During the discussions in the Constituent Assembly of India, there were strong arguments in favor of granting more power to the Central government. These arguments were primarily based on the necessity of maintaining unity, stability, and efficiency in a newly independent nation with diverse cultures, languages, and regions. Below are the main arguments in favor of a strong Central government:
1. Need for National Unity and Integration:
One of the central arguments for a strong Central government was the need to preserve national unity and integrity. India, after gaining independence, faced several challenges such as regional diversity, linguistic differences, and the integration of princely states. The framers of the Constitution felt that a powerful Central government would be better equipped to deal with these issues and ensure the integration of the country. The creation of a unified nation-state was seen as essential for the preservation of the newly formed republic.
2. Control over Security and Defence:
Another important argument for centralization was the need for a unified approach to national security and defense. The partition of India had left deep scars, and there were concerns about communal violence, border disputes, and external threats. A strong Central government, with authority over defense matters, was considered crucial for ensuring the protection of the country’s borders and maintaining internal peace. The responsibility of national defense, the management of the military, and dealing with external threats were argued to be better handled at the Center.
3. Economic and Financial Coordination:
Proponents of a strong Central government argued that economic development required coordination between various states and regions. A strong Central government would be able to implement a uniform economic policy, manage resources effectively, and ensure equitable distribution. It was also essential for coordinating fiscal policies, regulating taxes, and managing state debts. A decentralized approach, it was feared, could lead to economic disparities between states and hinder national development.
4. Prevention of Regionalism and Secessionist Movements:
There was a concern that granting too much power to the states could fuel regionalism and promote secessionist tendencies. Given the diversity of languages, cultures, and historical backgrounds in different regions, a decentralized system could lead to tensions between states and undermine national cohesion. A strong Central government was seen as a safeguard against the potential for disintegration and to prevent states from pursuing their separate interests at the cost of national unity.
5. Need for Efficient Governance:
The framers of the Constitution believed that a strong Central government would ensure more effective governance across the country. The country’s vast size and diversity demanded a unified administration that could implement laws, policies, and developmental schemes uniformly. Centralization would streamline decision-making and implementation, which was crucial for tackling the country’s numerous social and economic challenges.
6. Political Stability and Strong Leadership:
A strong Central government was also seen as necessary for ensuring political stability. The framers of the Constitution believed that a powerful Center would provide strong political leadership, especially in times of crisis. It was felt that without a strong central authority, the country might face political fragmentation and instability. The leadership of the Central government would be instrumental in guiding the nation through its initial years of independence.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the arguments in favor of granting more power to the Central government in the Constituent Assembly were based on the need for national unity, security, economic coordination, and political stability. A strong Central government was viewed as essential for maintaining the integrity of the newly independent nation and for promoting the country’s development and prosperity.
We say that it is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereign republic. India is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it is bound to be a republic … Now, some friends have raised the question: “Why have you not put in the word ‘democratic’ here?” Well, I told them that it is conceivable, of course, that a republic may not be democratic but the whole of our past is witness to this fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviously we are aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy. What form of democracy, what shape it might take is another matter. The democracies of the present day, many of them in Europe and elsewhere, have played a great part in the world’s progress. Yet it may be doubtful if those democracies may not have to change their shape somewhat before long if they have to remain completely democratic. We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give to that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope. The House will notice that in this Resolution, although we have not used the word “democratic” because we thought it is obvious that the word “republic” contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words, but we have done something much more than using the word. We have given the content of democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of democracy but the content, if I may say so, of economic democracy in this Resolution. Others might take objection to this Resolution on the ground that we have not said that it should be a Socialist State. Well, I stand for Socialism and, I hope, India will stand for Socialism and that India will go towards the constitution of a Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way.
How did Jawaharlal Nehru view the role of the Constituent Assembly in shaping democracy in India?
We say that it is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereign republic. India is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it is bound to be a republic … Now, some friends have raised the question: “Why have you not put in the word ‘democratic’ here?” Well, I told them that it is conceivable, of course, that a republic may not be democratic but the whole of our past is witness to this fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviously we are aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy. What form of democracy, what shape it might take is another matter. The democracies of the present day, many of them in Europe and elsewhere, have played a great part in the world’s progress. Yet it may be doubtful if those democracies may not have to change their shape somewhat before long if they have to remain completely democratic. We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give to that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope. The House will notice that in this Resolution, although we have not used the word “democratic” because we thought it is obvious that the word “republic” contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words, but we have done something much more than using the word. We have given the content of democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of democracy but the content, if I may say so, of economic democracy in this Resolution. Others might take objection to this Resolution on the ground that we have not said that it should be a Socialist State. Well, I stand for Socialism and, I hope, India will stand for Socialism and that India will go towards the constitution of a Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way.
How does economic democracy promote social equality within a republican framework?
We say that it is our firm and solemn resolve to have an independent sovereign republic. India is bound to be sovereign, it is bound to be independent and it is bound to be a republic … Now, some friends have raised the question: “Why have you not put in the word ‘democratic’ here?” Well, I told them that it is conceivable, of course, that a republic may not be democratic but the whole of our past is witness to this fact that we stand for democratic institutions. Obviously we are aiming at democracy and nothing less than a democracy. What form of democracy, what shape it might take is another matter. The democracies of the present day, many of them in Europe and elsewhere, have played a great part in the world’s progress. Yet it may be doubtful if those democracies may not have to change their shape somewhat before long if they have to remain completely democratic. We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give to that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope. The House will notice that in this Resolution, although we have not used the word “democratic” because we thought it is obvious that the word “republic” contains that word and we did not want to use unnecessary words and redundant words, but we have done something much more than using the word. We have given the content of democracy in this Resolution and not only the content of democracy but the content, if I may say so, of economic democracy in this Resolution. Others might take objection to this Resolution on the ground that we have not said that it should be a Socialist State. Well, I stand for Socialism and, I hope, India will stand for Socialism and that India will go towards the constitution of a Socialist State and I do believe that the whole world will have to go that way.
How did defining India as a ‘republic’ enhance democratic governance?
Which of the following pairs of Committees and their Presidents is correct regarding the Constituent Assembly?
(A) | Advisory Committee – Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel |
(B) | Flag Committee – N.G. Ranga |
(C) | Steering Committee – J.B. Kripalani |
(D) | Supreme Court Committee – Jawaharlal Nehru |