India just celebrated its 61st Independence day, a day all school children would remember as flag hoisting, march past, and candy distribution day. But shouldnt it be a day when we look back and see how far we have come.
When our forefather wrote the constitution they had ingested the constitution of several other countries to actually figure out the contents. In doing so they have created what is the longest constitution in any part of the world and filled it with so much of contradictions and vagueness.
In its 61 years of existence there has been almost 100 amendments to the Indian constitution. Further, the constitution of India is applicable to the state of jammu and kashmir with exceptions and modifications. In fact there are a number of exceptions that rule the north-eastern states of India. What crap?
I think in their desperation to showcase “unity in diversity” they went too far to create a spaghetti of notes that contradict here and there, needing amendments. How else can you explain the huge number of amendments.
By specifying minorities the constitution of India opened a pandora’s box of discrimination even though the basic premise was equality of people. Instead of ruling that religion and the state are separate and thus provide for the intended secular framework, it went ahead to define religious minorities and provides for special privileges to them. Right from establishing education institutions, charitable institutions and provides for government aid to these. I believe they are free from taxation of any kind too.
Well what about the sikhs, buddhists, jains and others. They are all bundled with the hindus (so they are no longer minorities, I guesss!)
While the constitution of the USA forbade congress from making any laws: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, the constitution of India provided the state power to establish rules in this regard.
Wait a minute, isnt there some confusion: US constitution talked about religion as a whole, Indian constitution talks about minorities in religion and providing for their rights. How can you talk about secularism, when you “provide” for some religions. Cant a simple law just like the Americans be enough?
Article 16 of the constitution talks about backward classes. Thats the only time it mentions that word I guess. I dont think there is any mention of what constitutes a backward class, since it is very clear in separating out scheduled caste and scheduled tribes.
Indian “Hindu” social framework has been plagued with caste. For years and years, kings and rulers who ruled over India were able to make use of this disparity and rule the masses. Politicians today also make use of this to their own advantage.
Untouchablity was forbidden by the constitution of India. Instead of expanding it to eliminate the caste based discrimination, we still distinguish people based on their caste. When do you think discrimination will be eliminated? Not as long as one is stamped with his or her caste.
I support the reservations for backward classes. It is an affirmative action I have no doubt about it. But on one side it does create a rupture. How many castes have divided themselves into sub-castes to make sure they their kith and kin become part of the category that gets the maximum benefits, the OBC for instance.
What defines if a caste belongs to BC/OBC/MBC. I’ll leave it to you to figure out. It is really a worthy quest.
