Individualism and the Indian Constitution

धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः

I am thankful to Sangam Talks of Sarayu Trust and its organizers for

organizing zoom meeting. In the obejective of Sarayu Trust it is aptly

mentioned: until the lions tell their side of the story, the tale of the hunt will

always glorify the hunter ~ African Proverb

As the proverb goes, till now we have heard the glorification of Constitution

of India but we have seldom heard the other side of the story.
Constitution of India is based on western concept of individualism and it
promotes cut through competition and there by tend to promote
corruption and it promotes Para Ninda and Atma Stuthi.

The history of English does not go beyond 1200 years. As stated Anglo,
Saxon, Jutes, Normans invaded England again and again. During such
aggressions, the natives were annihilated and thus their history is erased.
Nobody knows as to what language the inhabitants were speaking and
what religion they were practicing, before their massacre. Then came
archeological approach to rebuild history, with the aids of excavations etc.
Such countries practiced worst form of slavery (serfdom). In Britain, Manor
system was there, where Lords holds large tracts of lands and people living
there were serfs, who were not treated as humans. From such system,
people started protesting and in course of time, slowly, one by one

1
individual rights came to dawn on the slaves. They could not evolve
community life, as the people are yet to settle to form organic social life. It
may take centuries to evolve as community, from displaced and settled
individuals from different places. So from individual to social and then to
community life, the English society is trying to evolve. A comparison of
prevalent social, cultural and civilisational situations in India, in a given
period with that of west and particularly English will give clear picture.

British, after settling down politically, when tried to justify their aggression,
several European scholars were astonished with civilizational and cultural
riches of India. Sir William Jones translated Kalidasa’s Shakuntala into
English in 1789 and Manusmriti in 1794. Jones minced no words in
expressing imperial design in making such translations by stating “It must
be remembered, that those laws are actually revered, as a word of the
Most High, by nations of great importance to the political and commercial
interests of Europe,”

Britishers surveyed the prevalence of education in India and to their

surprise literacy rate was far more than what was there at that time in
England. As rulers, English could not digest the superiority of India in
culture, history, civilization. Then English started searching for the theories
to justify their rule. English started calling India, rude, crude, barbaric,
backward, uncivilized nation and stated that it was their burden to civilize
the uncivilized.

Jeremy Bentham theory Utilitarianism was proposed (1789) stating

“Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”. Utilitarianism approves or

2
disapproves actions according to theamount of happiness brought about.
Bentham’s follower was James Mill and he extended the utilitarian theory
stating that the aim of government was to increase human happiness, and
only individuals could make the utilitarian calculation of pleasure and pain.
James Mills’s son John Stuart Mill championed individualism.

In India, English men became administrators and judges. To aid them, at

the instance of WarrenHastings, in 1775, N.B. Halhed, presented
codification of ‘Gentoo Laws’ i.e. Hindu Law. Halhed never studied
Sanskritam. First it was prepared in Persian and translated into English.
“Gentoo, also spelled Gentue or Jentue, was a term used
by Europeans for the native inhabitants of India”1

East India Company employed Bentham’s disciple, James Mill to write

“History of British India”. He started his work in 1806 and took 12 years to
complete the task. Never had he visited India. He proudly declared that he
does not know any of the Indian languages. He picked up translations here
and there and presented his version of History of British India. He did not
restrict to write history of India, from British occupation. He ventured to
ridicule and deny everything Indian and to depict the same as pigment of
imagination. He repeatedly calls people of India as rude and ignorant. Mill
wrote that Ramayan, Mahabharat are imaginary and unbelievable myths.
He calls the calculation of time period and ‘yugas’ as figment of
imagination. For him India is a place of snake charmers, barbarians.
According to him Brahmins made all the imagination and they yield great
power and control even kings. Indians does not have history, laws. He
1

3
criticized Manu Dharmasastra as barbaric. James Mill’s History of British
India was the official History text Book in Indian Education for bout 200
years and the generation after generation, even its Indian students believed
its version, developed prejudice against what is really of India, its great
Sruti, Smriti Puranas and developed animosity against Brahmins. James
Mill’s History of British India becamebible for several political and cultural
philosophies such as Individualism, Socialism and Atheism etc. and even
today they sing the song of James Mill. At the instance of such James Mill,
Macaulay came to India and introduced English educational system.

Here a word about English may not be out of place. When Anglo, Saxon,
Jutes tribes invaded sporadically the then Briton, in course of time they
annihilated native Celts. As time passes these tribes slowly developed
English by picking bits and peaces, from Latin, Greek, French, Scottish,
Norse and several other languages. By about 1000 AD English became
language of masses of Briton. Then came Norman Conquest of 1066 of
England and they brought French, which became language of law,
administration and nobility.

“National feeling was beginning to arise in England, as in other countries of

western Europe, and this must have railed the prestige of the English
language…In 1362 the king’s speech at the opening of Parliament was
made in English the official language of the law courts instead French,
though their records were to be kept in Latin” i.This shows the history of
English in short, which was eulogized by Macaulay. The whole effort of
English men was like a frog in a well.

4
Then came HenryThomas Colebrook, “After eleven years' residence in
India, Colebrook began the study of the Sanskrit language; and to him was
entrusted the translation of the major Digest of Hindu Laws, a monumental
study of Hindu law which had been left unfinished by Sir William Jones. He
translated the two treatises, the Mitacshara of Vijnaneshwara and
the Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana, under the title Law of Inheritance. During
his residence at Calcutta he wrote his Sanskrit Grammar (1805), some
papers on the religious ceremonies of the Hindus, and his Essay on
the Vedas (1805), for a long time the standard work in English on the
subject”.

2nd February 1835 is the black letter day for India i.e. Bharat. Thomas
Babington Macaulay’sinfamous Minutes was prepared on that day and his
minutes was accepted by William Bentinck issued his proclamation in
March 1835. British Government sanctioned Rs. 1,00,000/- to be spent on
education in India. Question arose as to whether the said amount should
be continued to be spent for the education in Samskritam and Persian.
Committee was divided equally, i.e. one half sided for the continuation of
Samskritam and Persian and the other half sided for the education in
English. Macaulay wrote in his said Minutes: “I have no knowledge of
either Sanskrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct
estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated
Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with
men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongue. I am quite
ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists
themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a

5
single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native
literature of India and Arabia.” Macaulay minced no words in expressing his
strategy for the introduction of English education and said in the said
Minutes: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be
interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of
persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in
morals and in intellect.”

Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First Law Commission, chaired by
Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1834 and was submitted to Governor-
General of India Council in 1837. It was ultimately enacted in the year
1860. Even England at that time did not have codified criminal law at that
time.

In the whole world, India is having longest, continuing society and history,
with well-organized community life. Here individual merges, due to his
philosophical and historical background, with the community, village, and
society and with the nation.

After the manuals on Indian laws, with additions of case law, in the name of
Hindu Laws, volumes came into existence. From there codification of laws
for India started.

K.V.Rangaswami Aiyangar, prophetically said: “Legalistic enthusiasm for

Dharmasastra rapidly waned with the growth of case-law and the ever-
widening rift between the traditional Hindu Law and the judge-made law of
the British Indian courts. If and when the proposal under consideration to
6
codify Hindu law becomes fait accompli, the little interest which survives
among professional men will vanish completely.”ii
“In Hindu view of life, aims, ideals, and activities were not divided up and
considered as dependent of one another. There was no distinction between
things secular and things religious: the distinction would have been
unintelligible to the ancient Hindu. Society was viewed as indivisible, except
for distribution of duties and obligations.”iii

The Indian Penal Code was first drafted by Macaulay, the Law Member of
the Governor General's Executive Council. The inspiration behind it was
the utilitarian beliefs of both Macaulay and the Governor General, Lord
Bentinck. They believed that a codified Penal law applying English notions
of justice to India would be a massive improvement over India's own
indigenous concepts of crime and punishment. Macaulay primarily relied on
the existing English case law because England itself had no Code to rival
this. Some parts come from Napoleon's reforms of French law too.

Macaulay had to leave India in 1838 and the finished draft Indian Penal
Code went into cold storage. It was referred to various committees which
took a lot of time to come out with their suggestions. The draft was finalized
in 1860 and therefore the Code is known as the IPC, 1860.

“Indian National Congress itself was founded and inspired by men of

our own race”iv

Britishers took pool-poof steps for the introduction and continuation of their
language, laws & institutions, political, social and cultural so that they can

7
safe guard their interests and continue to claim racial superiority and
imperialism and in that process, as a first step, English Educational system
was introduced, The author of English Education in India in a letter to his
father wrote: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be
interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern-a class of
persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in tastes, in
opinions, in moral and in intellect.”v

Britishers were clear from the beginning that they cannot rule India for ever.
Mount Stuart Elephinstone wrote in 1854: “we must not dream of
perpetual possession, but must apply ourselves to bring the natives into a
state that will admit of their governing themselves in a manner that may be
beneficial to our interests as well as their own”. vi 1857 war of Independence
jolted the English thoroughly and they have over hauled their administrative
setup. The British Crown shelved ruling India under veil of East India
Company and took over the reigns directly in 1858. The freedom fighters
were organizing to strike at the aliens. The English seriously thought to
counter the same and they have thought of “A safety-valve for the escape
of great and growing forces, generated by our own action, was urgently
needed and no more efficacious safety-valve than our Congress movement
could possibly be devised.”vii

It was not a secret that Indian National Congress was fostered in the
interest of the Britishers. W.C.Banerjee first President of Congress had to
say the following on the establishment of the Congress: “It will probably be
news to many that the Indian National Congress, as it was originally started
and as it was since been carried on, is in reality the work of the Marquis of
Dufferin and Ava when that noble man was the Governor General of

8
India..............Lord Dufferin took great interest in the matter and after
considering over it for some time he sent for Mr.Hume and told him that in
his opinion, Mr.Hume’s project (social organization) would not be of much
use. He said there was no body of persons in this country who performed
the functions which Her Majesty’s Opposition did in England.......Mr.Hume
was convinced by Lord Dufferin’s arguments and when he placed the two
scheme, his own and Lord Dufferin’s, beforethe leading politicians in
Calcutta,Bombay,Madrasand other parts of the country, the latter
unanimously accepted Lord Dufferin’s scheme and proceeded to give effect
to it. Lord Dufferin had made it a condition with Mr.Hume that his name in
connection with the scheme of the Congress should not be divulged so
long as he remained in the country, and his condition was faithfully
maintained and none but the men consulted by Mr. Hume knew anything
about the matter”.viii

Dadabhai Naoroji in his Congress Presidential speech date: 27/12/1986

said: “It is our good fortune that we are under a rule which makes it
possible to meet in this manner. (Cheers) It is under the civilizing rule of the
queen and the people of England that we meet here together, hindered by
none, and are freely allowed to seek our minds without the least fear and
without the least hesitation. Such a thing is possible under British rule and
British rule only. (Loud cheers).Then I put the question plainly: Is this
Congress a nursery for sedition and rebellion against the British
Government (cries of no, no); or is it another stone in the foundation of the
stability of that Government (cries of yes, yes)? There could be but one
answer, and that we have already given, because we are thoroughly

9
sensible of the numberless blessings conferred upon us, of which the very
existence of this Congress is a proof in nutshell.”ix

Dufferin said on the Congress in 1888 that “The fact is that the Congress is
the product only of that infinitesimal section of the Indian community to
whom I have already referred as having been tinctured either directly or
indirectly with an infusion of European education, European political ideas,
and European literature. They neither represent the aristocratic sections of
Indian society, nor are they in special contact or sympathy with the great
masses of the population; they do not understand their wants or
necessities, if indeed they are not indifferent or even opposed to them – as
was evidenced by the strenuous resistance of the important Native
Associations to our recent Land Legislation – and they are very imperfectly
fitted to grasp any of the larger questions which affect the stability or safety
of the Empire as a whole.”x

Dr.Pattabhi Sitaramayya official historian of Indian National Congress

writes:”Mr. Hume had unimpeachable evidence that the political discontent
was going underground. He came into possession of seven volumes
containing reports of the communications of the disciples of various gurus
to their religious heads....Hume thereupon resolved to open a safety-valve
for this unrest and the Congress was such an outlet.”xi

Britishers after starting congress as a ‘a safety valve’, to be an ‘opposition

party’, continued to have their say in it, In a letter date 4 November 1906,
Minto wrote to Morley stating that:

“Tilak, as you no doubt know, has as evil reputation, and if he and his party
gained control of the Congress, knowing what we do, we could not look

10
upon them otherwise than as irreconcilably hostile to British rule…..Our
friendly recognition of a moderate Congress might, I believe, do much
good. If the extremists, such as Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, gain the
ascendency, it will be impossible to deal with them, and the Congress will
split up……Their (extremists) success would mean the disappearance of
British administration and their own annihilation the next day”.xii

English took care that “extremists” does not succeed in taking control of the
Congress, ‘which would mean the disappearance of British Administration’
and when there was ‘ascendancy’ of Tilak, the congress did split in/on
………… ‘. Thus the ‘extremists’ do not find place in the scheme of
the Congress. Savarkar, Aurobindo, Subhash Chandra Bose and such
other great ‘extremists’ could not go with the Congress. The Britishers did
not forget the congress even at the end. C.R.Attlee, the then British Prime
Minister while introducing the Indian Independence Bill, on 10 th July 1947,
before the British Parliament, declaring that “British rule which has endured
so long is now, at the instance of this country, coming to an end” came out
openly to state; “Indian National Congress itself was founded and inspired
by men of our own race”xiii. Purpose of creation of Congress was served
and power is transferred from the ruling party to the ‘Opposition’. British left
the country because of threats of ‘extremists’ but rewarded ‘moderates’ by
transferring power to them.

Hence there is nothing like Swarajya. Congress continued to serve the

purpose of its creation by fostering the British Institutions. Congress
members, transformed themselves as constituent assembly and gave to
themselves the Constitution of India which safeguards the British
Institutions, laws and systems which further fosters individualism as against

11
the community life and disintegrates the polity society and even family
systems. British succeeded in their pronounced scheme and India was
given independence but it is yet to obtain Swarajya.

English planned for smooth transition from Whitish to Wheatish by

vivisecting Bharat, and by ensuring the drafting and adopting of the
Constitution of India taking individual as unit and thereby sealing the fate of
India to resurrect.

Further the Constitution of India gave permanency to English rule, without

Englishmen. All the laws thrust upon India during British rule has been
validated. Same administrative set up. Same land laws. Same type of
taxation. Same legal and judicial set up. The same education system. In
the education system the British brought English with that grades/class,
degrees, P.Hds came. With that great Gurukula Vyvastha, great limb for
preaching of Dharma of India has gone and even Guru are rare to guide
people and the society. The British, unlike earlier marauders, imported their
half baked systems to India. They become gospel truths. The
decentralized legal system in India, before the advent of British was
dispensing justice to the satisfaction of one and all. The English brought
entirely new class of ‘trained’ lawyers, judges, leave alone the laws.
Finance and economic systems brought by British has transformed India
into a commercial society from dharmic. The political system introduced
has becoming laughing stock. It built on the basis of atma stuti – para
ninda, which is alien to the Indian culture. Vast and ancient country like
India could only stare at it. The result is havoc in all the fields of
governance. The Constitution of India is only extension of British systems
and laws. Nothing new and nothing Indian in it.

12
India, a victim of Individualism, alien to the Indian culture and
Dharmasastra:
MotilalNehru committee Recommendations on the Principles of
Constitution of India 1928, lead foundation for the present Constitution.

The first recommendation of the said committee is as follows:

Constitutional status of India

1. India shall have the same constitutional status in the comity of
nations known as the British Empire, as the Dominion of Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of
South Africa and the Irish Free State, with a Parliament having powers to
make laws for the peace, order and good government of India, and an
executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as
the Commonwealth of India.

Constituent Assembly for India was formed in May 1946, under British
Cabinet Mission plan of British and statement 15 of the said Mission stated
“We recommend that theConstitution should take the following basic form”
and based upon the same Constituent Assembly passed objective
resolution, which ultimately became preamble of Indian Constitution. There
was no discussion as to what are the values and philosophy that should be
the basis of the Indian Constitution. British objective, individual as the basis
and based on their ideology, Objective resolution was passed.

B. N. Rau, an ICS (Rtd.) officer under the British Government, was

appointed as the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly in

13
formulating the Indian Constitution and he organized the drafting of the
Constitution and produced his draft. He just proceeded to draft the
Constitution for India with individual as basis and not community or village.
Constitutions were taken from Western shelf, changed the label (made for
India) and prepared the draft Constitution in about a months’ time.

Though B.N.Rau took to prepare the draft about a month, it took three
years to adopt the same!

Gandhiji in 1909, in his famous ‘Hind Swaraj’, the views expressed therein
was held him till last, called British Parliament with “a sterile woman and a
prostitute” and stated “Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fits the
same.” He further warned therein, that “If India copies England, it is my firm
conviction that she will be ruined.” And emphaticallydismissed the situation
“English rule without Englishman”, “is not the Swaraj I want’ The whole
edifies of formal legal system, built by the British, for the British, followed
and continued by us, is sheer artificial and farce. It is not based on Indian
ethos, practices and value systems. Penal laws, particularly Indian Penal
Code is of no exception. None can, confidently claim to get justice under
the present laws and legal system.

THE LEGACY OF LOKAMANYA2’ an American Jew, Theodre L.

Shay has brought out in 1956 as to how the Constitution of India is
2

14
 totally un-Indian, it was brought out of expediency, and as to why till
now (1956) the Constitution based on Indian ethos has not come. In
this book he has brought out the political philosophy of West as well
as Indian.

Gandhiji opined that the Constitution must based upon

Panchayath (Communitee) System. He said that “...There
are seven hundred thousand villages in India each of which
would be organized according to the will of the citizens, all of
them voting. Then there would be seven hundred thousand
votes and not four hundred million votes. Each village, in
other words, would have one vote. The villages would elect
the district administration; the district administrations would
elect the provincial administration and these in turn would
elect the President who is the head of the executive. .."
Shriman Narayan Agarwal prepared a Gandhian Constitution for Free
India and was ready by 2nd April 1945.
Gandhian Constitution was prior to Objective Resolutin (13-12-1946).
Quodos to Shroman Narain Agarwal. Constitutional Law student will
find how Nehru and B.N.Rau managed to through it dust bin. B.N.Rau
version that it will take time if the Constitution for India has to drafted
based on Village Panchayat, is blatant lie. Though is named
Gandhian, Gandhiji ducked. Full text is available in internet.

H .V Kamath in the Constituent Assembly on 19th November 1949 spoke

about Panchath System. He spoke that “ A time will arrive when India is

15
stabilized and strong, and I hope we will then go back to the old plan of
the Panchayat Raj or decentralized democracy, with village units self-
sufficient in food, clothing and shelter and interdependent as regards
other matters. I hope we will later go back to that Panchayat Raj Sir, to
my mind the only system that will save India and the world is what I may
call spiritual communism.”

On the philosophy behind drafting the Indian Constitution Jayaprakash

Narayan explicitly observed that:
“One concept is that put forward by Dr.Ambedkar and accepted as
basis of the Constitution namely, the atomized and inorganic view of
the society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in
the West today….
“The other is the organic or communitarian view that puts man in his
natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community.
This view treats of a man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic
heap, but as a living cell in larger entity”.

In the Constituent Assembly those who were spoke about the

Constitution based on Panchayath was phoo phooed and was not
cared for the opinion. The Debates in the Constituent Assembly was
farce.

Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly wrote a

letter dated May 10,1948 to B N Rau, the Constitutional Adviser,
enclosing a letter written to him by one K S Venkataramani and in the
said letter, inter-alia, a serious proposal was made to make village a
unit. Prasad wrote:

16
 “I like the idea of making the Constitution begin with the village and
go up to the Center. The Government of India Act started with the
Center and then went down to the Provinces leaving still lower basis
to be dealt with by the Provinces. We have followed the same model.
The idea is to reverse the process and start with the village which has
been and will ever continue to be our unit in this country.

To the said proposal B N Rau coolly gave a reply stating:

1. “It may not be easy to work the panchayat idea into the draft Constitution
at the present stage....
2. “The world trend is thus strongly towards direct elections for obvious
reasons....
3. “Perhaps the best course would be so to frame the constitution as to
permit either mode of election, the actual mode to be adopted in any
particular case being left to the appropriate legislature....
4. “If we were to do this, not merely for the district but down to the village,
the constitution would not only be of inordinate length but would be even
more rigid than it is in the draft....
5. “While, it may be possible to create panchayats and similar bodies
elected by adult suffrage, to function as electorates, for the provincial
and Central legislatures, it would, to say the least, be inconvenient to
endow them or other bodies at the same level with specific executive,
legislative or judicial functions by provisions inserted in the constitution
itself....
“Even if panchayat plan is to be adopted, its details will have to be
carefully worked out for each province and for each Indian State with
suitable modification for towns apart from other difficulties. This will

17
take time and rather than delay the passing of the Constitution
further, it would seem better to relegate these details to auxiliary
legislation to be enacted after the Constitution has been passed...

In the above background B N Rau was chosen to implement Nehru

scheme and ignore Gandhi scheme. The rest of Constituent
Assembly proceedings are only farce and matter of history. Nehru led
the debacle others followed like sheep following the butcher. For the
demands of the members of the Constituent Assembly for making the
Indian Constitution on the basis of Indian polity and village system,
Nehru shut their mouth and closed the debate and asked to adopt the
Constitution as drafted stating:

“This House cannot bind down the next generation, or the

people who will duly succeed us in this task. Therefore let us not
trouble ourselves too much about the petty details of what we
do, those details will not survive for long, if they achieved in
conflict”.16

Poor Gandhi could only murmur by saying:

“I must confess that I have not been able to follow the proceedings of
the Constituent Assembly… (The correspondent) says that there is
no mention or direction about village panchayats and decentralization
in the fore shadowed constitution. It is certainly an omission calling
for immediate attention if our independence is to reflect the people
voice.

The greater the power of the panchayats, the better for the people.”

18
 Shamshul Islam writes that the European scholars who were
accustomed to the Biblical idea of the age of the world and
chronology of Greek and Roman histories that are matters of less
than three thousand years were stunned at the puranic chronology
that dealt with lakhs and crores of ears, which sounded more
astronomical, than historical, to their ears.
The whiteman declared that “The White Man’s Burden” and “Divine
mission of the Anglo-Saxons to civilize the world” and India being
“half devil and half child” which “could not be performed without the
help of rod” and took the position as a “master over its servants” and
called it as “inscrutable India.”xiv According to British theirs “is
essentially an absolute Government, founded, not on consent, but on
conquest.
The Life of west is about 2000 years and in that period many wars
took place. When the war took place the original inhabitants were
brutally massacred and nobody knows what was their culture and
civilization. In England they present races was mixture of several
European tribes. The History will not go back more than 1200 years.
They treat them as serf and unimaginable with brutality they were
treated gradually they came to Bill of Rights and Parliamentary
System.
The Britishers destroyed everything Indian. They interfered the Laws
of Government, Judicial System, Law Making System, Personal
Laws, Educational System, Revenue/ Property System etc.,

In that process they made the Indian Constitution also. If we see Motilal
Nehru committee Recommendations on the Principles of Constitution of

19
 India 1928, it will be clear. It contains the provisions similar to that of
Indian Constitution.

Cabinet Mission Plan (Cabinet Mission, 1946) 16th May 1946

contains at point 15 the provision similar to objective resolution.
Resolution on the Aims and Objects of the India’s Constitution, 13 12
1946While introducing the Resolution, Nehru said that this objective
resolution formed basis of Indian Constitution.

That is before independence itself they preparation for the Constitution of

India was made and draft Constitution was prepared by B.N Rau an ICS
Officer in the British Government and was presented to the Constituent
Assembly through a resolution appointed a drafting committee on 29 th
August 1947 to
'...scrutinise the draft of the text of the Constitution of India prepared by Constitutional Adviser,
giving effect to the decisions already taken in the Assembly and including all matters which are
ancillary thereto or which have to be provided in such a Constitution, and to submit to the
Assembly for consideration the text of the draft constitution as revised by the committee...'

It consisting of :
Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar
N Gopalaswami Ayyangar
B R Amdedkar
K M Munshi
Saiyed Mohd. Sadddulla
B L Mitter
D P Khaitan
While commenting on the drafting committee T.T Krishnamachary
absorved in the constituent Assembly, one died and was not replaced. One
was away in America and his place was not filled up and another person

20
was engaged in State affairs and there was void to that extent. One or two
people were far away from Delhi and perhaps reasons health did not permit
them to attend”.

During the general debate on 04 09 1948 while referring to the

demand for inclusion of provisions relating to Panchayat system in
the Constitution B.R.Ambedkar revealed his antipathy towards
Villages by stating that:
“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”.
On the philosophy behind drafting the Indian Constitution
Jayaprakash Narayan explicitly observed that:

“One concept is that put forward by Dr.Ambedkar and accepted as

basis of the Constitution namely, the atomized and inorganic view of
the society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in
the West today….

“The other is the organic or communitarian view that puts man in his
natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community.
This view treats of a man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic heap,
but as a living cell in larger entity”.

N G Ranga, commenting on the observation of Ambedkar on villages

observed that:

“If he had cared to study Indian History with as much a care as is seems
to have devoted to the History of other countries he certainly would not
have ventured those remarks”.

21
 Dr.Raghuveera observed on the subject:

“But I do ask that if B N Rao our constitutional advisor could go to

Ireland Switzerland or America to find out how the people of those
countries are running their governmental system, could you not find a
single person in this (Drafting Committee) who was well in the
political lore of this country who could have told you that this country
has also something to contribute, that there was a political philosophy
in this country which had permeated the entire being of the people of
this country and which could be used beneficially in preparing a
Constitution for India. It is a matter of deep regret to me that this
aspect of thought was not considered at all by us”.

Jawaharlal Nehru knew pretty well stated that community should be

the basis for the Indian polity and the statecraft. He writes in his The
Discovery of India that:

“The village, which used to be an organic and vital unit, became

progressively a derelict area, just a collection of mud huts and odd
individuals. But still the village holds together by some invisible link
and old memories revive….. I feel sure that the village should be
treated as a unit. This will give a truer and more responsible
representation.”

Panchayat (community governance) is not a forgotten chapter. It is in

the genes of every Indian.

It is clear that English educated failed the nation. Lot of search and
research has to be carried, to provide alternative, native institutional frame
work, which, not only is craved by India, the whole world is longing, since

22
the failure of dispensation of justice is of world phenomena. Study and
spread of Dharmasastra is the only way, to arrive at right path, to
restructure present social, economic, legal and political structure and
institutions, connecting with past glorious and golden Indian period.

Background of the Wavell Plan and the Shimla Conference

The Second World War had caused many socio-economic problems in the British Empire,
especially when it came to maintaining their overseas colonies. Thus the British Government saw
it fit to grant India the freedom it had been demanding for so long. In addition, the Quit India
Movement and an increase in revolutionary activity only made the British position in India
tenuous at best.

Provisions of the Mountbatten Plan Dated June 3, 1947

 British India was to be partitioned into two dominions – India and Pakistan.
 The constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly would not be applicable to the Muslim-
majority areas (as these would become Pakistan). The question of a separate constituent
assembly for the Muslim-majority areas would be decided by these provinces.
 As per the plan, the legislative assemblies of Bengal and Punjab met and voted for the partition.
Accordingly, it was decided to partition these two provinces along religious lines.
 The legislative assembly of Sind would decide whether to join the Indian constituent assembly or
not. It decided to go with Pakistan.
 A referendum was to be held on NWFP (North-Western Frontier Province) to decide which
dominion to join. NWFP decided to join Pakistan while Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan boycotted and
rejected the referendum.
 The date for the transfer of power was to be August 15, 1947.
 To fix the international boundaries between the two countries, the Boundary Commission was
established chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The commission was to demarcate Bengal and Punjab
into the two new countries.
 The princely states were given the choice to either remain independent or accede to India or
Pakistan. The British suzerainty over these kingdoms was terminated.
 The British monarch would no longer use the title ‘Emperor of India’.
 After the dominions were created, the British Parliament could not enact any law in the
territories of the new dominions.
 Until the time the new constitutions came into existence, the Governor-General would assent
any law passed by the constituent assemblies of the dominions in His Majesty’s name. The
Governor-General was made a constitutional head.

23
On the midnight of 14th and 15th August 1947, the dominions of Pakistan and India respectively
came into existence. Lord Mountbatten was appointed the first Governor-General of independent
India and M .A. Jinnah became the Governor-General of Pakistan

(Pakistan did not accept Mountbatten as its Governor-General)

Indian Independence Act, 1947.

24
25
i
., The Story of Language, Pan Books, 1972 C. L. Barber p. 156.
ii
. Rajadharama by K.V.RangaswamiAiyangar. Adayar Library, Adayar, 1941,P. xii
iii
. Ibid at P. xiv
iv
. C.H , Phillips, The Evolution of India and Pakistan, 1858 to 1947 Select documents, The English
Language Book Society and Oxford University Press, P. 404
v
16.Minute by T B Macaula, dated the 2nd February 1835
vi
. Frank Heinlein, British Government Policy And Decolonisation 1945- 1963 , Routledge, P. 25
vii
. Wedderburn, Life History of A.O. Hume P.77.
viii
. Supra note 15 at P . 138
ix
. Ibid at P. 139
x
. Id. at P. 145
xi
. B.Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, p.11
xii
.Supra note 15 at P. 77
xiii
.id at P. 404
xiv