Question 8:
Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.
Answers
ANSWER :
Many times critics criticised making of the Indian constitution as unrepresentative because the constituent assembly of India was not elected on the basis of adult franchise. Nor were the members directly elected. The members were elected by the Provincial Legislatures who themselves were elected on a narrow franchise. Only 14% of the population has the right to vote. The total strength of the constituent assembly was 389. Out of this ,292 were from British Provinces ,4 from commissioner's provinces and 93 were representatives of the Indian states. These 93 representatives were also not the representatives of the people. Thus , critics point out that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative. But it is not true.
No doubt the members were not directly elected on the basis of adult franchise. Even then the constituent Assembly was the Galaxy of stalwarts like Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. B.R Ambedkar, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, K.T Shah. The work on the constitution was conducted in a democratic manner. To draft the Constitution no less than 7632 amendments were tabled by the members. Of these ,2473 were actually moved , discussed and disposed of. This establishes clearly the fact that assembly allowed free and full discussion in its proceedings. “There was great tolerance of Criticism and no decision without long drawn out debates, no attempt to hustle through, no endeavour at imposition. It way a full fledged democratic procedure of which Indians can be proud.”
Thus, we can conclude that neither the constituent assembly nor the Indian Constitution is unrepresentative. The constitution has not been imposed upon us. It originates from the people of India and its promulgated in the name of the people.
HOPE THIS ANSWER WILL HELP YOU….