Re: Sorry: further corrigendum

["Puneet Singh, RN5-09, 653-5520, ~, 10532524" <psingh@scdt.intel.com>]

Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:
> 
Sanjeev,

How is this helping the group discussion? Shouldnt you be sticking
to the rules of brief relevant posts? Is after reading the constitution
you find something that needs debating then you can bring it up here,
else your posts are not very different from some of the ones we rebuked
ourselves.

What are the issues IP is looking into now? Dual citizenship? Indians as
team players? Compulsory military training? Nuclear bombs? Are we going
to debate every subject (to death?) or are some issues show stoppers
compared to others? Is this an indicator that some of the burning issues
have been resolved @IP? Or are these the most important problems with
the policies an ideal Indian Party should target?

Post nuclear tests, I want to know what economic measures this group
suggests. What can be done to make India a team player? What policies
will ensure funds created and flowing into India? I want the group to
give reasons if what FM Sinha is doing is the best or something better
can be done, and if so how is it better. How does it impact each sector
of the populace? What is the price for the policies. In other words I
want IP to list a bunch of issues and target them rather than have
random thoughts being thrown for debate.

Just being self critical,
Puneet

> Looks like I am now totally confused. The article 11 reads:
> 
> "Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law - Nothing in the
> foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of
> Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and
> termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship."
> 
> Clearly, the Indian Constitution is rather tricky: no plain speaking here.
> 
> Article 9 prohibits the person who has vountarily acquired the citizenship
> of another nation, from being an Indian citizen, and Article 11 allows the
> Parliament to make provisions (with a mere 50% vote among those present at
> the time of vote) to regulate the right of citizenship. This is confusing
> to me, to say the least. Does it therefore mean that dual citizenship
> needs a Constitutional Amedment or a mere voice vote in the Parliament?
> 
> Experts, pl. clarify.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> SS

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Puneet Singh                                (psingh@scdt.intel.com)
RN5-09, Intel Co                            Tel: (408)-653-5520 (W)
2200 Mission College Blvd                   Fax: (408)-765-6395 (W)
Santa Clara CA-95052                        Tel: (408)-254-2864 (H)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=