Kashmir’s distinct
identity and autonomy within India. The debate around Article 370 reflects the
larger issues of federalism, regional identity, and national unity that have
been a recurring theme in Indian constitutional history.
Q.11 Compare the Constitution of America, France, or
South Africa with the Indian Constitution, focusing on any two of the following
themes: secularism, minority rights, relations between the Centre and the
states. Find out how these differences and similarities are linked to the
histories of the regions.
Answer: Comparison Between Indian and
American Constitutions on Secularism and Minority Rights:
- Secularism:
- India: The Indian Constitution
promotes a model of secularism where the state maintains a
“principled distance” from all religions, meaning that it does
not favor any particular religion, but also does not entirely separate
itself from religion. The Indian government can intervene in religious
matters, such as reforms for social justice (e.g., banning untouchability
or religious discrimination). Articles 25-28 of the Constitution grant
freedom of religion to all citizens, ensuring that all religions are
treated equally. - America: The United States follows a
strict “separation of church and state” model, derived from the
First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of any state religion.
The American government cannot make any law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. This model of
secularism is deeply rooted in the American founding principles of
individual liberty and the protection of personal freedoms.
Link to History: India’s secularism is influenced by its religious
diversity and the need to ensure harmony between various religious communities.
Secularism in India was designed to manage the complexities of a
multi-religious society, avoiding favoritism while ensuring social justice. In
contrast, the U.S. model reflects its historical context, where the separation
of church and state was a reaction to the oppressive state religions of Europe.
The American approach emphasizes individual religious freedom.
- Minority Rights:
- India: The Indian Constitution
provides a broad framework for the protection of minority rights,
particularly religious and linguistic minorities. Articles 29 and 30
specifically grant cultural and educational rights to minorities,
allowing them to preserve their languages, cultures, and educational
institutions. The aim is to ensure that minority communities are not
marginalized and can thrive within the broader Indian society. - America: In the U.S., minority rights
are primarily protected through the Bill of Rights and subsequent civil
rights legislation. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under
the law, which has been the basis for addressing racial and ethnic
minority issues. Unlike India, there are no specific provisions for
religious or linguistic minorities, as the U.S. emphasizes individual
rights over group rights. Civil rights laws focus on preventing
discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity.
Link to History: In India, the protection of minority rights was
influenced by the partition and the desire to prevent further communal
conflicts. The framers of the Constitution aimed to create a framework that
would allow minorities to coexist peacefully in a diverse society. In the U.S.,
the protection of minority rights has been shaped by the history of slavery and
racial segregation, with the civil rights movement playing a crucial role in
securing rights for African Americans and other minorities.
Extra Question:
Short Answer Questions (100-150 words)
Q.9 Why does the speaker in Source 2 think that the Constituent
Assembly was under the shadow of British guns?
Answer: The speaker in Source 2, Somnath
Lahiri, believed that the Constituent Assembly was working under the influence
of British imperialism. He pointed out that despite the progress toward
independence, the Assembly was functioning under the constraints imposed by the
British, including the presence of British military forces and the control they
still exercised over the administration. Lahiri argued that the Assembly was
not fully free to make decisions independently, as it had to operate within the
framework laid out by the British. He highlighted the need for Indians to break
free from the lingering influence of colonial rule.
Q.10 How does G.B. Pant define the attributes of a loyal
citizen?
Answer: G.B. Pant emphasized that a loyal
citizen must focus on the larger interests of the nation rather than personal
or community interests. In his view, for democracy to succeed, individuals
needed to practice self-discipline and prioritize the collective good. Pant
argued that divided loyalties, where people identified more with their
community than with the nation as a whole, would be detrimental to the unity of
the country. He advocated for the idea that citizens should have their loyalty
centered around the State, ensuring that they contributed to building a strong
and cohesive nation.
Long Answer Questions (250-300 words)
Q.11 What were the different arguments put forward
against separate electorates?
Answer: Several members of the Constituent
Assembly opposed the idea of separate electorates, which had been proposed by
some minority groups, particularly Muslims. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was one of
the strongest voices against separate electorates, arguing that they had
already caused significant harm by dividing the nation and leading to the
Partition. Patel believed that continuing separate electorates would perpetuate
communal divisions, leading to further conflict and instability.
Govind Ballabh
Pant also opposed separate electorates, stating that they would isolate
minorities from the mainstream and deprive them of a true voice in governance.
He believed that minorities would benefit more from being integrated into the
political system rather than being segregated. Pant argued that separate
electorates would lead to a sense of frustration and helplessness among
minorities, as they would be unable to convert themselves into a majority or
have any real influence on national decision-making.
Some members
also viewed separate electorates as a British legacy, designed to weaken India
by promoting communal divisions. They felt that India’s future as a united
nation required a political system where all citizens, regardless of their
religion or community, participated in elections as equals, without any distinctions.
Overall, the
arguments against separate electorates centered on the need for national unity,
the dangers of communalism, and the importance of integrating minorities into
the political mainstream.
Q.12 What were the different arguments made by Jaipal
Singh in demanding protective measures for the tribals?
Answer: Jaipal Singh, a representative of the
tribal communities, made an impassioned plea for protective measures for
tribals, who had been historically marginalized and exploited. Singh emphasized
that the tribals had been neglected for thousands of years and subjected to
continuous exploitation, particularly through the loss of their land and
resources. He argued that the tribals were not a numerical minority but a group
that needed protection due to their socio-economic vulnerabilities.
Singh
highlighted that the tribals had been dispossessed of their traditional lands
and deprived of access to forests and pastures, which had forced them to
migrate and live in impoverished conditions. He called for reservation of seats
in the legislature as a means of ensuring that tribals could represent
themselves and have a voice in national decision-making.
He also
stressed that integrating tribals into mainstream society was essential, and
they should not be treated as backward or primitive. Instead, Singh urged that
tribals be given equal opportunities to progress and contribute to the nation’s
development. He believed that protective measures, such as reservations, were
necessary to uplift the tribals and ensure that they were not left behind in
independent India.