Manvika

“Sen informed the House that he had initially intended to speak in Hindi, but since 'most of the challenge came from areas whose representatives might not have understood Hindi,' he had decided to speak in English instead.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Some said that rather than making piecemeal amendments to the Constitution, a committee should be constituted to suggest comprehensive changes to be made to the Constitution once and for all. Citing a paper published by a senior researcher at the Indian Law Institute, H.N. Mukherjee said that words like 'sovereignty' and 'integrity' were vague and were susceptible to being misinterpreted by courts. H.V. Kamath cited the example of the Scottish Home Rule Party which was permitted to contest elections for seats in the House of Commons, and said that only speech which amounts to incitement ought to be outlawed.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“A member from Assam said that 'there is less affinity among the different peoples in India than among the different nations of Europe', because while European countries could at least 'claim the same pigment of their skin' and 'the same religion throughout the length and breadth of Europe', India was a country 'with a bewildering, often conflicting varieties of people, of languages, of sects, of faiths, of colours, of nationalities, of races' which could not make similar claims.”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India

“Yet, can merely showing a map depicting the de facto line of control in an internationally disputed geographical region amount to undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India'? By merely presenting an alternate map of Kashmir to its readers, could The Economist be said to have engaged in activity akin to the DMK's demands for secession and for the separate state of Tamilnad, which gave rise to the Sixteenth Amendment in the first place? Can it even amount to 'questioning' the territorial integrity of India, punishable as an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act? At a more fundamental level, can a person who merely questions the territorial boundaries of India be said to be undermining the 'sovereignty and integrity of India' at a level comparable with the movements in Madras, Nagaland and Punjab in the 1950s and 1960s?”
― Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India