ही बातमी समजली का? - ५७

पालखीवाला हेही संघी, हिंदुत्ववादी असल्याचे आरोपही होतील आता.

Constituent Assembly debate on Article 1

प्रा. के. टी. शाह यांनी आर्टिकल १ मध्ये जी दुरुस्ती सुचवली होती ती अशी:

Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (1) of article 1, after the words`shall be a' the words `Secular, Federal Socialist' be inserted."and the amended article or clause will read as follows:

"India shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States."

त्याला डॉ. आंबेडकरांनी दिलेले उत्तर:

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.

The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My Honourable friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the Constitution, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of state policy. If my honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy.Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter:It says:

"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -

(i) that the citizens, men and women equally,have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

(ii) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

(iv) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;...."

There are some other items more or less in the same strain.What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.

Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.

रोखण्याची कृती कोणी करावी?राज्य सरकारांनी कि केंद्र सरकारने?

ह्या सुटावरून मोदींना narcissist म्हणून खूप हिणवलं गेलंय सोशल मिडीयावर. सुटावर यांचं नाव विणायची किंमत फक्त ९,३०,००० रुपये होती कापड २,५०,००० रुपयांचं. हा बंदगळा सूट लंडनच्या हॉलंड अँड शेरी या नामांकित शिंप्याने शिवला होता. मोठया लोकांच्या मोठया गोष्टी. माझा एक प्रश्न आहे (अगदी प्रामाणिक.कुठलाही उपहास न करण्याच्या हेतूने. ) प्रधानमंत्र्यांच्या कपडयांचे पैशे ते स्वतः खर्च करतात कि तो सरकारी खर्च असतो. त्याल काही मर्यादा (नियमाप्रमाणे) असतात का?

width="" height="" हे ट्याग बाय डिफॉल्ट हटवूनच का टाकले जात नाहीत? ज्यांना उंची-लांबी कमी जास्त करायची आहे ते ट्याग टाकू शकतातच की.

यावेळी बजरंगदलाच्या ब्यानरखाली दंगा करण्याऐवजी (तेच लोक; पण) दुसर्‍या ब्यानरखाली दंगा करणार असतील.

अरे एकच नंबर. अर्थ साहेबांचा व्हिडो म्हणजे पाहणारच.

भारतातल्या सुशिक्षित सभ्य सर्कलांत पाकिस्तानबद्दल प्रचंड आकस असलेला दिसतो. पाकिस्ताने पुरोगामी मूल्ये पाळायला प्रयत्नशील असलेली जी काही मायनॉरिटी आहे तिला भारतीयांचे असले वागणे प्रचंड डिमोटीवेट करत असावे.

मीपण!

हाहाहा... आगीभोवती फेर्‍या मारणे, एकमेकांना हार घालणे, लॉकेटं घालणे ही एक हटके अ‍ॅक्टिव्हिटी होईल डिनरच्या आधी पार्टीगेम्स असतात तशी.
सर्व रेस्तरांनी/हॉटेलांनी अग्निकुंड, हार वगैरेंची आणि सुहागरातीचीही व्यवस्था केली पाहिजे.
बादवे, मी असेन भारतात बहुतेक १४ ला. येणार का डेटवर?

व्हॉट इफ द कपल इज विथ डिफरंट ओरिएण्टेशन? त्यांचेही लग्न लावून देणार का विहिंप?

वर कुठल्यातरी प्रतिसादात मी म्हटल्यानुसार यंदाचा दंगा बजरंगदलाऐवजी विहिंपच्या ब्यानरखाली....

निवडून येणे किंवा न येणे या दोन्हीपैकी एक गोष्ट नक्कीच होऊ शकते असे वाटते. तुमच्याशी सहमत होण्याचा एक अपूर्व प्रसंग आला आहे.

नेहमी ब्राह्मणांना मिळणारा पुरस्कार ब्राह्मणवाद्यांचं सरकार आलं असताना अब्राह्मनांना मिळाले आहे. जगात कशाचा काही भरोसा राहिला नाही!
----------------------
पुरस्कारविजेत्यांचे मनःपूर्वक अभिनंदन.

अश्या प्रसंगीही जमिनीवरच्या लोकांना वाचवण्याचा विचार त्याच्या मनात होता ते बघून गहिवरायला होतं.

उच्च श्रेणीच्या मानवतेच्या दर्शनासमोर नतमस्तक व्हायला होतं.