Countering the criticisms on Indian constitution

Indian constitution is among the bulkiest constitution ever written and by the written word it means that it is amendable but requires ordinance or special majority. While making the constitution there was a lot of communal, religious, or class conflict was around the corners. Yet it was not an easy job to make a legal document that covers the ambition and aspiration of newborn India by keeping the future in vision.

During decolonization and under UNO allied powers started freeing the lands which were under the direct or indirect control of the superpowers. By then most of the countries along with India started writing their golden history. The positive is that after 75+ years of journey Indian constitution is still holding the ground in comparison to Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Japan where their constitution is either changed completely or greatly modified.

So now let's talk about the topmost criticism towards the makers of the Indian constitution

1. Unelected people formed the constituent assembly

• There is no rule that only elected people can form the constitution and the US constitution is one such great example of this.
• The voting rights were limited to 10% total population so in a way election couldn’t have justified the right form of representation.
• Popular leaders like Jawahar Lal Nehru, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, etc. don’t even require the election as they were the top most and only choice of the majority of Indians.

2. Hindu majority (one religion dominance in Constituent Assembly)

• It has been criticized by many thinkers that the constituent assembly comprised of representatives who were Hindus and by this, it was stated that the constitution does not cover the minority section.
• However, out of 400 million population of undivided India, 12% were minorities yet they had 80+ seats out of 299 seats in the constituent assembly. So one can do the maths that for 12% of total population we had 80+ elected representative who was either Muslims or from minority section.
• Muslim league ceded out which also reduced the number of Muslim representation further from the assembly.

3. Single party dominance

• It is easy to understand that there were many parties except congress but they were originated after splitting from congress.
• Secondly, congress had many infamous leaders which made them quite popular among the masses.
• Also, congress performed exceptionally by forming a government in 11 provinces in the 1937 elections.

4. Women participation was absent

• By then voting rights were given to the taxpayer or elite class. And out of taxpayers, a big chunk were males, and that male mindset was reflected in the elections.
• Patriarchal society further intensified the election and selection.

5. Lawyers and politicians mainly

• Most of the members of the assembly were either lawyers by profession or barrister.
• The formation of this legal document also demanded the intellectual class which had enough exposure to polity and governance
• Lawyers were the best suited for this job.

I hope you enjoyed blog.