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?
Yes, there is a significant problem with making a constitution under foreign occupation. A constitution made under such conditions lacks legitimacy and popular sovereignty. When a constitution is drafted under the control of an occupying army, it cannot truly reflect the free will and aspirations of the people. The provisions are shaped by what the occupying power approves, rather than what the citizens need. Such a constitution may fail to protect citizens from arbitrary exercise of power and may not adequately limit the powers of government.
The Indian experience was fundamentally different. The Indian Constitution was made by the Constituent Assembly, which consisted of credible leaders who commanded people's respect. The Assembly was elected for undivided India, giving it democratic legitimacy. The makers were not working under foreign occupation or pressure.
Moreover, the Indian framers borrowed provisions from different countries, but this was not slavish imitation. Each provision had to be defended on grounds that it was suited to Indian problems and aspirations. India was fortunate to have an Assembly that could take the best from the world and adapt it to Indian conditions.
The Indian Constitution thus emerged from a free and deliberative process, reflecting the genuine will of the people, unlike the Japanese Constitution which was constrained by foreign control.
Explanation
The question tests understanding of constitutional legitimacy and the difference between imposed constitutions versus those made through democratic deliberation. The Japanese Constitution was drafted under US occupation, meaning it lacked genuine popular participation. The Indian Constitution, by contrast, was made by an elected Constituent Assembly of respected leaders who freely deliberated and adapted ideas to Indian needs. This distinction is crucial for understanding why constitutions need to emerge from the people's will to have legitimacy.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Identify the problem with constitution-making under foreign occupation - lack of legitimacy and popular sovereignty.
Step 2: Explain how such constitutions may not truly reflect people's aspirations or adequately limit government power.
Step 3: Contrast with Indian experience - elected Constituent Assembly with credible leaders.
Step 4: Highlight that Indian framers borrowed ideas freely and adapted them to Indian needs, not under foreign pressure.