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
On 19 December 1946, Hansa Mehta delivered an address in the Constituent Assembly, calling for equality of status and opportunity for women in independent India.
In Assembling India’s Constitution: A New Democratic History, Rohit De and Ornit Shani show how upper-caste Hindus tried to protect caste privilege by presenting themselves as a minority under threat.
The article to adopt Hindi as the official language of the Union was moved by . Gopalaswami Iyengar. The fact that he was from Madras has been exploited to assert that non-Hindi members welcomed Hindi, wrote P Kodanda Rao in 1988.
India is celebrating its 76th Republic Day. In this edition of ThePrint Quiz, let’s test your knowledge of the Constituent Assembly and the Constitution.
On 16 June 1949, KM Munshi argued in the Constituent Assembly that the election commission must balance independence with central oversight to ensure impartiality and practicality.
On 6 December 1948, TT Krishnamachari spoke in the Constituent Assembly during a debate on Article 19, supporting it as it is, including how it's framed in the matter of religion.
On 26 May 1949, Constituent Assembly member Tajamul Hussain argued against the idea of reservation for Muslims, adding that such measures would do ‘more harm than good’.
Bench led by CJI has used term 'pregnant persons' in judgment & explained why. Last year, CJI had stoked controversy by observing that there was no absolute concept of man or woman.
India did not choose to move away from Iran for oil; it was forced to. The fact that India managed the costs of this transition efficiently does not convert them into gains.
Increase in employment subsidy, Rs 500 crore for estate revamp, new townships in pipeline—but land cost, power breakdowns and inspector raj top among key worries for industry leaders.
CDS Anil Chauhan says future space capability will not be built by government agencies alone. ‘It will be co-developed with industry, start-ups, and technology innovators’.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
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