One of my favourite ex-students who stood out as a voracious reader in his student days at St. Peter's College, Agra. Proud to watch his stellar performance with in-depth domain knowledge. He is sure to ascend greater heights and earn his spurs in the highest echelons of writers' firmament.
Excellent choice interviewing Mr. Tripurdaman(though Mr. Thapar kept interrupting way too much this time)! I read his book a few months ago - very well written account of what happened .It teaches a very important lesson, leaving aside the consequences of such constitutional maneuvering - to Stay away from Hero Worshipping!! Our founders were human too...NO ONE's perfect! Stop seeing everything in simple binaries....that said, i wish the interview mentioned the IMPORTANT concerns raised by Shyama Prasad Mookherji(among others) against Nehru's decision... he correctly warned about the possibility of constitution being misused via such acts by successive parliaments. Ends didn't justify the means back then, but now maybe even the ends aren't justifiable. 🤦🏻♂️
I completely agree with you and infact every decision by the executive will need to be scrutinized by such a lens. It's the basic 101 of decision making. We always do a complete long term SWAT analysis. Even if for a moment we assume the Govt of the day is honest all decisions will have to be analyzed with the lens of what happens if a rogue govt comes into power. At the end of the day every law should be morally correct and respect all individuals and Thier rights.
I have rarely read books in my life, but I have never been so inclined to read a book, NOT because of the book itself, BUT the personality, knowledge and intellect of the writer.
Karan Thapar never interviews. He continuously expresses his feelings, interpretations, narrates the story for every word the guest says. In other words, he is another Arnab but liberal & honest version of course.
_Very Good interview, People like Tripurdaman Singh are the one who you should interview, very informative indeed._ *Karan, It’s so good that we forgive you for wasting our time with Chetu Bhagat’s Interview.*
The govt of the time was also under an obligation to secure directive principles of state policy. The fundamental rights had to give way to larger policy objectives.
Difference between political science student and historian is, historian go in history and study overall but political scientist or any others relate contemporary time with history without any understanding of history
@@nitishsaxena1372 ya it is, in this interview both were indirectly saying that dr Ambedkar was unethical on political ethics but reality is Ambedkar resigned after three months
They do cherry picking for the sake of tarnish nehru image. We should analyse the overall perfomamce of nehru. And i think he is the best prime ministet ever. As a newly independant india he had more challanges socially and economically. He handled them well. Really proud of nehru.
42:37 Rajgopalachari, Nehru, Patel, and Ambedkar did not create India, they were given leadership of this nation which was (and more or less still is) a Nation of hundred countries!
What democracy are you talking about ?the one in which the founding fathers didn’t believe? Or the one which which was circumcised by Congress for almost half a millennium?
What an amazing interview, eye opener, informative and thought provoking. You are by far the best journalist in India is what I can say, you are living the best years of your career Karan. I was just writing the comment here about u not asking the question about Ambedkar's stand on this and u asked it right at the end of the interview. Honestly Ambedkar's stand was a shock. Thanks a lot for giving us such great stuff Karan
Wasn't this unelected body of 1951, the Constituent Assembly, the same which had made the original Constitution? Were they not entitled to amend what they themselves had created? Both these guys seem intent on damning Nehru,.and tarnishing the image of the great democrat. Very popular stand in Modi's India.
It is not these leaders who achieved independence, it is people of india who achieved independence. These leaders grabbed the power after Britishers left.
I think our constitution makers were too idealistic while building a liberal constitution on an illiberal population...soon after independence, they realised the challenges of implementing those principles..first amendment was an acknowledgement of realism over the liberal idealism they envisioned.
“Maybe you will continue for eternity, in the next generation, for generations unborn; that is quite possible. But supposing some other party comes into authority? What is the precedent you are laying down?” SP Mukherjee
Did you not read the caption? Both Babasaheb and Sardar Patel signed on to this controversial amendment. Historical figures are all complex, my friend. No clear heroes or villains.
Nehru at that time thought that he was a great leader and only intellectual who can change the lives of people and future of india. Similarly modiji think today that he knows correctly what is good for india and Indians ; what he does is good for india. It is leaders own arrogance which is more harmful for a country.
This interview is better and interviewer also seems to be interested and engaged with the book. I'm really happy that I could get the sense of whole book. Thanks for discussing the book in detail. While creating constitution these leaders were yet to experience power of being in office. In principle initially they were committed to democracy and constitutions but later as many says power corrupts everyone.
Great book for political science students. And very proud to see Sri Tripudaman Singh. I have read his thesis on Imperial sovereignty and local politics that gives me a new theme for medieval history and changes my view on Mughal sovereignty.
By seeing this I came to know How much ignorant karan thapar is... he said about article 392 used 1951 and 2019. 2019 was used to divide J&K. Sir did you forgot same used in 2014 to divide Andhra. At least J&K was in presidential rule in 2019. But andhra had elected government(congress) and state assembly is rejected the state division. But same party(Congress) at central government ruled by Manmohan Singh as prime minister and Sonia as party president divided the state using same article. How can you guys forget these... what kind of liberal journalism is this.
I consider myself as a liberal and I actually liked this interview. This reiterates couple of facts that no leader is sacrosant and each of his decision should be critically analysed from short and long term basis. The other fact is that every leader with power loses all his intelligence and decency. It's the intoxication of power and self importance. The ending is a bit sad on how the author protray these leaders but they were atleast better intellect and human being that we see today as political leaders.
So removing certain Sections of the Constitution can be termed as gutting it but the same section also gives license to certain families in certain part of the country to hoard everything from the Central government's alloted budget
First amendment was done to do away with zamindari system and implement land reforms. After those reforms my grandfather got ownership of some land. Being a dalit he was not entitled to own any property before that ( how ironic...The abolition of right to properly got my grandfather some property)... After nationalisation of banks in 1969 , he got a loan to buy tractor , and that had a huge positive impact his earning and standard of living as compared to before. All credit goes to Congress govts of the time. And Nehru was right to put inhibitions on free hate speech (all speech of Hindu right is hate speech mostly). We are witnessing how much harm the hate speech of Hindu right does to fraternity.
@@Manish_Kumar_Singh they were compensated..Most of them got around the land ceilings by exploiting loop holes in the reforms..but still at least some land reforms were done
😂😂 Nehru actually under the garb of first amendment brought a bill to censor free speech…for example what did land ceiling and distribution of land have to do with free speech 😂….I mean free speech limitation has nothing to do with the land distribution right?😂….He brought first amendment to stop his critic of license Raj…where his party cronies are destroying industries and getting bribes for every license….He actually jailed many of his own colleagues and friends who questioned license Raj and bribes for license like Raja gopala chary and many….Nationalisation of banks is the stupidest thing have ever done…it was actually reported by kushasan Singh when people where dancing on streets and asked why are u dancing are u getting loans…the people said we don’t have bank accounts or loans but we are happy becasue govt crushed the rich😂😂…Modi done the best thing using UPI without any nationalisation and brought 80% people into banking which nationalisation of 70 years could only bring 20% population 😂😂…Indian first scam was done by Nehru and his FM after nationalisation of LIC (exposed by Nehru son in law Firoz and FM had to resign and Nehru powers and reputation gone….so Nehru sidelined his son in law and made his daughter to leave him and Firoz became a alcoholic and dies as a poor guy without wife Indira never helping him)
We are talking about the will of the people and the first Constitutional Amendment in 1951. When have our representatives really respected the will of the people. The Partition itself was done without any sort of a referendum of the people of an undivided India. No leader from either side was made to owe any responsibility for all the violence and arson during the partition and the lives lost in the process.
I have not read the book written by the gentlemen. I will read it. But, I would like to highlight that the "Amending" mechanism provided in the Constitution is what keeps the Constitution "alive". The 1st Amendment to the Constitution had affected a slew of different aspects like...adding Article 46 which gave "special consideration" for the socially and economically weaker sections of the Nations. It also provided for certain protection to Article 19 of the Constitution of India and also led to land reformation in the country which was the need of that time. This was done in accordance with the Amending procedure in the Constitution. Also, people should read the Champakam Dorairajan case where Supreme Court had struck down the government order of Madras government which reversed certain reservations for the weaker and oppressed castes. The 1st Amendment reversed this judgment of the Supreme Court as well. So in conclusion I think that what the Parliament (and not just Nehru) did was in keeping with the needs of those times. How it played is being judged today. How the reforms done by the current government is being done will be judged in the near future. Dictation happens when one institution clashes with the other. Sometimes the Executive wins and sometimes the Judiciary.
To say Nehruji disrespected the Indian constitution is not correct by any standard. He took the decision that he had taken not for furthering his interests but in the interest of the nation if one were to gauge the exigencies that existed then. After all constitution is for the good of the country and being dynamic, it has to meet the aspirations of the people with the changing time without the basic tenets of our constitution being altered.
It's said: What ever you do today, will have it's effects seen in the fourth generation! So are we to blame the past or mend the present. In accordance, yet with a contradiction triggering another chaos?
Both the interview and the book are based on the false premise that the Constitution of India was founded on liberal principles at its originary moment. As Uday Mehta has rightly noted, the Indian state from the very beginning was imagined as a thoroughly interventionist one, since the proverbial 'social revolution' was sought to be enacted through a constitutional framework.
I don't think so. The British wanted to have a say even after independence. Socialists intervened and created mess, always supported russian and Chinese cause and not interested in settling border disputes, neither developed border infra etc. The discussion is about the purpose of constitution and after effects of IST amdt and his views towards it. Results are to see for every one, the fruit of freedom struggle with the Family, all talks about socialism but it helped monopoly in the hands of a foreigner. Socialism don't support freedom of speech in that Jln obeyed their masters it seems.
hes also a BJP politician and hes hitting at the heart of the false liberal-fascist binary that congress tries to perpetuate. Nehru was one of the biggest banner of books and speeches...
दिनभर धुपों में रहे और रातभर शितों में रहे। हम तो किसान हैं साहेब उम्रभर दर्दों में रहे।। उम्मीद थी कि ग़रीब का बेटा गरीबों का दर्द समझेगा, मगर अफ़सोस है कि सत्ता पाते ही वो बस घूमने में रहे।। कृपया मुझे सब्सक्राइब करें ताकि मैं अपनी बातें कविताओं के माध्यम से रख सकूं 🙏🙏
Security or intelligence agency are funded by people of india not RSS employee. When ppl of india are protesting, they sud NOT attack them, step aside.
One more thing that suddenly stuck me after listening to this interview and comments below. Nehru did what he did for abolishing Zamindari land holding and not giving them compensation. This was right after freedom when land holdings were a big problem due to lack of proper registrations. See the current situation this Govt wanted to do the exact same not provide adequate compensation to land holders as part of new Land acquisition act in 2015. Offcourse it don't go through but the fact remains even today all economists and industrialist talks about land reforms. Isn't it a irony.
To know about history is important but to scratching old wounds in current times not important too, if current time if follows old mistakes and justify today’s mistakes it’s totally unacceptable
Other countries are planning to make 500 billion dollar City and planning about the future, here in India people are interested in Nehru vs Modi and religious development instead of national development.
It is hight time that Indian citizens realize the contradiction that exists between liberal ideals and socialism..Freedom and equality/justice does not always go hand in hand..anyone interested must read Isaiah Berlin's - Two Concepts of Liberty..A certain ideological misconception in the mainstream media, even at times, in the left inclined media, is appalling and dangerous..Its been so long hearing that India is a liberal democracy..It would be better if sooner rather than later, enlightened people wrap their heart and soul around the idea that India was fundamentally conceived as a socialist republic that also recognised fundamental rights..and not the other way round..a fine balance is being compromised everyday in the favour of liberty (economic) creating greater and greater confusion in the opposition to come up with a clear intent and alternative..what a shame!
This revealing discussion tells me that our pre-independence leaders, including the father of constitution himself, did not much trust the political maturity of Indian common person to use the privilege and to bear the the responsibilities which democracy bestows upon the citizens. Looking at the unruly mobsters like behavior of elected and unelected leaders since independence, and to this day, and also of their followers, I wonder, if those leaders were right not to put full trust in the freedoms granted by the constitution. If I remember it correctly, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and many other leaders, had expressed this point, and had opposed the full democratic governance system, to be elected by the immature and illiterate masses. Today, it is hard to accept India as a largest democracy on the basis of conduction free and fair elections alone, when the electorates themselves, do not even respect laws that their elected representatives pass, and take it in their own hand to enforce whatever they fill ought to be the rule of law. The way minority communities' rights, and freedoms which are granted by the constitutions, are routinely trampled, and the highest courts are corrupted, and made subordinate to the other two branches in the constitutional issues, that may go against the government, this façade of fake democracy, how long is it going to last? It is indeed a sad paradox.
probably he does not have the guts to talk about indira ghandhy amendment of constitution which makes court not capable to question election of pm. president
First thing that Nehru should have done was breakup of Pakistan. There is a reason why Nehru is so hated. Not because of his ideology but bcoz his policies are still hurting India to this date.
Satish Deshpande has deconstructed his arguments and proved how wrong he is, in his paper ‘towards the biography of general category ’ in 2011. Like 9 years ago
I am your fan yet critic by nature. So if you replay it yourself, unusually this time you seems to pushing your points in the mouth of opponent. May be I took it because I am lover of Nehru.
38:40 - How come he is giving powers or trusting Parliament??! Wasn't Parliament supposed to have powers to amend the Constitution as per the original constitution of 1950, in the first place?? Ninth schedule could have been added by any Parliament/party/govt. in future with a Parliament majority - what's so special about him doing so? Yes, he is setting the precedent, but that precedent could have been set up by any Parliament in future.
Karan Thapar I don’t agree with your concluding comments that our founding fathers were not so great as you thought. India was and remains a complex society even today. To start with, you needed a level ground which was not there then. So those manoeuvres were necessary then. But yes, they should have thought of better means to achieve that end. All said, it doesn’t make the founding fathers any less great.
This fellow Ripudaman Singh belongs to the hiers of erstwhile Princely States, which were the main holders of land before the passing of the first amendment and hence his jealousy with Nehru is understandable, which drived him to writing this books. However, It is very much clear that he was not born at the time of first amendment and he is only a spoilt bratt by the prejudiced mentality of his elders, who would have lost their lands due to the first amendment. One can not understand that when a so called provisional parliament, which was elected for the purpose of creating a Constitution but the same parliament was not having the mandate to amend it. Isn't it a laughable argument but Mr. Karan Thapar is promoting such arguments through this interview.
What Nehru did back then can't be compared with today's situation. India had just got independence. Was premature as a nation back then. Still Nehru brought up this infant so wonderfully.
@@ramankathuria9211 What proves that it was functioning better under Nehru ? On which criteria it did better ? India was no infant, It was an adult ruled previously by foreigners but now by an Indian by birth but foreigner at heart.
@@gareebbanker9966 OK do one thing. Go through the 5 year plans for three successive govt. and see how much did he succeed. India was an infant that was looted and exploited by foreigners for their own land. Nehru, might have made a few mistakes as anyone does but surely was the best person to lead India.
@@ramankathuria9211 You tell me gdp growth before and after independence. Also increase in per capita income during Nehru. 5 year plan is a communist concept. His socialist communist policies ensured the country got poorer, even had to beg foregin countries for food.
Neharu was great PM , and Indira Gandhiji is best PM forever, no one can I mean no one can take the position of the grand old party Indian National Congress , which is only politically centrist party in India and also liberal in religious manner , Jay Hind Jay Congress..
@@debojyotibanerjee2832 Best in terms of administration , decision making , braveness , political viewpoint , international affairs , Solutions for Intra National Conflicts , and many other things.
@@debojyotibanerjee2832 plus economic growth of India in her period was too good and social welfare program and delivering the promise of hunger free India
The nehr,s are the madman who thwarted Gandhi's successful attempt to build India and made Pakistan and today's nehr,s Modi is building another Pakistan. Ninety percent of the work has been done. The remaining ten percent would have been done very soon. It seems to be happening
At partition in 1947 India failed to begin as a secular country. If Pakistan couldn't keep pakistan with it by use of military force how can India keep Punjab, Kashmir, Tamil Nadu to NE States with Pakistan type military tyranny? Hindu rashtar can't rule over others by force.
One of the problems with the Indian Constitution is that people cannot relate to it. I find a lot of it is derived for old English and American traditions of democracy, secularism, equality and justice and as a result, feels alien to the Indian mind which still resides in a semi feudal society. In an ideal world, Indian people would have been educated enough to understand it, however, they do not. The principles mentioned above are imposed by a select few rather than demanded by the masses. So whenever you have leaders from the masses emerge, they naturally reflect the will of the people and start chipping awat at the Constitution. Protests such as Shaheen Bagh and the current farmer protests are important in building the democratic culture that helps people relate to and understand the importance of the Constitution.
When he starts to speak, it seems he doesn't even want to speak and instead wants to sleep, but then what he speaks is fascinating!
One of my favourite ex-students who stood out as a voracious reader in his student days at St. Peter's College, Agra.
Proud to watch his stellar performance with in-depth domain knowledge. He is sure to ascend greater heights and earn his spurs in the highest echelons of writers' firmament.
He is a classic introvert. Love him. He's straight with his views.
Excellent choice interviewing Mr. Tripurdaman(though Mr. Thapar kept interrupting way too much this time)! I read his book a few months ago - very well written account of what happened .It teaches a very important lesson, leaving aside the consequences of such constitutional maneuvering - to Stay away from Hero Worshipping!! Our founders were human too...NO ONE's perfect! Stop seeing everything in simple binaries....that said, i wish the interview mentioned the IMPORTANT concerns raised by Shyama Prasad Mookherji(among others) against Nehru's decision... he correctly warned about the possibility of constitution being misused via such acts by successive parliaments. Ends didn't justify the means back then, but now maybe even the ends aren't justifiable. 🤦🏻♂️
Absolutely. Can’t agree more. Just a correction. I believe you meant ends justified the means then.🙂
I completely agree with you and infact every decision by the executive will need to be scrutinized by such a lens. It's the basic 101 of decision making. We always do a complete long term SWAT analysis. Even if for a moment we assume the Govt of the day is honest all decisions will have to be analyzed with the lens of what happens if a rogue govt comes into power. At the end of the day every law should be morally correct and respect all individuals and Thier rights.
He is the coolest and most laid back person I've seen in an interview!
SAVE state rights at any cost especially south and north east
I had one suggestion: you should upload your interviews in the from of podcasts on Spotify or some other platform
I have rarely read books in my life, but I have never been so inclined to read a book, NOT because of the book itself, BUT the personality, knowledge and intellect of the writer.
Karan Thapar never interviews. He continuously expresses his feelings, interpretations, narrates the story for every word the guest says. In other words, he is another Arnab but liberal & honest version of course.
_Very Good interview, People like Tripurdaman Singh are the one who you should interview, very informative indeed._
*Karan, It’s so good that we forgive you for wasting our time with Chetu Bhagat’s Interview.*
Well explained
Karan's interviews= Karan talking 70% guest 30%
The govt of the time was also under an obligation to secure directive principles of state policy. The fundamental rights had to give way to larger policy objectives.
How many books does Karan read and yes within how many days ?
Anyone can complete a book in 4 days at normal pace . Two days if it's weekend.
@@gurindersingh8109 Especially if one has read similar books on the topic in the past and is familiar with the background knowledge.
Difference between political science student and historian is, historian go in history and study overall but political scientist or any others relate contemporary time with history without any understanding of history
Not really
@@nitishsaxena1372 ya it is, in this interview both were indirectly saying that dr Ambedkar was unethical on political ethics but reality is Ambedkar resigned after three months
@@abhijeet60 this interview cannot be taken to generalise all political scientists
@@nitishsaxena1372 right, I am not generalizing all political scientists but this person is new arun shauri, who wrote 'false god' on dr Ambedkar
Good work by कुँवर त्रिपुदमन सिंह भदावर
Welcome & Thanks a lot sir
They do cherry picking for the sake of tarnish nehru image. We should analyse the overall perfomamce of nehru. And i think he is the best prime ministet ever. As a newly independant india he had more challanges socially and economically. He handled them well. Really proud of nehru.
Lol. Nehru had a functioning country handed to him on a platter by British and Gandhi.
42:37
Rajgopalachari, Nehru, Patel, and Ambedkar did not create India, they were given leadership of this nation which was (and more or less still is) a Nation of hundred countries!
Wud like Karan Tapar interview home minister or opposition leaders on how undemocratically the farm bill was passed.Not this
What democracy are you talking about ?the one in which the founding fathers didn’t believe? Or the one which which was circumcised by Congress for almost half a millennium?
I have never seen a man so deliberate in his thought and speech.
Excellent excellent interview! I came here after finishing the book btw. Excellently written too!
Karan...really..you were asking the questions as well as giving the answers. Feel so bad for the guest
He was just paraphrasing the points put forth by the interviewee for the clarity of viewers as you could see clearly.
Excellent conversation.
Thanks Karan Thapar sir.
I will read this book.
What an amazing interview, eye opener, informative and thought provoking. You are by far the best journalist in India is what I can say, you are living the best years of your career Karan. I was just writing the comment here about u not asking the question about Ambedkar's stand on this and u asked it right at the end of the interview. Honestly Ambedkar's stand was a shock. Thanks a lot for giving us such great stuff Karan
Wasn't this unelected body of 1951, the Constituent Assembly, the same which had made the original Constitution? Were they not entitled to amend what they themselves had created? Both these guys seem intent on damning Nehru,.and tarnishing the image of the great democrat. Very popular stand in Modi's India.
It is not these leaders who achieved independence, it is people of india who achieved independence. These leaders grabbed the power after Britishers left.
Power is meant to be grabbed. It's not for the faint of heart.
@@saideepakb Cheer Modi now then
I think our constitution makers were too idealistic while building a liberal constitution on an illiberal population...soon after independence, they realised the challenges of implementing those principles..first amendment was an acknowledgement of realism over the liberal idealism they envisioned.
Thapar sir scrutiny is beyond the limits ....literally if he take any subject to debate he grills and squeeze the opponent
SC has made 9th schedule under judicial review after Coelho case.
His podcast with amit varma is even more insightful.
Where can I access it?
@@sauravdagaSDaga1984 Seen and the Unseen podcast. It's also available on UA-cam.
“Maybe you will continue for eternity, in the next generation, for generations unborn; that is quite possible. But supposing some other party comes into authority? What is the precedent you are laying down?” SP Mukherjee
Ambedkar: I think I have given a good constitution, what u say nehru.
Nehru: Hold my 🍻
Did you not read the caption? Both Babasaheb and Sardar Patel signed on to this controversial amendment. Historical figures are all complex, my friend. No clear heroes or villains.
A K Gopalan Case, I believe troubled Nehruji
Nehru at that time thought that he was a great leader and only intellectual who can change the lives of people and future of india. Similarly modiji think today that he knows correctly what is good for india and Indians ; what he does is good for india. It is leaders own arrogance which is more harmful for a country.
But Modi is a semi-illiterate.....
@@HeartistMurali And Nehru was philanderer who considered himself more British than Indian
Absolutely amazing....buying the book!
Guys it's a classic case of Never meet your heroes. I would advise to listen to the interview with a grain of salt.
This interview is better and interviewer also seems to be interested and engaged with the book.
I'm really happy that I could get the sense of whole book. Thanks for discussing the book in detail.
While creating constitution these leaders were yet to experience power of being in office. In principle initially they were committed to democracy and constitutions but later as many says power corrupts everyone.
Great book for political science students. And very proud to see Sri Tripudaman Singh. I have read his thesis on Imperial sovereignty and local politics that gives me a new theme for medieval history and changes my view on Mughal
sovereignty.
By seeing this I came to know How much ignorant karan thapar is... he said about article 392 used 1951 and 2019. 2019 was used to divide J&K. Sir did you forgot same used in 2014 to divide Andhra. At least J&K was in presidential rule in 2019. But andhra had elected government(congress) and state assembly is rejected the state division. But same party(Congress) at central government ruled by Manmohan Singh as prime minister and Sonia as party president divided the state using same article. How can you guys forget these... what kind of liberal journalism is this.
I consider myself as a liberal and I actually liked this interview. This reiterates couple of facts that no leader is sacrosant and each of his decision should be critically analysed from short and long term basis. The other fact is that every leader with power loses all his intelligence and decency. It's the intoxication of power and self importance. The ending is a bit sad on how the author protray these leaders but they were atleast better intellect and human being that we see today as political leaders.
So removing certain Sections of the Constitution can be termed as gutting it but the same section also gives license to certain families in certain part of the country to hoard everything from the Central government's alloted budget
Great research, eye opener for a citizen.
First amendment was done to do away with zamindari system and implement land reforms. After those reforms my grandfather got ownership of some land. Being a dalit he was not entitled to own any property before that ( how ironic...The abolition of right to properly got my grandfather some property)...
After nationalisation of banks in 1969 , he got a loan to buy tractor , and that had a huge positive impact his earning and standard of living as compared to before.
All credit goes to Congress govts of the time.
And Nehru was right to put inhibitions on free hate speech (all speech of Hindu right is hate speech mostly). We are witnessing how much harm the hate speech of Hindu right does to fraternity.
should just compensate the land holders or zamindar , what's wrong in that?
both are win win situation
@@Manish_Kumar_Singh they were compensated..Most of them got around the land ceilings by exploiting loop holes in the reforms..but still at least some land reforms were done
😂😂 Nehru actually under the garb of first amendment brought a bill to censor free speech…for example what did land ceiling and distribution of land have to do with free speech 😂….I mean free speech limitation has nothing to do with the land distribution right?😂….He brought first amendment to stop his critic of license Raj…where his party cronies are destroying industries and getting bribes for every license….He actually jailed many of his own colleagues and friends who questioned license Raj and bribes for license like Raja gopala chary and many….Nationalisation of banks is the stupidest thing have ever done…it was actually reported by kushasan Singh when people where dancing on streets and asked why are u dancing are u getting loans…the people said we don’t have bank accounts or loans but we are happy becasue govt crushed the rich😂😂…Modi done the best thing using UPI without any nationalisation and brought 80% people into banking which nationalisation of 70 years could only bring 20% population 😂😂…Indian first scam was done by Nehru and his FM after nationalisation of LIC (exposed by Nehru son in law Firoz and FM had to resign and Nehru powers and reputation gone….so Nehru sidelined his son in law and made his daughter to leave him and Firoz became a alcoholic and dies as a poor guy without wife Indira never helping him)
We are talking about the will of the people and the first Constitutional Amendment in 1951. When have our representatives really respected the will of the people. The Partition itself was done without any sort of a referendum of the people of an undivided India. No leader from either side was made to owe any responsibility for all the violence and arson during the partition and the lives lost in the process.
The realities of 1951 were different,so no parallel can be drawn between Nehru and Modi
I have not read the book written by the gentlemen. I will read it. But, I would like to highlight that the "Amending" mechanism provided in the Constitution is what keeps the Constitution "alive". The 1st Amendment to the Constitution had affected a slew of different aspects like...adding Article 46 which gave "special consideration" for the socially and economically weaker sections of the Nations. It also provided for certain protection to Article 19 of the Constitution of India and also led to land reformation in the country which was the need of that time. This was done in accordance with the Amending procedure in the Constitution. Also, people should read the Champakam Dorairajan case where Supreme Court had struck down the government order of Madras government which reversed certain reservations for the weaker and oppressed castes. The 1st Amendment reversed this judgment of the Supreme Court as well. So in conclusion I think that what the Parliament (and not just Nehru) did was in keeping with the needs of those times. How it played is being judged today. How the reforms done by the current government is being done will be judged in the near future. Dictation happens when one institution clashes with the other. Sometimes the Executive wins and sometimes the Judiciary.
To say Nehruji disrespected the Indian constitution is not correct by any standard. He took the decision that he had taken not for furthering his interests but in the interest of the nation if one were to gauge the exigencies that existed then. After all constitution is for the good of the country and being dynamic, it has to meet the aspirations of the people with the changing time without the basic tenets of our constitution being altered.
It's said:
What ever you do today, will have it's effects seen in the fourth generation!
So are we to blame the past or mend the present. In accordance, yet with a contradiction triggering another chaos?
Both the interview and the book are based on the false premise that the Constitution of India was founded on liberal principles at its originary moment. As Uday Mehta has rightly noted, the Indian state from the very beginning was imagined as a thoroughly interventionist one, since the proverbial 'social revolution' was sought to be enacted through a constitutional framework.
I don't think so. The British wanted to have a say even after independence. Socialists intervened and created mess, always supported russian and Chinese cause and not interested in settling border disputes, neither developed border infra etc. The discussion is about the purpose of constitution and after effects of IST amdt and his views towards it. Results are to see for every one, the fruit of freedom struggle with the Family, all talks about socialism but it helped monopoly in the hands of a foreigner.
Socialism don't support freedom of speech in that Jln obeyed their masters it seems.
This Guy comes from a very rich landowning family and Nehru's job was to abolish Zamindari so he does have some vested interest.
hes also a BJP politician and hes hitting at the heart of the false liberal-fascist binary that congress tries to perpetuate. Nehru was one of the biggest banner of books and speeches...
Does he still campaign for BJP's UP division?
Thanks karan for brilliant q on Nehru
दिनभर धुपों में रहे और रातभर शितों में रहे।
हम तो किसान हैं साहेब उम्रभर दर्दों में रहे।।
उम्मीद थी कि ग़रीब का बेटा गरीबों का दर्द समझेगा,
मगर अफ़सोस है कि सत्ता पाते ही वो बस घूमने में रहे।।
कृपया मुझे सब्सक्राइब करें ताकि मैं अपनी बातें कविताओं के माध्यम से रख सकूं 🙏🙏
*दरअसल में मोदी सरकार ही देशद्रोही हें*
*इतिहास यही है इनका अंग्रेजों के पिट्ठु*
Much experience and gut is required to write any book or for that matter a good author.
Is it?
If Ravish Kumar and Dhruv Rathe were born in those days, nehru would have been called facist
Superb composure...!!
Tripurdaman and Ramchandra Guha must debate Nehru
Security or intelligence agency are funded by people of india not RSS employee. When ppl of india are protesting, they sud NOT attack them, step aside.
Bottom line author saying what Nehru did with constitution and what Modi doing today is same. If so then why this book now and not in past ??
One more thing that suddenly stuck me after listening to this interview and comments below. Nehru did what he did for abolishing Zamindari land holding and not giving them compensation. This was right after freedom when land holdings were a big problem due to lack of proper registrations. See the current situation this Govt wanted to do the exact same not provide adequate compensation to land holders as part of new Land acquisition act in 2015. Offcourse it don't go through but the fact remains even today all economists and industrialist talks about land reforms. Isn't it a irony.
just on time
me too
To know about history is important but to scratching old wounds in current times not important too, if current time if follows old mistakes and justify today’s mistakes it’s totally unacceptable
you have been inconsistent in the statement made ..please review to edit
Other countries are planning to make 500 billion dollar City and planning about the future, here in India people are interested in Nehru vs Modi and religious development instead of national development.
state important for usand state rights.
See the hesitation in criticising Jawaharlal Nehru. That speaks volume.
How old was the guy at that time??
Just on the basis of hearsay nothing concrete can be said.
Yes
In New India now it's fashion to blame Neharu and Congress for everything that's not going in proper
way.
Are you so ignorant.Nehru amended many Articles in 1951.Without following the procedure to do this.
@@ZindagiSafar123_44
You know it's recorded history, right?
Lol!
He is a trained historian from University of Cambridge. He based his work on recorded facts.
What are you even talking about
just plain beautiful
It is hight time that Indian citizens realize the contradiction that exists between liberal ideals and socialism..Freedom and equality/justice does not always go hand in hand..anyone interested must read Isaiah Berlin's - Two Concepts of Liberty..A certain ideological misconception in the mainstream media, even at times, in the left inclined media, is appalling and dangerous..Its been so long hearing that India is a liberal democracy..It would be better if sooner rather than later, enlightened people wrap their heart and soul around the idea that India was fundamentally conceived as a socialist republic that also recognised fundamental rights..and not the other way round..a fine balance is being compromised everyday in the favour of liberty (economic) creating greater and greater confusion in the opposition to come up with a clear intent and alternative..what a shame!
This revealing discussion tells me that our pre-independence leaders, including the father of constitution himself, did not much trust the political maturity of Indian common person to use the privilege and to bear the the responsibilities which democracy bestows upon the citizens. Looking at the unruly mobsters like behavior of elected and unelected leaders since independence, and to this day, and also of their followers, I wonder, if those leaders were right not to put full trust in the freedoms granted by the constitution. If I remember it correctly, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and many other leaders, had expressed this point, and had opposed the full democratic governance system, to be elected by the immature and illiterate masses. Today, it is hard to accept India as a largest democracy on the basis of conduction free and fair elections alone, when the electorates themselves, do not even respect laws that their elected representatives pass, and take it in their own hand to enforce whatever they fill ought to be the rule of law. The way minority communities' rights, and freedoms which are granted by the constitutions, are routinely trampled, and the highest courts are corrupted, and made subordinate to the other two branches in the constitutional issues, that may go against the government, this façade of fake democracy, how long is it going to last? It is indeed a sad paradox.
Freedom and constitution.
Protects security of a country is the basic premise
Of people either amended or original.
Never worship any individual -
Be It Nehru/Gandhi / Modi or anybody else
This guy gives confusing mixed signals of laziness, sleepiness, indifference, attentiveness and intellect.
Bhai Tu total 7 se zyaada comments Kar chuka hai on the same lines😅 chill out dude
probably he does not have the guts to talk about indira ghandhy amendment of constitution which makes court not capable to question election of pm. president
Karan Thapar should shut up and let the guest talk.
First thing that Nehru should have done was breakup of Pakistan. There is a reason why Nehru is so hated. Not because of his ideology but bcoz his policies are still hurting India to this date.
Satish Deshpande has deconstructed his arguments and proved how wrong he is, in his paper ‘towards the biography of general category ’ in 2011. Like 9 years ago
brilliant insight ...thats why ambedkar quit in disgust ..
Nehru, Patel even Gandhi and Modi are like two sides of a single coin.
Is Karan interviewing or doing a review of the book?
I am your fan yet critic by nature. So if you replay it yourself, unusually this time you seems to pushing your points in the mouth of opponent. May be I took it because I am lover of Nehru.
38:40 - How come he is giving powers or trusting Parliament??! Wasn't Parliament supposed to have powers to amend the Constitution as per the original constitution of 1950, in the first place??
Ninth schedule could have been added by any Parliament/party/govt. in future with a Parliament majority - what's so special about him doing so? Yes, he is setting the precedent, but that precedent could have been set up by any Parliament in future.
Karan Thapar
I don’t agree with your concluding comments that our founding fathers were not so great as you thought. India was and remains a complex society even today. To start with, you needed a level ground which was not there then. So those manoeuvres were necessary then. But yes, they should have thought of better means to achieve that end. All said, it doesn’t make the founding fathers any less great.
This fellow Ripudaman Singh belongs to the hiers of erstwhile Princely States, which were the main holders of land before the passing of the first amendment and hence his jealousy with Nehru is understandable, which drived him to writing this books. However, It is very much clear that he was not born at the time of first amendment and he is only a spoilt bratt by the prejudiced mentality of his elders, who would have lost their lands due to the first amendment.
One can not understand that when a so called provisional parliament, which was elected for the purpose of creating a Constitution but the same parliament was not having the mandate to amend it. Isn't it a laughable argument but Mr. Karan Thapar is promoting such arguments through this interview.
What Nehru did back then can't be compared with today's situation. India had just got independence. Was premature as a nation back then. Still Nehru brought up this infant so wonderfully.
India was a functioning state at that time. Only the reigns were passed to Nehru by British and Gandhi.
@@gareebbanker9966 Yes a badly functioning state with nothing of it's own.
@@ramankathuria9211 What proves that it was functioning better under Nehru ? On which criteria it did better ? India was no infant, It was an adult ruled previously by foreigners but now by an Indian by birth but foreigner at heart.
@@gareebbanker9966 OK do one thing. Go through the 5 year plans for three successive govt. and see how much did he succeed. India was an infant that was looted and exploited by foreigners for their own land. Nehru, might have made a few mistakes as anyone does but surely was the best person to lead India.
@@ramankathuria9211 You tell me gdp growth before and after independence. Also increase in per capita income during Nehru. 5 year plan is a communist concept. His socialist communist policies ensured the country got poorer, even had to beg foregin countries for food.
Neharu was great PM , and Indira Gandhiji is best PM forever, no one can I mean no one can take the position of the grand old party Indian National Congress , which is only politically centrist party in India and also liberal in religious manner , Jay Hind Jay Congress..
Best in terms of ?
@@debojyotibanerjee2832 Best in terms of administration , decision making , braveness , political viewpoint , international affairs , Solutions for Intra National Conflicts , and many other things.
@@debojyotibanerjee2832 plus economic growth of India in her period was too good and social welfare program and delivering the promise of hunger free India
No they weren't
@@ZindagiSafar123_44 what about emergency ?
The nehr,s are the madman who thwarted Gandhi's successful attempt to build India and made Pakistan and today's nehr,s Modi is building another Pakistan. Ninety percent of the work has been done. The remaining ten percent would have been done very soon. It seems to be happening
At partition in 1947 India failed to begin as a secular country. If Pakistan couldn't keep pakistan with it by use of military force how can India keep Punjab, Kashmir, Tamil Nadu to NE States with Pakistan type military tyranny? Hindu rashtar can't rule over others by force.
u r right. am south indian. state power needed like USA federation andmore than usa federation we are all different people
One of the problems with the Indian Constitution is that people cannot relate to it. I find a lot of it is derived for old English and American traditions of democracy, secularism, equality and justice and as a result, feels alien to the Indian mind which still resides in a semi feudal society. In an ideal world, Indian people would have been educated enough to understand it, however, they do not. The principles mentioned above are imposed by a select few rather than demanded by the masses. So whenever you have leaders from the masses emerge, they naturally reflect the will of the people and start chipping awat at the Constitution. Protests such as Shaheen Bagh and the current farmer protests are important in building the democratic culture that helps people relate to and understand the importance of the Constitution.
Nonsense analysis 🎉
Why?
@@HeartistMurali he is living with india it seems. we want state more rights
Nehru first person to take a knife on constitution 😥😥😥😥😥
38:00 and Ambedkar section
Amendment is not good but if it is to be passed then some restrictions should be there. At present amendments to be passed absolute majority i.e 100%
Nice
mam is good
Nice bro
In short nehru is to be blamed for everything
Godi media was right......... 😭😅😂🤣
Singh is chutiya
Intelligent answer from this gentleman
This guy is the English equivalent of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Atal ji ki najayaz aulaad.
What happens when a Sanghi goes to Cambridge? This guy.
Ambedkar always stood for adapting and amending the constitution with times.
and so does BJP
Nehru bhakt is upset, i see.
Everyone who you don't like directly becomes a Sanghi lol
Yaayy