ok, so both words were inserted during emergency
On 31 July 1980, in its judgement on
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two provisions of the 42nd Amendment which prevent any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any Court on any ground" and accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the Fundamental Rights of individuals respectively.
heh, so Indira tried to make any amendment binding and beyond the courts question. Didn't last very long
So people will say look Indira did it therefore any govt can. Well, yeah but it can be overturned after as well. And the only way she managed to do it was by locking up the opposition so they couldn't protest or resist.
They need to be scrapped and a uniform and irreligious code created in order to define itself as a secular country. Similarly, all govt institutions should be alienated from religion or its influence. No Puja's during starting ceremonies or at a later point in govt institutions. No Puja's when ISRO sends rockets into space, no religious idols or pictures in govt offices and no wearing of religious symbolism for govt employees while at work.
Why though. The way secular is implemented depends on the legal system. In countries such as ours we have common law from the British. The other is civil law that stretches from France, Russia, Turkey all the way to China. In a civil law system laws can be passed that ban any religious symbols on govt premises or govt agents and even further intruding at the personal level. I think this goes too far given the unrest it has caused. It's rare to hear of any controversies about religious symbols in common law countries but its frequent in civil law countries notably France. The key distinction is the legal system in place, a fact that tends to be mostly overlooked in reporting. What the French do will be interpreted as discriminating against muslims from a common law pov because we don't do the same thing here. Well, the French legal system allows them to pass laws like that on the basis of secular. The state can explicitly say what you cannot do.
No chalk, bangles, threads, veils, crosses or other religious symbols to be worn. Now the state is intruding in your personal space and telling you what you cannot wear. That's what the Taliban do in the name of religion. Here the argument is on secular grounds. What is the difference ? How long can such a policy be expected to last in this country
A common law system tends to be more accomodating. India allows these symbols in all their diverse variety. I don't see it necessarily impinging on the secular fabric of the country. What is the problem with puja's, symbolic aren't they and not anything more. A matter of custom
The biggest obstacle you will face with this idea is inertia. The majority and i mean Hindus, Muslims & Christians are reasonable satisfied with the status quo. Changing the status quo will be resisted. Where is the overriding incentive ?
Actually, they do already. There are laws which If not in letter, but in spirit have been made for religious appeasement. For example, the ban of cow slaughter is very arbitrary. Even if its passed under the "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock", its imposition is arbitrary and the true spirit of the law can be clearly seen as appeasement of religious sentiments rather than protection of live stock. In many of the states where its imposed, it is fine to slaughter other live stock animals like buffaloes, sheep, goats etc.
I've always understood cow slaughter to be protection of lifestock because India was and still is predominantly agricultural. You can interpret this as appeasement but i do not.
Bear in mind that once lifestock has passed its working age, 14 years it does end up in slaughter houses and this serves as income for farmers. So even though there is a ban you still get beef. And here the ban according to subramaniam swamy is restricted to just indian cows
bos indicus because they yield the best quality milk apparently.
Bos taurus isn't included in cow slaughter. That's the theory anyway, in practice things will be different. Whether laws on the books are actually followed or not. We have this habit of letting things find a natural equilibrium until some rabble rousers show up and upset things
The bottom line here is whether religion is being used as a basis for making law? I don't think there are any instances in the country where that is the case. They've been lapses in the past on political grounds but those are exceptions not the rule