Talking to Subhash C. Kashyap is a bit like getting a private lesson in the history of India's Constitution. From parliamentary rules and conventions followed and broken to constitutional practice, he has everything at his fingertips. He was, after all, a witness to a lot of it as it was happening between 1952, when he joined as legislative officer, and 1990, when he retired as secretary general of the Lok Sabha. "I have been a keen student from the outside after my retirement," says the man who will turn 90 soon.

We are at his residence in south Delhi's Sainik Farms; trees line his manicured garden. His study is full of books - possibly a hundred of these are by Kashyap himself. Some more, we are told, are in the pipeline. Most of the books are on the Constitution of India and Parliament.

"I keep myself busy writing on new subjects and I travel a lot," he says from behind his large desk, even as his fingers drum away on an iPad out of habit.

A huge television is mounted on one of the study walls. An English news channel is airing a panel discussion; the squares are dissecting PM Narendra Modi's speech in Parliament during the July 20 no-confidence motion. I ask Kashyap about fractious relations between the government and the Opposition, in Parliament and outside it, and how it was very apparent during the recent proceedings.

He replies, "What leaders today forget is that political rivals are not adversaries. Opposition is supposed to be just the other side. Both are supposed to work for good governance. Terms like 'Congress- mukt Bharat' have vitiated the atmosphere. But this slide in political discourse has been happening for some time. I also blame the ruling parties of the past. They treated some in the Opposition as untouchables."

As is his wont, Kashyap has an anecdote ready. He talks of an incident in Parliament sometime in the early Sixties. C. Rajagopalachari of the Swatantra Party moved an amendment to a proposed law. But Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then the prime minister, saw no merit in it. Nehru also pointed out that the majority of the House was anyway with him. Rajagopalachari shot back, "You may have the majority but I have the logic." Says Kashyap, "Nehru was magnanimous enough to incorporate the amendment. That was the beauty of the Indian Parliament then. The size of the Opposition did not matter."

I bring up the no-confidence motion again and how the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Sumitra Mahajan, is said to have given the Congress relatively less time to speak as compared to the lion's share that the ruling party got. Kashyap says, "Speakers are within the rules to do that. But in the past, they gave almost an equal amount of time to either side. The numbers didn't matter. I say it again, it all boils down to relations between the ruling party and the Opposition."

But aren't Speakers supposed to be impartial arbiters? He explains, "That is true. But you should also understand that Speakers want the majority of the House to be on their side."

It was also during the same debate in Parliament that the Speaker repeatedly took umbrage to any reference to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Anybody even mentioning the name invited rebuke. Kashyap hears me out. It seems he didn't follow the debate on television, but he does iterate that the fundamental rule of Parliament is that everybody is free to express themselves.

"In fact, one is protected by the defamation law on what one says in Parliament. Only the rules apply. The law clearly states that you cannot abuse anybody who is not there to defend himself or herself, but I see no reason why merely naming an organisation like the RSS should be denied by the Speaker," he says.

Kashyap desists from commenting on Mahajan, but he does say that "like other Speakers" she has been sensitive to the "will of the majority". A far cry from those days, when the Speaker took it as a personal insult if any member pointed out that he or she was biased. He recounts how Speakers such as Vithalbhai Patel and G.V. Mavalankar didn't mind ticking off the high and mighty in the government. "Mavalankar didn't allow Nehru to speak twice on an issue as the rules didn't allow it. The PM, too, accepted it gracefully. That would be unthinkable today."

The veteran says he is appalled at the plunging quality of debates in Parliament and also at the poor attendance during law-making. There has been a huge dip in the quality of wit and humour too, he complains. But one thing he concedes is that every subsequent Parliament has been more representative than the previous one.

India's Constitution has come a long way since Kashyap's days as a young officer in Parliament. Would the framers of the original Constitution recognise it today, I ask. In response, he offers a joke. It is about how somebody went to a bookshop to ask for a copy of the Indian Constitution and was told that the shop didn't stock periodicals. He says, "It is definitely not the same Constitution. We have had 101 amendments so far, which is remarkable. But I dare say that even the framers of the Constitution would have changed according to the times. It is a dynamic document."

Calling the Constitution the "greatest national integrational force", Kashyap says its one big merit has been its adaptability. "No Constitution in the world that came into being after World War II has survived this long. That is its greatest strength. Secondly, the Constitution was made in the spirit of adjustment and accommodation. The final document was acceptable to all interests and groups, no matter how different we were in terms of language, religion and other differences. In less than three years, they presented a Constitution that was acceptable to all."

Kashyap has one big grouse though. He says, "We didn't break any new ground after Independence. We continued with the same old colonial system. We have the same district magistrate, same police and the same chaprasi. The transfer of power didn't take place between the British and the people of India; power was transferred from the white sahibs to the brown sahibs."

According to Kashyap, India should have opted for a Constitution that was truer and closer to the history of the nation and the ideas and ethos of the people. In his words, a "Gandhian constitution".

He himself had dabbled in politics way back, when in college. He had been president of the law college in Allahabad, a post he won after having spent a princely sum of Rs 250 on canvassing for support. Thereafter, his father, Banarasi Das, who was a Congress leader, warned him that he should leave politics for good.

Kashyap kept his promise. He says, "My father was my greatest model. He left politics the day India got Independence. Nehru had sent Govind Ballabh Pant to persuade my father [to change his decision]. But he refused and stayed away from politics forever."

He speaks warmly of his father's generation as one that stood for something they believed in. "They were sacrificing to serve the people but subsequent generations of politicians saw it differently. Politics became more of a profession to get rich quickly. A majority of politicians are in it to make money and enjoy power."

Kashyap talks about corruption that is rampant throughout the country. The rampant communalism pains him, he says. The recent lynchings too have shaken him. He tells me, "Politicians couldn't care less for religion. It is used as a means, so are language and caste. You cannot pin the blame on any one political party. Even politics in the name of secularism can be blamed for the state we are in."

It's been a long chat and Kashyap is drumming his fingers impatiently on the iPad again. I figure it is a wrap and he is itching to get back to his writing. Taking the cue, I seek his leave.