The prosaic and unimaginative 35-word Preamble to the draft of the Constitution of India prepared by Benegal Narasingha Rau, former British colonial civil servant and constitutional adviser to the Constituent Assembly, and presented by Rau to the Drafting Committee in October 1947 merely contained an apolitical, anodyne administrative statement: “We, the people of India, seeking to promote the common good, do hereby, through our chosen representatives, enact, adopt, and give to ourselves this Constitution.”
Rau’s draft borrowed an approach common to the preambles of then-prevailing constitutions in which the act of “the people” is seen as basically administrative in nature — granting agreement and approval, adopting and enacting the constitution. For example, the preamble to the world’s oldest major living written constitution, the 1787 United States Constitution, says “We, the people… do ordain and establish this Constitution.” The 1901 Australian Constitution says “the people… have agreed to unite”.
As Chair of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected the approach of the Rau draft and produced a dramatically different new preamble in 1948, which infused the Preamble and the Constitution as a whole with profound normative content which, to this day, defines the essential character of the Constitution. The production of this new draft preamble by Dr. Ambedkar is recounted in Aakash Singh Rathore’s interesting book, Ambedkar’s Preamble: A Secret History of the Constitution of India (Vintage Books, 20 January 2020).
Ambedkar’s Preamble records the minutes of the meeting of the Drafting Committee on February 6, 1948 as follows: “‘Preamble: It was decided that for the [B.N. Rau] Preamble, the Preamble as shown in Appendix B to these minutes should be substituted’: “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign independent state, and to secure to, or promote among, all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action; Equality of status, and of opportunity; and, Fraternity assuring the dignity of every individual without distinction of caste or creed . . . do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” This was a draft produced by Dr. Ambedkar.
This draft was further discussed and edited by the Drafting Committee on February 9-13 and 21, 1948 and finalised as follows: “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship: EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation, IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY of (day of May, 1948 A.D.), do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.” This last version is found in the Constitution as finally adopted on November 26, 1949. Based on its drafting history, Ambedkar’s Preamble comes to a conclusion with which it is hard to disagree: this new draft Preamble to the Constitution of India is Dr. Ambedkar’s handiwork. It is indeed Dr. Ambedkar’s Preamble.
Freedom of thought
The book Ambedkar’s Preamble points out that in developing this new draft, Dr. Ambedkar drew the concepts of freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association and action from the December 13, 1946 Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly which in turn drew from the antecedent 22 July 1946 Declaration of the ‘Expert’s Committee’ established by the Congress Working Committee for providing inputs to the Constituent Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar also incorporated the terms “solemnly resolve”, “sovereign independent”, “Justice, social, economic and political”, and “Equality of status, and of opportunity” from these sources.
The profound concepts of fraternity and of “the dignity of every individual without distinction of caste or creed” in the new draft were Dr. Ambedkar’s own original contributions to the latest draft. It is especially noteworthy and unfortunate, however, that the explicit reference to the abhorrence of caste and religious discrimination inserted into the draft preamble by Dr. Ambedkar (“fraternity assuring the dignity of every individual without distinction of caste or creed”) was omitted from the final version approved by the Drafting Committee and the Constituent Assembly. Seventy-five years on, the error of this omission is obvious — discrimination on the basis of caste and creed has become the pivotal issue on which the fate of the Republic is being determined today.
There is another important aspect of Dr. Ambedkar’s formulation of the draft preamble which does not seem to have been noticed in Ambedkar’s Preambleor elsewhere. Even while retaining Rau’s borrowed administrative language (“enact, adopt, and give to ourselves this Constitution”) with necessary correction in his new draft, Dr. Ambedkar added to the preamble an extraordinary and unprecedented idea — that the Constitution is a declaration by “We, the people” of their solemn resolve “to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic…”, in which all citizens enjoy justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. This language survived the editing in the Drafting Committee and in the Constituent Assembly and made it into the final version of the Constitution adopted on November 26, 1949. It is of enormous significance for three reasons.
Dr. Ambedkar’s Preamble
First, Dr. Ambedkar’s Preamble distinguishes the constitutional idea of India from the monarchic, feudal and colonial pre-1947 ideas of India and constitutionally nullifies them. The first mention of the word “India” in the Preamble is found in the phrase “We, the people of India”. Here, “India” refers clearly to a country that already exists, to which “We, the people” belong in 1950. This India is, without doubt, the Independent nation born on August 15, 1947, recognised by other nations as per international law as a sovereign country whose people resolved to create a new republican, democratic India. As noted, the second reference to India in the Preamble refers to a new India that the people of India have resolved to create.
Second, the two references to “India” in the Preamble — to the India that came into existence on August 15, 1947, and to the new yet-to-be created India — profoundly affect the meaning of the word “Bharat” in Article 1(1) of the Constitution (“India, that is [i.e.,]Bharat, shall be a Union of States”). The “i.e.,” language here is crystal clear. Bharat, as mentioned in Article 1(1), is none other than the post-1947 India and the future India envisioned by the people, as outlined in the Preamble. Any interpretation of Bharat as referring to the Bharatvarsha of yore would eviscerate the Preamble’s declaration that “We, the people” are the people of India, which became Independent in 1947 (and not of any prior India), and that they are resolved to create a new India with defined characteristics.
Third, this language inserted by Dr. Ambedkar into the Preamble transforms and elevates the character of the Constitution from a mere administrative document that establishes organs of the State and allocates power amongst them to an instrument of social revolution. This goal of social revolution is reflected in Article 38(1) of the Constitution which sets out the core mission of the Republic as the creation of a new social order: “The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.” It is also fortified by an armoury of human rights built into Part III (Fundamental Rights) and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution, which, along with the Preamble, constitute the conscience of our Constitution today.
Anti-caste movement
The declaration of the people that the Constitution is an instrument through which they are creating a new India does not come out of thin air. It arises from the massive pan-Indian anti-caste movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The 19th century was an anti-caste era that emerged from the ashes of the Mughal Empire and regional Indian feudal lords, amidst the rise of British colonialism and the emergence of industrialisation. At the very least, 19 Dalit Bahujan titans of social revolution were born in India in the 19th century (at a phenomenal average of one every five years), creating a perfect ideological storm in the public consciousness. They include for example (in chronological sequence, in each region): three from Tamil Nadu (Ayya Vaikunda Swamikal, Vallalār Ramalinga Swamigal and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy Naicker); four from Maharashtra (Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule, Shahu Maharaj and Dr. Ambedkar); one from Jharkhand (Birsa Munda); and 11 from Kerala (Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, Sree Narayana Guru, Mahatma Ayyankali, Palpu, Kumaran Asan, Vagbhadananda, Pandit Karuppan, T.K. Madhavan, Pampady John Joseph, Poykayil Appachhan; and Sahodaran Ayyappan). Led by Dr. Ambedkar, the demands of the anti-caste struggle were forcefully articulated by their leaders in the course of India’s freedom struggle. Dr. Ambedkar presciently told the first Round Table Conference in 1930-31 in no uncertain terms that post-colonial India would be ruled by an “oligarchy”. He presented an elaborate memorandum setting out eight safeguards demanded by the depressed classes in post-colonial India to prevent oligarchic rule. The peak of the 19th-century anti-caste movement was the historic call by Dr. Ambedkar in 1936 for the annihilation of caste. Addressing the Constituent Assembly on 27 August 1947, only 12 days after Independence, two of Dr. Ambedkar’s closest colleagues expressed grave concern that the oligarchy would deny the depressed classes equal humanity and equal citizenship in independent India. Both belonged to the Scheduled Castes. V. I. Muniswami Pillai said, “Sir, there is a fear in the minds of some of my friends, especially the Scheduled Castes, that the Hindus are getting into power and that Hindu Raj is coming into force, and they may introduce the Varnashrama… to harass the Harijans.” Demanding a due share of power and resources for the depressed classes in proportion to their population, S. Nagappa said, “I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is a very bad policy. I want my due share; though I am innocent, ignorant, dumb, yet I want you to recognise my claim. Do not take advantage of my being dumb. Do not take advantage of my being innocent. I only want my due share, and I do not want anything more. I do not want, like others, weightage or a separate state. Nobody has a better claim than us for a separate state. We are the aboriginals of this country.” Nagappa had elegantly delivered the ultimate ultimatum — hand over due share of power to the masses or divide the country again — the option of being ruled by an oligarchy was not acceptable to the masses.
Ideological fault lines
The overwhelming domination of the Constituent Assembly by the Indian National Congress, especially after partition when over 80% of members were affiliated with that party, could not hide the deep ideological fault lines that divided the Assembly over religious identity (Hindu versus Muslim) political ideology (democracy versus Hindu theocracy); economic policy (socialism versus free market), political structure (federalism versus unitarianism), social structure and culture (modern, democratic and diverse versus traditional, feudal and unitary) as well as over the demand for annihilating the oligarchy and transferring power from it to the depressed classes. Speaking on 16th December 1946 on the Assembly’s Objectives Resolution, Dr. Ambedkar said, “I know to-day we are divided politically, socially and economically. We are a group of warring camps and I may go even to the extent of confessing that I am probably one of the leaders of such a camp”.
These deep divisions presented the design of the Constitution with a fundamental choice: should the Constitution be designed (as most constitutions are) as a one-sided vision of the powerful forces that control the drafting process forcing the powerless to battle it from outside the Constitution, or should the Constitution be innovatively designed as a “site of struggle” so that parties to conflicts would all have some space inside the Constitution and their struggles could continue peacefully within the framework of the Constitution through exchange of words and ideas rather than outside the Constitution, violently, on the streets? The forces battling each other in the Constitution may be divided into five broad categories. Using “Left” to mean pro-people rather than merely Marxist or socialist, we would have two broad categories on the left: — the social Left (which holds that the primary challenge is to democratise relations between social groups and individuals) and the economic Left (which holds that the primary challenge is to democratise production relations). We would have two corresponding forces on the right — the social Right (which believes that the primary challenge is to restore a Vedic social order) and the economic Right (which believes that the primary challenge is to establish a globally integrated market economy in India). A fifth category is a soft right approach, which holds that India’s problems can be addressed through techno-managerial improvements in governance, infrastructure, technology and education.
Genius of Dr. Ambedkar
In the event, the genius of Dr. Ambedkar was that he envisioned and crafted the Constitution as a site of struggle where seminal issues could be settled through constitutional means. Dr. Ambedkar famously said on 25th November 1949, “…[W]e must… hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy, and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
Through his draft of the preamble, Dr. Ambedkar connected the anti-caste struggle to the Constitution and created the opportunity to take the struggle forward through the Constitution. To this end, Dr. Ambedkar deftly seeded into the Constitution 20 “weapons of caste destruction”, thereby providing a constitutional framework for the implementation of his 1936 demand for the annihilation of caste.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote in the Preamble, “We, the people of India, have solemnly resolved to constitute India”. This raises the question: when and where did the people make such a resolution? It could not have been made in the Constituent Assembly, as such a proposition was never put to or decided by the Constituent Assembly. Nor would such a resolution have been made by an Assembly that was heavily dominated by the oligarchy. On the other hand, the anti-caste struggle is a true expression of the demand by the common people of India for a new India, free from the chains of the past and from “graded inequality” (to quote Dr. Ambedkar) — a nation based on equality, liberty and fraternity. The struggle is in and of itself the true expression of their resolve to constitute a new India. It was through the anti-caste movement that “We, the people of India” resolved to constitute a new India.
G. Mohan Gopal is a legal scholar specializing in normative law and justice systems.
