Copy of the 1935 Act ‘critics said that the framers of the Con- "stitution have included a large number of oF provisions of the Government of India Act o} 1935 into the Constitution of India, Hence, they called the Constitution as a “Carbon Copy of the 1935 Act” or an “Amended Version ‘of the 1935 Act’. For example, N. Srinivasan observed that the Indian Constitution is “both in language and substance a close copy of the Act of 1935". Similarly, Sir Ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, said that “the Constitution derives directly from the Gov- ernment of India Act of 1935 from which, in fact, many of its provisions are copied almost textually’. Further, PR. Deshmukh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, commented that “the Constitution is essentially the Government of India Act of 1935 with only adult franchise added". The same Dr. B.R. Ambedkar answered the above criticism in the Constituent Assembly in the following way : “As to the accusation that the Draft Constitution has reproduced a good part of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, I make no apologies. There is nothing to be ashamed of in borrowing. It involves no plagiarism. Nobody holds any patent rights in the fundamental ideas of a Constitution. What I am sorry about is that the provi- sions taken from the Government of India Act, 1935, relate mostly to the details of administration’.”° 3. Un-Indian or Anti-Indian According to the critics, the Indian Constitu- tion is ‘un-Indian’ or ‘anti dian’ because it does not reflect the political traditions and the spirit of India. They said that the _ foreign nature of the Constitution makes it unsuitable to the Indian situation op | Btworkable in India. m this context, K. _ Hanumanthaiya, a member of the Constitu, Assembly, commented : “We wanted the our Constitution-makers were way’! Similarly, Lokanath M member of the Constituent Assemi cized the Constitution as a “slavish of the west, much more - a slavish sur to the west".”” Further, Lakshminaray so a member of the Constituent A: Constitution is framed have no manifest tion to the fundamental spirit of India. Constitution would not prove suitable would break down soon after being bro into operation’.”’ 4, An Un-Gandhian Constitution ‘According to the critics, the Indian Com stitution is un-Gandhian because it does not contain the philosophy and ideals 0 Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the India Nation. They opined that the Constitution should have been raised and built upon vi lage panchayats and district panchayats. In this context, the same member of the Con« stituent Assembly, K. Hanumanthaiya, said: “That is exactly the kind of Constitution Mahatma Gandhi did not want and did not envisage".* T. Prakasam, another member of the Constituent Assembly, attributed this lapse to Ambedkar’s non-participation i the Gandhian movement and the antago-_ nism towards the Gandhian ideas.2> 5. Elephantine Size The critics stated that the Indian Consti tution is too bulky and too detailed and contains some unnecessary elements, Sir ivor Jennings, a British Constitutionalist, observed that the provisions borrowed w not always well-selected and that the con tution, generally speaking, was too long: complicated.”° 4 In this context, H.V. Kamath, a memb the Constituent Assembly, commented :| emblem and the crest that we hay for our assembly is an elephant. | in consonance with that our is the bulkiest that the He also said: “I am