Leader of the House in the Rajya Sabha and BJP President J P Nadda on Tuesday launched a scathing critique of the Congress and its legacy, particularly in relation to the Indian Constitution, the Emergency of 1975, and Article 370, during a discussion on the 바카라Glorious Journey of 75 Years of the Constitution of India.바카라
Nadda, addressing the House, emphasized the importance of having a good Constitution, but warned that its effectiveness depends on those who implement it. Quoting Dr B R Ambedkar, Nadda asserted, 바카라However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad.바카라 He further stated that 바카라the bad lot has interfered with the Constitution many times,바카라 alluding to the Congress party바카라s role in controversial constitutional amendments and decisions.
The BJP leader took particular aim at the Congress for its actions during the Emergency (1975-77), the amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution, and the issue of Article 370, which provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Nadda also praised the architects of the Constitution, acknowledging their wisdom in shaping the nation바카라s democratic framework. He noted that, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated, 바카라India is not just the largest democracy, but the mother of democracy.바카라
Reflecting on the core values of Indian democracy, Nadda emphasized freedom, equality, inclusivity, and dignity, qualities he believes are embodied in the Constitution and reflect India's ethos. 바카라As the prime minister said, India is not just the largest democracy, but the mother of democracy. The architects of our Constitution knew this is not a nation in the making, it was always a nation. As per Indian ethos, democracy comprises freedom, acceptability, equality, inclusivity and allowing citizens to lead a dignified life,바카라 he said.
ALSO READ| Parliament Session: Nirmala Sitharaman Slams Congress-Nehru Amid Constitution Debate; Kharge Hits Back
The BJP leader quoted B R Ambedkar to say 바카라however good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad바카라. He also said the 바카라bad lot has interfered with the Constitution many times.바카라
Regarding Article 370, which was abrogated in 2019, Nadda criticized former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress for introducing the provision. He pointed out that Ambedkar had opposed it, and that Article 35A, which gave special privileges to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, was implemented without a debate in Parliament. He also brought up Syama Prasad Mookerjee바카라s efforts to challenge Article 370.
바카라I am proud to say, Syama Prasad Mookerjee raised the issue of Article 370 and sacrificed his life for it... His mother wrote to Nehru Ji and sought an investigation. But that request was ignored and this is also registered in the pages of history. It is a question of the good lot and the bad lot,바카라 he said. 바카라After the bad lot, we got the good lot. On August 5, 2019, we abrogated Article 370... I once again congratulate the PM. Because of his wisdom, Jammu and Kashmir is an inseparable part of India now.바카라
On the anniversary of the Emergency, Nadda urged Congress leaders to reflect on their role in its imposition. He noted that the 50th anniversary of the Emergency would be observed in 2025 as 바카라Anti-Democracy Day,바카라 and extended an invitation to the Indian National Congress to join the observance. 바카라There was an attempt to murder democracy... if there is any regret in their hearts, I invite you to join us on June 25, 2025,바카라 Nadda said.
In addition, Nadda questioned the Congress's recent claims of remorse for the Emergency, suggesting that the party's apology lacked sincerity. He also highlighted Ambedkar바카라s original stance during the drafting of the Constitution regarding the inclusion of the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble.
According to Nadda, Ambedkar had argued that these terms were unnecessary, as the Constitution already embodied the concepts of a secular state and equality for all citizens. Ambedkar also felt that determining the type of society India should become was beyond the scope of the Constitution and should be left to the people.
