Dear Murali I am very happy about your belief in constitutional methods. But FYI, our the Constitution is almost a replica of the 1935 Govt of India Act, that most of the people demanding the ouster of the British except for the crucial Fundamental Rights and DPSP chapters. As a lawyer, as far as I know, there is no mention in the Fundamental Rights Chapter that "terrorist" would not have benefits of the rights guaranteed under that chapter, or Muslims are all to be branded terrorists All that Puniyani and Engineer are asking for post-Jaipur blasts is that the actions of the powers that be - be in consonance with this crucial chapter of the Constitution At the risk of being brash, I do not think you really believe in the Constitution if you are playing up to the BJP kind of gallery (which has also defamed Ambedkar ref: *"Worshipping False Gods" *by Arun Shourie). Best
On 19/05/2008, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > complete belief in constitution and imagination of a flawless execution > of it have nothing to do with the rights of the people. > > You are again confusing my arguments. I am not imagining a flawless > execution of the Constitution. I rather have a belief in Constitutional law > and methods. When somebody makes a statement that 'the counter terrorism is > for terrorizing people' or demand unaccountable committees to oversee > judicial matters, one is expressing skepticism of that principle itself. > > It would be instructive to look at what Dr B R Ambedkar, the architect of > the Constitution has to say about using unconstitutional methods: > > *If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, > what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast > to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. > It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we > must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and > satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for > achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of > justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods > are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. > These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are > abandoned, the better for us. [Archives of the Parliament of > India<http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol11p11.htm> > ]* > > You may disagree with some part of it, but it is an affirmation of the > belief in the Constitutional and the rule of law. > > Best regards, > Murali > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:34 PM, salimtk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> when the constitution is found insufficient to accomodate the new claims >> of the unrecognized sections of people for their rights and spaces, it is >> forced to be amended. penal codes have to revoked to recognize the existence >> of third sex. >> >> > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't > want to hear. > > > -- Bobby Kunhu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
