(“Indian Constitution Unriddled :Search for Sources” is a monumental work published by Purogami Prakashana , Hubli, in 2015 March. The volume is compiled by late Sri SG Nadgir and Dr. KS Sharma, and published to mark the birth centenary of the former, a renowned teacher. What follows here is the Foreword to the book by Dr.KS Sharma, eminent Professor of Law. It is worth studying on the eve of the Republic Day when lot of uncritical glorification has a field day. Emphases added.)
Indian Constitution Unriddled apparently is a curious title. But then, why did the authors choose this title?It can be said without fear of contradiction that the Constitution of India is a bundle of riddles, though it can also be argued that there are quite a number of contradictions in this voluminous document. The questions that concerned the authors are :If the Constitution of India is a bundle of riddles, what are these riddles? How can these riddles be resolved and what method would help to find the solution to these riddles? etc. When answers to the first question- what are these riddles? – are sought, those that strike uppermost are the following riddles.
How much Indian is the Indian Constitution? Or is it Indian at all? Then, the question about the Preamble, “We the people of India”. Who are these ‘People of India’, who framed the Constitution? Were they the “real people of India?” Can we attribute the Sovereignty to “the People of India”? If not, why not? After that, did we really become independent on 15th August 1947, and a Sovereign Democratic Republic, on 26th January 1950? What kind of a Transfer of Power was it? Was the transfer to the real people of India or to the bourgeoisie and the land-lord classes, who emerged as the ruling classes? What kind of a Republic India became, on 26th January 1950? Then, if India joined the Commonwealth of Nations, with the King or Queen of England as its Head, what kind of independence did India have? Further, what kind of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were incorporated into the Indian Constitution? From where did they emerge? And what did they give to the citizens of India? How Indian were they? Along with the above, to crown them all, how much of borrowing and how much of innovating went into the making of the Indian Constitution, when it is described as a “beautiful patch-work”? etc. Indeed, really, a bundle of riddles!
The next question, how can these riddles be resolved? And what method would help to resolve them? The authors embarked on the path of “searching the sources” to resolve these riddles.
Before we go into the details of these riddles, let us try to understand the meaning of “Sources of Law”, and determine as to what source of law dowe embark on.
Advanced Law Lexicon byP.RamanathAiyar explains Sources of Law, in the following terms :
“Something (such as a Constitution, treaty, statute, or custom) that provides authority for legislation and for judicial decisions, a point of origin for law or legal analysis – Also termed jousjuris”.
– Black, 7th Edition 1999
“The authority from which the law derives its force. / term used to include all the reliable testimonials of whatconstitutes the law”.
“Those repositories of legal rules to which lawyers, especially judges, turn in order to discuss what the law is”.
- [“Advanced Law Lexicon”. P. RamanathAiyar
3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa, Nagpur, Page 44K)
When “Sources of law” or “Source of laws” has plethora of meanings, in which sense do we have to tacklethe riddles which we face relating to the Indian Constitution ?For the purpose of this Volume, the authors have chosen the simple path of trying to locate that source or sources from where the specific provisions of the Indian Constitution have either drawn inspiration from or from where the textor the ideas have been drawn, making it easy for resolving the riddles. The authors felt that any other mode of trying to understand the provisions of the Constitution of India would make this volume more voluminous, as also making it more difficult to comprehend. The authors have chosen the method of “juxtaposition”, ie., place the “source” on the”left” side pages of the Volume, and the “Text” of the Constitution of India on the “right” side, so that comparison and evaluation become easy. Merely doing that and nothing else, would have left the reader in wilderness because the nuances of law are complex and complicated. It is to add clarity to the understanding of these provisions that this Foreword, An Exposition : Riddles Unriddled has been added wherein the riddles are expounded. The compulsions of time and space have compelled a concise exposition, fearing that this Volume will otherwise become unwieldy. The purpose of this “Exposition” is thus more to provide an insight into the riddles, rather than to elaborate on them.
With this prelude, let us probe into the riddles one by one and seek solutions to them.
*** **** ***
How much Indian is the Indian Constitution? Or Is it Indian at all? The answer to this riddle can be found in the Constituent Assembly Debates itself. It is well-known that the Constitution of India is a remarkable document but its provisions are drawn from different sources. Durga Das Basu, one of the leading commentators on “Constitution of India” states : “The Constitution of India is remarkable for many outstanding features, which distinguishes it from other constitutions, even though it has been prepared after “ransacking all the known Constitutions of the World” and most of its provisions are substantially borrowed from others.”1 It is significant to understand the following statement made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly:
“One likes to ask whether there can be anything new in a Constitution framed at this hour in the history of the world. More than hundred years have rolled when the first written Constitution was drafted. It has been followed by many countries reducing their Constitutions to writing.
Given these facts, all Constitutions in their main provisions must look similar. The only new things, if there be any, in a Constitution framed so late in the day are the variations made to remove the faults and to accommodate it to the needs of the country”.
So, though our Constitution may be said to be a “borrowed Constitution”, the credit of its framers lies in gathering the best features of each of the existing Constitutions and in modifying them with a view to avoiding the faults that have been disclosed in their working and to adopting them to the existing conditions and needs of this country.So, it is a “patchwork”, it is a “beautiful patchwork”.3
There were members in the Constituent Assembly, who criticized the Constitution which was going to be adopted as a “slavish imitation of the West” or “not” suited to the genius of the people.4
What do the above observations establish? Obviously Indian Constitution is a “borrowed” Constitution, but the credit of the framers of the Constitution is that they have successfully borrowed the best features of each Constitution of the world and introduced innovations and modifications not only to evade the faults and pitfalls of others, but also to make them suit to the genius of the People of India.
About the American Constitution, Bryce said that “there was little in the Constitution that was absolutely new. There was much that was old as Magna Carta”.5The men of American Convention had the experience of the English Constitution. And we had the experience of the Government of India Act, 1935, andof the previous Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1915. These Acts had been drafted by British Constitutional Lawyers and they imported the Parliamentary system of England. It is sometimes said, that there is nothing new in the Constitution, that about half of it has been copied from the Government of India Act of 1935 and the rest of it has been borrowed from the Constitutions of other countries. Very little of it can claim originality.6
Dr. Ambedkar himself had said “There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution.7
So the answer to the first riddle is evident. Indian Constitution is “a beautiful patchwork” crafted very skillfully by borrowing and innovating. Of course, the criticism of some of the members of the Constituent Assembly, that “it is a slavish imitation of the West”, has also an element of truth.
With this, let us pass to take up the next riddle relating to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution- “We, the people of India”. In this riddle we frame supplementary riddles :Who are the “People” who framed the Constitution of India? In this phraseology, “We the People”, to whom does this word “people” refer to? “Were they the “real people”?
Does it mean, the “people” from whom sovereignty springs? This riddle and the supplementary riddles drive us into the realms of history of Constitution-making. This also forces us into an elaborate analysis.
Though there is, in our Constitution, no independent article in the enacting portion declaring that all powers are derived from the people, or vesting the sovereignty or the reserved power in the people … the words “we the people of India” echo the opening words in the Preamble to the Constitutions of United States and of Eire and emphasizes the ultimate sovereignty of the people and that the Constitution itself is founded on the authority of the people “who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives”10.
However, the learned author, Wheare, in his book Modern Constitution,1960 Edition, has said: “In India the people” enact the Constitution “in our Constituent Assembly” but that Assembly was composed of representatives elected by a minority of the people of India and the Constitution itself was never submitted to the people directly”.
In this background let us probe into the issue of who were the “people” who framed the Constitution? In order to answer this question, we will have to understand the source, nature and composition of the Constitueat Assembly of India which enacted the Constitution of India. The Constituent Assembly was a body elected by the Provincial Assemblies which were constituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, which was enacted in turn by the British Parliament.These Provincial Assemblies were elected on the basis ofthe Communal Award and the Poona Pact and it is these Provincial Assemblies, elected on a limited suffrage, and not universal suffrage, who elected the Constituent Assembly according to the Scheme recommended by the Cabinet Delegation. To put it concisely,
- Each Province and each Indian State or Group ofStates were allotted a total number of seats proportional to their respective population, roughly in the ratio of one to a million. As a result the Provinces were to elect 292 members, while the Indian States were allotted a maximum of 93 seats.
- The seats in each Province were distributed among the three main communities, Muslims, Sikhs and General, in proportion to their populations.
- Members of each community in the Provincial Legislative Assembly elected their own representatives by the method of proportional representation with single transferable vote
- The method of selection of representatives of Indian States was to be determined by consultation.
- The Voters who were members of the Provincial Assemblies, were themselves voted on the basis of a limited franchise, i.e., land ownership, or educational qualifications, or those who paid taxes were the
- To sum up, the Provincial Assemblies consisted of members who were elected by the limited voters and that too on a communal It is these representatives who elected the Members of the Constituent Assembly. While this constituted 292 members of the Constituent Assembly, the other 93 members were those nominated by the Indian States. Thus the Constituent Assembly though it had eminent lawyers, national leaders, they belonged on the one hand to communal groups, or the land-lords, or the capitalists and the Princes and those who had elected them were either tax-payers, or the educated, the entire electorate comprising of about 11 percent of the population. Could this composition of the Constituent Assembly be called “the People”?
In this light we should recall the statements of Pandit Nehru and Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya on the Constituent Assembly and the Communal Award and ultimately find out as to what they actually turned out to be. In 1938, Pandit Nehru definitely formulated his demand for a Constituent Assembly thus:
“The National Congress stands for Independence and democratic State. It has proposed that the Constitution of free India must be framed without outside interferences, by a Constituent Assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise”.
This was reiterated by the Working Committee of the Congress in 1939.11
In the Presidential Address of Congress Nationalist Party held at Calcutta in August, 1934, Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya remarked thus:
“At present we are living under one government, of course, a foreign government, but what shall we get by means of this communal electorate? Not a Government by the people and of the people, but a government of one community over another. In the Punjab, it will be a government by Muslims of Hindus, and in United Provinces, it will be a government by Hindus of Muslims. It will not be a democracy. It will be a special kind of despotic Government. It will be tyranny of one community over another and it is this despotism which the Communal Award seeks to install”.12
Jawaharlal Nehru’s conception of the Constituent Assembly was somewhat different. He was reiterating what he had opined in 1938, much more emphatically and clearly in 1940, when he wrote as follows inThe Unity of India:
“I am convinced that there is no way for us if we aim at real democratic freedom except through a Constituent Assembly. It means the creation of a new State, it means the walking out and away from the economic foundations and structure of imperialism. This cannot be done by the wisest of lawyers sitting in conclave, it cannot be done by small committees trying to balance interests and calling that Constitution- making; it can never be done under the shadow of an external authority. It can be only done effectively when the political and psychological conditions are present, and the urge and the sanctions come from the masses. Hence the vital importance of adult suffrage.
We are not asking for a gift. We are stating what we are proposing to have and are going to have sometime or other. We shall have it when we are strong enough for it, no sooner and probably after a struggle”.13
The Congress passed the following resolution on 28th December 1936 at its Faizpur Session:
“The Congress reiterates its entire rejection of the Govt. of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution that has been imposed on India against the declared will of the people of the country. In the opinion of the Congress any cooperation with this Constitution is a betrayal of India’s struggle for freedom and a strengthening of the hold of British Imperialism and a further exploitation of the Indian masses, who have been already reduced to dire poverty and imperialist domination. The Congress stands for a genuine democratic state in India where political power has been transferred to the people as a whole and the Government is under this effective control. Such a State can only come into existence through a Constituent Assembly elected by adult suffrage and having the power to determine finally the Constitution of the country”.14
In the backdrop of these statements of Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the resolutions of the Congress from time to time, what is evident is that Pandit Nehru, and the Congress had gone back on their stand of opposition the Govt. of India Act, 1935, on opposing the Communal Award, on the formation of the Constituent Assembly and had yielded to the British imperialist rulers by acceding to Communal representation in Provincial Assemblies, for a limited franchise by the upper classes (land-lords, capitalists and the educated) to elect their representatives to the Provincial Assemblies, by totally sacrificing the demand for adult
Suffrage, and by conceding to 11% of the people electing these Provincial Assemblies, and by conceding to the indirect election of the members of the Constituent Assembly being elected by the Provincial Assemblies and that too on a communal basis, and also conceding to the Princes of Indian States to nominate 93 Members to the Constituent Assembly. Most tragically and paradoxically what Nehru vehemently opposed i.e., “This cannot be done by the wisest of lawyers sitting in conclave, it cannot be done by small committees trying to balance interests and calling that Constitution-making.” That is what had happened in constituting the Constituent Assembly which came into existence on 9th December 1946…This was never realized when the Constituent Assembly was constituted on 9th December 1946. Even the Congress pronouncement of
” The Congress reiterates its entire rejection of the Govt. of India Act, 1935, the cooperation with this Constitution (i.e., GOI Act, 1935) is a betrayal of India’s struggle for freedom and a strengthening of the hold of British imperialism and a further exploitation of the Indian masses…..this had been given a total go-by.
Further the warning of Pandit Madan Mohan Malavya, that “It will be tyranny of one community over another and it is this despotism which the Communal Award seeks to install”, was totally overlooked. The Government of India Act, 1935 became the foundation for constituting the Constituent Assembly, the Communal Award had ruled the roost and limited franchise and indirect election led to the constitution of the Constituent Assembly, which gave this country the Constitution of India, which almost bodily lifted more than fifty percent of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935 to become an inseparable part of the Constitution of India, 1950, which was promulgated on 26th January 1950. The question that remains is, did not India walk into the British imperialist trap, when it conceded the partition of India, and acceded to the continuity of imperialist exploitation, in collusion with the Indian bourgeois and land-lord rule that was established under the guise of the Sovereign Democratic Republic?
“We the people of India”…the words with which the Constitution of India opened, were indeed not “the real people”, the sovereignty never vested in “the people of India”; British imperialists had transferred power to the ruling classes and not to the masses of the Indian people. It was a camouflage. Thus the answer to the riddle, “can we attribute Sovereignty to the people of India? If not, why not?” is obvious. We cannot attribute Sovereignty to the “People of India” though the Preamble to the Constitution of India opens with the words – “We the people of India”.The reasons have been explained above and need no repetition.
*** *** ***
The next riddle centres around the questions : Did we really become independent on 15th August 1947, and a Sovereign Democratic Republic on 26th January 1950? What kind of a “transfer of Power” was it? Was the transfer to the real people of India or the bourgeois and the land-lord classes who emerged as the ruling classes? What kind of a Republic India became on 26th January 1950? The answer to this series of riddles also lies in the history of Constitution-making as also in the history of the pre-1947 developments, border around the partition, Provincial Assemblies and the formation of the Constituent Assembly, and the promulgation of the Constitution of India. In People’s Democratic Revolution in India,Devulapalli Venkateshwara Rao (DV Rao 1917-1984) states as follows:
“In 1947, Power was transferred to the Indian big bourgeoisie and landlords by the British imperialists, as a result of a compromise between them. These classes have been leading the national movement, and playing a counter-revolutionary role. Their attitude towards imperialism was a very limited opposition. As a result, they waited for power till the British conceded it. The Constitutional system, evolved as a result of “transfer of power” was based on the fundamental points formulated by the British. They were not anti-imperialists”.15
This illustrates as to how the “transfer of power” effected by the British Imperialists was to the big bourgeois and the landlord classes. Thus 15th August 1947 did not usher in real independence to the majority of the toiling and moiling masses, but liberation to the very small section of upper and exploiting classes, who reaped the benefit of transfer of power.
Regarding what emerged on 26th January 1950 (termed as the Republic Day), the following observations throw a new light:
“As Michael Brecher, Nehru’s biographer wrote, “one of the striking features of India’s “new” Constitution is the continuity with British Indian practice. Approximately 250 Articles [out of 395 Articles] were taken either verbatim or with minor changes in phraseology from the 1935 Government of India Act, and the basic principles remained unchanged. G.D. Birla, the outstanding leader of the Indian big bourgeoisie and one of the mentors whom, as Gandhi said, “God has given me”, proudly claimed: “We have embodied large portions of the  Act, as finally passed, in the Constitution which we have framed ourselves and which shows that in it [the 1935 Act] was cast the pattern of our future plans. Happily or unhappily, the debt of the “founding fathers” to the “Charter of bondage” of 1935, and to the Cabinet Mission and Wavell, is not usually acknowledged”.16
As stated above, when the Constitution of India contained 250 Articles from the Government of India Act, 1935, which was described by Nehru as the “Charter of bondage”, and evidenced a continuity of the colonial past, more by design of the framers of the Constitution than by accident or coincidence, could we call the Constitution of India as Sovereign? and India as a Democratic Republic? Further it is important to note that Nehru had declared, “When we attain freedom, we shall have another Constituent Assembly”.17Nehru had stated elsewhere that a Constituent Assembly based on adult franchise would be convened after the transfer of power. None of these promises were kept, tragically. It was the members of the Indian Civil Service of the British Indian Government who were entrusted with the basic job of drafting the Constitution. Chief among them was Sir Benegal N. Rau,the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly. How could such a Constitution be Sovereign?
The next riddle that confronts us is : “If we joined the Commonwealth of Nations with the King or Queen of England as its head, what kind of Independence did India have? This is a complex question and needs to be examined.
At the Prime Ministers Conference at London (April 27, 1949), India has made a declaration to the effect that notwithstanding her becoming “a sovereign independent Republic”, she will continue “her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of the independent nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth”.
The admission of India as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, raises questions about the Sovereignty of India after its declaration as a Republic on 26th January 1950. This has naturally led to a debate on the Sovereignty of India. One of the arguments that has been advanced has been that this declaration is an extra-legal one and that there is no mention of it in the Constitution of India. It is a voluntary declaration and indicates a free association and no obligation.
It is said it accepts the King of England only as a symbolic Head of the Commonwealth (having no such functions as belonged to him prior to the Constitution), and there is no question of allegiance of the citizens of India to the Crown of England. Again, though as a member of the Commonwealth, India has a right to be represented in Commonwealth Conferences, decisions at Commonwealth Conferences will not be binding on her and no treaty with a foreign power or declarations of war by any member of the Commonwealth will be binding on her, without her express consent. Hence this voluntary association of India with the Commonwealth does not affect her sovereignty to any extent and it would be open to India to cut off that association as easily as it has been declared.18
Curiously, India which declares itself as a Sovereign Democratic Republic in its Preamble, with the full concurrence of the United Kingdom and her sister nations, remains a Member of the British Commonwealth. It is significant to note that Eire has, on becoming a Republic, severed her connections with the British Commonwealth of Nations by passing the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, while India which promulgated the Constitution of India in 1950, preferred to remain a member of the Commonwealth even after declaring herself a Republic. This is paradoxical. Can it be said that the Indian Ruling classes desired to continue voluntarily their association with British imperialism? This evidences the comprador character of the Indian ruling classes.
The next riddle is: what kind of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were incorporated into the Indian Constitution? From where did they emerge? And what did they give to the citizens of India? How Indian were they? The peculiarity of the Fundamental Rights incorporated in the Constitution of India is : it has under each of these Articles, clauses which take them away and empower the State to impose “reasonable restrictions” on them. While some fundamental rights which are in the abstract, make a mockery of them…”in the marginal note” to quote Marx’s phrase.19
Even the fundamental right to life, has been trampled underfoot by men in positions of power whenever they have so desired.20
The framers of the Constitution made Constitutional provisions to protect and promote the interests of the owners of large properties acquired by fair or foul means, mostly foul, during the colonial days and after.21
In addition to the Fundamental Rights, the Constitution of India, has also incorporated Directive Principles of State Policy. While these are not enforceable in a Court of Law, they are declared as fundamental to the governance of the State. These are noble principles incorporated in the Constitution, but they are laudable intentions and are only decorative principles. Can we say that these are as noble as including Tatas, Birlas, Princes and ex-Princes, as well as industrial and agricultural workers who slave for them and beggars who rummage dustbins for food – the overwhelming majority of the people of India, in the opening words of the Preamble – “We the People of India”?
Sarat Chandra Bose, a legal luminary and who was a member of the Congress Working Committee commented: “The very Preamble of the Constitution is conceived in fraud”. Bose did not live to see the noble principles included in the Chapter “Directive Principles of State Policy”,were conceived equally in fraud.
The Indian Constitution follows the American model in adopting guarantees of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, but improves upon it by making them more specific and detailed. These are Bill of Rights elaborated. Thus Fundamental Rights are drawn from the Constitution of US and the Constitution of Ireland.
When we study the “Directive Principles of State Policy”, we find that “Directive Principles of Social Policy” under the Constitution of Ireland take the form of “Directive Principles of State Policy” in India. The answer to the question “How Indian were they?”, is obviously, though not Indian and borrowed, there are innovations and improvisations to suite the Indian milieu.
The last riddle taken up for an analysis in this exercise,is “how much of borrowing and how much of innovating”.It would not be fair to say that everything is borrowed,, though it is said that Constitution of India has been prepared after “ransacking all the known Constitutions of the World” and that “our Constitution may be said to be a “borrowed Constitution”, the credit is also given to the framers of our Constitution for “gathering the best features of each of the existing Constitutions and in modifying them with a view to avoiding the faults that have been disclosed in their working and to adapting them to the existing conditions and needs of this country. Thus it has been called a “patchwork” and a “beautiful patchwork”.
We can positively say that there is profuse borrowing and necessary innovations along with new additions also to suit the genius of the Indian People.
The conclude this prologue, it is necessary to say that what has followed the promulgation of the Constitution of India, is that while Constitution itself is largely the Govt. of India Act, 1935 in a new robe, the entire bulk of the laws enacted by the British imperialists for India, have remained intact to rule the Nation along with the same bureaucracy, the same judicial system and the legislative processes have continued unabated, with new nomenclatures and embellishments, and the Ruling Classes, who have replaced the British in India, have continued their unashamed unabated exploitation, expropriation and unchecked and unabashed reign.
The authors ardently hope that their labour of love in producing this voluminous work would throw light in understanding the machinations of the ruthless ruling classes who use baits to lure the innocent, ignorant masses into believing that they are in a Sovereign Democratic Republic, with the new embellishment of Secular and Socialist added to them. If this modest effort can serve as a source for researchers and revolutionaries to revolutionise the politico-socio-economic-cultural structure of India, to transform it into a land of equality, where humanism reigns, that would be the real recognition of the monumental work of late Sri S.G. Nadgir, who rendered relentless efforts to compile this volume, even when he was in his late nineties.
I have considered it my unique pleasure to have been associated with this veteran scholar, and consider myself privileged to give final touches in completing this work which remained incomplete. The great solace is that a work which remained incomplete and unpublished, has seen the light of the day, when revered Sri S.G. Nadgir’s Birth Centenary is being celebrated.
I only hope Indian Constitution unriddled would lead to many more works of the kind to unriddle the many more riddles that even today remain inherent in the Constitution of India.(k.s.sharma,HUBLI, 2nd March 2015.)
- Basu, Das Durga, Commenting on the Constitution of India 8th Edition, 2007 Vol.1. P.39 – Wadhwa, Nagpur.
- VII Constituent Assembly Debates PP 35-38
- VII Constituent Assembly Debates, 2, 242. XI CAD 613, 616.
- Bryce: American Constitution, Vol.1. P-28.
- SwarupJagdish, Constitution of India, 2nd Edition, Vol.1 by Dr. L.M.Singhvi, Modern Law Publications, New Delhi, 2006 P-37.
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.7, P-38.
- Austin, The Indian Constitution, P.13.
- Swarup, Jagdish, Constitution of India, 2nd Ed. Vol.1, P-39.
- Basu, Das Durga, Commentary on Constitution of India, 8th Edition, 2007, Wadhwa, Nagpur, P-386.
- Basu, Das Durga, Commentary on Constitution of India, 8th Edition, 2007, Wadhwa, Njpuri, P-21.
- Mahajan, DharVidya and MahajanSavitri, Constitutional History of India, Sixth Edition, 1964 – S. Chand & , Delhi P:130.
- ibid P-210.
- Mahajan, DharVidya and MahajanSavitri, Constitutional History of India, Sixth Edition, 1964 – S. Chand & Co., Delhi P:208-09.
- Rao, D.V., People’s Democratic Revolution in India, The Proletarian Line Publications, Hyderabad, 1982. P-208(6).
- Ghosh, Kumar Suniti, “The Indian Constitution and its Review”, RUPE, Mumbai, Third Printing, Jan. 2004 P. 8-9.
- Gopal S. Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, 2nd Series, Vol.1 P-19.
- Basu, DasDurga, Commentary on Constitution of India, 8th Edition,. 2007, Wadhwa, Nagpur – P.389-390.
- Ghosh, Kumar Suniti, The Indian Constitution and its Review, P-10
- Bose, “A Constitution of Myths and Denials” – 426
- Ghosh, Kumar Suniti, The Indian Constitution and its Review, P-12
- Ghosh, Kumar Suniti, The Indian Constitution and its Review, P-10
( Dr KS Sharma, (born 1934),a Retired Professor of Law based at Hubli, Karnataka, has been a leader of working class for over 45 years now, focused on unorganized labor, and as Founder- President of Karnataka State Govt. Dailywage Employees Federation, successfully organized one lakh dailywagers of Govt of Karnataka who got regularized after 30 years of struggle that included street battles and legal battles going upto Supreme Court. He is a great teacher, poet, writer, dramatist, literary critic, columnist,publisher, orator, and an activist–social scientist who was a Vice-President of ISSA , Indian Social Science Academy, for sometime. Post-retirement, he did his doctorate on Indian State : From Marxian Perspective.He is the Founder President of a group of Institutions including an ITI, Institute of Naturopathy and Yoga, Dr. Da Ra Bendre (JnanaPeeth Awardee) Research Institute, Indian Institute of Marxist Theory and Practice, FMRRC- Fluorosis Mitigation Research and Resource Centre all located in VishwaShramaChetana campus, Hubli. He may be contacted at :firstname.lastname@example.org)