Two charges have followed the Indian Constitution since the Constituent Assembly itself: that it is a borrowed, imitative patchwork, and that it is a carbon copy of the Government of India Act, 1935. Both were made by serious people, in the Assembly and outside it. Understanding the charges against the Indian Constitution matters because the answers to them explain what the document was actually for.
Ambedkar answered both without conceding anything. Modern constitutional scholarship has since strengthened the defence considerably.
Charge 1: Borrowed, Imitative, Patchwork
The charge was made inside the Assembly. Lokanath Misra called the draft a slavish imitation of the west. K. Hanumanthaiya said it produced the music of an English band when India wanted the music of the veena.
Ambedkar’s reply
His answer was structural rather than defensive. One might ask, he said, whether there can be anything new in a Constitution framed at this hour in the history of the world. More than a hundred years had passed since the first written Constitution. What the scope of a Constitution should be had long been settled. Given those facts, all Constitutions in their main provisions must look similar. The only genuinely new things in a Constitution framed so late would be the variations made to remove known faults and to adapt it to the needs of the country.
The charge of blind copying, in his view, rested on inadequate study of the document.
This is a stronger argument than it first appears. It relocates originality from the provisions to the adaptations, which is where constitutional craft actually lives.
The scholarly answers
Pratap Bhanu Mehta makes two distinct points. First, the Indian Constitution is a unique experiment in constitutionalism: unlike countries where revolutions produced constitutions, India’s Constitution attempts to give rise to the revolution. Just as other revolutions had no manifest relation to traditional society, the Indian Constitution has no manifest connection with traditional Indian society either. Second, it is a cosmopolitan constitution in its loyalty to the universal values of liberty, equality and fraternity. Adopting universal values is aspiration, not mimicry. No country holds a patent on human dignity.
Madhav Khosla, in India’s Founding Moment, argues that to be free was not to be bound by a particular tradition or a specific political contract. India’s nationalist movement was explicitly self-aware about the need to rise above narrow nationalism, and India consciously chose post-nationalist constitutional foundations.
Rajeev Bhargava offers the sharpest empirical rebuttal. It is no small achievement, he notes, to have committed to universal adult franchise at a moment when traditional hierarchies in India were widely believed to be immovable, and when some Western democracies still restricted the franchise. Granting universal adult franchise in 1950 was itself a profoundly un-imitative act. He also observes that in India the idea of the nation preceded the state, unlike in Europe where state formation preceded national identity, and the Constitution’s design reflects that indigenous political trajectory.
The cosmopolitan nationalism of the freedom movement completes the picture. Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar and Tagore all drew on international traditions of thought while synthesising them with Indian conditions. The Constitution reflects that synthesis, not a surrender.
Charge 2: A Carbon Copy of the Government of India Act, 1935
Made by N. Srinivasan, by Sir Ivor Jennings, and in the Assembly by P.R. Deshmukh, who described it as the Government of India Act with only adult franchise added.
Ambedkar’s reply was blunt and worth quoting in substance: as to the accusation that the Draft Constitution reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, he made no apologies. There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism.
The defence has three further elements.
Continuity was deliberate, not lazy. The administrative machinery of 1935 was the machinery the new state would have to run on from day one. Discarding a functioning framework in 1947, amid partition and integration of princely states, would have been recklessness rather than originality.
The additions were transformative. Fundamental rights with judicial enforcement, universal adult franchise, an independent judiciary, abolition of untouchability, and a republican head of state are not marginal amendments to a colonial statute. They invert its purpose. The 1935 Act organised colonial administration; the Constitution constituted a sovereign people.
Deshmukh’s phrase concedes the case. Saying it is the 1935 Act with “only” adult franchise added treats the single most consequential democratic decision of the twentieth century as a footnote.
The Deeper Answer
The most useful reframe is this. Borrowing a provision is not the same as borrowing a purpose.
India took parliamentary government from Britain, the federal structure from Canada, fundamental rights from the United States, directive principles from Ireland and emergency provisions from Germany. It then used that assembled machinery for an objective none of the source constitutions had attempted: to dismantle an entrenched social hierarchy through constitutional law, in a poor, largely non-literate, extraordinarily diverse society, with universal franchise from the first day.
No constitution had been asked to do that before. The provisions may be familiar. The project was not.
The Way to Use This in an Answer
- Name the charge and its authors precisely, since the Assembly critics were themselves nationalists rather than detractors.
- Give Ambedkar’s reply on both charges, which is the anchor of the defence.
- Layer the scholarship: Mehta on cosmopolitanism and revolution, Khosla on post-nationalism, Bhargava on franchise and the nation-state sequence.
- Close on purpose rather than provenance, which is where the argument is strongest.
The Constitution’s originality was never going to be found in the novelty of its clauses. It is found in what an old set of institutional tools was asked to achieve.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the borrowed Constitution charge?
The criticism, voiced in the Constituent Assembly by members such as Lokanath Misra who called it a slavish imitation of the West, and K. Hanumanthaiya who described it as the music of an English band, that the Constitution merely copied provisions from other countries instead of drawing on Indian traditions.
How did Ambedkar answer the borrowing charge?
He asked whether anything new could be expected in a Constitution framed so late in constitutional history. More than a hundred years had passed since the first written Constitution, the scope of a Constitution had long been settled, and all Constitutions must therefore look similar in their main provisions. The only genuinely new elements would be variations made to remove known faults and adapt the document to the country’s needs.
What is the carbon copy of the 1935 Act charge?
The criticism, made by N. Srinivasan, Sir Ivor Jennings and P.R. Deshmukh among others, that the Constitution reproduced much of the Government of India Act, 1935, with little more than adult franchise added. Ambedkar’s reply was direct: he made no apologies, since borrowing is not plagiarism.
What did Pratap Bhanu Mehta argue about the Constitution?
Two things. That the Indian Constitution is a unique experiment because, unlike countries where revolutions produced constitutions, India’s Constitution attempts to produce the revolution. And that it is a cosmopolitan constitution in its loyalty to liberty, equality and fraternity, so that adopting universal values is aspiration rather than mimicry, since no country holds a patent on human dignity.
What is Madhav Khosla’s argument in India’s Founding Moment?
That to be free was not to be bound by a particular tradition or a specific political contract. India’s nationalist movement was self-aware about the need to rise above narrow nationalism, and India consciously chose post-nationalist constitutional foundations.
How does Rajeev Bhargava respond to the charges?
By pointing to universal adult franchise adopted in 1950, at a time when some Western democracies still restricted the franchise and when traditional hierarchies in India were widely believed to be entrenched. Committing to it was a profoundly un-imitative act. He also notes that in India the idea of the nation preceded the state, unlike in Europe where state formation preceded national identity.
Why is universal adult franchise significant to this debate?
Because it is the clearest evidence against the imitation charge. India granted universal adult franchise at independence, to a largely poor and non-literate population, at a moment when older democracies had reached the same position only gradually and after long restriction. No country had done this before at that scale.
What is the strongest version of the defence?
That borrowing provisions is not the same as borrowing purpose. India took institutional forms from elsewhere and deployed them for an objective no other constitution had attempted: using constitutional law to dismantle an entrenched social hierarchy rather than merely to organise state power.
Practice Questions
Prelims MCQs
- Who described the draft Constitution as the music of an English band?
(a) Lokanath Misra
(b) K. Hanumanthaiya
(c) P.R. Deshmukh
(d) N. Srinivasan
Answer: (b) K. Hanumanthaiya used the phrase in the Constituent Assembly; Lokanath Misra called it a slavish imitation of the west. - Ambedkar's reply to the charge of reproducing the Government of India Act, 1935 was that
(a) The charge was factually false
(b) There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing and it involves no plagiarism
(c) The 1935 Act had been repealed
(d) The provisions were coincidental
Answer: (b) He made no apologies, arguing explicitly that borrowing is not plagiarism. - Which scholar described the Indian Constitution as a cosmopolitan constitution?
(a) Granville Austin
(b) Pratap Bhanu Mehta
(c) Madhav Khosla
(d) Upendra Baxi
Answer: (b) Mehta described its loyalty to universal values of liberty, equality and fraternity as cosmopolitan rather than imitative. - Rajeev Bhargava argues that in India
(a) The state preceded the nation as in Europe
(b) The idea of the nation preceded the state
(c) Neither nation nor state existed before 1947
(d) Nation and state emerged simultaneously in 1950
Answer: (b) He contrasts India, where national identity preceded state formation, with Europe, where state formation preceded national identity. - Universal adult franchise is cited in this debate because
(a) It was borrowed from the United Kingdom
(b) It was adopted gradually after 1950
(c) It was adopted at independence when several Western democracies still restricted the franchise
(d) It was recommended by the Government of India Act, 1935
Answer: (c) Its immediate adoption at that scale had no precedent, which makes it the strongest evidence against the imitation charge.
Mains Questions
- The Indian Constitution has been charged with being borrowed and imitative. Examine these charges and the counter-arguments. (250 words)
- Ambedkar made no apologies for borrowing from the Government of India Act, 1935. Critically evaluate his defence. (250 words)
- Universal adult franchise in 1950 was a profoundly un-imitative act. Discuss. (150 words)
- The Indian Constitution seeks to produce a social revolution rather than merely record one. Examine this proposition. (250 words)
- Discuss the view that the Indian Constitution is cosmopolitan rather than imitative. (150 words)
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
