'Preamble not changeable': VP Dhankhar weighs in on Constitution debate; calls for 'reflection'
NEW DELHI: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday called the Preamble as the soul of the constitution.
Speaking at a book launch event, Dhankhar acknowledged that India was the only country where the Preamble had been amended, a reference to the 42nd Amendment enacted during the Emergency in 1976.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
'But this Preamble was changed by the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1976,' he said, as quoted by news agency PTI.
'We must reflect. B R Ambedkar did painstaking work on the Constitution and he must have surely focussed on it," PTI quoted the VP saying.
The Vice President's came following comments by RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, who questioned the legitimacy of the inclusion of 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble — a position that has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition.
On Thursday, Hosabale stirred political waters by arguing at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency that 'secular' and 'socialist' were inserted into the Constitution during a period of authoritarian rule and should now be reviewed. He said these terms were not part of the original draft authored by Dr B R Ambedkar and were forcibly added during a time when civil liberties were crushed and democratic institutions undermined.
BJP leaders including Union ministers Jitendra Singh and Shivraj Singh Chouhan said any 'right-thinking citizen' would support such a review. 'The word secularism was added during the Emergency. It should be removed. The country should think about this,' Chouhan said, arguing that equality of all religions is already the Indian ethos.
Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC echoed the sentiment, suggesting that terms like 'pseudo-secularism' have undermined India's democratic principles.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Rahul Gandhi: 'RSS wants Manusmriti, not Constitution'
Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi accused the RSS-BJP of harbouring a hidden agenda to dismantle the Constitution and deny the poor and marginalised their rights. 'RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again,' he posted on X.
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused the RSS of never accepting the Constitution. 'The RSS has NEVER accepted the Constitution of India... The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution. This was Mr Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections,' he posted on X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Amid fresh disquiet in Karnataka BJP, rejig buzz as Vijayendra faces turbulence
The recent flurry of visits by senior Karnataka BJP leaders to Delhi to meet the central leadership has again set off speculations in party circles about the possibility of an impending restructuring of the state unit, which may include the appointment of its 'full-fledged chief' and changes in key posts to accommodate rival groups. The performance of current Karnataka BJP president B Y Vijayendra and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the state Assembly R Ashoka is said to have come under the scanner of the central leadership for 'putting up a weak front' against the ruling Congress. Vijayendra, son of BJP heavyweight and ex-chief minister B S Yediyurappa, was appointed as the state party chief on an ad-hoc basis in November 2023. Ahead of the upcoming monsoon session of the state Legislature, the BJP leaders have ruffled the central leadership for their perceived 'adjustment brand of politics' with the Congress on several public issues, sources said. In recent weeks the state BJP has been perceived to have let the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government get away lightly over various rows, including the bid for a new caste survey, corruption cases, and a stampede at the Bengaluru cricket stadium involving the deaths of 11 people in the wake of alleged overenthusiasm shown by Congress leaders to felicitate the IPL winning RCB team. There has been a perception in state political circles that the Siddaramaiah government has faced more resistance from within the faction-ridden Congress rather than the principal Opposition. Some BJP leaders had even felicitated Siddaramaiah in February this year – while seeking funds for development of Bengaluru ahead of the state Budget – in a sign of camaraderie. There have also been concerns in a BJP section that the party is not geared to 'effectively counter pro-minority policies' of the Siddaramaiah dispensation, which has always been at the centre of the party's attack against the Congress. Following the BJP leadership's recent crackdown against a vocal state faction, including the expulsion of dissident leader and ex-Union minister Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, the leadership of Vijayendra and Ashoka was seen as 'unchallenged'. However, various recent developments indicate that the state BJP leadership issues have yet to be fully settled. Former state party chief and CM D V Sadananda Gowda said this week that the situation in the state unit was like a 'tinderbox' waiting to explode. 'Anything we speak is seen in the wrong light even by our own leaders. All our leaders are caught up in their own small spheres. Every day goes by in listening to the voices from these echo chambers. It creates an impression that everything is fine. I would say that everything is not okay. There is bubbling unhappiness in the party in Karnataka,' Sadananda Gowda told reporters. 'We have to come out of this factionalism and disgruntlement. Once we emerge out of this, only then will we have the strength to counter the Congress government,' he said. 'If there has to be a unanimous decision on a party leader for the state, then there should be widespread consultations, which should not be restricted to a few leaders. The state BJP core committee's existence currently is only notional. There are no issue-based discussions in the committee,' Gowda claimed. He also said the practice of the state president holding consultations with the core committee to firm up the party's strategies has come to a halt. 'The decision on whether a candidate identified to be the state president is good or bad has to be decided by the party cadre. This is not happening. Otherwise, appoint a full time president and we will adjust to working with the chosen candidate, but this is also not happening. We cannot understand this,' he said. On his part, Vijayendra has refuted suggestions that his recent visit to Delhi was linked to any possible leadership change. He however expressed hope that the leadership would soon pick a full-time state president and name him for the post. 'We are a national party. Everyone's opinion has been taken. I am confident that I have done a very successful work in the last one-and-a-half years. Our workers and leaders are confident. So it will be good… for you…and me too,' Vijayendra said Thursday in Bengaluru after his return from Delhi. 'Now the elections of 14 state party presidents across the country have been completed. Very soon a decision will be made on six or seven more states,' Vijayendra said. 'The appointment of the party presidents for Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka have not been made,' he noted, claiming that he had gone to Delhi for 'personal reasons' and that other state leaders had done it too. Even LoP Ashok's multiple visits to Delhi could not be seen as a sign of imminent changes, Vijayendra said. 'Ashok is doing a very good job as the Opposition leader. The MLAs are also satisfied with him. However, there is a discussion in the media about a change of Opposition leaders. This is definitely not right,' he argued. 'Those who were expressing dissatisfaction are now out of the party. Some others have expressed small opinions. Union minister Pralhad Joshi and others are working to resolve issues. Everything will be fine,' Vijayendra said. On Sadananda Gowda's remarks, he said, 'Gowda is a senior. I will meet him and discuss with him. I do not agree that it is a tinderbox situation. It is natural to have minor differences of opinion in a party.' The BJP leadership's decision to name Vijayendra as the state ad hoc chief had come months after the party lost power to the Congress in the May 2023 Assembly polls. This was after the party tried to move away from the shadow of Yediyurappa during 2020-2023. The decision sparked resentment in the state party as senior leaders like Yatnal, Basavaraj Bommai, Shobha Karandlaje and C T Ravi were thus forced to follow Vijayendra, a first-time MLA. In January this year, senior BJP leader and Union minister Shivaraj Singh Chouhan had said that an election would be held for the post of the Karnataka BJP president as part of the organisational polls. This resulted in Vijayendra's rivals stepping up their attacks on him. In March, the party leadership expelled Vijayendra's key rival Yatnal, suggesting that it favoured a full three-year term for him. There seems to be a view in a large section of the state BJP that the leadership would not take the risk of dislodging Vijayendra from his post as it could also cost the party a backlash from its main support group — Lingayats to which Yediyurappa and his son belong. There appears to be however some uncertainty about the continuance of Ashok despite the point that he is from the Vokkaliga community, another dominant group in the state.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
34 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
DMK slams BJP over resignation of Dalit legislator from Puducherry Cabinet
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the principal Opposition party in Puducherry, has come out strongly against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over the resignation of a Dalit legislator from the Puducherry Cabinet. Opposition leader and DMK convenor R. Siva, in a statement, said the party condemns the BJP for seeking the resignation of A.K. Sai J. Saravanan Kumar from the Cabinet headed by Chief Minister N. Rangasamy. Mr. Kumar's resignation from the Cabinet comes two years after the removal of another Dalit Minister S. Chandira Priyanga from the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in the UT. It may be recalled that Ms. Priyanga, a member of the Chief Minister's All India N.R. Congress, a major constituent of the NDA in Puducherry, was dropped from the Cabinet in 2023 as she was 'deficient' in her performance as Minister. 'Two years after the removal of Ms. Priyanga, another Dalit Minister has been removed from the Cabinet without giving any reason. There is no Dalit representation in the NDA government in Puducherry now. It is highly condemnable. The vacancy in the Cabinet has to be filled only with the appointment of a Dalit member,' the Opposition leader said. He also questioned the necessity to appoint three nominated legislators. The appointments are solely made by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the elected Assembly or the people of the UT have no role in the same, after the BJP came to power at the Centre in 2014, he said.
