On 4 November 1948, Dr B R Ambedkar moved a motion to introduce the draft constitution and delivered a landmark speech, explaining the intentions and ideas behind various provisions of the draft constitution. Dr Ambedkar elucidated the purpose behind including Directive Principles in the Constitution.
He stated that they are a novel feature of our Constitution and the only other Constitution which embodies such principles is that of Ireland. He dismissed the criticism that such principles are merely ‘pious declarations’ which do not have any binding force. Dr Ambedkar observed: “If it is said that the Directive Principles have no legal force behind them, I am prepared to admit it. But I am not prepared to admit that they have no sort of binding force at all. Nor am I prepared to concede that they are useless because they have no binding force in law.”
Directive Principles like Instrument of Instructions
According to Dr B R Ambedkar, the Directive Principles are akin to the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ issued to the Governor-General and the Governors of the colonies by the British Government under the Government of India Act 1935. The only difference was that the Directive Principles are in the form of instructions to the Legislature and the Executive. He stated that while future governments may not be answerable for a breach of such principles in a court of law, they would respect these principles, knowing that they are answerable for them before the electorate.
Dr Ambedkar noted the importance of such instructions in the following terms: “The inclusion of such instructions in a Constitution such as is proposed in the Draft becomes justifiable for another reason. The Draft Constitution as framed only provides a machinery for the government of the country. It is not a contrivance to install any particular party in power as has been done in some countries. Who should be in power is left to be determined by the people, as it must be, if the system is to satisfy the tests of democracy. But whoever captures power will not be free to do what he likes with it.
In the exercise of it, he will have to respect these instruments of instructions which are called Directive Principles. He cannot ignore them. He may not have to answer for their breach in a Court of Law. But he will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at election time. What great value these directive principles possess will be realized better when the forces of right contrive to capture power.”
On 19 November 1948, the Constituent Assembly discussed some of the provisions in Part IV of the draft Constitution. An amendment was moved by Mr Damodar Swarup Seth to draft article 30, which corresponds to Article 38 of the present constitution, in the following terms:
“Sir, I move that for article 30, the following be substituted: “30. The State shall endeavour to promote the welfare, prosperity and progress of the people by establishing and maintaining democratic socialist order and for the purpose the State shall direct its policy towards securing:
— (a) the transfer to public ownership of important means of communication, credit and exchange, mineral resources and the resources, of natural power and such other large economic enterprise as are matured for socialisation;
(b) the municipalisation of public utilities;
(c) the encouragement of the organisation of agriculture, credit and industries on co-operative basis.”
Mr Seth advanced the view that the principles laid down in draft article 30 must be made more specific and convey a clear indication about the ‘economic nature of the social order to be established’. He was of the view that the provision must expressly state an endeavour to establish and maintain a ‘democratic socialist order’, which in his view, was necessary to mitigate the ‘capitalistic order’ He opined:
“Sir, my reason for submitting this amendment is that I feel that as it is worded, the article is somewhat indefinite and vague, and does not convey any clear indication as to the economic nature of the social order to be established.
We all know that the society in which we now live is of a capitalistic order or character and in this society we see the exploiter and exploited classes both existing side by side; and the exploiting class is naturally the top-dog and the exploited class the under-dog.
In such a society we clearly see that the real welfare of the masses, of the toiling millions can neither be secured nor protected, unless the society is made clear of the exploiter class, and that can only be possible when we establish a socialist democratic order, and transfer to public ownership the “important means of production, communication, credit and exchange, mineral resources and the resources of natural power and such other large economic enterprise as are matured for socialisation;” bring about the “municipalisation of public utilities”; and “the encouragement of the organisation of agriculture, credit and industries on co-operative basis”.
The response of Dr BR Ambedkar to this proposal is particularly instructive. He opposed the amendment and stated that there was a misunderstanding among members who proposed such amendments. He was of the view that along with a ‘parliamentary democracy’, the Constitution sought to establish as an ideal, the concept of an ‘economic democracy’. However, he noted there are various ways in which this ideal of ‘economic democracy’ can be achieved – ranging from individualism to socialism to communism.
Dr Ambedkar observed as follows: “…. As I stated, our Constitution as a piece of mechanism lays down what is called parliamentary democracy. By parliamentary democracy we mean ‘one man, one vote’. We also mean that every Government shall be on the anvil, both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the voters and the electorate will be given an opportunity to assess the work done by the Government. The reason why we have established in this Constitution a political democracy is because we do not want to install by any means whatsoever a perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of people. While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic democracy.
We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the Government. That idea is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean, ‘one man, one vote’. The question is: Have we got any fixed idea as to how we should bring about economic democracy?
There are various ways in which people believe that economic democracy can be brought about; there are those who believe in individualism as the best form of economic democracy; there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy; there are those who believe in the communistic idea as the most perfect form of economic democracy.”
According to Dr Ambedkar, the idea was to leave enough room for different schools of economic thought and for the electorate to decide which ideals are the best way to achieve ‘economic democracy’. With this intent in mind, the language used in the Directive Principles was ‘not fixed or rigid’. He stated:
“Now, having regard to the fact that there are various ways by which economic democracy may be brought about, we have deliberately introduced in the language that we have used, in the directive principles, something which is not fixed or rigid.
We have left enough room for people of different ways of thinking, with regard to the reaching of the ideal of economic democracy, to strive in their own way, to persuade the electorate that it is the best way of reaching economic democracy, the fullest opportunity to act in the way in which they want to act Sir, that is the reason why the language of the articles in Part IV is left in the manner in which this Drafting Committee thought it best to leave it. It is no use giving a fixed, rigid form to something which is not rigid, which is fundamentally changing and must, having regard to the circumstances and the times, keep on changing.
It is, therefore, no use saying that the directive principles have no value. In my judgment, the directive principles have a great value, for they lay down that our ideal is economic democracy. [..] I think, if the friends who are agitated over this question bear in mind what I have said just now that our object in framing this Constitution is really twofold:
(i) to lay down the form of political democracy, and
(ii) to lay down that our ideal is economic democracy and also to prescribe that every Government whatever, it is in power, shall strive to bring about economic democracy, much of the misunderstanding under which most members are labouring will disappear.”
An insight may also be gleaned from Dr Ambedkar’s response to a proposal by Professor KT Shah to include the phrase “India shall be a Secular, Federal, and Socialist Union of States” in draft Article 1 of the Constitution.
Dr Ambedkar opposed the proposal with a two-fold response. First, he reiterated his position that the Constitution is not a mechanism to install a particular political party, structure of social organisation or economic policy. To lay down such a policy about how social and economic life is to be organised, in his view, would “destroy democracy” and take away citizens’ liberty to choose the method of social organisation that suits their needs. He stated that while at that point in time, a socialist organisation may be deemed to be beneficial, future generations may devise a different form of social organisation. Second, he conceded that the several Directive Principles, including Article 31(ii), which corresponds with the present Article 39(b) are already “socialistic” in their direction and thus, the amendment was ‘superfluous’.
The observations of Dr Ambedkar are extracted below: “Mr. Vice-President Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State.
It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances.
It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society.
But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed. The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous.
My Honourable friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of state policy. If my honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy. […] What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.”