Latest news with #ConstituentAssembly
Business Recorder
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
ZU hosts series of dialogues
KARACHI: Ziauddin University hosted the 24th interactive series of ZU Dialogues, titled "Jinnah's Vision of Pakistan: Interfaith Harmony: Faith, Freedom & the Nation.' The event served as a tribute to the inclusive ideals of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, bringing together scholars, community leaders, and students to reflect on his enduring principles of unity, religious freedom, and equal citizenship, values that lie at the very foundation of Pakistan. In his address to students, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, Patron-in-Chief of the Pakistan Hindu Council, emphasized that young Pakistanis should move beyond religious labels. 'When you graduate and step into the world, don't see yourself or others as majority or minority, see yourselves as Pakistanis. That's the only way to honour Quaid's vision of a united nation built on mutual respect and shared values,' he said. "Quaid-e-Azam envisioned a Pakistan where every individual, regardless of faith or background, is treated with dignity and proudly calls themselves Pakistani. He believed that diversity is our strength, and mutual respect is the foundation of a united and progressive nation," he further stated. Speaking the audience, Amir Shahzad, Convener of ZU Dialogues, echoed Jinnah's iconic words: 'You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan.' He emphasized that these words are not just historical; they form the foundation of Pakistan's constitutional commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, and inclusivity. Emphasizing the need to understand Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's vision, pastor Ghazala Shafique shared that Quaid's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly in 1947 must be included in the curriculum at every level. "We want to be known as Pakistani Christians or Pakistani Hindus. Faith is personal, but it should not define our status in society. Christians significantly contributed to the creation of Pakistan, including casting the highest number of votes in Punjab in favour of it,' she remarked. Reflecting on the importance of interfaith harmony, inclusion, and unity, Sardar Amar Singh, Chairman of the Pakistan Khalsa Sikh Council, said that 'This is the Pakistan that Quaid-e-Azam envisioned, one where every community is respected. If we become honest and truthful, the vision behind our independence will truly be realized. Initiatives like the Kartarpur Corridor symbolize the peace and unity we must continue to strive for.' Dr. Syed Muzaffar Hussain, faculty member at Ziauddin University, underscored the importance of dialogue. 'Islam teaches mutual understanding and encourages interfaith dialogue. We must internalize the true spirit of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH) to build a more tolerant society,' he said. While highlighting the constitutional and societal contradictions around minority rights, Dr. Huma Ghaffar, faculty at the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Aga Khan University, said, "The issue isn't just minority protection, it's about ensuring fundamental human rights for all. Education, awareness, and pluralism must play a central role in fighting extremism and promoting equality.' In her closing remarks, former Caretaker Minister of Education, Sindh, Rana Hussain, stated, 'Pluralism is neither a religion, nor an art, nor a science; it is a mindset. It means holding in our hearts the kind of feelings and thoughts we wish not only for ourselves; but also for others. The respect, dignity, and goodness we seek for ourselves should be equally extended to everyone around us.' She emphasized the urgent need for curriculum reforms that reflect Pakistan's diverse religious and cultural landscape, noting that Sindh is actively revising its curriculum to promote interfaith harmony. Earlier in the session, Dr. Pamela Marshall, Dean, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, of Ziauddin University, reminded the audience of Jinnah's clear stance on religious freedom. 'Every individual has the right to follow their faith freely, and no one should impose their beliefs on others,' she stated. The panel discussion was moderated by Dr. Sumaira Punjwani, Principal, Ziauddin College of Nursing and Midwifery. The session concluded with an interactive Q&A session, allowing students to actively participate and engage with the speakers, further encouraging a spirit of dialogue, critical thinking, and unity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously. High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS. In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution. There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter. In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.) Hosabale's objections Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.) Also Read | Preamble politics All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication. Debates on Preamble The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji. Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away. Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…' Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this. Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended. Spirit of secularism Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble. Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani: 'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.' While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances. Eternal principles Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'? These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble? There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'. Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge? With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed. Changes in 42nd Amendment The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978. It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times. Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change. Also Read | Secularism and the state That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule? 'Socialist' constraint His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about. Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name? And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles. But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew. Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
CM Yogi greets people on Nat'l Flag Day
Lucknow: Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Tuesday greeted people on the occasion of National Flag Day. In a post on X, he said, "From peaks of the Himalayas to waves of the Indian Ocean, from the valleys of Kashmir to the streams of Kanyakumari, the 'Tricolour' is a proud symbol of the soul, identity, integrity and unity of 140 crore Indians. We all are fully committed and determined to protect its honour. Jai Hind!" The Constituent Assembly officially adopted the Tricolour on this day in 1947, just weeks before India's Independence from British rule.
Zawya
a day ago
- Politics
- Zawya
Eastern youth: 'We need representation to trust government institutions'
As part of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya's public consultations with youth on the political process, 21 youth from across the eastern region joined an online consultation on Sunday about the Advisory Committee's proposals to take Libya to elections. Highlighting their recommendations, they said youth must have representation in government institutions in order to rebuild trust with the executive which has been eroded. 'We do not trust any of the current entities. There is a large trust gap among young people and government entities because we do not have any representation,' said one participant from Benghazi. 'None of the existing bodies give space for new players,' said another participant from Benghazi. 'They do not give space to youth. We need new bodies that represent us.' Others agreed saying that the current institutions have lost the confidence of the people, with many believing they have obstructed elections because those running them wish to stay in power. Many participants suggested that Option 4, which stipulates a Constituent Assembly be selected through a dialogue forum to select an interim government and pave the way for elections, was the most reasonable way forward as it gives citizens a voice. But others advocated for options 1, 2 and 3. Option 1 suggests near simultaneous presidential and legislative elections. Option 2 suggests electing a legislature first to adopt a constitution before conducting presidential elections. Option 3 suggests adopting a constitution prior to any elections. 'We have tried options 1 and 2 before and they were unsuccessful,' said a participant from Derna. 'It is like the Advisory Committee put forward four options, the first three of which have already been done.' A participant from Benghazi argued: 'Option 4 is the best option because there is a constituent assembly, and we can be local observers.' 'Simultaneous elections will not work,' said another participant who favoured Option 2. The current political environment is not conducive to linking presidential and legislative elections, as is suggested in the Advisory Committee's first option, they said. 'It is very difficult to have a full electoral track,' said a participant from Benghazi. 'We saw what the government did to prevent elections last time. Any new government must be under a constitutional track that elections follow.' The need for political stability was stressed, with participants saying the impact of the ongoing economic and security situation was taking a significant toll. 'I don't accept a unified government in Tripoli when I need development in my area and they are 1,000 kilometres away,' said one participant from Benghazi. Another from Al Marj, said that all the options were ideal, if Libya was a stable country. They suggested that a national dialogue that included everyone—not just 40 to 50 people— and which represented each region would be hard to ignore if it was established. 'The country requires political and institutional stability for there to be a future. We must let the people choose, not have us subjected to under-the-table agreements,' said another participant. 'There must be real opportunities for women and youth to participate. But there also has to be regional representation. Federalism is a realistic solution to these issues and would save the country from regional separation and ensure a fair distribution of wealth.' Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 days ago
- General
- First Post
History Today: When India adopted the Tricolour as its national flag
The Tricolour was adopted to be the national flag of independent India on July 22, 1947. The flag was designed by Pingali Venkayya in 1921 and initially consisted of red and green bands instead of saffron, white and green colours that are visible today read more The Indian national flag is a symbol of the country's freedom from 200 years of British oppression. Representational image The Indian national flag is a sign of the country's freedom from British rule. Fluttering high, especially on government buildings, the Tricolour invokes feelings of pride and nationalism in the hearts of Indians. But did you know that it was adopted just weeks before independence? The Constituent Assembly adopted the tricolour as the national flag of independent India on July 22, 1947. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today, will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On this day in 2011, Norway experienced one of the deadliest attacks in its modern history when Anders Behring Breivik carried out a two-part assault that claimed 77 lives. Here is all that happened on this day. India adopted Tricolour as its national flag The Constituent Assembly of India officially adopted the Tricolour as the national flag of independent India on July 22, 1947, just weeks before gaining independence. This decision marked a defining step in India's journey to sovereignty. The flag, initially designed by Pingali Venkayya in 1921, had evolved through several alterations over the years as various designs were proposed and used by different factions of the Indian independence movement. The initial design featured red and green bands (symbolising Hindus and Muslims respectively) with the spinning wheel in the centre. On Gandhi's suggestion, a white stripe was later added to represent all other communities and peace. This 'Swaraj Flag' or 'Gandhi Flag' gained unofficial acceptance and was used during various Indian National Congress sessions. The flag consists of saffron, white and green colours along with the Ashoka Chakra. File image/PTI However, the need for a flag that represented all of India without any communal interpretations became paramount as independence approached. An ad-hoc committee, headed by Dr Rajendra Prasad, was tasked with finalising the design. On July 22, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru moved the resolution in the Constituent Assembly that cemented the design. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This flag consisted of saffron (symbolising courage and sacrifice) at the top, white (representing peace, truth and purity in the middle) and dark green (showing fertility and prosperity) at the bottom. The Ashoka Chakra in the middle, derived from the Sarnath Lion Capital of Emperor Ashoka, symbolises continuous progress. The adoption of the flag was more than a symbolic gesture; it was a proclamation of identity. As Jawaharlal Nehru said in his speech during the flag's adoption, 'This flag is not only of freedom for ourselves, but a symbol of freedom to all people.' Deadliest shooting incident in Norway Norway experienced its deadliest attack since World War II, carried out by far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik on this day in 2011. The two-part attack claimed the lives of 77 people and injured hundreds more. The first attack took place at approximately 3:25 pm, when Breivik detonated a powerful car bomb in the government quarter in central Oslo. The blast, placed near the office of then-Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, killed eight people and caused significant damage to government buildings, shattering windows and creating widespread chaos. Many public offices were less occupied than usual due to the summer holiday, which likely prevented an even higher casualty count. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Andres Behring Breivik gestured as he arrived during his trial in court in Oslo, Norway. File image/AP Roughly an hour and a half later, Breivik arrived at the island of Utoya disguised as a police officer. The island was hosting the annual summer camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF), the youth wing of Norway's ruling Labour Party. For over an hour, armed with an automatic rifle and a pistol, Breivik systematically hunted down and shot the hundreds of mostly teenage attendees. He lured some victims closer by pretending to be a rescuer, resulting in a horrifying massacre that killed 69 people, many of whom were shot repeatedly or drowned trying to escape into the cold water. Breivik was arrested on the island without resistance. During his trial in 2012, he showed no remorse and described his actions as 'cruel but necessary' to fight what he believed was the Islamisation of Europe and the Labour Party's role in promoting multiculturalism. He was found sane and guilty and sentenced to 21 years in prison, the maximum under Norwegian law, with the possibility of extension. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This Day, That Year On this day in 1992, Colombian drug trafficker Pablo Escobar escaped from police custody. American aviator Wiley Post completed the first solo flight around the world on this day in 1933. In 1812, the duke of Wellington defeated '40,000 Frenchmen in 40 minutes' at Salamanca, Spain.
