Class 11 Political Science Chapter 1 Constitution: Why and How? NCERT Solutions

Q. 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.

Answer: (c) It ensures that good people come to power. A constitution can specify who has decision-making power, place limits on that power, and give expression to a society’s shared values and aspirations, but it cannot guarantee the personal quality or character of the people who come to occupy positions of power. That depends on elections, political parties and citizens’ own choices, not on anything a constitution can write into itself. Options (a), (b) and (d) match the third, second and fourth/fifth functions of a constitution respectively.

Q. 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.

Answer: (c) The constitution specifies how parliament is to be formed and what are its powers. This is the only logical reason, because it shows Parliament’s very existence and authority flow from the Constitution, so the Constitution’s authority is logically prior to Parliament’s own. (a) is a fact about timing, not a reason about authority. (b) is not a valid ground of authority at all, eminence of individuals does not establish legal supremacy. (d) is simply factually wrong, Parliament can amend the Constitution, subject to the procedure and limits the Constitution itself lays down.

Q. 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.

Answer:
(a) Not entirely true: in most countries the constitution is a compact written document specifying how the state is formed and how power is organised, but some countries, the United Kingdom for instance, do not have one single document; their constitution is a series of documents and decisions taken collectively. A constitution is also more than rules about the formation and power of government: it also embodies a society’s aspirations, values and identity (see (c) and (d)).
(b) False: constitutions exist in non-democratic states too, the chapter itself gives the example of a monarchical constitution where a monarch decides, and the old Soviet Union, where one single party held decision-making power.
(c) False: a constitution is not only rules and regulations, it also expresses a society’s aspirations and goals (the fourth function) and its fundamental identity (the fifth function), so it very much deals with ideals and values.
(d) True: the constitution gives people a political identity, since a people become a collective entity only by agreeing to a basic constitution, and a moral identity, by defining the fundamental values that may not be trespassed.

Q. 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.

Answer:
(a) Incorrect. The Assembly was not chosen by universal suffrage, but there was a serious attempt to make it representative, all religions were given representation and it had 28 members from the Scheduled Castes. More importantly, its authority came not only from being elected but from the procedures it followed and the public reason its members practised in debate, which is a separate and equally real source of representative legitimacy.
(b) Incorrect. There were genuine, principled disagreements: should India be centralised or decentralised, what should Centre-State relations be, what powers should the judiciary have, should property rights be protected. Almost every foundational issue of a modern state was debated with great sophistication. Only universal adult suffrage passed without any real debate, everything else was seriously contested.
(c) Incorrect. Borrowing provisions from other constitutions was not slavish imitation. Every borrowed provision had to be defended on the ground that it suited India’s own problems and aspirations, this selective, reasoned adaptation is itself a mark of originality, not its absence.

Q. 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.

Answer:
(a) (i) The Constitution drew enormous legitimacy from being made by people who had the capacity to negotiate and command the respect of a wide cross-section of society, and who convinced the people it was not a tool for their own power. (ii) Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, were both widely respected public figures who worked together despite real disagreements with other leaders.
(b) (i) The Constitution horizontally fragments power across the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. (ii) It also creates independent statutory bodies like the Election Commission, so that even if one institution tries to subvert the Constitution, others can check it, a system of checks and balances.
(c) (i) The Constitution enables the government to take positive welfare measures through the Preamble, Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. (ii) The Objective Resolution moved by Nehru in 1946 promised social, economic and political justice and adequate safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas, embedding people’s aspirations directly into the Constitution’s foundations.

Q. 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?

Answer: Before any rule can be decided, a society first has to settle who gets to decide, this is the constitution’s second function. A clear demarcation of powers tells every institution and every citizen exactly who is authorised to make which decisions, and it is what constitutes the government in the first place, before Parliament (for example) can pass any law, there must already be a law giving it that authority. Without such a demarcation, no one would know what other members of society, or the government itself, could do to them, exactly the insecurity the chapter’s opening thought experiment describes. Different institutions or groups could each claim authority for themselves, leading to confusion, conflict and a complete breakdown of coordination, with no way to achieve even minimal order in society.

Q. 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?

Answer: Even after it is settled who has authority to decide, that authority could still pass laws that are patently unjust, banning a religion, restricting clothing or songs, forcing one group to always serve others without the right to own property, permitting arbitrary arrest, or restricting access to a well by skin colour. Such laws would remain unjust even if passed through a proper procedure by a government that had come to power legitimately. This is why the constitution’s third function is to set limits, most commonly through Fundamental Rights, that government may never trespass.
A constitution that gave citizens no power at all could technically be written, but it could not succeed. The chapter explains that a constitution’s authority depends on giving everyone in society some reason to go along with it; a constitution with no rights or powers for citizens would give people no such reason, would command no allegiance, and would fail the very test of effectiveness the chapter lays out. So while such a document is imaginable on paper, it would remain merely words on parchment, exactly the fate the chapter warns many constitutions suffer.

Q. 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?

Answer: Yes, this is a real problem, one of the three factors that make a constitution effective and respected is its mode of promulgation, meaning who crafted it and how much authority they genuinely had. A constitution written under the constraint that it cannot contain anything a foreign occupying power dislikes is not a free expression of that country’s own people, its legitimacy is compromised because it was not authored by representatives the people themselves chose and trusted, it was shaped by an external power.
India’s experience was different in every one of these respects. The Indian Constitution was made by a Constituent Assembly composed of India’s own elected representatives, with no foreign power’s approval required for any provision. It drew enormous legitimacy from a long history of the nationalist movement, and its framers earned the public’s trust through decades of struggle, not through appointment by an occupying force. This is exactly why the chapter lists India, alongside South Africa and the United States, as an example of a constitution that succeeded because it was born of a popular national movement rather than imposed from outside.

Q. 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?

Answer: As the teacher, I would answer Rajat point by point.
On being “outdated”: the Indian Constitution is not a rigid, unchanging text, it is deliberately designed as a ‘living document’, one that preserves its core values while allowing itself to be amended to meet changing circumstances. Its age is not, by itself, a reason to reject it, many of its basic commitments, equality, liberty, justice, remain exactly as relevant today as in 1950.
On consent: while Rajat personally was never asked, the Constitution was framed by leaders who commanded enormous public credibility and who engaged in genuine, reasoned deliberation on behalf of the whole nation, not their own narrow interests. More importantly, India never even needed a formal referendum, because the people have gone on adopting the Constitution as their own, generation after generation, by living according to its provisions and by using the very mechanisms (elections, amendments) it provides to keep changing it. That ongoing acceptance is itself a form of consent renewed continuously.
On tough language: a constitution has to specify precise rules about power and rights, this sometimes requires careful, technical language, but that does not make it any less legitimate, and understanding it, exactly what this chapter and this course exist to help with, is part of being an informed, responsible citizen.
Finally, we obey the Constitution because it performs functions no other document does for us: it gives society basic rules for coordination, decides who has authority, limits what any government can do to us, enables the state to pursue our shared aspirations, and gives us our identity as a people. Without it, none of these things could be relied upon at all.

Q. 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?

Answer: I largely agree with Harbans and Nazima, and disagree with the strong form of Neha’s claim.
Harbans is correct: for over seven decades the Indian Constitution has given the country an unbroken, functioning framework of democratic government, regular elections, peaceful transfers of power, an independent judiciary and institutions like the Election Commission still checking and balancing one another, exactly as the chapter describes.
Nazima’s position is also persuasive: the shortfalls in fully realising liberty, equality and fraternity for every citizen reflect failures of practice by political actors, institutions and citizens themselves, not a defect in the Constitution’s own design. The document lays out the framework and the aspiration, whether that aspiration is honoured in practice depends on the people who work the Constitution, not on the text itself.
I disagree with Neha’s conclusion that the Constitution “has failed”, because it treats an unfinished journey as a completed failure. The Constitution was always meant to be a living document whose promises are worked towards continuously, not delivered instantly and completely on the day it was adopted. Falling short of a promise is a reason to demand better implementation, not proof that the framework making the promise possible in the first place has failed.

Q. This group is very much like the people of my village. Yes, this could be my colony as well! Does this apply to your village or town or colony too?

Answer. Yes. Any village, town or colony has people of different religions, professions, incomes and ages, and they disagree about many things: how land and water should be shared, how much should be spent on roads or a park, whether every child must go to school. Yet they depend on each other and have to live together. So they too need some basic rules that everyone knows and that can be enforced, which is exactly the first function of a constitution described in this section.

Q. Enact the thought experiment of this section in the classroom. Decide how the class representatives would be chosen, which decisions the representative can take on behalf of the class, which decisions need the whole class, and how to revise these decisions. Write them down and put them up on the notice board. Which problems did you encounter in this decision? Were there differences among different students? How did you resolve these differences? Did the entire class gain something from this exercise?

Answer. This is a classroom activity, so each class will reach its own decisions. A typical result: the representative is chosen by secret ballot; the representative can fix the duty roster and speak to teachers for the class, but cannot spend the common kitty or fix the picnic plan without a class vote; a decision can be changed only if two-thirds of the class agree. Problems usually arise over the kitty and the picnic, because students differ in what they can pay and what they want. Such differences are settled by discussion and then by a vote, with a rule that protects those who cannot pay. The class gains a working “constitution” of its own: everyone knows the rules, knows who decides, and knows the limits on the representative, which is how a constitution allows coordination and assurance.

Q. Countries of the European Union tried to create a European constitution. The attempt failed. Here is a cartoonist’s impression of this attempt. Does this always happen in any constitution making?

Answer. No, not always. The cartoon shows the “founding fathers” of the European constitution quarrelling and fighting over the draft. Disagreement is normal in any constitution making, because people with different interests and values must agree on basic rules. But it does not always end in failure. In India’s Constituent Assembly there were many real disagreements, yet the members argued with reasons, kept the interest of the whole nation in mind and reached agreement, so the Constitution was made and has lasted.

Q. Ah! So you first create a monster and then start worrying about saving yourself from it! I would say, why create this monster called government in the first place?

Answer. Because a society cannot do without government. Without an authority that makes and enforces rules, no one would know what others could do to them, and there would be no coordination or security at all. So the constitution first creates government (its second function) and then sets limits on what that government can impose on citizens, mainly through fundamental rights (its third function). The aim is a government strong enough to keep order and pursue the common good, but not free to become a “monster” that harms the people.

Q. The constitution makers have to address themselves to very different aspirations. Here is Nehru trying to balance between different visions and ideologies. Can you identify what these different groups stand for? Who do you think prevailed in this balancing act?

Answer. The cartoon shows Nehru as a conductor facing two groups. One group, of leaders with musical instruments, sings to the banner “Jana-Gana-Mana”; the other, a large crowd, sings to the banner “Vande Mataram”. They stand for different visions of what should express the nation. Neither side was simply defeated: the balance was struck by accommodating both. “Jana Gana Mana” was adopted as the National Anthem and “Vande Mataram” was given equal honour as the National Song. In the same way, the makers of the Constitution tried to accommodate different aspirations instead of letting one group win everything.

Q. What does it take to write nice things in the constitution? What is the point in writing down lofty aspirations and goals if they cannot change the life of the people?

Answer. Writing them is easy; the point is what they enable. Aspirations written into the Constitution do two things. First, they enable and empower the government to take positive steps, for example against caste discrimination, and some of these welfare measures are legally enforceable. Second, they set goals against which people can judge every government and demand action. The Directive Principles of State Policy, for instance, enjoin the government to fulfil certain aspirations of the people. So the goals are not empty words; they create conditions for a just society, though whether they change people’s lives also depends on how they are implemented.

Q. The writing of the new Iraqi constitution after the collapse of Saddam Hussain’s regime saw a lot of conflict between different ethnic groups in the country. What do these different people stand for? Compare the conflict depicted here with that depicted in earlier cartoons for the European Union and India.

Answer. The three figures are labelled Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the main ethnic and religious groups of Iraq. Each grabs the pen, the paper or the ink and shouts that it alone should write the constitution, while an official from Baghdad hopes for a constitution “very soon”. They stand for groups each wanting the constitution to reflect its own identity and interests. In the European Union cartoon, the conflict was among member countries and the attempt failed. In the Indian cartoon, the differences were real but were handled by balancing and accommodating the different groups. The Iraqi conflict was the sharpest, because each group wanted to impose itself rather than accommodate the others.

Q. Here are some provisions of the Indian and other constitutions. For each of these write the function that this provision performs.
(i) The government cannot order any citizen to follow or not to follow any religion. (Done in the book: Limitations on the power of the government.)
(ii) The government must try to reduce inequalities in income and wealth.
(iii) The President has the power to appoint the Prime Minister.
(iv) The Constitution is the supreme law that everyone has to obey.
(v) Indian citizenship is not limited to people of any race, caste or religion.

Answer.
(i) Limitations on the power of the government.
(ii) Enabling the government to fulfil the aspirations of society and create conditions for a just society.
(iii) Specification of decision making powers: it decides who has the power to make decisions and how the government will be constituted.
(iv) Coordination and assurance: a set of basic rules that is known to all and enforceable on everyone.
(v) Expressing the fundamental identity of a people: the Indian Constitution does not make ethnic identity a criterion for citizenship.

Q. What do people do if they find out that their constitution is not just? What happens to people when a constitution exists only on paper?

Answer. If people find their constitution unjust, they lose any reason to go along with it: they stop giving it their allegiance, protest and agitate, and demand a new or changed constitution, as in Nepal, where popular agitation forced the demand for an elected constituent assembly. When a constitution exists only on paper, it has no real impact on people’s lives: their rights are not protected, power stays with a few, often a military or unpopular leadership, and people live without the security and freedoms the document promises.

Q. Do this thought experiment. Ask yourself this question: What would be the content of some basic rules in society, such that they gave everyone a reason to go along with them?

Answer. Such rules would have to protect the freedom and equality of every member. They would: guarantee basic rights to all, so that no permanent majority could oppress a minority; treat everyone equally before the law, without systematically privileging some members at the expense of others; prevent any small group from entrenching its own power; and respect the identities of different groups. The chapter says that the more a constitution preserves the freedom and equality of all its members, the more likely it is to succeed.

Q. Why does the cartoonist describe the new Iraqi Constitution as the castle of cards? Would this description apply to the Indian Constitution?

Answer. A castle of cards looks like a building but collapses at the slightest push. The cartoonist suggests that the Iraqi constitution, made amid sharp conflict between ethnic groups and without a real consensus behind it, was fragile and could fall apart easily. The description does not apply to the Indian Constitution. It was made by leaders with great public credibility, after long deliberation, on a background consensus inherited from the national movement. It fragments power intelligently and balances rigidity with flexibility, so it has survived as a “living document”.

Q. Are the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity being practised in your classroom? How can they coexist? Discuss this with your friends.

Answer. Your answer should describe your own classroom. For example: liberty is practised when every student can ask questions and express an opinion; equality, when every student is treated alike regardless of caste, religion, gender or wealth; fraternity, when students help one another. They coexist only when practised together, as Dr. Ambedkar said: liberty without equality lets a few dominate the rest, equality without liberty kills initiative, and without fraternity neither works. So a class can give everyone a voice, apply the same rules to all, and build a spirit of cooperation at the same time.

Q. What would have happened if the Constituent Assembly was elected by all the people of India? Could it be very different from what it was?

Answer. It would have had even greater legitimacy, because every adult would have chosen its members directly. It might have included more women, more poor people and more representatives of different regions and groups, and more members from outside the Congress. But its basic outlook would probably not have been very different: the Assembly was already a serious attempt at representation, the Congress itself accommodated almost all shades of opinion, and the main principles had already been forged by the national movement, which had broad popular support.

Q. What would have happened if we got independence in 1937? Or if we had to wait till 1957? Would our Constitution be very different from what it is today?

Answer. Probably yes, in some ways. In 1937 the national movement had not yet fully worked out the principles it later brought to the Assembly, and the Objectives Resolution of 1946 did not exist, so the Constitution might have had a narrower vision. If we had waited till 1957, the experience of Partition and its violence, which pushed the framers towards a citizenship in which religious identity has no bearing on rights, might have played out differently, and new problems and ideas would have shaped it. The exact provisions depend on the times, but the core values forged in the freedom struggle would most likely have remained.

Q. Was it a borrowed constitution then? Why could we not have a constitution that does not borrow anything from anywhere else?

Answer. No, it was not a borrowed constitution. The framers took ideas from Britain, the United States, Ireland, France and Canada, but borrowing was not slavish imitation: each provision had to be defended as suited to Indian problems and aspirations, and was adapted. A constitution that borrows nothing would mean ignoring the lessons of other countries’ experiments for no good reason. As Dr. Ambedkar said, in a constitution framed so late in the day, the only new things can be the variations made to remove the faults and to suit the needs of the country.