Sabarimala reference will ultimately decide whether 1948 constitutional compromise between religious freedom and social reform still holds in India where religion is both intensely personal and fiercely political
The US and Israel’s assassinations of Iranian leadership ended up bestowing martyrdom on those killed. Shias saw the deaths as a continuity of martyrdom from the Battle of Karbala.
India’s fast-growing data centre sector may strain state electricity networks; Central Electricity Authority has urged Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu to boost capacity.
Theaterisation, which aims to divide the forces into three theatres with specific areas of responsibility, will become the single most far-reaching reform that the Indian military has witnessed since independence.
China patiently invested capital, skill and technology in coal gasification. Unlike it, we won’t move from words to action. As crude prices decline, we lose interest.
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
What a disaster.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective