Our Living Constitution: A Book Launch and Dialogue

(Organised by Aleph Book Company on May 10, 2025)

Speakers

i) Dr Shashi Tharoor, author of Our Living Constitution: A Concise Introduction and Commentary, and Member of Parliament for Thiruvananthapuram. Formerly, he was an under-secretary-general of the United Nations.

ii) Justice Madan Lokur, Chairperson of the United Nations Internal Justice Council and former judge of the Supreme Court of India.

iii) Adv Kapil Sibal, a Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha.

iv) Ms Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha and former investment banker.

v) Ms Shubhrastha, assistant editor of Indian Foundation Journal, formerly worked with the Bharatiya Janata Party office in the northeast.

Moderator

Mr Rajdeep Sardesai, consulting editor and news anchor of the India Today Group.

Introductory Remarks 

1. The event began with the statement of Mr David Davidar, founder of Aleph Book Company, congratulating Dr Tharoor for the successful launch of his book and welcoming all the speakers and the moderator. He started off by showing solidarity with all the victims involved in the recent Indo-Pak conflict and commented on the ceasefire that had been announced moments ago. 

2. Thereafter, he commented on the importance of the Constitution of India and the need to understand it in its spirit, which was why he contacted Dr Tharoor to write a book on it. Besides, Mr David revealed that this book is the first in a series, to be written by some of the best minds in the country, on topics ‘quintessentially Indian.’ He, then, proceeded with the formal inauguration along with the panellists, and handed over the stage to Dr Tharoor for his remarks.

3. Dr Tharoor began by bringing to light the importance of understanding the document that governs all of our lives, which was bestowed upon us by ‘we, the people of India.’ He highlighted how he has unwavering faith in the country and the constitution as a living document; a beacon of light for centuries to come. Besides, he applauded the foresight of the Constitution makers reflected in the postulates for universal adult franchise, social liberalism, egalitarianism, and secularism (though the term was added much later).

4. Dr Tharoor further shared that he had been asked several times whether he wrote the book as a historian, politician, or a parliamentarian. His one answer to all would be that he wrote this book as ‘a homage to India,’ and ‘in the basic capacity of an Indian, the country of whom this document seeks to protect.’ He then invited the moderator to take charge of the session.

The Discussion

5. Mr Sardesai began on a light-hearted note, bringing into play his usual manner of work, followed by thanking everyone present, and stated that the discussion would flow in the form of a conversation. Furthermore, he went on to say that since the making of the Indian Constitution in itself been a history of dialogue and debate, any discussion on it should also be formatted along the same lines. 

6. Thus, he initiated the discussion, which lasted for an hour and a half, by first raising a crucial question to Justice Lokur about whether the Constitution still epitomised the dreams and values of India; of what India stands for.

7. Justice Lokur first congratulated Dr Tharoor and called his work ‘eminently readable’. Besides, he elaborated that right from the 1950s and 1960s, the Constitution has been showcasing itself as an organic or living document, further evident in the case of Ramesh Thapar, and also, the report presented by Justice Venkatachaliah. He agreed that there had been an assault on certain areas of the Constitution in recent times, but he undeniably opines that it would survive any such assaults and would continue to epitomise the said values of India, citing examples such as the recent Supreme Court prescription of time limits for governors to act on bills.

8. Elaborating on this, Mr Sardesai posed a question to Adv Sibal, asking him whether there is a need to review the basic structure of the Constitution or the way it is interpreted by the judiciary.

9. Adv Sibal first congratulated Dr Tharoor, exchanging a few light remarks with him, on how Dr Tharoor is in the wrong profession, when he should have actually been a full-time author. He then went on to boldly claim that there is a fault in the way we view the Constitution, as if it were to realise our dreams, and, in doing so, we forget that it is just a document; just the way a company has a charter. Referring to page 34 of Dr Tharoor's book, he said that it has been reflected in the book as well that there is no need to restructure the Constitution, but to review the structures that we, as a nation, have in place.

10. To further emphasise the said point, Mr Sardesai quoted the legendary constitutionalist Nani Palkhivala, ‘We have a first-rate Constitution, but third-rate politicians.’ Adding a few comments to it, he shifted the discussion to Ms Shubhrastha, asking for her insights on an alternative idea of India being in need of an alternative idea of the constitution, since she was formerly associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party.

11. To this, Ms Shubhrastha first reacted by saying that she was not there as part of the BJP, but rather as an individual in herself. She further extended her congratulations to Dr Tharoor and turned back to the moderator's question by claiming that since the Constitution has been adopted by ‘we, the people of India’, then it should not be a problem if the same people want a review, even of Ambedkarite ideas.

12. She quoted the example of Dakshayani Velayudhan, the only Dalit woman in the constituent assembly, who was an ardent critic of Dr BR Ambedkar. She further pressed for an honest review on the First Amendment and asked critical questions about why the Constitution makers could not wait for the first general elections before formulating the Constitution that was to represent people's voices and aspirations.

13. The moderator acknowledged the ideas and exemplifying the existence of inequalities, especially in rural settings, turned to Ms Moitra for her remarks on how the rural masses view the constitution.

14. Ms Moitra congratulated Dr Tharoor, claiming that the book is an ‘easy read’ and went forward to call him a ‘scholar’ for the said piece. She gave reference to page 32 of the book, which puts forth the view that without equality and fraternity, the Constitution can be implemented only by a constable.

15. Further, she emphasised that she hails from an area where people have never once read the Constitution. Anything the people view as ‘visceral’ or of importance to them, we see them calling upon governments to act in favour of their rights. People there have no idea about the Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles of State Policy, but they have in them a sense of the same, which is testament to the fact that we have, in fact, ‘imbibed the constitution.’

16. Adding to it, Mr Sardesai turned to Dr Tharoor, stating that his party went out saying Samvidhaan khatre mein hai (‘the Constitution is in danger’), but if, according to Ms Moitra, the people ‘already know,’ then whether it was an attempt at fear mongering on the part of the Indian National Congress.

17. To this, Dr Tharoor replied by claiming that the statement was largely in relation to the reservations that seemed to be in danger, which was why his party went out with it.

18. Dr Tharoor revealed that he has personal views on politics because to him ‘the personal is the political.’ He went on to also include the Ambedkarite vision of fraternity in the discussion, emphasising that it was not there in the first draft, but Dr Ambedkar deemed it necessary that people be reminded of their fraternity and thus, gave birth to the idea of constitutional morality.

19. Elaborating on that, he added that within around six years, there were two absolutely opposite viewpoints presented by the Supreme Court, in the cases of Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati, respectively. This, again, points to the evolving nature of the Constitution.

20. Mr Sardesai chimed in to pose a question that fraternity is a unique Ambedkarite term, but the said fraternity is not evident when parties speak of narrow identities. Thus, he pressed for the views of Dr Tharoor on such narrow identities being key drivers of people's aspirations.

21. Dr Tharoor pressed that fraternity is about having the viewpoint that we are one and have the exact same rights. This is to say that a Tamil speaker will have the same rights as a Hindi speaker. The fraternity principle is to apply to all.

22. Adv Sibal interjected that the debate was getting ‘too academic.’ This was because, he believes, the Constitution ‘does not want to work for the people.’ It is a document that envisions certain principles that act as checks and balances upon the government and various institutions enshrined in the constitution.

23. Mr Sardesai intervened with a light-hearted remark, claiming that Adv Sibal was ‘anti-establishment while being a part of the establishment.’

24. The discussion was carried further with Ms Shubhrastha commenting that the society should be allowed to evolve on its own. Citing the example of how the father of Karpoori Thakur (former Bihar Chief Minister) was called by their village zamindar to do his hair, even after his son had become the CM. She used this example to testify that we can not release ourselves from who we are, and if she is a Brahmin and is being asked to chant a few mantras in a public space, she can very well do it.

25. She went further to evoke the viewpoints presented by Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in relation to chiti, the self-consciousness created by dharma, which he believed sustains India as a nation. Every nation has its chiti, and it should evolve on its own.

26. Thereafter, Ms Moitra intervened and quoted page 62 of Dr Tharoor’s book, which says that Upadhyaya had a problem with why the Constitution did not reflect Manusmriti ideas and since the Indian identity is equivalent to Hindu identity, others who had come from outside (Muslims) should be accorded the same. She went on to say that she was glad such viewpoints were rejected by the constitution-makers. She also claimed that if being a Brahmin would allow someone to chant mantras in a public space, the same people should not feel threatened when someone else chants Allahu Akbar.

27. Mr Sardesai then turned the conversation to Justice Lokur, prompting if judges are always status-quoists on such matters.

28. To this, Justice Lokur commented that the debate was becoming political. He invoked the Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati cases, using them as evidence to claim that the Constitution is, in fact, evolving.

29. Mr Sardesai intervened to ask if there is a selective interpretation of rights.

30. To this, Justice Lokur promptly replied, ‘no.’ He gave an example of the ADM Jabalpur case and also highlighted the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Agreeing that there have been ups and downs, he views PIL as an important component.

31. There were some additional comments on the ADM Jabalpur case; the basic structure of the Constitution; articles 359, 20, and 21; and religion being the private affair of an individual that must not be made part of a party.

32. Thereafter, Dr Tharoor made a few final remarks, stating that the Prime Minister calls the Constitution his only sacred book and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—which was once against the idea of the constitution, is now swearing on the constitution. This is, in itself, a testament to the Constitution being a living document. Besides, there have been a hundred and six amendments, and these need to be viewed as a strength, not a weakness.

Concluding Remarks

Finally, Mr Sardesai opened the floor for questions to the audience, with the panel answering each question in depth. The panel discussion came to an end with the closing remarks of Mr Sardesai, which were followed by the book signing session by Dr Tharoor.

Ends.

The author, Maleeha Parvez Wani, is a Junior Editor at Ramjas Political Review.

Featured image credit: The Hindu Photo Archives