We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Very smart and logical answer precious.
That "you are not a judge therefore your argument is not worthy" is a lazy argument, and a logical fallacy (referring to authority rather than substance of the argument). Sure, OP is miserably failing to justify their argument, but this isn't quite the rebuttal you think it is.
2. It must be assessed by a SC bench if "socialist" forms a basic structure of the constitution
2. The 13 judge bench decision in Kesavananda Bharati would have to be overturned by a larger bench for there to be such a constitutional amendment (preamble part of it)
4. practically there's no real value, as the preamble is neither enforceable nor justiciable, there's no real difference other than a symbolic value
5.Perhaps when the right BJP govt stays long enough with a better majority to have a say in the composition of SC Judges majorities, it could be removed cuz clearly it holds no value in the modern indian society
We likes Tamil Nadu. They gives cycles to girls, they gives free stoves and gas, and they gives rice at 2/- a kg, and cash grants so that students stay in school.
We likes Chattisgarh. They gives free meals to the poorest workers, and they give phones to women (increasing economic and social indices, my precious, but surely you know network effects).
We likes the idea that spectrum and coal are owned by everyone, including the villagers in Odisha and Jharkhand, and we likes the idea that spectrum and coal revenues go into building roads, schools and hospitals for them.
But, but, but, my precious...
What do you mean by "socialist"? Or by "leftist"? Or by "Marxist"? Big words, all, and beloved of anti-Modi anti-nationals (even the BJP governments that routinely spend on the same schemes you hate). If you are a lawyer, you can surely articulate what "socialism" is, and what the fundamental problem with socialism is?
Are you unhappy with high taxes, my precious? Does a change in the tax rate from 33% to 36% mean that you have to cut down on LV bags and Rolexes? Worry not, my precious. There is excellent advice at hand.
It's not my advice. It is YOUR advice. The same advice that you give to the tired and the poor and the huddled masses yearning to breathe, my precious.
Do you want that LV? Do you want an honest life? Do you want that Omega Seamaster? Do you want to send your kids to school? Remember your advice, my precious.
Work hard. Earn money. Don't be lazy. There are enough opportunities around, if you just put your mind to it.
Moral and ethical reason: Socialism has done great harm to India's economy and worsened corruption and inequality. The policies of Nehru and Indira (imitating the Soviets Union) set the Indian economy back by decades, before Narasimha Rao and Vajpayee reversed them.
Symbolic reason: It will mark a clean break from the past and discourage populist schemes and subsidies