⁠“India Needs A New Constitution” | Prof. Gautam Desiraju

[00:00:00] People say that having more states will cause a weakening of the country. You know, you argue that India should have roughly around 75 states. So, the value of the vote of a person in Chennai Central is about two and a half times the value of my vote here in Bangalore. Each vote same value. Each vote same value. U.S. has about 350 million people. It has 50 states. Today, if I could see Dr. Ambedkar, I'll ask him,

[00:00:27] what would you say if you have a bad constitution in the hands of bad people? It can get touchy, but this is wrong. Touchy about what? It's not a holy book that came down from the sky, I say. The southern states argue that they are being penalized for controlling their populations. That's rubbish. To separate legislature and executive completely, corruption will come wrong. You can go, you can cut one ribbon, some school, some children, some yoga. You can do all that, but

[00:00:55] nothing more than that. Namaste and welcome to another episode of Bharatvaarta. I'm Roshan Cariappa. Our guest today believes that India should have not 28 states, but 75 states. And also that the constitution is not some holy book that we should worship or deify, but it must be reformed entirely to reflect the present aspirations of the people.

[00:01:21] Professor Gautam Desiraju has written this wonderful book on delimitation, and it's not some dry civics lesson. Professor Desiraju has an inimitable style of talking about these concepts in a way that is entirely relatable to the common person and also highly entertaining. Namaste, sir. Thank you so much for being on Bharatwarta again. It was a delight to read the book.

[00:01:47] As I said, I went in expecting a civics lesson, but I found very powerful cultural and civilizational concepts as well. So really excited to talk about everything that you have spoken about on the book. To begin with, sir, you know, you argue that India should have roughly around 75 states. And this is a very controversial thing for most people when they hear this, because then they think that, you know,

[00:02:11] you are pushing for more fragmentation and division. But you actually argue that it will make India more united and more robust. Can you explain why? Yeah, it's a pleasure to be with you in Bharatwarta, Roshan, and thank you for having me again. And the issue of having more states is actually closely linked to the present idea of delimitation of parliamentary constituencies.

[00:02:40] And we argue in our book that these two issues, namely delimitation of a proper type and states reorganization, are actually two sides of the same coin. What are the issues of having more states? Firstly, when people say that having more states will cause a weakening of the country. I think that is the sum and substance of what people fear.

[00:03:10] The question I would like to ask these people is, are they scared that if you have smaller states, these states will split off? I mean, what is the fear? I mean, the Balkans or Balkanization is the word that's used. The Balkans were a group of ethnicities, which were the forerunners of the modern nation state in Southeast Europe.

[00:03:36] Originally, they were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. And in the developments following World War I, these things were artificially put together in a country called Yugoslavia by the victorious powers in World War I. This was not a stable construct.

[00:03:57] And the natural differences in these various places, which have lasted for about a thousand years, they came to the front again. And so, after post-1990, when the Iron Curtain came down, they split apart again and actually they are now stable nation states.

[00:04:17] So, when people say that you will have Balkanization and having more states, I would only counter around 25 years ago, three small states were created. And Uttarakhand, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, from the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. What happened? Nothing happened.

[00:04:44] The three small states continue to exist. And the three bigger states from which they were created also continue to exist. Nobody is fighting with anybody. And you can even go back a little bit. We had a Madras Presidency, which was a very big state under British rule.

[00:05:11] And in the states reorganization, Madras Presidency then became something like Kerala, parts of Karnataka, the new Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Now, which was better? Was the old Madras Presidency better or were these new states better? Everything continues. Nobody wants to split off. Where is the question of Balkanization?

[00:05:38] None of these states started fighting with each other. Like Croatia fights Serbia and Montenegro and all. So, this is not at all Balkanization. And for instance, if people start saying that this was all about linguistic states, then I will say in 2014, Andhra Pradesh was split into Telangana and Andhra. Both Telugu-speaking.

[00:06:06] The two states still continue properly. They are not fighting with each other. And in fact, I would argue the other way around. What is really deleterious to national integration is the identification of small areas which are locally homogeneous in a large state.

[00:06:33] For example, the area around Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh has got a high domination of Yadavs. So, if a political party like the Samajwadi Party caters only to the interests of the Yadavs of Kannauj and creates a sufficiently robust vote bank there, then the interests of all the other communities and castes in U.P. are given second priority.

[00:07:03] Subsumed. Subsumed. The same thing has happened with the JATs in Haryana. Subsumed. So, if you have a... See, what happens when a small political party serves the interests of only one caste group? The others, they become very aggressive and the others feel threatened. In fact, what is not at all harmful is to make a small state.

[00:07:28] Suppose you made a small state around Kannauj, which is what we have suggested called Doab. Then you see, what happens is there is only one dominant group there. There is no fight. So, whoever is the leaders of that small group will take care of that group. Some other things... The real danger is a homogeneous group within a large state. And that's actually what the politicians want. Because in that way, they can maintain their electoral grip over a state.

[00:07:59] So, forming small states does not at all increase instability in a country. Far from it. For example, let's... Since both of us are in Bangalore, the great popularity of this movie Kanthara. Right. Okay? Now, you are from that part of Karnataka itself. So, nearby anyway. Right. So, why was Kanthara so popular?

[00:08:27] And why was it so popular all over the country? See, it was catering to the cultural sensibilities of a small group. It made them feel emotionally released. At the same time, it doesn't compromise their feelings of nationhood. See, suddenly, Kodaku doesn't say, I want to become a separate country. Right. Right. Far from it. And let me say, since again we are in Karnataka,

[00:08:59] this business of who is to get the Kaveri waters. This is a time immemorial thing since I was a child. We've been hearing about this. And how much... See, Karnataka is upper riparian. Tamil Nadu is lower riparian. So, we've always been... This year especially, we are going to have a weak monsoon, they say. So, clearly there's going to be some event.

[00:09:25] We argue actually here is that by having Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, you will have a fight of a certain kind. Suppose you just had an issue between the proposed new state of Mysore and our proposed new state of Kungu. The issues between Mysore and Kungu will be far, far less than the issues between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Can you explain that a little more?

[00:09:54] Because both are small states. So, they will solve their small problem of how much water goes into Meitur. And leave Kungu to settle it with the lower riparian state which is... In this case, we have called it... You know, we have divided Tamil Nadu into four states. So, it will go to the next... That will be, for example, Cholanadu. Because that is where the Kaveri finally...

[00:10:23] So, Kungu will then discuss with Cholanadu how much water will stay in Kungu and how much will go to Cholanadu. So, you are taking one bigger problem and you are subdividing it into a number of smaller problems, which will be always easier to solve. So, many problems reduce when the states themselves become smaller. So, far from Balkanization, it is the reverse.

[00:10:50] And none of this that we have suggested will ever compromise national integrity, nationalism, patriotism, love of India or if you want, love of Bharat. And in this context, I will say that I don't see any difference between the names India and Bharat.

[00:11:12] And a lot of people argue and with due respect, I would bring up the latest book which follows some of the ideas from delimitation. Right. This is IKS, a primer, Indian Knowledge Systems. And here we argue right in the beginning of the book that there is no difference between these words India and Bharat.

[00:11:40] India is the name that foreigners call us. Bharat is the name that we call ourselves. You know, many people in India have two names. You have a formal name and then you have an informal name at home sometimes. Okay. So, it's the same person. Right. So, there's no need to say that this is India, this is Bharat. It's the same thing. Right.

[00:12:06] And I think today what is happening in the title of the delimitation book which we are actually talking about, For a Better Democracy in Bharat, we are saying. And this is our book for ourselves. And we call our country Bharat. We don't call our country India. And I think that is the important distinction that needs to be made. If we understand that this is what it is, delimitation itself will become less of a problem.

[00:12:36] It will not become emotional. See, delimitation is a routine process in electoral democracies. Delimitation does not require the intervention of politicians in any electoral democracy other than India. Take USA, take UK, take Canada, take New Zealand, take France, take Germany. It is a routine process.

[00:13:03] It doesn't require some great prime minister, home minister to sit. There is something called delimitation committee. It tries to see that the constituencies roughly remain the same size. Because an essential principle of any democracy is that every vote of an eligible citizen must have the same value.

[00:13:26] Both of us live in a constituency called Bangalore North, which has got 35 lakh eligible voters. I can go to Chennai and I can show you a constituency called Madras Central, which only has about 15 lakh eligible voters. Both these constituencies send just one member of parliament. Right.

[00:13:48] So, the value of the vote of a person in Chennai Central is about two and a half times the value of my vote here in Bangalore North. This is an abomination. Right. Because it goes against, flies in the face of Article 14, which says that the state must treat every citizen the same. My vote is two and a half times less in value than another citizen who lives in Chennai Central.

[00:14:18] So, I think this is the crux of the issue with regards to delimitation and balkanization. And in essence, why we wrote this book? Because there is a lot of talk that is going on now, especially when the Women's Reservation Bill failed in parliament. And it was linked somewhat, you know, artificially with the issue of delimitation.

[00:14:47] There is absolutely no need to link these two issues. And in fact, it was… Maybe the government thought they were being very clever in doing this. But in the process, what has happened is that two issues that don't have to be put together. I mean, women's representation is very important. Nobody said it's not important. At the same time, delimitation is also very important.

[00:15:13] But, you know, to then start saying that, which is what has been said a few days ago, that by having delimitation, more women will vote or something like that. It's crazy. And the report that was written up purportedly by somebody in the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. What a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister is doing, talking about delimitation, heaven only knows.

[00:15:43] Because that is supposed to be something that deals with the economy of the country, not with delimitation. And then to say that, you know, if you have this delimitation, more women will vote and all that. Somehow trying to link things that cannot be linked. And right in the beginning, it says, we don't want to talk about every vote having the same value. That's nonsense. But every vote must have the same value.

[00:16:12] If it doesn't have the same value, then we are not an electoral democracy. Then let's call ourselves something else. Then we're privileging some people over others. Absolutely. Absolutely. Then where will it end? Then they will say, we'll go back to, you know, what was happening in, say, Britain. Let's go back to Britain in, say, 1830 or something. Before some of those reform bills were passed.

[00:16:41] So the person who had more land was allowed to vote. So the value of the vote depended on the amount of land a person owned. And like, for example, it's like saying today, the vote of a rich man should be worth more than the vote of a poor man. It's like saying something like that. Or let us say, the vote only educated people can vote, suppose.

[00:17:11] Uneducated people cannot vote. So once you open those kinds of pedoras boxes, there's no going back. Otherwise, say it out plain and simple. We are not a democracy. So whatever we have, whatever we are calling delimitation, the basic thing, you know, I think in the book we have written, you know, each vote same value.

[00:17:42] Each vote same value. You want to go away from that? Fine. Go away. But then don't call yourself a democracy. democracy. Because democracy is rule of the people. And one citizen cannot be more or less than another citizen in value. It's really, it's abominable. Yeah. Even from an administrative lens, people don't quite realize that, for example,

[00:18:11] U.S. has about 350 million people and it has 50 states, right? And we have 1.4, 1.5 billion people and we have 28 states, right? How will funds or functionaries, you know, come down to the last person? How will that person's views and interests be represented adequately? It's a huge question mark.

[00:18:36] See, one must seek to find out how we ended up with these 28 states that we have today. Between 1947 to 1956, 1956 was the date of the all-important States Reorganization Commission. Right.

[00:18:57] We had things called Part A states, which was largely British India, at least cut from British India. Andhra, Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh. Those were the areas that were largely under direct British administration and direct British rule, what is called British India.

[00:19:25] Andhra and Madras are different. They're all called Part A states. That's because Andhra was hived off in 53 itself. After Potishri Ramalu died, fasted unto death, and Nehru capitulated within 24 hours and gave Andhra. Right. Now, Part B states were Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala, Rajasthan, Saurashtra and Travancore, Kochin.

[00:19:56] Now, you will easily recognize that these are the old princely states. So, that was Part B. Then there was Part C. Each of them is a different story. And they're all sometimes rather small. Ajmir, Bhopal, Kurg, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, which was in those days called Pepsu, P-E-P-S-U,

[00:20:24] Kutch, Manipur, Tripura and Vidya Pradesh. Each of these was a separate story in itself, with part British involvement and part the involvement of the rulers. But they're all very small. So, it was clear that you couldn't have these Part A, Part B, Part C anymore because there's no need to distinguish between former princely states and former British India and all that.

[00:20:52] So, the 1956 commission gave a picture which was roughly corresponding to what we have today. After that, certain things have been done. Like when Punjab was divided into Punjab, Haryana and Himachal. Then the reconstitution of the North East states. And then these three small states that came in under the Vajpayee government. So, we ended up with these 28.

[00:21:21] And the thing is, they are of wildly different sizes. Okay. We've mentioned in the book somewhere. The difference between the smallest and largest state is something like 1 to 500 today. I think if you take Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim or something like that. Uttar Pradesh is around 240 million people. Uttar Pradesh, if it was a separate country, would be I think fifth or sixth largest country in the world. Okay. So, it would be bigger than Indonesia or something like that.

[00:21:51] So, it's a huge state. And Panikar in the 56 thing said that UP must be divided. People have been saying UP must be divided for a very long time. I think Mahayavati said this around 2007, 2008 and so on. But the reason why Uttar Pradesh has not been split is separate. I don't think we have the time to go into that today.

[00:22:15] But, so you see coming back to the point you made, because of these widely unequal sizes, big states have more heft with the union government. If the chief minister of UP goes to see the PM, and the chief minister of Sikkim also goes to see the PM, he will deal with both of them courteously.

[00:22:43] But he would be sure that the chief minister of UP has come to him with a big problem. Whereas the chief minister of Sikkim would, of necessity, have come to him, which may be big for him, but it is small for the union. So, that's what we call heft. Every state must have the same heft. Same heft. To have the same heft, they must have the same size. Correct. So, what we have proposed is the 75 is not arbitrary. It is something that has come.

[00:23:14] My earlier book on Bharat India 2.0, I have said that it comes for a variety of reasons. Historical, geographical, climatic, cultural, linguistic, economic. You know, so many things come in, and it sort of naturally falls. When I say 75, I mean something like between 65 and 90.

[00:23:44] Suppose you have 75 just for the sake of arithmetic simplification. It would mean that each of these 75 states has a population of 2.5 crores. Because our population total is what? About 2 crores. 150 crores is our population, roughly. 75 states means each state will have a population of 2 crores. And it would then also mean that we have proposed,

[00:24:13] each state will then send 12 members to the Lok Sabha. And so, if you have these equal size states, then you have an equal delimitation within the state. Right? Then what will happen is that the number of eligible voters in each of these constituencies will be about 10 lakhs, which is a whole lot better than about the 20 lakhs that we have today.

[00:24:43] On average? On average. It's not as good as the original 4 lakhs that we had in 1950. And that is more like the US figure that you mentioned. Right. Most countries in the world. You see, you want to have a smaller number of electors for a constituency because that makes the elected person more accessible to the voters.

[00:25:10] Like, I'm sure that the MP that we have elected in Bangalore North is a very nice lady. But with 35 lakh eligible voters, she simply doesn't have the time to even talk to any single voter. She can't. Suppose my constituency was small and suppose there were only 10 lakh voters.

[00:25:37] My chances of talking to my MP or talking to somebody who knows my MP becomes that much higher. And that is the essence of representative democracy. See, these fellows are not there just to sit in some Lutians' bungalows and go about in some cars and block all the roads and take away all the seats in the aeroplanes. See, they have become like mini Maharajas. It's an actual human thing.

[00:26:07] The moment you go somewhere, 104 photographers are running behind you. Then you start feeling that you are a big shot. See, this is what has happened now because our constituencies are so big. So, democracy means it's about the people. It's about all of us. Our constitution starts, we the people. It doesn't say we the members of the Lok Sabha. It's a very important distinction. But right now it's happening like that.

[00:26:37] We the members of the Lok Sabha. Or even worse than that. Me the Prime Minister. We are going further and further away from what we would call a genuine democratic setup. And charity begins at home. We must start with the proper delimitation. What you are saying, sir, also will infuse optimism in the youth especially because they are completely disillusioned about the political process.

[00:27:06] And they feel that India is far too large, far too complex for them to actually contribute. But when you split it up into smaller constituent bases, then their views, their interests are adequately represented by people at the very, very top. Right? Yes. You know what they call missing middle. Right. I think we refer to that. So, you have the people and then you have the elected members.

[00:27:32] You need the missing middle, a group of above average IQ intelligent people who can take the thoughts of the common people and convey it to the elected members. India lacks a missing middle. And it lacks a missing middle because the systems are not put into place for this.

[00:27:59] I mean our podcast today is part of this discourse. Neither you or I is going to get elected to the parliament. And neither you or I are members of the common public who are uneducated and illiterate practically. So, we have a duty somewhere. And I do feel that when I am writing my books, people ask me, as a structural chemist of some international reputation,

[00:28:27] as you know I have received a very high award called the Evolved Prize recently, which is called Nobel Prize of Christelography and all that. Now, what am I doing writing a book on delimitation? Okay, it's an actual question. So, I will say that it is part of my duty as a member of the missing middle to start trying to convey on both sides, to convey to the people through this podcast, what is this delimitation? People also ask me, Roshan,

[00:28:58] what made you think of writing about delimitation at a time when nobody even knew the meaning of this word? Because this book was initiated, let me say, towards the end of 2024. And it came out in beginning of 2025. So, in 2024, nobody even had a thought about what delimitation was.

[00:29:22] So, I said it's part of what an above average intelligence person in India should be doing today. We have a nice forward for this delimitation book from Professor Mulymanohar Joshi. And let me just read the salient sentence which he writes at the end of his preface. And for those of the younger audience who do not know who Professor Mulymanohar Joshi is,

[00:29:52] he was a president of the BJP. He was the person who took a youngster called Narendra Modi to Lal Chowk and hoisted the tricolor there at the height of the, you know, separatist movement in Kashmir. Also former HRD minister. He was also the former HRD minister.

[00:30:13] And what he says is, the last paragraph, he says, In my opinion, this book has provided a roadmap which needs a serious discussion at various levels. At various levels. By intelligent opinion makers of all hues and shades of this country,

[00:30:42] such literature is the need of the hour for which I congratulate the authors. Now, I spoke to him before and after in person. And he said, Professor Desiraju, you please look at this word intelligent. Needs a serious discussion at various levels by intelligent opinion makers of all hues. He said, it is the duty of intelligent people to discuss this issue

[00:31:11] and then to communicate with people who are less intelligent. Everybody doesn't have the same level of intelligence. So, to be able, even you have to catch the thing and figure out what is happening. Like, a person who lives in a small state or a person who lives in a big state should be somehow told or made to understand why things are going wrong for him. Simply because he lives in a big state

[00:31:40] or simply because he lives in a small state. And then he will start saying, even he will say, then why don't we have states of the same size? Correct. He will say that. Because you may be intelligent or unintelligent, but you will know directly what affects you at your level. And again, that comes back to democracy. And when you say about young people are getting disillusioned, certainly they are. Because they feel that, you know,

[00:32:10] whatever they may do, it's not going to make any difference. Yeah, it's too big. Like today, this general category, reserved category, these reservations, neat exams, neat getting cancelled, they don't know what's happening anymore. And now there is a profound disconnect between the government and the people. Now, and this has nothing to do with partisan things. It's been going on for a long time.

[00:32:39] Irrespective of which party was in power in the centre. So gradually, when, you see, the moment the people get disconnected from the rulers, then bad times are ahead. Because then in, if you look at world history, when this disconnect starts, usually it ends in a violent end. It doesn't end in a peaceful way. So I think this is something that

[00:33:10] youngsters should begin to start thinking about this. What is this delimitation? What is going on in that parliament? Why are they shouting? And why are the TV channels shouting about this every day? I mean, I don't believe these TV channels at all, but somebody is shouting something. Why are so many people shouting? Shouting is a sign of frustration. Somewhere, somebody feels that something that they want is not happening. You know,

[00:33:40] so, I do feel that, look, we Indians are a much better lot than our rulers today. We've got intelligence, we've got potential, we have an aspirational nature. Fundamentally, Indians are good, honest people.

[00:34:07] I cannot say the same thing about our politicians today. They have captured this whole agenda and using the first-past-the-post system which we criticize because most electoral democracies have proportional representation. And first-past-the-post only works for a country with an unwritten constitution. And that is only one country in the world and that is

[00:34:37] the United Kingdom. the Israel, New Zealand and Arabia have no constitution at all. So, that's different. But this United Kingdom has got this unwritten constitution which means that anything that the parliament passes becomes the constitution of the day. First-past-the-post only works in that situation. And that too when there are only two parties.

[00:35:06] First-past-the-post does not work with the written constitution. And this is something that we have failed to appreciate. We have written in the book that 50-60 years ago there were many countries following first-past-the-post and invariably they have switched over to proportional representation. No country that had proportional representation ever went to first-past-the-post.

[00:35:36] And in a country like ours where there are many political parties first-past-the-post is a disaster because anybody with some 36-37% of the vote can get elected. Simply because there are so many parties would be present that they will cut into each other's votes left and right. So it's not it's not the best system that we have now. And once again you have to look at the very constitution.

[00:36:07] So suppose you have a computer where the operating system is wrong then no matter how good the input the output is thing. And Ambedkar said very charitably and it's something that he said that has been quoted very often. He said a bad constitution in the hands of good people can still be made to work. And he said a good constitution

[00:36:36] in the hands of bad people will never work. Today if I could see Dr. Ambedkar I'll ask him what would you say if you have a bad constitution in the hands of bad people? It's what's happening in India today. And by bad I mean I don't mean bad in the sense that incompetent. Or people who are just interested in extremely short-term electoral gains.

[00:37:07] Like tomorrow I want to go to Hoshiarpur and win that by-election there so I'm going to change the whole constitution so that I win Hoshiarpur. See you can't have that kind of short-term thinking. Running a country is not about winning elections I say. This country is too big it is too great it has got too much potential and in spite of ourselves we are becoming slightly

[00:37:36] rich even in spite of ourselves. You know some countries are great other countries have greatness thrust on them which is what is happening to us today. So how long this metastable situation will last in our country nobody knows. And students young people they have a

[00:38:05] lot to look forward to. They are not able to run away to America anymore. That phase is gone. You know go to America the other day we saw one case. Somebody with a perfectly good job went to America and then he got shot because he was trying to deliver a pizza at midnight in a very nasty area of Philadelphia. And his family members are saying he didn't want to go we pushed him there.

[00:38:35] You see. So as long as these kinds of attitudes last but this is now coming down. I don't think America is any more kind of panacea for all our ills. They won't take us also. So we have to figure out something for ourselves. You know. Yeah. No it's easier to fix this at the system design level than to hope for the most virtuous the most capable exemplary leaders to come and save us. Right. It won't happen. It won't happen.

[00:39:04] I am a chemistry person. So I can tell you a candid dictum in chemistry that when you run a reaction or something like that there is something called a product which you get in a reaction. You run a reaction you get a product. There are many possible products. One product is the product that is the best one. The best outcome is the best product.

[00:39:34] The second outcome is the one that is formed the fastest. The reaction is one which will form very quickly. there may be another one that is actually the best. And when you ask a chemist to choose, he will always pick the one that forms fastest. I give you an even simpler example. You have got two forms of carbon.

[00:40:04] One is called diamond and one is called graphite. We all know what is diamond and what is graphite. Now, graphite is the more stable form, believe it or not. Diamond is the one that is formed under peculiar circumstances the fastest. But the beauty of that diamond and graphite is for that fastest form to form the most stable form, it takes zillions of years. So, the

[00:40:33] diamond that you go and buy for your wife in the shop is not going to change into graphite over zillions of years. Diamond will stay diamond. So, which is why chemists often go for the fastest product because it is formed fastest and also for the reasonable time it stays like that. It doesn't go to the most stable one. So, asking for the most stable best with the best politicians, very virtuous people, that's never going to happen. We should not even expect. Right.

[00:41:04] So, given this lot, what is the fastest way you can get something so that maximum number of people benefit? In fact, that's another definition of democracy. Maximum good to the maximum number of people. No, no, there is one peculiar fellow, he is there living in one hut in Mizoram, he has to get into IIT. That is not the way to think. Unless that fellow in that

[00:41:33] Manipur in that hut gets into IIT, then I won't be happy. No. If you start thinking like that, the whole system will collapse. Absolutely. You need to cater to the big bulk in the middle and try to get them to the maximum level of thing, which again brings me back to delimitation. Having small constituencies, equal size constitution, equal size constituency in

[00:42:02] equal size states, you will get a degree of healthy uniformity which is what is needed. So part of the unease that people have with suggesting, let's say, smaller states or different states as they know it, is they feel that these are naturally inherited, that somehow it has always existed like this forever, for eons. And most people don't understand that the current state boundaries were inherited from British

[00:42:32] administration, right? And those boundaries were drawn by the British for their ease of administration and were fundamentally antithetical to our own interests or the population's interests, right? And here again, if you were to ask a lay person on the street, how is one state different from the other, they would say, you know, one state speaks a certain language and the other state speaks another language, right? And this linguistic

[00:43:02] basis for separation of states was again reinforced in the 50s with the state reorganization committee and so on, right? But you argue that this is fundamentally incorrect, right? And you also give a historical precedence for how the British, you know, messed with the interests of the people by arbitrarily drawing these boundaries, right? According to their whims and fancies. So if you could probably explain this for our audience.

[00:43:32] The matter is of great importance because the idea of a linguistic identity was created completely by the British. It didn't exist before they came into the picture. I will quote directly from certain sections in my book. Page 71. Language was historically at best a very weak source of

[00:44:01] identity in India. A very weak source of identity. Illustrious dynasties would speak multiple languages and patronize multiple languages at once. Even in the histories of the four states which had the greatest impact on the idea of linguistic identitarianism, which are these four states Odisha,

[00:44:32] Tamil Nadu, Andhra and Karnataka. One notices the prevalence of Telugu in southern Odisha in the district of Ganjam and Verampur and all that and northern Tamil Nadu. Originally, the Kannadiga Sainas of Bengal patronized proto-Bengali and the Satavanas whose Pauranic name gave Andhra Pradesh its

[00:45:00] very name, claimed descent from the Andhra tribe of the Aitiraya Brahman of the Rigveda, which called the banks of the Yamuna its home. Bharatya identities which were at once highly localized and civilizational, were morphed into a dyspeptic imitation of 19th century nation states of Europe. There the linguistic identity is congruent with the nation state.

[00:45:30] And Ambedkar was trenchant in his criticism of linguistic states that were created on the basis of one language, one state, what you said. Everybody who speaks the same language should belong to that state. He called it that statement is full of poison. And he argued that what it should be is one state, one language.

[00:46:01] Can you explain the difference? That means, yes, because one state, one language. So you have got a small state of Telangana today. Everybody in Telangana speaks Telugu. But all who speak Telugu don't belong to one state. So you can have many states that speak the same language. You know, apart from the fact that, suppose you take Karnataka, which is one of the most diverse states in this union. People don't realize that.

[00:46:30] In fact, we have recommended seven states from the present-day Karnataka, not just two, not just North Karnataka and South Karnataka, which the politicians are talking about, but we are asking for seven states. And Bayal Seemay, which is the plateau region where we are, Bangalore, Mysore, Kodugu, then Kodugu, of course, you will say that, Tulunadu,

[00:47:00] then Karavali, then Karunadu, and the last one is Malnadu. So, all these states speak Kannada of some sort, even in Tulunadu and is reasonably, and I have also asked, I know

[00:47:30] people in Kerala won't like this, but we have actually said that Kasar God should come back to thing. Yeah. So, time for a proper states reorganization is well in hand, and when Ambedkar said, one state, one language, we have seven states who will speak Kannada. nothing wrong in that.

[00:47:59] But to say that anybody who speaks Kannada must be in one big state, that is what is called full of poison. And then he also commented, he is supposed to have drafted the constitution, he said that the idea of the union of India itself expresses only an idea, it does not indicate an achievement. See that? How far away are these wise words from the cacophony of today's

[00:48:29] political leaders who call our constitution a holy book? It's a work in progress. Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, they all said it's a work in progress. But people will get very touchy if you say that. They can get touchy, but this is wrong. Touchy about what? Because they think that it's not a holy book that came down from the sky, I say. It was written by ordinary people like you and me. Right. So, circumstances that prevailed

[00:48:58] when it was drafted in 48, 49, 50, were very different from the circumstances today. Like the most important difference in circumstance, was in 47, when the whole country had just come out of this terrible trauma of partition where we lost 23% of our land and in a civilizational state, land is the most sacred thing. Land is sacred. So, we lost 23%.

[00:49:28] So, our leaders were actually terrified that there would be a second religion-based partition because if that had happened, then the country would have collapsed. So, many of the concessions that were made to Muslims in that constitution were only made to prevent a second religion-based partition, which is why Nehru Patel and Ambedkar said it's a work in progress. And they expected, it's like Shruti and Smriti.

[00:49:59] Shruti is the idea of eternal Bharat. Unchanging. Unchanging. The Smriti, Radhakrishna has said, what this country badly needs is a new Smriti. It's all very well for people to say a constitution, holy book. It's not a holy book. I will say that time and time and time again. It's not a holy book. It is something that actually today badly needs, not just amendments. I'll give you a simple example. The US constitution,

[00:50:30] which is a very short document, 250 years old. I think it's got less than 30 amendments. Indian constitution. Only 80 years old. It is the longest constitution in the world. Already got 105 amendments. So, something that needs to be amended 105 times cannot be correct. How long you will go on putting amendments? Each time somebody acts funny, they passed a whole law because some chief minister

[00:51:00] of Delhi was behaving badly. You can't change the laws to satisfy some existing exigence. Today, this woman's delimitation and woman's reservation and delimitation is all part of the same thing. Just to fix some problem, you change something else. So, it will help you in some by-election tomorrow in Bodhi Nayakonur or something. I have to win Bodhi Nayakonur. I have to win something in Tarantaran, so I am going to change the whole constitution.

[00:51:30] You cannot go about it like that. This is why I feel there is a fundamental gap between the rulers and the people whom they rule. I think most people see the… It should not be like this. Right. You see, my book on delimitation, it may be a cry in the wilderness, but somewhere, somehow, it has to be said that we

[00:51:59] have to do a control-altered elite on some of these things. But people hope that there is some stability in the country, and that stability is derived from the constitution. No, it's not. It's not. All the instability in this country is derived from the constitution, not the stability. So do you suggest a fundamental reform of the constitution? Correct. I think we need a new constituent assembly. What was he? France has changed its constitution five or six times in 250 years because of the rapidly changing

[00:52:29] situation from the French Revolution. All countries good democracies except the US. The US constitution, by the way, in my opinion, is perfect because it talks, it's very short. It talks about very general things, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, personal defense, you know, family, family values. It talks about universal things. It talks, the US constitution talks about the ideal man,

[00:53:00] whereas most of the other constitutions do not, which is why, see, German constitution, French constitution, they've all been changed many times. Somewhere, somehow we got the idea that this constitution is some Asman kitab which has just come from the sky. No, never came like that. Some ordinary people wrote it. At least they were lawyers and then they had some above average intelligence. Anybody, you and I, five other people can sit and we can write a

[00:53:30] constitution. It's not a very brainy affair, I say. It shouldn't be deified. Should not be deified. Putting your head on the constitution and doing all that. Swearing. No, no, no, no, no. You can't do all that. Because then you are giving people, you are giving that, see, look, let me put it this way. In a nation state, the

[00:54:00] behavior of the people flows from the constitution. In a civilizational state, the constitution flows from the nature of the people. It must reflect the people's aspirations. In a civilizational state. That is the main difference between a nation state and a civilizational state. See, the constitution is not a police manual. In a civilizational state, the

[00:54:30] constitution must evolve naturally from the nature of the people. What the people want. Not what the Hindus want or what the Muslims want and all. Don't let people confuse you with that. What the people want. We the people. What do we want? And I think if you turn the order around, a new constituent assembly which reflects what the

[00:55:00] people want, not what the home minister wants, okay, then I think we will begin to see the dawn of something better than something like delimitation itself will not be a problem. But delimitation itself, what you say is it has the thrust of the constitution, right? It's mandated that it should happen. We have just kicked the can down the road for almost 50 years now. For 50 years and both, see Indira

[00:55:29] Gandhi had her own reasons for doing it. Vajpayee had his own reasons for doing it. So instead of going to the past and wondering why the, we cannot change the past, okay. now, we can't just do something like what they are proposing to do now. You know what they are proposing to do now? They are saying let us take 543 seats. We will just multiply it by some 1.8 or something.

[00:56:00] So that the discrepancies which are there, for example, today the South Indian states are heavily overrepresented in parliament. And the North Indian states are markedly under represented. So if you simply say, Tamil Nadu is shouting, so we have to just increase the number proportionately by 1.5 or 1.8 something.

[00:56:28] So you are just magnifying the problem 1.8 times. Who told them to build this parliament with only 888 seats in a healthy democracy with the US ratio that you mentioned? We need a parliament with 2000 Lok Sabha members. Wow. Yes. For that democracy to work properly. Who told them to build this with 888 seats?

[00:56:58] Did they ask anybody permission? Why? How did they get? And today that report of EAC to the PM says this is a beautiful number. Elinda Banti beautiful to this number. Who told them that 888 is correct? Or only that much space was available in that place to build a building like this? No, no. I think we the people means we the people should have the right to ask these questions. Right.

[00:57:27] 2000 is what we need. And there's nothing wrong in having 2000 members of parliament. It's a very big country. We are the biggest country in the world I say. Sir, you brought up a very important issue which is that the southern states argue that they are being penalized for controlling their populations. That's rubbish. That's rubbish because this is a lie that Indira Gandhi sold to them.

[00:57:56] People have less children because they are rich. People don't become rich because they have less children. They have it backwards. They have got it completely backwards. Oh, you did family planning so we should help you. Who told you to do family planning? You go and

[00:58:27] told you to do family planning to become rich. And so because you become rich then you need more seats in parliament. This is another aspect. When a state is overrepresented in parliament the issues of that state will take greater priority in the parliamentary debates. So we'll hear a lot of things about self-respect, need,

[00:58:57] beat, meat. We'll hear a lot about that. The big problem in North India in the underrepresented states, this is arsenic poisoning in our major rivers. How often do you, this is killing people, how often do you find arsenic poisoning being mentioned in parliament? Hardly. There are big, big problems in North India

[00:59:27] which are not getting average coverage because those states are underrepresented. Otherwise you say straight out. No, no. Tamil Nadu is more important than you be. You say it. See, you cannot be captive to the interests of just one state in the union. You cannot. Because if you go on saying that whatever it is, this is what

[00:59:57] we want, that means your sense of entitlement is very high without any basis. You're playing from the bully's pulpit. that's all, that's all that you're doing. And which is why actually I may confess we might have a second edition of our book on delimitation where we have taken into account the recent assembly election results, especially in Bengal and

[01:00:27] Tamil Nadu. Bengal I have not mentioned at all in this podcast. I should tell you something. The three states which we have proposed for Bengal can be roughly called Gouda, Mallabhum and Kamtaapur. Now, Gouda is the portion of near Calcutta, 24 Parganas, north and south, Hooghli,

[01:00:59] east Bhardwana. Midnapur, most, this is called the old Bengal region, most of which went to Bangladesh, Vangal, Vangal is what it's called. Mallabhum is the area around Gharagpur, is more towards central India, as in Saul, Gharagpur, etc. And Kamtaapur is the one

[01:01:29] which is little bit to the north, that is Midnapur, Amunumum, Murshidabad, Malda, that chicken's neck near Siliguri and all that. Forget Darjeeling, which we have put as part of a new state called Indrakil, which covers parts of Sikkim and the Buddhist Nepali ethnic groups. Now, if you notice the voting patterns in Gowda, which is the Vangal,

[01:02:01] Mallabhum and Kamtaapur, they have always voted differently in the parliamentary and assembly constituencies. So, the people were expressing what they always wanted to express. Typically, people in Gowda used to vote for TMC, people in Mallabhum region used to vote for BJP, like that, or Congress or something. So, the voting patterns in our three states were always different. This time, what has happened is

[01:02:31] because of some Hindu consolidation, which was based on an immediately local factor that they felt that TMC was not just pro-Muslim, but it was anti-Hindu. I think that is what did the TMC in this election. But be that as it may, when three different groups, when three people are talking to you in three different voices, to then tell them that no, no, no, you are

[01:03:01] all the same, BJP will prevent you from eating fish, that's not going to strike a chord with anyone because their real feelings are entirely different. And when I said the constitution should flow from the nature of the people, the nature of the people is now asking for small states. The people of Mallabhum, Gauda and Kamtapur will not start fighting with each other, far from it. In fact, they will suddenly start

[01:03:31] becoming very chummy with each other. I have talked to a large number of people in the Karakpur region because as a scientist I visit there quite often. Most of them feel quite disconnected from Calcutta. And when I wrote my first book on Bharat and this present book on delimitation, I was very keen to show it to people in Bengal. They said, no, there is nothing wrong you have said here. Bengali will

[01:04:00] still be a great language if it is spoken in three states. It is not cultural and literary tradition of Bengali will not come down because there are three states. No way. As I said earlier, language is a very poor marker of identity. It is one of the poorest markers. Right. So if we come down to implementation, right, is there a formula you propose or do you say that we can

[01:04:30] implement it in a stepwise fashion or should we just go all in and do this? You have to do it in parallel. It is like you go back to the 1947 experience. The existing government continued in a sort of way for four or five years while the constitution was being written and all that. So I think what we should actually do if you ask me is to stick with this 543, what we have got now.

[01:04:59] Let that go on to run the day-to-day administration of the country. The constituent assembly will be separate. It will be consisting partly of politicians, partly of lawyers, partly of citizens, like the old one was, with the one important proviso that that constituent assembly is sovereign. What it says is not subject to review by the courts or anybody.

[01:05:28] And above all, members of the executive should not be in that constituent assembly. because that will immediately lead to gerrymandering, which is what happened in a sort of way in Kashmir. So once you have, this is exactly what they did in 47. It so happened that Nehru and Patel were parts of both groups. It's impossible to separate them completely.

[01:06:06] would come and justify. But by and large, they had an executive job to run, to run the country. So I think the Prime Minister and the Home Minister and all the cabinet, they will have to do that job. You will have to have a group of people who form a constituent assembly and start from scratch. And instead of saying, we the people of India, that is Bharat. Say, we the people of

[01:06:36] Bharat, that is India. Start like that. You know, put Bharat first, put India second, because Bharat is what we call ourselves. And I think a great deal about India, you talk about young people and aspirations. Slowly we are beginning, Roshan, to realize ourselves, who we are. Swayambodh always comes first. You know, people talk about Shatribodh and all that. Yes. But unless you

[01:07:06] are into this business of Swayambodh, you can't even proceed. If you don't know who you are, the fellow who runs to America and then goes and gets shot there, he doesn't know who he is. He feels that, I don't know what he feels, maybe he feels he's American or I don't know. But he really doesn't know who he is. Otherwise, this mad obsession to run to America,

[01:07:36] you can't explain it. It doesn't happen in any other country in the world. And people looking for a better life for themselves? What better life? More prosperity. Where is the prosperity? Are they becoming like Bill Gates over there? Do they even understand what America is all about? They know that if you take one dollar, you will get 95 rupees. But a cup of

[01:08:06] coffee in America costs eight dollars. Whereas the cup of coffee you have given me just now costs 20 rupees. They don't realize that? Why do they want to convert all that dollars into rupees and build a big house in gobi chetipaliyam? Is that the purpose of your life? Then I would say it's a wasted life. It's a very

[01:08:36] fundamental question, sir, in terms of people and aspirations. I think we are at a stage right now where India is still such a poor country. You should not mind and you should put the Kannada also. No, no, absolutely, sir. This is all about linguistic states. Why do they do all these things? They don't know who they are.

[01:09:06] Most people, I think right now, part of the insecurity stems from the fact that there is an election in 2028. They don't know how this delimitation exercise will impact that election. Who will be the new leaders that will come up to the fore? What will this government look like and so on? So, assuming that the delimitation goes through this year, 2026, when it's supposed to happen, as stated, right?

[01:09:36] Assuming this happens, what will the government look like in 2028? How will a regular person, a lay person's life change? Who knows? The state of the world is so fluctuation today. Because the most powerful country in the world, America itself, is fluctuation. So, when America, you know, catches a cold, the world sneezes. So, I would be a fool if I were to predict what the 29th election will be. There may be no,

[01:10:06] it may be completely unrelated to what we see today. Yeah. Because many people will say many things, but at some point in time, if the people realize that they are simply not getting what they want, then the result will go somewhere else which is highly undesirable and that is towards the violence side. We don't want violence.

[01:10:36] And it's the duty of the government to see that without telling us tall tales, this Vikshit Bharat and this, that and Jnana Guru and all this, what do you call some Vishwa Guru. We can't, you can't tell, people will not believe you if you tell all that. Take any field, take semiconductors, take Parma, take fertilizers. In most of these places, we are nowhere. If you look at

[01:11:05] China and America. We may be better than Burkina Faso and Botswana. See, but that's not the way for the largest country in the world to be. you know, so I would not want to even dare to speculate on what's going on. Will we have an election in 29?

[01:11:33] Then, will there be an election of the type that we know it? I don't know. It's hard to say because when changes happen, when revolutions happen, shall we say, often they give a slight warning. Like if you take the Russian revolution, 1906 in Petrograd, which is now

[01:12:03] St. Petersburg, which was Leningrad, the Tsar's troops fired on some people. Number of people died. But 1906, you still needed World War I, everything, Lenin. It took another 11 years before there was a revolution. Things in France also happened in it. I don't want, if you ask me my personal thing, I don't want a revolution in this country because that is the least

[01:12:32] satisfactory way for a civilizational state. It may be okay for a nation state. The civilization, I feel, in India is strong enough that it can absorb all our political parties, Congress, BJP, Samajwadi, anything. these things don't matter in a civilizational state. So I'm hoping that somehow the strength of our civilization is something that will make

[01:13:02] many of these, today's immediate political calculations irrelevant. As you can see, I am no great fan of any of these political parties because I feel they have simply misled us and told us all tall tales. That is one thing that you reference in the book also that this alliance mathematics, for example, that is something that will go away if there are smaller states as well. So if we are looking at 2029 elections, the electoral

[01:13:32] process itself may look very different. Suppose we have the delimitation of the type that we are proposing. In two, three years, you can't get this. But if you do that by, say, the middle 30s, 2030s, then no election will be an event. Everything will be beautifully smooth. Maybe since I have given me a question, so I think the 29 election also will be full of gut bird only.

[01:14:03] Some less or more. Some BJP may get this, somebody may get that. And they will again do some frantic calculations. But all this is going to adversely affect governance. And I may say that now I can reveal that BJP wanted to do more smaller states in the Vajpayee regime, but the coalition partners did not allow. That is why they had to

[01:14:32] settle for just Shetty Izgad, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand. Experiment. Right. They said, okay, you can have those things. It doesn't concern us. So, that's the reason why Vajpayee, he wanted to do it apparently. Right. Sir, as we come to the end, you lay out a few propositions in the final chapter of the book, which I find very fascinating. So, this is a chapter titled Modus Operandi. Correct.

[01:15:03] And you lay out a few of these propositions. Right. These go far beyond, you know, let's say the main subject of the book, which is delimitation itself. Right. But it also lends itself to what you say, which is that the constitution must be reformed. Yes. Could you talk about, you know, maybe not all the 18 of these propositions, but a few important things that you think we should all know about? Like, for example, I think the point about the bureaucracy is fascinating. Well, yes.

[01:15:32] I am going to talk practically only about that. I would ask the readers to buy the book. Please go and buy the book. Absolutely. The book is only something like less than 400 rupees now. And on Kindle, it's even less than that. Yeah. If you can't spend 400 rupees, then don't watch this podcast. You know, I mean, there has to be some sanity in all this. A cup of coffee costs almost, you know, 260 with GST that Mrs. Sitaraman is

[01:16:02] charging. So, if you can't spend 370 rupees, then please go away. Don't listen to me. Because what I have to tell you is not relevant. I am going to talk about point 16, which I believe is something that is eminently doable. Revamping the civil services to ensure entry around the age of 18 to 21. 18 to 21. And retirement by 45.

[01:16:32] Which is very different from how it is today. Like how the military is done, Military recruits like this. Right. Finish school, have an objective type exam with a good oral exam, where the presence of mind, the general ability to think quickly, fluency in at least one Indian language or English, but absolute fluency. Top bureaucratic posts,

[01:17:02] to be all contractual and be allotted basis, open competition. So, retirement by 45 means essentially what I am saying is in the present system, those who pass the exam and get recruited will end at joint secretary level. So, that at the age of 45, if you feel that this is not meant for you, you have enough time to try a second career for those people. And,

[01:17:33] if the top bureaucratic posts are to be contractual, they are at the freedom of the prime minister. So, he picks the team of technocrats, politicians, bureaucrats, anybody whom he likes, who he feels will deliver his agenda. Because today, one of the important questions which I think the Modi administration faced in its early years is that most of the top bureaucrats had a mentality that was strongly of the congress type.

[01:18:03] So, you can't have a bureaucrat working for you who is so wedded to the philosophical ideas of the former regime. He will block everything. And given the discretionary powers of the bureaucrats, they were doing this. In fact, many people tell me who scientist types or industrialists and all, they tell me that it's not happening now, but maybe in the early

[01:18:33] years of the Modi administration, bureaucrats would actually tell them that it is sinful for a company to make money. Okay. So, that goes back to those old socialistic ideas, Karpuri, Thakur and all, we gave Bharat Ratna the other day. It goes back to that. So, now you have to brush your teeth with neem sticks. We don't like toothpaste

[01:19:02] because toothpaste means you are helping multinational. See, this sort of rubbish, they were still spouting in the bureaucracy. Now, I'm told it's not there. But it will still take up to 2035 for the last bureaucrat who was appointed in the Congress regime to retire. So, their lifespan is too long. Sir, but what you are recommending, it seems more like the US

[01:19:32] type, right, where you have technocrats and, let's say, professionals from the particular domain joining the government, right? Now, obviously, I mean, they will bring a lot more technical expertise and depth, and we can actually implement the right policies and so on. But also, there is this fear that they might be lobbying, they may be like, let's say, favoritism, and so on. As if there is no favoritism, no. Only the saving grace is that they go with the prime minister.

[01:20:02] If the prime minister goes, then they go too. So, they will never be around for that long. Because prime ministers go on changing. So, when each comes or even at the state level, we have also recommended that the governor is in elected position. He is CEO. So, we don't have chief ministers anymore. We just have elected governors and we have a legislature that is separate. In that respect, also, my recommendation is like the US system. The complete separation of the executive and the legislative

[01:20:32] things. So, what is the continuity then? Because if the constitution, let's say, is reformed periodically, and if the bureaucracy is changed... Constitution is reformed only once. Okay. We don't go on reforming the constitution. I'm selling a new constitution. Right. So, we have a new constitution. But open to amendments, basically. Open to amendments. Like, if we have to amend it for periodically. But as I said, US, only less than 30 amendments in 250 years. Make that constitution short.

[01:21:04] And then the moment you separate legislature and executive completely, corruption will come down. Because if the same person passes the law, who is implementing the law, then you're giving him a lot of power. The position of the prime minister is too powerful in India today. He's more powerful than the president of the United States. Because finally, what Trump is finding today is

[01:21:34] only Congress has the power to declare a war. They're saying that many things he has done with tariffs he cannot do. He has to go. He has more than a certain amount of money only Congress can sanction. He has a veto. So the check and balance is there so that if they pass something he doesn't like, he can veto it. But today the position of the prime minister, I'm not talking about the person who is the prime minister today. The position of the prime minister of India is extremely powerful.

[01:22:05] Because he not only makes the laws, he implements the laws. There is no check on the prime minister today. That is the problem with… and also there is almost a perfect overlap between winning elections and passing policy. Passing policy. And the other thing is also there with the Rajiv Gandhi anti-defection bill, which by the way all parties accepted unanimously

[01:22:35] because they felt this four-floor crossing was becoming too bad. House trading. House trading. What has now happened is in today's situation, when there is one majority party like BJP, we will add on of course the Lugudesham and Neetish party. But for all intents and purposes it is a majoritarian government. If you are elected member of Lok Sabha from BJP

[01:23:05] and you are not a minister, you are practically useless. With nothing for you to do. You will get one bungalow, you can live there, car, phone, something you will get, some secretary, chaprasi, patawala, you will get all that. But there is nothing you can do because of the anti-defection thing, you can't speak against the government. So exactly what the whip says, you have to vote. Then why are

[01:23:35] you there? So therefore the craze to become a minister. That's why this Goswami and Sardes and I'll go on speculating who is the minister, who is the minister, who is the minister. If you are a member of the majority party and you are not a minister, you are useless. Nothing for you to do. You can go, you can cut one ribbon, some school,

[01:24:05] some children, some yoga. You can do all that but nothing more, nothing more than that. And by the way, this is something that all the parties accept. Everybody thought that it was a very nice legislation, anti-defection. Because the previous, the medicine was worse than the disease. But we don't have an institution, today Roshan, called backbencher,

[01:24:35] which is a great feature in the British parliament. You can belong to the party who is in power and you can speak against that party's policies in parliament. That's what backbenchers do. People who are not ministers. So the idea of cabinet responsibility is so strong in Britain that somebody who is not in the cabinet but part of the ruling party feels that

[01:25:04] he can give a constructive criticism of the government's policies in parliament, not outside. In parliament he can speak. In fact, some of the great moments in British parliamentary history happened because of the backbenches. When Neville Chamberlain was removed as Prime Minister and Churchill was put there. Such a thing cannot happen in India today. That even, suppose, hypothetical situation,

[01:25:35] India is fighting a war with Pakistan. Suppose. Boots on the ground, we are fighting a war. We are losing the war. We cannot remove the Prime Minister. Parliament, the way in which it is structured now, it can't be done. Whereas in Britain they could do it. So if you want to follow that system, then you have to follow it in full.

[01:26:04] You can't follow it in this kind of half-hearted way which is what we seem to be doing. Right. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much for coming down here. It was, as usual, an enlightening conversation with you. Thank you so much for writing this very important book. It brings out a lot of important concepts which I feel it's a rabbit hole in itself. Each of these propositions, for example, merits much research,

[01:26:34] much reading and understanding. So thank you so much for doing this. the academics are meant for. You know, we don't want to become members of parliament and at the same time, we feel there is a certain duty in educating the public because we live in a very great country. This is not some second grade, third grade country. Certainly not a country where people want to get to run away from here and get shot in North Philadelphia. No, we are not that kind

[01:27:04] of country at all. And I hope that at least the few people who buy this book for 370 rupees and read this book will at least tell their nephews or nieces not to run away to America. I mean, if that can happen at least in a few cases, I would feel that the time taken to write this book was worthwhile. Right. Thank you, Roshan. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you. So I'm sure you like this conversation. And if you do, if you do, don't forget to share

[01:27:34] this with your friends and family and support.