> as why getting carried away by the words fundamental right is something to be cautious about.

Because people sometimes tend to equate "fundamental" with "absolute", and assume that the right cannot be taken away from them under any circumstances. That is not correct.

> You didn't mention what type of restrictions can be put

What is a "reasonable restriction" has not been defined unequivocally - it is subject to interpretation of the courts.

Apart from declaration of emergency, which is an exception circumstance, when has the fundamental right been taken away? Why are you giving extreme examples to prove your point? The last time fundamental rights were taken away from Indian citizens was in 1975.

Fundamental rights are not absolute, in the sense that reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.

An example is Article 21 of the constitution: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

So a person's right to life or personal liberty can be restricted according to procedure established by law. That is why you find people in prison. Their fundamental right to liberty is restricted by a procedure established by law. Similarly, the fundamental right to privacy can be restricted by a procedure established by law.

"Reasonable restrictions" are not very well defined in the Indian constitution. They are quite broad and open to interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

  "... the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the
  interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
  security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
  States, public order, decency or morality or in relation 
  to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
  offence."

Justice A.P.Shah panel had recommended principles for privacy which goes into quite a bit of detail. So there is a guiding light and not everything will be case-by-case basis.

http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy....

Can reasonable restrictions be put on fundamental rights as well? So you are suggesting that the right to life has reasonable restrictions -- that in order to be friendly to a foreign state, the nation state can murder their citizens?

> So you are suggesting that the right to life has reasonable restrictions

Please read what he said, he is not saying that, the thing he quoted is, and that thing I believe is the constitution as it stands now.

Sorry for being off topic but I believe fundamental rights do not and should not require a citizenship test. If we hold these rights to be fundamental, we must not be willing to tolerate violations of such rights of any person in our jurisdiction.

I'm not suggesting anything, the Constitution of India specifically allows for "reasonable restrictions". The right to life does have restrictions - the death penalty is still legal in India.