NCERT Solutions for Class 12 History Chapter 12: Framing the Constitution (NCERT 2026–27)
These Class 12 History Chapter 12 solutions cover Framing the Constitution – The Beginning of a New Era from Themes in Indian History, Part III, updated for the 2026–27 session. The chapter studies the history behind the making of the Indian Constitution — the work of the Constituent Assembly between December 1946 and November 1949, the Objectives Resolution, and the intense debates over separate electorates, the rights of the depressed castes and tribals, the powers of the Centre versus the states, and the language of the nation. Below you get step-by-step answers to every NCERT exercise question reproduced verbatim, clear notes on key terms, extra practice, MCQs, Assertion–Reason and FAQs.
Class: 12Subject: HistoryBook: Themes in Indian History, Part IIIChapter: 12 — Framing the ConstitutionTheme: The Beginning of a New EraSession: 2026–27
Chapter 12, Framing the Constitution, traces the history behind the document that came into effect on 26 January 1950 — the longest written constitution in the world. India at Independence was large, diverse and deeply divided, and a Constitution was needed both to keep the country together and to nurture democratic institutions in a culture long marked by hierarchy. The Constitution was framed between December 1946 and November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly, which held eleven sessions over 165 days and discussed the drafts clause by clause. The chapter introduces the dominant voices — Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman of the Drafting Committee) — and the great debates of the Assembly: Nehru’s Objectives Resolution, the rejection of separate electorates, the demands of the depressed castes and tribals, the tug-of-war over the powers of the Centre and the states, and the fierce controversy over the language of the nation. It shows how the Constitution emerged through a process of debate, give-and-take and the forging of a middle ground, settling finally on universal adult franchise and a distinctive Indian secularism.
Key Concepts & Terms
Constituent Assembly: the body that framed the Constitution of India between December 1946 and November 1949. Its members were not elected by universal franchise but chosen by the provincial legislatures elected in the winter of 1945–46; about 82 per cent of its members belonged to the Congress.
Objectives Resolution: moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946. It proclaimed India an “Independent Sovereign Republic”, guaranteed justice, equality and freedom to its citizens, and promised adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas and the depressed classes — providing the framework for constitution-making.
Drafting Committee: the committee chaired by B.R. Ambedkar that guided the Draft Constitution through the Assembly; K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar served on it, assisted by the civil servants B.N. Rau (Constitutional Advisor) and S.N. Mukherjee (Chief Draughtsman).
Separate electorates: a system in which members of a particular community vote only for candidates of that community. B. Pocker Bahadur pleaded for their continuation; most nationalists, led by Patel and G.B. Pant, opposed them as a colonial device that had divided the nation and led to Partition.
Universal adult franchise: the granting of the vote to every adult Indian regardless of property, education or gender — an unprecedented “act of faith”, since in older democracies the vote had been extended only slowly and in stages.
Federal lists (Union, State, Concurrent): the Draft Constitution divided subjects into three lists; the Union list was the Centre’s preserve, the State list the states’, and the Concurrent list a shared responsibility. Far more items were placed under exclusive Union control than in other federations, reflecting a bias towards a strong Centre.
Fiscal federalism: the constitutional sharing of taxes between Centre and states — some taxes (customs, company taxes) retained wholly by the Centre, some (income tax, excise) shared with the states, some (estate duties) assigned wholly to the states, with states levying land, property, sales and liquor taxes.
Hindustani: a blend of Hindi and Urdu favoured by Mahatma Gandhi as the national language because it was a composite, multi-cultural tongue understood across regions and capable of uniting Hindus and Muslims, north and south.
Language compromise: the Language Committee’s formula that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official (not national) language, with English continuing for official purposes for fifteen years and provinces free to use a regional language.
Indian secularism: not an absolute separation of State and religion but a “judicious distance” — equal treatment of all religions, Fundamental Rights to freedom of religion, and legal space for social reform (such as abolishing untouchability).
Other key terms:Article 356 (empowers the Centre to take over a state administration on the Governor’s recommendation), Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) (the eleven-volume record of the discussions), and the princely states (about one-third of the subcontinent, whose constitutional status was ambiguous at Independence).
NCERT Exercise — Full Solutions
All questions below are reproduced verbatim from the NCERT textbook’s end-of-chapter exercise. Answers are original, written in exam-ready style.
Answer in 100–150 words
1. What were the ideals expressed in the Objectives Resolution?
ANSWERThe Objectives Resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946. It outlined the defining ideals of the Constitution and provided the framework within which constitution-making was to proceed.Its central ideals were: India was to be an Independent Sovereign Republic; its citizens were guaranteed justice, equality and freedom; and adequate safeguards were to be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and the depressed and other backward classes.Although the word “democratic” was deliberately not used, Nehru explained that the word “republic” already contained it, and that the resolution embodied the content of both political and economic democracy. Nehru placed the Indian experiment in the broad sweep of the American, French and Russian revolutions, yet insisted that India would not simply copy others — its government had to “fit in with the temper of our people”, fusing liberal democracy with the socialist idea of economic justice.
2. How was the term minority defined by different groups?
ANSWERThe term “minority” was understood very differently by different members of the Constituent Assembly:Religious minorities: B. Pocker Bahadur of Madras spoke for the Muslims as a religious minority and pleaded for separate electorates so that their voice could be heard. Begum Aizaz Rasul, however, came to feel that separate electorates were self-destructive and isolated Muslims from the majority.Economic minorities: N.G. Ranga, a socialist and peasant leader, argued that the real minorities were the poor and the downtrodden — the oppressed masses, tribals and exploited villagers — who could not enjoy ordinary civil rights and needed “props” and “a ladder”.Tribals: Jaipal Singh said tribes were not a numerical minority but, having been dispossessed of land, forests and pastures, needed protection and reservation of seats. Depressed castes: J. Nagappa and others pointed out that they formed 20–25 per cent of the population and so were no minority either; their suffering arose from systematic marginalisation. Hansa Mehta demanded justice and equality for women, not reserved seats or separate electorates.
3. What were the arguments in favour of greater power to the provinces?
ANSWERThe case for greater power to the provinces was made most eloquently by K. Santhanam of Madras. He argued that a reallocation of powers was necessary to strengthen both the states and the Centre.He challenged the “obsession” that piling powers on the Centre would make it strong; an over-burdened Centre, he said, could not function effectively. By transferring some functions to the states, the Centre could in fact be made stronger.Santhanam warned that the proposed allocation would cripple the states financially, since most taxes except land revenue had been made the Centre’s preserve. Without finances, the states could not undertake development — education, sanitation, roads or industries. He predicted that, unless the distribution of powers was scrutinised, in a few years the provinces would rise in “revolt against the Centre”. A member from Orissa similarly warned that “the Centre is likely to break” because powers had been excessively centralised. These speakers fought for fewer items to be placed on the Concurrent and Union lists.
4. Why did Mahatma Gandhi think Hindustani should be the national language?
ANSWERMahatma Gandhi believed that the national language should be one that common people could easily understand, so that people across the country could listen to and connect with one another. By the 1930s the Congress had accepted Hindustani for this reason.Hindustani was a blend of Hindi and Urdu, a popular language of a large section of Indians. It was a composite, multi-cultural language enriched over the years by words drawn from many sources, and was therefore understood by people from various regions.Gandhi thought this inclusive character made Hindustani the ideal language of communication between diverse communities: it could unify Hindus and Muslims and the people of the north and the south. He resisted the move to Sanskritise Hindi or Persianise Urdu, urging that the national language should be “neither Sanskritised Hindi nor Persianised Urdu but a happy combination of both”, freely admitting words from regional and foreign languages. To confine oneself to a purified Hindi or Urdu, he felt, would be “a crime against intelligence and the spirit of patriotism”.
Write a short essay (250–300 words) on the following:
5. What historical forces shaped the vision of the Constitution?
ANSWERThe vision of the Constitution was shaped by several powerful historical forces. First was the long national movement against colonial rule, which was inevitably a struggle for democracy, justice, citizens’ rights and equality. Ideals of democracy, equality and justice had been intimately associated with social struggles in India since the nineteenth century — the reformers who opposed child marriage and championed widow remarriage, Vivekananda’s reform of Hinduism, Jyotiba Phule’s exposure of caste suffering, and the Communists and Socialists who organised workers and peasants — all of which demanded social and economic justice.Second was the experience of colonial constitutional reforms. The Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935 gradually enlarged Indian participation in provincial government, yet they were enacted by the colonial government, never debated by Indians, and rested on a limited franchise of only 10–15 per cent. The makers of the Constitution drew a deliberate contrast with these limited, externally imposed measures.Third was the tumultuous immediate context — the Quit India movement, the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, mass protests, and above all the trauma of Partition with its communal violence and refugee crisis, together with the unresolved problem of the princely states. This pushed the framers towards a strong Centre and a firm rejection of separate electorates.Finally, the framers drew inspiration from the American, French and Russian revolutions, fusing liberal democracy with the socialist idea of economic justice. Yet, as Nehru insisted, “we are not going just to copy”: the Constitution had to fit the temper of the Indian people. These forces together produced a document committed to sovereignty, justice, equality, secularism and universal adult franchise.
6. Discuss the different arguments made in favour of protection of the oppressed groups.
ANSWERA range of voices in the Constituent Assembly argued for protecting the oppressed, though they framed the problem differently.N.G. Ranga urged that “minority” be interpreted in economic terms: the real minorities were the masses — oppressed villagers, tribals exploited by merchants and money-lenders, and the poor who could not enjoy ordinary civil rights. Legal rights alone were meaningless to them; they “need props, they need a ladder”, and much more than the Resolution to make their rights real.Jaipal Singh spoke for the tribals (Adibasis), who had been “disgracefully treated, neglected for the last 6,000 years”, dispossessed of land, forests and pastures. He did not ask for separate electorates but pressed for reservation of seats in the legislature so that tribals could represent themselves and the rest of society could be compelled to hear their voice and mix with them.For the depressed castes, J. Nagappa and K.J. Khanderkar argued that their suffering arose not from numerical weakness (they formed 20–25 per cent of the population) but from centuries of systematic marginalisation that denied them education and a share in administration. Dakshayani Velayudhan demanded a “moral safeguard” and the immediate removal of social disabilities, not merely reserved seats. After Partition, even Ambedkar gave up the demand for separate electorates.The Assembly finally recommended that untouchability be abolished, temples be thrown open to all castes, and seats in legislatures and government jobs be reserved for the lowest castes — while recognising that lasting change also required a change in social attitudes.
7. What connection did some of the members of the Constituent Assembly make between the political situation of the time and the need for a strong Centre?
ANSWERMany members directly linked the turbulent political situation of the time to the need for a strong Centre. The years around Independence were scarred by communal rioting, the violence of Partition, the movement of millions of refugees, and the ambiguous status of the princely states.Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the President of the Assembly that, “now that partition is a settled fact”, it would be injurious to provide for a weak central authority incapable of ensuring peace, coordinating matters of common concern, and speaking for the whole country internationally.B.R. Ambedkar declared he wanted “a strong and united Centre, much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act of 1935”. Reminding members of the riots ripping the nation apart, several argued that the Centre’s powers had to be strengthened to stop the communal frenzy. Gopalaswami Ayyangar said the Centre “should be made as strong as possible”, and Balakrishna Sharma reasoned that only a strong Centre could plan for the country’s welfare, mobilise economic resources, run a proper administration and defend against foreign aggression.Before Partition the Congress had agreed to grant autonomy to the provinces to reassure the Muslim League. After Partition, with those pressures gone and violence everywhere, most nationalists changed their position; centralisation was now seen as necessary both to forestall chaos and to plan economic development. The Constitution thus showed a distinct bias towards the rights of the Union over those of the states.
8. How did the Constituent Assembly seek to resolve the language controversy?
ANSWERThe language question was one of the most fiercely debated issues, and the Constituent Assembly resolved it through a carefully crafted compromise formula.There was a sharp deadlock between those, like R.V. Dhulekar, who wanted Hindi declared the national language, and those from non-Hindi regions, like G. Durgabai of Madras, who feared that aggressive promotion of Hindi would cut at the root of the provincial languages and erode the composite character of Hindustani. The opposition in the south was especially strong.The Language Committee defused the conflict by deciding that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the “official” language, not the “national” language. By choosing the word “official”, the Committee hoped to placate ruffled emotions. The transition to Hindi was to be gradual: for the first fifteen years, English would continue to be used for all official purposes, and each province was allowed to choose one of its regional languages for official work within the province.Many members appealed for a spirit of accommodation. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar warned that the cause of Hindi would not be helped if it was pushed too aggressively, and that “when we want to live together and form a united nation, there should be mutual adjustment and no question of forcing things on people”. Through such give-and-take, a middle ground was forged that aimed to be acceptable to all.
Map work
9. On a present-day political map of India, indicate the different languages spoken in each state and mark out the one that is designated as the language for official communication. Compare the present map with a map of the early 1950s. What differences do you notice? Do the differences say something about the relationship between language and the organisation of the states?
ANSWER(This is a map/project activity; mark the languages on an outline map yourself. A model written answer follows.)On a present-day political map, mark each state with the regional language(s) spoken there and the language used for its official communication — for example, Hindi (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana), Bengali (West Bengal), Marathi (Maharashtra), Gujarati (Gujarat), Tamil (Tamil Nadu), Telugu (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana), Kannada (Karnataka), Malayalam (Kerala), Punjabi (Punjab), Odia (Odisha), Assamese (Assam) and so on.Differences from the early 1950s: in the early 1950s many present-day states had not yet been formed. After the agitation for linguistic states and the report of the States Reorganisation Commission (1956), states were largely reorganised on a linguistic basis — the creation of Andhra (1953), the splitting of Bombay into Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960), the formation of Punjab and Haryana (1966), and later states such as Telangana (2014).What this shows: the differences reveal a close connection between language and the organisation of the states. Language became a major basis for drawing state boundaries, so that people sharing a common language and culture could be administered together — reflecting exactly the kinds of anxieties about language and identity voiced in the Constituent Assembly debates.
Project (Choose One)
10. Choose any one important constitutional change that has happened in recent years. Find out why the change was made, what different arguments were put forward for the change, and the historical background to the change. If you can, try and look at the Constitutional Assembly Debates (http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm) to see how the issue was discussed at that time. Write about your findings.
ANSWER(This is a project; choose one change and research it. A model outline based on the 73rd and 74th Amendments follows.)Constitutional change: the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments (1992), which gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions and urban local bodies.Why it was made: to deepen grassroots democracy, ensure regular elections to local bodies, and reserve seats for women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, so that the “will of the people” invoked in the Objectives Resolution could be realised at the village and town level.Arguments for and historical background: supporters argued that genuine democracy required decentralisation and the participation of the poor and marginalised — the very groups Ranga and Jaipal Singh had spoken for in the Assembly. The idea echoed Gandhi’s vision of village self-government (Gram Swaraj) and the Directive Principle (Article 40) to organise village panchayats. Looking back at the Constituent Assembly Debates shows that the framers had already debated how to make rights real for ordinary people — this amendment was a later step in that same project of building “the fullest democracy”.
11. Compare the Constitution of America, France or South Africa with the Indian Constitution, focusing on any two of the following themes: secularism, minority rights, realtions between the Centre and the states. Find out how these differences and similarities are linked to the histories of the regions.
ANSWER(This is a project; choose one country and any two themes. A model comparison with the United States on secularism and Centre–state relations follows.)Secularism: the American Constitution enforces a strict “wall of separation” between church and state — the state keeps entirely away from religion. Indian secularism, by contrast, is a “judicious distance”: the state treats all religions equally and may intervene to reform religious practices (banning untouchability, opening temples). This difference is linked to history — the USA was founded by groups fleeing religious persecution and wary of an established church, whereas India had to accommodate many religions and undertake social reform within communities marked by caste and religious diversity.Centre–state relations: the USA has a more clearly federal structure with significant state autonomy, born of thirteen colonies coming together to form a union. India adopted a federal structure with a strong central bias — more items on the Union list, Article 356, and a fiscal system favouring the Centre — precisely because the trauma of Partition and communal violence convinced the framers that a strong Centre was needed to hold a diverse nation together. Thus the histories of the two regions explain why the United States leans towards state rights while India leaned towards the Union.
Extra Practice Questions
Short Answer Type Questions
Q1. When was the Constitution of India framed, and when did it come into effect?
ANSWERThe Constitution of India was framed by the Constituent Assembly between December 1946 and November 1949. It was signed in December 1949 and came into effect on 26 January 1950. The Assembly held eleven sessions over 165 days, and the record of its discussions ran to eleven bulky volumes.
Q2. Who were the “dominant voices” in the Constituent Assembly?
ANSWERSix members played especially important roles. The Congress trio — Jawaharlal Nehru (who moved the Objectives Resolution), Vallabhbhai Patel (who worked behind the scenes reconciling views) and Rajendra Prasad (President of the Assembly) — together with B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman of the Drafting Committee), K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar. They were assisted by the civil servants B.N. Rau and S.N. Mukherjee.
Q3. Why did most nationalists oppose separate electorates?
ANSWERMost nationalists saw separate electorates as a colonial device deliberately introduced by the British to divide Indians. Sardar Patel called them a “poison that has entered the body politic of our country”, blaming them for turning communities against one another and causing Partition. G.B. Pant argued they would be “suicidal” for minorities, permanently isolating them and denying them an effective voice.
Q4. What was the language compromise reached by the Constituent Assembly?
ANSWERThe Language Committee decided that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official (not national) language, with the transition to be gradual. English would continue to be used for all official purposes for the first fifteen years, and each province could choose one of its regional languages for official work within the province.
Q5. Why was the granting of universal adult franchise called an “act of faith”?
ANSWERIt was an act of faith because India granted the vote to every adult at once, irrespective of property, education or gender. In older democracies like the USA and UK the vote had been extended only slowly — first to men of property, then men with education, then working-class men, and only after a long struggle to women. India trusted its poor and largely illiterate people with the vote from the very start.
Long Answer Type Questions
Q1. Describe the composition of the Constituent Assembly and explain how public opinion influenced its work.
ANSWERThe Constituent Assembly was not elected on the basis of universal franchise. In the winter of 1945–46 provincial elections were held, and the provincial legislatures then chose the representatives to the Assembly. The Congress, having swept the general seats, dominated the body; the Muslim League boycotted it to press for Pakistan, and the Socialists initially stayed away, so about 82 per cent of members were Congressmen. Yet the Congress was not a party of one voice: its members ranged from socialists to defenders of landlordism, from those close to communal parties to assertive secularists, and through the national movement they had learnt to debate and negotiate their differences. Public opinion shaped the Assembly’s work directly. As deliberations continued, arguments were reported in newspapers and proposals publicly debated; criticisms and counter-criticisms in the press shaped the consensus on specific issues. The public was even invited to send in its views — linguistic minorities sought protection of their mother tongue, religious minorities asked for safeguards, and dalits demanded an end to caste oppression and reservation of seats. These issues of cultural rights and social justice were then debated on the floor of the Assembly.
Q2. Examine the debate in the Constituent Assembly over the powers of the Centre and the states.
ANSWERThe respective rights of the Central Government and the states were among the most vigorously debated topics. The Draft Constitution provided for three lists — Union, State and Concurrent — but placed far more items under exclusive Union control than other federations, gave the Centre control of minerals and key industries, and through Article 356 allowed it to take over a state administration. A complex system of fiscal federalism left most lucrative taxes with the Centre. K. Santhanam of Madras led the case for greater provincial power, warning that the fiscal provisions would impoverish the states, which could not undertake development without finances, and predicting that the provinces would soon “revolt against the Centre”; a member from Orissa cautioned that “the Centre is likely to break”. On the other side, Nehru, Ambedkar, Gopalaswami Ayyangar and Balakrishna Sharma argued that the riots, the violence of Partition and the need for planned economic development demanded a strong Centre. Before Partition the Congress had favoured provincial autonomy to reassure the Muslim League; after Partition that pressure vanished, and the Constitution finally showed a distinct bias towards the Union over its constituent states.
Q3. “The Constitution of India emerged through a process of intense debate and give-and-take.” Discuss with examples.
ANSWERThe Constitution was not handed down by any single authority; it emerged through three years of intense debate in which conflicting ideas were reconciled by forging a middle ground. On separate electorates, the passionate plea of B. Pocker Bahadur was answered by Patel, Pant and Dhulekar, until even Ambedkar and most Muslim members abandoned the demand, and the Assembly instead chose reservation of seats for the depressed castes. On the rights of oppressed groups, the voices of Ranga (economic minorities), Jaipal Singh (tribals), Nagappa and Dakshayani Velayudhan (depressed castes) and Hansa Mehta (women) were debated before the Assembly settled on abolishing untouchability and reserving seats and jobs. On Centre–state powers, Santhanam’s warnings were weighed against the demand for a strong Centre, with the balance tilting to the Union after Partition. On language, the deadlock between Hindi enthusiasts like Dhulekar and southern members like Durgabai was resolved by the “official language” compromise with a fifteen-year role for English. Yet on one matter there was substantial agreement — universal adult franchise. As members heard one another argue over three years, many rethought and changed their positions, showing that the Constitution was truly a product of dialogue and accommodation.
MCQs & Assertion–Reason
1. When did the Constitution of India come into effect?
(a) 15 August 1947 (b) 26 January 1950 (c) 26 November 1949 (d) 13 December 1946
2. Who moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on 13 December 1946?
For each Assertion–Reason question, choose: (A) Both true and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion; (B) Both true but the Reason is not the correct explanation; (C) Assertion true, Reason false; (D) Assertion false, Reason true.
A-R 1. Assertion: The members of the Constituent Assembly were not elected by universal adult franchise.
Reason: They were chosen by the provincial legislatures elected in the winter of 1945–46.
A-R 2. Assertion: Most nationalists opposed separate electorates.
Reason: They saw separate electorates as a colonial device that divided the people and led to Partition.
A-R 3. Assertion: After Partition, most nationalists favoured a weak Centre.
Reason: The violence of the times made centralisation seem necessary to forestall chaos and plan development.
A-R 4. Assertion: Hindi was declared the “official” language rather than the “national” language.
Reason: The Language Committee hoped the word “official” would placate the ruffled emotions of non-Hindi speakers.
A-R 5. Assertion: The granting of universal adult franchise was an unprecedented act of faith.
Reason: In countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom the vote had been extended only slowly and in stages.
Answer key: 1-(A), 2-(A), 3-(D), 4-(A), 5-(A).
Exam Tips & Common Mistakes
How to score full marks in this chapter
Anchor your answers in the textbook’s named speakers and their exact positions — Nehru and the Objectives Resolution, Patel and Pant against separate electorates, Ranga and Jaipal Singh on the oppressed, Santhanam on provincial rights, Dhulekar and Durgabai on language. Remember the key dates (Objectives Resolution 13 December 1946; Constitution signed December 1949; in force 26 January 1950; eleven sessions, 165 days). For source-based questions, link the speech to its theme. Always show that the Constitution emerged through debate and give-and-take, and end with the two features there was agreement on — universal adult franchise and Indian secularism (a “judicious distance”, not absolute separation).
Common mistakes to avoid
Confusing the dates — the Constitution was signed in December 1949 but came into effect on 26 January 1950.
Writing that the Assembly was elected by universal franchise — it was chosen by the provincial legislatures.
Saying Hindi was made the “national” language — it was made the official language, with English for fifteen years.
Confusing the speakers — e.g. attributing Ranga’s “real minorities are the masses” to Ambedkar, or Santhanam’s plea for the states to Nehru.
Describing Indian secularism as a strict separation of State and religion — it is a “judicious distance”.
Treating tribals and depressed castes as numerical minorities — Jaipal Singh and Nagappa stressed they were not.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Chapter 12 of Class 12 History about?
Chapter 12, Framing the Constitution – The Beginning of a New Era, studies the history behind the Indian Constitution: the work of the Constituent Assembly (December 1946 to November 1949), Nehru’s Objectives Resolution, and the debates over separate electorates, the rights of depressed castes and tribals, the powers of the Centre and the states, and the language of the nation.
Who was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee?
B.R. Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and had the responsibility of guiding the Draft Constitution through the Constituent Assembly. He was assisted by K.M. Munshi and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, and by the civil servants B.N. Rau and S.N. Mukherjee.
How did the Constituent Assembly resolve the language controversy?
The Language Committee decided that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official (not national) language, with a gradual transition. English would continue for all official purposes for fifteen years, and each province could choose a regional language for its own official work — a compromise aimed at being acceptable to all.
