That oatmeal strip is brilliant and I'd love to it be to tried/read more widel. It's exacrtly the sort of thing I suspect (hope?) would chip away at the alter-reality problems we have in spades.
Re: being double minded about "secular" and "socialist" being removed from the constituatiion... Some acts taken in good faith (or at least as if they had no ulterior motice) and in isolation give no cause for worry but as political acts are crucial steps that enable an end we rightly fear. That's tricky to deal with. The concern is mercurial but serious. It can thus be nagging or transient -- passing when we're not steeped in the complexity of that concern. Add in most of use would rarther take things at face value and even more of us just want to deal with life's day to day and the concern becomes but more mercurial and more serious. Related: I found this year's Reith lectures (Our Democratic Future) excellent at sharpening clarity on what democracy protects us from and how, including why its messiness is a feature not a bug. Likewise on how democracy can so easily erode such as when faced by autocractic political savvy which I suspect your spider sense is unhappy with here. If anyone's interested: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001sty4 On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:55 PM Alok Prasanna Kumar via Silklist < [email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes you can have all the evidence you want but I think one changes > one's mind based on how one feels at a certain moment (as the Oatmeal comic > points out) > > My personal example has to do with the Preamble to the Constitution of > India and a current political debate around it. > > For context - during the Emergency (for non-Indians: suspension of civil > liberties and elections) between 1975 and 1977, the Indira Gandhi led > government drastically amended the Constitution to try and neuter any > independent institutions and limit civil liberties. As part of the 42nd > amendment, the government amended the preamble to the Constitution of India > to insert the words "socialist" and "secular" to make India a "Sovereign > Socialist Secular Democratic Republic." This was in addition to other > wholesale changes to the Constitution limit judicial review, right to > property, et al. > > Large parts of the 42nd amendment were undone by subsequent governments > and a little by the courts, but the fact remains that India's preamble > reads "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic". > > Cut to the present and there's a government at the Union which chafes at > the idea of anything "secular" and "socialist". There's a slightly extreme > wing of the ruling party that would want to get rid of the words "secular" > and "socialist". > > The good faith basis to remove the words "socialist" and "secular" would > be to say that India's constitution was secular and socialist even before > these words were added to the preamble. After all, the preamble also > promises to "secure justice social, economic and political", and "liberty > of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship". That apart, the > fundamental rights parts expressly guarantee non-discrimination on > religious lines and the freedom to practice religion. Not to mention the > guarantees of equality of opportunity and affirmative action for oppressed > communities. So maybe, just the two words "secular" and "socialist" added > by an illegitimate government in a bid to cling to power permanently > shouldn't hold much weight. > > On the other hand, removing the words "secular" and "socialist" from the > preamble seems like the first chip blow against these ideas that undergird > the Constitution. Especially so since the ideology of the current ruling > party is anything but socialist or secular. This is a ruling party which > believes that India should be for Hindus only and the state should > prioritise Hindus over all others. And this is a party which has, in the > past, promised to dismantle social justice programmes and currently > oversees an India that's more unequal than it has been during independence. > So, one feels, removing "socialist" and "secular" is just the beginning of > a larger project of dismantling these ideas (and not just the words) from > the Constitution itself and should be resisted at all costs. > > I must admit I hold both views in alternating quarters of the year. I can > make either argument with passion and all the relevant facts. A few months > ago I had a passionate debate with a colleague about why I believe it's ok > if "secular" and "socialist" are removed from the constitution". At the > height of elections now, I believe the opposite. > > This maybe a peculiar case of extreme waffling but I seem to change my > mind about this every few months. > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:53 PM Udhay Shankar N via Silklist < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:18 PM Udhay Shankar N via Silklist < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> What is a deeply held belief of yours that you think you would change if >>> presented with data that contradicts the belief? >>> >> >> In the context of this question, this is essential reading (even if >> you're already familiar with it) >> >> https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe >> >> Udhay >> >> -- >> >> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) >> >> -- >> Silklist mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >> > > > -- > Alok Prasanna Kumar > Advocate > Ph: +919560065577 > -- > Silklist mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
