| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
188944
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The primary endeavor of this paper is to illuminate the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 through the constitution and human rights jurisprudence perspective. In this paper, an attempt has been made to propose a different interpretation of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 which not only infracts constitutional values but also legalized the hate against minorities, especially Muslims. India—as a nation state—has always cherished and remained concerned about its secular and democratic character. Since independence, India has maintained its global position as a responsible and humane society to protect minorities’ rights and social justice. Shockingly, the legislative development that had taken place in the recent past has questioned India’s commitment toward the certain principle of human rights, democratic values, and secularism which are the hallmark of the Constitution of India. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 has put religion as a pre-requisite qualification if someone is desirous to apply for Indian citizenship which is purely a violation of the basic ethos of the constitution. The idea of India as envisioned by the framers of the Indian constitution as a democratic, secular, and socialist state and anything that contrary to its basic structure is unconstitutional. The contentious legislation whether unconstitutional or not needs to be examined through the prism of constitutional law and fundamental norms of human rights. In this research exercise, a modest attempt is made to examine all merits and demerits of this antagonistic citizenship legislation. Throughout the paper, the effort has been given to sustain the notion that India cannot be a republic founded on discrimination, hate, and a pervasive sense of fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
152637
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The issue of minority is a universal phenomenon. There is no country in the world without having presence of some kind of minority. Yet, the nature of minority, the relationship between minority and majority in the majoritarian democracy and the problems of minorities are different from time to time, region to region and from country to country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
170601
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Abstract This article analyzes two responses by the Left to the turbulent events of 1968 in Europe and the failed attempt at revolution: the turn towards postmodern theory and the “minorities policy” is contrasted with the transition to urban guerilla warfare. The paper argues that the theoretical degradation of a considerable part of leftist thought after 1968 was a result of the transition to postmodernist attitudes. The article also analyzes the penetration of these trends into the concept of sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, one of the most influential left-wing theorists. The article traces the logic behind the emergence of urban guerillas in Europe and the causes of their defeat. By analyzing both the postmodern and ultra-radical experience, the author offers some conclusions regarding the current situation and the future of Europe’s Left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|