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:
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