From a physics grad heading home ministry to an English scholar in agriculture, 49 of 57 secretary-level IAS officers in posts at odds with their educational qualification.
With 20.2 percent of its total loans in default by the end of last year, Bangladesh had the weakest banking system in Asia. Despite reforms, it will take time to recover.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
You really are a bad journalist aren’t you ? Heavy heavy opinion based articles such a as yours are key to polarising this country into a “republican” and “democratic” affair.
SC made a decision which took a few years and 2 different governments to get through. India has taken a good step, instead of celebration all you can think of where to point the finger at , why must every story that this publication has is a finger pointing story designed to get a lot of clicks on social media ?
It’s a day that will go down in the history of a young nation stuck with old laws, isn’t advancement in thought enough for you. Had the govt interfered “what right does the govt have to take a stand on what SC says “ would’ve been the call .
For god sakes , celebrate something major has happened towards human rights . Stop polarising and think twice before writing an article thinking
1. Am I doing this for attention and click bait ? Cause if I am doing
This for that then I am endangering freedom of thought by putting opinions as news
2. Am I doing this to report on what happened.
Get a life, learn how to write without opinion first.
I think this issue is not one of a tussle between the government and the Supreme Court. The government, particularly when it is ruled by a coalition comprising very few parties if not by a single party choose more often than not a stand that is generally not in conflict with the sentiments of the people. The government has its own rhyme and reason for doing so and it is understandable too. This issue of the Section of 377 was that of one having a far reaching consequences for the government to take a firm stand on. However, it is not difficult to imagine what the government’s stand would have been if it chose to take it. It would in all probability have been for retaining the said Section notwithstanding its feeling that it went against the fundamental rights of the concerned. It was as such a dilemma for the government like “to be or not to be” Hence they found out a wise and safe way out of leaving the matter to be decided by the Court as per their wisdom and now we have the judgement. There are two important points in this issue if not more. One is that of morality for a safe, sound and healthy society to continue and another is of fundamental rights of the concerned individuals as enshrined in our Constitution. The Courts, particularly the Apex would always by the Statute and decide the issue and the present judgement is absolutely in keeping with the said principle. The other point, in my view over-weighs the Constitutional provision, that is morality, and healthy human species and healthy society. The Constitution, however noble that we may say or think is after all man made and is subject to changes if the situation so warrants and changes have taken place therein by umpteen Amendments over the time. It is not unconstitutional to amend it if it is so warranted. Vis-a-vis this the another point is that of healthy human species, society and morality particularly of Indian people. This morality arsing from doctrines command us to follow the rules of the Nature as a civilised society since ages. India has a special status in this regard compared to the other countries of the world for civility, morality and honouring, respecting and thus nurturing the Nature. It is in this context of Indian values that there is a justification for retention and continuation of the said Section 377 prohibiting homosexuality, gay-marriages etc. We are too much influenced by other countries of the world where this type of life pattern is allowed and being practised. This has influenced our society demanding repeal of the said Section. Indian society should, instead have been insulated from other countries at least in this particular respect. Damage and consequences that may follow in the wake this judgement would be irreversible and therefore it s wise to stitch quite in time to prevent the same.
Such articles may widen the chasm between the executive and the judiciary. In our kind of democracy, the ruling party cannot go against the ‘khap’ sentiments without sacrificing a part of its vote bank. Let the SC take such decisive steps in such cases. There is no harm in their complementing each other.
Please do not paint this issue as a battleground between political leadership versus judiciary. Politician is reflective of general popular will which in India is conservative. Judiciary is not perimeter-ed by popularity and is based on justice and fairness. Both are two important pillars of democracy and supplement each others by the ‘separation of power’.
Many people decry judicial activism; Shri Shekhar Gupta cannot forgive Their Lordships for intruding into the domain of his beloved world of cricket. But consider how much of the heavy lifting we all expect the judiciary, especially the apex court, to do on our behalf. The executive, often so oppressive and overbearing, can turn surprisingly diffident and reluctant to decide on important issues. Time and again, the apex court has shown us why we are right to trust it as India’s foremost public institution.
You really are a bad journalist aren’t you ? Heavy heavy opinion based articles such a as yours are key to polarising this country into a “republican” and “democratic” affair.
SC made a decision which took a few years and 2 different governments to get through. India has taken a good step, instead of celebration all you can think of where to point the finger at , why must every story that this publication has is a finger pointing story designed to get a lot of clicks on social media ?
It’s a day that will go down in the history of a young nation stuck with old laws, isn’t advancement in thought enough for you. Had the govt interfered “what right does the govt have to take a stand on what SC says “ would’ve been the call .
For god sakes , celebrate something major has happened towards human rights . Stop polarising and think twice before writing an article thinking
1. Am I doing this for attention and click bait ? Cause if I am doing
This for that then I am endangering freedom of thought by putting opinions as news
2. Am I doing this to report on what happened.
Get a life, learn how to write without opinion first.
4 wise men and a lady.
I think this issue is not one of a tussle between the government and the Supreme Court. The government, particularly when it is ruled by a coalition comprising very few parties if not by a single party choose more often than not a stand that is generally not in conflict with the sentiments of the people. The government has its own rhyme and reason for doing so and it is understandable too. This issue of the Section of 377 was that of one having a far reaching consequences for the government to take a firm stand on. However, it is not difficult to imagine what the government’s stand would have been if it chose to take it. It would in all probability have been for retaining the said Section notwithstanding its feeling that it went against the fundamental rights of the concerned. It was as such a dilemma for the government like “to be or not to be” Hence they found out a wise and safe way out of leaving the matter to be decided by the Court as per their wisdom and now we have the judgement. There are two important points in this issue if not more. One is that of morality for a safe, sound and healthy society to continue and another is of fundamental rights of the concerned individuals as enshrined in our Constitution. The Courts, particularly the Apex would always by the Statute and decide the issue and the present judgement is absolutely in keeping with the said principle. The other point, in my view over-weighs the Constitutional provision, that is morality, and healthy human species and healthy society. The Constitution, however noble that we may say or think is after all man made and is subject to changes if the situation so warrants and changes have taken place therein by umpteen Amendments over the time. It is not unconstitutional to amend it if it is so warranted. Vis-a-vis this the another point is that of healthy human species, society and morality particularly of Indian people. This morality arsing from doctrines command us to follow the rules of the Nature as a civilised society since ages. India has a special status in this regard compared to the other countries of the world for civility, morality and honouring, respecting and thus nurturing the Nature. It is in this context of Indian values that there is a justification for retention and continuation of the said Section 377 prohibiting homosexuality, gay-marriages etc. We are too much influenced by other countries of the world where this type of life pattern is allowed and being practised. This has influenced our society demanding repeal of the said Section. Indian society should, instead have been insulated from other countries at least in this particular respect. Damage and consequences that may follow in the wake this judgement would be irreversible and therefore it s wise to stitch quite in time to prevent the same.
Such articles may widen the chasm between the executive and the judiciary. In our kind of democracy, the ruling party cannot go against the ‘khap’ sentiments without sacrificing a part of its vote bank. Let the SC take such decisive steps in such cases. There is no harm in their complementing each other.
Please do not paint this issue as a battleground between political leadership versus judiciary. Politician is reflective of general popular will which in India is conservative. Judiciary is not perimeter-ed by popularity and is based on justice and fairness. Both are two important pillars of democracy and supplement each others by the ‘separation of power’.
Many people decry judicial activism; Shri Shekhar Gupta cannot forgive Their Lordships for intruding into the domain of his beloved world of cricket. But consider how much of the heavy lifting we all expect the judiciary, especially the apex court, to do on our behalf. The executive, often so oppressive and overbearing, can turn surprisingly diffident and reluctant to decide on important issues. Time and again, the apex court has shown us why we are right to trust it as India’s foremost public institution.