Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 17 October 2025

Home » Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 17 October 2025

Content

A reading of a revisionism in constitutional history
Ensure safeguards for India’s carbon market

A reading of a revisionism in constitutional history

Why in News ?

A section of scholars has recently argued that Sir Benegal Narsing Rau, the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly, was the real architect of the Indian Constitution, while Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, merely refined Rau’s draft. This view has sparked discussions on the historical interpretation of both figures’ contributions.

Basic Context

Sir B.N. Rau: A distinguished civil servant, jurist, and scholar, appointed as Constitutional Adviser in July 1946.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Eminent jurist, economist, and social reformer, appointed as Chairman of the Drafting Committee in August 1947.
Both were key contributors to the framing of India’s Constitution but with distinct roles and mandates.

Relevance

GS 2 – Polity & Governance:
Constitutional history, evolution of constitutional thought, contributions of key figures.

Practice Question

The making of India’s Constitution was as much a moral and social enterprise as a legal one. In this context, critically examine the distinct yet complementary roles of B.N. Rau and B.R. Ambedkar in shaping India’s constitutional vision. (250 words)

Roles and Contributions

Sir B.N. Rau

Mandate: To prepare a working draft of the Constitution based on the Assembly’s committee reports and comparative constitutional studies.
Methodology: Studied constitutions of USA, UK, Canada, Ireland, Australia, and Weimar Germany; consulted scholars like Felix Frankfurter and Harold Laski.
Output: Submitted a draft Constitution (Oct 1947) with 243 Articles and 13 Schedules.
Nature of work: Technical and preparatory — provided the framework for deliberations.
Limitations: Not a member of the Constituent Assembly; no political or representative authority.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Mandate: To convert Rau’s legal draft into a political and moral covenant through the Drafting Committee and the Constituent Assembly.
Leadership: Defended every clause amidst challenges like Partition, communal tensions, and ideological divides.
Vision: Ensured that the Constitution reflected the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Distinct contribution: Provided the moral and social dimension — transforming a legal document into a living social manifesto.
Key Imprints: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and affirmative action provisions.

Mutual Acknowledgment

Ambedkar explicitly credited Rau in his concluding speech (Nov 25, 1949), calling his draft a “rough draft”.
Also acknowledged S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman, for exceptional legal articulation.
Rau’s correspondence with Ambedkar and Nehru reflected mutual respect and cooperation; he never claimed authorship.

Gandhi’s Role in Ambedkar’s Inclusion

After Partition, Ambedkar lost his Assembly seat from Bengal.
Despite prior disagreements, Mahatma Gandhi insisted that Ambedkar be re-elected (from Bombay Presidency).
Gandhi believed no Constitution could be legitimate without Scheduled Caste representation.
This inclusion helped ensure social legitimacy and national unity during a fragile period.

Scholarly and Political Dimensions

The current revisionist narrative challenges Ambedkar’s primacy and, according to critics, seeks to recast constitutional authorship along caste lines.
However, a neutral interpretation suggests that:
- Rau was the constitutional engineer — providing structure, coherence, and comparative depth.
- Ambedkar was the constitutional architect — infusing justice, social equality, and democratic values.

Enduring Legacy

Ambedkar’s warnings about social and economic inequality endangering political democracy remain central to constitutional discourse.
The Constitution’s legitimacy arises not just from technical precision but from its social and moral vision.
Both Rau and Ambedkar contributed indispensably — one through scholarship, the other through statesmanship.

Takeaway

The making of India’s Constitution was a collaborative enterprise, not the creation of one individual.
Rau’s draft served as the skeleton; Ambedkar’s leadership gave it life and legitimacy.
Recognizing both without distortion safeguards the Constitution’s historical integrity and inclusive spirit.

Constituent Assembly: Value Addition

Composition and Representation

Original Strength: 389 members (later 299 at adoption in 1950).
Electoral Basis: Members were elected by provincial assemblies (indirectly) under the Cabinet Mission Plan, 1946.
Minority & Special Groups Representation: Included Scheduled Castes, Muslims, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, and princely state representatives.
Ensured inclusive deliberation, though not universal adult franchise.

Key Functions Beyond Drafting

Framing the Constitution: Drafting committees, sub-committees, and technical advisers translated diverse demands into a unified text.
Legislative Function: Served as the provisional Parliament of India (1947–1950), enacting essential laws.
Debate on Social Justice: Addressed minority rights, land reforms, and caste equity, laying the foundation for affirmative action.
Consensus-Building: Negotiated conflicts across regions, religions, and ideologies, especially after Partition.

Influence of Advisors

Sir B.N. Rau: Prepared the working draft; introduced comparative constitutional methods.
K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer: Contributed regional perspectives and legal expertise.
B.R. Ambedkar: Translated the draft into a politically and morally legitimate document, defended Fundamental Rights and social justice clauses.

Ensure safeguards for India’s carbon market

Why in News

As India builds its Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) to align economic growth with sustainability, debates have emerged over ethical, social, and environmental safeguards in carbon markets. Global experiences, such as the Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project, show that without protection for local communities, such initiatives risk replicating exploitative structures under the banner of climate action.

Relevance

GS Paper 3 – Environment, Economy, Ethics:
Climate governance, carbon markets, sustainable growth, and community rights.

Practice Question

As India develops its Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), discuss how equity, transparency, and community participation can be ensured to prevent the emergence of “modern plantations” under the guise of climate action. (250 words)

Growth vs. Planetary Limits

The growth-driven model since the Industrial Revolution has pushed planetary boundaries beyond safe limits — causing climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
While “degrowth” (reducing production and consumption) is proposed by some as a solution, it is neither feasible nor equitable for developing countries still battling poverty and hunger.
The alternative path: “decoupling growth from environmental harm” — achieving economic expansion while reducing ecological footprints through clean technologies, renewable energy, and sustainable practices.
- India’s examples:
  - Rapid solar energy expansion
  - Micro-irrigation adoption improving water-use efficiency

Concept of Carbon Credits

Definition: A carbon credit represents a certified reduction or removal of greenhouse gases (GHGs), measured in CO₂-equivalents.
Generation: Through mitigation or sequestration activities such as:
- Renewable energy (solar, wind)
- Reforestation and afforestation
- Agroforestry and biochar
Purpose:
- Allow firms to offset emissions while transitioning to cleaner operations.
- Reward developing nations for low-carbon practices.

Global Carbon Credit Trends

175–180 million credits are retired annually.
Major sources:
- Renewable energy projects
- Nature-based projects (REDD+, afforestation)
However, agriculture-based carbon projects remain underdeveloped despite high potential.
- Of 64 Indian agricultural projects listed under Verra, only four are registered and none have issued credits — due to weak farmer engagement, lack of training, and low participation of marginalised groups.

India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS)

Launched under the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Objective: Build a domestic carbon market to help meet India’s Net Zero 2070 target.
Key features:
- Sets emission-intensity benchmarks for energy-intensive sectors.
- Allows voluntary offsets.
- Establishes a national registry and trading platform.
- Draft methodologies for sectors like biomass, compressed biogas, and low-emission rice cultivation already released.
Challenge: The current focus is on procedural compliance, not community safeguards.

Global Cautionary Tales: Kenya’s Experience

Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project

Launched: 2012; covered 1.9 million hectares.
Goal: Remove 50 million tonnes of CO₂ in 30 years.
Issues identified:
- Weak community consent and land rights.
- Allegations of forced conservancies and armed enforcement.
- Verra suspended credit issuance in 2023 and again in 2025 after a Kenyan court found violations of public participation laws.
Lesson: Community-led initiatives can fail if decentralised institutions are captured or excluded from governance.

Lake Turkana Wind Power Project (Kenya)

Fenced 1,50,000 acres of community land, cutting herders off from grazing and water routes.
Highlighted the dilemma: sustainability achieved at the expense of livelihoods.

Potential Risks for India

Customary land-use conflicts: Afforestation and reforestation projects may encroach on village commons and forest fringes.
Marginalisation risks: Caste and class inequalities could result in benefits bypassing small and marginal farmers.
Opaque governance: Developers not mandated to disclose benefit-sharing arrangements.
Top-down approach: Limited Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and community participation.
These factors could turn carbon projects into “modern plantations”, repeating colonial patterns of control.

Why Carbon Projects Are Vulnerable

Vulnerability	Description
Power asymmetry	Companies/developers hold more information and resources than local communities.
Lack of transparency	No legal requirement for benefit-sharing disclosure.
Weak institutional safeguards	Land rights and FPIC often overlooked.
Compliance focus	Regulatory design emphasises carbon accounting over social justice.

The Way Forward for India

A. Balanced Regulatory Architecture

Avoid overregulation that deters private actors.
Build “lightweight yet protective” frameworks ensuring:
- Transparency in benefit-sharing.
- Formalised community consent mechanisms.
- Independent verification of social and environmental safeguards.

B. Empowering Local Communities

Strengthen land tenure rights and FPIC processes.
Ensure inclusive participation of smallholders, women, and marginalised groups.
Use capacity-building and extension programs to engage farmers effectively.

C. Institutional Mechanisms

Create grievance redressal bodies and community audit systems.
Involve Panchayati Raj institutions and forest rights committees for local oversight.
Align carbon projects with SDGs and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).