A People’s Constitution

by Rohit De

On August 6, we discussed the first two chapters (Introduction and chapter 1!) of “A people”s constitution’. It is not a difficult read, entertaining even if a tad rambling. For non-lawyers like myself, it was revealing to see a bit of the history of courts in the Introduction, and the tussle between junta and the state in Chapter 1 on the Prohibition ban. The line that clarified the puzzle for me on how there was so much conflict with the state was this: Postcolonial sovereignty is based on a contradictory logic, straddling the bureaucratic methods of colonial rule and the claim to represent a free nation. (ref: Ranabir Sammadar, “The materiality of politics: The technologies of rule”, 2007.) So much was being borrowed of the British political and judicial system, while simultaneously proclaiming full-on “independence”. Given the cruelty and immediacy of Partition, perhaps there was little chance of having strategised better. It would have been nice to be better prepared.

Next reading: the rest of the book, which is three chapters and the conclusion.

Date: 24 September 2025
Venue: Artha Global conference space
Time: 5:30pm

See you all there.

On 24 September, we wrapped up “The people”s constitution’. The book comes together in it’s Conclusion chapter. But you have to read the whole book to fully appreciate it. It is difficult to remember such a time, but at Independence “The state was being reconstituted, more than five hundred territorities were being absorbed, the administration was being rapidly expanded, and government was entering new arenas.” In debates on the constitution, we bring in the U.S. to compare. But “.. Americans had law, they made law, they inherited law, they used law and they were subject to law.” India didn’t rise from such a context. “.. many of the laws that existed until 1947 were neither made nor inherited by Indians.” It was interesting that constitutional litigation overtook civil litigation after independence. And De uses this book to demonstrate how the emergence of constitutional law as a field of bargainning between society and government benefitted those “who stood outside the consensus of what a good Indian citizen should be.” He says “The rights claims before the judiciary in the 1950s, unlike the rights claims today, were claims not for new rights but for continuing older practices that were now being challenged or forbidden by the new government. […] although a claim of cultural autonomy to protect lifestyles could be made against a colonial state, it was harder to sustain in a democratic republic. […] Despite minority rights in India having been largely understood through the realm of identity and culture, the claims made by minorities (in the 1950s) were for economic rights…. Constitutional law thus became the field in which citizens marked as deviant in the new order could recast themselves as virtuous constitutional actors.” Maybe not such a depressing book after all. :-)

Some books were suggested for the next readings (“The power broker”, “Guns… missionaries”, “Freedom and property”). Before that, let’s read “The idea of India” by Sunil Khilnani, to help to wrap up the theme of India? It is slim in size, dense in thought. Will help steel our brains to start the arduous task of reading the history books that lay ahead of us.

Date: 22 October 2025
Venue: Artha Global conference space
Time: 5:30pm (may negotiate for an earlier time)

See you all there.