No need for socialism in India, secularism not core of our culture: Union minister Shivraj Chouhan
Chouhan's remarks assume significance as the RSS on Thursday called for reviewing the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the preamble of the Constitution
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Assam CM Himanta says 'socialism, secularism' can be removed from Constitution
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma claimed on Saturday (June 28, 2025) that 'socialism' and 'secularism' are Western concepts, and these words should be struck off of the Constitution. He said these words were included in the Preamble of the Constitution by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and these have no place in Indian civilisation. "How can I be secular? I am a hardcore Hindu. A Muslim person is a hardcore Muslim person. How can he be secular?" Mr. Sarma said. He was speaking after launching in Assam a book titled 'The Emergency Diaries: Years That Forged a Leader' which is based on first person anecdotes from associates who worked with Narendra Modi, then a young RSS pracharak, and used other archival material. The book chronicles the 1975-77 Emergency era and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's role in the 'resistance movement'. Mr. Sarma maintained that the Indian concept of secularism is not about being neutral, but it is about being 'positively aligned'. The word 'secularism' was inserted by people who view it from the western angle, and it needs to be struck off from the Preamble, Sarma added. The CM also claimed that the Western concept of socialism was also imposed by Gandhi. Indian economic principle was based on 'trustee-ship' and helping the marginalised. "The BJP didn't have to even demolish this concept of socialism. PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh did it for the Congress," he added. He was referring to Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan Singh who were credited with bringing economic liberalisation in India in the early 1990s. Mr. Sarma said that the time is ripe to discuss the 'damages' caused by the Emergency to the nation. "We must not forget the Emergency as we cannot repeat the Emergency," he added. The Emergency declared on June 25, 1975, by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi lasted until March 21, 1977. It was marked by widespread press censorship, arrests without trial and the stifling of dissent in academia, politics and civil society.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
'At odds with Constitution': US Supreme Court judge Barrett on colleague's dissenting order in birthright citizenship case
US Supreme Court The dissenting argument by US Supreme Court's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the birthright citizenship case is "at odds" with the United States Constitution, according to justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority ruling in favour of curtailing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump's executive order, in what was a major win for the president. "We will not dwell on justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote in her order, according to Fox News. The conservative judge, a Trump appointee, was referring to Jackson's order in which the latter, who was appointed under the previous Joe Biden administration, wrote that nationwide injunctions against the birthright executive order should be permissible or else the courts would be allowing the president to "violate the Constitution." This argument, Barrett noted, was not based on any existing legal doctrine. "Such a vision of the judicial role would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," she stated. The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority to restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for the controversial order to be enforced in the 28 states which had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Lower courts will now have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the ruling. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
