Why is it necessary to understand both criticism and praise of the Constituent Assembly?

Correct answer: Because this helps us understand its limitations and achievements in a balanced way.

Direct answer: A is correct. Historical understanding should examine evidence from more than one angle. The Constituent Assembly achieved important things through debate and constitutional design, but it also had limitations, including the fact that it was not elected through direct adult franchise in the way later general elections were. Considering praise helps us recognise its constructive work; considering criticism helps us notice questions about representation and context. A is correct because it encourages a balanced judgement rather than blind admiration or complete rejection. B is wrong because recognising limitations does not require rejecting the Constitution. C is wrong because the Assembly clearly made major constitutional achievements. D is wrong because no historical institution should automatically be assumed perfect. Memory cue: balanced history asks both “what was achieved?” and “what remained limited?”