The Constitution of India is dedicated to the ideas of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Any identification, beyond that of being ‘Indian' is not secular.
To say that only the Muslim vote can stop Modi, or limit his mandate, is unfair to Hindu majority. It is as if all Hindus have joined RSS and have no faith in constitutional secularism, which is rubbish.
What do Indians want in a democracy? Quick and decisive action that may not have political consensus or frustratingly slow decision-making that endures long after the decision is made?
Air India’s new policy, effective from 2 May, introduces new weight limits for tickets in each of the different 'fare families' — Comfort, Comfort Plus, and Flex.
New Delhi has, in past, too, objected to Chinese construction activities in Shaksgam Valley. Work in this strategic region gathered pace after the 2017 Doklam stand-off.
A theme has not yet emerged for BJP & people see lack of a contest, which makes it unexciting. For all these reasons, 2024 is turning out to be an unexpectedly theme-less election.
Secularism in practice means the right to live and let live, irrespective of the religious identity. The foremost trait of a secular person is that he / she conducts himself / herself on the priniciple of Insaniyat and does not believe in the supremacy of one’s own religion over the other.
Having said so and lived life on these principles I find it quite disturbing that
1) Some Muslims still believe that Hindus are kafirs and encourage conversions of Hindus to Islam.
2) Where- ever muslims are in majority they do not let others survive; through coercion and other despicable means. Kashmir valley is pointer to this and Indian state has forgotten the sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadur for this cause.
3) Why should largesse be given to anyone based on the faith?
4) Is it not a fact that muslims are denied access to good education by the fundamentalists amongst them and are thus don’t get out of the fanatic mindset?
Mr Shashi Tharoor likes of you are not serving the country but are working for selfish ends.
Pl get out of this siezed mentality and work on the principle of Insaaniyat.
first your party needs to exist at all to oppose it.
More importantly, you are explaining the tenants of appeasement politics, the one bane of this nation that has taken it down toilet drain politics.
Mr. VC, as regards Q. 1, as per Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala, a 13 judge bench of the SC deemed that the “Basic Structure” of the constitution cannot be altered. I invite you to google the same. That said, it is not improbable that a pliant 15 judge bench can be found to overturn this judgement given the governments attempt to have a greater and probably a partisan say in judicial appointments. This is a matter of grave concern for one and all.
Why should they? It was introduced as an amendment by a dictatorial regime in emergency to suite its appeasement policy. If the due process of amending is followed Appex court has no say in it. And funding only a section of society with money snatched from other is not secularism. Construction should not provide for any discrimination
I find this a nicely written article on the subject esp. liking the fact that you have quoted the views of the Opposition Ideologist without bias, while making and not losing your point of argument in its light. This made it a wonderful read for the sheer balance of approach.
And I am thankful for the print to have made it available to ordinary citizens through its page.
While not as much as this article, but if I may, I would like to draw attention of yours to two pertinent questions related to constitutional amended and readers like me to further the discussion.
Will you be kind enough to post a response, or drop a mail to my Inbox. Yours thoughts and feedback will be much appreciated.
1. Is anything or everything in the Constitution be kept open for Amendment ? What if everytime a Govt is elected, it amends the actions of Previous Govt? And if this goes in a cycle? Is their any restriction and safeguard? Or will it be called the Beautiful Sways of the Democracy and people of the country will be tuned to dance along forever?
2. As the political situation is developing in the States especially down in the South and the general voting public mood is moving distance away from BJP unlike in 2014, there is a growing possibility of repeat of the early/ mid 1990s scenario when there was no national party that could claim the mantle of power at the Center.
Then supposing for argument that if 2019 election throws up a Regional Party Coalition Front to Power, do you think such event could avert this Amendment crisis and potential threat to the Constitution ?
As the States are coming out with their own regional agendas with demanding larger say and federal powers delegated to them, will such Power directly given into their hands, lead to further degradation of social balance and fuel regional instability amid internal power struggles of the coalition?
How do you see that future post 2019 elections supposing people denied either the BJP or Congress a full majority in the house?
Secularism is not just a word, much less a superfluous one. It is one of the basic features / structure of the Constitution, which cannot, by virtue of an important Supreme Court judgment, be altered. Inserting socialism and secularism in the Preamble may have been part of Mrs Gandhi’s emergency enterprise. However, removing that word, at a time when majoritarian impulses abound, would be deeply problematic. It would almost certainly be struck down by the apex court.
Indian society is becoming more and more communal after inclusion of word secularism in the constitution,
Secularism in practice means the right to live and let live, irrespective of the religious identity. The foremost trait of a secular person is that he / she conducts himself / herself on the priniciple of Insaniyat and does not believe in the supremacy of one’s own religion over the other.
Having said so and lived life on these principles I find it quite disturbing that
1) Some Muslims still believe that Hindus are kafirs and encourage conversions of Hindus to Islam.
2) Where- ever muslims are in majority they do not let others survive; through coercion and other despicable means. Kashmir valley is pointer to this and Indian state has forgotten the sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadur for this cause.
3) Why should largesse be given to anyone based on the faith?
4) Is it not a fact that muslims are denied access to good education by the fundamentalists amongst them and are thus don’t get out of the fanatic mindset?
Mr Shashi Tharoor likes of you are not serving the country but are working for selfish ends.
Pl get out of this siezed mentality and work on the principle of Insaaniyat.
first your party needs to exist at all to oppose it.
More importantly, you are explaining the tenants of appeasement politics, the one bane of this nation that has taken it down toilet drain politics.
I second Mr.VC,.. very true and to be taken into consideration.
Mr. VC, as regards Q. 1, as per Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala, a 13 judge bench of the SC deemed that the “Basic Structure” of the constitution cannot be altered. I invite you to google the same. That said, it is not improbable that a pliant 15 judge bench can be found to overturn this judgement given the governments attempt to have a greater and probably a partisan say in judicial appointments. This is a matter of grave concern for one and all.
Why should they? It was introduced as an amendment by a dictatorial regime in emergency to suite its appeasement policy. If the due process of amending is followed Appex court has no say in it. And funding only a section of society with money snatched from other is not secularism. Construction should not provide for any discrimination
Hello Mr Shashi.
I find this a nicely written article on the subject esp. liking the fact that you have quoted the views of the Opposition Ideologist without bias, while making and not losing your point of argument in its light. This made it a wonderful read for the sheer balance of approach.
And I am thankful for the print to have made it available to ordinary citizens through its page.
While not as much as this article, but if I may, I would like to draw attention of yours to two pertinent questions related to constitutional amended and readers like me to further the discussion.
Will you be kind enough to post a response, or drop a mail to my Inbox. Yours thoughts and feedback will be much appreciated.
1. Is anything or everything in the Constitution be kept open for Amendment ? What if everytime a Govt is elected, it amends the actions of Previous Govt? And if this goes in a cycle? Is their any restriction and safeguard? Or will it be called the Beautiful Sways of the Democracy and people of the country will be tuned to dance along forever?
2. As the political situation is developing in the States especially down in the South and the general voting public mood is moving distance away from BJP unlike in 2014, there is a growing possibility of repeat of the early/ mid 1990s scenario when there was no national party that could claim the mantle of power at the Center.
Then supposing for argument that if 2019 election throws up a Regional Party Coalition Front to Power, do you think such event could avert this Amendment crisis and potential threat to the Constitution ?
As the States are coming out with their own regional agendas with demanding larger say and federal powers delegated to them, will such Power directly given into their hands, lead to further degradation of social balance and fuel regional instability amid internal power struggles of the coalition?
How do you see that future post 2019 elections supposing people denied either the BJP or Congress a full majority in the house?
Secularism is not just a word, much less a superfluous one. It is one of the basic features / structure of the Constitution, which cannot, by virtue of an important Supreme Court judgment, be altered. Inserting socialism and secularism in the Preamble may have been part of Mrs Gandhi’s emergency enterprise. However, removing that word, at a time when majoritarian impulses abound, would be deeply problematic. It would almost certainly be struck down by the apex court.