There is an interesting discussion going on about the constitution of India whether India has failed due to its constitution

OR the people have failed the country. In my opinion the constitution of India has not failed us. What has failed is the people - we ourselves. Our behaviour. Our exploitative tendencies. Our corrupt practises. We can go on making laws; but the machinery to implement these laws will always be human beings and if these human beings, who are the custodians and executors of law are themselves corrupt What will you do? Nothing will even ever happen. So we better stop blaming the constitution and the constitution makers. We have to come up to the standards to demonstrate that we care for the laws; at least the people in judiciary, the police have to come out above the corrupt practices. That is not happening in India. When India's constitution was written we had the feedback of the already functional constitutions in the world. It was very obvious to pick up the best aspects of the constitution for our constitution. Now taking feedback from running systems for your own system is a common sense. There is nothing wrong in that. And one does not reinvent the wheel all the time. When we were drafting constitution, the world's first written constitution was more than 100 years old. So plenty of feed back was available. The constitution of India was written by one of the best brains (on constitution) not just of India but that of the world. He (Dr.Ambedkar) held a Ph.D in Sociology from Columbia University iin 1916. He had another Ph.D, a D.Sc (Doctor of Science) from London School of Economics (1923) and a Bar-at-Law from Grays Inn (London) (1923). Columbia University, New York in its history of 250 years, rated Dr.Ambedkar as one among its best 10 students in its entire history of existence. Now I have to write all the qualifications of Dr.Ambedkar here as there are some illiterates on this forum who did not even know that Dr.Ambedkar held two Ph.Ds from the world's best universities; our of their shear hatred to this untouchable man, one guy is addressing him as Mr. Ambedkar. At least before writing something on a public forum, google about the person you are referring to and then address the person adequately. There were no better qualified people in India than Dr.Ambedkar at that time. So the constitution was handed over the best brains of not just India but that of the world. To Congress, Dr.Ambedkar was their staunchest enemy; still they had to handover the charge of writing constitution to Dr.Ambedkar.

Some people are simply trying to demean Dr.Ambedkar on this forum because of their castiest mind. Had Dr.Ambedkar been born a Brahmin, the same people would have taken him on the head and praised him more than what he would have been due. This is yet another sickness of mind we Indians have to come out of. Do not write; Do not judge things through this castiest prism. One can easily make out where things are coming from. Coming back to the constitution again, when Congress(they were the deciding authorities then) were looking for experts for writing constitution, they approached the British to provide them some expert to write the constitution of India. Britishers told Congress that India has the expertise within India. Congress had probably no option but to reach out to Dr.Ambedkar. Dr.Ambedkar and Congress/Gandhi were politically in different camps. I will quote few excerpts here from Dr.Ambedkar's speech which he gave to constituent Assembly: 'More than 100 years have rolled over when the first written constitution was drafted. It has been followed by many countries reducing their constitution to writing. What the scope of the constitution should be has long been settled. Similarly what are the fundamentals of a constitution, are recognized all over the world. Given these facts, all constitutions in their main provisions must look similar. The only new things, if there can be any, in a constitution framed so late in the day are the variations made to remove the faults and to accommodate it to the needs of the country. The charge of producing a blind copy of the constitutions of other countries is based, I am sure, on the inadequate study of the constitution. I have shown what is new in the draft constitution and I am sure those who have studied other constitutions and who are prepared to consider the matter dispassionately will agree that the drafting committee in performing its duty has not been guilty of such blind and slavish imitation as it is represented to be." So it is very clear, the accusation that the constitution was copied from other countries' constitution is not new. It was done during the framing of the constitution also. There are volumes of constituent assembly available for one to go through and find out what was debated. I have those debate volumes with me; but I neither have time to go through nor it is an area of my expertise. Mr.Manoj Padhi will get answers to his questions in these debates, I guess. I am sure the best experts of constitution law around 1947 and were critical of India's constitution must have participated in the debate. The draft of constitution was available for review for all the experts of the subject in India during the review period. The constituent assembly debates are very clear that Dr.Ambedkar and his constitution drafting committee did not work in isolation.

So there is no substance in blaming our constitution. We better start behaving ourselves and try complying with the laws of the land. Put pressure, expose these corrupt people who are suppossed to upheld law. Blaming the constitution will never solve the burning problems of this country. More so in the last 60 years of functioning of this constitution it has been amended some 90 plus times. So what was very obviously felt as needing correction due to the feedback from its functioning has been addressed democratically. Nothing wrong in the amendments. And it is meaningless to say that why so many amendments. As a technical person, one does not know all the problems upfront. You come to know many new things as you operate the system. And you need to fix it. It is the same story with the constitution. Many a people have this problem also. They start blaming constitution just because it had to be amended so many times whereas other countries did not do so. I think everybody knows the answer. India has not gone through the social revolution before it got freedom from British and that is why we Indians have not learnt the limitations of individual basic behaviour the hard way. That is why it is taking such a long time for us to revolutionize our society socially through democracy. Most of the social revolutions of the world were bloody revolutions. People there have learnt their lessons quite clearly. Anyway we don't need anything bloody. We will be there slowly and steadily in a non-violent manner. So if someone still has some very relevant doubts about anything including constitution, one is free to raise the concerns and if everyone approves it, I do not think anybody will stop these changes getting incorporated even in the constitution. But before you move forward, you need to do your homework before coming to conclusions. Read all the constituent assembly debates. And then make your judgement. And as Dr.Ambedkar himself said there is nothing much fancy about constitution (not verbatim). But at least we have some very basic fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution which were missing in our society, religious laws. The very basic equality is a gift of our constitution. The constitution of India is the one which will keep the country integrated. From this point of view, constitution of India is the only thing which binds all Indians irrespective of their caste, religion. color and whatnot.