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 a 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.
I agree with Saba and Neha's arguments more than Jayesh's view that the Constitution is merely a borrowed document.
Saba makes a valid point that values like equality between men and women cannot be simply labelled as "western" or "Indian." These are universal values. Even if certain ideas originated in the West, rejecting them solely on that basis would be irrational. The Constitution embodies values that transcend geographical boundaries.
Neha's argument is particularly compelling. She correctly points out that the freedom struggle was against colonialism as a principle, not against the British people or their systems per se. The adoption of parliamentary government was a conscious choice made by the Constitution-makers based on merit, not colonial compulsion.
The textbook clarifies that the Constitution was a process of selective adaptation and not borrowing. Efforts were made to amalgamate western and traditional Indian values, creating something unique. This resulted in a hybrid culture or alternative modernity that neither purely western nor purely indigenous.
Furthermore, the Constitution reflects Indian aspirations, particularly those of Dalits, showing it has indigenous roots. Thus, calling it "only a borrowed document" overlooks the creative adaptation and Indian elements within it.
Explanation
The textbook explicitly addresses Jayesh's criticism that the Constitution is 'entirely an alien document, borrowed article by article from western constitutions.' It counters this by explaining that while the Constitution is 'modern and partly western,' it represents a 'process of selective adaptation and not borrowing.' The text describes how western modernity interacted with local cultural systems to create a 'hybrid culture' through 'creative adaptation.' This supports Saba and Neha's arguments that the Constitution isn't merely borrowed but thoughtfully adapted to Indian conditions. The reference to Dalits finding their aspirations reflected in the Constitution further proves its indigenous character.