Why the Term ‘Secular’ Should Be Removed from the Indian Constitution

 Why the Term ‘Secular’ Should Be Removed from the Indian Constitution

India’s civilizational ethos has always been pluralistic, tolerant, and dharmic. From the times of the Mauryas and Guptas to the modern era, governance was not about imposing a single religious ideology but about upholding righteous order (rājyadharma), justice, and social harmony. In such a context, the insertion of the word “secular” into the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment of 1976 was not only unnecessary but also redundant and culturally alien.

1. The Original Constitution: Secular in Spirit

When the Constitution came into effect in 1950, it did not include the term “secular”. Yet, Articles 14, 15, 25–28 already guaranteed equality before law, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.[1][2][3]

In the Constituent Assembly, B. R. Ambedkar affirmed that India would be a secular state with no official religion and that all faiths would be treated equally. He did, however, oppose adding the word “secular” to the Preamble, arguing that its principles were already woven into the Constitution's fabric. [4]

Ambedkar's arguments against adding 'secular' to the Preamble included:

• Redundant provisions: The constitutional framework already guaranteed religious neutrality and non-discrimination. Specifically:
• Fundamental Rights: Article 25 protects the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Prohibition of discrimination: Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
• No state religion: Article 19 affirms that the state shall not recognize any religion as its own.

Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, also acknowledged that India’s civilizational pluralism naturally protected the rights of diverse communities without needing Western labels [5]. In short, the Constitution was secular in content and spirit, even without explicitly stating it.

2. The 42nd Amendment: Political Context

The Emergency of 1975–77 saw the enactment of the 42nd Amendment, which added “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble. Critics argue that this move was politically motivated and rushed, with little parliamentary debate [6]. By inserting Western terminology into a Constitution already grounded in India’s pluralistic culture, the amendment created a symbolic redundancy. While supporters claim it merely formalized the existing spirit of equality, it introduced a conceptual frame alien to India’s civilizational understanding.

3. The Dharmic Perspective on Governance

Indian civilization’s approach to religion and governance is fundamentally different from Western notions. The principle of sarva-dharma-sambhāva—equal respect for all religions—is not imposed by law but is culturally ingrained. Historical examples illustrate this vividly:

• The Vijayanagara Empire (14th–17th centuries) patronized Hindu temples, Islamic scholars, and Jain institutions, maintaining a plural court with officials of different faiths.
• The Samoothiri (Zamorin) of Calicut governed a coastal trading hub where Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted, with the ruler facilitating trade, law, and protection for all communities.
• The Maratha Empire under Shivaji and his successors respected local religious traditions, appointed Muslims in military and administrative roles, and ensured temple reconstruction alongside mosques’ protection.
• The Kingdom of Travancore maintained harmony between Hindus, Christians, and Muslims, funding educational institutions and temples, while respecting the religious autonomy of communities.

Temples, mosques, gurudwaras, and churches coexisted for centuries, with the state ensuring protection and order without privileging any single faith. Religious pluralism in the Indian ethos was therefore not an external policy goal but a lived reality, a principle that guided governance naturally [7].

4. Savarkar and the Nationalist Argument

Veer Savarkar argued that India’s national identity transcends religious labels and is rooted in its civilizational unity. He emphasized that political governance should reflect the organic culture of Bharat, which has always accommodated multiple faiths without importing foreign secular doctrines [8]. In this light, the term “secular”, derived from Western experiences of state–church conflict, is not only unnecessary but inconsistent with India’s civilizational self-understanding.

5. Guruji Golwalkar on Cultural Sovereignty

Guruji M.S. Golwalkar underscored the need for civilizational coherence and the protection of India’s indigenous cultural and spiritual ethos. While he recognized religious diversity, he also stressed that governance should not adopt alien frameworks that dilute India’s cultural essence [9]. By this reasoning, borrowing the Western secular model and embedding it in the Constitution undermines India’s dharmic worldview, which has historically balanced spiritual freedom with social order.

6. Legal Perspective: Supreme Court Observations

Even the judiciary has recognized that secularism in India is distinct from Western secularism. In the landmark S.R. Bommai case (1994) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court affirmed that secularism is part of the basic structure, but it is defined as state neutrality and equal respect for all religions, not as exclusion of religion from public life [10]. This further underscores that the term itself is symbolic; India was secular by civilizational practice and constitutional design, even before its inclusion.

7. Why the Term Is Redundant

• The Constitution already protects religious freedom and equality.
• India’s civilizational ethos naturally enforces pluralism.
• The Western notion of secularism entails removing religion from public life entirely, which is alien to the Indian experience.
• Retaining the word allows misinterpretation that secularism is a foreign import rather than an indigenous value.

8. Conclusion

The term “secular” in the Constitution is therefore redundant and externally derived, rather than reflective of India’s civilizational ethos. India’s secularism is organic, dharmic, and pluralistic, embedded in its culture, governance, and legal framework. Historical examples—from the Vijayanagara Empire to Travancore, the Marathas, and the Samoothiri governance—demonstrate that pluralism was practiced naturally by rulers who understood dharmic balance. Ambedkar’s own arguments against explicitly adding “secular” reinforce the idea that constitutional safeguards were sufficient. Removing the word would restore the Constitution to its original, culturally coherent form, affirming that India’s pluralism and spiritual inclusiveness are civilizational defaults, not borrowed ideals.

---

Sources

1.       Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Vision of Secular India: A Study of His Contributions and Legacy https://multiarticlesjournal.com/uploads/articles/IJCRM20254343.pdf

2.       Debates show why Preamble’s original text left out the two words https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Debates-show-why-Preamble%E2%80%99s-original-text-left-out-the-two-words/article60332943.ece

3.       Constitution Day 2024: Why the Constituent Assembly refused to add 'Socialist' and 'Secular' https://www.barandbench.com/columns/constitution-day-2024-why-the-constituent-assembly-refused-to-add-socialist-and-secular

4.      OpIndia, “Why was B. R. Ambedkar against ‘socialist and secular’ being…,” Oct 2024. https://www.opindia.com/2024/10/br-ambedkar-the-idea-of-india-why-he-was-against-socialist-and-secular-being-inserted-in-the-preamble-of-the-indian-constitution/

5.      OpIndia, “Secularism, its origin, and why it is the most abused word in Independent India,” Feb 2019. https://myvoice.opindia.com/2019/02/secularism-its-origin-and-why-it-is-the-most-abused-word-in-independent-india/

6.      OpIndia, “SC dismisses pleas challenging words ‘socialist,’ ‘secular’ in the preamble …,” Nov 2024. https://www.opindia.com/2024/11/sc-dismisses-pleas-challenging-words-socialist-secular-in-the-preamble-upholds-parliaments-incontrovertible-authority-to-amend-the-constitution/

7.      M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 1939.

8.      V. D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, 1923.

9.      Ibid., Bunch of Thoughts.

10.  Supreme Court of India, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973.

 ~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

Intellect and Compassion for Our Time

 Intellect and Compassion for Our Time

The Call of Vivekananda

In a world of accelerating change, mounting complexity and deep suffering, the vision of Swami Vivekananda remains startlingly relevant. He argued that what humanity needs now is both the penetrating intellect of Shankara and the boundless compassion of Buddha.

He observed that:

• With Shankara we have “the great intellect … throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything.” (1)
• With Buddha we have “the great universal heart and infinite patience” — the moral, empathetic dimension of religion. (1)

And he pleaded: “It is possible to have the intellect of a Shankara with the heart of a Buddha. I hope we shall all struggle to attain to that blessed combination.” (1)

Thus his prescription: in this era of conflict, division and global challenge, we cannot rely on intellect alone (which risks detachment, elitism, nihilism) nor on compassion alone (which risks sentimentality, drift, lack of direction). The way forward is a synthesis.

---

Why This Synthesis Matters

1. Intellectual clarity in a confusing age

In an era of fake news, scientific complexity, global interdependence and ideological upheaval, Shankara-type intellect is indispensable. Vivekananda drew from the Advaita insight of Shankara: discerning the real from the unreal, the eternal from the transient. (2) Without such clarity, our actions become reactive, superficial or misguided.

2. Compassion in a world of suffering

At the same time, the scale of human suffering — poverty, exploitation, environmental crisis, alienation — demands more than intellectual solutions. It needs the Buddha-type heart: empathy, service, universal concern. “The poor, the illiterate, the ignorant, the afflicted — let these be your God,” Vivekananda urged. (3)

3. Integrated action

Vivekananda’s vision wasn’t just theoretical. He argued for karma‐yoga (selfless work) grounded in intellectual insight and compassionate motivation. He saw that true freedom and uplift of humanity require both: wisdom to know what must be done, and love to do it. (3)

---

What Would It Look Like Today?

How might we instantiate this ideal in contemporary life? A few suggestions:

• Educational reform: Teach critical reasoning and philosophical reflection (Shankara­-inspired) alongside emotional intelligence, social empathy and service orientation (Buddha­-inspired).
• Leadership: Political, corporate and social leaders who combine rigorous thinking, principled decision-making, and compassionate accountability. Not merely the technocrat or the charity-boss, but the thinker-servant.
• Social movements: Movements that address structural injustice with clear analysis and strategy, but are rooted in the dignity, suffering and hopes of people.
• Personal life: For each individual: cultivate a mind that can think deeply, question assumptions, discern truth; and a heart that loves, serves, forgives, connects across boundaries.

---

Why This Ideal Remains Urgent?

• The fragmentation we see — cognitive overload, polarization, emotional numbness — arises when intellect divorces compassion.
• The rise of activism without reflection, or reflection without action, leads to drift or burnout.
• Global crises (climate, inequality, identity) are too complex for purely technical fixes; they demand moral imagination and wisdom.

Vivekananda’s call for the union of “Shankara’s intellect” and “Buddha’s compassion” offers a map: not an easy path, but one of depth and hope.

---

In Conclusion

Swami Vivekananda invites us: Think deeply, act boldly, love universally. Be like Shankara in your capacity to reflect, discriminate, understand. Be like Buddha in your capacity to feel, serve, connect. And together, help bring about a world where intellect and compassion walk hand in hand.

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

 

The Myth of Separate Identity

 The Myth of Separate Identity

“It has been the tragic lesson of the history of many a country in the world that the hostile elements within the country pose a far greater menace to national security than aggressors from outside.”
— Guruji M. S. Golwalkar

The truth of Guruji’s words has echoed across centuries and civilizations. Nations seldom collapse under the pressure of foreign invasion; they crumble when the spirit of unity within is corroded by the idea of separateness. The gravest dangers to a civilization arise not from external attack, but from inner disintegration — when communities begin to imagine themselves as apart from the collective whole.

The Indian subcontinent stands as the most profound example of this tragic lesson. The partition of 1947, culminating in the creation of Pakistan, was not merely a division of territory; it was a rupture of the civilizational consciousness of Bharatavarsha. The so-called “Two-Nation Theory” asserted that Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct nations, incapable of coexistence within a single political framework. This fallacy — that a religious community could define itself as a separate nation — became the political justification for vivisection.

---

The Continuum of Fragmentation

The subsequent history of the subcontinent exposes the hollowness of that separatist dream. Barely two decades after its creation, Pakistan itself split into Bangladesh and Pakistan, revealing that religion alone could not serve as a binding national force. Language, culture, and shared memory proved stronger than dogma.

Yet the psychology of separatism — once rewarded — did not fade away. The success of religious partition inspired similar currents elsewhere, most notably the Khalistani demand that surfaced decades later. The ideological precedent had been set: if one community could claim separate nationhood on the basis of faith, others could imitate the formula.

In this manner, the virus of separateness — the illusion that political sovereignty must mirror religious identity — continued to threaten Bharat’s integrity long after 1947.

---

The Fallacy of Separate Identity

The very phrase “separate identity” is deceptive. In a multicultural civilization like Bharat, there are no separate identities — there are only multiple, interwoven, regional, and linguistic expressions of a single civilizational stream.

Every region of India — from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Gujarat to Assam — manifests a distinct form of life rooted in its indigenous language and local genius, yet nourished by a common Indic linguistic and philosophical foundation.

Though Tamil appears at first glance to be of distinct origin, it is deeply nourished by the shared Sanskritic–Prakritic base of Bharatiya thought. Its conceptual vocabulary, sacred idiom, and metaphysical undertones are harmoniously aligned with the Indic world of meanings. The literary and spiritual efflorescence of the Āḻvārs, Nāyaṉmārs, and the Siddhar traditions — vibrant to this day — exemplify how Tamil integrates into the greater dharmic stream rather than standing apart from it.

Similarly, Kannada and Telugu, while developing rich independent literatures, are linguistically and syntactically nourished by Indic sentence structures and semantic frameworks rooted in Sanskrit. Their grammar, rhythm, and poetic aesthetics echo the same civilizational cadence that sustains all Bharatiya languages.

Thus, to imagine these languages — or the communities that speak them — as culturally separate is to misunderstand the very nature of Bharat’s unity. Each tongue is a unique articulation of a shared consciousness, not a separate identity. The many languages of Bharat are not isolated voices but notes in one vast symphony, each resonating with the same spiritual pitch.

 

---

Colonial Roots of the Myth

The modern concept of “separate identity” was not an indigenous creation. It was a product of colonial manipulation — a method of governance designed to fracture civilizational unity. The British census, the policy of communal electorates, and the relentless classification of people by religion, caste, and tribe created a mindset of exclusive identities where none had existed before.

This artificial compartmentalization replaced the dharmic idea of shared belonging (sahabhāva) with the colonial politics of competition.
Communities were taught to think of themselves as minorities or majorities — categories alien to Indic thought. Thus, a civilization that had sustained infinite diversity for millennia was reduced to a battlefield of identities.

---

The Indic Vision: Unity Through Dharma

In the dharmic worldview, unity does not mean uniformity, nor does diversity imply division. Dharma recognizes bheda (difference) but harmonizes it through samanvaya (integration).
The Vedic seers declared — “Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti” — “Truth is one; the wise speak of it in many ways.”
This is the civilizational ethos of Bharat: many expressions, one essence.

The notion of “separate identity” is, therefore, a myth born of ignorance and insecurity. It is a shadow cast by the loss of dharmic perspective. When the sense of oneness (ekatva-bhāva) is replaced by the obsession with difference, the nation weakens from within — exactly as Guruji warned.

---

The True Lesson

The partition of India, the birth of Bangladesh, and the later Sikh separatist movements are all manifestations of the same delusion — that community equals nationality, and that religious identity overrides civilizational belonging.
But the soul of Bharat has always been larger than these transient divisions. It is a living civilization, not a mechanical state.

To preserve that civilization, Bharat must reject the myth of separateness and reaffirm the truth of organic unity.
We must remember that a nation survives not by its borders, but by its binding consciousness — the sense that every language, every custom, every temple, every festival, and every faith in this land is a unique expression of the same eternal rhythm.

---

Conclusion

Guruji’s warning remains timeless: the gravest threats arise not from foreign invaders but from internal disunity.
When a society forgets its shared origin and begins to imagine itself as a cluster of isolated communities, it becomes its own undoing.

The antidote lies in returning to the dharmic vision — a vision that sees the many as one, and the one expressed in the many.
The myth of separate identity must yield to the truth of civilizational unity.
Only then can Bharat remain what it has always been — not a mere nation-state, but a sacred continuum of consciousness.

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

The Myth of Intellectual Supremacy

The Myth of Intellectual Supremacy

 

The idea of intellectual supremacy is itself a myth — a self-perpetuating construct that assumes the existence of a hierarchy among minds. This work challenges that presumption, arguing that intellect is not a measure of worth but a mode of perception, conditioned by context, culture, and experience.

What follows is not the proclamation of an “intellectual authority,” but rather a series of erratica — reflections and deviations born of inquiry rather than certainty. These thoughts emerge from a mind consciously devoid of claims to supremacy, seeking instead the humility of thought that precedes genuine understanding.

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

 

Appeasement and the Mirage of Harmony: Lessons from History

Across Indian history, well-intentioned efforts to create harmony through compromise have often backfired. The assumption that peace can be purchased by conceding cultural clarity has repeatedly proved false.

In the early twentieth century, Mohandas Gandhi supported the Khilafat agitation hoping that Hindu–Muslim unity under a moral cause would strengthen the national struggle. The result, however, was tragic. The movement soon acquired a sectarian edge, culminating in the Moplah rebellion of 1921, where thousands of Hindus suffered violence and displacement. Gandhi’s ideal of non-violence and fraternity could not restrain the forces his alliance had awakened. Appeasement, meant to build unity, instead widened mistrust and weakened civilizational confidence.

This historical episode offers a recurring lesson. Whenever leaders blur the boundaries of cultural identity in pursuit of instant peace, they risk encouraging the very intolerance they hope to prevent. Societies built on ancient dharmic ethics have survived not by retreating from conviction but by practicing strength with restraint—dayā (compassion) joined to dhṛti (steadfastness).

The Modern Mirror

In recent decades, a new form of “soft reconciliation” has appeared in public life. Its advocates speak of balance, empathy, and inclusivity—yet they avoid clear moral positions on issues that touch the roots of dharma or civilizational continuity. The approach sounds spiritual but functions as political evasion. It uses the vocabulary of peace while quietly surrendering cultural self-respect.

This duplicity—of appearing devout while refusing to defend the deeper values of the tradition—creates confusion rather than cohesion. It repeats the same error as earlier appeasement: substituting sentiment for substance. True coexistence demands honesty, not hesitation; mutual respect, not selective silence.

Modern India, still wrestling with religious and ideological divisions, would do well to remember that moral clarity, not moral timidity, preserves harmony. The past century shows that compromise without conviction never produces unity—it merely delays conflict.

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

Dependant existence is the essence of mithyātva

 Dvaita rejects the mithyātva of the pot and affirms its objective reality. Advaita, however, does not call the pot mithyā in an illusory sense but regards its existence as non-independent — the pot has no reality apart from its constituents. In other words, Advaita denies that there can be a pot distinct from its material cause; its reality is conditional and borrowed from the underlying substratum (clay/Brahman).

Such a dependent existence itself also makes the 'effect' mithyā.  In the rope-snake analogy, the snake imagined there has no 'isness' apart from the rope there.  In other words the person in delusion should have said 'there is a rope', but due to some defects, he says 'there is a snake.'  He is actually unknowingly transferring the rope's 'isness' to the snake.

Śaṅkara, commenting on Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.3, emphasizes that all effects are nothing but their cause appearing under name and form.

“sadeva tu sarvam abhidhānam abhidhīyate ca yad anyabuddhyā, yathā rajjur eva sarpabuddhyā sarpa ity abhidhīyate, yathā vā piṇḍa-ghaṭādi mṛdo’nyabuddhyā piṇḍa-ghaṭādi-śabdenābhidhīyate loke.”

— “All this is really Existence alone, yet it is spoken of differently by a deluded cognition — just as the rope is called ‘snake’ or clay is called ‘lump’ or ‘pot’ by the ignorant.”

The effect (kārya), like the pot (ghaṭa), has no independent being apart from the cause. Śaṅkara says:

Thus, the pot’s being is borrowed from the clay (paratantra-sattā), not intrinsic.

The rajjū–sarpa example illustrates the mechanism of superimposition (adhyāsa). Śaṅkara explains:

“rajjur eva sarpabuddhyā sarpa ity abhidhīyate... mṛd-viveka-darśināṃ tu ghaṭādi-śabda-buddhi nivartate.”

“Just as the rope alone is perceived as ‘snake’ due to delusion, so the clay is called ‘lump’ or ‘pot’; when the discrimination of clay arises, the pot notion ceases.”

Here, the observer transfers the rope’s ‘is-ness’ to the snake, and analogously the clay’s sattā to the pot. This dependent existence is the essence of mithyātva.

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

Newfound Alchemy in Buddhist premises

When Vijay Mallya offered gold to Buddhist Ayyappa, he probably didn’t expect a practical demonstration of Markist dialectical materialism. Yet in a state where gods and governments lean to the left, even the metals have joined the revolution. Somewhere between the Sopanam and the Secretariat, gold renounced its bourgeois privilege and embraced the proletarian humility of copper.

Under the serene gaze of Comrade Vijayan, this was hailed not as corruption but as conversion - a spiritual redistribution of natural elements. Gold, symbol of capitalist greed, had to evolve; copper, the honest worker’s metal, had to rise. Thus, Buddhist Ayyappa watched silently as Marx met metallurgy and the temple treasury achieved true equality.

Devotees may still murmur “Swamiye Sharanam,” but the new doctrine declares, “Matter is revolutionary.” The alchemists failed for centuries, yet Markism succeeded in one audit cycle. In the People’s Temple, where even gods must align with dialectics, faith has found its final form: copper-coated enlightenment.

After all, in the Mighty Markist laboratory, nothing is impossible - not even gold finding its nirvana as copper.

#satire

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

The Grand Finale: Karnataka's Reality of Reality Shows

And now, ladies and gentlemen, after weeks of drama, data and a "dabba" app, we arrive at the Grand Finale of Who Wants to Be Classified? — the only show where everyone is a contestant, nobody volunteered, and the prize is madakke kelsa illa, kudiyoke ganji illa.

In a thrilling twist, the State Government has declared itself the winner — for successfully conducting a survey that no one asked for, on an app that no one could open, using data that no one will ever verify. The audience, otherwise known as mooka prekshakaru, is cheering in disbelief, muttering “idu yava nataka guru?”

Enumerators return from the field like war veterans, armed with stories of broken GPS, missing OTPs and divine beings that refused to reveal their jati. Teachers, who once shaped the future of young kids, now master the sacred art of tracing gotra in MS Excel. Bureaucrats celebrate “digital efficiency” while WhatsApp screenshot serves as official proof of governance.

And as the closing credits roll, our mahaguru intones:

“e vishaada ganadalli ondondu note count agutte. yaru miss madangilla. elru jati mata gotra helibidi. hattu moote akki kodthini, beko beda?”

The anchor chimes in with, “thank you mahagurugale!”

And the curtain falls on this ₹420-crore JMGK (Jati Mata Gotra Karnataka) of bureaucracy. The data drifts away into the crashed server, perhaps never to return. The poor, the backward, and the forward remain exactly where they were — only now, officially tagged, scanned, and confused.

Season One ends, but fear not — Who Wants to Be Classified? has already been renewed for another season. Coming soon: The Reservation Remix – Reloaded with Error Codes.
Stay tuned, pirends!

~ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು

ಜಾತಿಗಣತಿಯ ಆ 60 ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು

ಜಾತಿಗಣತಿಯ ಆ 60 ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು 

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರಕಾರದ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆಯ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾದ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ-ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಜಾತಿ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ (ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ 22 ರಿಂದ ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 7, 2025) ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯವನ್ನೊದಗಿಸುವ ಅದ್ಭುತ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯೆಂದು ಕರೆಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಜಾತಿ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ ಆಡಳಿತಾತ್ಮಕ ಪ್ರಹಸನ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜಕೀಯ ವಿಡಂಬನೆಯ ವಸ್ತುವಾಗಿ ಒಡ್ಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಲಿದೆ.

ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ ಮುಂದುವರಿಯುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆಯೇ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಡಮೂಡಿರುವ ಬಿರುಕುಗಳು  ಎದ್ದುತೋರಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಲಿವೆ. ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ದೋಷಗಳು, ಶಿಸ್ತು ಕ್ರಮದ ಬೆದರಿಕೆಗಳು, ಸಮುದಾಯಗಳ ನಡುವಣ ಕಲಹ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗದ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆಗಳು - ಇವೆಲ್ಲವೂ ಈ ಪರಿಪಾಟದ ಸಿಂಧುತ್ವವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಲಿವೆ. 

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರಕಾರವು ಸಮಾಜ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ಅಥವಾ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ-ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಬಹುದಾದರೂ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರಕಾರದ ಅನುಮತಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಸಮಗ್ರ ಜಾತಿ ಜನಗಣತಿಯನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವುದು ಸಂವಿಧಾನಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಲು ಅನುವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆ ಅರುವತ್ತು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು ಯಾವುವು ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ.

ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು

• ರೇಷನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್
• ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಸದಸ್ಯರ ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್.
• ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡಿಗೆ ಲಿಂಕ್ ಆಗಿರುವ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ನಂಬರ್
• ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಐಡಿ ಕಾರ್ಡ್

ಅದರ ಮಾದರಿಯೊಂದನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಬಹುದು.

ಸದ್ದು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಲಿರುವ ಸುದ್ದಿಗಳು

• ಕೊಡಗಿನಲ್ಲಿ ರೊಚ್ಚಿಗೇಳುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರು: ಕೊಡಗು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ಪ್ರೌಢಶಾಲಾ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರು ಗಣತಿದಾರರಾಗಿ ಸೇವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಒತ್ತಾಯಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ನೇಮಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ದುರ್ಬಲ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ನೆಟ್‌ವರ್ಕ್, ಡೇಟಾವನ್ನು ಅಪ್‌ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡುವ ಅಸೌಲಭ್ಯ, ತಪ್ಪಾದ ಜಿಪಿಎಸ್ ನಮೂದುಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಅರಣ್ಯ ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿನ ಸುರಕ್ಷತಾ ಅಪಾಯಗಳ ಬಗೆಗೆ ಅವರರು ಅಧಿಕೃತವಾಗಿ ದೂರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
• ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ ಗಣತಿದಾರರ ಮೇಲೆ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರಕಾರದ ದೌರ್ಜನ್ಯ: ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ "ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷಿಸುವ" ಸರಕಾರಿ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಅಥವಾ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರ ಮೇಲೆ ಶಿಸ್ತು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗುವುದು ಎಂದು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಚಿವ ಸಂಪುಟ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಸಿದೆ.
• ಎರಡು ದಿನದಲ್ಲಿ 71 ಸಾವಿರ ಮಂದಿಯನ್ನೊಳಗೊಂಡ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ: ಆ್ಯಪ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂದುವರಿದ ದೋಷ, ಅಡಚಣೆ, ಗೊಂದಲ: ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಾದ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯ 2 ನೇ ದಿನದಲ್ಲಿ 18,487 ಮನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 71,004 ಜನರಿಂದ ಡೇಟಾವನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ - ಆದರೆ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ದೋಷ, ಸರ್ವರ್‌ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳು, ಒಟಿಪಿ ವೈಫಲ್ಯಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಅಜಾಗರೂಕ ಅಪ್‌ಲೋಡ್‌ಗಳಿಂದಾಗಿ ಅನೇಕ ಫಾರ್ಮ್‌ಗಳು ಅಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿವೆ.
• ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಮುಂದುವರಿಸಲು ಅನುಮತಿಸಿತು: ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿತು ಆದರೆ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುವುದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿದ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಡೇಟಾವನ್ನು ಬಹಿರಂಗಪಡಿಸಬಾರದು ಎಂದು ಆದೇಶಿಸಿತು.
• ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯನವರಿಂದ ಗಡುವು ನಿಗದಿ: ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯ ಅವರು ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 7 ರ ಮುನ್ನ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚನೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜ್ಯದ 1.43 ಕೋಟಿ ಮನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ ಗಣತಿದಾರರು 10% ರಷ್ಟು ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
• ಜಾತಿ ಗಣತಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸ್ವಯಂ ಇಚ್ಛೆಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟ ಸಂಗತಿ: ರಾಜ್ಯ ಹಿಂದುಳಿದ ವರ್ಗಗಳ ಆಯೋಗವು ಸೆ.22ರಿಂದ ಆರಂಭಿಸಿರುವ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಜನರನ್ನೂ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಲು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಜನರ/ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳ ಸ್ವಯಂ ಇಚ್ಛೆಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಆಯೋಗದ ಸದಸ್ಯ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ ಕೆ.ಎ.ದಯಾನಂದ್‌ ಅವರು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
• ಅಪರ್ಯಾಪ್ತ ವೇತನ ನಿಗದಿ: ರಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಂಡಿರುವ 1.20 ಲಕ್ಷ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷಕರಿಗೆ ಮೊದಲ ಕಂತಿನ ಗೌರವಧನವಾಗಿ ತಲಾ 5000 ರೂ. ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಒಟ್ಟು 60.36 ಕೋಟಿ ರೂ.ಗಳನ್ನು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಖಾತೆಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಆದೇಶಿಸಿದೆ. 
• ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರಿಂದ ಅಪಸ್ವರ: ಜಾತಿ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ - ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರಲ್ಲಿ ಗೊಂದಲ. ವಿಜಯ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಮಂಗಳೂರು ಆವೃತ್ತಿ ೧೧.೦೯.೨೦೨೫ (ವರದಿ: ಮುಹಮ್ಮದ್ ಆರಿಫ್ ಮಂಗಳೂರು) 
• ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕತಾವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೊಂದು ಸುವರ್ಣಾವಕಾಶ: ಸಂದರ್ಭಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕಾದಿದ್ದ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಲಿಂಗಾಯತ ಮಹಾಸಭೆಯ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕತಾವಾದಿಗಳು "ಹಿಂದೂ ಧರ್ಮ" ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿಸದೆ "ಲಿಂಗಾಯತ ಧರ್ಮ" ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿಸುವಂತೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕವಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
• ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶ ಎತ್ತಿಹಿಡಿದ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣ ಮಹಾಸಭಾ: ಈ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುವುದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ಸ್ವಯಂಪ್ರೇರಿತವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಸಾರುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣ ಮಹಾಸಭಾ ಎತ್ತಿಹಿಡಿದಿದೆ.  
• ತನ್ನ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯದ ನಡುವಣ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ತಿಳಿಯದ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರಕಾರ: ₹420 ಕೋಟಿ ಬಜೆಟ್‌ ಹೊಂದಿದ ಈ ಪರಿಪಾಟವು ಪರಸ್ಪರ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾದ ಊಹೆಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನೆಲೆಗೊಂಡಿದೆ. ಸಾವಿರಾರು ಜಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಚ್ಚುಕಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ವರ್ಗೀಕರಿಸಬಹುದು, ಅವುಗಳ ಗಣನೆ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ರಾಜಕೀಯೇತರವಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರಕಾರದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಕಾರ್ಯಗತಗೊಳಿಸಲು ಸಮರ್ಥವಾಗಿದೆ ಎನ್ನುವಂತಹವು ಆ ಊಹೆಗಳು. ಅದೃಷ್ಟವೋ ದುರದೃಷ್ಟವೋ ಎನ್ನುವಂತೆ ಈ ಊಹೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೂ ನಿಜವಲ್ಲ.

~ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಕಾಶ ಬೊಳುಂಬು