Constitution: WHY AND HOW?Class 11 India Constitution At Work NCERT Solutions
10 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 10
Q1Exercises
Which of these is not a function of the constitution? a. It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen. b. It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government. c. It ensures that good people come to power. d. It gives expression to some shared values.
Solution
The correct answer is c. It ensures that good people come to power.
A constitution performs several key functions as outlined in the chapter, but it does not guarantee that good people will come to power. Here is a breakdown:
- (a) It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen: This is a primary function. The chapter states that a constitution sets limits on government power by specifying certain fundamental rights that citizens possess, which the government cannot violate.
- (b) It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government: This is also a core function. The constitution specifies who has the power to make decisions and how the government will be constituted. It allocates power among institutions like the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
- (d) It gives expression to some shared values: The constitution expresses the fundamental and moral identity of a people by enshrining their collective aspirations and goals for the society.
However, a constitution only provides the framework and procedures for electing representatives. It creates democratic processes through which people choose their leaders, but it cannot ensure the moral character or competence of the individuals who are elected.
Q2Exercises
Which of the following is a good reason to conclude that the authority of the constitution is higher than that of the parliament? a. The constitution was framed before the parliament came into being. b. The constitution makers were more eminent leaders than the members of the parliament. c. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers. d. The constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.
Solution
The correct answer is c. The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers.
Here is the reasoning based on the chapter:
- The constitution is the fundamental law of the land that constitutes the government in the first place. As the chapter explains, one of the functions of a constitution is to specify who has the power to make decisions in a society.
- It states, "If Parliament has the authority to enact laws, there must be a law that bestows this authority on Parliament in the first place. This is the function of the constitution. It is an authority that constitutes government in the first place."
- Therefore, the Parliament derives its existence, structure, and powers from the constitution. It is a creation of the constitution and must operate within the limits set by it. This hierarchical relationship makes the constitution's authority supreme.
While options (a) and (b) may be historically true, they are not the legal or structural reasons for the constitution's supremacy. Option (d) is incorrect because the constitution can be amended by the parliament, although through a special procedure.
Q3Exercises
State whether the following statements about a constitution are True or False. a. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government. b. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries. c. Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values. d. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
Solution
-
a. Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government. False. While most countries have a written constitution as a single document, it is not always the case. The chapter explicitly mentions the United Kingdom, which has a series of documents and decisions that are collectively referred to as its constitution, not one single compact document.
-
b. Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries. False. The chapter provides examples of constitutions in non-democratic states. It mentions that "in a monarchical constitution, a monarch decides; in some constitutions like the old Soviet Union, one single party was given the power to decide." This shows that constitutions can exist in various political systems, not just democratic ones.
-
c. Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values. False. A constitution does much more than just outline legal procedures. The chapter highlights that a constitution also expresses the "aspirations and goals of a society" and gives a people their "fundamental identity." It defines the fundamental values that a society upholds and that may not be trespassed. Thus, it is deeply concerned with ideals and values.
-
d. A constitution gives its citizens a new identity. True. As stated in the chapter, a constitution expresses the "fundamental identity of a people." By agreeing to a basic set of norms and principles on how they should be governed, people form a collective political identity. The constitution sets an overarching framework that defines their moral and political values as a nation.
Q4Exercises
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution are Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer. a. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens. b. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework. c. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
Solution
-
a. The Constituent Assembly did not represent the Indian people since it was not elected by all citizens. Incorrect. While it is true that the members of the Constituent Assembly were not elected through universal adult suffrage, it is wrong to conclude that it was not a representative body. The chapter states that "there was a serious attempt to make the Assembly a representative body." Members from all religions were given representation, the Assembly included twenty-eight members from the Scheduled Castes, and the Congress party, which dominated the Assembly, was itself diverse and accommodated various shades of opinion.
-
b. Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework. Incorrect. The chapter clearly states that while there was a background consensus on the main principles inherited from the nationalist movement, the process involved intense debate and deliberation. It mentions, "There were often disagreements amongst members... And the differences were many: should India adopt a centralised or decentralised system of government? What should be the relations between the States and the centre? What should be the powers of the judiciary?" Almost every issue was seriously discussed and debated, indicating that major decisions were indeed made during the process.
-
c. There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries. Incorrect. The chapter acknowledges that the framers of the Constitution borrowed provisions from other countries. However, it strongly refutes the idea that this was slavish imitation. It states, "Each provision of the Constitution had to be defended on grounds that it was suited to Indian problems and aspirations." Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is quoted as saying that newness can lie in removing the faults of existing models and accommodating them to the country's needs. The originality of the Indian Constitution lies in its intelligent adaptation of global ideas to the specific social, political, and economic context of India.
Q5Exercises
Give two examples each to support the following conclusions about the Indian Constitution: a. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples' respect. b. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it. c. The Constitution is the locus of people's hopes and aspirations.
Solution
a. The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples' respect.
- The Constituent Assembly drew its legitimacy from the fact that it was composed of leaders who were at the forefront of the popular nationalist movement, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. These leaders had immense public credibility and were respected across a wide section of society.
- The leaders' credibility is also evident in the fact that the Constitution, though never subjected to a referendum, was adopted by the people who abided by its provisions, showing their trust in the framers.
b. The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
- The Constitution provides for a horizontal fragmentation of power among different institutions of government: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. This creates a system of checks and balances where each organ can check the transgressions of the others, preventing any single institution from acquiring a monopoly of power.
- It also establishes a federal arrangement, distributing powers between the central government and the state governments. This vertical distribution of power ensures that regional interests are protected and power is not concentrated in a single central authority.
c. The Constitution is the locus of people's hopes and aspirations.
- The Constitution enables the government to take positive measures to overcome inequality and deprivation. For example, it empowers the government to take necessary steps to create a society free of caste discrimination, which is a deep-seated aspiration of the Indian people.
- The Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and especially the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrine the aspirations of the people. They enjoin the government to work towards a just society by ensuring minimal dignity, social self-respect, education, and material well-being for all citizens.
Q6Exercises
Why is it necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution? What would happen in the absence of such a demarcation?
Solution
It is necessary for a country to have a clear demarcation of powers and responsibilities in the constitution for the following reasons:
-
Specification of Decision-Making Power: A constitution's second function is to specify who has the power to make decisions and enact laws. A clear demarcation answers the fundamental question of 'who gets to decide'. It allocates power to different institutions like the legislature, executive, and judiciary, clarifying their roles and preventing overlap and conflict.
-
Preventing Tyranny and Misuse of Power: By distributing power, the constitution ensures that no single group or institution can acquire absolute authority. This fragmentation of power, through systems like checks and balances and federalism, acts as a safeguard against the arbitrary use of power and protects the liberty of citizens.
-
Ensuring Coordination and Predictability: Clearly defined powers and responsibilities create a predictable and stable system of governance. Citizens and different branches of government know their rights and duties, which allows for minimal coordination and smooth functioning of the state.
In the absence of such a demarcation:
- There would be chaos and conflict as different institutions or groups would fight for control and authority.
- Individuals would be insecure because there would be no clarity on what the government or other members of society could do. This would lead to a breakdown of social order.
- There would be a high risk of tyranny, as a powerful group could easily subvert the system to enhance its own power without any constitutional checks.
- The government would be unable to function effectively, leading to policy paralysis and an inability to fulfill the aspirations of the people.
Q7Exercises
Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
Solution
It is necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers to prevent the arbitrary use of power and to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. The third function of a constitution, as described in the chapter, is to set limits on what a government can impose on its citizens.
Reasons for limitations on rulers:
-
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Constitutions typically specify fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and association, that are inviolable. These limits ensure that the government, even if democratically elected, cannot pass laws that are unjust, unfair, or that infringe upon the basic dignity and freedom of individuals. For example, a government cannot arbitrarily arrest someone or prohibit the practice of a religion.
-
Prevention of Tyranny: Unchecked power can lead to authoritarianism. By setting clear boundaries that the government cannot cross, a constitution ensures that rulers remain accountable to the people and the law, not above it. These limits are fundamental to the concept of a constitutional democracy.
Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
No, a legitimate and effective constitution cannot exist if it gives no power at all to the citizens. While a document might exist that centralizes all power in a ruler or a single party, it would lack the core characteristics of a constitution in the modern sense:
- Lack of Legitimacy and Allegiance: As the chapter explains, a constitution's success depends on it giving everyone in society a reason to go along with its provisions. If a constitution systematically disempowers citizens and privileges rulers, the citizens would have no reason to abide by it. It would cease to command their allegiance and would likely exist only on paper, enforced through coercion rather than authority.
- Contradiction with Democratic Principles: In democratic constitutions, power ultimately flows from the people. Citizens are given the power to choose their representatives and hold them accountable. A constitution that denies citizens any power would be fundamentally undemocratic and would essentially be a charter for an authoritarian regime, not a framework for a just society.
Q8Exercises
The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Solution
Yes, there is a significant problem in making a constitution under the control of a foreign occupying power, as was the case with Japan.
Problem with the Japanese experience:
The primary problem is the question of legitimacy and national sovereignty. A constitution is meant to be an expression of the will and aspirations of the people it governs. When it is drafted under the influence or direct control of an external power, it may not truly reflect the historical, cultural, and political values of the nation. It raises doubts about whether the constitution is an authentic charter of the people or an instrument imposed by the occupiers to serve their own interests. This can affect the long-term acceptance and authority of the constitution among its own people.
How the Indian experience was different:
The Indian experience was fundamentally different and stands in stark contrast to the Japanese case. The Indian Constitution was a product of an indigenous, sovereign process.
-
Result of a National Movement: The Indian Constitution was not created under foreign duress. Instead, it was the culmination of a long and popular nationalist movement for freedom. The principles and values enshrined in it were forged over decades of debate and struggle against colonial rule.
-
Crafted by Credible National Leaders: The Constitution was drafted by a Constituent Assembly composed of Indians who were respected leaders of the freedom struggle. They enjoyed immense public credibility and had the authority to represent the will of the Indian people.
-
Sovereign Body: The Constituent Assembly functioned as a sovereign body, giving concrete shape and form to the principles it had inherited from the nationalist movement. The process was one of self-determination, not external imposition. This gave the Indian Constitution enormous legitimacy and authority, making it a document of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Q9Exercises
Rajat asked his teacher this question: "The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?" If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
Solution
As a teacher, I would address Rajat's questions in the following manner:
"Rajat, your questions are very important, and it is good to think critically about a document as fundamental as our Constitution. Let us break down your concerns one by one.
-
'It is an old and outdated book.' It is true that the Constitution was written many decades ago, but it was designed to be a 'living document,' not a static rulebook. The framers were wise enough to include provisions for amendments, allowing it to adapt to changing times and societal needs. It strikes a balance between preserving core, timeless values like liberty and equality, while being flexible enough to evolve. So, its age represents a stable foundation, not obsolescence.
-
'No one took my consent.' You are right, you did not personally vote for it. However, the Constitution derives its authority from a broader, collective consent. It was framed by leaders who led the popular freedom struggle and had the overwhelming support of the people of that time. We give our consent indirectly by participating in the system it creates—by voting in elections, abiding by its laws, and enjoying the rights it grants us. Our continued participation and acceptance make it our own. It represents a shared national commitment that we inherit and uphold.
-
'It is written in tough language.' The language of the Constitution can be technical because it is a legal document that needs to be precise to avoid confusion. However, the core principles and values it stands for—justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are simple and universal. It is the framework that guarantees your rights, like the freedom to ask critical questions just as you are doing now. It ensures that there are rules that even the government must follow.
'Why should I obey this document?'
You should obey it because it provides the basic rules that allow us to live together peacefully and with dignity in a diverse society like ours. It protects you from injustice and arbitrary power. It gives you fundamental rights, creates a framework for a just society, and defines our identity as a nation. It is not just a book; it is the source of our rights, our security, and our collective aspirations."
Q10Exercises
In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions: a. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government. b. Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed. c. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution. Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position?
Solution
All three positions represent a valid, though partial, perspective on the working of the Indian Constitution. A complete understanding requires acknowledging the truth in each viewpoint.
-
Harbans' Position: I agree with Harbans. The Constitution has undoubtedly succeeded in establishing and sustaining a framework for democratic government in a country of immense diversity. It has provided for regular elections, a system of checks and balances with an independent judiciary, and has protected fundamental rights, ensuring that India remains a functioning democracy against great odds. The document's institutional design has proven to be robust and resilient.
-
Neha's Position: Neha's frustration is also understandable. The Constitution's Preamble and chapters on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles did make solemn promises of a just and equitable society. Decades later, deep-seated issues like poverty, caste discrimination, and gender inequality persist. From this perspective, the vast gap between the constitutional vision and the social reality can be seen as a failure to realize its promises. However, to say the Constitution itself has failed might be too strong. It provides the framework for pursuing justice, but it cannot magically achieve it.
-
Nazima's Position: I find myself most aligned with Nazima's position. The Constitution is an enabling document; it is a map and a set of tools, not a self-executing machine. It lays down the principles and creates institutions, but its success depends on the commitment of the people and the integrity of those who operate these institutions—the citizens, politicians, judges, and administrators. When we see failures in achieving liberty, equality, and fraternity, it is often not due to a flaw in the constitutional framework but a failure in its implementation and a lack of adherence to its moral spirit. We, as a society and as individuals, have often failed to live up to the high ideals it sets for us.
My Own Position:
My position is a synthesis of all three. The Constitution, as Harbans argues, has been a remarkable success in providing a durable democratic structure. However, the aspirational goals, as Neha points out, remain distant. The reason for this gap lies in Nazima's argument: the failure is not of the constitutional text but of its application by the society it governs. Therefore, the Indian Constitution has not failed; it remains a powerful and relevant guide. The challenge lies with us, the people of India, to bridge the gap between its profound promises and our current reality.