Yes, I agree with the statement that it is not clear why in a poor developing country, certain basic socio-economic rights were relegated to Directive Principles rather than made an integral feature of our Fundamental Rights. This appears to be a genuine limitation of our Constitution.

The context suggests that when the Constitution was made, there were many controversial matters and areas that needed careful revision. Many features of the Constitution emerged mainly due to the exigencies of the time. These practical circumstances may have influenced the decision to place socio-economic rights in Directive Principles instead of Fundamental Rights.

One possible reason could be that the Constitution reflects a centralised idea of national unity, and the framers may have prioritized certain structural concerns over socio-economic justiciability. Additionally, as a newly independent nation facing numerous challenges, making these rights legally enforceable may have been practically difficult.

However, this arrangement remains problematic because in a poor developing country, basic socio-economic rights such as right to livelihood, education, and health are crucial for citizens' well-being. By placing them in Directive Principles, these rights became non-justiciable, meaning citizens cannot approach courts for their enforcement.

This limitation highlights the gap between the ideal vision of the Constitution and the practical constraints faced by its framers.