Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.
The making of the Indian Constitution is said to be unrepresentative because members of the Constituent Assembly were chosen by a restricted franchise, not by universal suffrage. This means that the Assembly was not directly elected by all adult citizens of India.
However, this does not make the Constitution itself unrepresentative. We must distinguish between two components of representation: voice and opinion. While the voice component was unrepresentative due to restricted franchise, the opinion component was well represented.
The claim that almost every shade of opinion was represented in the Constituent Assembly may be a trifle exaggerated, but it has some merit. Different perspectives and interests were considered during the constitution-making process.
Furthermore, the Constitution reflects the aspirations of various sections of society. For instance, Dalits feel that the Constitution reflects many of their aspirations, as expressed through the statues of Dr. Ambedkar with a copy of the Constitution found in many towns.
Thus, while the process of making the Constitution had limitations in terms of direct representation, the document itself represents diverse opinions and aspirations of the Indian people.
Explanation
The textbook clearly distinguishes between two components of representation - voice and opinion. The voice component was unrepresentative because the Constituent Assembly members were chosen by restricted franchise, not universal suffrage. However, the opinion component was representative as almost every shade of opinion found representation in the Assembly. The textbook also mentions that Dalits feel the Constitution reflects their aspirations, indicating that the document itself is representative despite the limitations in the process of its creation.