Tuesday 24 January 2012

Why this Inevitable and Impassioned Appeal?


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