Celebrating a legacy of shared differences

The lumbering journey of the last 76 years is an inspiring tale.

The 299 members of the Constituent Assembly, tasked with writing the Constitution for an independent India, had deep philosophical differences. For instance, Baba Saheb Ambedkar presented the Hindu Code Bill. It had a proposal for legal settlement of property in case a Hindu man or a woman died without writing a will. It advocated equal distribution of the property among the widow and the sons and daughters of the deceased, mooted changes in Hindu marriage practices that gave Hindu women the right to seek divorce. There was a stiff opposition. Ambedkar and Nehru tried to convince the opposition, but in vain.

Reservations for minorities, scheduled castes and tribes in government institutions too attracted vociferous arguments. Sardar Patel was against any reservation but Ambedkar insisted on it. Pandit Nehru on 29 May, 1949, said: “It won’t be correct to remove reservations for the scheduled castes and tribes. I don’t view it as a problem that a particular religion is in minority and that’s why it should be given reservation. But I consider it a problem if a community is vulnerable and backward and that’s why it should get reservation. I am happy that the provision of reservation is being granted for just 10 years."

Tajmul Hussain, a member from Bihar, denounced reservation in government institutions, “In principle, any reservation based on religion or caste is wrong. My firm conviction is there shouldn’t be any reservations for anyone, and as a Muslim, I say it shouldn’t be extended for Muslims too."

Preparing a draft constitution was a tough task. The Constituent Assembly had to deal with a country divided into princely states, a society divided into castes and religions, a landmass marred by varied geographical features, linguistic divisions and inequality from centuries of poverty.

Let’s look at the views of our founding fathers. Ambedkar and Nehru were in favour of a strong centre. They insisted that after the Partition, a strong centre was needed to maintain the unity of India and to eradicate poverty. Santhanam and supporters favoured more powers for the states and financial support, arguing that states would become liabilities if this wasn’t done.

There was a tussle between the Gandhian and European idea of a state. Many members felt the Constitution should have special emphasis on village panchayats. Dr Ambedkar was dead against it, viewing villages as dens of parochialism and ignorance. Sardar Patel wanted the right to property as a fundamental right, while Nehru and the socialist leaders wanted restrictions to carry out social and land reforms.

The national language issue trumped all debates. South India members were against making Hindi the national language, while those from north were for it. In this, we had Durgabai Deshmukh , a member from Andhra, raise her voice to back Hindi.

Amid these contradicting voices, the draft constitution was prepared and every issue debated. No provision was accepted on the basis of a majority vote. The 12 volumes of Constituent Assembly debates are a testimony that every opposing view was heard and addressed. As the chair of the draft committee, Ambedkar showed exemplary patience. He acted as a bridge between ideologies, answering all queries logically and legally.

For example, the demand for a separate electorate was constantly raised by the Muslim League. It was finally rejected but temporary reservation for the scheduled castes and tribes for 10 years was accepted that continues till date.

Language, reservation and common civil code are still contentious issues. However, it’s not an issue if people are ready to keep moving ahead despite debating these for years. Since the Constituent Assembly’s creation, India has preserved national unity and democracy despite countless setbacks. This trait of India separates us from our neighbours Pakistan and Bangladesh.

We must be grateful to our founding fathers for delicately picking the pearls of wisdom from the sea of opposition to create our Constitution. It’s our duty to preserve the soul of the great text.

Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. Views are personal.