NCERT Solutions Exploring Society: India and Beyond Chapter 10 The kabaddi rulebook — LET'S EXPLORE

Book page 212 Updated on2026-09-05

Q1.
Discuss in your group what might have happened if there was no official rulebook that the referee and the team captains could refer to. What is required to ensure everyone agrees to abide by the rulebook? What might happen if the team captains did not agree to refer to the rulebook at all?
Answer

If there had been no official rulebook, the dispute would have had no honest way of ending. The two captains would each have insisted on their own version; the referee's word could have been challenged as personal opinion; the match might have been stopped, replayed, or awarded by shouting rather than by rule. The team that was stronger, louder or better connected would have won the argument — not the team that was actually right.

What is required for everyone to abide by the rulebook:

  • The rules must be written down and public before the match, not invented during it.
  • They must be the same for both teams — no special rule for the favourites.
  • Everyone must have agreed to them in advance, so that following them is a promise already given.
  • There must be a neutral person — the referee — with the authority to apply them.
  • The rules must be seen as fair; people obey rules willingly when they believe the rules protect them too.

If the captains refused to refer to the rulebook at all, the game would collapse into a quarrel. There would be no way to decide who won, the tournament could not continue, and future matches would be pointless because no result could be trusted.

Why it happens: a rulebook works not because it is powerful but because it is accepted in advance by everyone it applies to. The moment one side refuses to accept it, the only thing left to decide the outcome is force. That is exactly the danger a country without a constitution would face.
Q2.
Think of a game that you play often and list the rules you follow. Each group will then present their set of rules to the rest of the class. Listen to each presentation, discuss the rules, and work together to decide on a common set of rules for the game. What challenges do you face in reaching a consensus on rules that everyone agrees with?
Answer

How to do this activity: pick one game the whole class knows — gilli-danda, kho-kho, langdi, cricket in the gully. Each group writes down the rules exactly as it plays them (do not correct them yet). Present, compare, then argue your way to one shared set. Write the final set on a chart and put it on the wall.

Sample answer: our group chose gully cricket.

RuleHow our group played itHow another group played it
Ball hit into the neighbour's compoundBatter is outSix runs, and the batter fetches the ball
One-tip-one-hand catchCounts as outNot out
Number of players per sideSixWhoever turns up, split evenly
Who bats firstThe team that owns the batToss a coin
Deciding an lbwNo lbw at allThe bowler's team decides

The challenges we faced in reaching consensus:

  • Every group thought its own habit was the ‘real’ rule, simply because it had always played that way.
  • Some rules quietly favoured whoever proposed them — the bat owner batting first, for instance.
  • The strong players wanted strict rules and the beginners wanted flexible ones.
  • A few disputes had no neutral judge, so both sides felt cheated.
  • Getting everyone to give up something was the hardest part — consensus needs compromise.
Why it matters: the Constituent Assembly faced exactly this problem, only on a national scale — 299 members from different regions, professions and social groups, all with different ideas of what was fair. Dr. Rajendra Prasad warned that democratic institutions need “willingness to respect the viewpoint of others, capacity for compromise and accommodation”. That is the same skill you needed for one set of gully-cricket rules.
Q3.
What could be the ‘rulebook’ for a country? How would it be made?
Answer

The rulebook for a country is its constitution. As the chapter says immediately after this question: “Our Constitution is something like a rulebook for the country.”

How it would be made — and how ours actually was made:

The people elect representatives → the representatives form a Constituent Assembly
→ the Assembly includes members from every region, profession and social group
→ a Drafting Committee prepares the initial text
→ every clause is debated, amended and voted on in the Assembly
→ the Assembly adopts the final document
→ it comes into effect on a fixed date and binds the whole country

Notice what makes it a rulebook rather than an order: it is drawn up by the people through their representatives, not handed down by a king or an outside power. That single sentence is what the Preamble's opening words — ‘WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA’ — are saying.

Check it yourself: compare the two rulebooks. The kabaddi rulebook says what a player may do; the Constitution says what the government may do. Both protect the weaker side from the stronger one.
Was this helpful? Report an error