ARGUMENT PAPER

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
NAME: SAKSHI SHARDA
SEMESTER: FIRST
TUTORIAL GROUP: F

INTRODUCTION:
The focus of this paper will remain the response given by Z. H. Lari (Muslim representative of the
United Provinces) to B. R. Ambedkar’s introduction of the first draft of the Indian Constitution. We
will view the critique of the author through due to resonating significance with various key issues of
the Indian democracy. The focus of this essay will remain Lari’s response to the first draft
constitution. The critique will be evaluated from the standpoint of Granville Austin’s conception of
the Indian constitution having a seamless web. The flow of this paper will be an introduction of
Lari’s critique, followed by the questions that arise from the same and evaluating the strand of the
web that Lari seems to be giving a priority to.

MATTER:
Lari begins his speech with questioning the reason for the Draft Constitution to remain silent on the
question of a national language. He views the popular vernacular of Hindustani in any script to be
the right match for national language. He conceded the need for English to remain an official
language to lend time for states lacking in knowledge of Hindustani to gain the same. More than his
protest on the question of language the paper will focus on his comment agreeing with and quoting
Mover “Democracy in India is only a top- dressing on Indian soil, which is essentially
undemocratic…..It is wiser not to trust the legislatures to prescribe forms of administration.” He
further substantiates these claims with the critique of the constitution in two major parts one being
the fundamental rights and the second focusing on the process and affect of legislation.
Before we begin to understand the critique for the purpose of the theoretical perspective that we
have chosen to view Lari’s debate from Granville Austin’s understanding of the Indian Constitution
as a seamless web of three strands that are in constant conflict for dominance over one another. The
three strands being unity of the territory, democracy in India and the need for social revolution. For
the purpose of this paper one can find that Lari essentially is demanding for the strand of democracy
which seems to be in conflict with the strand of unity of territory. His focus on security acts and a
unifying theme in his debate about the fear of a police state or a state essentially burdened with
demands of Security acts and the toll that takes upon personal liberty. One can also find resonance
with the idea of continuities given by Upendra Baxi, between the British State and Indian
Constitution. One such continuity of Security acts is a very important fear for Lari and the
disenfranchisement of 49% of the voters that is a result of the present electoral system.
Lari when speaking about the fundamental rights is critiquing the language of due process of law
with special focus on right to life and liberty. Fundamental Rights to Lari seems to be insufficient
and vague. He seems essentially uneasy with the idea of due process of law or procedure
established by law because he feels like these exceptions and contingencies with respect to
fundamental rights leave an individual open to the legislature. This dominance of the legislature
over the individual for Lari seems to be a break from democracy, essentially the safeguards make
India a police state. It is here that one can clearly see that for Lari democracy translated as a liberal
democratic strand which was being overshadowed with the need for unity and safety in the country.
Continuing from his fear of security act comes Lari’s fear for the broad scope of the emergency
powers but he seems to be a pragmatic liberal cause he does not really seem to be asking for the
provision to be removed but rather limited like in the case of America. He seems to Crete a
distinction in the threat of violence and the actual presence or experience of violence and for Lari it
is only when violence in the form of an external invasion (like in the case of America) qualifies the
necessity of emergency provisions.
Another interesting link that Lari draws here is between right to life and liberty and the sancity of
one’s house. Here he speaks to essentially an idea that my right to life extends to, not to say
property but private and personal space. He further asks the assembly to make safeguards for this
space by including written provisions in the constitution detailing the process for seizure and
search. Asking the assembly to be extremely careful is safeguarding the space of the private for the
individual. Currently the search and seizure provisions are print in India in CrPC. The reason why
this particular conception is important is because Lari is not equating private property in all he is
essentially creating a distinction between property and home, which is a unique understanding by a
liberal.
Lari also focuses on the need of the state to realise the importance of education, it is here that he
seems to be focussing on the strand of social revolution not really in conflict with any other of the
three strands. He comments that the presence of need for elementary education in the Directive
Principles of State Policy is the State shrugging away from responsibility and duty. He speaks of the
need for Right to Elementary Education to be present in fundamental rights. In 2009 Government of
India enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education
Act. This is one of the reasons that I felt that Lari had modern day resonance and thus seemed fair
to attribute a paper to his ideas.
From Fundamental rights let us look at the legislative reasons for Lari to see democracy in India
only to be a window dressing. One major problem comes in the form of ordinance politics where he
gives example from the provinces to specially focus the arbitrary power the legislature would enjoy
due to the provision of ordinance. Beyond registering his protest Lari does not engage further with
the topic assuming the complete removal of the provision. Though toward the end Lari gives a
unique solution by suggesting to provide a provision for the position of a leader of opposition
within the constitution. For him this would institutionally keep a check on the strong legislature that
the draft constitution was proposing.
The last theme that comes across in his speech is the fear that the electoral system of first pass the
post would essentially disenfranchise minorities or speaking empirically 49% of the population. It is
important to draw a distinction here that Lari is not necessarily demanding a change from
Parliamentary form of democracy and is specifically critiquing the electoral system. He feels the
heterogeneity of India makes it necessary that representation must come to everybody. He furthers
the need for multiplicity of parties essentially speaking in favour of a parliamentary democracy
where is political minorities are also represented, it is interesting two draw the readers attention the
Lari speaks of minorities not in terms of religion, community or region but political minorities.

CONCLUSION:
While it becomes clear that Lari has significance beyond the constitutional debates and has special
resonance in present day India, with debates around ordinance legislation and the stifling of rights
that seems to be the mass perception of Indian democracy. I feel that various of Lari’s arguments
and solutions have been adopted making him a safe speaker to defend in a paper yet one has to
agree that the magnitude of the fears that Lari holds seems disproportionate to me, this could be that
I am speaking more than six decades after his speech.
One cannot deny that there are certain continuities that India has in its constitution as part of its
colonial legacy but the experiment of democracy that India began on has been successful at the
same time one cannot completely refute Mover for what he stated at the conception of the sovereign
India that is, “Democracy in India is only a top- dressing on Indian soil, which is essentially
undemocratic…..It is wiser not to trust the legislatures to prescribe forms of administration.” India
had through the furthering of the strand of social revolution and democracy has been able to reduce
this undemocratic part of its conception but the threats to fundamental rights, the fear of a security
state are some concerns that Lari pointed out and remain a fear of present political thinkers.

REFERENCE:
1. Constitutional Assembly of India Debates (Proceedings)- Volume VII; Monday 8 November,
1948
2. Austin, Granville. “The Expected and age Unintended in Working a Democratic Constitution”;
Oxford University Press, 2003
3. Tinker, H. (1967). Granville Austin: The Indian constitution: Cornerstone of a nation. xvii, 390
pp. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. 45s. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
30(1), 250-250. doi:10.1017/S0041977X00099870
4. Baxi, Upendra. “Postcolonial Legality: A Postscript from India.” Verfassung Und Recht in
Übersee / Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America, vol. 45, no. 2, 2012, pp. 178–
194. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43256851.