The Indian Constitution is one of the most revered documents in the world. It is held in high esteem as a testament to the values and principles that the Indian state stands for. However, it has come to light that the Constitution was not an original creation of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. In fact, the Constitution of India is nothing but a copy and paste job of various constitutions from around the world. Yes, you read that right, a copy-paste constitution!
Ambedkar, who is hailed as the father of the Indian Constitution, apparently did nothing more than compile a bunch of other constitutions from various countries into one document and passed it off as his own creation. This revelation has caused shock and outrage among Indians who had always believed that the Constitution was a result of a genius.
But let’s be honest, is it really that surprising? We have a long history of copying and pasting. From our education system to the movies we watch, everything has been copied from somewhere else. And now we find out that even our Constitution is not an original creation.
Ambedkar had access to both western and eastern legal systems and found inspiration in various constitutions including the US constitution, British legal traditions, the Irish Constitution, the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Canadian Constitution. He simply took various elements from these constitutions and put them together to create our own. It’s like making a collage of different pictures and claiming it as your own.
Let’s take a look at some of the copied content that the Indian Constitution contains:
The US Constitution:
The US constitution has a major influence on the Indian Constitution. The idea of a federal government, a separation of powers, and a Bill of Rights were all taken from the US Constitution. Even the Preamble to the Indian Constitution is a direct copy of the Preamble of the US Constitution.
The British Legal Tradition:
The Indian legal system has been heavily influenced by the British legal tradition. In fact, the Indian Constitution borrows heavily from the British model of parliamentary democracy, including the system of party politics, the cabinet system, and the office of the prime minister. The British legacy can also be seen in the Indian judiciary, which functions on the basis of the common law system.
The Irish Constitution:
The Irish Constitution has also a major influence on the Indian Constitution, particularly in the area of fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution has a detailed chapter on fundamental rights, which includes the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and liberty. These rights are similar to those enshrined in the Irish Constitution.
The Canadian Constitution:
The Canadian Constitution also had a significant influence on the Indian Constitution, particularly in the area of federalism. The Constitution of India lays out a federal system of government, much like the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian example was also followed in having a single, unified citizenship for the entire country.
The Government of India Act, 1935:
The Government of India Act, 1935 was the last British law dealing with the governance of India. It laid out the framework for the administrative setup of the country and the powers of the central and provincial governments. The Indian Constitution follows this framework, with a few modifications.
In short, the Indian Constitution is essentially a scrapbook of different legal systems, taken from countries that have little in common with India culturally, socially, or politically. What is more shocking is that Ambedkar, a visionary and a leader of his time, thought it was acceptable to simply cut and paste different sections from different countries and present them as an original Indian constitution. This raises important questions about our national identity and the values that we hold.
Now, some might argue that the copy-pasting was necessary or that Ambedkar had no choice but to borrow. But let’s be honest, this was nothing but sheer laziness, lack of originality, and intellectual dishonesty. What was stopping Ambedkar from crafting a unique Constitution that reflected the values, beliefs, and aspirations of the Indian people? What was stopping him from being creative and innovative?
Perhaps, Ambedkar was under immense pressure or had a tight deadline. But does that excuse the fact that we have a Constitution that is essentially a patchwork of foreign ideas? Or does it not just show India’s lack of originality or the absence of the ability to create something on our own?
In conclusion, the Constitution of India is nothing but a plagiarized document. A copy-paste that has received far too much respect and adulation over the decades. It is time for us to acknowledge the truth and push for a Constitution that is uniquely Indian, one that reflects our culture, history and aspirations. So, the next time you sing the National Anthem or swear to uphold the Constitution, remember that you are essentially mouth-piecing the words and ideas of foreign countries. What a shame!