Q.Why is the Constitution-making called unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution itself unrepresentative? Give reasons.

This concept covers the three criticisms most often levelled at the Indian Constitution, distinct from its self-acknowledged limitations (a separate concept). First, the Constitution is criticised as unwieldy — unusually long and detailed. This rests on the mistaken assumption that a country's entire constitution must fit into one compact document; even countries with famously compact constitutions, like the United States, have other documents carrying constitutional status. India simply chose to place many matters that other countries leave to ordinary legislation (such as provisions for the Election Commission or Civil Service Commission) directly inside its one constitutional text, which is what made that text unusually large — not a flaw of substance. Second, the Constitution is criticised as unrepresentative, tracing back to how the Constituent Assembly was formed: adult franchise had not yet been granted, and most members came from the more advanced sections of society. This charge is partly right and partly overstated. Splitting 'representation' into 'voice' (were people represented in their own language, through their own chosen representatives?) and 'opinion' (was the actual range of views in society reflected in the debates?) helps here: judged by voice, the Assembly is genuinely unrepresentative, since it was chosen by restricted, not universal, franchise; judged by opinion, the debates show a genuinely wide range of issues and concerns raised on behalf of many different social sections, so the claim that virtually every shade of opinion was represented is exaggerated but not baseless. Third, the Constitution is criticised as alien — an entirely borrowed, Western document sitting uneasily with Indian cultural ethos, a view voiced even …