Ideas that matter, words that must stay
After the Emergency, the Janata Party government restored the Constitution to its original form but retained the words. The government, which included A B Vajpayee and L K Advani, did not find it necessary to drop them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
From Princeton to Harvard: Where did America's Founding Fathers study?
It's almost July 4. Time for bald eagles, beer cans disguised as patriotism, and Instagram stories quoting Jefferson – usually by people who think Federalist Papers are a music album. But have you ever wondered where America's Founding Fathers actually studied before they signed the Declaration of Independence with a flourish that would put any influencer's autograph to shame? Harvard: The OG Factory of Rebels Let's start with Harvard. John Adams – the lawyer with a rage against monarchy – graduated from Harvard in 1755. His cousin, Samuel Adams, also walked Harvard's halls, though his academic brilliance is overshadowed by his brilliance in getting people drunk on revolution (and beer). In short, Harvard didn't just create hedge fund managers and AI bros. It created men who swapped Latin declensions for defiance against the Crown. Princeton: Where Madison Mastered Persuasion James Madison, that pocket-sized constitutional genius, studied at what is now Princeton University (then called the College of New Jersey). He crammed so much in four years that he finished in two. Madison was the guy who would be accused of 'try hard vibes' today, but back then it earned him the title 'Father of the Constitution.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Princeton thus proved you don't need to be tall to build a tall order of government. College of William & Mary: Jefferson's Intellectual Playground Thomas Jefferson attended the College of William & Mary in Virginia, where he studied under Professor William Small, a Scottish moral philosopher. There, he refined his radical belief that all men are created equal – a phrase he wrote while owning hundreds of men. The irony is enough to make even a British monarch cough up their Earl Grey. King's College (Columbia): Hamilton's Brief But Bright Stint Alexander Hamilton attended King's College, now Columbia University. He enrolled in 1774 but his studies were interrupted when he decided overthrowing an empire was more urgent than passing finals. King's College thus gave America its feistiest Treasury Secretary – an immigrant rapper in his own time, spitting bars against taxes and tyranny alike. No College, No Problem Then there was George Washington. No college. Just vibes. The man who became the first President of the United States never received formal university education. Instead, he learned surveying and warcraft on the frontlines. A reminder this July 4 that if you ever feel insecure about your degree, remember the most powerful man of 1776 learned on the job. The Lesson for July 4 So as fireworks illuminate your skyline and you down Bud Light in memory of a revolution sparked by tea, remember this: America's Founding Fathers weren't just rebels with a cause. They were nerds with diplomas (or in Washington's case, a machete and a prayer). They read Cicero by candlelight, debated Locke over ale, and plotted sedition between philosophy lectures. Today's students worry about job offers. They worried about the guillotine. Happy Independence Day to the nation that was born in a classroom and baptised in rebellion. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Why Hindi Is An Official Language And Not The National Language Of India
Last Updated: States are free to choose their own official languages as per the Constitution, and many do - from Tamil in Tamil Nadu to Marathi in Maharashtra to Assamese in Assam In a country as linguistically diverse as India, the question of language is not just about communication; it's about identity, culture, and power. While Hindi is often presumed to the Rashtrabhasha (national language), the fact is, it never officially became one. Instead, Hindi holds the constitutional status of Rajbhasha (official language), a crucial but fundamentally different designation. This distinction, though seemingly technical, lies at the heart of a long-standing debate that has influenced education policy, inter-state politics, and even shaped the federal structure of the country. And the issue resurfaced recently when the Maharashtra government was forced to withdraw its decision to make Hindi a compulsory third language in government schools after a surge of protests, the first major backlash against Hindi in the state in recent memory. An official language is one that is used for governmental functioning – administrative communication, drafting of laws, office work, and public services. In India, Hindi in the Devanagari script was adopted as the official language of the Union under Article 343 of the Constitution, to be used for central government communication. English was allowed to continue temporarily but, owing to political compromise and practical necessity, it continues as an associate official language even today. The purpose of an official language is functional; to streamline governance and communication. States are free to choose their own official languages as per the Constitution, and many do – from Tamil in Tamil Nadu to Marathi in Maharashtra to Assamese in Assam. A national language, by contrast, serves a symbolic purpose. It typically represents a country's cultural identity, unity, and historical continuity. A national language is seen as a unifying thread – often the most spoken or widely understood tongue – and may be used in education, cultural messaging, and national events. But crucially, India has no national language. The Constitution does not declare any language, not even Hindi, as the national language. This was a conscious choice made during the drafting of the Constitution. When the idea of making Hindi the national language was debated in the Constituent Assembly, it encountered stiff resistance, particularly from representatives of South India and the northeast, who feared the dominance of Hindi would marginalise their native languages and cultural identities. Why Hindi Didn't Become The National Language Although Hindi is spoken by over 40% of Indians and is the most widely used language in the country, it could never be elevated to the status of national language due to the country's federal and multicultural character. Language movements across states made it clear: a single national language would not reflect India's pluralism. In the 1950s and 60s, violent protests erupted in Tamil Nadu when the Centre attempted to make Hindi the sole official language. The anti-Hindi agitation became a pivotal moment in politics, influencing language policy and prompting the government to retain English alongside Hindi. Similar tensions emerged in Assam, Punjab, and parts of Maharashtra, where regional languages served as the bedrock of identity. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia's ' Angrezi Hatao, Hindi Lao" campaign in the same period did receive significant support in Hindi-speaking regions, but it could never generate national consensus. Over time, the movement to remove English lost momentum, and the campaign to impose Hindi faded as India's linguistic realities became too complex to ignore. Legal And Constitutional Position Legally, Hindi is the official language of the Union government, not of the country as a whole. The Constitution provides for 22 scheduled languages, and every state has the liberty to choose the language(s) for its administration and education. Even if Hindi were to be declared the national language today, it would not bind the states to implement it unless accompanied by a constitutional amendment – which, given the political sensitivities, remains highly unlikely. India's position is not unique. Many multilingual countries refrain from naming a single national language: Nepal recognises Nepali as the official language, not national. Bhutan uses Dzongkha officially but doesn't declare it a national language. Sri Lanka has two official languages – Sinhala and Tamil – but language differences were at the heart of decades of civil war. Canada officially recognises both English and French, but linguistic battles in Quebec have led to decades of cultural and legal disputes. Belgium remains divided between Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia, with both having official language rights. China has Mandarin as the official language but faces internal dissent from speakers of Uyghur, Tibetan, and Mongolian. These global parallels show how language, when politicised, can lead to division rather than unity. The Maharashtra Language Row top videos View all The recent controversy in Maharashtra serves as a fresh reminder of these unresolved tensions. The state government's announcement to make Hindi a compulsory third language in schools triggered widespread protests across political and linguistic lines. Although Hindi has not traditionally faced resistance in Maharashtra, this move was seen as a top-down imposition, especially in a state where Marathi holds strong cultural significance. Sensing the growing backlash, the government was quick to roll back the decision. While officials framed it as a policy reconsideration, it was, in effect, a retreat in the face of public dissent. tags : Hindi Hindi Debate national language official language Location : Mumbai, India, India First Published: July 01, 2025, 19:01 IST News india Why Hindi Is An Official Language And Not The National Language Of India | Explained
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Criminal laws framed to ensure citizens' rights protected, criminals don't escape: Amit Shah
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday termed the enactment of three new criminal laws as the biggest reform in Independent India and said the Narendra Modi government framed them in such a way that all rights of citizens are protected and no criminal goes unpunished. Addressing an event marking one year of the rolling out of the three criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), Shah said these laws are going to transform the criminal justice system in the country significantly. "I assure all the citizens of India that it will take a maximum of three years for the full implementation of the new laws. I can also confidently say that anyone can get justice up to the Supreme Court within three years of filing an FIR," he said. The BNS, BNSS and the BSA replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, respectively. The new laws came into effect on July 1, 2024. The home minister termed the three laws as the biggest reform of Independent India and said that the use of technology will ensure that no criminal can escape punishment after committing a crime. Live Events He said justice will definitely be delivered within a stipulated time. "The Narendra Modi government, your chosen government, has made the laws for you and it will protect all your rights," he said. Since July 1, 2024, all fresh FIRs were registered under the BNS. However, cases filed earlier continued to be tried under the old laws till their final disposal. The new laws brought in a modern justice system, incorporating provisions such as Zero FIR, online registration of police complaints, summonses through electronic modes such as SMS and mandatory videography of crime scenes for all heinous crimes. These laws have taken into account the current social realities and modern-day crimes and are going to provide a mechanism to effectively deal with these, keeping in view the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. Shah, who piloted the laws, said the new laws would give priority to providing justice, unlike the colonial-era laws that gave primacy to penal action.
