Indian Polity

Q. Several features of the Indian constitution have been taken from the original constitution of France. France however has changed its constitution several times for the sake of betterment of the country  but India did not. How do you judge it? 100 words.

 

8 thoughts on “Indian Polity”

  1. France drew it’s first constitution in 1789 after french revolution it went through seismic shifts within and around much greater in scale than similar or disimilar events had their impact on india. France didn’t just go through democratic turnovers but regime changes often at the hands of foreign powers I. E germany and Britain worldwar 1, worldwar 2 etc . France was a colonial power and had to maintain separate sections for colonies and had to change them with changing times. France became part of EU which also led to multiple changes to the constitution. France is a member of several other international groupings which affect or needed to change the constitution I. E NATO, UNSC , G7 , NPT, CTBT etc. India doesn’t have such a long history with its constitution and it too has amended it several times. India is not part of any military bloc or an EU like market to so consitution didn’t require large changes, india because of colonial history saw ww1,ww2, from a distance rather than be impacted directly also india didn’t become a colonial power . These are some of the reasons why French constitution underwent huge changes while the indian constitution which required amendments but did not need different constitutions.

    1. Reasons for change in the French constitution have been several and being part of a military block is just one of them. The major causes however were internal social changes in French society. Read more about this. Moreover the question asks to judge the change that you have not mentioned in the answer. Plus you are also required to compare and judge the situation with india.
      2.5/7.5

  2. 1.Constitutional changes are closely linked with political development of the country .France faced so many political changes as comapred to india.constituiton should have to change to link itself with political developitselof the country.
    1.It can be tremed as living document meaning it gives enough flexiblity and interpretation to judiciciary and parliament to accomdate the changing needs of the society .so it is not closed and static rather than it is more dynamic and flexible.
    3 .Our constituion makers while framing it were aware that in future there would be demand for change and difference of opinion would exist so they tried to make it as a sacred document which is above the ordinary law so only on special ocasion and national interest it accomdate the modification .
    4.And our constitution maintain a balance between both i.e it must be changes if required and it must be protected from unnecessary changes.
    5. for this different provisions are provided for amendments like simple majority and special majorty to strike the balance between both prespective.

    So we can say that indian consitituion is changing and flexible not static and rigid.

    1. What you have written about the Indian constitution is true but you have not mentioned the changes in the French constitution. The question requires a comparative approach.

      3/7.5

  3. Given the diversity of india, no single forms could be adopted as a constitution. Thus india shared features of its constitution from other countries. France was one of them.
    If one looks at the history of France it has had numerous constitutions in history. Unlike that india has had only one constitution. This reflects the inconsistency between constitution and the society in France and not so much with india.
    Following this one can view this as unlike France, provisions of indian constitution have been more fitted to its population.
    The high frequency of change of French constitution is seen by some as reflector of inadequacy of its original one. Unlike this adequacy of indian constitution seems to be proven by minimal changes .
    Indian constitution is also referred to as living documents as it is flexible enough to internalize new situations and at the same time is rigid enough to immune itself from undergoing any absurd change. This had made india undergo not much changes of constitution unlike France.
    The second group however views the frequent changes of cinstitution by France as a plus point. They argue that unlike india France values betterment of people more than the maintenance of consistency of the constitution.
    Undergoing less changes by India is seen by many as failuer of its political parties which value their political interest more than the interest of public. For an instance, privileges given to MPs qnd MLAs in the constitution. Unlike this French politics is more quick on undergoing changes to its constitution.

  4. France had numerous constitutions in the last two centuries like, 1793 immediately after French revolution,1848,1875,1946 and in 1958. This truly reflects the inconsistency between people and the system. Where as India has the same constitution continuing to function till today. This shows Indian constitution is very much suited to our society unlike the French. Although several features have been taken from the France constitution, we made some technical amendments to make sure that it suits our society. We consider constitution as living document, and living document is subjected to change, without changing its basic feature. Thus unlike France constitution, where it had to change as a whole document, Indian constitution did it with amendments which are only technical in nature. It is true that France has changed its constitution several times for betterment of society, on the other hand India also did some changes, but these changes are amendments because we consider constitution as non frozen document, it can be rigid at times and flexible as well. There was a review commission to review the constitution under the chairmanship of justice Venkatachaliah, the committee did not suggest any measures that would endanger basic structure of the constitution. This proves that unlike France which had so many constitutions, India has a very dynamic constitution which keeps on changing from time time according society needs, but preserves the basic structure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.