History · Ch 12 — Framing the Constitution — The Beginning of a New Era
The fear of domination
The fear of domination
The Constituent Assembly debates on language reveal a deep anxiety: the fear of domination by one linguistic group over others. This fear was not abstract — it surfaced sharply in the very first days of the Assembly, and it shaped the final compromise on the national language question.
The language controversy erupts
A day after the fiery speech by Dhulekar (who had demanded Hindi as the national language), Shrimati G. Durgabai from Madras rose to express her alarm. She pointed out that what had until recently been an almost agreed proposition — the choice of a national language — had suddenly become a highly controversial issue. The people of non-Hindi-speaking areas, she said, had been made to feel that the attitude of Hindi-speaking areas was a fight to prevent the natural influence of other powerful languages of India on the composite culture of the nation.
Durgabai informed the House that opposition to Hindi in the south was very strong. Opponents felt, perhaps justly, that this propaganda for Hindi cut at the very root of the provincial languages. Yet she and many others had obeyed Mahatma Gandhi's call and carried out Hindi propaganda in the south — braving resistance, starting schools, and conducting classes in Hindi.
Durgabai's own commitment to Hindi was genuine. She had accepted Hindustani as the language of the people. But now that language was being changed — words from Urdu and other regional languages were being taken out. Any move that eroded the inclusive and composite character of Hindustani, she felt, was bound to create anxieties and fears among different language groups.
Appeals for accommodation
As the discussion became acrimonious, many members appealed for a spirit of give-and-take.
-
Shankarrao Deo (Bombay) stated that as a Congressman and follower of Mahatma Gandhi, he had accepted Hindustani as the national language. But he warned: "If you want my whole-hearted support (for Hindi), you must not do now anything which may raise my suspicions and which will strengthen my fears."
-
T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras) emphasised that whatever was done had to be done with caution. The cause of Hindi would not be helped if it was pushed too aggressively. The fears of the people, even if unjustified, had to be allayed, or else "there will be bitter feelings left behind." He added: "When we want to live together and form a united nation, there should be mutual adjustment and no question of forcing things on people."
The language debate shows that the Constitution was not imposed from above. It emerged through intense debate, give-and-take, and the forging of a middle ground between opposed positions. The fear of domination was real, and it had to be addressed — not dismissed.
Two central features on which there was substantial agreement
Despite the sharp disagreements on language, there were two features of the Constitution on which the Assembly was largely united.
1. Universal adult franchise
The Constitution granted the vote to every adult Indian. This was an unprecedented act of faith. In other democracies, the vote had been granted slowly and in stages:
| Stage | Who got the vote |
|---|---|
| First | Only men of property |
| Second | Men with education were added |
| Third | Men of working-class or peasant background (after a long and bitter struggle) |
| Fourth | Women (after an even longer struggle) |
India, by contrast, granted universal adult franchise in one stroke — regardless of property, education, class, or gender.
2. Secularism
There was no ringing pronouncement of secularism in the Preamble. But operationally, its key features were spelled out in an exemplary manner through the Fundamental Rights:
- Freedom of religion (Articles 25–28)
- Cultural and educational rights (Articles 29, 30)
- Rights to equality (Articles 14, 16, 17)
All religions were guaranteed equal treatment by the State and given the right to maintain charitable institutions. The State also sought to distance itself from religious communities by:
- Banning compulsory religious instruction in State-run schools and colleges
- Declaring religious discrimination in employment to be illegal …