Abstract
In recent times, studies in Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia have followed two different general perspectives: some insist on the unstableness of Asian constitutionalism, while a number of scholars consider the achievements of constitutionalism in Asia a fact. However, if we restrict our point of view to South Asia, we come across the evidence that South Asian constitutionalism ‘has either been largely ignored or has not received the attention it deserves’. We think it is necessary to reassess the place of the Indian constitutional system in the traditional comparative law classifications; For instance, the Constitution of India could be addressed as an example of a ‘sui generis pristine Constitution’ in the Asiatic scenario. In fact, the Indian Constitution represents an interesting case of a subtle use of many instruments of western constitutionalism to build up an original and ‘autochthonous document’. In spite of its uniqueness, the Indian ‘prototype’ has often been a source of inspiration for other legal systems and constitution-making processes in South Asia. In this chapter, we will point out that a comparative study of the Constitution of India, its constitutional developments and its influences on post-conflict Nepal represents a relevant contribution to the debate on constitutionalism in South Asia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Darian-Smith 2013.
- 2.
Di Martino 2010.
- 3.
Menski 2007.
- 4.
Menski 2007, p. 193.
- 5.
Glenn 2010.
- 6.
Harding and Bui 2016.
- 7.
Tushnet and Khosla 2015.
- 8.
- 9.
Harding and Bui 2016, p. 169.
- 10.
Khilnani et al. 2016.
- 11.
Ibidem. The definition of Silo Mentality is a mindset that occurs in organizations, which is inward looking and resists sharing information and resources with other people or departments within the organization.
- 12.
Tushnet and Khosla 2015, p. 4.
- 13.
Ibidem.
- 14.
Ganguly 2007.
- 15.
Amirante 2012.
- 16.
Chen 2014.
- 17.
Singh and Deva 2005, pp. 649–686.
- 18.
A. Stepan, J. Linz and Y. Yadav 2011.
- 19.
See Amirante 2012.
- 20.
Bhattacharyya 2003.
- 21.
D. D. Basu, Comparative federalism, Wadhwa, New Delhi, pp. 144–145.
- 22.
Arora and Verney 1995.
- 23.
On these aspects, it is sufficient to refer to a recent overview by Kymlicka 2005.
- 24.
Bhattacharyya 2003, p. 152.
- 25.
Mahajan 2005.
- 26.
Mitra 2001.
- 27.
Kymlicka 2005, pp. 39–40.
- 28.
Bajpai 2006.
- 29.
Lijphart 2006.
- 30.
There was no direct election for the constituent assembly, its member being designated among the representative of the Provincial legislatures, elected in 1945 (with the addition of some representatives of the formally independent Princely States).
- 31.
Austin 1966.
- 32.
Mahajan 2005, p. 295.
- 33.
Bhattacharyya 2005.
- 34.
Chadda 2002.
- 35.
Singh 2003.
- 36.
M. Chadda, Integration through internal reorganization: containing ethnic conflict in India cit., 49–50.
- 37.
Malagodi 2008.
- 38.
Since the entry into force of the Government of Nepal Act in 1948—the constitution granted to adapt the requirements of inclusive social strata left on their own—five successive Constitutions entered into force. For an historical and political reconstruction see Bhandari 2014.
- 39.
Y. Ghai, The Old Order Is Dying, the New Order Is Not Yet Born. Politics of Constitution Demolishing and Constitution Building in Nepal, in Chen 2014, pp. 367–390, 369–370.
- 40.
For example, the correlation between linguistic diversity, education, legislation, judiciary and the implications of the linguistic choice for the Public Administration in the conduct of its functions. On this topic see Choudhry 2009.
- 41.
Dahal 2003.
- 42.
With regard to the choice of the terms ‘mother tongue’ and ‘first language’ see Central Bureau of Statistics 2014.
- 43.
Eagle 2008.
- 44.
Lawoti 2007.
- 45.
- 46.
Article 6(2) Cost. [1990]: ‘All the languages spoken as the mother tongue in the various parts of Nepal are the national languages of Nepal’; Article 18(1): ‘Each community residing within the Kingdom of Nepal shall have the right to preserve and promote its language, script and culture’. Official English translation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal VS 2047 (1990) published in Himalaya, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies, 1–3(1991), 19–68.
- 47.
- 48.
Louisie Brown 1996.
- 49.
Louisie Brown 1996, p. 218: ‘Nepal’s low castes, its tribal peoples and the Indian community of the Terai may therefore, in time, come to exercise their political influence through the electoral system. In the meantime, the process of cultural atomisation will continue’.
- 50.
Ibidem., 218 et seq.
- 51.
Singh 2016.
- 52.
As I have pointed out in ‘Constitutional Profiles of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal’, Eleven, The Hague, 2019, in press, I have preferred to use the word ‘State’, instead of ‘province’, though the dominant legal and non-legal literature prefers the other option. This is not an arbitrary approach, but it is based on two reasons: (1) the word pradesh (
) can be translated both as ‘province’ and ‘State’; (2) the official translation by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs uses the word ‘State’ to indicate the territorial units that compose the federation (e.g. see Part 20 of the Constitution). In my opinion, the reason for this choice lies in the structural and paradigmatic change that has concerned Nepal. It should not be forgotten that from a unitary State, it has transformed into a clear federal structure, which implies, in the context of conceptual and taxonomic simplification, the choice of using the word 'State' for single territories within the federation. In this regard, it would be interesting to investigate the semantic field of the words sangh (
), rajya (
), and pradesh, not only in Nepal, but also in the Indian experience, both linguistically, historically and legally. However, for the economy of the present work, there is no further space allowed. - 53.
Article 56(6), Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, 2015.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
Bhattacharyya 2007.
- 57.
The notion of ‘temperate asymmetric bicameralism’ is introduced by D. Amirante to describe the Indian system of government, with respect to the relation between the two Houses and their role in the legislative process. See D. Amirante, India, il Mulino, Bologna 2007, p. 88.
- 58.
The explanation of the Article 84 acknowledges that ‘For the purposes of this clause, “Khas Arya” means Kshetri, Brahmin, Thakuri, Sanyasi (Dashnami) community’.
- 59.
Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 3 (Lok Sabha Secretariat 1955), 4990, 1955; quoted in Pal 2016.
- 60.
This speech of Ambedkar is quoted, inter alia, in Shiva Rao 2004.
- 61.
Austin 1972.
- 62.
Among those we traced back: (i) the parliamentary form of government, (ii) the head of the state as guardian of the constitution, (iii) a strong leadership of the Prime Minister, (iv) the central role of the government in political dynamics, (v) the vote of confidence as link between the government and the Lower House and (vi) the National Assembly as representative of ethnic diversity.
- 63.
A. Stepan, J. J. Linz and Y. Yadav 2011, 1.
- 64.
For the multilevel constitutionalism approach, see, e.g. the recent Cambridge review on Global Constitutionalism, and particularly its first Editorial by Wiener et al. 2012.
- 65.
It is necessary highlight that there is strong criticism from Madhesi ethnic group in Southern Nepal, whom demand for a constitutional amendment that rearranged population over geography on an ethnic base in the delimitation of electoral constituencies. About the State building and the multiple conflicts see Lawoti 2007.
- 66.
A. Stepan, J. J. Linz and Y. Yadav 2011, p. 20.
- 67.
S. Choudhry, M. Khosla and P. B. Mehta, Locating Indian Constitutionalism, in Ibid., 2016, p. 1.
) can be translated both as ‘province’ and ‘State’; (2) the official translation by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs uses the word ‘State’ to indicate the territorial units that compose the federation (e.g. see Part 20 of the Constitution). In my opinion, the reason for this choice lies in the structural and paradigmatic change that has concerned Nepal. It should not be forgotten that from a unitary State, it has transformed into a clear federal structure, which implies, in the context of conceptual and taxonomic simplification, the choice of using the word 'State' for single territories within the federation. In this regard, it would be interesting to investigate the semantic field of the words sangh (
), rajya (
), and pradesh, not only in Nepal, but also in the Indian experience, both linguistically, historically and legally. However, for the economy of the present work, there is no further space allowed.References
Amirante, D. (Ed.). (2010). Altre democrazie. Problemi e prospettive del consolidamento democratico nel sub-continente indiano. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Amirante, D. (2012). Nation building through Constitutionalism: Lessons from the Indian experience. Hong Kong Law Journal, 42(1), 23–42.
Amirante, Lo Stato Multiculturale. (2014). Contributo alla teoria dello Stato dalla prospettiva dell’Unione indiana. Bologna: Bononia University Press.
Amirante, D. (Ed.) (2015), Beyond West. Epistemological challenges and heuristic insights in comparing “towards” East. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo, 1, 1–36.
Arora, B., & Verney, D. V. (Eds.). (1995). Multiple identities in a single state: Indian federalism in a comparative perspective. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.
Austin, G. (1966). The Indian Constitution. Cornerstone of a nation (p. 1). Oxford: OUP.
Austin, G. (1972). The Indian Constitution. Cornerstone of a nation (p. 321). Oxford: OUP.
Bajpai, K. S. (Ed.). (2006). Democracy and diversity. India and the American experience. Oxford: OUP.
Bhandari, S. (2014). Self-Determination and Constitution making in Nepal. In Constituent assembly, inclusion, and ethnic federalism. New York: Springer.
Bhattacharyya, H. (2003). Multiculturalism in contemporary India. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), 5(2), 58.
Bhattacharyya, H. (2005). Federalism and regionalism in India. Institutional strategies and political accommodation of identity. Working paper n. 27, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, 2.
Bhattacharyya, H. (2007). India and Switzerland as multinational federations. In M. Burgess & J. Pinder (Eds.), Multinational federations (pp. 212–224, 213). London-New York: Routledge.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Population monograph of Nepal (Vol. II, Tab. 1.1 and p. 52 et seq.). Kathmandu.
Chadda, M. (2002). Integration through internal reorganization: Containing ethnic conflict in India. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2(1), 44–61.
Chen, A. H. Y. (2014). Constitutionalism in Asia in the early twenty-first century. Cambridge: CUP.
Choudhry, S. (2009). Managing linguistic nationalism through Constitutional design: Lessons from South Asia. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 7, 577.
Dahal, B. M. (1976). Linguistic perspectives and priorities in Nepal. In P. Sharma & L. Friedman (Eds.), Seminar papers in linguistics (pp. 153–167). Kathmandu: Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University.
Dahal, R. (2003). Social composition of the population: Caste ethnicity and religion in Nepal. In CBS population monograph of Nepal (Vol. 1). Kathmandu.
Darian-Smith, E. (2013). Post-colonial theories of law. In R. Banakar & M. Travers (Eds.), Law and social theory (p. 247). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Di Martino, A. (2010). Il territorio: Dallo stato-nazione alla globalizzazione. Sfide e prospettive dello Stato costituzionale aperto (p. 24). Milano: Giuffrè.
Eagle, S. (2008). The language situation in Nepal. In R. Kaplan & R. Baldauf, Jr., (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Asia. Japan, Nepal, Taiwan and Chinese characters (Vol. 1). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ganguly, S. (2007). Introduction. In L. Diamond, S. Ganguly & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The state of India’s democracy (IX.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Glenn, P. (2010). Legal traditions of the world. Oxford: OUP.
Glenn, H. P. (2013). The Cosmopolitan State. Oxford: OUP.
Glenn, H. P. (2014). Legal traditions of the world. Sustainable diversity in law. Oxford: OUP.
Harding, A., & Bui, N. S. (2016). Recent work in Asian Constitutional studies: A review essay. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, XI, 163–183.
Khilnani, S., Raghavan, V., & Thirunvengandam, A. K. (2016). Comparative Constitutionalism in South Asia (p. 3). Oxford: OUP.
Kymlicka, W. (2005). Liberal multiculturalism: Western models, global trends and Asian debates. In W. Kimlycka & B. He (Eds.), Multiculturalism in Asia (pp. 22–55). Oxford: OUP.
Lawoti, M. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Centralization, multiple conflicts, and democratic state building in Nepal. Washington: East-West Center Washington (6 et seq).
Lijphart, A. (2006). Introduction. The importance of India-United States comparison for political science. In K. S. Bajpai (Ed.) (pp. 5–6).
Louisie Brown., T. (1996). The challenge to democracy in Nepal. A political history. London-New York: Routledge.
Mahajan, G. (2005). Indian exceptionalism or Indian model: Negotiating cultural diversity and minority rights in a democratic nation-state. In W. Kimlycka & B. He (Eds.) (p. 288).
Malagodi, M. (2008). Forging the Nepali nation through law: A Reflection on the use of Western legal tools in a Himalayan Kingdom. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 8(3), 433–452.
Menski, W. (2007). Beyond Europe. In E. Örücü & D. Nelken (Eds.), Comparative law. A handbook, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
Mitra, S. K. (2001). Constitutional design, democratic vote counting and India’s fortuitous multiculturalism, Working Paper n. 4, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, 7.
Noonan, M. (1996). The fall and rise and fall of the Chantyal language. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, XV(1–2), 121–135.
Pal, R. (2016). Separation of powers. In S. Choudhry, M. Khosla & P. B. Mehta (pp. 253–269).
Shiva Rao, B. (2004). The framing, of India’s Constitution. A study (Vol. V, p. 116). New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.
Singh, G. (2003). Critical reflections on celebrating success: A response to Maya Chadda. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2(2), 52.
Singh, M. P. (2016). The federal scheme. In S. Choudhry, M. Khosla & P. B. Metha (Eds) (pp. 451–465).
Singh, M. P., & Deva, S. (2005). The Constitution of India: symbol of unity in diversity. In 53 Jahrbuch des Offentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart [Yearbook of Public Law, Germany] (pp. 649–686).
Stepan, et al. (2011). Crafting State-Nations. India and Other Multinational Democracies, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tushnet, M., & Khosla, M. (2015). Unstable Constitutionalism. Law and politics in South Asia. Cambridge: CUP.
Wiener, A., Lang, A. F., Jr., Tully, J., Poiares Maduro, M., & Kumm, M. (Eds.) (March 2012). Global Constitutionalism: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law. In Global Constitutionalism (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–16).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amirante, D., Viola, P. (2019). South Asian Constitutionalism in Comparative Perspective: The Indian ‘Prototype’ and Some Recent Borrowings in the 2015 Nepalese Constitution. In: Singh, M., Kumar, N. (eds) The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018. The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7051-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7052-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)