This discussion was taking place in a class. Read the various arguments and state which of these do you agree with and why.

Jayesh: I still think that our Constitution is only a borrowed document.

Saba: Do you mean to say that there is nothing Indian in it? But is there such thing as Indian and Western in the case of values and ideas? Take equality between men and women. What is Western about it? And even if it is, should we reject it only because it is Western?

Jayesh: What I mean is that after fighting for independence from the British, did we not adopt their system of parliamentary government?

Neha: You forget that when we fought the British, we were not against the British as such, we were against the principle of colonialism. That has nothing to do with adopting a system of government that we wanted, wherever it came from.

In this discussion we find that Jayesh thinks that our Constitution is only a borrowed document. Here the sense of the critic is that there is nothing original in the Constitution of India. Many sections have been taken word by word from the Government of India Act 1935. Similarly many provisions have been borrowed from the constitutions of other countries of the world. There is nothing indigenous about it. There is no mention of the sabha or the samiti of the Hindu period. There is also no reference to the political institutions of medieval India. But Saba says that is there anything as Indian and Western in the case of values and ideas. There are similarity in the case of values and ideas and there in no difference when we say equality between men and women. And if it is then it is not right to reject anything only due to its being western. When Jayesh said that after the fighting for independence we should not follow the policies of British. But Neha gave the argument that in our national movement we were not against the British but we were against the principle of colonialism. That has nothing to do with adopting a system of government that we wanted, wherever it came from Thus it may be said that there is nothing wrong in borrowing a political institution which otherwise work well. Moreover, it is difficult to fit in the ancient political institutions of India in a modern constitutional set up.