The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?

The Japanese constitution was made when the US army occupation was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. The constitution which is influenced by external factors does not represent the will, goal and aspirations of the citizens of the country. Citizens have little participation and it also compromises on the county’s soverignity. Thus, in many ways it is an enforced constitution.

The Indian experience of constitution-making was different as it was based upon ideologies that were influenced by nationalist movement. Sovereignty and freedom were the main goals of the nationalist movements that gave away ideals of equality, fraternity, and secularism. All these characters are mentioned and practiced in the Indian constitution.

The Indian constitution was made by the constituent assembly which had been elected for the undivided India. It was thought that the constitution should be such to enable the government to fulfil the aspirations of the society. The constitution of India had established a federation with unitary basis. A powerful and independent judiciary was established. Bicameral legislature was adopted. Our constitutional framers have laid down rules and regulations which provide equalities of all sort i.e., political, social and legal.