What do Indians think about it?

[Anubis]

But be careful then! You'll get treated to never ending "Rabindra Sangeet". How will your compatriots like that?

Rabindranath is popular in Bangladesh and we have no problem listening to him.Even Golam Azam praised him....so you understand even Jamatis respect him,lol!

Did you know Microcredit in BD was actually inspired by his philanthropic activities!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Rabindranath is popular in Bangladesh and we have no problem listening to him.Even Golam Azam praised him....so you understand even Jamatis respect him,lol!

Did you know Microcredit in BD was actually inspired by his philanthropic activities!

I was only joking, please. There is still a great deal of respect for Rabindranath in BD. Regardless of the misinformation peddled here by some.
Of course on my visits to BD; I also went looking for Kazi Nazrul, the revolutionary poet who ranks up there with Tagore (IMO).
Then who can overlook Lalon Fakir who could distil the loftiest ideas into the simplest language.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

Look brilliant on paper but hard part is implementation

 

[bronxbull]

They should change it simple,to Preamble Dharmic Commonsense republic.

 

[cloud_9]

They should change it simple,to Preamble Dharmic Commonsense republic.

How would that help ???

 

[bronxbull]

It would,certainly help.

 

[rubyjackass]

Are you suggesting that India was not secular till Indira Gandhi came along..? There is plenty in the constitution to make the secularism part amply clear, the preamble by its very definition can only accommodate so much. In any case, that is my opinion & I'm not really too bothered by that word being there. If it makes you happy so be it, who am I to grudge you that.

A parallel example: Domestic violence is a crime even without the recent act against the crime because any violence is violation of people's liberties. But still the act was made. Same way Nirbhaya act was made. What was the necessity?

Haters of the Congress see every action of Congress action as an anti-national or minority appeasement act. The ammendment to the preamble came by before the rise of BJP so it was not targetting them for political reasons as some saffronists try to make it to be. And communism was the strongest force opposing Congress then still the word socialist was added.

The ammendment simply plugs gaps in the constitution by specific use of words. So tomorrow a tea party cannot come in India and claim that the 40% under poverty line are there because they have no personal responsibility. BJP cannot come and say India can be made a Hindu state without any contradiction with constitution because Hinduism guarantees all the things in preamble like liberty of religion etc(because apparently Hinduism is such a tolerant religion and a way of life in itself, it has a solution for everything. Sounds familiar? Ask Pakistanis if not)

By the way why are these saffronists worried? The preamble is not legally enforceable. But then people wearing religious blinders are like that. Half knowledgeable to allow for BS to creep into the other half.

 

[Bang Galore]

A parallel example: Domestic violence is a crime even without the recent act against the crime because any violence is violation of people's liberties. But still the act was made. Same way Nirbhaya act was made. What was the necessity?

The connection does not quite hold. This is the preamble we are talking about, the constitution makes it quite clear that India is meant to be secular. Adding more words in the preamble does not necessarily change anything.

Haters of the Congress see every action of Congress action as an anti-national or minority appeasement act. The ammendment to the preamble came by before the rise of BJP so it was not targetting them for political reasons as some saffronists try to make it to be. And communism was the strongest force opposing Congress then still the word socialist was added.

As I said pointless, that is getting into realm of policy. If a non-socialistic party were to contest, would they be disqualified? And why should everyone follow socialism as a dogma? No difference from saying you are a communist state. or an Islamic one.

No idea what you are talking about when you are referring to my post. Hater I'm not. Common sense would suggest that it was members of the very Congress who gave us the original constitution.

The ammendment simply plugs gaps in the constitution by specific use of words. So tomorrow a tea party cannot come in India and claim that the 40% under poverty line are there because they have no personal responsibility. BJP cannot come and say India can be made a Hindu state without any contradiction with constitution because Hinduism guarantees all the things in preamble like liberty of religion etc(because apparently Hinduism is such a tolerant religion and a way of life in itself, it has a solution for everything. Sounds familiar? Ask Pakistanis if not)

That is silly. Anyone with a 2/3rd majority can reverse that particular amendment and then claim what you say they might. The guarantee against such an assertion does not flow from the preamble but from the judgement of the Supreme Court (Basic structure doctrine).

By the way why are these saffronists worried? The preamble is not legally enforceable. But then people wearing religious blinders are like that. Half knowledgeable to allow for BS to creep into the other half.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to me amd my views which I can assure you meets with no approval from any "saffronist".

 

[rubyjackass]

The connection does not quite hold. This is the preamble we are talking about, the constitution makes it quite clear that India is meant to be secular. Adding more words in the preamble does not necessarily change anything.

The connection holds perfectly. You simply hand wave that the constitution makes it quite clear that India is a secular country. Please find another single piece of clarity in the constitution than this word. It may be unnecessary but is a one more protection for the nature of our constitution.

As I said pointless, that is getting into realm of policy. If a non-socialistic party were to contest, would they be disqualified? And why should everyone follow socialism as a dogma? No difference from saying you are a communist state. or an Islamic one.

You are mistaken about the purpose of the constitution. A non-socialist party will not be disqualified. It can freely amend the constitution once it gains enough power and do whatever it wants, even taxing rich people progressively lesser. Besides as I said, the preamble is not legally enforceable and only conveys the spirit of the constitution. Socialism can be as simple as progressive taxation we have today or the ration shops. You should check for yourself why you hate socialism so much.

No idea what you are talking about when you are referring to my post. Hater I'm not. Common sense would suggest that it was members of the very Congress who gave us the original constitution.

I did not call you a hater. I was telling you about haters. If you can see, there are others who carry your views but only because Congress made those amendments(which is not accurate btw)

That is silly. Anyone with a 2/3rd majority can reverse that particular amendment and then claim what you say they might. The guarantee against such an assertion does not flow from the preamble but from the judgement of the Supreme Court (Basic structure doctrine).

Well, think how many years it would take for 2/3 rds of the House to stand on a common cause like that. That is an assurance enough. And if 2/3rds of the House stood and struck down this amendment in future then we as people are responsible for making such leaders and we deserve the strike down.
FYI the basic structure doctrine came into being only in the 1970's. SO if people were nervous back then, it is understandable.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to me amd my views which I can assure you meets with no approval from any "saffronist".

I am not calling you a saffronist. As I understand, your views would overlap with those of a so-called fiscally conservative republican.

 

[Bang Galore]

You are mistaken about the purpose of the constitution. A non-socialist party will not be disqualified. It can freely amend the constitution once it gains enough power and do whatever it wants, even taxing rich people progressively lesser. Besides as I said, the preamble is not legally enforceable and only conveys the spirit of the constitution. Socialism can be as simple as progressive taxation we have today or the ration shops. You should check for yourself why you hate socialism so much.

I'm nether against secularism or socialism (as an idea). Not seeing additions to the original as being desirable is not the same as being opposed to the idea.

Well, think how many years it would take for 2/3 rds of the House to stand on a common cause like that. That is an assurance enough. And if 2/3rds of the House stood and struck down this amendment in future then we as people are responsible for making such leaders and we deserve the strike down.
FYI the basic structure doctrine came into being only in the 1970's. SO if people were nervous back then, it is understandable.

That is not really relevant. I doubt anyone would bother even if they did have 2/3rd majority. That is not my point. It theoretically can still be reversed.

There was little chance in the 1970's for anyone to be worrying much on this score. What or whom would they have been worried of? This, imo, was just political chicanery . There were no one more secular than the founding fathers & no time more filled with anxiety than the period immediately after partition.

I am not calling you a saffronist. As I understand, your views would overlap with those of a so-called fiscally conservative republican.

...and you would be wrong. Don't be too quick to compartmentalise. My opinion would be far more centrist. My objections here is to the addition of words not present in the original, not against their presence in itself. Reading too much into an argument is the bane of too many here. Don't add yourself to that list.

 

[rubyjackass]

I'm nether against secularism or socialism (as an idea). Not seeing additions to the original as being desirable is not the same as being opposed to the idea.

That is not really relevant. I doubt anyone would bother even if they did have 2/3rd majority. That is not my point. It theoretically can still be reversed.

Theoretically India can write itself another constitution. We have spent more years as a country with the word secular in constitution than without.

There was little chance in the 1970's for anyone to be worrying much on this score. What or whom would they have been worried of? This, imo, was just political chicanery . There were no one more secular than the founding fathers & no time more filled with anxiety than the period immediately after partition.

Fine, It was political chicanery. But I disagree if you call this a bad addition.

...and you would be wrong. Don't be too quick to compartmentalise. My opinion would be far more centrist. My objections here is to the addition of words not present in the original, not against their presence in itself. Reading too much into an argument is the bane of too many here. Don't add yourself to that list.

Glad to be corrected. I made the guess because you asked whether 'non-socialists' will be barred from forming a government. There is nothing wrong with being a republican.