Although Mullaiperiyar dam
issue is one of the most important and pressing problems of Tamil Nadu, in
quite contrast to the acts and utterances of all political leaders of Kerala
and unlike of irresponsible heroics of many political leaders of our state, DMK
President Kalaignar, whether in power or not, had maintained extreme cool and
composure in his talks and discussions. Even during irritating and provocative
activities of the other side, he continued to preserve patience and composure
so that no harm was caused to the historical and age-old relations between the two
states and its people were not jeopardized on this issue. He adopted extreme
caution and self-control so that the issue of this inter-state river dispute did
not turn into an impediment to national unity and integrity. Kalaignar’s statements
and actions, whether he was in power or not, were statesman-like and convincing
unlike of the diatribes and frenzied actions of certain chauvinistic elements
and opportunistic Jayalalitha whenever she was in the opposition.
Even at the height of
attacks on Tamils and properties of Tamils in Kerala and forcing out Tamil
workers from that state, the resolution adopted at the General Council meeting
of the DMK on Dec.9 last, the age-old relations between the two states and the
inter-dependence of the peoples had been passionately emphasized thus:
“Provoked by the opposition of Tamil Nadu to the unjustifiable
efforts of Kerala Government to reduce water level and construct a new dam, as
the Mullaiperiyar dam issue is pending before the Supreme Court of India; workers of political parties and certain
Anti-social Elements of Kerala have been indulging in violence for the last
few days, attacking vehicles going from Tamil Nadu. Due to
these actions of some politically motivated persons against Court Proceedings, tension prevails
in the border districts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The fear whether the age-old relations,
cordiality and humanitarianism fostered traditionally between the two states,
has crept in the minds of all concerned who have foremost interest in the well
being of the country.
“If one ponders over for a
moment, he can realize how strong and true are the historical relations
between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Among the three Tamil Emperors, Chera Kings belong to Kerala. Social reformist thinkers of Kerala are honoured and respected
in Tamil Nadu and those of Tamil Nadu in
Kerala. Narayana Guru,
who worked for a casteless society is
always remembered and hailed by
Social Reform Movement of Tamil
Nadu. The struggle led by great Rationalist leader Thanthai Periyar in Vaikom is part of history. Dr. T.M. Nair of Kerala
is one of the pioneers of the Dravidian Movement. This noble
relation and memories connected therewith should live forever; it
should not be allowed to be sabotaged.”
“Both the states are
inter-dependent for their socio-economic life and advancement. This has been the geographical arrangement
created by Nature itself. Therefore all
concerned should realize the fact that amicable
solutions are not far-off, if
problems are approached, taking into
consideration the bridges of relations between the Two States
and the compulsion of inter-dependence.
This Executive Committee of D.M.K. insists that the people of both these
two neighbouring States, especially
those in Politics, should bear in mind that History will not forgive if the
long historical relationship is harmed for narrow political gains.”
It is important at the
juncture to recall the warning and plea of Kalaignar, on 29.5.2007 as Chief
Minister of the State at the National Development Council meeting, when he
said, “It appears that the
present institutional set-up for managing the Inter-state Rivers has become ineffective in practice, and
unless we work-out a new institutional
arrangement in time, river water-sharing may
turn into an issue
creating contradiction between States;
it may even become a factor in future threatening National Integration.”
After the reorganisation of
States in 1956, so many dimensions had taken place affecting the interests of
Tamil Nadu in Mullaiperiyar issue. Several letters were addressed to Chief
Ministers of Kerala belonging to both alliances, the UDF and LDF and several
rounds of talks were held at the political level as well as official level and
the issue was also taken to the Supreme Court. Still even after so many years
the end is eluding in this issue.
In 2006, the Supreme Court
issued a firm order and clarified the dam was strong and its water level could
be raised to 142 feet. However, instead of taking efforts for studying the
methods of implementing the SC order and preserving the requirements of the
Indian Constitution and perpetuating the basic aspects of federal principles,
the Kerala government, on the contrary, brought a legislative amendment against
the SC order so as to negate it without implementing and maintained the water
level at 136 ft. Last month they again tried to bring down further to 120 feet
which was turned down by the SC.
While the Empowered
Committee, constituted by the Supreme Court and headed by Justice A.S.Anand,
was going into all aspects of the dam issue, Kerala Chief Minister Oommen
Chandy was insisting on a negotiated settlement and repeating that his
government would never go back on its position of seeking a new dam.
Kerala government has
further gone to the extreme position of questioning and rejecting the very
authority of not only the Centre but also the judiciary aka the Supreme Court,
in its bid for a new dam.
In a fresh application
filed before the committee, Kerala said, “The public authority is endowed with
responsibility to take a final call on the replacement of a dam by considering
the human factors, viz., the extent and nature of damage to life and property,
if dam fails and ecological considerations.”
Rejecting Tamil Nadu's
stand that a new dam is not at all necessary as the present dam is safe, it
said: “Notwithstanding the unanimous technical opinion or where the technical
opinion is divided (or not sufficiently available), the public authority is
competent to replace the old dam by applying the precautionary balance of
convenience. In matters of public policy, the test cannot be [an] imminent
threat or a balance of probability, but should be [a] balance of possibility.”
Kerala maintained that
expertise was necessary, but it was neither the sole basis nor the sufficient
rationale for decision-making by either court or regulators on the risk or
perceptions of threat to life, health and environment.
“When a dam is to be
replaced or decommissioned on threat perceptions, it is a subject which falls
within the province of policymakers. The public authority should take a policy
decision based on various factors: the dangers posed, the age of the dam,
structural degeneration, the cost of maintenance, the extent and nature of
damage to life and property if dam fails and ecological considerations. In a
given case, the technical opinion may unanimously rule out inherent flaws in a
dam. But such unanimous technical opinion cannot be the sole test for deciding
whether the dam should be replaced or not,” it said.
Quoting a recent judgment
of the European Court,
it noted: “Where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to
human health, the institutions may take proactive measures without having to
wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent.”
In response to a query from
the committee whether the construction of a new dam would in any way affect
water supply to Tamil Nadu, Kerala pointed out that it filed a reply on October
27, 2010, saying “benefits arising from the new Mullaiperiyar dam would be
shared between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu as mutually agreed upon by signing
an agreement or as decided by the Supreme Court based on what is just and
equitable.”
It submitted that the “just
and equitable” benefits of the new dam would mean sharing of benefits between
Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the following manner — “Consumptive benefits: the
State of Tamil Nadu may draw the entire quantum of water, except 1.1 TMC
required for meeting the environmental flows during the summer months from
January to May; non-consumptive benefits: the electricity generated by
diversion of the Periyar waters from the new dam by the State of Tamil Nadu is
liable to be shared equitably as fixed by the Supreme Court; Riparian benefits:
the State of Kerala, being the riparian owner of the banks of the Periyar,
shall have exclusive right to fishing and tourism in the backwater of the new
dam.”
Rejecting any intervention
by the Centre, Kerala said: “Neither the central government nor the Central
Water Commission has any statutory power to look into the safety of dams or
reservoirs located in the States.”
“A Bill in this regard was
introduced in Parliament, titled ‘the Dam Safety Bill 2010.' However, the Bill
has not been passed as yet. Even this Bill does not apply to the States unless
the States pass a resolution under Article 252(1) of the Constitution as
mentioned in the Statement of Objects of the Bill,” it said.
While talking to Tamil Nadu
media representatives in Thiruvananthapuram on Jan.7, Kerala Chief Minister
Oommen Chandy categorically said, “While the Supreme Court verdict on the issue
of the water level in the dam and safety would be binding on the state, it
would not hesitate to opt for further legal remedies.”
So, that is the position of
Kerala as a whole-irrespective of political ideologies, the Congress, BJP, CPI,
CPM, IUML, Kerala Congress and all other fringe outfits are united in
obstinately pressing for a new dam and denying justice to Tamil Nadu and in
defying the authority of the Central government or the Supreme Court of India.
Then what is the recourse
for Tamil Nadu, which was generous enough to give up the rightful stake for the
areas of Devikulam and Peermedu 56 years ago during the reorganization of
States. Historically and geographically the areas belonged to Tamils and Tamil
Nadu.
Peermedu, the site selected
for building the dam and Devikulam, the catchment area, were under the regime
of Pandiya Kingdom till the 12th century. Then it
was a part of Poonayaru Tamil princely state called ‘Poorsar’.
Though the areas belonged
to Tamils, they were wrongly given to Travancore Princely
State and an agreement
was reached to this effect in 1886. Historians had pointed out that the
agreement between the Travancore
Princely State
and the British regime had been wrongly entered into without properly assessing
the border limits.
The Travancore Princely
State had its borders
till Arur and Kottarakarai on the Tamil Nadu side, but the British regime had
included Peermedu and Devikulam areas and signed the agreement. Later,
realising that the dam site belonged to Tamil Nadu and there might be any conflicts
in future, the Travancore Maharaja, had offered to give those areas and
suggested that the then British Governor in Chennai take back those areas by
giving Rs six lakh.
The Maharaja had twice
written to the British Governor and if the Governor had replied to the letters
and restored the rights of Tamil Nadu over these areas, the Mullaiperiyar dam
row would have come to an end then itself. Thanks to the mistake committed by
the British Governor and due to the wrong approach during the partition of state
on linguistic basis, the Mullaiperiyar issue is continuing till now.
Right from the beginning,
economic experts like B.Natarajan had been stating Peermedu and Devikulam
should be included in Tamil Nadu failing which the southern districts of Tamil
Nadu would be deprived of water for irrigation and suffer. The warnings issued
by the experts, feelings of the people of Tamil Nadu and demands made by DMK
and other political parties, have subsequently been ignored, paving way for the
problems now.
On the occasion of Pongal
festival on January 14, 1956, Arignar Anna, in an epistle to partymen, had
explained in detail that Peermedu and Devikulam belonged to Tamil Nadu. Later,
after consulting Tamilarasu Kazhagam, Communist Party and Praja Socialist
Party, Anna had organised a general strike and led a rally on 20 February, 1956
on the issue. Presided over by Justice Party Leader P T Rajan, the rally,
participated by lakhs of people, was taken out in Chennai.
Leaders like Anna,
Communist Party Leader P. Jeevanandam and Silambu Chelvar Ma Po Sivagnanam took
part in the rally, Kalaignar recalled. Later, addressing a public meeting, Anna
had said Tamils were unanimous in getting back Peermedu and Devikulam and they
had no problem with Keralites.
Anna said, “The three
parties DMK, Communist and Tamilarasu Kazhagam say Devikulam – Peermedu belong
to Tamils and Socialist Party says in support, PSP says it is just; Dravidar
Kazhagam says so.” The funny part is Congress Party also says
‘Devikulam-Peermedu for only Tamils’.
“Then with whom is our
quarrel? Our quarrel is only with the inactiveness of some, cunningness of some
and the dual stand of some. There is no quarrel with Malayalees. But if asked
whether Malayalees joined together and said, “We won’t give Devikulam-Peermedu
taluks to Tamils”, No! then who refutes? They unanimously passed resolution in
the Assembly for including Devikulam-Peermedu with Tamil Nadu.
“The Congress Ministry
introduced that resolution. All parties in the country demand Devikulam,
Peermedu to be annexed to Tamil Nadu. There are none among Tamils who do not
demand that. The people of the area have shown to the world and rulers.”
Thereafter the resolution
for annexing Devikulam, Peermedu areas with Tamil Nadu was adopted by the DMK
General Council meeting at Chidambaram on 29.1.1956, in the Second State
Conference of the DMK in Tiruchi on 17, 18, 19, 20.5.1956, in the DMK Election
Special Conference on 10.2.1957 held at SIAA Grounds, Chennai and in the
following DMK conferences.
Kalaignar, in his statement
on Jan.12, called upon the Centre to correct the mistake committed by the then
British Governor of Madras Presidency in 1886 and wipe out the injustice done
to Tamil Nadu during the partition of states on linguistic basis. He also
wished the Tamil Nadu government take serious steps to got back the lost
territories in Idukki district and include them with Tamil Nadu. “Had we get
back the territories in 1886 itself, when the Travancore King offered the same
to avoid any conflicts infuture, the Mullaiperiyar dam row would not have
reached to this level, Kalaignar had said.
Expectedly, all political
parties and leaders of Kerala immediately voiced their opposition to Kalaignar’s
view. Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee
President Ramesh Chennithala, State BJP President N.Muralidharan, LDF convenor
Vakkom Viswam and others have issued statements. But unfortunately, except one
or two small outfits, major political parties including hitherto self-declared
champions of Tamils, had preferred to keep withdrawn for reasons best known
only to them. Or possibly they do not want to incur the displeasure of
Jayalalitha.
The above mentioned
application of Kerala before the Empowered Committee and the statements of its
Chief Minister and other political leaders revealed their ulterior intention
and motive. If a State within Indian Federal Union states that they will break
a dam constructed under a 999-year agreement on a river used by two states and
such an act was their right as the dam falls within their territorial limits, what
does it imply? Kerala has created a constitutional crisis to determine whether
it is a State within Indian Union or a separate country. The question of who to
control the recalcitrant attitude and mentality of Kerala, has arisen in the
minds of people. It has necessitated the Central government to immediately
intervene and take urgent action against that state according to Indian
Constitution. Otherwise, if other states also resort to such unilateral actions
like Kerala, the unity and integrity of India will become ridiculous.
It is in this critical
situation that Mullaiperiyar dam issue has to be resolved and at the same time
national integration has to be preserved. It is with this profound and
dispassionate thought that Kalaignar has issued the statement and clarion call.
In anticipation of such
grievances arising between two states in future, the architects of our
Constitution had created Articles 3 and 4 containing solutions to resolve them.
They read as:
“Article 3: Formation of
new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing
States.—Parliament may by law—
(a) form a new State by
separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or
parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of
any State;
(c) diminish the area of
any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of
any State;
(e) alter the name of any
State:
Provided that no Bill for
the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the
Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has
been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing
its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or
within such further period as the President may allow and the period so
specified or allowed has expired.
Article 4: Laws made under
articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth
Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters. —(1) Any law
referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the
amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to
give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such
supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as
to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the
State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.
(2) No such law as
aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the
purposes of article 368.
It is clear that actions
taken by the Centre under these Articles cannot be constrained in anyway by any
objections by Kerala. Kalaignar has impressed upon the concerned at the
appropriate time with enough evidence. It is now the duty of the Central and
State governments to initiate action to resolve the crisis and save the unity
and integrity of the country!
No comments:
Post a Comment