Abolition of Article 370 requires only public notificatioj by the president. No amendmemt of the constitution under Article 368 is required.
For complete answer as well as explanation please watch the video by clicking on the link below.
मानवीय मूल्यों की कमी और इतिहास की अज्ञानता या, इतिहास का गलत ज्ञान आज हमारे देश की सभी समस्याओं के पीछे मूल कारण हैं। चर्चा करें|
For watching the lecture on the above topic visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5p55Euft0&t=3s
"WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST1 SECULAR1 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE - social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity1 of the Nation.
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, this twenty-sixty day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSLEVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
Philosophy of the Preamble
"Preamble is the key to open the brain of the constitution makers" (Reberu Bari Case). Preamble tries, and tries successfully, to tell in form of formula what is told in detail in the text. Even, it takes to the reader into the brain of the constitution makers. It discloses the intention of the makers of the constitution. It is the thing of daily experience that every intention is not executed into action. There is always a gap, what one conceives and what he actually writes on paper. This can happen in the case of the constitution also. Preamble helps you to read between the lines of the constitution. Whenever there is an ambiguity as per interpretation of any article of the constitution, preamble helps you to get the real and clear meaning of the same. In this way preamble is just not the summary of the constitution, it is something more than that. It broadens the horizon of meanings and scopes of the constitution. Thus, the preamble is not only the part of the constitution (Keshavanand Bharti vs. The State of Kerala, AIR 1973, SC 1416 case) but the very Kernel and the spirit of the book.
Broadly, preamble tells about three things. One, where does the ultimate political sovereignty lies? Second, What is the nature of the constitution? Third, what are the goals and aims of the constitution.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution is the source of all laws of the land. But the Preamble tells that constitution is not the business of the scholar only. It’s just not the brain child of craftsmen of laws. It is the expression of will and wish of the people of the land - We, the people of India, the makers of the constitution. Thus, the ultimate political sovereignty lies with the people of the land, and the constitution is the expression of the will of the people.
The preamble also tells about the nature of the government and the position of the state. The declared intention of the preamble is to make India Sovereignty Socialist, Secular, and Democratic Republic.
Sovereignty means, India is no more dependent, no more subject to colonial power. India is free in her internal and external business, devoid of any subjection to any external force. A few people have objected the sovereign status of India because of her being member of Common Wealth of Nations. But the objection is just sentimental without logic. India is a member of Common Wealth of Nations not out of compulsion, not out of obligation, just out of courtesy. India joined the Common Wealth of Nations on her own and can secede as per her will and wish from it.
Prior to the 42nd amendment Act of the Constitution Indian Constitution and Constitution makers had avoided the explicit use of the term socialism for India and for the Constitution. Now preamble claims clearly India a socialist. The intention behind the insertion of 'socialist' is not to back up any particular ideology but to underline the concept of equality and fair play among the people which the term socialism loudly sounds. Though the very insertion seems to be slightly redundant because the very purpose of the fair play and the equality, which socialism guarantees, had already been fulfilled by the preamble by securing justice - Social, Economic and Political.
By the 42nd Amendment Act of the Constitution the term secular was added into it and this too seems to be a bit superfluous because already there was freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, which the term secular implies. India is secular in her own fashion, in the Gandhian fashion. India is a land of many religions and cultures. Pluralism is the beauty of India. More the fair play, more the peace among the various groups and the communities of India more she is beautiful. More the hatred, more the enmity less beautiful she remains. Indian secularism is not blind copy of Western secularism. The difference lies in the difference of the history of the respective lands. The renaissance of the European nations was declaredly without religion, one can say against the religion, and Indian renaissance is naturally within the religion. In Western world, a secular man is one who is without the religion at the public place, so the western nations are. But in India a secular man is not supposed to be without religion whether he is in the four walls of the house or on the street or at any public place. Rather, every Indian is expected to be religious in every walk of life guaranteeing, consciously or unconsciously, his behaviour is not hurting the conscience of the others. In India secularism is an attribute to be carefully adorned with by every individual. By making India secular, the Constitution makers intended to make every person, any person bear the sense of responsibility to take care of religious health of India. Indian secularism is loaded with more Dos and less Donts. India is secular it does not mean that India is religiously neutral. It’s not a negative adjective which imposes limitations. Its rather a positive attribute which generates the equal warmth towards all religions. Secular means India is not theocratic country that is why not committed to any one sect, but it does not mean that she is committed to none. It does mean just committed to all with equal warmth.
Its surprising that India is both democratic and socialist. Democracy places individual in the centre of all activities, whereas socialism takes care of society even at the cost of the well being of the individual. A nation can be either socialist or democratic. In India since the dawn of the civilisation the existence of every entity and its growth and development has been treated in terms of mutual dependence not in mutual struggle. In the view of Indian socio-political-philosophers the interest of the individual is not in the way of welfare of the society. Rather, these are interrelated and intra-dependent. The interest of the individuals collectively become the interest of the society. In this way both the democracy and socialism can walk hand-in-hand.
Like democracy republic form of government is not new to the political thinkers of India. Both Mahavir and Buddha were from republics. The term Gana was used in the Rigveda. The only difference between the republic of the today and that of yore is that the head of the republican states in ancient India were elected by limited franchise. The head of modern Indian republic is indirectly elected for a limited period and his electoral college consist of the elected members who are directly elected by the universal adult suffrage.
Hitherto, we have discussed the nature now we turn towards the aims and goals of the Constitution. All round justice is the foremost goal targeted to be achieved. Social justice is preferred to the economic justice and economic justice preferred to the political justice. Constitution makers had deliberately put the justices in the given sequence i.e. social, economic and political. Political justice means every Indian has one vote and every vote carries equal value. But, the political equality makes no sense in the realm of economic disparity. Thus, the economic growth with equality is underlined. But why the social equality prior to the economic equality? Is anything more important in ones life than a square of meal a day? Or, is any standard other than economic more important for the people of the modern world? In the Indian context the answer is yes for all aforesaid interrogations. In India, caste ridden India, economic status of the people has not always been responsible to decide the social standards of the people. Most of the artisans and craftsmen who have been comparatively, economically, better of came from lower caste, most of them treated as untouchables. Hence, in India the all round justice can never be attained unless the discrimination on the basis of caste is abolished.
India is a land of many religions. Hinduism is major all the rest are minor. Different religions have got different modes of worship and different means to express their conscience.
The Constitution aspires to secure the equality of status and opportunity to every citizen. What is the equality of the status? Does it imply that every citizen will hold same status? Or, probably it means that person will enjoy the status of the rank or the post irrespective of his caste or creed. Constitution also tries to provide same amount of opportunities to the citizen of India. Equal opportunity does not mean that everyone will have the same and identical opportunities. We have to be very clear in our mind that Constitution guarantees equal status or opportunity not identical status or opportunity. Thus, it does not discard the application of reasonable and rational discrimination while securing status and opportunity to its citizens. It means different people may be given different nature and number of opportunities as per their social, educational and economic circumstances.
What is fraternity? Sense of belongingness. Each treats other as his brother. The moot point is to respect the self and ego of every individual as his own self and respect. Constitution guarantees that the dignity of every citizen is taken care of and respected. But simultaneously the indivisibility of nation is also maintained. The personal ego should not take over the unity and integrity of the nation. Here the addition of Integrity into the preamble is a smart business, unlike the addition of socialist and secular. There is a subtle and qualitative difference between unity and integrity. Unity denotes physical oneness. Its an apparent and concrete display of physical and external discipline. Integrity is something abstract and internal. It denotes the cultural and spiritual underpinning of the personality of a man or of a nation. One can say in difference living together is unity, loving together is integrity.
The preamble also informs when the Constitution was finally drafted and enacted. Also tells it was not only enacted but adopted and given to the people themselves. ‘Adopt, enact and give to ourselves’ words convey more meaning in this context than they otherwise do. When we adopted our Constitution became the organic part of our body, its no longer a law book dealing with heartless intricacies of our laws. It feels as a very tender heart is throbbing within the text and the blood which is making it to throb is same which is running in our veins. Give to ourselves reflects the respect of giving. It means that the emotional overtoning does not take away the scope of applicability of the brain. The blending of adoption and giving is really happy blending of brain and heart. Enactment gives just the legal sanction to the Constitution.
I want to share a tickling query with the readers. The preamble starts We the people who constitutes India into such and such nature but the people are securing the rights to the citizen of India, not to the people themselves. Is this difference of people and citizen is deliberate? Constitution was drafted by the members of constituents assembly who had been elected by the electoral college which itself was elected by limited suffrage from the citizens of India. So virtually, though indirectly, these are the citizens of India who are drafting the Constitution not the people of the land. So apparently, wording could have been like ‘We the citizen of India………securing all its people’. But what is the actual sequence of wording is nothing but the marvelous reflection of Indian idealism. The idealism is that when the law is enacted its enacted with taking care of the emotions and sentiments of all the people of the land not only the citizens but the protection of the Constitution is available to only those who are good people ————– The citizens.
1. Were added to the Preamble vide Forty-second constitution Amendment Act of 1976.
Questions related to the PREAMBLE of the Constitution asked in the IAS examinations in the different years are given below for the answers of the same please click on the link given below the questions:
1. Discuss each adjective attached to the word ‘Republic’ in the ‘Preamble’. Are they defendable in the
present circumstances? (IAS MAINS 2016)
2. What was the amendment in 1975, in the preamble of the Constitution? Discuss its significance. (IAS MAINS 1983)
3. What is the significance of a preamble to a constitution? Bring out the philosophy of the Indian polity as
enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. (IAS MAINS 2004)
4. ‘Preamble is the key to the mind of the constitution makers’. Discuss (IAS Prelims 2017 )
State is an instrument in the hands of a nation. One is a whole other is a part of it. State belongs to a nation, or a nation owns a state. It can be better understood by citing an example. Under the British rule, Indian state belonged to British rule, we lived in the British state and India was our nation. Any state takes care of its nation, British rule also served for England and not for India. That is why we demanded swaraj i.e. self-rule (our state). State is also defined in article 12 of the Indian Constitution; Union government, Union Parliament, State Legislatures and State governments, Local bodies and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Indian government. When Preamble reads, "To Constitute India into Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic ", here the term India is used as a State and not as a nation.
Sometimes, nation and country (desh) are used as synonyms but they are not the same and the difference is very subtle and abstract. Likewise, there is a subtle difference between a patriot (deshbhakt) and a nationalist (rashtravadi). There was a question in IAS mains related to Rabindra Nath Tagore that he was a patriot and not a nationalist. Generally, the term country is used for rural areas and sometimes underline cultural values and folk traditions. Generally, country denotes natural surrounding. Nation is generally used in a western sense where it means a particular geographical area with political commitment and identity. Country is a natural surrounding where we are born and cannot live without.
Thus, the term patriotism encompasses humanistic values and universal approach. Thus, patriot is one who is ready to live with or die for his natural surroundings, including people irrespective of the nation the natural surrounding situated in. This tendency of a patriot makes patriotism a universal value. To sum up, State is a man created system within or outside nation, country is a natural environment with human population and nation is a feeling of belongingness with that state and country.
Now to the next part of the question i.e. the difference between Western and Indian Nationalism. Western nationalism is a geopolitical expression while the Indian nationalism is a geo-cultural expression. Western nations were created as a consequence of the formation of states. Western nationalism does not discriminate between nation and state. A sovereign state declares itself a nation. Thus, the genesis of Western nationalism is sovereign politics.
Indian nationalism is more a cultural expression than a political one. In Vedic literature, Rashtra(nation) is used for people, not for land. Here, nation is an eternal and living entity. Formation of nation is a cosmic and natural phenomenon than political business.
As a man is not merely an assembly of organs likewise nation is not an assembly of people and land. The soul comes first, generates organs and creates human entity, not vice versa. Likewise, nation comes first and everything rest that belongs to nation created by the cosmic energy of nation called Chiti (soul of nation).
To sum up, western nationalism is an artificial and political business and Indian nationalism is cultural and natural phenomenon.
Lecture link for the above answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuFtJJpD9gY&t=293s
There had been several election reforms since 1952 to make election transparent. A milestone was set by CEC(Chief of Election Commission) TN Sheshan. Before him, CEC was not known to common man. Still, a lot to be done to make election establish a healthy democratic system. A few of them can be following:
1. The Model Code of Conduct(MCC) which starts with the notification of election should be applied round the year 24×7. If Model Code of Conduct is not applied round the year and making it effective only with a notification of election the very purpose of MCC is defeated. If any candidate has been attending the cast and religious gathering more than 4 years after the previous election it becomes ridiculous to ask that person to behave caste-neutral or religion-neutral after notification.
2. Post-poll alliances should be made illegal. Only pre-post alliances should be allowed. Like 'defection' post-poll alliances also cheat on the conscience of voters because pre-poll alliances are done on the basis of ideology or in the broader interest of the national politics while post-poll alliances are done as a tool of political expediency and wasted interests of the individuals. Those who have fought elections against one-another and hurled tons of abuses on each other come together after elections to form the government. Voters feel cheated like anything. One thing more, prohibition of post-poll alliances will lead to two or three party system that will strengthen ideology based multi-party democratic setup.
3. NOTA should be given real and stronger teeth to make itself effective. Hitherto NOTA is just a ritualistic adjustment in the list of electoral reforms. It is still as ineffective as when it was not ìn existence. If NOTA receives more votes than any candidate then elections of that constituency should be declared null and void. That will force the political parties to field the candidates who are honest, above board and whose integrity is beyond doubt in the opinion of the voters of the constituency and are not rejected by them.
4. As early as possible every voter should receive the slip to get ensured that his vote has gone to the candidate he has voted for.
Last but not the least the election commission should be given more legal and judicial authority to enforce its rules and regulations and punish the culprits.