Add to basic principles: Annihilation of Caste

If definition of religion necessitates belief in a supernatural entity who created us, aka god, then humans can live without religion as many humans don't believe in god.

The statement need more clarification as this is a sensitive issue that may overlap with articles under right to freedom of religion and cultural and educational rights (art 25,26,29,30) of constitution of India.

As it being right of an individual to practice their caste and religion, plainly stating "annihilation" or "breaking up" of caste will be interpreted as intrusion of personal liberty and rights. If the intention of statement is to completely dismantle caste system, it should discuss the above mentioned violations and if the scope of interpretation of the statement includes only the anti social practices that are part of caste system, then that should be clearly stated to avoid ambiguity.

What do you think should get preference when one's religious beliefs are in conflicts with human rights or rights guaranteed under the constitution?

The hypothetical condition you mentioned is too vague. I think in specific cases, the courts must be the final voice. In either way, suggesting "annihilation" or "breaking up" caste system entirely is different from dealing with intrusion of religious practices into someone's liberty.

Are you saying the caste system does not intrude into someone's liberty and it is just pure personal belief?

Well, the forms of caste is debatable, for some its their culture and traditions related to it and then there is oppression in the name of it. Also the forms of rituals and practices changes with time too. So if you ask does caste system intrude someone's liberty, my answer will be, some forms of it does. But considering the forms of beliefs that don't involves intrusion of one's liberty, it don't.

So you think someone is considered untouchable or inferior is not violation of one's liberty?

Its a violation of liberty as well as law. The proposal is not about caste IMO but a specific form of words which happens in my view to be both inaccurate and unhelpful. Kannan's basic draft already does better, we can probably refine that.

@Kannan V M what would be your position on caste, if you were to draft it?

We should be saying "We recognize the caste based discrimination as a deadly disease our nation is facing and we recognize it is of import that we eliminate it before it spreads further into the hearts of our people, especially to our young. We recognize the systemic oppression and the opportunities denied and we will work towards to compensate through reservations and other policies. We believe making laws are not enough to bring justice to the oppressed classes and we will work together on ground to secure justice, liberty and equality to the oppressed and under represented communities"

But it is not enough, this is just a statement and we should be a discussing about what the above statement doesn't talk about, the social change, what are our expectations about social change and how to bring them. It will be an interdisciplinary topic, which includes discussions on history, present social scenario, politics and economics.

But no matter what we do, we shouldn't interfere with one's liberty or even give an impression that we might be thinking that way. That is why I had to block the proposal.

NB: I am not going to propose the above quoted statement now as it seriously lack any point on social change and I believe the intention of this proposal is social change, so instead proposing I believe we can have a discussion on our expectations on social change and how we can bring it.