Hindu Republic of India/hindustan ???

[अखण्ड भारत!!!]

Can be done but only titular

 

[Sergi]

@Dillinger : have to go now but will back in two days. Will post more in details then.
If I am not wrong it was the Gokuldas case that defined it and later changed by GOI limiting courts review rights on the basis of law is interfering FRs the core structure of constitution. Thats how the Nationalisation and Pension cases of formerly princely states were handled.

 

[Dillinger]

You right for the current scenario. I am not doubting or saying its wrong. I am providing the way to change the constitution

Constitution assembly was also a parliament then. And they had made the provisions for review on timely basis. so parliament is top if not absolute power. To make it so Problem is court. Article 368 has given enough power to limit judiciary's sphere of influence. I DONT SUPPORT THAT THOUGH

Both the Parliament AND the judiciary have limitations imposed upon it by the constitution.

THE PROBLEM WAS THAT MADAM JI DECIDED THAT IT WAS HER BAAPU'S JAAGIR, UNDER ARTICLE 329A SHE DECIDED THAT "the elections of the Prime Minister and Lok Sabha Speaker outside the purview of the judiciary and provided for determination of disputes concerning their elections by an authority to be set up by a Parliamentary law." IN DOING SO SHE DID EXACTLY WHAT I STATED, LIMITED THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY IN A MANNER THAT WAS NOT LEGAL IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS INTRA VIRES FOR THE PARLIAMENT AND ATTEMPTED TO ALTER THE PARLIAMENTARY FRAMEWORK WHICH WAS CONSIDERED A BREACH OF A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. HAVE YOU WONDERED WHY THE EC IS A CONSTITUTIONAL BODY AND NOT ONE SET UP BY THE PARLIAMENT, EVEN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WASHED AWAY BY HER.

ANY AMENDMENT THAT ATTEMPTS TO ALTER SAID PRINCIPLES IS IN ITSELF CONSIDERED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO "CHANGE" THE CONSTITUTION. IN THIS RESPECT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF IS A TOOL FOR ENACTING SAID CHANGE AND THEREFORE NO DISTINCTION IS MADE UNDER THE LAW.

 

[my2cents]

Funny because other Indian who read my comment realized my sarcasm.

then its my bad...

 

[Pakistani-nationalist]

What is NAMO?

 

[Cherokee]

Hindu Republic of India will be as shitty as Islamic Republic of Pakistan .

 

[longewala]

India already is a "hindu" state, because the hindus are in a massive majority, and the guiding principles are "Hindu"

Which it means is respect and tolerance towards all religions. That's why, unlike Pakistan, so many different religions still thrive in India, why we gave sanctuary to faiths such as Jews and Parsis who were being persecuted by the Abrahamaic religions.Go back through history, you will find countless muslim rulers who murdered millions of people because of their religion. How many Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh kings did that?

 

[Koovie]

OMG, cant believe that this thread has over 10 pages by now....

 

[PlanetWarrior]

@Nexus @janon

Children (not you Janon), you need to learn constitutional law.

An amendment to the constitution itself is not as easy as people make it out to be. On top of that the Supreme Court of this nation has a standing ruling, which clearly states that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered under any circumstance.

Now there may be posters here who think that these are trivial issues in the face of an alleged popular demand for a Hindu theocratic state. No they are not trivial, in fact even if a vast horde of people "disagreed" with the principles of the constitution it would still make no difference, its nature in word and spirit are preserved under the SC's ruling and none of us have the right to countermand the SC's authority on this short of trying to get the SC to overturn its ruling- best of luck with that.

Let this be clear, you can ONLY be a loyal Indian if you follow the constitution in word and spirit. Your morality, your religiosity and your alleged saintly nature are irrelevant. Which imaginary friend up in the clouds tickles your fancy is irrelevant and so is your adherence to any and all norms of society banal or otherwise. What is relevant is that a nation at its core is NOT just "the people", it is defined by the institutions that it devolves unto the people and the document that guides all its actions- the constitution. The constitution in its nature and spirit, in the basic principles enshrined in it, is a promise to the people, said promise cannot be altered. Moreover the Constitution itself confers unto the Parliament a limited power of amendment.

Now if you insist, contact a lawyer, the Basic Structure Doctrine is extremely clear- the basic structure of the constitution CANNOT be amended EVEN by an amendment or any action of the parliament. The twenty features defined as basic include "secularism".

In fact in response to the 24th Parliamentary amendment of 71 the SC bench in 73 made it even more clearer as to what the Parliament could do and could not. This is based on the simple and succinct principle that the power to amend does not equate to the right to destroy. Ergo while the Parliament decided to confer upon itself the power (under the 24th amendment, back then) to even "alter" fundamental rights conferred upon the citizens yet the Parliament would be compelled to stop short of attempting to alter the very nature of the constitution itself. Perhaps I will elaborate upon the events that transpired after 73 such as the 39th and 42nd amendment, the emergency or the Minerva Mills V. Union of India case etc. later. Till then, if anyone is interested in further elucidation, please contact @Indischer or @SarthakGanguly and arrange for the necessary fees to be paid for availing said service, I'm not going to trace the history of this matter and list out the details of each ruling, case and following amendment for free.


This question reminds me of a query a young poster here once made, that would the army rise up to back a populist struggle and overthrow the government in order to realize the dream of a Hindu state.


I will leave you all with the following, "Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into an absolute power. Indeed, a limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed. In other words, Parliament can not, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot be the exercise of that power to convert the limited power into an unlimited one." Mind you even Indira Gandhi at the height of her power did not have the balls to challenge the above.

My friend, your submissions are typical of a typical lawyer or jurist. Offcourse you seem to forget that the constitution is merely a piece of paper, drafted by people elected to power which records the will of the people at the time that the constitution was drafted. The mentality, wishes and mindset of people change from time to time. Hypothetically, if the BJP and Modi had to win a 80% mandate from the people and hold a 80% seat in parliament, does it still remain your view that the constitution cannot be amended and that the Supreme Court will block any moves to amend the constitution ? I suspect that you restrict yourself in your submissions to the coalition politics which has dominated India since its independence. Again, the constitution is merely a piece of paper. Internationally there are various countries where a large majority elected government took the constitution and used it as toilet paper. Without applying my mind for an example, Zimbabwe and President Mugabe's ZANU PF is such an example

 

[Dillinger]

My friend, your submissions are typical of a typical lawyer or jurist. Offcourse you seem to forget that the constitution is merely a piece of paper, drafted by people elected to power which records the will of the people at the time that the constitution was drafted. The mentality, wishes and mindset of people change from time to time. Hypothetically, if the BJP and Modi had to win a 80% mandate from the people and hold a 80% seat in parliament, does it still remain your view that the constitution cannot be amended and that the Supreme Court will block any moves to amend the constitution ? I suspect that you restrict yourself in your submissions to the coalition politics which has dominated India since its independence. Again, the constitution is merely a piece of paper. Internationally there are various countries where a large majority elected government took the constitution and used it as toilet paper. Without applying my mind for an example, Zimbabwe and President Mugabe's ZANU PF is such an example

Sure, if you had a mind to you could scrap the constitution. Why go as far as Zimbabwe, there are plenty of examples in our own neighborhood.

The point is that IF the government in question wishes to do the "deed" in a legal manner and within the confines of democracy then it cannot be done even under the circumstances painted by your post, IF it wants demolish the very edifice on which our nation is based then anything is possible. BUT if it does resort to the latter then we shall no longer be the Republic of India.

 

[janon]

My friend, your submissions are typical of a typical lawyer or jurist. Offcourse you seem to forget that the constitution is merely a piece of paper, drafted by people elected to power which records the will of the people at the time that the constitution was drafted. The mentality, wishes and mindset of people change from time to time. Hypothetically, if the BJP and Modi had to win a 80% mandate from the people and hold a 80% seat in parliament, does it still remain your view that the constitution cannot be amended and that the Supreme Court will block any moves to amend the constitution ? I suspect that you restrict yourself in your submissions to the coalition politics which has dominated India since its independence. Again, the constitution is merely a piece of paper. Internationally there are various countries where a large majority elected government took the constitution and used it as toilet paper. Without applying my mind for an example, Zimbabwe and President Mugabe's ZANU PF is such an example

Well to consider all possibilities, of course the constitution can be scrapped or its basic struture stripped away. But then what we would have is a different nation, not the present Republic of India. Heck, a military coup can also do that. Or a civil war. There are many ways in which a nation can cease to exist and a new nation be formed. The present day France is called the Fifth Republic of France. Four other republics of France existed before, and went into history when their constitutions were overthrown.

OMG, cant believe that this thread has over 10 pages by now....

You would be pleasantly surprised to note that the discussion has been polite and fruitful, with no trolling (yet). I reported the thread as soon as it was started, thinking that nothing good can come of it. I'm happy to have been wrong on that.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Sure, if you had a mind to you could scrap the constitution. Why go as far as Zimbabwe, there are plenty of examples in our own neighborhood.

The point is that IF the government in question wishes to do the "deed" in a legal manner and within the confines of democracy then it cannot be done even under the circumstances painted by your post, IF it wants demolish the very edifice on which our nation is based then anything is possible. BUT if it does resort to the latter then we shall no longer be the Republic of India.

Well, we will always be the Republic of India even if we are tied down by a dictator. A Republic has nothing to do with democracy. The legal manner is dictated by parliament and not the courts. The constitution in itself is clear about the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary with neither to interfere unnecessarily in the others mandate. The constitutional prerogative of the courts is to determine whether the laws of parliament fall within the scope of the constitution. If parliament had to lawfully and with a clear majority suspend or abolish the constitution then the courts wouldn't be favored with that authority anymore. Hence, to return to the topic on hand, India can be renamed the Hindu Republic of India or even the Islamic Republic of India. All that is required is a clear will of the people to do so. That clear will means at least 75% of the electorate voting in a political party which is hellbent on changing the nature of the political landscape of India. Thus far however it seems that Indians unlike our neighbors don't believe in giving too much power to any individual or any sole political party and hence the coalition nature of Indian politics. Whilst this remains the status quo, Muslims and other minorities remain safe and sound in India

 

[janon]

What is NAMO?

Historically, a praise to god - to be exact, it means "I bow [to god]". Currently it is used as a short form for NArendra MOdi.

Well, we will always be the Republic of India even if we are tied down by a dictator. ...

That's not true, "republic" means governance by the people collectively. Dictatorship is contrary to that, by definition.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Historically, a praise to god - to be exact, it means "I bow [to god]". Currently it is used as a short form for NArendra MOdi.



That's not true, "republic" means governance by the people collectively. Dictatorship is contrary to that, by definition.

The broader term of a Republic is also a state which excludes governance by a monarch. Usually referred to a state which obtained independence from a monarch. No dictator rules his or her country solely. They usually have a click of their buddies and claim that they rule with a mandate from the people. Hence many dictatorships are also called Republics

 

[janon]

The broader term of a Republic is also a state which excludes governance by a monarch. Usually referred to a state which obtained independence from a monarch. No dictator rules his or her country solely. They usually have a click of their buddies and claim that they rule with a mandate from the people. Hence many dictatorships are also called Republics

"Claim" being the operative word. Fact is, if they do have popular mandate, then by definition they are not dictators. North Korea can call itself "people's republic", but it is anything but.