Apart from the bulkiness and the complexity which made the critics of the Constitution assail it as a lawyer’s paradise, there were also other serious criticisms which deserve at least a mention.

(1) One of the most important of these criticisms has been that no part of the Constitution represents the ancient policy of India, its genius and the spirit of its hallowed and glorious traditions. Many members in the Constituent Assembly drew the attention of the House and country to this omission.

Some of them also pointed out that the Constitution did not embody the principles for which “Gandhism” stood or the ideology of the Indian National Congress. Others thought that it should have been “raised and built upon village panchayats and district panchayats”. A few extremists even advocated the abolition of the Central and the Provincial Governments. They just wanted an India full of village governments!

Answering these criticisms, Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“The love of the intellectual Indian for the village community is of course infinite if not pathetic {Laughter). It is largely due to the fulsome praise bestowed upon it by Metcalfe who described them as little republics having nearly everything that they want within themselves, and almost independent of any foreign relations.

The existence of these village communities each one forming a separate little State in itself has, according to Metcalfe, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India, through all the revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and is in a high degree conducive to their happiness and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.

No doubt the village communities did not care to consider what little part they have played in the affairs and the destiny of the country and why? Their part in the destiny of the country has been well described by Metcalfe himself who says: ‘Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down.

Revolution succeeds to revolution. Hindoo, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English are all masters in turn but the village communities remain the same. In times of trouble they arm and fortify themselves. A hostile army passes through the country. The village communities collect their little cattle within their walls, and let the enemy pass unprovoked”.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“Such is the part the village communities have played in the history of their country. Knowing this, what pride can one feel in them? That they have survived through all vicissitudes may be a fact. But mere survival has no value. The question is on what plane they have survived.

Surely on a low, on a selfish level. I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India. I am therefore surprised that those who condemn provincialism and communalism should come forward as champions of the village.

What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow- mindedness and communalism? I am glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.”

Ambedkar’s criticism has been largely justified in the light of the performance of village panchayats wherever they have been established in the country. There can be no doubt that stability and security of Indian democracy depend largely on the successful functioning of the village panchayats which have to become its real backbone.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

But the fact is that the village panchayats, today, are nowhere near that position. And it is doubtful whether they would in the near future develop themselves to assume such a role.

Nothing but all round education and the cultivation of civic virtues and responsibilities at the village level can build, over a period of years, a sound foundation for a democratic system to flourish in the country.

If the Constitution had attempted to establish straightway “village republics” in mid-twentieth century on the plea that such institutions flourished in the country in the remote past, ignoring the conditions of the modern technological age, there would have been nothing but confusion and anarchy, and the unity that was established as a result of so much sacrifice would have been lost in no time once again, perhaps for ever.

(2) Critics of the federal provisions can be divided into two categories. According to most of them, the Centre has been made too strong. But some of them wanted it to be made stronger. The Constitution has struck a balance. As Ambedkar said:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

“However much you may deny powers to the Centre, it is difficult to prevent the Centre from becoming strong. Conditions in the modern world are such that centralisation of powers is inevitable.

One has only to consider the growth of the Federal Government in the U.S.A. which, notwithstanding the very limited powers given to it by the Constitution, has outgrown its former self and has overshadowed and eclipsed the State Governments.

This is due to modern conditions. The same conditions are sure to operate on the Government of India and nothing that one can do will help to prevent it from being strong.

On the other hand, we must resist the tendency to make it stronger. It cannot chew more than it can digest. Its strength must be commensurate with its weight. It would be a folly to make it so strong that it may fall by its own weight”.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The experience of five decades and more shows that the federal system has, on the whole, worked remarkably well. The apprehensions of the critics that the Centre being too strong would devour the States, and that they would be reduced to the status of administrative units of the union, have not materialised.

On the contrary, the States have been holding their own and maintaining their individuality and autonomy within the framework of the Constitution. Litigation in the field of Centre-State relationship has been conspicuous by its negligible size rather than its enormity which is one of the common defects of the older federations.

Although there had been seventeen Amendments to the Constitution within fifteen years after its inauguration none of these seriously affected the field of Centre-State relationship except for minor changes. The later amendments, except the Forty-second, also showed the same trend.

The fear that the existence of a long concurrent list, instead of reducing litigation, might lead to an increase of it, has been falsified. In fact, the success of the federal system is largely the result, while distributing and allocating legislative powers, of taking into account the political and economic conditions obtaining in the country, rather than of relying on a priori theories of federalism.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Perhaps, the most criticised part of the Constitution is that which deals with the Fundamental Rights. It has been alleged that every fundamental right embodied in the Constitution is riddled with so many exceptions and qualifications that these have eaten up the rights altogether.

Further, it is pointed out that the life and liberty of the subject has been placed at the mercy of the executive Government and there is hardly any protection against tyrannical laws. Dealing with the exceptions and qualifications, Ambedkar said:

“In the opinion of the critics, fundamental rights are not fundamental rights unless they are also absolute rights. The critics rely on the Constitution of United States and the Bill of Rights embodied in the first ten Amendments to that Constitution in support of their contention. It is said that the fundamental rights in the American Bill of Rights are real because they are not subjected to limitations or exceptions.”

“I am sorry to say that the whole of the criticism about fundamental rights is based upon a misconception. In the first place, the criticism in so far as it seeks to distinguish fundamental rights from non-fundamental rights is not sound.

It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute white non-fundamental rights are created by agreement between parties while fundamental rights are the gift of the law. Because fundamental rights are the gift of the State it does not follow that the State cannot qualify them.”

“In the second place, it is wrong to say that fundamental rights in America are absolute. The difference between the position under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of form and not of substance.

That the fundamental rights in America are not absolute rights is beyond dispute. In support of every exception to the Fundamental Rights set out in the Draft Constitution one can refer to at least one judgement of United States of Supreme Court.” 8

(3) The criticism that the protection against tyrannical laws and the arbitrary conduct of the executive against the life and liberty of the subject is too slender has a good deal of force in it.

For, under Article 21, life and liberty can be taken away so long as it is done in accordance with procedure established by law. Similarly, the existence of a provision which permits “preventive detention” for the purpose of the State leaves in the hands of the executive an extraordinary power to curb individual freedom. These are serious limitations on the scope of fundamental rights and, as such, they form a weighty criticism of an important part of the Constitution.

(4) The inclusion of a set of non-justiciable rights-the Directive Principles of State Policy – in the Constitution has been criticised as the inclusion of a set of pious declarations which have no binding force. According to Ambedkar, this criticism is superfluous.

“The Constitution itself says so in so many words. If it is said that the Direct Principles have no legal force behind them, I am prepared to admit it. But I am not prepared to admit that they have no sort of binding force at all. Nor am I prepared to concede that they are useless because they have no binding force in law”.

Apart from the fact that the Directive Principles form a code of conduct both for legislators and administrators and set before the country a socio-economic objective that is to be realised as early as possible, they help the people to assess in the light of a clearly laid-down standard, the achievements of each government in office at the time of every general election.

Further, the separation of non­justiciable rights from justiciable ones has a special advantage. It avoids the necessity of bringing under the same category, rights of varying value.

(5) The Constitution has been criticised by some for the special safeguards that it provides for minorities and certain classes who are socially and educationally backward.

Commending the wisdom underlying these provisions, Ambedkar said: “Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the Constituent Assembly has done wisely in providing such safeguards for minorities as it has done. In this country both the minorities and the majorities have followed a wrong path.

It is wrong for the majority to deny the existence of minorities. It is equally wrong for the minorities to perpetuate themselves. A solution must be found which will serve a double purpose. It must recognise the existence of the minorities to start with. It must also be such that it will enable majorities and minorities to merge some day into one.

The solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly is to be welcomed because it is a solution which serves this two-fold purpose. To die-hards who have developed a kind of fanaticism against minority protection I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the state.

The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The other is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority.

In the history of negotiations for preventing the partition of Ireland, Redmond said to Carson, “Ask for any safeguards, you like for the Protestant minority but let us have a united Ireland”. Carson’s reply was “Damn your safeguards, we don’t want to be ruled by you”.

No minority in India has taken this stand. They have loyally accepted the rule of the majority which is basically a communal majority and not a political majority. It is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against minorities.

Whether the minorities will continue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of the majority. The moment the majority loses the habit of discriminating against the minority the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish”.

The Draft Constitution was discussed in most of Provincial Assemblies even before it was considered in detail by the Constituent Assembly. A remarkable trend to these discussions was the general consensus of opinion on the soundness of its fundamentals, and the firm hope that the Constitution would prove a working document for a new India that was taking shape.

The only serious criticism voiced was about Centre-State financial provisions, which, it was feared, placed the States at the mercy of the Centre in the financial field. It is significant to note that no section of the people, however advanced or backward their views were, denounced the Constitution in toto.

In fact, two political parties, the Socialist Party of India and the Hindu Maha Sabha, had prepared their own constitutions for free India. And the most striking feature of these constitutional drafts was that both of them were in agreement with the main features of the Constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

No constitution is perfect and the Constitution of India is no exception to this universal rule. There can however be no doubt that it is a workable document. It is a blend of idealism and realism.

In hammering it out, the framers traversed all the processes of “democratic manufactory” and ranged through the whole gamut of democratic factors. There have been careful thought, close analysis, argument and counter-argument.

There was even fierce controversy so fierce that, as Frank Anthony the Anglo-Indian leader, observed, it was apprehended at times that the members might reach the stage of what the Romans called argumentum ad beculum i.e., settling it by actual physical force.

But in the final analysis, a real sense of accommodation prevailed and real sense of forbearance. As a result, the Constitution emerged as a basis for all the people of India to work in co-operation and collaboration in a mighty Endeavour to build a new, free India. As Ambedkar said:

“I feel that it is workable, it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and wartime. Indeed if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution, the reason will be not that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile”.