Lethargic IITian
Musings of a 20-something lethargic IITian on India and Catholicism.

Wednesday, May 08, 2002  

In a typical rightist criticism of the NCRWC, Arvind Lavakare writes:

It is not really shocking therefore that the NCRWC chose to ignore three burning issues that have constantly created controversy in the 52 years that our Constitution has functioned. These issues demanding resolution once and for all are:

  1. definition and scope of the word 'secular' appearing in the Constitution's Preamble;
  2. the dumped directive of a Uniform Civil Code for citizens (Article 44 of our Constitution);
  3. Article 370, which has undeniably perpetuated a dangerous separatist feeling in Jammu & Kashmir state.

By ignoring these three explosive issues and instead recommending several relative inanities, the NCRWC chose to light merely damp squibs -- and that too with different-sized matchsticks -- rather than creating one large, luminous glow with a brilliant sparkler.

First, the demand to define word secular in the Constitution. The immediate question is - why does Mr. Lavakare wish only elaborate on secular? Why not sovereign, socialist, democratic and republic? After all, none of these terms are defined anywhere else as well.

Next, Article 44. It is not clear exactly what Mr. Lavakare wants - it already exists as a directive principle; what more does he want? And why does he not include Articles 39A, 43A and 47 in his list of "dumped" directives?

Finally, Article 370. In a state where the Constitution itself is hardly recognised, what does Mr. Lavakare wish the NCRWC to do?

It might interest Mr. Lavakare to know that among the "relative inanities" addressed by the NCRWC include the right to free legal aid, the right against prolonged and unreasonable incarceration and the right to compensation if that happens.

The obsessive focus on religion and religious aspects of life, policy, politics, Government and Constitution by right-wingers like Mr. Lavakare does nothing except direct public attention away from those spheres of Indian life that really merit attention. Why this discussion on "secular" if it is immediately clear what it means? Does Mr. Lavakare wish for India not to be a Secular State? Or for that matter, the imposition of the UCC - when the Govt has failed miserably in protecting the right to life and nutrition - why does Mr. Lavakare insist that attention be diverted to a Uniform Code on marriage, divorce and inheritance?

posted by Kensy | 9:25 AM
Comments: Post a Comment
past blogs of interest
Hinduism as a religion
Pederasty and the American Church
Caste in Indian Christianity
Syro-Malabar engagements
Syro-Malabar weddings
Divine Retreat Centre
Varsha Bhosle and Ideological Relativism
Anti-Conversion Ordinance and the Church stance
Self-Righteous Rightism
The Hindutva Attack on St. Francis Xavier
Varsha Bhosle and the Church (U-turn)
Mail me! (replace the [AT] with an @)