While I am yet
to read the whole thing and grasp it, I shall nevertheless jot down some
observations and my doubts and opinions on the Fundamental Rights section. Please
note, the opinions below are mine and I do not wish to force them on anyone
even if the language suggests otherwise. Further, any offence is unintentional
since the idea of the blog is to ask certain questions (backed by a fundamental
right).
A short list
below:
1) Point (3) of article 15 (Right
to Equality: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth) allows for making special provision for women and children.
It is unclear here as to how the law treats other members, other than the
binary, of the gender continuum. In a simple interpretation, it seems like the intersex
and/or the hermaphrodites have no constitutional support for any separate
provisions. I think it was in 2009, that the government did recognise the third
gender (something to do with voting cards, as far as I can remember). It is my
opinion that the members of the third gender generally get a raw deal (I could
be wrong), and might qualify for special provisions (not necessary if I am
wrong). Since I haven’t read the whole thing, if anyone can clarify the doubt
above, I would be obliged.
2)
Article 18 (Right to Equality: Abolition
of titles) states, amongst others, that
a.
No title, not being a military
or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the state
b.
No citizen of India shall
accept any title from any foreign state.
Based on the above, it is unclear to me if religious titles (like Bishop,
Sri Sri, Swami, Guru, Maulvi etc.), while clearly not conferred by the state,
ought to or ought not to be allowed. Article 26 goes on to say that, subject to
public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any
section thereof have the right to manage its own in matters of religion. The
above make a case for use of such titles, but the significant word, morality,
might undo the case. Morality has been constantly changing over years and will
continue to do so since there seems to be no absolute. I submit that equality
is an important requirement of morality. And hence, such titles cannot be, in
my opinion, justified. While it is clear that all are equal before law, why
must inequality of any form be allowed? Hypothetically, if person X were to put
a case against any religious leader for disrupting the right to equality by
taking on a title, would the verdict be for or against X?
Also, what is the verdict on default titles such as Mr., Mrs. etc?
And of titles such as Rani, Chatrapati etc.?
Further, in-case a citizen dies and receives a title posthumously
from foreign states/institutions, can/should the Indian state allow such a
title? (example: Blessed Teresa of Calcutta). Also, from above clearly, Mahatma
is not a title conferred by the state, hence one may think that the eponymous roads
and other items, including monuments and notes, bearing such name may not be backed
by law.
I suspect I could be wrong about my conclusions above. If so, I
request anyone who knows about this to enlighten me too.
3) Point (2) of Article 23 (Right
against exploitation) allows the state to impose compulsory service for public
purposes. If I am not wrong, it implies that in a situation like war, the state
may ask a person to compulsorily take up arms (Conscription) or risk going to
jail. This could actually open a Pandora’s Box by leading to questions
regarding pacifism, disarmament etc. While I myself do not yet know how I would
react in such a situation, I do have a feeling that a good number of people
would neither want to take up arms nor want to go to jail. How then can this be
addressed?
4) Article 24 (Right against
exploitation: Prohibition of employment of children in factories etc.) states
that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any
factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. The wording seems
to be excluding children working in hotels, households and other places since
these places/jobs are not hazardous. While I am not against employment of
children below the age of fourteen for certain jobs, I am against the
exploitation and labour components of certain jobs. A child trying to make some
money on the side to assist in funding of his education or other needs,
such as food/shelter or a bicycle, can obviously be employed for certain jobs.
However, if the job exploits (exploit is a word that needs to be defined
thoroughly by experts on this field lest it turns out that every job with a
capitalist intent includes exploitation) or causes excessive physical labour, even
though it is not hazardous in nature, then people should be prohibited from
employing children below the age of fourteen. It is of course possible that “hazardous”
might be an all-encompassing term for such types of jobs. However, going by the
context, I have a feeling that hazardous here only refers to health aspects,
without any consideration on mental impact of such jobs. In case anyone has a
clearer idea, I’d be glad to hear from you.
5) Article 25 (Right to Freedom of
Religion: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation
of religion) states that one has the right to freely profess, practise and
propagate religion. While I have, over time, accepted that some people are yet
unwilling to be free from religion and are yet to admire the results and
ponderings of modern science and logic, and hence may freely profess and
practise a religion, I do have some reservations about the word “propagate”. Perhaps
the word “propagate” also needs to be thoroughly defined so as include only
those actions by an individual or group that perform the function of
information dissemination and allows people to make up their minds on their
religious inclinations only after deliberation of all choices available. For
example, as Richard Dawkins says, a child of parents of X and Y religions,
should not be called an X child or a Y child. Rather, at the age of reason, the
child must be allowed to choose his religion based on all the information
available through the dissemination mentioned above. Further, children must not
be affected in any way till the age of reason and/or without their consent by
any prescriptions of the parents’ religion. This includes activities such as
piercing/mutilation of any sort, initiation rituals of any sort, etc. Any
action/method of propagation, apart from information dissemination, should be, in
my opinion, not backed by the constitution. Enforcing one’s religious
prescriptions on one’s child should be seen as a form of forceful propagation
and hence must be restrained / prohibited. Perhaps the rights of children are
covered elsewhere and I may be ignorant of the same. If so, I request you to
guide me to the relevant article. In any event, the point regarding the
definition of “propagate” remains.
While
I shall continuing reading our constitution, I, firstly, urge anyone with
responses to the above to convey the same to me and secondly, for everyone to
take some time out on this Republic Day and read up the ideas upon which our
nation has been built.
