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
PILs are increasingly dominated by 'busybody or meddlesome interloper' petitions filed for 'notoriety or cheap popularity', often at behest of political or business rivals, it argues.
No side is playing by the Constitution in letter and spirit, and India is hurtling into a grey zone where rule of law is no longer the yardstick for anything.
Indian liberals haven’t yet realised the political effectiveness of Hindutva constitutionalism. They treat the Constitution as the final, self-evident political text.
By pairing Indian drone engineering with Japanese semiconductor expertise, the two firms aim to develop more advanced autonomous systems tailored to both defence & commercial use.
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