Q : Why are you critical of the Constitution-making process which is under progress on the model of several Constitutions in the world?
A : Because, if we go on always receiving from the world, what shall we give them? In fact, the Constitution should evolve naturally in tune with the traditions of our cultural heritage. It should never be imposed from above. Right from 1909 onwards Constitutions on foreign models are being imposed upon us. Now, where is the need to follow the same process of imposing the Constitution? Let us take from the foreign countries only that much which is essential and proper.
Q : If we have to wait for the natural evolvement of the Constitution there will be a period when there will be Constitutional arrangement at all for the country.
A : Till then, some common principles and articles can be decided upon as a working arrangement.
Q : According to you how long will it take for such a natural evolvement?
A : As a matter of fact the evolvement will never come to a halt. But with consistent efforts 4 to 5 years should suffice.
Q : Are you opposed to the federal set-up?
A : Yes. Specially during the transition period, distribution of central power among the states will be positively harmful.
Q : So, you are for saddling the Centre with increasing powers?
A : No. I desire more powers for Panchayats.
(With friends, 1949)
Q : Where is the harm in fashioning our newly won Swaraj on a foreign model?
A : How can we call it swatantrataa (freedom) which has no swa (our genius) in it? Then it is only para-tantrataa. If Lenin is kept as the ideal it becomes 'Lenin-tantra' and not swatantra! In fact, the protection and propagation of our national life-values, i.e., our dharma and samskriti, has always been held in our historical tradition as the raison d'etre of swatantrataa.
(In 1955)
Q : Don't you consider the various amendments to our Constitution as necessary?
A : My only regret is that the Government is setting bad precedents in the formative years of free Bharat. The articles of people's faith and objects of their reverence are being weakened one by one. The Constitution could have been made into a unifying and strengthening factor. They began wrongly by framing an elaborate Constitution too cumbersome for reverence. Even so it could have been developed into an object of respect if the Government itself had any regard for it. But nothing of the sort exists. There is an amendment every year. People get the impression that you can play with the Constitution as you like. Its sanctity has been violated.
I wish they had given an honest trial to the Constitution for at least 10 to 15 years. Then we would have known how it worked as it was and where to amend it for improvement. Actually the Government has been hammering away at it without any second thoughts. That is why I said that the Government is setting bad precedents.