 Welcome, everyone, at the outset, I, on behalf of the KKHSU Constitution Day Celebration Committee, 2023, would like to extend a warm and hearty welcome to all present here with us for today's online talk on the Constitution of India and Rationalism, which is being organized by Ujjakumar Bhia School of Social Sciences, KKHSU, to mark the occasion of Constitution Day 2023. As you are all aware, Constitution Day is observed and celebrated annually across the length and breadth of the nation to commemorate the adoption of the fundamental governing document of our country, namely the Constitution of India on 26th November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly. I'm happy to inform you that as in the previous years, this year too, the KKH State Open University proudly joins the nation in celebrating Constitution Day at the university, though this time around, the occasion is being observed belatedly since 26th and 27th November 2023 happened to be weekly and national holidays respectively, with 28th November that is today being the next working day. In this context, I take immense pleasure in stating that today we have in our midst noted educationist and political scientist, former registrar of KKHSU and presently Professor in Public Administration and Assam Donboski University, Professor Orup Jyoti Sodorisar, who shall be delivering today's talk on the theme, the Constitution of India and Rationalism. I take this opportunity to welcome you sir to our university and I also wish to sincerely thank you for being with us today to enlighten us on such an important topic. Welcome to you sir. Thank you. May I now request the chairperson of the KKHSU Constitution Celebration Committee and Director, Pujya Kumar Muiya School of Social Sciences, KKHSU, Professor Jyoti Bhorwasaar to kindly deliver the welcome address. Over to you sir. Can you hear? Yes sir, we can hear you sir. Okay, thank you very much. I take the honour and privilege of welcoming everyone to this online talk on Constitution of India and Rationalism by Professor Orup Jyoti Sodorisar, who is now Professor in Public Administration at Assam Donboski University, who also been registered of this university, who recently retired from university. He is an eminent scholar and also a very silent speaker and I believe that this is going to be a treat for all of us. Now, it is needless to stress on the fact that Constitution of India is one of the most foundational things of our democracy and we are living through different periods of crisis. And this, the values which are essentially integrated through the Constitution are guiding all of us out of those crisis in the past and we hope that this is going to be the case in the future as well. I also welcome all our online participants, our teachers, our students and other interested audience who are here to listen to Professor Sodoris lecture and I believe that this is going to be one of the most illuminating talks we will be probably witnessing and hearing. I do not want to take much of time. I once again welcome our Sodorisar to deliver the talk and I hand over the mic to Omidit to take this program forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your kind words. We would now actually like to play a short video on the adoption of the Constitution of India by the Constituent Assembly courtesy of Rajasabha TV. Meet you morning. Please play the video. A Constitution for India should be and can be framed only by Indians. The resolution that I am placing before you defines our aims and describes the outlines and points to the way which we are going to track. On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic nation in the sense that India from that day would have a government of the people by the people and for the people. May I now request our esteemed speaker, Professor Karupjati Sodorisar to kindly deliver his talk. Over to you, sir. Thank you. Very, very good morning to all of you. Professor Jayadipurva, director of the chairperson of the organizing committee. Doctor of visit. Organizing the event needs and directors, esteemed faculty and the students for me. It's a kind of homecoming, although digital in nature. It's a kind of digital homecoming. Since my term was over on 26th of August, this is the first kind of homecoming on my part. I'm very happy that way. And I'm grateful to the organizing committee for giving me this opportunity to be here in the midst of my family members. Today, I propose to share a few thoughts of mine, which my family members regarding the Constitution of India. I would like to relate constitutionalism to that of rationalism as such. Frankly speaking. When we put this idea together. There are many many eyebrows raised as to what is the apparent connection between the two. One is a purely political legal concept of Constitution and constitutionalism. The other is the psychological domain of rationalism. Anyway, I would like to proceed with first a small reference to Constitution, then a reference to constitutionalism. And then I would like to relate the whole idea of constitutional constitutionalism. To that of rationalism as such. And what is the rationalism in this particular context. Now you see when we say a constitution. We all know it is a fundamental document of governance. By which a country is governed. Almost every country in the world. Except I suppose great between it does not have a constitution. So, very briefly speaking, a constitution is a document. Fundamentally nature in terms of governance of a country. And almost all countries in the world. Have experienced the functioning of a constitutional today. We all know we have a constitution here in India in US in France. In our neighboring countries in Indian subcontinent everywhere there is a constitution. Now the second aspect is simply because of the fact that you have a constitution. That does not mean that constitutionalism prevails in that country. There are many countries in the world past and present. Where constitution prevailed. But to the absence of constitutionalism. We may refer to Hitler's Nazi Germany. We may refer to Mussolini's Italy. Coming forward we may also refer to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Or Marmar Gaddafi's Libya. Or for that matter not Korea. These are countries where a strict constitution prevails. Even in the communist countries being run by one political party that is the communist party. There were constitutions. But constitutionalism as such while we understand. From the prevailing practices in the democratic countries were not present. Constitutionalism requires. Apart from the constitution. Certain other components. On the basis of which only we can call it constitutionalism. For example to me limited government is one of the essence of constitutionalism. When we talk about the dictators, authoritarian rulers, one party systems of governance. There you do not know what would be the next step of the ruler. What would be the next step tomorrow morning. It could be anything. It depends on the winds and the arrogance of the ruler. That is not a dimension of what we call it as limited government. That is a phenomenon of unlimited government to say. Where governance has no limits. Government can touch each and every aspect of your life. All things we consider as private would be public. And all those things we consider as public would be converted into private domain in an authoritarian or totalitarian system. So to me. Constitutionalism demands. That there must be. A limited form of government the government. Whose boundaries are well defined. The government which does not cross the limit. And maintains the Lakshman Rekha of administration and politics. Now apart from limited government. You must have access to. Fundamental rights. You may not have a fundamental right charter. Great Britain does not have a charter of fundamental rights. But there is a system as we all know we call it rule of law. By which the country is governed. It is particularly because of the presence of the doctrine of rule of law. That it amounts to the presence of a charter of fundamental rights. Rule of law means. Rule of law that you are being governed by law only. And that is another prerequisite of constitutional. Moreover you see. In constitutionalism. We also prefer decentralization of power. And allocation of power to that particular parent structures of the governance. Which will exercise it. It's not that if a match of everything it's not that I do everything in the system. My job is to be confined to a particular dimension. And at the same time I will have a cooperation between the two or amongst the all. So I will do my responsibility. Maintaining the overall constitutional cooperation with the rest of the other structures in the system. Therefore you see in all kinds of components. That I just referred to. As limited government fundamental rights rule of law. Freedom of judiciary et cetera et cetera. Including that of decentralization of power. Complete the full process of constitutionalism. Now we come to that of rationalism as such. My argument is that the constitution of India when it was placed before us. It was not only a legal political document. But at the same time it was also a rational document to say why it is rational. It was rational because. The framers of the constitution presented before us a constitutional. Which in spite of various schools of criticism. Addressed some of the fundamental issues of the quality in India. I will become. One particular consideration that I will call rational. And that is democracy. Indian constitutional is rational because the framers decided to put democracy. As one of the basics of the whole constitutional system. Now the question is why democracy is considered to be rational. Democracy is considered to be rational because. Only when democracy prevails. The constitution survives in the long run. You can just see the scenario in the Indian subcontinent. You can think about Pakistan. You can think about Afghanistan. You can think about Nepal, Sri Lanka, whatever it is in the Indian subcontinent. You will find that in no country in Indian subcontinent except India. Constitution survived in its original format. Because at one point of time or other. Those documents and the spirit of those documents were hijacked by various political forces. Which did not promote democracy. Coming to that of Indian constitution. Which provided the basics of democracy. Democracy has continued. There are hundreds of amendments to the constitutional document. But the spirit remains the same. So my argument is. Rational the constitution of India in the sense. That it incorporated the spirit and the provisions of democracy. Simply because the framework of the constitution incorporated the term democracy. Can we call it a democracy? Such kind of preferences are there in many constitutions in the world. Particularly in the authoritarian and totalitarian constitutions. We find so many references. But do those provisions actually survive in the body politic? No. These are mere cosmetic arrangements. And we do not find the substance of it. In the actuality of the functioning of the political system. That is why. Absence of rationalism. In the governing document. Leads towards a situation of political collapse. Ideological bankruptcy. And the overall. Paralysis of the entire administrative system. You refer to the authoritarian and the totalitarian system. At one point of time you will feel it is a day for everything. It is a day for authoritarianism. For totalitarianism. Think about Hitler at one point of time. It was as if. He was the state of Germany. It was as if the entire population of Germany was behind him. Was it really so? Same thing happened in Mussolini's Italy. Or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So my point is. In spite of their constitutional commitment. Which was purely cosmetic in nature. To that of rule of law. To that of fundamental rights. To the race and leisure of the people. Practically everything was based on the whims and the arrogance of the ruler. So none of these systems survived. But when it is a case of democracy. You think about Great Britain. Think about US. Think about France. Think about India. Problems are there. Both in terms of structure. In ideology. In actual practices. Many problems are there even in those systems. But. The system has remained in broad form in the same. The people have the right to alter governmental system through adult franchise. So it is real. The people can live a life. On their own. With a full charter of fundamental rights. For the protection of which. You have an independent judiciary. Therefore. Your mandate is clear. You are an independent citizen of the country. You can live your life on your own. Without violating the rights of others in the system. And these are not mere declaration that you have long list of rights. But there is a protection machinery in the form of the Supreme Court of India. Judicial machinery is there or judicial mechanism is there. Apart from that. You have extra ordinary judicial remedies in the form of. Rits. Happiest corpus. Randomness. Go one into a certain right. Prohibition. These are extraordinary judicial remedies. In normal course. You cannot straight away go to the Supreme Court. But. But. If your rights are violated. Rights are very sacred in this system. If your rights are violated. You can straight away go to the Supreme Court under the 32 of the Constitution. Picking up and use corpus or any other rates relevant to your case. Therefore. When you have a broad parameter here. Which ensure your access to the democratic system. The framework of the Constitution decided. In right direction. In right time. There were many criticisms against the decision of the framers of the Constitution of India. What were the criticisms as such. One of the fundamental criticism against the decision of the framers to go for a parliamentary democratic system was bad. We were under a colonial rule under compulsion. And once freedom is secured. We have adopted the same system of governance for us. Is it fine with the framers. Have they done the right thing. For the people of India. But finally what we see. The spirit of democracy that have been incorporated in the Constitution of India. Certain fundamental modifications have been made even with the British system. Which is the original model that has been taken up here. In Great Britain you have a hereditary model. But here in India. The head of the state the president of India is not a hereditary model. It's a rational decision on the part of the framers of the Constitution. To have an elected to have an elected representative for the same. So it is in this context. My argument is. That the Constitution of India. That was framed by the framers through the avenue of the Constitutional Assembly. Was a rational document. And it is mainly because of the rationalism incorporated in it. That the Constitution is surviving even today. Now the thing is. This rational presence of certain components. In the constitutional document. In course of time. Have been subjected to challenges from many France. Challenges are there. I remember in 1976. The then government proclaimed emergency. Emergency was a constitutional measure no doubt. Under article 352 of the Constitution. National emergency was proclaimed. But once the national emergency was proclaimed. The very nature of the entire constitutional structure was sought to be converted into an authoritarian system by the then government. That was a major challenge. The people had lost faith in the democratic system. That the judiciary was not in a position to protect the rights and liberty of the people. Because under presidential proclamation, the judiciary was deprived of the basic privilege to protect the rights and liberty of the people. It was a serious kind of situation. But at the same time, you know. In democracy, the rulers are not eternal rulers. I just a few minutes before I referred to adult franchise. The people have the right to change the government. So finally when in 1977 there was an election. The people for the first time voted for a non-congress party. From 1951 for general election to 1977. Continuously the Congress was in power at the center. There was no unified challenge against the Congress rule. There were so many opposing parties. They could not unite against the Congress. Congress survived in power for a long time. But when the party in power created the situation whereby the fundamental character of the constitution was sought to be converted. The people did not tolerate it. The people exercised their body and accordingly for the first time. The non-congress party, the Janata party, that was formed overnight. Overnight to say was elected to power. So my second argument. Anyone challenging the rational premise of the constitution would not be tolerated by the people of India. It is true peaceful method itself. That right answer was given to those forces at the right time. The system revealed. We will remember a very dark chapter in the constitution of India in the form of 42nd amendment. Prior to that there were the 39 amendments, 39th amendment. In some of these amendments, some such provisions were sought to be incorporated. That the positions like Prime Minister, if anything is done during the time of their tenure in office would be beyond the jurisdiction of judiciary. Outside the purview of judiciary. The people did not tolerate it. Finally these provisions were completely removed from the constitution of India. So anything irrational, that is anything undemocratly, which is a challenge to the constitutional system for the long run, would not be accepted by the people. The people will go against it through peaceful method. What is needed in the hour is a scientific approach towards the whole provisions of the constitution of India. I call it the need for hour is a scientific approach because one thing we think is very much missing in the constitutional document in India is the right of the marginal people to participate in the system. Participation is all that they can do it through vote. But mere political participation is not enough. What we need is a meaningful sort of participation through empowerment. We in terms of theory call it multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not mean we have 50 cultural components, cultural streams in India. 1, 2, 3, 50 say suppose 50 is multi, so multicultural, no. Simply because many cultures exist, it is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism indicates an ambience in the polity, whereby these marginal people have the empowered situation to participate and to take decisions. Grassroot is an important component. Mere political participation through consires or urban local bodies is not sufficient. You have an ambience, a structural position outside those formal structures of consires and urban local bodies. And that is the spirit of the people in the grassroot level. How do they participate in the system? How do they empower themselves? How do they survive? So these sections of the people, their rights, their access to an empowered situation is the need of the hour. Because my argument is this, that the overall stability of the political and the constitutional system has been ensured by the people themselves. But if there is a challenge to the very existence of the people, how will they maintain the constitutional balance? How will they safeguard when they themselves are in peril? And for that, multicultural rights in the real sense is highly needed. So my broad argument is this, that whatever provisions in terms of democracy were incorporated by the framers, they were mostly democratic and rational in nature. Second, any attempt on the part of the authority, the government, the regime to disturb the democratic balance or to say the rational balance of the constitutional document has been reverted back by the people of the country. The people have thrown out those provisions and they have restored the original beauty of the party. And third, I plead for a scientific approach to be adopted to provide multicultural rights in the real sense of the term to the people in the grassroots. Simply because there are many cultures, it is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism relates to an ambience in which the people in the grassroots are in a position to take decisions and those decisions will be part of the overall structure of this. So with this, I think I have shared my views on it and grateful to the organizers once again for giving me this opportunity to be here with my family. So thank you, thank you very much. Thank you very much sir for such a stimulating and thought provoking lecture. We all stand, we surely all stand greatly benefited from listening to your lecture, which indeed has covered so many dimensions and so many facets of the polity in India, steeped as it is in a strong and vibrant democratic culture and ethos. You have rightly mentioned, or you have rightly pointed out how constitutionalism is actually independent of the existence of constitutions. The existence of constitutions does not necessarily mean that there would be constitutionalism. So and you also talked about how the Indian constitution is rational in the sense that it gives center stage to democracy or the spirit of democracy. And you've also talked about how constitutionalism incorporates certain important components such as limited government and more importantly, rule of law. And we have also stated that any attempt to disturb the democratic foundation of the Indian constitution and the Indian polity for that matter is does not actually go down well with the people. So, and so what is of paramount importance is to protect and consolidate and strengthen the democratic foundation of the Indian polity, which actually again is determined by the spirit of constitutionalism in India. Thank you very much sir for your wonderful lecture. Now, may I now request Professor N.N. Sir to kindly deliver the presidential address. So over to you. Thank you, Dr. Abhijit. Thank you for a wonderful lecture. And I was keenly listening to your various dispositions, most specifically the articulations, the arguments, and your second argument about the 19th of the democratic balance in the context of 1977 elections, because we witnessed that period. And your argument has given a new insight to look at the rational power of our Indian constitution. We experienced that phase and when emergency was proclaimed, as you have pointed out, at that time the judiciary's role was limited and everything got disrupted and people were helpless. But within a period of about say three months after the withdrawal of the emergency, a new government took over and that was that broke a tradition of about 25 years. And the constitution of India gave the power to the citizens of the country. And that's something which I did not think of it from that perspective. We were thinking of it that emergency was declared and there was a massive campaign and there was unrest and ultimately people decided about that. But I did not think it from the perspective of the framing of the constitutions, how rational they were at that time in the late 1940s, and the way the constitution was framed, the way the entire structure was framed. And you have rightly mentioned about the rational principles that adopted the framers of our constitution. Amal has made it at that point of time. So we are indeed highly benefited from your these three arguments. And most especially you have also given a life about the future prospects in terms of imbibing the spirit of multiculturalism. And I think our constitution of India has enough provisions. And most especially we need some pragmatic practices, how to include the grassroots level citizens into the entire process. We are indeed thankful to Suresh for this wonderful lecture. At the same time, we are also thankful to Guru Jagumar Bia School of Social Sciences. Every year they have been organizing this constitution. This year also has been no exceptions and I look forward to similar kind of discourses in future also. Thank you very much. Thank you sir for your enlightening and enriching words. Sir, actually I didn't know Kharmasar was presiding over the program. Okay sir. Last video I did not address him actually. Okay Mr. Kharmasar. Last video he asked me to do it as you know. Oh thank you sir. Sir, so we have almost come to the end of today's program. May I now request Ms. Keshanki Saikya to kindly deliver the quote of thanks. Over to you Keshanki. Very good afternoon to all. I would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to our respected Vice Chancellor Sir, Professor Rajendra Prasad as for allowing us to conduct this talk and inviting us every step of the week. Also, our heartfelt thanks to Professor Anil Sharma Sir for delivering the presidential address. On behalf of the Kujapumar Bihar School of Social Sciences and the discipline of political science, Krishna Kanta Handi State Open University. I express my heartfelt thanks to Professor Oruvjati Choudhury sir for gracing us with his presence and illuminating our minds with relevant knowledge on the relationship between constitutionalism and rationalism. On this auspicious occasion, the importance of understanding the stability of the constitutional system in a democratic country like ours and the rational value of the Constitution of India is indeed pertinent. We are grateful to you sir for enlightening us to this talk and we hope that it was a wonderful homecoming for you as well sir. I would also like to thank respected faculty members, officials and staff for being patient audience of this event. Technical members of the electronic media production center and the IT cell of KKHSU are highly appreciated for rendering all the necessary help. We hope we can continue to strive to conduct such intriguing events in the near future as well. Thank you one and all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much sir. Thank you. We then conclude the meeting now. Thank you.