Q.Rajat says the 50-year-old Constitution is outdated, nobody took his consent, language too tough — why should he obey it? As the teacher, how would you answer?

Each of Rajat's three complaints can be answered using the chapter's own logic about a constitution's living, adaptable nature and where its real authority comes from. …

On "the Constitution is fifty years old and outdated": the chapter's discussion of balanced institutional design explains that a successful constitution strikes a balance between fixed core values and enough flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances — India's Constitution is described as a "living document" precisely because it can be, and has been, amended to meet new needs over time, so its age alone does not make it a frozen or outdated relic.

On "nobody took my consent": no living citizen ever literally consents to the founding law they're born under, in any country. What actually grounds a constitution's authority, per the chapter, is not that every future citizen individually signed off on it, but that it was made by credible, broadly representative leaders acting through genuine public reason (the Constituent Assembly), and that its content — fundamental rights, equality, and even the very freedom to criticise or seek to amend the Constitution itself — continues to give every citizen, Rajat included, real and ongoing reasons to accept it. …