Research in JNU

One person commenting on my previous post said that most JNU students are research scholars in the social sciences.

One of the main problems in India relating to the social sciences is the problem of unemployment. Every year 1 crore new youth are coming into the job market in India, but only 1.4 lac jobs are created in the organized sector of our economy. What do the rest do ? They become hawkers, street vendors, stringers, criminals, beggars, prostitutes or suicides.

May I ask : does any Professor of JNU or these research scientists have any clue how to solve this problem ?

No ? Then the money paid as salaries and perks to these Professors and researchers is all going waste, and is a burden on the taxpayer

The truth about JNU

JNU claims to be a great centre of free thinkng and of the 'revolutionary' spirit.

But I think this claim is a hoax, and this revolutionary spirit is skin deep. Many JNU students shout ' halla bol ' and ' azadi for Kashmir '.

But why have they never shouted ban on burqa and on sharia law to attain azadi for Muslim women ? Why have they never demanded repeal on the laws against cow slaughter and eating beef ?...

The real reason is that many of the JNUSU members are aspiring politicians, and are members of the youth wings of political parties like Congress, CPI,CPM, BJP, etc and they know that if they make these progressive demands they will be expelled from their parties. Demanding ban on burqa and sharia will endanger the Muslim vote bank of the parties which rely on it, and demanding repeal of the ban on cow slaughter and eating beef will endanger the Hindu votes of those doing beef politics. So very cleverly they avoid making these demands

But I am not in politics, and I do not seek anyone's votes.So I can make these demands, which strike at feudalism and are therefore in the national interest

Bruyat Satyam Apriyam

There is a Sanskrit shloka which says : " Satyam Bruyat " i.e. " speak the Truth ". To this I agree.

But the same shloka goes on to say " Na bruyat satyam apriyam ".i.e. " Do not speak the unpleasnt truth ". To this I disagree.

I think the time has come in our country when unpleasant truths must be said if we are to progress.

For example, I said that 90% indians are fools. This was an unpleasant truth. And it had to be said, because a shock therapy had to be given to awaken Indians from their Kumbhakaran like slumber.

The truth of the statement is obvious from the fact that most Indians vote on the basis of caste and religion in the elections, instead of on the merit of the candidate. Most indians, maybe over 80% , whether Hindu or Muslim, are communal. Most Indians believe in astrology (that is why they ask for horoscopes before finalizing a marriage ), and astrology is unscientific, and pure superstition and humbug.

In the Sanskrit work Kiraataarjuneeyam of Mahakavi Bharavi there is a statement :

नहि प्रियं वक्तुमिच्छन्ति मृषा हितैषिणः

Nahi priyam vaktumichchhanti mrishaa hitaishinah

i.e.

Those who mean well for others do not want to please them by false praise.

So I do not want to praise Indians ( except where praise is due ).

I am not a publicity or popularity seeker ( whatever some people may say about me ). I am not in politics, and I do not seek your vote.

If I stand for elections who will vote for me ? Hindus will not, because i have openly said I eat beef ( where legally permitted, e.g. in Kerala and Goa ). I do not regard beef eating as anything wrong. Almost the whole world eats beef. Are we Hindus alone sadhu sants, and the rest of the world wicked ? And I do not regard cow as a mother ( gomata ). How can an animal be a mother of a human being ?

Muslims will not vote for me because I have condemned the backward sharia law and burqa, which I want banned. And Sikhs, Christians, etc may not because I am an atheist, and regard all religions as superstitions.

I have called Gandhi, Jinnah,Tagore, Bankim Chandra, Swami Vivekanand, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, 'Veer' Savarkar, etc as British agents, and Subhas Chandra Bose as a Japanese agent. People of India ( and Pakistan, which is a fake, artificial entity ) have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. I regard Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of India, temporarily separated, but which will reunite with India under a secular government.

I have called most of our politicians goondas, who have no genuine love for the country, but only seek power and pelf, and polarize our people on caste and communal ines.

All these statements stirred a lot of controversy and animosity against me, and I was deluged by a barrage of invectives and diatribes against me, but that does not matter. The truth must be told now to Indians, because India is a sleeping giant which must be awoken now by giving it severe shocks and doses of the truth. How long must we remain poor and backward, with massive poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare and good education for our masses ?

Many people say that I seek controversies. That is totally false. I am really a very shy, unsocial being, who wants to keep away from the limelight. I never chase controversy, but if controversy chases me what can I do ? When I see my country going to dogs should I remain silent ? Others may be deaf and dumb, but I am not. So i speak out, and when I speak out there is a controversy. How is that my fault ?

As the great Urdu poet Faiz said " Bol ki lab azad hain tere, bol zubaan ab tak teri hai "

i.e.

' Speak out, for your lips are free

Speak out, for your tongue is still yours "

The Future of India

Before the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the 18th century, and then spread all over the world, so little wealth was produced by the primitive methods of production that only a handful of people could be rich while the rest had to be poor. But after the Industrial Revolution a unique situation has arisen in world history. Now the methods of production have become so powerful and so big that enough wealth can be generated to give a decent life to everyone on earth. So the real struggles of people everywhere is to create a social order in which every human being gets a decent life. The same applies to India too.

But creating such a social order is a very arduous, painful, historical process, extending over a long period, and calling for enormous sacrifices, because the vested interests in the existing social order will put up stiff resistance against any basic changes

In substance, what I intend to say today at St. Stephens College, Delhi today at 4.30 p.m. is that the next 10-15 years in India will be terrible and full of turmoil, but thereafter some kind of revolution will take place, and then good times will gradually come, in which the Indian people will have decent lives and a high standard of living.

I wish good times came immedialy without any pain or turbulence, but that is not how history functions

The Future of India--Part 1

These are some thoughts which occurred to me while preparing my forthcoming speech at Stephens College, Delhi on Friday, 25th January at 4.30 p.m

1. I need not labour on what I have said earlier in various posts on fb ( e.g. in my speech at Hindu College, Delhi which can be seen on my fb page ). that our national goal must be to abolish poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, good education, nutritious food, housing etc for the Indian masses, and to attain this objective we must rapidly industrialize on a widespread scale, and spread scientific thinking and destroy casteism, communalism and superstitions.

2. This objective cannot be attained within the present system. The present Indian Constitution provides for parliamentary democracy, whereas such democracy is a feature of industrial society, not a feudal or semi feudal society. Our society is still largely semi feudal, with rampant casteism and communalism. The result is that our politics largely relies on caste and communal vote banks. most people vote for candidates of their own caste or community, or for parties representing them, rather than on the merit of the candidate.

The politicians' aim is thus directly contrary to the national aim. The politicians' aim is to win the next elections, and for that they have to appease, and thereby perpetuate casteism and communalism, which are essentially feudal forces . The national aim, on the other hand, must be to destroy the feudal forces in our country and rapidly modernize. Thus the aim of our politicians and the national aim are poles apart. How, then can the country progress under the present system ? Our Constitution has exhausted itself, and all our state institutions have largely become hollow and empty shells, while on the other hand the people's distress is rising, with massive unemployment, corruption, price rise, etc.

3. As I had said earlier, our national goal must be to rapidly industrialize, and make India a modern, powerful, highly industrialized country, for only then will we able to generate the wealth needed for the welfare of our people and give them decent lives, with a high standard of living.

There has therefore be a revolution in India, though that may take several years. What form it will take cannot be predicted.

After this revolution a new Constitution will have to be framed, which guarantees the Indian people the economic rights mentioned in the speech of American President Franklin Roosevelt of 1944 called ' The Second Bill of Rights ' ( see online and in Youtube ), i.e. employment with good incomes, healthcare, nutritious food, good education. housing, etc.to all.

But providing these rights on paper alone will be meaningless. They have to be provided in reality. How can that be done ? We have to provide employment, free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc to over 1.25 billion people. Where will the money for all this come from ? Money does not fall from the sky. Even setting up one primary school costs a lot of money, for land, building, etc and recurring salaries to teachers and other staff. For higher educational institutions we also need libraries, laboratories with scientific apparatus and equipment, etc. And we have set up tens of thousands of such schools, colleges, engineering and medical colleges, hospitals, scientific institutes, etc.

This will require a huge amount of money, and this money can only be generated by a highly developed industry. In other words, we have to industrialize on a massive scale.

Now industrialization on a large scale is no problem. India today has a huge pool of competent engineers, managers, technicians and scientists. We have also huge natural resources ( India is not a small country like England or Japan, but is amost a continent. )

The problem, however, is this : how will the goods produced be sold ? Our people are mostly poor and have very little purchasing power.

Therefore the real problem is not how to increase production ( that can easily be done with our huge technical talent and natural resources ) but how to increase the purchasing power of our masses ?

In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

a. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

b. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

c. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up, even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

d. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

e. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 after the Wall Street Crash ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the Indian masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India and generate the wealth we need for the welfare of our people

The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Unless we solve that problem, our new Constitution guaranteeing economic rights to the Indian people will be illusory

. 4. All the developed countries in the world, including the latest, China, have ganged up against us and are determined that India must not be allowed to become a highly industrialized country, like themselves. On the other hand, our national goal must be to become highly industrialized ( for the reasons given above ). Let me explain this point.

There is competition in the market, and so if one businessman can sell the same product which his business rival is manufacturing at a cheaper price, he can win over the latter's customers by underselling him. To do so he has to lower his cost of production. Now, cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and if labour is cheaper the cost of production goes down, and one can sell at a cheaper price and eliminate his business rival.

To illustrate, after its revolution in 1949, China set up a massive industrial base, and with the cheap labour available in China, the Chinese are underselling the whole world in consumer goods. Most of the supermarkets in the Western countries are packed with Chinese goods, because they sell at less than half the price at which the Western manufacturer can sell ( because the Western labour is expensive ).

Now Indian labour is even cheaper than Chinese labour. And the India of today is not the India of 1947. In 1947 we had very few industries and very few engineers and technicians, because the British policy was broadly to keep us inindustrialized and feudal ( they permitted only some light industries e.g. textiles, plantations, etc which too were for a long period under British ownership, but no heavy industries ). But today India has a certain heavy industrial base, and thousands of competent engineers, technicians, managers, scientists, etc. ( our I.T. engineers are manning Silicon valley, and many of the Professors in the Maths and Science Departments in American Universities and many doctors in the West are Indians ) And we also have immense natural resources ( India is not a small country like England or Japan, but is almost a continent ).

So now we have the potential of becoming a highly industrialized country in 15-20 years. But then what will happen to the industries of the developed countries ? They will not be able to face our competition, because with our cheap labour we will be able to undersell them. Will they allow their industries to be destroyed ? Already China has become a Franken stein monster for the Western economies. Will they permit a second Frankenstein monster to arise ?

5. So what will the developed countries ( including China ) do to prevent this ? Since we have tremendous diversity in India--so many religions, castes, lingual, ethnic and regional groups ( India has perhaps more diversity than any other country in the world ), the developed countries will, through their agents, instigate religious, caste, ethnic and regional conflicts among Indians I am pretty sure that China is supporting through its surrogate Pakistan, the Kashmir militancy, and also the militancy in the North East.

So all Indians must beware of this, and expose such agents. We must maintain our unity at all costs, and block the designs of our enemies to fan communal, caste, ethnic and regional strife, otherwise we are heading for a terrible period in our history

Deaths in Jallikattu

Some people are making a hue and cry because two people were allegedly killed in a Jallikattu.
Deaths are unfortunate, but happen in many activities. Should Diwali be banned because sometimes people die by fire due to the lamps or crackers ? Should boxing be banned because boxers are frequently injured and sometimes die. Should trucks, buses, motor cars, motor cycles or scooters be banned because sometimes people are killed or injured ? Should trains be banned In Orissa many people died recently because a train was derailed. Should flying on planes be banned. because sometimes aircrashes take place killing people on board? Should cricket, horse riding, etc be banned because sometimes people are injured, and occasionally even killed ?  People have sometimes been killed in stampedes during Kumbh Mela, Haj, etc. Should Kumbh Mela, Haj, etc be banned ? Where is the end to all this ?

My prediction of the coming years in India

Samajwadi Party led by Akhilesh Yadav has formed an alliance with Congress, giving Congress 105 of the 403 U.P. Assembly seats.

This Alliance will probably win two third seats in the coming U.P. Assembly elections. I have already given my reasons in an earlier post.

Thereafter, by being routed in U.P. and Bihar, two big states in India, the graph of BJP will rapidly decline.

And as for the Superman who catapulted BJP into power in... 2014 by his superb dramatics and demagoguery, it will be appropriately said : " Punah mooshak bhav ". ( become a mouse again ).

In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, BJP will be decimated, and a mahagathbandhan consisting of several parties will come into power. But these constituent parties in the mahagathbandhan will all fight with each other for a bigger share of the pie or loaf, and chaos will follow.

Then a vacuum will be created, which will be filled in by an army coup. But the army, too, cannot solve the massive economic problems of unemployment, price rise, healthcare, etc in India, and more chaos will follow.

This is my prediction of the coming few years in India.

The Next Step Forward

Tamilians,

As I mentioned in an earlier fb post and blog ' Historical significance of the Jallikattu agitation ', you are showing the whole of India the correct path, and are giving leadership to the whole nation. Therefore a heavy responsibility falls on your shoulders.

You have achieved a glorious victory in the Jallikattu agitation, whose historical significance I have already pointed out. Its significance is that perhaps the first time after Independence a popular movement has cut through the barriers of caste and religion, and achieved victory.

Some people say that the Jallikattu Ordinance is only a temporary measure. It is true that an Ordinance issued by the Governor is only temporary, vide Article 213(2) of the Constitution of India. But the Tamilnadu Legislature is meeting tomorrow ( Monday, 23rd January ) and will replace the Ordinance by an Act, which will be permanent.

It is true that this Act may be challenged in the Court, but this challenge is unlikely to succeed, since the assent of the President has been obtained under Article 254(2). So the apprehensions of some people are really unfounded.

Now the question before you is what will be the next step you will take. As I said before, the whole Indian nation looks upto Tamilnadu for guidance, and therefore a heavy responsibility lies on you Tamilians. You must therefore not get carried away by your great victory, but should reflect carefully and soberly what should be your next step forward, because the whole of India is looking upto you, and may follow in your footsteps.

In this connection I may here present my own ideas for your consideration.

In my opinion, the time has now come in this country for Jansamitis (people's committees) to be formed in all cities and rural areas in India. People must now solve their own problems themselves, instead of depending on the government. Tamilnadu can lead the way in this connection.

First a Jansamiti should be formed in the cities of Tamilnadu by the people of those cities themselves. The method for doing so can be that every Mohalla in every city in Tamilnadu should elect a mohalla Jansamiti democratically which will have a term of six months only, after which a fresh election will be held, so that those who do not perform will not be re-elected.

This mohalla committee should nominate two of its members to the city Jansamiti, which will also have a term of six months only.

Presently most MPs and MLAs are elected for five years, but after getting elected, they forget about the problems of their constituencies and get busy in making money. So the term should be much shorter for the Jansamiti, with a right in the voters and mechanism to recall the elected representative for any misdeed even before his 6 month term is over

The Jansamitis or Mohalla Samitis should advise the ministers and officials of the Government to do what is needed to solve the people's problems. If the ministers or officials do not respond, the members of the Jansamitis and Mohalla Samitis should tell the people to hold peaceful demonstrations at the offices and residences of the ministers, MLAs and officials, and publicise it in the media. This is legally permissible, vide Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

This will exercise immediate pressure on the ministers, MLAs and the officers.

Following the example of Tamilnadu, Jansamitis should be formed in all cities in In India.

If the government and its officers do not respond, the people should also stop paying taxes. After all, taxes are taken to be used for the people's welfare, not to be pilfered and looted by the politicians

Details about the manner of election and functioning of these jan samities should be worked out by the people themselves using their creativity.

Historical significance of the Jallikattu agitation

Most people in India, and perhaps even Tamilians, would not be realizing the historical significance of the victory of the Tamil people over the Jallikattu issue. They may think it was a matter confined to Jallikattu and confined to Tamilnadu. They may think it has nothing to do with the massive challenges India faces of abolishing poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, nutrition, good education, etc. .

But in fact the popular Jallikattu agitation or uprising, and the victory of the Tamil people, has significance for the whole of india and is far beyond bull taming ( or bull embracing ). It is a spark which will light the flame which will spread throughout the country, and is the first step in solving all our major problems.

The victory of the Jallikattu agitation shows that when hundreds of thousands of people rise unitedly like a typhoon or tornado it becomes a force so powerful and so swift that no power on earth can resist it.

I myself used to often get pessimistic seeing our people divided on the lines of caste, religion, region, etc. I wondered whether the Indian people can or will ever unite, rising above caste, religion, region,etc to face our huge challenges. The significance of the Jallikattu agitation is that it cut through caste and religious barriers. In fact it even cut through the the national border as Indians in many parts of the world supported it.

Thus the victory of the Tamil people is a victory for all Indians. It has shown that we Indians can unite, as we must, if we are to solve our massive problems.

The Jallikattu agitation has thus shown the path which we Indians must follow. We must unite, and not remain divided ( though our enemies will make every effort to divide us on caste, religious and regional lines ), if we are to ever solve India's problems.

The Jallikattu agitation was a spontaneous uprising. The agitators rightly refused to allow politicians to intervene, as most of our present politicians are utterly selfish and unpatriotic. In many places the police was unleashed on them, but they were undeterred, undaunted and resolute..

The Tamil people have thus given leadership to the whole country, and have shown the correct path to the whole nation that we must unite to face our massive challenges.

Long live the Tamil people !

Tamil makkal vazhga !

Proposed speech at Hindu College, Delhi on 19th January---Part 3

 A question arises what is a Constitution, why have a Constitution, and what is its purpose ?

A Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It is a social countract by which a country is governed.

 Every society must have a system of governance. Since man is a gregarious creature, and cannot survive alone,  every community of men and women had to have an organization with a system of governance, e.g. leaders, advisers, etc. Even ancient tribal societies had a system of governance, i.e. a Constitution, with tribal chiefs, etc, though these were unwritten Constitutions, created by custom. Ancient and medieval communities all had unwritten Constitutions, and even today England has a largely unwritten Constitution..

 The first and main purpose of a Constitution is to set up the organs of power. Today these organs are the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the army, police, bureaucracy, etc.That is why a Constitution is sometimes called the organic law of the land. The Constitution defines the powers and duties of these organs,e.g. the power of taxation in Parliament

 We may consider the historical growth of the English Constitution in modern times, since many of our Constitutional principles have been derived from England.

The Tudor monarchs, from Henry the Seventh, who became King of England in 1485, till the death of Elizabeth 1 who died in 1603. were absolute rulers. The struggle between King and Parliament was in reign of the subsequent Stuart Kings, the first Stuart King being James 1 who became King in 1603. It is not necessary to mention here about these struggles between King and Parliament, and suffice it to say that eventually in this struggle the Glorious Revolution of 1688 established that it was Parliament which was supreme, not the King. In the Bill of Rights of 1689, which was assented to by the new King William, it was laid down that the King could not violate the law and raise taxes or troops without the consent of Parliament. The precedent of 1688 established that Parliament could even transfer the Crown from one head to another, something inconceivable earlier.

 But the Bill of Rights of 1689 only transferred sovereignty from King to Parliament. It did not give any rights to the people. It was John Locke's ' Second Treatise of Civil Government ' of 1689 which for the first time in history said that there were certain ' natural rights ' of citizens, which citizens had by the very fact of being born citizens, and which even the King could not violate.

 This theory of John Locke was in contrast to the earlier theory of Thomas Hobbes ( in his book 'Leviathan' ) which said that the King's sovereignty was absolute. Locke, on the other hand, said that the King's sovereignty was not absolute but  limited. Limited by what ? Limited by the natural rights of citizens which even the king could not violate.

 It was this theory of natural rights of John Locke which became the basis of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution of 1791, the Declaration of the Rights of Man passed by the French National Assembly in 1789 during the French Revolution, and our own Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, the Part which lays down certain Fundamental Rights of citizens which even Parliament cannot violate, e.g. right to life, freedom of speech, equality, liberty, freedom of religion, etc.

What was the need for providing such fundamental rights in the Constitution ? The need was because it was realized by the Constitution makers that though Parliament was elected by the people, and was therefore expected to represent the interests of the people, yet there may be occasions when Parliament itself may become despotic, oppressive and anti people. Hence the people had to be safeguarded against such eventualities.

  Thus, while the first purpose of a Constitution was to set up the organs of power, the second purpose was to place checks on these organs by incorporating certain fundamental rights of the people, so that the state organs may not become despotic. This was also done by incorporating Montesquiu's theory of separation of powers.

  But who would enforce these rights and checks and balances? Obviously the legislature and executive could not be entrusted to do so, because these rights were to check the powers of the legislature and executive. Hence it was the judiciary which became the guardian of the people’s rights and liberties, either expressly vide Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, or by judicial interpretation vide judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison

  Many feudal Kings, e.g. the Bourbons in France, and the Romanovs in Russia, fiercely resisted any attempt to set up a written Constitution, as they thought this would diminish their absolute powers. It was only after promulgation of the U.S. Constitution in 1791 that written Constitutions came into vogue, and now almost every country has one.

 A third purpose in certain Constitutions, like ours, was to lay down what a welfare state should do.This was mentioned in part 4, which are the Directive Principles of State Policy, though by Article 37 these have been made unenforcible.

The Indian Constitution in its historical context

We may now discuss the Indian Constitution in its historical context. To do so we have to first understand what is India.

As discussed in great detail in my judgment in Kailas v. The State of Maharashtra, and in my article ' What is India ? ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in, India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America. About 92% people living in India today are descendants of immigrants. The original inhabitants of India are not the Dravidians (who were also outsiders) but the pre- Dravidian tribals e.g. bhils, santhals, gonds, todas, etc. (i.e. the Scheduled Tribes). These comprise only about 7% to 8% of the Indian population today (for details see the above mentioned judgment online).

This explains the tremendous diversity in India – so many races, castes, religions, languages, cultures etc. China is larger than India, both in population and in land area, but there is broad (though not absolute) homogeneity in China. All Chinese have Mongoloid faces, 95% belong to one ethnic group called the Han, there is one written script mandarin etc. On the other hand India is characterized by its tremendous diversity, which is broadly due to the fact that it is largely a country of immigrants.

Hence to bring the country together it is essential that all the communities, regions, lingual groups etc., be given equal respect and to be treated equally, and this the Constitution does through Articles 14 to 18 (the equality provisions), Article 25 (freedom of religion), etc.

When India became independent in 1947 Partitions riots were taking place, and large parts of the country were engulfed in religious madness. Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic state, and there must have been tremendous pressure on Pandit Nehru and our leaders to declare India a Hindu state. When passions are inflamed, it is difficult to keep a cool head. It is the greatness of Pandit Nehru and our other leaders that they kept a cool head and resisted the pressure of declaring India a Hindu state. They declared India as a secular state, which was the correct decision in a sub continent of such tremendous diversity. This becomes evident when we see what is happening in our neighbouring country. In Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat (2008) the Supreme Court elaborately discussed our secularism.

The Indian Constitution sets up a federal form of a government. Federalism caters to regional aspirations. In a country of such tremendous diversity federalism is absolutely essential. Thus, the Naga people have their own government and so do the Tamil people, the people of Punjab, of Orissa, Assam, Bengal etc. There is also a central government which is for all. The jurisdiction of the Centre and the States is demarcated by Articles 245 to 248 and the Seventh Schedule.

Unity amongst diversity is a basic theme of the Indian Constitution. Article 301 which states that trade and commerce shall be free throughout the territory of India, provides for economic unity of India, and political unity depends upon economic unity. Article 301 in effect implies that India is one economic unit, and the various states are not separate units. Thus a manufacturer having his factory in Tamil Nadu can freely sell his goods in North India, West India or East India.

India must remain united because only a united India can provide the huge market which a modern industry must have, and it is only modern industry which can generate the wealth required to lift our people out of poverty and other social evils like unemployment, lack of healthcare, etc and give them a decent life. The Indian Constitution is an important mechanism for maintaining the unity of India, a country with tremendous diversity.

..