 Hello guys, how are you? Hope you all would be very fine. Today I am here, you know, in front of you. Just to have yet another orientation program on UP-PAC, Men's Examination, that is solely targeted towards gender studies paper to which I have to give a take as far as the subjects like Indian polity and constitution along with international relationship is concerned. So, as you remember, in the previous orientation program, I made a commitment to you that when I will meet you next time, I will meet you with some topic from which you can realize that during the classroom program, what you will be taught, how you will be taught and how you will be able to solve the questions that are asked in the Men's exam based on that. Basically, I had to think about it. So, I had told you that I will take some conceptual questions because it is possible to tell the class better in conceptual questions, that is why I have selected it. With this, you will be able to observe your teacher, that when we will be taught different topics in the class, then what kind of thinking can be developed in us? Will the exam-oriented thinking be developed? Or will it just go on like this? So, let's see. One question that I have asked, in the last exam of UPPSE Men's exam, let me tell you. What is the condition of the Indian system? What is the difference between the American system and the Indian system? Let's discuss this short answer type question. You know that in UPPSE Men's, there are 4 general studies papers. In each paper, there are 2-2 hundred articles of each paper that you have to write in 3 hours. And the total number of questions is 20, in which there will be 10 short answer types, in which each question has to be written in 125 words. And the number of long answer type questions will also be 10, in which you have to write each question in 200 words. So, the question that I have made here, Aayog has expected you to answer it in 125 words. But in the classroom program, when we discuss a topic, our goal is to at least allow the student to put a ring somewhere in the gyan's ganga. So that he has the opportunity, the opportunity to take out the content from there and make his answer beautiful. If we limit you, that is, if we do Simit Sansadan Mohia, then there are many times that you have very little scope to write. So, in the classroom, there will be an intensive discussion. There will be an interview on each subject, on each topic. So, it has been decided that the Indian system and the American system have made this question different. Yes, I will write the question first. How is the Indian system different from the American system? This is the question of 8 marks, of 8th rank. And you have to write in 125 words. If I have to answer it in front of you, then I will write it in 125 words. But it does not make any difference. In your class, it does not make any difference whether you have written the answer to the teacher's questions or not. In fact, your aim is to make us understand the topic in some way so that we can be able to solve any question that is not only given, but also related to it. So, in the context of the question, I will write a topic in front of you and then I will explain that topic. After explaining that topic, you will feel that whatever knowledge you will give, this question will be solved in its small corner. There will be no chance for this question. So, first, you will understand that what is Sanghiya Bevastha? When you understand Sanghiya Bevastha, then you will be able to understand what is the Sanghiya Bevastha of India and what is the Sanghiya Bevastha of USA in America. When you understand both, then you will be able to write the answer. So, somewhere, you can say that comparative study of global constitution is also there. Anyway, in this, we basically have to understand the nature of Indian society and the nature of American society. And if we take a step back from that, then you can say that in Vaishvik Bevastha, wherever there is a functional democracy, there is a democratic constitution. There you can see the different types of nature of the state. So, usually this question is made by nature of quality. The nature of the state. So, the nature of the state. And let me tell you, the nature of any state's state is the same as the nature of the constitution of that state. So, first of all, we understand this concept. You will keep this question in your mind. Now, I am going to discuss in front of you that in Vaishvik Bevastha, where there is a democratic constitution or where there is a democratic constitution, there is a state that what kind of nature can be and what kind of political system of nature can be and what kind of constitution of nature can be there. Right? Let's go. I will try to explain this topic in short in the next one hour. So that you feel that the question or any other question is asked in the future, then you can write the best answer in the country. Look. The constitution of any state's constitution of nature is there, right? How will it be done in the end? How will it be done in the end? This is written in the constitution in that country. So, look. How will the state's constitution of nature be changed? Who will change it? The constitution of that state will change. So, the matter is the constitution of that state will have some kind of constitution. It will be alright if the constitution of the state and its constitution is changed. So the simple thing is, what will be the nature of the state's administration? Or it depends on the nature of the constitution of that country. The constitution of the constitution. And look, the administration of the country is called the state administration. That is, in the state administration of the country, we put light on the administration. Do you understand what I mean? And what is the nature of the state administration? Is it for the forests, forests or humans in the country? That is the thing, for humans. So somewhere, somewhere. We have to look at the nature of the state administration. What is the relationship between the state administration and the people living in that country? What kind of relationship is formed? What kind of relationship is formed? When it comes to the people's administration, it is usually expected that in the people's administration countries, the relationship between the people living in that country should be the people's administration. Isn't it? It should be the people's administration. And if the people's administration is to accept the people's administration, the relationship between the people living in that country should be the people's administration. So tell me, how will the state administration accept the administration? Or will it do so that it wants to keep the nature of the state administration? And the state administration will make sure that the nature of the state administration is the same. The nature of the state administration will be the same. That is why I said that the nature of the state administration will be the same. And who are we talking about? We are talking about the people's administration. Why are we talking about this? Because India is a people's administration country. And when you read Indian politics and constitution, if we want to take care of the nature of the state administration in any global state, then with whom we will have to take care of the nature of the state administration? With those countries where the people's administration is the same, where the people's administration is the same. Now, we cannot do the nature of the state administration in any country. Who does the nature of the country do it in? In a similar class? Where will we do the comparison? Will the nature of the people do it in a similar class? Will the nature of the people do it in a similar class? Do you understand what I am saying? So look here, the nature of the state administration in any country is basically the direct administration of the state administration. That is, the nature of the state administration will be the same as the nature of the state administration. Okay? You tell me, on the foreign level, when we talk about the local government or local government administration, so here, the nature of constitution or the nature of politics, the nature of the state administration or the nature of the constitution, in a prominent way, it can be divided into three types. Either the nature of the state administration or the constitution, whether it is a soul, right? Unitary, or federal, right? We call it social soul, or it will be a national federal, which we call the social soul. Do you understand what I am saying? Social soul. Now pay attention. Where you will get the unitary, mode of political system or unitary, nature of the constitution. You will say that the nature of the state administration is original, right? It is real. If in a country's constitution or in its state administration, you get the federal character, then you will say that the social soul is its natural tendency. But if in a country, this third kind, third kind of political system or third kind of constitution, then you will say that it is not original. Why is it not original? Because it is a mixed type, the mixed nature of the state administration. It is the mixed tendency of the constitution. And what does mixed mean? You will be able to get the unitary character, you will be able to get the federal character. So tell me, where is the original? It is mixed. It is mixed. Anyway, still, in the same language, in the western culture, when it comes to the state administration, then we have the rule that three types come out, one is the social soul and the other is the social soul. Do you understand? Now see, what is our concern? From where is our question made? Federal system. That is, the federal system that is found in India, the federal system that is found in India, how is it different from the American federal system? So why is this question made? Because it is made that the federal mode of political system or the federal mode of constitutions, they get three different forms, all kinds come out. If there is no information about it, then you will not be able to judge with this question. It is possible that you will not be able to write it even if you have written it down, but you will not be able to write it on a conceptual basis. And how long will it take to write it down? It is not possible. So see, this federal mode of political system is of three types. What does the federal system mean? Now see, any three types of political system can be of political system. Let us talk about the meaning of political system. Now I am just showing you a blueprint so that you can know where the outlet of this question comes from. So the federal system, one is the federal system of union, that is, the union system of union, that is, the union system of union, that is, union. The second is federation, which we call parisanghia. In Dehulagiri we call parisanghia. And the third is confederation, confederation. What do we call it? Mahashanghia. Now see, the three types of union come out. How? The union system of union, the union system of union, and the union system of union. Okay? So now I will leave it here and in the future I will start with the federal system. Now it will be understood that whenever there is a talk of Lokatanthrikshanbidhan, Lokatanthrikshanbidhan, then you will see the three types of political system of the union, or the union, or the union. Because the question is, who is the unionist? That is why we are going to discuss the union. Because till the time we do not understand the federal system, how will we tell the difference between England and the federal system? It is simple. So see, federal system, union system, union system, union system. I am telling you in the same way that when there is a talk of discussion in the class, then this is a long discussion. Especially when we read the nature of Indian constitution or the nature of Indian polity, then it is written in article 1, India that is Bharat Selvi, or union of states, India, that is India, that is our relationship with the union, with the federal system. Okay? So see, the nature of the union is distribution of power that is, the idea of distribution of power is based on the idea of distribution of power. Distribution of power. The idea of distribution of power is the concept of distribution of power. It is not so, that this is everything, apart from this, you will see other types. This is the situation where the constitution is in place, where the written constitution is present in a certain form, where the constitution is in place, where the constitution is in place, where the authority of law has been established, when all these things are met together, then there is a region of association, but I am silencing all those issues here. Since I am concerned about reaching to the answer of that question, that is why I am preparing the same path, which has reached to that question quickly. So the federal system, since it has the principle of distribution of power, that is, the distribution of powers. So usually, if we talk about America or India, how the distribution of powers has been made in the form of power? In the central and the state, the central and the state are not there. The central and the state are not there, you will see the distribution of powers here. Okay, second thing. Since we are seeing 300 forms in the federal system, which one? Union-type federal system, which we call as SHANG, second, Federation-type federal system, which we call as PARISANG, and third, Confederation-type federal system, Mahashang. Now think about it. These are the three federal systems, that is, the three federal systems. Suppose a country says that the nature of my state or the constitution of my country, the nature of that is the nature of union. So again, what is the relationship between union and nature? From the collective nature. From the collective nature, what is the main form? The distribution of power, the distribution of power, the distribution of power, second, if a country says that we have a federation here, then again, whose answer is the federation? The basis of union and nature, what is the basis of union? The distribution of powers of the central and the state, then you will see the distribution of powers here as well. If someone says that I have a confederal system here, that is, Mahashang is the primary system. So again, Mahashang is the primary system. Whom does it belong to? Like the basis of union. What is its basis? Distribution of power. Okay. Look here. Sorry. What will you be able to get here in union? What will you be able to get in union? Distribution of power. What will you be able to get in federation? Distribution of power. What will you be able to get in confederation, that is, Mahashang? Distribution of power. Clear? The distribution of powers. Now see. Sorry. I will move on to the next page. Shang, Parishang, Mahashang. Union, federation and confederation. And let me tell you one thing. These are for those students who are preparing for UPPCS. And UPPCS is in the batch of men's, right? Or UPPCS pre-commence. Whatever you say. That is, the admission in the batch of PCS is equal. These are not for them. They give the tests of one day at home. Because it will be a little difficult for them. And I do not think that it is necessary to get a strong mind here. Everyone has their own limit of their mind. So the students who are preparing for one day type exam. Either they can understand it. It is a good thing and they cannot understand it. So we will try to make it far away from this. Because there is no need to go beyond the limits. It is not necessary. You will have to influence it. Right? See. Because all three are helpless. Whom does it come in? The federal system. Federal system. Shange Pralali. And the federal system. What is the distribution of power? The distribution of power. And where does the distribution of power come in? In the center and in the states. In the central and in the states. See. Now the question arises. The whole game is based on the idea of distribution of power. So in all words, we understand that if we talk about distribution. Then how can distribution be done? Distribution or division. So see. Whenever you talk about distribution. Distribution can be done in three ways. Do you understand what I mean? Distribution can be done in three ways. Suppose there are two people. X and Y. Okay? Suppose you have to distribute something in X and Y. Okay? So how many vehicles do you have? See. You will have the first vehicle. That you distribute X, Y, less. Is this distribution possible? Second. Give X and Y equal to each other. Is this distribution of X and Y equal to each other? Third. You distribute Y in X and Y equal to each other. Is distribution done again? So distribution means that it is not equal to each other. Do you understand this much? Yes. Often the norm of partnership. The standard of the society. It runs like this. The contribution and share of which is divided according to the profit. So these three forms of distribution can be done. Is there any other form of distribution? Think about it yourself. No. Now see. This federal system is based on the idea of distribution of power. And this distribution of power is given to anyone. If you look at the central, central and central states. The central and central states. If we remove X and Y and write the center and states on their place. So tell me. How many ways can the central and central states be divided? Again these are the three ways. It is possible to give the center more than the state. This is also possible. The center and the state are divided equally. Or it is also possible to give the state more than the center. So distribution of power between the center and the state can be done in these three forms. Now see. Even if there is a separation of powers in any form. But this is the case that there is a separation of powers. And in the state system. The separation of powers has been fixed. By closing eyes, the state system will be able to establish a cooperative state system. However, there should be more information about this. As I told you. In the state system or in the state system. The separation of powers is done. This is the basic system. Along with this, there should be a written system in that state. There should be some difficult system in the system in that state. That is, there should be no complete solution. Do you understand? Then you can say that the system should be there. It means that the constitution should be there in the state. You know the meaning of the constitution being the supreme law of the land. See, the constitution being the supreme law of the land. Simply meant that if any other law is made by the legislative authority of that country. That law must be in tight conformity with the provisions enshrined in the constitution of that country. That means why the constitution will be called the supreme law of the land. That is because the law of the country is made by the legislative authority of that country. If any new law is made. Then that law will be made in the form of a legislative authority. When it is enshrined with the provisions enshrined in the constitution. It is enshrined in the form. If the law is enshrined, the constitution will be enshrined. The law is enshrined in the form. The constitution is enshrined in the form. This is the reason why the constitution is always referred to as the supreme law of the land. The upticks law of the land. I hope you might be understanding it. Union type of constitutional law is the constitution of the land. Otherwise, the relationship between the centre and the state is based on the distribution of power. Second, the separation of the constitution from the centre and the state. Then the relationship between the centre and the state is based on the distribution of power. Third, in Confederation, you will see the Central-State relationship, r slash p means relationship. And what will be the basis of this relationship? Distribution of power. But here you have to understand a new thing. Where the union type federal system will be there, the relationship of the center and the state, which is to be heard on the basis of distribution of power, distribution of power will be something like this. The power of the center will be greater than the power of the state. Clear? The power of the center will be greater than the power of the state. Second thing, where the union type federal system will be, where the union type federal system will be, that is, when we give the result of distribution of power in the Central-State relationship, the distribution of power will be equal to the power of the center and the state. Third, what will happen in Confederation? Confederation, let me tell you, the state is strengthened in the center. More power than the center will be given to the states. So, you see, there is distribution of power in the three of them, that is, the three federal systems are misled. Second thing, where the union type federal system will be, that is, the union type federal system will be, that is, the union type federal system will be, that is, the union type federal system will be misled. Third thing, distribution of power is divided into different forms. So, in these three systems you are also watching, who is the distribution of power and whose are the activities Nobody was done. The center is the center of Rajis, it is the center of state. Let me tell you, it is Activated mer Mosque in India and in America. The pattern that you see, This is the kind of communication that is more powerful in the country where we call it union type communication or union type communication. The question is only here, federal system. It is not about the inside, it is open. If it was open, then it would have been different in the union, but indirectly you are also telling about the difference in the union. Why? Because in India, this is the same situation. And in America, this is known as the union type communication. So, let's see where the foundation of the question comes from. Now, you don't think that the union will start from here? The union type communication is very similar. You can say that in India, the center is more powerful than the center of the country. What will we say in America? The center and the state take advantage of equality. Clear? Clear? Now, our concern is not confederation. When I will read the topic fresh, I will talk to these three. But now, I am moving towards that question. And to open that question, I am giving the same concept to those who are directly involved in that question. That is why you must have seen that I skipped some things at the beginning. I am doing it here too. Now, you forget confederation from here. Let's talk about these two. This situation is of India. And this situation is of America. You see, there is a federation in America, which is a part of the federal system. There is a union in India. There is a union which is a part of the federal system. What is the difference between these two federal systems? So, the first difference is that India is more powerful than the center of the country. The second difference is that the center is in the state of the United States. Second, the center in India, which was the center of the states, which has been established by the powers, was not done by this intention that the center has such a condition that the states can be provided with powers. Do you understand what I am saying? Basically, the powers of the states were provided by the constitution So that the administration of the country can be established in a decent manner. The main motive was this. Because like India, the international and geographically illiterate country, The government administration of the state can only be possible when the administration of the country Along with the central administration, the central administration will also have to raise one eye. Right? Or raise one eye. So let's see. The distribution of power between the central and the state is not done on the basis of any understanding. Understanding is not done on the basis of understanding. In America, the distribution of power between the central and the state is done on the basis of understanding. That is, it is based on legal agreement. Understanding is not done on the basis of understanding. So your mind can have a question. When in India, the relationship between the central and the state, which is the result of their relationship, If it is not the result of any understanding, then at what basis are these two connected? Look, the central and the state here can be connected to one another on the basis of understanding. It means that the state in India cannot be separated from the central. Even in America, this state cannot be separated from the central. Because the bond between them is legal agreement. Secondly, there is no doubt that the bond between the central and the state is not based on legal agreement. But everything is not legal. The bond is also something. So our relationship with the central and the state is connected to the basis of understanding. What is the basis of understanding? Now, whether you call this their compulsion or whatever you call it, Suppose there are two people, right? One person is made up of a complete structure on the other. What does that mean? Suppose, imagine yourself in your own example. Suppose you have a complete structure on a person for all kinds of needs. Now think about it. Will you be able to oppose the other person? No. You have only one choice. What is it? Even if you do not want it, you will have to be consistent with the other person. Because if he separates you from himself, then your existence will be in danger. In the Hindustani system, the state of the states is somehow established with the central. That is, states cannot secede themselves away from the union or from the center. If they do so, they will surely lose their very existence. If the state tries to separate from the central, then try to understand that they are going to put their existence in danger. That is, the state needs all kinds of needs, needs of work, needs of separation, needs of justice, needs of the most important, needs of the most important. For all of these purposes, the central is in danger. So the important thing is that the states have been given less power. The central is more powerful. Now, I will present a few words of it in front of you. First of all, we have one constitution. And what is the name of that constitution? India's constitution, the constitution of India. There are two constitutions in America. America's constitutional constitution, the federal constitution and all the states in the United States, let me tell you in America, there are 50 states. 50 states have their own constitution. In India, through the same constitution, not only the whole country, but also the state's constitutional constitution has been written in the same constitution. That is, along with the central, the states' constitutional constitution will be written in the same constitution, the constitution of India. It is not like that in America. If the federal issues that are directly related to the distribution of power, are removed, then the state has to deal with it with its own constitution, in its own territory. The constitution is ruled by its own constitution. There is a concept of single unified judiciary in India. There is the rule of the United States, where there is a rule of the constitution. And there is the rule of the constitution at the bottom. There is the rule of the central, or there is no rule of the constitution. America is always like that. The federal court of America only keeps the federal issues in mind. Whereas in Hindustan, if we talk about the Supreme Court of Appeal, it is the highest court of appeal. So if the power of the Supreme Court of America and the Indian Supreme Court of Appeal, If we pay attention to Tullatma, then we will be able to see that the Supreme Court of Hindustan is more powerful than the Supreme Court of America. Why is the Supreme Court of America less powerful? Because the power of the Supreme Court of America is shared with the state-owned authorities. There is no such provision in India. You can see that. Second thing, the single citizenship in Hindustan. You will always be the citizen of India, not the citizen of any particular province or state. You might be the resident of a state, but not the citizen of that state. But this is not the case in the USA. In USA, there prevails dual citizenship. One, the citizenship of the entire USA and other, the citizenship of respective states. So there is dual citizenship. One is of the centre and the other is of the different states. On 31st of October, 2019, the same thing happened with Jammu Kashmir in Hindustan. Jammu Kashmir people used to be the citizens of India. On the other hand, Jammu Kashmir people used to be the citizens of India. Jammu Kashmir's citizenship was written under the rule of the state-owned authorities. Jammu Kashmir's political status changed with the rule of the state-owned authorities. Do you understand? So you have to write it in 155 words. You don't think that all the words here are more than 125 words. Second thing, since you have asked about the citizenship, what kind of citizenship is it? We have seen it in the judicial aspect. You will see it in the legislative and executive aspect. So you can see the status there as well. The centre is different. People of different powers rise up there. Whereas in Hindustan, the centre is more powerful. Even in the form of a political party, which is known as executive. One more thing. The state-owned authorities in India are the citizens of the country. What happens in India? The state-owned authorities are the citizens of India. Parliamentary form of government. Whereas in America, I used the wrong word. The state-owned authorities don't use the state-owned authorities. How is the state-owned government in America? The state-owned authorities are the citizens of India. This is a bit of a different story. In the constitution, we understand that the state-owned authorities are the citizens of India. Although you don't have to mention it. If you elaborate it, the constitution will be in the 300 words. So just you have to make a mention of the different forms of government prevailing in both the countries. Like in India, there exists the parliamentary form of government. And in the USA, there exists the presidential form of government. Okay. So look. In India and in the USA. What is the state-owned government in India? The state-owned government is the parliamentary form of government. What will happen here? Presidential form of government. Now look. The parliamentary form of government. So the three organs of the government are legislative, executive, executive, and judiciary. When we observe the separation of power, we will see that the degree of separation of power in India, that is the degree of power in America, will be less. Do you understand? The three organs of the government are legislative, executive, and judiciary. The separation of power degree will be more. In India, the separation of power degree will be less in America. So separation of power. This is a topic. This is basically a lesson. A French philosopher, a French person, is considered a Montesquieu. He wanted to say that the separation of power in the government should be carried out. There are two benefits to this. First, if we do this, then the government will not be able to do anything. Second, the citizens of the country will be able to protect the citizens of the country. They will be able to protect them. So with these two benefits, the doctrine of separation of power was produced or was propounded by Montesquieu. Anyway, here I am talking about the parliamentary form of government and the presidential form of government. We will listen to everything. Legislative and executive in the parliamentary form of government, means the separation of power, the separation of power. These two elements of government cannot be completely separated. That is, legislative and executive form of government are met by each other. In the legislative and the judiciary, you can see the separation. You can see the separation. You can see the separation in the executive and the judiciary. But in the legislative and the executive form, you will not be able to feel the separation. The reason for separation is that the members of the executive form are taken from the legislative form. Now, the members of the executive form have been taken from the legislative form. So the important thing is that they will have to respond to the legislative form in any way. And until they get the trust of the legislative form, then they will be able to maintain their status or their status will be in danger. I am telling you a small example. All the parliamentarians in India are members of the executive form. Now, one of them is the leader of the government of Bahumut or Bahumut. And in this way, he is the Prime Minister of the country. And he presides over one of his ministers. And he presides over the ministers in his ministry. Now, the minister of the Prime Minister's ministry is the leader of the country. He is the political leader. If you look at it according to the officials, I have used the political leader. Because the power of the leader of the country is in the hands of the president. Which you know because of the way it is. You will also see that the minister's ministry is running. Anyway, I am talking. I do not want to take it to another level. So you can say that the most political leader of the minister is the minister. The most political leader of the country is the Prime Minister of the country. Now, do you know that the minister of India is being answered by the public towards Lok Sabha. They would have to remain collectively responsible towards the lower house of the parliament. That is the Lok Sabha. And the other thing is that till they get the trust of Lok Sabha, Till then their situation will remain the same. If Lok Sabha showed them no confidence, Then the council of ministers would be collapsed. Let us see how they are connected to each other. This cannot be separated. The government of this government of the assembly of the state of the state is the most remarkable. If we talk about the presidential form of government, If the government of the state of the state of the state of the state, Then we will pay attention. Legislative and executive in both of them have a change. It means that when the government's chief minister is there, when he will be the minister, then he must not invite the members of the U.S. Congress and give them the portfolios. No. He can do whatever he wants in his ministry and he can do whatever he wants. Why should a person not be the chief minister? I am going to give you an example. A legal practitioner can be called from outside and give a law ministry or a ministry minister. Even if a Vita minister or an Aartha Shastri can be appointed as a minister. But it is not the case in India. You can be appointed as a minister in India only when you are a member of the House of Parliament. If you have come from outside, you can be a minister for at least 6 months. After that, you will have to take the position of the House of Parliament. Whether it is the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. Otherwise, you will not be able to be appointed as a minister. This is not the case here. So tell me. So this was one aspect. The House of Parliament and the House of Parliament. Now look at the second aspect in both these aspects. In the House of Parliament, there are two heads. That is, there are two heads. Whereas in the House of Parliament, there is a single head. The head of a House of Parliament. Now look, a government head is in the House of Parliament. It is the head of the House of Parliament. Now look at the House of Parliament in India. It is the head of the House of Parliament and the prime minister. and who is the president of India? the president of India, the president of India but in the half-situation we will keep the government's main focus plus the president of India both of them are one person and who is the president? the president of the USA so you can see this one second debate all these debates are based on your concept now look the constitution of India is written and the constitution of America is also written there is no doubt in this but the question is does the constitution of both of us also give any opinion? so you can see there is a difference so look even in India you can see the written constitution written constitution you will get it in the USA written constitution both of them are written but when it comes to the constitutional provisions constitutional provisions i.e. the constitutional provisions so you can see the three types of provisions of any constitution three types of provisions look either and what is any constitution? let me tell you it is written constitution because in both countries it is written constitution WC means written constitution written so look the provisions of any written constitution there are three types of provisions 1. totally rigid 2. totally flexible 3. rigid plus flexible both now look total rigid means total is total is total is total is totally flexible means that means which is in informal language which is in informal language the third which is mixed which means because prior to rigid 1. non-nometer plus i.e. Anamwetha is Anamwetha's Misrar, is it okay? Anamwetha is Anamwetha's Misrar, is it clear? you tell me, if we talk about the constitution of India, then Indian constitution comes in the third category i.e. our constitution is so rigid provisions plus flexible provisions are both of the amazing Misrar now you will have to understand what the difference is in these provisions look, first of all let's talk about the constitution constitution is always amendable constitution is always amendable i.e. according to the changes in the constitution it is always amendable that's why it is said that constitutions can never go static they are always dynamic the constitution of any country can never be static it will always be rigid, clear? second thing, the constitution will always be not amendable but in order to amend the constitution you can see the differences there are some such provisions or there are some such provisions of the constitution which are easily amended so the provisions of the constitution which can be easily amended we call them flexible provisions in the name and the way provisions of the constitution in order to amend the constitution you have to face difficulties i.e. those who are not easily amended they are called flexible provisions in the name of the constitution and think about it what I wrote here that a constitution which is flexible in the name of the constitution means that any of the provisions of the constitution will not be easily amended but it does not mean that it will not be amended it can be amended but the constitution's nature will be very rigid look, any constitution which is flexible in the name of the constitution any provision of it will be easily amended third, the name of the constitution can be amended in the name of the constitution like the constitution of India so when we amend the constitution of such provisions then we will see that some provisions which will be easily amended but some provisions which will be easily amended which will not be easily amended it will be amended but we have to face the flexible provisions so in India these two types of provisions are available but in America the constitution which is flexible it is totally rigid so let me tell you one difference the American constitution is flexible both the provisions are flexible it is clear now let's come to another point think about it the constitution of this country is flexible it means that through the constitution of that country through the parliament of that country let me say it in my own language because we call the constitution of India as parliament and we call America's constitution as congress ok so the important thing is think about it if the constitution of a country is flexible then you don't think that in changing conditions or in changed circumstances if the constitution of that country is able to change the constitution then it won't be easily amended and when it won't be easily amended and believe me, this is the point of time that if the constitution of this constitution is necessary to change the constitution then who will be in this condition then the parliament of that country will change the constitution and according to that we will be able to change the constitution according to the constitution so somewhere wherever the rigid constitution is the parliament of that country is very flexible so you will say that the degree of justice in America will be more than that of Nisande Bharat do you understand what I am saying will be more than that of Bharat will be more than that of America and one more thing the constitution of America is very small the constitution of Bharat is very heavy now the constitution of America is very small what does it mean that whatever the constitution is given there is absolutely good when you elaborate on one provision when you expand it then it will be very effective that is, the constitution of Bharat in India all the constitution has been mentioned in an expanded manner that many constitution are easily understood so the constitution of Nehapalika or otherwise it does not have to be expanded some of our constitution also has a sense where for their interpretation for the constitution Nehapalika has to come forward and Nehapalika comes forward and she does the constitution and through Nehapalika that means through the constitution the constitution is done for the last time it is believed for everyone so we also have Nehapalika has a constitution that will show the degree of judicial activism but less in America so it can be said that the degree of judicial activism is in greater amount in the USA as comparison to that in India so one difference you can also see in this manner all the constitution you will get to see the state of Bharat in America do you understand what I mean for example in the constitution of Bharat when the president of Bharat has to be removed from the constitution so for that we get Mahabhiyog we get impeachment even in America to remove the president of America impeachment is brought but mode of impeachment which is followed in the USA is entirely different to what existed in India in the global constitution I will teach you when I will discuss comparative studies in the USA and in India so this is the difference secondly Mahabhiyog in India is used only for the interpretation of the president when in America Mahabhiyog's practice is not only used to remove the president but to remove the judges to remove the civil servants to remove the president to remove the president to remove the president Mahabhiyog is brought in so now I hope that not 125 but 1250 you can write down this you will see in this manner how we read the topic while we have read the topic in all forms you must have seen I had omitted the confederation I did not discuss unitary and quasi-federal I did not dictate I did not discuss I directly moved towards this question so I will tell you this is a ban through which you will be able to understand that in the classroom the discussion on the topic will be in which form I hope you understand the better and according to that you will take the right decision thank you so much