The following are different positions about reading and understanding Constituent Assembly debates:
I. Which of these statements argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today? Which statement says that they are not relevant?
II. With which of these positions do you agree and why?(a) Common people are too busy in earning livelihood and meeting different pressures of life. They can't understand the legal language of these debates.
(b) The conditions and challenges today are different from the time when the Constitution was made. To read the ideas of Constitution makers and use them for our new times is trying to bring past in the present.
(c) Our ways of understanding the world and the present challenges have not changed totally. Constituent Assembly debates can provide us reasons why certain practises are important. In a period when constitutional practices are being challenged, not knowing the reasons can destroy them.
I. (a) This statement says that they are not relevant.
(b) The Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today because a history of our Constitution is still very much a history of the present but the above said statement argues that they are not relevant.
(c) This statement argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today.
II. (a) Yes, I do agree with the position. The debates of constituent Assembly are relevant so as to understand and interpret the various articles of the Constitution but they contain a lot of legal terms which the common man can't easily comprehen.
(b) I do agree with this statement. As we see that our Constitution during the period of fifty six years about 100 times has been amended.
(c) I agree with this position also because the most important challenges have not changed totally.
