What do you think?
Rate this book
India's Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy
How India's Constitution came into being and instituted democracy after independence from British rule.
Britain's justification for colonial rule in India stressed the impossibility of Indian self-government. And the empire did its best to ensure this was the case, impoverishing Indian subjects and doing little to improve their socioeconomic reality. So when independence came, the cultivation of democratic citizenship was a foremost challenge.
Madhav Khosla explores the means India's founders used to foster a democratic ethos. They knew the people would need to learn ways of citizenship, but the path to education did not lie in rule by a superior class of men, as the British insisted. Rather, it rested on the creation of a self-sustaining politics. The makers of the Indian Constitution instituted universal suffrage amid poverty, illiteracy, social heterogeneity, and centuries of tradition. They crafted a constitutional system that could respond to the problem of democratization under the most inhospitable conditions. On January 26, 1950, the Indian Constitution--the longest in the world--came into effect.
More than half of the world's constitutions have been written in the past three decades. Unlike the constitutional revolutions of the late eighteenth century, these contemporary revolutions have occurred in countries characterized by low levels of economic growth and education, where voting populations are deeply divided by race, religion, and ethnicity. And these countries have democratized at once, not gradually. The events and ideas of India's Founding Moment offer a natural reference point for these nations where democracy and constitutionalism have arrived simultaneously, and they remind us of the promise and challenge of self-rule today.
Britain's justification for colonial rule in India stressed the impossibility of Indian self-government. And the empire did its best to ensure this was the case, impoverishing Indian subjects and doing little to improve their socioeconomic reality. So when independence came, the cultivation of democratic citizenship was a foremost challenge.
Madhav Khosla explores the means India's founders used to foster a democratic ethos. They knew the people would need to learn ways of citizenship, but the path to education did not lie in rule by a superior class of men, as the British insisted. Rather, it rested on the creation of a self-sustaining politics. The makers of the Indian Constitution instituted universal suffrage amid poverty, illiteracy, social heterogeneity, and centuries of tradition. They crafted a constitutional system that could respond to the problem of democratization under the most inhospitable conditions. On January 26, 1950, the Indian Constitution--the longest in the world--came into effect.
More than half of the world's constitutions have been written in the past three decades. Unlike the constitutional revolutions of the late eighteenth century, these contemporary revolutions have occurred in countries characterized by low levels of economic growth and education, where voting populations are deeply divided by race, religion, and ethnicity. And these countries have democratized at once, not gradually. The events and ideas of India's Founding Moment offer a natural reference point for these nations where democracy and constitutionalism have arrived simultaneously, and they remind us of the promise and challenge of self-rule today.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published February 4, 2020
36 people are currently reading
958 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
November 5, 2021
هیچوقت واسم سوال نشده بود دومین کشور پرجمعیت جهان چطور اداره میشه و قوانینش چیه!!
تو این کتاب به خوبی به این مساله می پردازه.
مثلا اینکه چطور شد که به هر فرد حق رای دادن؟
ولی تا حالا به این قضیه فکر نکرده بودم که داشتن حق رای فردی یعنی داشتن هویت!!!
و اینکه میگه چقدر قوانین هند زیاده منظورم قوانین اساسی هستش.
و در آخر هم به گاندی اشاره میکنه که چقدر مخالف مدرن بودن بود. که بنظرم لازمه در مورد گاندی بخونم.
در کل کتاب بدی نبود، اگه وقت و پولتون اضافه اومده پیشنهاد میشه. در غیر اینصورت خیر!
تو این کتاب به خوبی به این مساله می پردازه.
مثلا اینکه چطور شد که به هر فرد حق رای دادن؟
ولی تا حالا به این قضیه فکر نکرده بودم که داشتن حق رای فردی یعنی داشتن هویت!!!
و اینکه میگه چقدر قوانین هند زیاده منظورم قوانین اساسی هستش.
و در آخر هم به گاندی اشاره میکنه که چقدر مخالف مدرن بودن بود. که بنظرم لازمه در مورد گاندی بخونم.
در کل کتاب بدی نبود، اگه وقت و پولتون اضافه اومده پیشنهاد میشه. در غیر اینصورت خیر!
June 26, 2020
Wow. This surprisingly took a mammoth of an effort considering that it’s actually pretty short, but it was worth every moment I spent on it.
India’s Founding Moment is Khosla’s project into unravelling the “Indian Problem” that plagued the country at the time of the making of its Constitution. This is an effort to discuss and deliberate upon the mindset of the members of the Constituent Assembly which led to the democratisation of the country; a feat which many considered impossible due to the fact that not only was majority of India under monarchical rule, but was also undergoing colonialism. Scholars like Mill, Tocqueville, Dicey and Bagehot spoke of essentialism when it came democracy, but India fought against all odds and created a path to self-rule.
The book is divided into 3 parts:
1. The Grammar of Constitutionalism
In this segment, Khosla discusses the move of India’s founders into codification of the Constitution. This part is further divided into the impulse towards codification and the need for the same; the decision to recognise socio-economic rights (which are unenforceable) in the text; the need to enumerate restrictions along with civil-political rights; and opting for procedural due process instead of substantive due process.
The conclusion that Khosla came to was that consensus was required for the furtherance of self-rule and it was codification which could provide means of momentum towards that consensus.
2. The Location of Power
In this segment, Khosla delves into the aspect of centralisation. In doing so, he first examines the alternative of political pluralism, i.e. localisation of power. He puts forth the viewpoints of Gandhi and Radhakamal Mukherjee to substantiate the positives of pluralism. Then he makes a case for centralisation and modernisation, whose biggest proponents are Nehru and Ambedkar, and about how centralisation is required for placing Indians in an equal relationship to a common authority. With that, he concludes with the decision of India’s founders to finally opt for centralisation (or quasi-federalism as Wheare would say).
What I found astonishing here is the language used by Nehru to make a case against pluralism. It’s surprisingly akin to the language used by colonisers; the language which justified their need to subjugate people who are deemed to be backward and incapable of taking decisions for themselves.
3. Identity and Representation
In this segment, Khosla explores the connection between representative politics and the issue of identity. First, he considers the aspect of communal representation (that is, the presence of Muslims and their fear of oppression). We are shown the disastrous consequences of Partition and the role Jinnah played in the same. However, here Khosla shifts away from the common perception that the Partition was orchestrated as a means to consolidate power for Jinnah. He also refers to Syed Ahmed Khan who is known for his commitment to reconcile Islam with modernity.
Additionally, we are also shown the perspectives of Nehru and Gandhi, who refused to acknowledge the aspect of communal divide and simply brushed it aside as a side effect of economic inequalities. But, for a middle ground, we have Lala Lajpat Rai, who sadly passed away due to injuries sustained in riots. In the end, we can clearly observe that communal representation in Indian polity was rejected one a structural note.
We are also presented the aspect of citizens as participants and the issue of self identity v. predetermined identity (the latter would have been a consequence of communal representation).
In the end, we are acquainted with the issue of caste and Ambedkar’s thoughts on the same. Khosla also explicates why group-based representation was rejected when it came to Muslims, but accepted when it came to caste. To elucidate this paradoxical issue, Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste has been referred to extensively.
All in all, this was a wonderful and enlightening read ! Well-structured and well-researched. It’s a pleasant surprise that one can pack so much of information in less than 200 pages.
My one takeaway is that, the issues that were deliberated upon for years by India’s founders before the Constitution came into being and the fears that they wished to keep at bay, have reared their ugly heads after 70 years. Our founders would have been disappointed if they saw that the very mess that they tried their best to sweep away while transforming subjects into citizens, are a ubiquitous part of our reality now.
India’s Founding Moment is Khosla’s project into unravelling the “Indian Problem” that plagued the country at the time of the making of its Constitution. This is an effort to discuss and deliberate upon the mindset of the members of the Constituent Assembly which led to the democratisation of the country; a feat which many considered impossible due to the fact that not only was majority of India under monarchical rule, but was also undergoing colonialism. Scholars like Mill, Tocqueville, Dicey and Bagehot spoke of essentialism when it came democracy, but India fought against all odds and created a path to self-rule.
The book is divided into 3 parts:
1. The Grammar of Constitutionalism
In this segment, Khosla discusses the move of India’s founders into codification of the Constitution. This part is further divided into the impulse towards codification and the need for the same; the decision to recognise socio-economic rights (which are unenforceable) in the text; the need to enumerate restrictions along with civil-political rights; and opting for procedural due process instead of substantive due process.
The conclusion that Khosla came to was that consensus was required for the furtherance of self-rule and it was codification which could provide means of momentum towards that consensus.
2. The Location of Power
In this segment, Khosla delves into the aspect of centralisation. In doing so, he first examines the alternative of political pluralism, i.e. localisation of power. He puts forth the viewpoints of Gandhi and Radhakamal Mukherjee to substantiate the positives of pluralism. Then he makes a case for centralisation and modernisation, whose biggest proponents are Nehru and Ambedkar, and about how centralisation is required for placing Indians in an equal relationship to a common authority. With that, he concludes with the decision of India’s founders to finally opt for centralisation (or quasi-federalism as Wheare would say).
What I found astonishing here is the language used by Nehru to make a case against pluralism. It’s surprisingly akin to the language used by colonisers; the language which justified their need to subjugate people who are deemed to be backward and incapable of taking decisions for themselves.
3. Identity and Representation
In this segment, Khosla explores the connection between representative politics and the issue of identity. First, he considers the aspect of communal representation (that is, the presence of Muslims and their fear of oppression). We are shown the disastrous consequences of Partition and the role Jinnah played in the same. However, here Khosla shifts away from the common perception that the Partition was orchestrated as a means to consolidate power for Jinnah. He also refers to Syed Ahmed Khan who is known for his commitment to reconcile Islam with modernity.
Additionally, we are also shown the perspectives of Nehru and Gandhi, who refused to acknowledge the aspect of communal divide and simply brushed it aside as a side effect of economic inequalities. But, for a middle ground, we have Lala Lajpat Rai, who sadly passed away due to injuries sustained in riots. In the end, we can clearly observe that communal representation in Indian polity was rejected one a structural note.
We are also presented the aspect of citizens as participants and the issue of self identity v. predetermined identity (the latter would have been a consequence of communal representation).
In the end, we are acquainted with the issue of caste and Ambedkar’s thoughts on the same. Khosla also explicates why group-based representation was rejected when it came to Muslims, but accepted when it came to caste. To elucidate this paradoxical issue, Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste has been referred to extensively.
All in all, this was a wonderful and enlightening read ! Well-structured and well-researched. It’s a pleasant surprise that one can pack so much of information in less than 200 pages.
My one takeaway is that, the issues that were deliberated upon for years by India’s founders before the Constitution came into being and the fears that they wished to keep at bay, have reared their ugly heads after 70 years. Our founders would have been disappointed if they saw that the very mess that they tried their best to sweep away while transforming subjects into citizens, are a ubiquitous part of our reality now.
December 31, 2020
“Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.” —B. R. Ambedkar
இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றிய அடிப்படைகளை ஆழமாக தத்துவார்த்த ரீதியில் விளக்குகிறது, அதோடு சேர்த்து சில வரலாற்று நிகழ்வுகளும், அரசியல் அமைப்பில் அம்பேத்கர்,காந்தி, நேரு,பட்டேல், ஜின்னா போன்ற முக்கிய ஆளுமைகளின் தாக்கத்தை பற்றியும் விவாதிக்கிறது.
புத்தகம் மூன்று பகுதிகளாக பிரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது, 1. அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் இலக்கணம், 2.மத்தியில் அதிகார குவிப்பு ஏன்?, 3.அடையாள அரசியல் மற்றும் பிரதிநிதித்துவம் ஆகியவை முக்கிய தலைப்புகள். இதை தாண்டி இந்நூலில் முடிவுரை அனைவரும் அவசியம் வாசிக்க வேண்டிய ஒன்று.
முதல் பகுதி அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் என்கிற கருத்துருவாக்கத்தினை மேற்குலக அறிஞர்களின் மேற்கோள்கள் மூலம் விளக்குகிறது, இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் ஆரம்ப புள்ளியாக மெக்காலேவின் charter act of 1833 ஐ சொல்கிறார் நூலாசிரியர். மேலும் அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நெகிழ்வுத்தன்மையை பற்றி நேருவும், அதன் நேர்த்தியான வரையறை தான் அவசியம் என்று அம்பேத்கரும் கருதியதால் தான்,நேரு அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நீளத்தை பற்றி கவலைப்பட்டார். ஆனால் அம்பேத்கரோ இந்தியா போன்ற சமத்துவமற்ற, பிற்போக்கு தனமான சமூகத்தில் சரியாக வரையறுப்பது அவசியம் அதனால் நீளம் ஒரு பிரச்சனை இல்லை என்கிறார். இந்திய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நீளத்திற்கு இதுவும் ஒரு காரணம் அதையே சமயத்தில் அது நெகிழ்வு தன்மையும் கொண்டதால் மட்டும் தான் எமெர்ஜென்ஸியையும் நம்மால் பார்க்க முடிந்தது.
அடுத்த பகுதி காந்தியின் கிராமத்தை மையமாக வைக்கும்(stateless localism) கருத்தாக்கத்திற்கு எதிரான மையப்படுத்துதல்(Centralisation) என்கிற கருத்து ஏன் முக்கியத்துவம் பெற்றது அதில் அம்பேத்கர் மற்றும் நேருவின் பங்கு என்ன என்பதை பேசுகிறது. அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பிரிவினைக்கு பிறகு எழுதப்பட்டது ஒரு காரணம், சுதேச மாகாணங்களின்(princly states) இணைப்பு மற்றோருக்காரணம், கட்டமைப்புகளோடு கூடிய நேருவின் நவீனத்துவ(modernism) பார்வை, அம்பேத்கரின் சாதி பற்றிய அச்சமும் நகரங்கள் மீது அவர் கொண்ட நம்பிக்கையும் இந்தியாவின் அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் மைய அதிகார குவியல் நோக்கத்தில் எழுதப்பட்டதற்கு முக்கிய காரணங்களாக கூறப்படுகின்றன.
இறுதி பகுதி அடையாள அரசியல் ஏற்படுத்திய தாக்கத்தை பற்றி பேசுகிறது குறிப்பாக மதம் மற்றும் சாதிய அடையாளங்கள் இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தை எப்படி உருமாற்றின என்பதை விளக்குகிறது. ஜின்னாவின் பாகிஸ்தான் கோரிக்கைக்கு அவரிடம் இருந்த வரலாற்று காரணங்களும் அது நிகழ்வதற்கு ஏதுவாக அமைந்த காலசூழலும் முக்கியமான காரணங்களாக பேசப்படுகிறது. "இந்திய துணைக்கண்டம் பல அடையாளங்கள் கூடிய ஒரு அமைப்பாக தான் இருக்கவேண்டுமேயொழிய அது நாடுகளாக பிளவுபட்ட நான் விரும்பவில்லை" என்று 1940 இல் காந்திக்கு எழுதிய கடிதத்தில் குறிப்பிடுகிறார் ஜின்னா. அடுத்து சாதி அமைப்பின் காரணமாக உருவான இடஒதுக்கீடு பற்றியும், சட்ட நிபந்தனைகள் பற்றியும் அதில் அம்பேத்கர் செலுத்திய உழைப்பை பற்றியும் பேசுகிறது.
பொதுவாக இந்தியாவில் அரசியலமைப்பு என்றாலே நேரு-காந்தி முக்கியமாக பேசப்படுவர் இந்த புத்தகம் அம்பேத்கரின் முக்கியத்துவத்தையும் பேசுகிறது. நேரு அம்பேத்கரிடயே நிலவிய சில ஒற்றுமைகளையும் தெரியப்படுத்துகிறது.
இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தை மக்களின் வாழ்க்கையோடு இணைத்திட அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றிய தார்மீகத்தை(moral) மக்களிடம் உருவாக்குவது அவசியமிகிறது. அதே சமயத்தில் தீவிரவாதத்தை விட சட்டத்தின் மீதுள்ள வெறுப்பு மனப்பான்மை ஆபத்தானது, அத்தகைய ஆட்சியாளர்களிடம் இருந்து இந்தியாவை காப்பது தான் நம் முன்னோர்களுக்கு நாம் செய்யும் நன்றியாகும்.
அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றி புரிந்துகொள்ள அவசியமான நூல். வாய்ப்பிருக்கும் தோழர்கள் அவசியம் வாசியுங்கள்.
Book: India’s founding moment
Author: madhav khosla
#Do_read
இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றிய அடிப்படைகளை ஆழமாக தத்துவார்த்த ரீதியில் விளக்குகிறது, அதோடு சேர்த்து சில வரலாற்று நிகழ்வுகளும், அரசியல் அமைப்பில் அம்பேத்கர்,காந்தி, நேரு,பட்டேல், ஜின்னா போன்ற முக்கிய ஆளுமைகளின் தாக்கத்தை பற்றியும் விவாதிக்கிறது.
புத்தகம் மூன்று பகுதிகளாக பிரிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது, 1. அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் இலக்கணம், 2.மத்தியில் அதிகார குவிப்பு ஏன்?, 3.அடையாள அரசியல் மற்றும் பிரதிநிதித்துவம் ஆகியவை முக்கிய தலைப்புகள். இதை தாண்டி இந்நூலில் முடிவுரை அனைவரும் அவசியம் வாசிக்க வேண்டிய ஒன்று.
முதல் பகுதி அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் என்கிற கருத்துருவாக்கத்தினை மேற்குலக அறிஞர்களின் மேற்கோள்கள் மூலம் விளக்குகிறது, இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் ஆரம்ப புள்ளியாக மெக்காலேவின் charter act of 1833 ஐ சொல்கிறார் நூலாசிரியர். மேலும் அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நெகிழ்வுத்தன்மையை பற்றி நேருவும், அதன் நேர்த்தியான வரையறை தான் அவசியம் என்று அம்பேத்கரும் கருதியதால் தான்,நேரு அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நீளத்தை பற்றி கவலைப்பட்டார். ஆனால் அம்பேத்கரோ இந்தியா போன்ற சமத்துவமற்ற, பிற்போக்கு தனமான சமூகத்தில் சரியாக வரையறுப்பது அவசியம் அதனால் நீளம் ஒரு பிரச்சனை இல்லை என்கிறார். இந்திய அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டத்தின் நீளத்திற்கு இதுவும் ஒரு காரணம் அதையே சமயத்தில் அது நெகிழ்வு தன்மையும் கொண்டதால் மட்டும் தான் எமெர்ஜென்ஸியையும் நம்மால் பார்க்க முடிந்தது.
அடுத்த பகுதி காந்தியின் கிராமத்தை மையமாக வைக்கும்(stateless localism) கருத்தாக்கத்திற்கு எதிரான மையப்படுத்துதல்(Centralisation) என்கிற கருத்து ஏன் முக்கியத்துவம் பெற்றது அதில் அம்பேத்கர் மற்றும் நேருவின் பங்கு என்ன என்பதை பேசுகிறது. அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பிரிவினைக்கு பிறகு எழுதப்பட்டது ஒரு காரணம், சுதேச மாகாணங்களின்(princly states) இணைப்பு மற்றோருக்காரணம், கட்டமைப்புகளோடு கூடிய நேருவின் நவீனத்துவ(modernism) பார்வை, அம்பேத்கரின் சாதி பற்றிய அச்சமும் நகரங்கள் மீது அவர் கொண்ட நம்பிக்கையும் இந்தியாவின் அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் மைய அதிகார குவியல் நோக்கத்தில் எழுதப்பட்டதற்கு முக்கிய காரணங்களாக கூறப்படுகின்றன.
இறுதி பகுதி அடையாள அரசியல் ஏற்படுத்திய தாக்கத்தை பற்றி பேசுகிறது குறிப்பாக மதம் மற்றும் சாதிய அடையாளங்கள் இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தை எப்படி உருமாற்றின என்பதை விளக்குகிறது. ஜின்னாவின் பாகிஸ்தான் கோரிக்கைக்கு அவரிடம் இருந்த வரலாற்று காரணங்களும் அது நிகழ்வதற்கு ஏதுவாக அமைந்த காலசூழலும் முக்கியமான காரணங்களாக பேசப்படுகிறது. "இந்திய துணைக்கண்டம் பல அடையாளங்கள் கூடிய ஒரு அமைப்பாக தான் இருக்கவேண்டுமேயொழிய அது நாடுகளாக பிளவுபட்ட நான் விரும்பவில்லை" என்று 1940 இல் காந்திக்கு எழுதிய கடிதத்தில் குறிப்பிடுகிறார் ஜின்னா. அடுத்து சாதி அமைப்பின் காரணமாக உருவான இடஒதுக்கீடு பற்றியும், சட்ட நிபந்தனைகள் பற்றியும் அதில் அம்பேத்கர் செலுத்திய உழைப்பை பற்றியும் பேசுகிறது.
பொதுவாக இந்தியாவில் அரசியலமைப்பு என்றாலே நேரு-காந்தி முக்கியமாக பேசப்படுவர் இந்த புத்தகம் அம்பேத்கரின் முக்கியத்துவத்தையும் பேசுகிறது. நேரு அம்பேத்கரிடயே நிலவிய சில ஒற்றுமைகளையும் தெரியப்படுத்துகிறது.
இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டத்தை மக்களின் வாழ்க்கையோடு இணைத்திட அரசியலமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றிய தார்மீகத்தை(moral) மக்களிடம் உருவாக்குவது அவசியமிகிறது. அதே சமயத்தில் தீவிரவாதத்தை விட சட்டத்தின் மீதுள்ள வெறுப்பு மனப்பான்மை ஆபத்தானது, அத்தகைய ஆட்சியாளர்களிடம் இருந்து இந்தியாவை காப்பது தான் நம் முன்னோர்களுக்கு நாம் செய்யும் நன்றியாகும்.
அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் பற்றி புரிந்துகொள்ள அவசியமான நூல். வாய்ப்பிருக்கும் தோழர்கள் அவசியம் வாசியுங்கள்.
Book: India’s founding moment
Author: madhav khosla
#Do_read
July 9, 2021
It's easy to forget, in the melee of daily depressing news cycles, that the people who worked for India's freedom -- both before 1947 to achieve independence but, crucially, also after to put it in writing -- were incredibly conscious about the importance of achieving an enduring and coherent idea of a newly formed country. A country that had suffered innumerable set-backs in the road to self-determination, culminating with the horrors of partition.
The founders were also extraordinarily erudite, as is made amply evident in India's Founding Moment. Madhav Khosla's engrossing study of the Indian Constitution makes you appreciate the challenges in front of its Constituent Assembly. Khosla contends that the Indian Constitution deserves greater study on its own merits, rather than taking it as a simple derivative of existing constitutions in the West, not least because it had to create "common meanings around democratic principles where few such meanings existed." Constitution-making in India, and by extension many countries in the twentieth-century, had the onerous challenge of creating a common language that recognized the individual and her agency, as well as releasing her from preset identities.
(tl;dr: academic style book looking at the pillars of India's constitution and why they were chosen.)
Khosla delves into why India adopted the constitution it did. His analysis rests on three pillars: codification, centralization, and representation. One of the "facts" students in India often learn is that the Indian constitution is one of the longest in the world. At first sight, one may argue that a constitution need only incorporate the idea of the nation, of its various bodies, and of the rights and liberties accorded to its citizens. A longer constitution would wade into legislative matters, which could be undesirable. A longer constitution also suggests rigidity by putting in stone too many matters that may need change over time. Khosla disagrees and argues that the principal reason for the Indian constitution's length was the unique environment under which India was achieving independence.
At independence, India's literacy rate was 12%. There was widespread crushing poverty. There had been no organic experience with democracy. The institutions in the country pre-independence were colonial; they restricted rights and access to justice. There were innumerable regions and provinces and Princely states. While the masses had entered the fight for freedom, there were no pre-determined expectations about the mode of life in independent India.
The constitution had to create a common language for the country. It was not merely the validation of a desired goal, the goal itself had to be developed and presented so that it could guide the expectations of its citizens. It had to decide the balance between the different organs of government, particularly between the legislature and the judiciary -- between procedural due process and substantive due process, in particular. It chose to provide civil-political rights but explicitly provided limitations on them, the latter because they didn't want to leave the determination of limitations to individual judges. Even in matters where the founders were not willing to incorporate judicial enforcement of rights, as those in the socioeconomic sphere, they chose to communicate their vision to future legislatures. The constitution had to create this common ground of understanding. It had to create Indians.
The first chapter is the most enjoyable and insightful part of the book. Principal characters such as Ambedkar and Nehru are present, as one would expect, but so are other relatively lesser known but important voices such as BN Rau and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. Khosla shows how these voices, and many others, were moulded by the freedom struggle, and how milestone events like the Karachi Resolution of 1931 had already initiated the development of ideas that were fiercely discussed in the assembly debates.
The second chapter deals with the assembly's decision to have a strong center. The third covers the way representation was provided by privileging individual agency over group representation. Khosla argues that the reason for both these decisions was to dismantle old systems of powers, both administrative, as well as group identities that the British preferred to use, much to the country's detriment. On the other hand, oppressed groups were given recognition, such as the Dalits, because providing support to them was needed to dismantle their entrenched disadvantages. In both chapters, the driving force was a distrust for old societal power structures, such as the village. Given that Nehru and Ambedkar saw industrialization as a prerequisite to attaining prosperity, such a move seemed eminently sensible for economic reasons as well.
What the book does not discuss is whether these decisions have stood the test of time. Khosla delineates this scope of analysis from the very beginning. However, as a reader, it is hard not to come up with a litany of "what-ifs" at many turns. Personally, I thought the first chapter, on codification, was brilliant. The other two were interesting but they miss the analytical originality of the first.
India's Founding Moment is an enjoyable book but it has an academic writing style that may not appeal to many readers.
The founders were also extraordinarily erudite, as is made amply evident in India's Founding Moment. Madhav Khosla's engrossing study of the Indian Constitution makes you appreciate the challenges in front of its Constituent Assembly. Khosla contends that the Indian Constitution deserves greater study on its own merits, rather than taking it as a simple derivative of existing constitutions in the West, not least because it had to create "common meanings around democratic principles where few such meanings existed." Constitution-making in India, and by extension many countries in the twentieth-century, had the onerous challenge of creating a common language that recognized the individual and her agency, as well as releasing her from preset identities.
(tl;dr: academic style book looking at the pillars of India's constitution and why they were chosen.)
Khosla delves into why India adopted the constitution it did. His analysis rests on three pillars: codification, centralization, and representation. One of the "facts" students in India often learn is that the Indian constitution is one of the longest in the world. At first sight, one may argue that a constitution need only incorporate the idea of the nation, of its various bodies, and of the rights and liberties accorded to its citizens. A longer constitution would wade into legislative matters, which could be undesirable. A longer constitution also suggests rigidity by putting in stone too many matters that may need change over time. Khosla disagrees and argues that the principal reason for the Indian constitution's length was the unique environment under which India was achieving independence.
At independence, India's literacy rate was 12%. There was widespread crushing poverty. There had been no organic experience with democracy. The institutions in the country pre-independence were colonial; they restricted rights and access to justice. There were innumerable regions and provinces and Princely states. While the masses had entered the fight for freedom, there were no pre-determined expectations about the mode of life in independent India.
The constitution had to create a common language for the country. It was not merely the validation of a desired goal, the goal itself had to be developed and presented so that it could guide the expectations of its citizens. It had to decide the balance between the different organs of government, particularly between the legislature and the judiciary -- between procedural due process and substantive due process, in particular. It chose to provide civil-political rights but explicitly provided limitations on them, the latter because they didn't want to leave the determination of limitations to individual judges. Even in matters where the founders were not willing to incorporate judicial enforcement of rights, as those in the socioeconomic sphere, they chose to communicate their vision to future legislatures. The constitution had to create this common ground of understanding. It had to create Indians.
The first chapter is the most enjoyable and insightful part of the book. Principal characters such as Ambedkar and Nehru are present, as one would expect, but so are other relatively lesser known but important voices such as BN Rau and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. Khosla shows how these voices, and many others, were moulded by the freedom struggle, and how milestone events like the Karachi Resolution of 1931 had already initiated the development of ideas that were fiercely discussed in the assembly debates.
The second chapter deals with the assembly's decision to have a strong center. The third covers the way representation was provided by privileging individual agency over group representation. Khosla argues that the reason for both these decisions was to dismantle old systems of powers, both administrative, as well as group identities that the British preferred to use, much to the country's detriment. On the other hand, oppressed groups were given recognition, such as the Dalits, because providing support to them was needed to dismantle their entrenched disadvantages. In both chapters, the driving force was a distrust for old societal power structures, such as the village. Given that Nehru and Ambedkar saw industrialization as a prerequisite to attaining prosperity, such a move seemed eminently sensible for economic reasons as well.
What the book does not discuss is whether these decisions have stood the test of time. Khosla delineates this scope of analysis from the very beginning. However, as a reader, it is hard not to come up with a litany of "what-ifs" at many turns. Personally, I thought the first chapter, on codification, was brilliant. The other two were interesting but they miss the analytical originality of the first.
India's Founding Moment is an enjoyable book but it has an academic writing style that may not appeal to many readers.
August 22, 2025
I sometimes like to read about history and especially about the time of partition and freedom struggle. Or that’s what I used to think back in the day. Now I couldn’t stand it for it had become a contestable place or territory. Too noisy. Too muddy.
Had tried to read this book a few times before couldn’t get past 20 pages, this time picked it up with no hopes and meanwhile my reading slump had continued for far too long.
Thank fuckin god I don’t remember a lot man. This was a wonderful read and I have to give credit to the language that it deployed. Not many authors I have read have made the indian constitution making process this appealing.
Absolutely loved it.
The author wants you to think highly of what our forefathers did while creating this magnum opus of a document. This living symbol of our country’s inception.
An insightful read for the length that it carries.
The discussion revolves around our constitution. Why was it so long? Or why codify in the first place? Why emergency provisions? Why partition? Why communal representation? Lots of why{s}.
For me it held a lot of value personally and both professionally.
Started reading it at a time when my country and me are undergoing through some interesting times.
Was surprised to have missed Lala Lajpat Rai’s views on the question of representation. This book opens more doors than others in my opinion and should prompt you to think about our constitution and constitution makers in a different light.
Misc notes:
the earlier arguments were all against granting universal suffrage in india; to everyone it felt like they were the most unsuited kind of people, a different sort of people who were better off in a monarchical setup and this reupublican idea was a european utopia that would fail in India.
other commonwealths had economic and societal upheaval before being granted the Universal franchise but in India the situation was the complete opposite.
Guess indians were a certain kind of people after all.
Had tried to read this book a few times before couldn’t get past 20 pages, this time picked it up with no hopes and meanwhile my reading slump had continued for far too long.
Thank fuckin god I don’t remember a lot man. This was a wonderful read and I have to give credit to the language that it deployed. Not many authors I have read have made the indian constitution making process this appealing.
Absolutely loved it.
The author wants you to think highly of what our forefathers did while creating this magnum opus of a document. This living symbol of our country’s inception.
An insightful read for the length that it carries.
The discussion revolves around our constitution. Why was it so long? Or why codify in the first place? Why emergency provisions? Why partition? Why communal representation? Lots of why{s}.
For me it held a lot of value personally and both professionally.
Started reading it at a time when my country and me are undergoing through some interesting times.
Was surprised to have missed Lala Lajpat Rai’s views on the question of representation. This book opens more doors than others in my opinion and should prompt you to think about our constitution and constitution makers in a different light.
Misc notes:
the earlier arguments were all against granting universal suffrage in india; to everyone it felt like they were the most unsuited kind of people, a different sort of people who were better off in a monarchical setup and this reupublican idea was a european utopia that would fail in India.
other commonwealths had economic and societal upheaval before being granted the Universal franchise but in India the situation was the complete opposite.
Guess indians were a certain kind of people after all.
February 8, 2021
This book outlines the unique challenges that India's Constitution-makers faced. At the time of independence, India was a collection of 560 odd princely states subjected to over 150 years of colonial rule. Its economic condition was poor and its society was riddled with oppressive hierarchies and communities with opposing beliefs. In the face of all these challenges, independent India performed an astonishing experiment. It granted universal suffrage to all its would-be citizens.
Khosla takes us through three elements that shaped India's response to the challenge of creating a democratic citizen - the codification of rules, conceiving a strong central state and representation that took individuals as units (instead of communities as in the colonial period). He argues that codification was necessary for a country that did not have experience in self-governance. A strong central state, according to India's founders, was the trusted vehicle for effecting social change and this could not happen through local political structures that were riddled with social and cultural inequalities. Representation centered around the concept of liberating the individual which is how the solution of quotas for lower castes is ideologically in spirit with abolishing separate electorates for different religious communities.
Although I absolutely loved reading this book, it would have made for more accessible reading if the language were a bit less academic. I would recommend this as mandatory reading for every Indian citizen, especially in today's times. Mainly because its a failure of our education that we don't place our pride in being a democratic country, and instead go searching for enemies and force-fit identities based on exclusion.
Khosla takes us through three elements that shaped India's response to the challenge of creating a democratic citizen - the codification of rules, conceiving a strong central state and representation that took individuals as units (instead of communities as in the colonial period). He argues that codification was necessary for a country that did not have experience in self-governance. A strong central state, according to India's founders, was the trusted vehicle for effecting social change and this could not happen through local political structures that were riddled with social and cultural inequalities. Representation centered around the concept of liberating the individual which is how the solution of quotas for lower castes is ideologically in spirit with abolishing separate electorates for different religious communities.
Although I absolutely loved reading this book, it would have made for more accessible reading if the language were a bit less academic. I would recommend this as mandatory reading for every Indian citizen, especially in today's times. Mainly because its a failure of our education that we don't place our pride in being a democratic country, and instead go searching for enemies and force-fit identities based on exclusion.
January 29, 2022
اگر به مسائل حقوقی یا تاریخ هند علاقه دارید کتاب خوبیه.
در غیر این صورت به دردتون نمیخوره مگر این که حوصلهتون خیلی سر رفته و خیلی بیکتاب مونده باشید
در غیر این صورت به دردتون نمیخوره مگر این که حوصلهتون خیلی سر رفته و خیلی بیکتاب مونده باشید
February 10, 2020
India's Founding Monument by Madhav Khosla is an insightful read about our Indian constitution. The book is divided into mainly three part along with a introduction part and conclusion. Necessary notes are also attached.
This book is an account of India's political struggle of Pre-independence India to recent time period. It is a proof of how India's Constituent Assembly have improved as well as they have made India better.
The book is full of information . But thi book would be more digestive if the author have used more comprehensible words.
This book is an account of India's political struggle of Pre-independence India to recent time period. It is a proof of how India's Constituent Assembly have improved as well as they have made India better.
The book is full of information . But thi book would be more digestive if the author have used more comprehensible words.
July 11, 2021
Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. ~ B. R. Ambedkar
India's Founding Moment attempts to understand and deliberate the different choices that our founders faced. It is also an attempt to appreciate the making of modern India as a remarkable moment in the history of modern constitutionalism. Starting with "The Indian Problem", this book takes us through the journey that would not only make us aware of the reasons behind our founder's decisions but only would force us to reflect on and understand their underlying bias and fears.
Conceived when it was considered that democracy is only suitable for certain types of society and against the backdrop of failing democracies in the preceding decades, India's success was an outlier. However, the author claimed it was not contingent; it was instead the result of our founders' extraordinary imagination and foresightedness. The birth of modern India marked the historical node at which democracy, constitutionalism, and modernity occurred simultaneously. The book revolves around three major themes: the explication of rules through codification, the existence of an overarching state, and the problem of identity/representation.
The widespread poverty and illiteracy; the division among people along the lines of caste, religion, and language; the burden of centuries of tradition presented a problem particular to India, also termed as the Indian Problem, that made the transformation of subjects into citizens more challenging. The extend of codification and the enormous size of the constitution was the response to only this, for it also needed to teach the grammar of constitutionalism, thereby acting as both a rulebook and textbook for pedagogy. It tried to explicate what was not implicit in the society (the democratic behavior). The explicit mention of limitations of the fundamental rights was defended because it limited the future limitations. The unenforceability of directive principles was also a breeding ground for contention; it was argued that its enforceability might come at the cost of civil liberties. The constitution identified both fundamental rights and the directive principles, but the separation was there as the assembly cared for means along with the end.
The decision of centralization of power resulted from underlying fear and distrust of Indian society at large among many. Like Nehru, Ambedkar saw localism as burdened by a set of practices that disabled individual agency. Unlike Gandhi, they were pessimistic about the prospect of society finding its own solution to this problem. For them, democratization and modernity required a common umbrella that would change the way people identify each other. It was also feared that a weak center might encourage the Balkanization of India. The question of centralization is also seen as a contest between state and society.
The question of identity and representation has been broken into two parts: religious representation and caste representation. These two parts seem similar, but a different approach was adopted to tackle each of these. It is argued that they were two different problems; in the case of religion, the aim was the accommodation, while in the case of caste, it was annihilation. In the former, partition was the answer, and it put into rest any question about the feasibility of putting group identity above individual identity. After the enforcement of universal suffrage, it was felt that we don't need people to represent their groups because now they all have their own individual voice. Furthermore, the author argues that giving reservations based on ethnicity would have been anti-democratic as it would have affected the liquidity of forming a political majority negatively. The question of caste-based representation was dealt with in a slightly different way. An abstract group, "backwardness," was formed; any group could in principle fill that. Instead of caste, the focus on this group shows that there was no particular identity that the Constitution sought to protect, for it was feared that such protection might cement the division instead of removing them.
Written in dense yet beautiful prose, this book should be marked as, in my opinion, a must-read for all interested in constitutional and/or political history.
India's Founding Moment attempts to understand and deliberate the different choices that our founders faced. It is also an attempt to appreciate the making of modern India as a remarkable moment in the history of modern constitutionalism. Starting with "The Indian Problem", this book takes us through the journey that would not only make us aware of the reasons behind our founder's decisions but only would force us to reflect on and understand their underlying bias and fears.
Conceived when it was considered that democracy is only suitable for certain types of society and against the backdrop of failing democracies in the preceding decades, India's success was an outlier. However, the author claimed it was not contingent; it was instead the result of our founders' extraordinary imagination and foresightedness. The birth of modern India marked the historical node at which democracy, constitutionalism, and modernity occurred simultaneously. The book revolves around three major themes: the explication of rules through codification, the existence of an overarching state, and the problem of identity/representation.
The widespread poverty and illiteracy; the division among people along the lines of caste, religion, and language; the burden of centuries of tradition presented a problem particular to India, also termed as the Indian Problem, that made the transformation of subjects into citizens more challenging. The extend of codification and the enormous size of the constitution was the response to only this, for it also needed to teach the grammar of constitutionalism, thereby acting as both a rulebook and textbook for pedagogy. It tried to explicate what was not implicit in the society (the democratic behavior). The explicit mention of limitations of the fundamental rights was defended because it limited the future limitations. The unenforceability of directive principles was also a breeding ground for contention; it was argued that its enforceability might come at the cost of civil liberties. The constitution identified both fundamental rights and the directive principles, but the separation was there as the assembly cared for means along with the end.
The decision of centralization of power resulted from underlying fear and distrust of Indian society at large among many. Like Nehru, Ambedkar saw localism as burdened by a set of practices that disabled individual agency. Unlike Gandhi, they were pessimistic about the prospect of society finding its own solution to this problem. For them, democratization and modernity required a common umbrella that would change the way people identify each other. It was also feared that a weak center might encourage the Balkanization of India. The question of centralization is also seen as a contest between state and society.
The question of identity and representation has been broken into two parts: religious representation and caste representation. These two parts seem similar, but a different approach was adopted to tackle each of these. It is argued that they were two different problems; in the case of religion, the aim was the accommodation, while in the case of caste, it was annihilation. In the former, partition was the answer, and it put into rest any question about the feasibility of putting group identity above individual identity. After the enforcement of universal suffrage, it was felt that we don't need people to represent their groups because now they all have their own individual voice. Furthermore, the author argues that giving reservations based on ethnicity would have been anti-democratic as it would have affected the liquidity of forming a political majority negatively. The question of caste-based representation was dealt with in a slightly different way. An abstract group, "backwardness," was formed; any group could in principle fill that. Instead of caste, the focus on this group shows that there was no particular identity that the Constitution sought to protect, for it was feared that such protection might cement the division instead of removing them.
Written in dense yet beautiful prose, this book should be marked as, in my opinion, a must-read for all interested in constitutional and/or political history.
March 27, 2020
A magisterial effort to chronologize the making and survival of the "grundnorm".
June 8, 2020
This book is art.
The content, structure, arguments, narrative and logic in this book by Dr. Madhav Khosla cohere blissfully.
It is extremely refreshing to read this because it makes Constitution worth discussing (not in legal terms, but) in terms of everyday life.
I have always looked up to Dr. Khosla whenever it came to Constitution. He gifts you a perspective worth pondering over. Hence, I was really waiting for this book, and for me this book is invaluable.
If you believe that this book is heavy for you given its academic origin (as it is based on Dr. Khosla's doctoral thesis), then you should instead read another book by Dr. Khosla, The Indian Constitution (Oxford India Very Short Introductions) first.
Rest assured, this book will invite you to contemplate the Constitution of India in new light.
The content, structure, arguments, narrative and logic in this book by Dr. Madhav Khosla cohere blissfully.
It is extremely refreshing to read this because it makes Constitution worth discussing (not in legal terms, but) in terms of everyday life.
I have always looked up to Dr. Khosla whenever it came to Constitution. He gifts you a perspective worth pondering over. Hence, I was really waiting for this book, and for me this book is invaluable.
If you believe that this book is heavy for you given its academic origin (as it is based on Dr. Khosla's doctoral thesis), then you should instead read another book by Dr. Khosla, The Indian Constitution (Oxford India Very Short Introductions) first.
Rest assured, this book will invite you to contemplate the Constitution of India in new light.
March 25, 2020
This book is a short analysis on the constitution of India, the back stories to it and how the world's largest democracy came into being in 1950. The author classified the subject into three part; the grammar of constitution, which contains all the necessary articles and sections pertaining to liberty and economic freedom of an Indian citizen, while the second chapter deals with the location of power which broadly highlights the federal structure of the Indian polity. The last chapter deals with the identity and representation of an Indian, which is deeply routed in form of religion and caste. Evidently, the author has put a lot of research behind this, with 60 pages of references and citations towards the end.
This book emphasis more on the contribution of Indian personalities mainly Jawaharlal Nehru, BR Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi and how their vision have been transformed into a longest written constitution of India. It also touches upon Jinnah's representative politics which lead to the partition on communal basis. One peculiar thought I had while reading the book was, whether do we (Indians) actually live by or follow the constitutional values with utmost sincerity? I would say NO. Like Ambedkar said, democracy is just a decorated bed on the land of India which is purely undemocratic. To make constitution and democracy as a way of living, it is really important to tutor the people of India what the constitution really stands for ,irrespective of their personal beliefs. In this regard, this book is an excellent work on the past events, historical resolutions and reports from the nationalists during the British rule, which then transcribed to be the constitution, resolving Indian into secular democratic and socialist republic.
Must read for civil service aspirants!
This book emphasis more on the contribution of Indian personalities mainly Jawaharlal Nehru, BR Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi and how their vision have been transformed into a longest written constitution of India. It also touches upon Jinnah's representative politics which lead to the partition on communal basis. One peculiar thought I had while reading the book was, whether do we (Indians) actually live by or follow the constitutional values with utmost sincerity? I would say NO. Like Ambedkar said, democracy is just a decorated bed on the land of India which is purely undemocratic. To make constitution and democracy as a way of living, it is really important to tutor the people of India what the constitution really stands for ,irrespective of their personal beliefs. In this regard, this book is an excellent work on the past events, historical resolutions and reports from the nationalists during the British rule, which then transcribed to be the constitution, resolving Indian into secular democratic and socialist republic.
Must read for civil service aspirants!
February 16, 2020
Indian constitution is not just a book rather it delves an idea of shining India. India's founding moment says constitution of India is a catalyst for the democracy in India which gives a civic culture to thr people of India. Author rejects that this longest written constitution is just an extension of govt of India act 1935. Indian constitution is a political imagination of ordinary indian participants of constituent assembly. Modern Indian democracy is under threat which is unprecedented and the constitutional morality is at the very crucial stage. At this time very important to differentiate political and legal theories and the differences of their roles in respect to Indian constitution.
This book talks about the historical narrative of constitution of India.
Also covers remarkable roles in the formation of this longest written constitution of well known Indian facts in including less recognised faces of nationalist movement such as K M Munshi & B N Rau.
Author also commented on constitutional assembly debate. Indian constitution came in force facing serious challenges in past decades of pre constitutional phase. Inspired by political theories, customs, foreign policy observations. It's an anticipation book for this form of democracy which exists in India. This book explains the constitutional dilemma on political as well as legal grounds. Author commented on the Indians centralized poltics, how this apparatus is asymmetrical and democratic inequality. The scope and meaning of rights, however codified are clearly shaped by the conduct of ruling party.
Indian independence was not a simple a struggle for freedom from align rule. It was a shift away from an administration of law and order centred a despotism. Constitutional elasticity was a matter. Need of a flexible constitution which can be stretched or bend so as to meet emergencies was a task.
This book is a very mature and responsible analysis of pre constitutional imagination, this book is an integral form of basic understanding about constitution and resolve it's complexity and analytical approach in it's making. A must read.
This book talks about the historical narrative of constitution of India.
Also covers remarkable roles in the formation of this longest written constitution of well known Indian facts in including less recognised faces of nationalist movement such as K M Munshi & B N Rau.
Author also commented on constitutional assembly debate. Indian constitution came in force facing serious challenges in past decades of pre constitutional phase. Inspired by political theories, customs, foreign policy observations. It's an anticipation book for this form of democracy which exists in India. This book explains the constitutional dilemma on political as well as legal grounds. Author commented on the Indians centralized poltics, how this apparatus is asymmetrical and democratic inequality. The scope and meaning of rights, however codified are clearly shaped by the conduct of ruling party.
Indian independence was not a simple a struggle for freedom from align rule. It was a shift away from an administration of law and order centred a despotism. Constitutional elasticity was a matter. Need of a flexible constitution which can be stretched or bend so as to meet emergencies was a task.
This book is a very mature and responsible analysis of pre constitutional imagination, this book is an integral form of basic understanding about constitution and resolve it's complexity and analytical approach in it's making. A must read.
November 29, 2025
The book is about the Indian Constitution, with respect to codification, centralisation, and representation. Densely written and recommended for anyone in the legal fraternity.
The initial chapter of the book opens with scholarly views on constitutions. The discussion focuses on aspects of text and size, fundamental rights, unenforceability of directive principles, and rights followed by limitations (Article 19), concluding with a debate over due process clause outlined in Article 21.
The second chapter contains a discussion of India's founders support for a centralised state and how Indian political pluralists MK Gandhi and Radhakamal Mukherjee argued for the establishment of governance mechanisms in village units, disregarding modernisation and parliamentary democracy. The discussion further goes in favour of modernisation and centralisation by Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya and concludes with arguments that Nehru and Ambedkar supported a greater concentration of power in the central government while criticising Gandhi's position.
In the final chapter, the discussion moves on to the framework of representation and how India's founders chose universal adult suffrage. The further book also covers Hindu-Muslim relations, communal representation, the partition of British India, and separate electorates for lower caste groups.
The initial chapter of the book opens with scholarly views on constitutions. The discussion focuses on aspects of text and size, fundamental rights, unenforceability of directive principles, and rights followed by limitations (Article 19), concluding with a debate over due process clause outlined in Article 21.
The second chapter contains a discussion of India's founders support for a centralised state and how Indian political pluralists MK Gandhi and Radhakamal Mukherjee argued for the establishment of governance mechanisms in village units, disregarding modernisation and parliamentary democracy. The discussion further goes in favour of modernisation and centralisation by Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya and concludes with arguments that Nehru and Ambedkar supported a greater concentration of power in the central government while criticising Gandhi's position.
In the final chapter, the discussion moves on to the framework of representation and how India's founders chose universal adult suffrage. The further book also covers Hindu-Muslim relations, communal representation, the partition of British India, and separate electorates for lower caste groups.
April 3, 2020
A good book for those interested in the Indian Constitution and Indian Constitutional history. However, the language used in the book is fairly complex, it would have been better if the author had used simple language while discussing topics like centralisation of power and universal adult suffrage. Probably the author has intended to get into a lot of technicalities. While students of political science or constitutional law may not mind it, a casual reader may end up getting dissuaded by the technicalities in the language.
On the positive side, the chapter on identify and representation contains a brilliant narrative of how our founding fathers addressed questions or Hindu Muslim divide, and questions of caste.
Overall, a good read for those who have an interest in Indian Constitutional history.
On the positive side, the chapter on identify and representation contains a brilliant narrative of how our founding fathers addressed questions or Hindu Muslim divide, and questions of caste.
Overall, a good read for those who have an interest in Indian Constitutional history.
November 23, 2023
Madhav Khosla's book on India's Founding Moment, is a most enriching read. Dealing with the political, and social background during India's final years of independence, this book sheds light on the extant narratives which eventually shaped the way India's constitution got made. From debating affirmative action, deciding on communal electorates in light of partition and deciding the nature of the to-be Indian state, Madhav Khosla takes a 360 degree approach to delineating the big questions which plagued our founding fathers. The book might feel slightly academic in some parts or come across too dense with multiple annotations but keep at it and it is ultimately a very rewarding read for anyone interested in modern Indian history
December 19, 2020
Very interesting and informative book - lends great perspective to the current angst with the Constitution. Except for some passages that make simple points in tedious, complex ways (why do academics resort to arcane language in 'scholarly' works? Is it to justify the claims to scholarship? The earlier book I read, How Democracies Die, by Steven Levitsky didn't seem to need to do that, and it was no less scholarly!) the book is meticulously researched and well presented. Federalism, representation and identity - all hot buttons in recent years - are discussed in detail to explain why India made the choices it did.
March 30, 2020
Has interesting insight into the deliberations that may have gone into some of the key features and provisions of the Indian constitution. However, not entirely satisfying, because it perhaps tries too hard to invest meaning and motive into the words and decision of the various luminaries involved, and in doing so, tends to slip into the territory of conjecture.
August 22, 2020
The book's scholarly quality is undeniable and yet, by the end, it felt too short. Could've covered more ground. An essential read nevertheless.
September 30, 2020
Takes a while to get going and is often denser in its writing than it needs to be, but the breadth of the scholarship on display and the nuance it brings to the subject makes this an insightful read.
December 18, 2020
It's a tough read. It's a difficult to understand for a layman. Law students or people related to law will be able to appreciate the book.
February 3, 2022
خلاصه این کتاب رو در پادکست بیپلاس گوش کردم. کتاب جالبی بود و باید سرفرصت مطالعه کنم.
لینک پادکست:
https://bpls.me/zzfsby
لینک پادکست:
https://bpls.me/zzfsby
February 2, 2020
This book charts out the genealogies of some key features of the Constitution of India. It looks primarily at three phenomena and ideas and explores how India got there: codification of the constitution, centralisation of power, the selective granting of electorates to groups. The fresh approach that one finds here in this book is the 'India' portion of the last statement. This book argues that it was not just the Constituent Assembly that moved towards these positions but the nation itself; these discussions and debates had been initiated several decades before the founding of the Assembly and the inauguration of the independent nation. Just as India had been struggling for political freedom, it was also struggling for a cohesive structure for its future self. Khosla has a beautiful host of characters in this not-too-thick book. There are Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar of course but also Risley and Syed Ahmed Khan. KM Munshi and Radhakamal Mukherjee. Meghnad Saha and M Visvesvaryya. It is evident that some of the insights could only be offered by someone like Khosla with a deep sense of intellectual history.
February 23, 2020
A must read for anyone trying to understand how India's democracy survived for 70 years.
June 20, 2024
“How do you transform subjects into citizens Amit? By treating them as such, right?”, asks Prof. Madhav Khosla, and I’m paraphrasing, on his The Seen and the Unseen episode. It is a profound statement and the central argument of his marvelous book.
Modern societies are premised on the axiom that all humans are equal. The entire melee of elections, institutions, laws and norms exist to both reinforce and protect that fundamental belief. Ofcourse there are caveats and distortitons, practices and prejudices that place reality at a far remove from the ideal, but atleast the ideal exists. And ideas do matter. Like again Prof. Khosla so emphatically argues in the book, the colonial project was justified on the self-serving worldview that a certain kind of people is incapable of ruling themselves, of creating a peaceful, just society, and the Constitution Makers’ responsibility lay in disproving that claim - they insisted that if you give people a different kind of politics, they will become a different kind of persons.
In a long introduction, that sets the historical, political and legal background in which the Constituent Assembly was formed, and that defined its responsibility and remit, in three chapters covering the aspects of Codification, Centralisation, and Identity and Representation respectively, and a brief Conclusion, Prof. Khosla expands on why the Indian Constitutional Project was not just new and bold but also revolutionary.
For more - https://sirishaditya.substack.com/p/i...
Modern societies are premised on the axiom that all humans are equal. The entire melee of elections, institutions, laws and norms exist to both reinforce and protect that fundamental belief. Ofcourse there are caveats and distortitons, practices and prejudices that place reality at a far remove from the ideal, but atleast the ideal exists. And ideas do matter. Like again Prof. Khosla so emphatically argues in the book, the colonial project was justified on the self-serving worldview that a certain kind of people is incapable of ruling themselves, of creating a peaceful, just society, and the Constitution Makers’ responsibility lay in disproving that claim - they insisted that if you give people a different kind of politics, they will become a different kind of persons.
In a long introduction, that sets the historical, political and legal background in which the Constituent Assembly was formed, and that defined its responsibility and remit, in three chapters covering the aspects of Codification, Centralisation, and Identity and Representation respectively, and a brief Conclusion, Prof. Khosla expands on why the Indian Constitutional Project was not just new and bold but also revolutionary.
For more - https://sirishaditya.substack.com/p/i...
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews