10 Questions to ponder over ‘Secular’ , ‘Socialistic’ debate

1. The words “Secular” and “Socialist” was introduced into the preamble of the
constitution in 1976 during emergency period. Is the parliament allowed to change
the basic nature of the constitution when an emergency period is in effect?

2.Is it not dictactorship to change the basic nature of the constituion when emergency
   is effective in the nation ?

3. Was there any discussion on this topic in the parliament in 1976?. Was the public kept
     aware of the meaning of these changes ?

4. The constitution came into effect in 1950. From the period 1950 to 1976, what was
    India as per the constitution ? Was it not secular or socialistic ?

5. Why these words were not originally included in the constitution when it was drafted? Jawahar Nehru was member of the committee?. Why he decided to drop these two words    at that point of time ?

6. When the basic nature of the constitution was changed by adding these words into the
    preamble, why the entire contents of the constitution was not revised to match with
    this change.

7. The constitution has clauses on managing the Hindu temples and their properties.
    Why a secular country should get involved in managing temples of only one religion?

8. Why the constitution was not modified to manage the places of worships of all
     religions ?

9. When the term secular was introduced in the constitution, why the management of Hindu temples were not given to the Hindu community ?

10. Is it fair to allow a secular government to manage the temples of Hindus and their properties? Does it not allow ministers belonging to other religions to interfere in the matters related to Hindu temples and their properties?
 

Responses