Comments by "suraj s" (@surajs5913) on "10 key consequences of Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi 47 years ago" video.

I am sure the victims of nasbandi were happy too. If only indira had done the same with her children, people would have been all the more happier...
6
@panjangaboh4551 @nit d why weren't the two words added by the constituent assembly? What were the arguments and counterarguments presented in thr constituent assembly debates? Those are enough to understand why these two words have no place in the constitution
4
Indira said "garrebi hatao" and then did nasbandi so that "gareebon hatae"
3
@nitd955 i am sure you are stupid and prejudiced, arent you?
1
@satyanarayanavenkata9327 yes , only a few rulers like hitler, stalin and mao zedong could outdo her in terms of guts...
1
@satyanarayanavenkata9327 if thats your standard of assessment, then putin too must have great guts, seeing how he has remained the tsar of russia for so long... he has won through democratic process time and again, what guts he must have!
1
@panjangaboh4551 why were they not added specifically? The reasons for the omission are discussed in detail. Have you read those reasons?
1
@accountnotfound4209 its not whataboutism. Its your ignorance if you dont know why those terms were not added. Ambedkar himself states the reason for the omission of the two words. What you are engaging in know is called the denial of history or the suppression of history.
1
@panjangaboh4551 answer the question - what were the reasons put forward by the constituent assembly? The justification regarding socialist now lies in shambles after the 1991 economic reforms. But if the constitution is dynamic, then let the people decide if the words socialist and secular should remain in the constitution. You cannot say its part of basic structure according to your whims and fancies. The people will decide what is the need of the hour.
1
@panjangaboh4551 coming to the crux of the matter, you have no justifiable argument in this case. All you have ate moral platitudes to failed ideologies. Any position you take results in the same eventuality. You have no refuge in this debate, no defensible standpoint. But you can always resort to name calling and silencing your opposition...
1
@panjangaboh4551 its not that you dont need to defend it, its just that you are logically incapable of defending it. Its not your choice but an inevitable outcome that is a consequence of actual recorded history. Flinging names and tags on me with rosy english wont change the reasons asserted in the constituent assembly debates, reasons that are valid to this day. It doesnt change the fact that these words were added by effectively a dictator who ravaged the constitution in such a vile manner as never seen before or after her tenure.
1
@panjangaboh4551 why was it not included by the CA then? Were they egoistic too? Or do you hurl abuses only at people who you disagree with? They gave their reasons, it is you who insult them by pretending that these reasons are non existent. They gave their reason without any ambiguity to make their stand clear, but you prefer to ignore it or twist it to fit your own prejudices. That is why you cannot answer the simple question - why did the constituent assembly not include those two words? I did not ask you what they thought or wanted. Neither of us are mind readers to know what those long dead men and women thought. That however can be inferred from what they said on public record and how they acted. You are the one here hellbent on imposing your will with on everyone else with no regard to history or the will of the present generation . That is why you cannot answer the simplest of questions.
1
@panjangaboh4551 answer the question, no need to obfuscate or impose your ideology. I never claimed anything about the nature of the constitution. But you will not answer the fundamental question since it goes against your grand narrative. The answer to this discussion can be found in the CA debates and those reasons remain valid to this date.
1
@panjangaboh4551 oh i can digest it. I am just apalled at the state of this secular India, where temples are taxed and controlled under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments act, an act with colonial roots that has sustained itself for 75 years in this secular India under the auspices allowing selected bureaucrats and elected legislators to decide how religious institutions should be run for only the majority denomination of hindus. Such magnificent secularism is appalling to me. I would much prefer a hindu rashtra over this sham and embaresment. We know how secular and socialist India is. We know why SIT was formed after 2002 but not after 1990. We know how the economic blunders before 1991 was attributed as the "hindoo rate of economic growth". And we remember who exactly stood by our side and who turned a blind eye. Call me what you want. I am tired of reasoning with an idiot like you. The time for talking and reasoning is over. Best to act and be done with it.
1