Criticism of the Constituent Assembly
Critics have pointed out
several issues with the Constituent Assembly. Here are the main criticisms:
- Not Representative:
- Criticism:
Assembly members were not directly elected by all people of India
(no universal adult franchise).
- Meaning:
Ordinary people didn't vote to choose Assembly members. Members were
mostly chosen by existing provincial legislatures.
- Therefore:
Critics argue it didn't truly represent the views of all Indians.
- Not Sovereign (Independent):
- Criticism:
Assembly was created by the British Government's proposals
(Cabinet Mission Plan).
- Meaning:
Critics say it wasn't a fully independent body because it was set up by
the British.
- Also, they point out that the Assembly
needed British permission to hold sessions.
- Therefore:
Critics argue it wasn't truly a sovereign body free from British
influence.
- Too Time Consuming:
- Criticism:
Assembly took too long to make the Constitution (almost 3 years).
- Comparison:
Critics point out that the US Constitution was made in only 4 months.
- "Drifting Committee":
Naziruddin Ahmed (Assembly member) sarcastically called the Drafting
Committee a "Drifting Committee" to show he thought it was slow
and inefficient.
- Therefore:
Critics argue it was unnecessarily slow and inefficient in its work.
- Dominated by Congress Party:
- Criticism:
Assembly was controlled by the Congress Party.
- Granville Austin's View:
American expert said Assembly was "a one-party body in an
essentially one-party country." He meant Congress was so dominant it
was like the Assembly was the Congress, and Congress was
India.
- Therefore:
Critics argue it didn't represent a wide range of political views, mostly
just Congress's.
- Dominated by Lawyers and Politicians:
- Criticism:
Assembly had too many lawyers and politicians.
- Meaning:
Critics felt other groups in society (like business people, farmers,
workers, etc.) were not represented enough.
- Result (according to critics):
This is why the Constitution became very long, bulky, and used
complicated legal language.
- Therefore:
Critics argue it was too focused on legal and political aspects and not
written in a simple, accessible way for everyone.
- Dominated by Hindus:
- Criticism:
Assembly was mainly a Hindu body.
- Lord Viscount Simon's View:
Called it "a body of Hindus."
- Winston Churchill's Comment:
Said it represented "only one major community in India"
(implying Hindus).
- Therefore:
Critics argue it didn't truly represent all the diverse religious
communities in India, especially minorities like Muslims.
In Simple Words: Some
people criticized the Constituent Assembly saying:
- It wasn't chosen by all the people
directly.
- It wasn't fully independent from the
British.
- It took too long to make the
Constitution.
- It was mostly run by the Congress Party.
- Too many lawyers made it complicated.
- It was mostly made up of Hindus and
didn't represent everyone.
These are the main criticisms
leveled against the Constituent Assembly. It's important to remember these are
criticisms, and there are also arguments in favor of the Assembly's work and
achievements!