top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing...

Street Circus

The NEET-UG paper leak was a genuine grievance. Millions of students who spent years preparing for one of India’s toughest examinations deserved answers, accountability and justice. But what unfolded at Jantar Mantar was no movement for educational reform. It was a spectacle of rage, abuse and performative rebellion that often appeared more interested in viral clips than viable solutions. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which claimed to represent the anger of students, ended up exposing itself, revealing itself to promote a culture of outrage without responsibility and more troubling, have aspersions cast on its funding sources. Besides the fact that just how many of those gathered were afflicted NEET students, the ugliest part of the protest was the language. Videos from Jantar Mantar showed protesters hurling the most obscene and personal abuses at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One can dislike the PM or oppose his policies, reducing political disagreement to filthy personal abuse against an elected Prime Minister is gross cowardice and at the basic level, a sheer failure of basic civic etiquette. No entity cannot claim to be fighting for the dignity of students while abandoning all standards of dignity in public discourse. The irony was impossible to miss. A section of this self-proclaimed progressive generation speaks constantly about equality, feminism, tolerance and justice. Yet the very same voices displayed extraordinary intolerance towards anyone they decided was an enemy. Journalists were targeted, political opponents were dehumanised and anyone carrying a different opinion was casually branded with labels designed to silence rather than debate. Social media has created a dangerous illusion among many young activists that a viral video is a victory, and that shouting louder is the same as achieving something. A few Instagram reels, borrowed revolutionary imagery and slogans can create the appearance of rebellion. But governing a country and reforming institutions and fixing broken systems require far more than theatrical anger. The government, however, cannot escape responsibility either. The crisis was allowed to grow because of delayed communication and inadequate political management. A prompt response, transparent investigation and early intervention could have prevented a limited controversy from becoming a national embarrassment. Instead, the government was forced into damage control, and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, a capable minister, became the political casualty. For the citizens, it was a colossal waste of time. After weeks of noise, confrontation and disruption, the students gained little. The examination system remains under scrutiny and larger problems remain unresolved. The only visible outcome is the removal of a minister. A protest that begins with a genuine grievance but ends as a contest of abuse and attention-seeking has not strengthened democracy. It has weakened the very standards it claims to defend.

RSS wants to clear confusion, say scholars

Mumbai: The RSS wants the words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Secularism’ to be removed from the preamble of the Constitution, because they are creating confusion and contradiction, if right-wing scholars are to be believed.


“While the word ‘Socialism’ has lost its meaning, the word ‘Secularism’ is creating unnecessary contradiction in the various provisions of the constitution,” said Durganand Jha of the Centre for Policy Analysis at Patna, while hailing the statement made by RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale for a need to debate the issue of removal of the term ‘Secularism’ and ‘Socialism’ from the preamble of the Indian Constitution.


“The statement has rightly caught attention of the nation. It needs to be thoroughly debated and acted upon,” Jha opined.


In 2020, a petition challenging validity of the words in the Preamble, by Adv. Balram Singh, backed by former Law Minister Subramaniam Swamy and Adv. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, was struck down by the apex court. When asked about it, Ravindra Mahajan of Ekatma Vikas Samiti in Mumbai, pointed out that mere rejection of the petition doesn’t mean the issue is wrong. “It probably needs to be put before the Supreme Court in a proper manner,” he said.


Jha, however, pointed out that the use of word ‘secular’ in the preamble of the Constitution leads to contradiction with respect to many of its provisions. “Validity of the word will have to be challenged on this ground,” he said.


Inclusion of the term ‘Secularism’ is inconsistent with various provisions of the Constitution of India. Eg. Article 14, 15 and 16 of the constitution give ‘equal rights’, ‘right to equal opportunity’ and ‘prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, race, sex and place of birth’. While Article 26 bestows to all religionists ‘equal rights in managing their religious affairs’, Article 25 gives an exclusive right to the minorities to ‘propagating religion’ and Articles 28, 29 and 30 give circumstantial advantage to Christianity and Islam where religious conversions accepted. “These articles put Hindu in a disadvantageous situation as it is not a proselytising religion,” Jha said and added that inclusion of word ‘Secularism’ in the preamble of the Constitution of India made those Articles of Indian Constitution which give special rights to the minorities, inconsistent with the preamble of the Constitution. “And hence the word needs to be removed.”


Jha also pointed out that, the word ‘Socialism’ was inducted into the preamble of the Constitution, at around the same time when China, the epitome of ‘Socialism’, was actually embracing capitalism. He also said that the people of India have to decide whether they support the preamble approved by Ambedkar, Nehru, Sardar Patel or the preamble adulterated by Indira Gandhi.


Jha also said that, if something is undone which was done during an emergency when the country was on tenterhooks, and all opposition leaders were in prison, it will be a true homage to the struggle of those who fought and spent months in prison to keep the flame of democracy alive in the country.


"The Preamble of a constitution is not changeable. But this Preamble was changed by the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1976. And in the process, if you deeply reflect, we are giving wings to existential challenges. It is nothing but belittling the civilisational wealth and knowledge of this country for thousands of years. It is a sacrilege of the spirit of Sanatan. These words have been added as nasoor (festering wound). These words will create upheaval."

Jagdeep Dhankhar, Vice President

Comments

bottom of page