INTRODUCTION:
When the framers of the Constitution were drafting the Indian Constitution, debates and discussions were held on various important topics. The framers had tried their best to inculcate diverse views while ensuring the welfare of India as a whole. These debates and discussions help us today to know the framers’ contribution to the Constitution. In this blog, I will discuss the debates on Minority Reservations and Untouchability.

DEBATE ON MINORITY RESERVATIONS
The topic of reservation has always been conflicted and controversial. While making the constitution different members of the Constituent Assembly had different views on the topic of reservations. Let’s discuss the viewpoints of some of the members :
BR Ambedkar was the chairman of the drafting committee for the Constitution of India. According to him, the reservation was an integral part of equality of opportunity. He worked hard to include ‘depressed classes’ in minorities. He believed that reservations should be limited to some seats. He signed the Poona Pact with Mahatma Gandhi on September 24, 1932, that granted reserved seats for the Depressed Classes in the provincial and
Central Legislatures of British India for 10 years. He was not in favor of ten years but didn’t oppose it as he had already signed the Poona pact and the option to extend the period was always available. He propagated for reservation of seats with the separate electorate
but later agreed to reservation with the joint electorate and signed the Poona pact.

Kazi Syed Karimuddin: According to him, the reservation with a joint electorate was not a correct option. It was neither here nor there. It was a positive disservice to minorities. The elected representatives would not represent the minorities.

S Nagappa and Jaipal Singh: They wanted reservations proportional to the population of depressed classes in the cabinet. Jaipal argued for the rights and dignity of Adivasis. According to them, the ten years should be abolished or renewed every 10 years until they get
adequate representation in the cabinet.

Pandit Thakur Das: He suggested the representation of Anglo- Indians in the Legislative Assembly.

Naziruddin Ahmed: He found it ambiguous to have 10 years.

Mono Mohan Das and Muniswami: According to them, the 10-year expiration period should be abolished.

UNTOUCHABILITY
Draft for Untouchability: On November 29, 1948, the Constituent Assembly discussed Article 11 (Article 17, Constitution of India 1950). Its goal was to end the untouchability custom. It was a brief argument. Nonetheless, there was some misunderstanding regarding the definition of
“untouchability.”

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad: He proposed changing Article 11 to read, “No one shall be treated or regarded as an untouchable on account of his religion or caste, and its observance in any form may be made punishable by law.”

- Advertisement -

Dr. Mono Mohan Das: According to him, ending untouchability is a crucial fundamental right.
Professor K.T. Shah: He suggested that as the Constitution does not define untouchability, it may be unclear what qualifies as such. He recommended making changes, such as using a different word for “untouchability.” He claims that someone is viewed as untouchable if
they are disabled for a significant amount of time. He suggested something that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected. Following its adoption, the motion about Article 11 was incorporated into the Constitution.
Article 17: ‘Abolition Of Untouchability’ Untouchability is outlawed, and its practice is prohibited in all its manifestations. Enforcing any handicap resulting from untouchability will be illegal and subject to legal penalties.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
On November 23, 1948, the Constituent Assembly began debating the Uniform Civil Code for the first time. Meenu Masani suggested it, and it was calculated by Article 35. Article 35 of the 1948 Draft Constitution of India (Article 44 of the 1950 Constitution) states that the State will work to ensure that all Indian people have access to a standard civil code. Women members were the first to embrace the Uniform Civil Code. The Constituent Assembly included fifteen female members. As a member of the Fundamental Rights Subcommittee, Hansa Mehta
advocated for a UCC. In addition to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Meenu Masani, Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, and Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer, they all firmly advocated for the establishment of a UCC.

LEADERS WHO SUPPORTED UCC

Dr. BR Ambedkar: He did not discuss the pros and cons of uniform civil code but strongly favored Article 35 (UCC), which is now Article 44 of the Constitution of India. He was of view that a uniform civil code would help in achieving gender equality and providing equal rights to
women.

Jawaharlal Nehru: He was in favor of a uniform civil code being implemented but rejected the Hindu Code Bill as he didn’t want a religion to overpower others and abolish the personal laws of others. He emphasized the necessity of social change and modernization.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad: He was the President of the Constituent Assembly. He supported UCC as a way to promote gender equality and gender
justice.

Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar: He emphasized that the communities can’t live in peace without a uniform civil code. The UCC aims to agree about, subjects like marriage, divorce and inheritance. He was of the view that social justice and gender equality are crucial.

K M Munshi: He supported the uniform civil code, emphasizing that the thought that ‘personal law is part of religion’ has been promoted by the
British among Indians. He was of the view that this thought shouldn’t be there in the minds of Indians.

LEADERS WHO OPPOSED UCC

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: He opposed UCC and supported ‘cultural diversity and religious harmony’. He was of the view that UCC might
erode religious autonomy and the rights of minorities.

KT Shah: He was concerned about the potential violation of religious freedom and rights of minorities. He advocated for a slow process of
reforming personal laws and was not in favour of complete reform(UCC).

Frank Anthony: He was not in favour of enforcement of UCC as he was worried that UCC would harm India’s diversity and respect for
personal laws. He highlighted the necessity to respect pluralism of India.

Begum Aizaz Rasul: She was not in favor of the enforcement of UCC. She emphasized the need to protect the personal laws of Muslims.

CONCLUSION :
India is a democratic country. Its Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly after lots of discussions and debates. The above-mentioned debates and arguments are just a few of them. These debates help us to know different viewpoints and the contribution of all the
members in drafting the Indian Constitution.

https://t.me/clated_official