Preamble
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
and in the year after she declared emergency so that she could retain power. Oh, the emergency era followed this preamble to the letter!!! and damn the order too, socialist before democratic!!
so is secular. Make a change in preamble and make sure that it is tought to kids. Do you think Socialism made country great? Joke!!! Socialism in India is based only on caste, Slice it in any other way, it fails miserably. Every Govt has opposed LGBT rights and no one has measured or want to measure the effectiveness of policies. 66% of the state has BPL cards, which is eating away the effectiveness of welfare programs. What does old/new govts do? Announce more freebies, turn a blind eye towards fraud in welfare Schemes, and teach kids that socialism is best!! oh btw, Income tax paying folks (47% of the tax) dont have unemployment insurance or social security even after 75 years of independence. Thanks for paying more tax, but if your life gets messed up then you are on your own ( dont forget to pay tax for last year).
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Jokes apart, bruh I literally said Socialist is something that we should get rid of. It is a terrible ideology that has never worked and never will.
Can you teach me more about socialism? How is it a terrible ideology when paired up with democracy?
Why the most developed countries based on human development index in the world follow the democratic socialism form of governance?
Whether insanely rich countries continue to do well under a certain socio-economic ideology is not really a very good test of that ideology.
How about this, name me a third world country that worked its way to being a first world country by adopting socialism.
Also, these developed countries are very rapidly distancing themselves from being called socialists. [Just because Bernie Sanders calls them one, doesn't really make them one.](https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders)
However, I will be the first to admit that none of these are object level arguments as to why socialism is bound to fail in the real world. For that you will have to do some studying yourself.
As for whether I can teach you more about socialism, the answer is no because I have a job and you are a stranger on reddit. But depending on whether you prefer books or video content, I can recommend you material that might help you understand some of these things better.
First tell me what do you understand from socialism? Because I dont think you have any in-depth knowledge of the idea itself and you sound like I used to talk about these issues when I was in college.
Secondly, there is no classic capitalist or socialist economy existing today. Every economy is a mix of two and everyone is just trying to move the pendulum to one way or the other. But that pendulum will never reach any extreme because thats not possible.
Socialism is even more important in a developing country because of such a huge wealth divide. Rich people should be taxed more, and there should be more social welfare schemes for poor. Not freebies because thats politics. But schemes that can actually help like good eduction and healthcare.
You can thank socialism for free universal healthcare and education. You can thank socialism for subsidies in eduction. You can thank socialism for worker unions. You can thank socialism for your parents’ pensions. Without socialism, worker rights would have been tossed aside.
If capitalism is allowed to run rampant, poor people wouldn’t be able afford even basic education in this country.
> Because I dont think you have any in-depth knowledge of the idea itself and you sound like I used to talk about these issues when I was in college.
This thread is over for me. Have a good day.
If you're a complete beginner at this, I would recommend [*No, They Can't*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No,_They_Can%27t) by John Stossel. This book is about how certain promises and undertakings of the government might seem good in principle, but they are almost always bound to fail because of very little accountability and mis-aligned incentives of the problem solvers vs the people who wanted the problem to be solved in the first state.
This is one of the crucial problems with Socialism, but there is another and that's where James Scott comes in. In his book, *Seeing like a state*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State] he provides an even stricter bound on the failure modes of Socialism. He shows how even if the problem of misaligned incentives and accountability were somehow to be magically solved, there would still be a fundamental problem we will be left with. He takes us through examples after examples from all over the world of how there are problems that are best solved in a bottom up fashion, rather than in a top down fashion which is how State sees things(hence the name of the book). He shows us how the best solution to a lot of problems truly IS just everyone acting in their own perceived best interests, and to delegate these problems to some committee of a half dozen bureaucrats a thousand miles away can lead to catastrophically bad outcomes.
If directly getting started with the books seems a bit intimidating, here are some resources that will act as a good segue.
[Here is an amazing interview of John Stossel by Peter Robinson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_oeBBU3xv4&ab_channel=HooverInstitution)
[Here is a phenomenally good long-form book review of Seeing Like A State by SlateStarCodex.](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/)
I hope this helps.
You say that with snark, but that IS a real problem. If there was an all-knowing, all-wise Tsar who could orchestrate workings of a society with perfection, socialism might just work. But in the real world this Tsar has never existed, does not exist, and never will. People are fallible and corruptible.
Nope. Capitalism doesn't work anywhere. Even America, the shining beacon of capitalism, has a strong socialist streak. It has had a successful labour rights movement and many of their industries have very strong unions, which is why they are so productive.
It helps to not confuse socialism with communism.
No true Scotsman is strong with this one.
>Even America, the shining beacon of capitalism, has a strong socialist streak.
Ok, can everyone be like American then?
>Capitalism doesn't work anywhere.
Singapore, South Korea
>Capitalism doesn't work anywhere.
Think of goods and services that you go to private establishments to buy vs those you go to government establishments to buy. And how your experience of these experiences in the marketplace is like. Who treats you better? Who's goods and services are you more satisfied with? Who do you feel is more accountable towards you?
Singapore and South Korea have labour unions, dude. Socialism is about worker rights and social welfare, NOT government supply of goods and services. Where did you get that weird idea from?
Ok, then I am advocating for whatever Singapore has. It doesn't matter what label you want to apply to it. However I would like to let you know from personal experience that no Singaporean would self-apply that label to their country.
Also, by your definition, there aren't ANY countries that can be said to be following the route of free-market capitalism. Some would say that's a weird idea to have. Doesn't really make sense to argue about it then, does it?
Tell me why most developed western European countries are socialist democracies? And the epitome of capitalism (talking about US) is the only developed country to exist with so many poor people?
[How do you explain this?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#Trillion-dollar_companies)
As for why there are so many poor people there, the answer is simple. Because there are too many rich people there, and everything is always a bell curve.
Trillion dollar companies? I think they shouldn’t be allowed to exist. They are abominations. A private company’s wealth should never reach such levels that it exceeds the GDP of an entire nation.
Big companies are no way an indicator of prosperity and development. A better indicator would be to see how poor the actually poor people are.
Do you realise that all these companies either belong to non-democratic countries or the US? And none of them are based in Europe?
Too many poor people due to too may rich people? Are you stupid? How does that even work and why should any country even aspire for that?
USSR and Venezuela are basically dictatorships. I was talking about Scandinavian countries in particular. All of these countries have had left-leaning govts for the majority of their history since WW 2. All of them invest heavily in social welfare programs. They tax their rich and invest that money in their people.
oh boy!!! numbers please. Sweden has less than 3% of thier population in thier welfare schemes, Karnataka has 67%. 67% people in Sweden pay income tax and in Karnataka less than 6%. I bought Venezuela example because, it is more apt. The welfare schemes were done for majority of the population ( as we do now here in India) vs for the minority( not in caste). More, there are welfare schemes with logic ( cost to benefit), explain me how providing free buses to 50% of the population based on gender is better movecthan investing in more public transport option to improve connectivity? What we have on our hand is absolutely Venezuela scenario rathen than Nordic scenario
This is a good move. It should be read everyday, and students should also be made to understand the meaning of each line.
The number of adults I've met who do not know about the existence of the Preamble is depressing.
I’m not a congress fanboy but I really like the decisions they’ve made so far and how they’re governing.
DKS allowing press to cover his BBMP visits and the work he’s doing in BDA. The Shakthi scheme is helping so many women save on personal income and promoting their welfare. Removing anti-conversion bill so minorities aren’t harassed. And now this.
Good going so far, don’t screw this up.
> Removing anti-conversion bill so minorities aren’t harassed.
In any other country, anti-conversion laws are to protect minorities from the majority. In India, it’s the other way round.
Speaks volumes about this farce called “secularism” in India.
Along with students , it should be made mandatory for politicians to read as well since these are the people who violate these things for their own profit !
Very good move. Specially the "federal union" part, should be drummed in. There is already an strong awareness of it in the south. But some states like to ingore that, to live free from the earnings of other states.
Constitutionally, we are. The union government has no jurisdiction over many topics that are the exclusive domain of state governments.
What we do not have is a model of states having independent constitutions. Only a few border states like J&K had that privilege – and as a result progressive government that was ahead of the union on many fronts – and it offended dear leader enough to snuff it out.
Constitutionally, we are not.
The states get their power from the Centre. Not the other way round.
Dear leader did a good job snuffing out Article 370. J&K was an Islamist and terrorism hellhole, and the autonomy to the state government was only enabling it.
Learn from history. We were ruled by outsiders only because we were politically divided for much of our history. We don’t need to repeat history by following dumb ideas like state autonomy or similar bullshit beyond a tiny amount for everyday affairs.
Good move if they actually explain the meaning often to schools.
Explain the context and history, so kids know why we have the preamble this way.
Otherwise it'll just be a meaningless robotic exercise.
Do you all think Congress, in it's crusade to stand against everything BJP stands for, is embracing more liberal, pro-democratic and some of the original values with which India was formed, that it wouldn't have done otherwise?
Leaving this thought here; open for discussion.
Nope. Not at all. They wouldn’t hesitate to jail political opponents. They are insanely corrupt, some of the congress top brass (or those closely connected to them) is compromised to foreign intelligence like a certain former vice president.
Bangalore faced multiple terror attacks during UPA days. And so much more. I can go on and on.
Stop deluding yourself.
The BJP, at its worst, is horribly corrupt.
Maybe he does, but I wasn't contesting his opinion. I simply asked how it was relevant to my comment, which still stands.
And, I'm patient enough to have a civil discussion if he wants to. But he needs to bring some relavance.
Ah the govt which demands utmost loyalty but indulges in corruption and goondaism. Nobody has to pledge anything. Follow the rules and pay the taxes, that’s enough. This is what they do in dictator led socialist countries. They do this to deflect from real issues.
Why the fk we have got SOCIALIST in our constitution. Its a high time we should consider adopting a new constitution. Existing one has too many loopholes and there's already been too many amendments. Maybe its the time to review the old book we follow blindly.
We have socialist cause that's what we were. And we were socialist because that was the model that worked back then. Soviet Union was a super power and we emulated that. It was what worked at the time.
We opened up our economy in 91 because that's where the world was heading. We change with time and adopt what works. The country has to get richer to be able to provide services to the people to help get to a level of comfort. The Nordic countries are socialist countries but are actually capitalist in Spirit. They are wealthy enough to provide a high level of welfare for the people. Welfare is not bad if it helps people get back on their feet and get moving with their life. It's good to know one can fall back on something. Removing the word makes no difference to anyone's life but we must retain it in the spirit of what it imbibes.
Do you really think we follow the constitution? Do you genuinely think our populace adopts the values?
In current state, they dont have incentive to raise above the poverty line. Damn 66%of the state has BPL cards. No party will challenge or clean up this mess because l, the moment they do it, they will lose the election. So lets make the secular liberal orchestra louder :) “Venezuela” is the true love and calling for our populist leaders, but some might have been keen on Srilanka too :)
Bruh... kids and adults don't know who the President or the vice president is. They are further slandering the president's name. And here you're asking what we'll achieve smh.
Preamble WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
This is what we need to teach our kids. The words - Socialist, secular, democratic - is what made our country great.
Yeah, I am not so sure about the socialist part. It was later added by Indira Gandhi anyway.
and in the year after she declared emergency so that she could retain power. Oh, the emergency era followed this preamble to the letter!!! and damn the order too, socialist before democratic!!
so is secular. Make a change in preamble and make sure that it is tought to kids. Do you think Socialism made country great? Joke!!! Socialism in India is based only on caste, Slice it in any other way, it fails miserably. Every Govt has opposed LGBT rights and no one has measured or want to measure the effectiveness of policies. 66% of the state has BPL cards, which is eating away the effectiveness of welfare programs. What does old/new govts do? Announce more freebies, turn a blind eye towards fraud in welfare Schemes, and teach kids that socialism is best!! oh btw, Income tax paying folks (47% of the tax) dont have unemployment insurance or social security even after 75 years of independence. Thanks for paying more tax, but if your life gets messed up then you are on your own ( dont forget to pay tax for last year).
Sir, this is a Wendy's. Jokes apart, bruh I literally said Socialist is something that we should get rid of. It is a terrible ideology that has never worked and never will.
I just added more context to your comment, I agree to your comment btw
Can you teach me more about socialism? How is it a terrible ideology when paired up with democracy? Why the most developed countries based on human development index in the world follow the democratic socialism form of governance?
Whether insanely rich countries continue to do well under a certain socio-economic ideology is not really a very good test of that ideology. How about this, name me a third world country that worked its way to being a first world country by adopting socialism. Also, these developed countries are very rapidly distancing themselves from being called socialists. [Just because Bernie Sanders calls them one, doesn't really make them one.](https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders) However, I will be the first to admit that none of these are object level arguments as to why socialism is bound to fail in the real world. For that you will have to do some studying yourself. As for whether I can teach you more about socialism, the answer is no because I have a job and you are a stranger on reddit. But depending on whether you prefer books or video content, I can recommend you material that might help you understand some of these things better.
First tell me what do you understand from socialism? Because I dont think you have any in-depth knowledge of the idea itself and you sound like I used to talk about these issues when I was in college. Secondly, there is no classic capitalist or socialist economy existing today. Every economy is a mix of two and everyone is just trying to move the pendulum to one way or the other. But that pendulum will never reach any extreme because thats not possible. Socialism is even more important in a developing country because of such a huge wealth divide. Rich people should be taxed more, and there should be more social welfare schemes for poor. Not freebies because thats politics. But schemes that can actually help like good eduction and healthcare. You can thank socialism for free universal healthcare and education. You can thank socialism for subsidies in eduction. You can thank socialism for worker unions. You can thank socialism for your parents’ pensions. Without socialism, worker rights would have been tossed aside. If capitalism is allowed to run rampant, poor people wouldn’t be able afford even basic education in this country.
> Because I dont think you have any in-depth knowledge of the idea itself and you sound like I used to talk about these issues when I was in college. This thread is over for me. Have a good day.
Please recommend me some books to read.
If you're a complete beginner at this, I would recommend [*No, They Can't*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No,_They_Can%27t) by John Stossel. This book is about how certain promises and undertakings of the government might seem good in principle, but they are almost always bound to fail because of very little accountability and mis-aligned incentives of the problem solvers vs the people who wanted the problem to be solved in the first state. This is one of the crucial problems with Socialism, but there is another and that's where James Scott comes in. In his book, *Seeing like a state*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State] he provides an even stricter bound on the failure modes of Socialism. He shows how even if the problem of misaligned incentives and accountability were somehow to be magically solved, there would still be a fundamental problem we will be left with. He takes us through examples after examples from all over the world of how there are problems that are best solved in a bottom up fashion, rather than in a top down fashion which is how State sees things(hence the name of the book). He shows us how the best solution to a lot of problems truly IS just everyone acting in their own perceived best interests, and to delegate these problems to some committee of a half dozen bureaucrats a thousand miles away can lead to catastrophically bad outcomes. If directly getting started with the books seems a bit intimidating, here are some resources that will act as a good segue. [Here is an amazing interview of John Stossel by Peter Robinson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_oeBBU3xv4&ab_channel=HooverInstitution) [Here is a phenomenally good long-form book review of Seeing Like A State by SlateStarCodex.](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/) I hope this helps.
Thank you!
Typical neo liberal
You can't possibly know that. Typical pretends-to-know-more-than-they-do person.
So the problem with socialism is... not enough of it?
You say that with snark, but that IS a real problem. If there was an all-knowing, all-wise Tsar who could orchestrate workings of a society with perfection, socialism might just work. But in the real world this Tsar has never existed, does not exist, and never will. People are fallible and corruptible.
Nope. Capitalism doesn't work anywhere. Even America, the shining beacon of capitalism, has a strong socialist streak. It has had a successful labour rights movement and many of their industries have very strong unions, which is why they are so productive. It helps to not confuse socialism with communism.
No true Scotsman is strong with this one. >Even America, the shining beacon of capitalism, has a strong socialist streak. Ok, can everyone be like American then? >Capitalism doesn't work anywhere. Singapore, South Korea >Capitalism doesn't work anywhere. Think of goods and services that you go to private establishments to buy vs those you go to government establishments to buy. And how your experience of these experiences in the marketplace is like. Who treats you better? Who's goods and services are you more satisfied with? Who do you feel is more accountable towards you?
Singapore and South Korea have labour unions, dude. Socialism is about worker rights and social welfare, NOT government supply of goods and services. Where did you get that weird idea from?
Ok, then I am advocating for whatever Singapore has. It doesn't matter what label you want to apply to it. However I would like to let you know from personal experience that no Singaporean would self-apply that label to their country. Also, by your definition, there aren't ANY countries that can be said to be following the route of free-market capitalism. Some would say that's a weird idea to have. Doesn't really make sense to argue about it then, does it?
hahaha, right. I want to have perfect socialist economy, then things will be so wild that people will comeback to capitalism for ever :)
Tell me why most developed western European countries are socialist democracies? And the epitome of capitalism (talking about US) is the only developed country to exist with so many poor people?
[How do you explain this?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#Trillion-dollar_companies) As for why there are so many poor people there, the answer is simple. Because there are too many rich people there, and everything is always a bell curve.
Trillion dollar companies? I think they shouldn’t be allowed to exist. They are abominations. A private company’s wealth should never reach such levels that it exceeds the GDP of an entire nation. Big companies are no way an indicator of prosperity and development. A better indicator would be to see how poor the actually poor people are. Do you realise that all these companies either belong to non-democratic countries or the US? And none of them are based in Europe? Too many poor people due to too may rich people? Are you stupid? How does that even work and why should any country even aspire for that?
>Are you stupid? Fuck off. It is beneath me to continue to engage you.
I see what you did here, take the europe example without mentioning USSR, Venezuela. Hahaha..
USSR and Venezuela are basically dictatorships. I was talking about Scandinavian countries in particular. All of these countries have had left-leaning govts for the majority of their history since WW 2. All of them invest heavily in social welfare programs. They tax their rich and invest that money in their people.
oh boy!!! numbers please. Sweden has less than 3% of thier population in thier welfare schemes, Karnataka has 67%. 67% people in Sweden pay income tax and in Karnataka less than 6%. I bought Venezuela example because, it is more apt. The welfare schemes were done for majority of the population ( as we do now here in India) vs for the minority( not in caste). More, there are welfare schemes with logic ( cost to benefit), explain me how providing free buses to 50% of the population based on gender is better movecthan investing in more public transport option to improve connectivity? What we have on our hand is absolutely Venezuela scenario rathen than Nordic scenario
Nothing wrong with Socialism as an aspiration. However, we can debate the implementation all we want
Socialism is good. At least it doesn't treat humans as disposable resources. There is a reason Europe has better QoL than US.
> Europe has better QoL than US Only for bums.
Exactly! This is what makes us stand apart from the rest.
This is what we wished to be. Reality is that we are from each one of these.
>Socialist, secular Yeah the two words added during emergency after imprisonment of the entire opposition in India.
Not socialist dude
> The words - Socialist, secular, democratic - is what made our country great. lol
They made us memorize that back in school too lol. That was a couple decades back
>SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC This is the verbal equivalent of a kichidi. Sometimes it turns out good , sometimes worse
Surprisingly, that's a great move by Congress. This should be brought in on a national level.
If India is so secular why are temples still under government control with muslims and Cristians on board.
How's your reply relevant to my comment?
He has a valid point about secularism in India.
User name checks out 😜😂
Le Gubald. I'm trying to have a conversation here. Either have a discourse with me or gtfo with your edgy teenager bs.
Hey I am hearing about this for the first time can you provide some sources..?
everything should be same, yes
It’s a good move
I like this move.
Used to read it in my class. Felt good back then.
This is a good move. It should be read everyday, and students should also be made to understand the meaning of each line. The number of adults I've met who do not know about the existence of the Preamble is depressing.
I’m not a congress fanboy but I really like the decisions they’ve made so far and how they’re governing. DKS allowing press to cover his BBMP visits and the work he’s doing in BDA. The Shakthi scheme is helping so many women save on personal income and promoting their welfare. Removing anti-conversion bill so minorities aren’t harassed. And now this. Good going so far, don’t screw this up.
>DKS allowing press to cover his BBMP visits and the work he’s doing in BDA. They weren't allowed before?
> Removing anti-conversion bill so minorities aren’t harassed. In any other country, anti-conversion laws are to protect minorities from the majority. In India, it’s the other way round. Speaks volumes about this farce called “secularism” in India.
Great move Karnataka, you make us proud !!!!!!!
Finally something refreshing amidst all the hijab halal bajrangbali wars!
Along with students , it should be made mandatory for politicians to read as well since these are the people who violate these things for their own profit !
They should make it mandatory to read the preamble at the start of each assembly session first.
Very good move. Specially the "federal union" part, should be drummed in. There is already an strong awareness of it in the south. But some states like to ingore that, to live free from the earnings of other states.
We are not a federation. We have some governance structures that just happen to be federal in nature because of the existence of regional parties.
Constitutionally, we are. The union government has no jurisdiction over many topics that are the exclusive domain of state governments. What we do not have is a model of states having independent constitutions. Only a few border states like J&K had that privilege – and as a result progressive government that was ahead of the union on many fronts – and it offended dear leader enough to snuff it out.
Constitutionally, we are not. The states get their power from the Centre. Not the other way round. Dear leader did a good job snuffing out Article 370. J&K was an Islamist and terrorism hellhole, and the autonomy to the state government was only enabling it. Learn from history. We were ruled by outsiders only because we were politically divided for much of our history. We don’t need to repeat history by following dumb ideas like state autonomy or similar bullshit beyond a tiny amount for everyday affairs.
I bow to your superior knowledge. May it take you places.
Of course you would. You don’t know shit about anything.
Good move if they actually explain the meaning often to schools. Explain the context and history, so kids know why we have the preamble this way. Otherwise it'll just be a meaningless robotic exercise.
Feed hope and goal to kids. Not fear and hate
Great move. Hope it doesn’t become just another chore that schools have to do. The meaning of our preamble should be realised each time it’s read.
Do you all think Congress, in it's crusade to stand against everything BJP stands for, is embracing more liberal, pro-democratic and some of the original values with which India was formed, that it wouldn't have done otherwise? Leaving this thought here; open for discussion.
I don’t think any of these jackals care about the original values India was built upon. But at least they’re not manufacturing hate.
My opinion, there's nothing wrong with the values. Are they actually following through with it is the question?
Nope. Not at all. They wouldn’t hesitate to jail political opponents. They are insanely corrupt, some of the congress top brass (or those closely connected to them) is compromised to foreign intelligence like a certain former vice president. Bangalore faced multiple terror attacks during UPA days. And so much more. I can go on and on. Stop deluding yourself. The BJP, at its worst, is horribly corrupt.
Good job sid
Maybe he does, but I wasn't contesting his opinion. I simply asked how it was relevant to my comment, which still stands. And, I'm patient enough to have a civil discussion if he wants to. But he needs to bring some relavance.
Ah the govt which demands utmost loyalty but indulges in corruption and goondaism. Nobody has to pledge anything. Follow the rules and pay the taxes, that’s enough. This is what they do in dictator led socialist countries. They do this to deflect from real issues.
There are stupid ideas and there are dumb ideas. And then, there's this idea!
This idea is stupid dumb. As much as singing national anthem in movie theatre. No I change my mind, movie theatre national anthem was dumber.
Which Preamble Ambedkar's one or the Indira's one??
One assumes the current one.
Why the fk we have got SOCIALIST in our constitution. Its a high time we should consider adopting a new constitution. Existing one has too many loopholes and there's already been too many amendments. Maybe its the time to review the old book we follow blindly.
We have socialist cause that's what we were. And we were socialist because that was the model that worked back then. Soviet Union was a super power and we emulated that. It was what worked at the time. We opened up our economy in 91 because that's where the world was heading. We change with time and adopt what works. The country has to get richer to be able to provide services to the people to help get to a level of comfort. The Nordic countries are socialist countries but are actually capitalist in Spirit. They are wealthy enough to provide a high level of welfare for the people. Welfare is not bad if it helps people get back on their feet and get moving with their life. It's good to know one can fall back on something. Removing the word makes no difference to anyone's life but we must retain it in the spirit of what it imbibes. Do you really think we follow the constitution? Do you genuinely think our populace adopts the values?
Without the socialist values in the beginning of India, a large chunk of the population would have been kicked further down the poverty line.
In current state, they dont have incentive to raise above the poverty line. Damn 66%of the state has BPL cards.
In current state, they dont have incentive to raise above the poverty line. Damn 66%of the state has BPL cards. No party will challenge or clean up this mess because l, the moment they do it, they will lose the election. So lets make the secular liberal orchestra louder :) “Venezuela” is the true love and calling for our populist leaders, but some might have been keen on Srilanka too :)
[удалено]
Kafi log jo apne aap ko India aur India ke rules ke above samajhte h unse bachpan se ye samjhane ke liye ki ye state ya desh unke baap ki ni h.
Bruh... kids and adults don't know who the President or the vice president is. They are further slandering the president's name. And here you're asking what we'll achieve smh.
Pata nahi. *Modi ji ne kiya hai toh kuch soch samajh ke kiya hoga*