Leader is their ‘deity’; his residence is their ‘temple’

Devotees pray their family deity for some favour and make offerings if what they solicited is fulfilled. But for DMK cadre and their families, their desire invariably is that the weddings of them and members of their families should be solemnized by their leader Kalaignar. There are many instances of Kalaignar presiding over the wedding of the offspring of some DMK functionary, whose wedding also would have been solemnized by him in the past. Such families feel that it is double bliss for them.
Now in his health condition, Kalaignar is unable to undertake tours as before and participate in the weddings of functionaries and cadre. But that does not deter the enthusiasm of the rank and file, and they bring the bride and bridegroom along with their relatives and friends in vehicles hired to Chennai to the residence of their beloved leader and head of the entire DMK family. They might have fixed prior appointment and at times without with the confidence that Kalaignar would definitely oblige them. The moment they see their leader coming out of his residence the glee on the faces of men, women and children is something to be seen to appreciate.
On April 4, T.R.Manoharan, former district representative of Anna village union, Cuddalore district brought his son M.Vasanthan and bride J.Jeyapriya to the residence of Kalaignar for their wedding to be solemnized by him. Kalaignar conducted their wedding and greeted the couple. Tmt. Dhayalu Ammal, Deputy General Secretary V.P.Duraisamy, T.K.S.Elangovan MP, District Secretaries K.Ponmudi and M.R.K.Panneerselvam and functionaries of the district and family members of the couple were present.

DMK boycott of Assembly

As the government refused to take up the call attention motion on the arrest and humiliation of an aged and senior physician, moved by the DMK for debate in the Assembly, the Party decided to boycott proceedings of the House on April 2.
Speaking to reporters after boycotting the House, DMK legislative party leader Thalapathi M K Stalin said the call attention motion given by the party was not taken up on two days. The rulers had made wild charges against 70-year old physician Dr. N.Karunanidhi, filed cases, lodged him in Puzhal prison and now he had come out on bail. He is also the family doctor of Sivanthi Adityan, proprietor of ‘Daily Thanthi’ daily, who was admitted in the ICU of Apollo Specialty Hospital in Chennai. It is common knowledge that visitors to patients should not enter into the ICU with footwear. When Jayalalitha went to that hospital to visit Sivanthi Adityan, the doctor had reminded the Assistants of the CM about the rule, which had angered her. Following this incident he was arrested, cases filed, remanded and lodged in prison overnight. The TN Chapter of Indian Medical Association and All India Medical Council had condemned this action and had announced a demonstration in front of Chennai Collectorate on April 6, but the police had not given permission for it. the Party had asked for a debate on this tense situation but permission not given for two days. The boycott was also to protest the suspension of two DMK legislators, he added.

“Autocratic ADMK regime will be thrown out by people”

It is definite that the ADMK’s autocratic regime, which has ignored poor and downtrodden people, will be thrown away soon by the people as it is not required for Tamil Nadu, asserted DMK Rajya Sabha member Poet Kanimozhi.
During the DMK rule, Kalaignar had promised a bridge linking Kamugakudi and Abhiviruththeeswaram panchayats in Koradacheri union in Tiruvarur district. After the change of regime, Kanimozhi allocated Rs 2.40 crore from her Rajya Sabha constituency development fund and recommended construction of the bridge. But due to political animosity, the ADMK regime kept it in abeyance without sanctioning the bridge. Condemning this, people of 25 villages observed fast unto death at Koradacheri under the leadership of Tiruvarur district DMK secretary Poondi Kalaivanan. Even this did not move the district collector and officials. Hence Kanimozhi went there and held direct talks with officials. She explained all aspects of the bridge, argued for its implementation and obtained a written undertaking from them. Afterwards, she gave fruit juice to the observers of fast and ended their two-day fast.
Speaking on the occasion, Kanimozhi regretted that people had to resort to fasts even to get basic needs. The MPs fund was meant for implementing development projects needed for the people and she allocated it not for constructing office building for the DMK but for a bridge needed by the people. The ADMK ministers were bringing budget and other government documents in brief case containing the portrait of Jayalalitha. But we did not demand any publicity for Kalaignar in this bridge.
People of 25 villages had to cross the river to go to schools, hospital and for all their essential purposes and when water flows they had to risk their lives. They had been demanding this bridge for long. They placed the demand to Kalaignar elected to the Assembly from this area. When he asked the district collector the estimate for construction of the bridge it was told to be Rs.1.15 crore. Accordingly the estimated amount of Rs.1.15 crore was allocated from her MP fund. Later the administration after a long time said with that amount only a small bridge could be constructed which they did not want to do. Even then Kalaignar asked for the revised estimate for which the administration replied that it was Rs.2.40 crore. Even that was allocated from her fund. The Party district secretary even then said that the work did not require that much amount and only to drag on the issue the government was demanding excess amount.
Later when she contacted the district collector over phone in her capacity as MP to ask for the delay in executing the work, she could not get any reply. When an official was contacted and he was not available it was the practice of the official to contact the person in turn. But even this basic culture could not be sought from this district collector. In spite of her repeated attempts his telephone did not respond.
Whenever Kalaignar came to the party office he is accustomed to ask those waiting for him the reason for their arrival. Any letter addressed to him reached him. Kalaignar followed this practice when he was in power also. She said it was possible to meet and speak to even envoys of other nations in a day or two. But she could not speak to the Tiruvarur district collector. Her letter to him seeking an appointment at his convenience did not get reply after so many months. He had no time for people’s representatives but was always seen accompanying ADMK ministers.  She said that she would take up the issue with higher authorities and make the collector to come there and reply. Such a situation should not prevail in any part of the country.
Only after the administration was dodging for over two years, people of the area had resorted to this fast. Even then the district collector had not turned up here which was shameful. Had this been DMK rule, the issue would have been settled in just three hours with the CM contacting immediately the collector or the minister concerned and direct them to immediately attend to the issue and reply him. It was such a golden rule. But now we have a regime of stone age which has least botheration of people. Such a regime would be thrown away by people one day and this stir was an example. The government had to be for people and if it was not so people would not want such a regime.
The ADMK regime was afraid of facing ire of people over power cut. Least concerned about anything, the Jayalalitha regime even ignored the suicides of farmers and claimed that only 9 farmers had committed suicide. Announcing only Rs.15,000 as relief even that was not distributed in full. They demand signature of farmers on bonds that they would not demand more relief. Such an anti-democratic regime was existing in the state.
Kanimozhi said the zonal engineer of the highways had given a written undertaking here that the works for construction of the bridge would start before 22.05.2013. If tender for the works were not given and works started, she said that she would also join the agitation along with people.
District Secretary Poondi Kalaivaanan, Nagai district secretary AKS.Vijayan,MP, former Ministers U.Mathivanan and Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu and others participated in the agitation.

“How long will the likes of Nedumaran cheat here?”

Taking strong exception to the statement of P. Nedumaran criticising the DMK’s ‘absence’ when the resolution calling for a referendum on a separate Tamil Eelam was passed in the TN Assembly, Kalaignar said that his Party MLAs had not staged a walkout but had been evicted.
In his epistle on March 31, Kalaignar regretted the absence of unity among Tamils for the discrimination adopted by the Centre in dealing with the issues of fishermen of Kerala and TN and referred to a news item in dailies on the day that P. Nedumaran questioned the DMK for walk out when the Tamil Eelam resolution was adopted in the Assembly and condemned it.
He said when the same Nedumaran was arrested under POTA during ADMK regime and lodged in Cuddalore prison with none to take care of him it was he who raised voice for him. “He is showing gratefulness for that now. Possibly he may have fear that he may be lodged in prison again in this regime. For that he may issue statements hailing everything done by these rulers. We are not bothered about it. But what is the need for him to unnecessarily attack us?”
He asked Nedumaran whether the DMK members staged a walkout when the Eelam resolution was brought or whether they were evicted or whether the House was already informed about the tabling of the resolution or was the members informed. No. What held was a debate on the agitation of students in TN for Eelam Tamils under rule no 55 special call attention motion. After many spoke, when the Chief Minister replied unnecessarily she leveled series of charges against him and the DMK. Generally while replying to special attention motion no allegations should be leveled against anybody. Still as he was blamed continuously, following the DMK members raising protest voice the Speaker evicted all DMK members. It was only after that, at the end of her reply Jayalalitha, without any prior notice, suddenly moved the resolution and it was passed.
This was reported in all dailies. But Nedumaran had asked why the DMK walked out and condemned it. Kalaignar advised him to engage a teacher and learn the difference between ‘evicted’ and ‘exited’. Nedumaran has said that by this walkout the DMK had betrayed the Eelam Tamils. “Such politicians in Tamil Nadu!! Fearing some danger from these rulers unnecessarily, they seek after them and hail. Let them do and survive. But thinking that only if they attack us they can survive there, they are blaming us. It is because of such trend of such people- because of such offensive attitude that Tamil fishermen are attacked, and live without protectors. But these persons act as if only they are interested on Eelam Tails and cheat people. I am only reminded of the song rendered by MGR in the film ‘Malaikkallan’ weitten by me “v¤jid¡ fhy«jh‹ Vkh‰Wth® Ϫj eh£ony?” (How long will they cheat in this country?)” Kalaignar said.

“Reports on DMK going soft on UPA mischievous”

DMK president Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi on March 29 described as “mischievous and deliberately distorted” reports that his party would go soft on the Congress-led UPA government and would offer support from outside instead of seeking to topple it.
Talking to reporters, he recalled that he had already replied  on March 19 to question by saying the DMK would not provide outside support to the government. He said the DMK had decided to quit the alliance and the government because the situation had reached such a pass that his party’s continuation would cause a great harm to the Sri Lankan Tamils. He also made it clear that the DMK could not be held responsible if the communal forces returned to power.
Kalaignar said whoever came to power at the Centre should accept the resolutions adopted in the Tamil Eelam Supporters Organisation in Chennai and the DMK executive committee’s resolution demanding change of venue of the Commonwealth meeting, which is scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka and credible independent international inquiry into genocide and war crimes in Lanka.
“We quit the Congress-led UPA because it refused to accept our demands,” he said.
When told the Union Minister G.K. Vasan also had asked for a change of venue of the Commonwealth meeting, he said the Minister had said it was his personal opinion. “If his party shared his view, we will fully appreciate it,” he said.
Asked about the resolution adopted in the Assembly in support of a referendum among Sri Lankan Tamils for a separate Eelam, he said it was on the lines of resolutions passed at the TESO conference.
“That is why Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi leader Thol Thirumavalavan and Dravidar Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani have welcomed it. To tell the truth, the ADMK government has adopted the resolution of the TESO conference which it had sought to ban,” he said.

Duty fulfilled by DMK rule for Arunthathiyars

Reiterating his commitment of all oppressed and suppressed sections of the society and the special care he had taken for the lowest among the lower castes, DMK President Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi listed the benefits given the Arunthathiyar community including special reservation during the DMK rule.
In his epistle to Party cadre on April 3, Kalaignar referred to the speech of Arunthathiyar Viduthatlai Iyakkam President Jakkaiyan at a function in Dindigul as reported in the CPM daily ‘Theekkadir’ claiming that the reason for 3 percent special reservation for the community was the leaders of the CPM. Although he did not deny it, Kalaignar wondered why he did not mention that the demand of the CPM was conceded and getting the benefit because of the DMK rule. As he had not mentioned Kalaignar listed the benefits given to the community by the DMK government.
The decision to give 3 percent special reservation within the 18 percent reservation for SCs as the community was most backward among the SCs socially and economically was taken during the DMK rule and GO was issued. Following this the legislation for it was enacted and rules framed on 29.4.2009. Because of this special reservation, 56 students of the community got admission in medical colleges and 1165 in engineering colleges totally 1221 benefitted in 2009-10 and 70 in medical and 1813 in engineering colleges totally 1883 benefited in 2010-11. To encourage the first batch of 1,221students, he presented Rs.5,000 each as education development fund totaling R.61.05 lakh on 5.12.2009, from the salary of Rs.50 lakhs to him for writing script and dialogue for the film ‘Pen Singam’ and personal fund of Rs.11-05 lakhs.
Ondi Veeran, of Arunthathiyar community was the principal army chief of Nelkattum sevel hero Poolithevan who fought many wars against the British even before Veerapandiya Kattabomman. The DMK government, which raised memorials for Kattabomman, Poolithevan and Sundaralingam, announced in the budget on 19.3.2010 that a memorial would be raised for Ondi Veeran in Tirunelveli.
TN Sanitary workers welfare board under Adidravidar Welfare Minister was started on 8.6.2007 enrolling 22,811 members and the families of 1,133 families of members were given assistance of Rs.17,86,440. Moreover, the DMK government implemented Rehabilitation scheme at a cost of Rs.22 crore to provide alternative works for those who were earlier engaged in nightsoil collection work. To avoid these workers getting into manholes to clear blocks, 47 desilting machines were acquired for all corporations and 47 of them were deployed in Chennai Corporation.
Kalaignar recalled his acceptance speech at a function of Santhome Art Festival and Mandram to confer on him Lifetime Achiever Award for 2008 in which he passionately spoke about the community and the cruelty of night soil carrying and vouched to eradicate that shame. He announced that the Cabinet would soon decide on special reservation for the community as per the report of Justice Janarthanam committee. He told the officials who raised doubts that he wanted the last pages of his history to say that he provided social justice to Arunthathiyar community.
On the day the Bill for special reservation for the community was to be adopted in the Assembly on 26.2.2009, he sent a passionate appeal to the members to adopt it unanimously, from the hospital where he was admitted for a major surgery on his spinal chard, Kalaignar recalled and added that his personal assistant Nithya and one of the three general secretaries of the DMK belonged to that community.

Kalaignar lists ADMK regime’s anarchy in co-op polls

Listing various instances of irregularities and anarchy indulged in by the ruling party in connivance with the ADMK regime on the very first day of filing nominations in the conduct of elections to co-operative institutions in the state, DMK President Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi said that the DMK decided to boycott the elections realising before hand that such anti-democratic manoeuvres would be resorted to. “Of course, Tamil Nadu will witness many more jokes the ADMK regime and the ruling party will enact in this election”, he added.
In his epistle to Party cadre on March 30, Kalaignar said the ADMK regime announced the conduct of elections to cooperative bodies in five phases from April 5 without bothering about the plight of farmers all over the state expecting drought relief in full and for all.
The ADMK regime brought an amendment to Co-operatives Act with the motive of enrolling only ADMK cadre in cooperatives according to which new members could be enrolled through ‘general bodies’ when they were under the administration of special officers. From the very hasty moves to conduct cooperative polls by the regime, it was very clear that they wanted to encroach cooperative bodies against all democratic norms and irregularities. Hence the DMK decided to boycott these polls which had no place for fairness and honesty. As if to prove its decision there were reports of how the elections were conducted by this regime.
* In the election for Salem district child welfare orgainsers and assistants women cooperative credit and thrift society, 7 filed nomination from ADMK and 9 from CITU affiliated TN Anganwadi staff and assistants union. But a notice stating that all ADMK nominees had been elected unanimously was displayed on the society’s notice board.
* CPM area secretary G.M.Nagarajan who went to complain about refusal to give nomination forms for contesting election to K.Pudupatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank was horribly attacked by ADMK men and admitted in hospital with injuries.
* in a statement issued by CPM Thanjavur district secretary K. Neelamegam, it was stated that though it was announced that filing of nomination would start on March 29 for first phase elections to Primary agricultural cooperative banks in villages, most of the offices of these banks were not at all opened on that date. They refuse to give nomination papers even if offices were opened in some places and said that there were oral instructions to receive only those given by ruling party men.
* Those who went to file nominations in the society in Vikramam village in Madukkur union were asked to meet the union secretary of the ruling party.
* Opportunity to contest elections to societies in Madukkur, Mandalkkottai, irangadu, Veppangulam etc.,
* Besides refusing to give nomination forms in societies of Devanaanjeri,  Cholapuram and Thirupparambiyam in Kumbakonam union ruling partymen ganged up and quarreled. Cooperative employees say that they would give nomination forms in the afternoon but lock the office and go away.
* They refuse to give nomination forms in Bharathnkottai society in Tiruvonam union
* Ruling partymen are trying to conduct fraudulent elections in Primary agricultural cooperative banks with the help of officers.
* Nutritious meal workers alleged that functionaries of Karur district ADMK were resorting to anarchy in the elections to Karur district all nutritious meal workers cooperative thrift and credit society.
* When nominations papers were demanded in the office of Karur district all nutritious meal workers cooperative thrift and credit society, two ADMK functionaries seated there directed that none should be given and only if they enquire over phone and say the forms should be given, and officials also refused to give.
* CPM activists resorted to picketing of road when officers of Samayanallur  Primary agricultural cooperative society refused to give them nomination forms and following the intervention of police the stir was withdrawn. But when they went to file nomination papers, over 300 ADMK cadre had prevented them from filing the forms and one Malayalam, an ADMK cadre’s brother had snatched the form filed by T.Ramamurthy and went away. All these anarchies were passively witnessed by the police.
* In the election for Vellore CMC cooperative society, a demonstration was held against cancelling the voting rights of 240 workers.
* P.Saravanan, a visually handicapped, working as an assistant in Government public library in Dharmapuri is also the working president of their union and a leading functionary of Tamil Nadu Government Employees Association. Being a social worker he is a member for the past 20 years of the Public library cooperative thrift and credit society and was elected as director in the election held in 2008. He has filed his nomination paper for the present election on March 29. Election officer Loganathan refused to receive his papers and also threatened to reject his papers as he was blind. After stiff opposition he delayed and unwillingly received his nomination for the poll.

Kalaignar demands action against those who arrested senior doctor

Slamming the ADMK regime for its worst record on law and order front but taking stringent action against aged senior doctor for his legitimate and earnest duty, DMK President Kalaignar urged the regime to take suitable action against those responsible for the wrong doing and unconditionally withdraw the case filed against Dr.N. Karunanidhi.
In a statement on March 30, Kalaignar said Dr. N.Karunanidhi (age 70) had served long as Professor of Medicine in government service and worked as Dean before his retirement. He was working as Personal doctor of Sivanthi Adityan, owner of ‘Daily Thanthi’ daily undergoing treatment in a private hospital. “Poor man! Possibly he was named as Karunanidhi, he was arrested by the ADMK regime’s police on March 27, and spent the whole night in ‘lock up’ under ‘the monitoring’ of the police. What was the crime committed by him?”
On a complaint by a sub-inspector Asaithambi that the doctor scolded and pushed him aside when he went to the hospital to look after security aspects for the arrival of Chief Minister Jayalalitha there. Immediately the ADMK government’s police plunged into action filing case under stringent IPC sections of preventing an official from discharging his duty, interfering, assaulting and severely injuring him, presented the doctor in front of 18th Metropolitan magistrate Anandavelu past midnight at his residence and lodged him in Puzhal prison. All these had happened on the same night when Jayalalitha visited Sivanthi Adityan at the hospital.
Kalaignar said the ADMK regime’s police was unable to trace the culprits in the murders of Ramajeyam in Tiruchi and Pottu Suresh in Madurai in spite of several months. But what was the big crime that the senior doctor committed to be arrested and lodged in prison overnight? Did he murder anybody? Did he rob or hijacked somebody?
The whole crime he committed was that he asked the sub-inspector who went there to oversee security arrangements prior to the visit of the CM, not to enter into the ICU with his shoes. For which the aged doctor was arrested, remanded in front of the magistrate and lodged in Puzhal prison all overnight. How atrocious? Is this the way law and order is maintained by this regime?
Strongly condemning the police action, Kalaignar said that had this happened during DMK rule, Jayalalitha would have issued statement that the Chief Minister in charge of the police department should resign. “But I do not want to say like that. Besides taking suitable action against those responsible for this wrong doing , I urge the ADMK regime to unconditionally withdraw the case against the doctor”, he said.

“Will the CM and minister establish their credentials?”

Posing a volley of questions on the GPS-ticketing machine contract for Rs.200 crore awarded to an ineligible consortium by the ADMK regime, DMK President Kalaignar asked whether the Chief Minister or the minister concerned would give replies to them and establish their credentials.
In his epistle to Party cadre on April 2, Kalaignar said that people were witnessing since 2011, allegations against state ministers reported in dailies, the Chief Minister pretending to take action and keeping them away and permitting some wrong-doing ministers to continue for ‘some’ ‘important’ reason without taking any action, Many such wrong-doing ministers had been removed from the cabinet. “Although I was getting complaints against many ministers, only to avoid making any personal allegation I was even skipping the writing of question-answer column for the past few weeks. But, in spite of several complaints against the Transport Minster so far no action had been taken by the high command”, Kalaignar said and listed some reports already published in dailies.
Kamatchi Periyasamy alias Gokul was the adopted son of Ramalingam- Deivanai couple from Periyakulaththu palayam, Karur Vengamedu. He studies in Hindustan College, Coimbatore and worked in a call centre. While studying he loved Gowri Santhini of Coimbatore and married her. After the death of Ramalaingam, Deivanai was living with their adopted son Gokul. She owned 3.5 acre ancestral land worth several crore rupees on Karur-Salem bypass road. On June 3,2011,Gokul was kidnapped by a gang in car when he started for Karur from Coimbatore. It was learnt that the gang administered liquor to Gokul, obtained his signatures on blank papers and took possession of the land. Gokul lodged a complaint with Karur district crime branch police on September 19,2011 following which the police filed a case against Natarajan, Karuppannan, Prabhu, Periyasamy and Mohan Raj. Thereafter no enquiry was conducted.
In his deposition before Karur court last January 5, Gokul had said that he was kidnapped on June 3, 2011 and Minister Senthil Balaji’s younger brother Ashok came. He rang up to the Minister and gave the receiver to him. The Minister who was on the line abused him as an orphan and threatened to kill him by pouring acid if he did not behave according to his (Minister’s) dictate. They kept him locked in a place and tortured him for two weeks. They took him to the office of Sub Registrar, obtained his signatures under threat and registered a sale deed in their names but did not give him any money. After giving this deposition the whereabouts of Gokul is not known and whether he is alive or dead is also not known.
Although Gokul mentioned the names of the Minister and his younger brother in his deposition, the police did not include their names in the case. DMK executive committee member and lawyer Maniraj had filed a petition in Karur court for the inclusion of their names. The case was being heard but the fate of Gokul was not known. It was said that the ruling partymen were trying to foil the case by threatening with power. There had been no response from the government on this allegation against the Minister Senthil Balaji. “It is this person subjected to such allegation who has questioned the capability of DMK legislative party leader Thalapathi M.K.Stalin”, Kalaignar said.
There was another report in dailies that an auto-rickshaw painted in ADMK colours without number plate and the name of this same Transport Minister inscribed on it was roaming around Erode and transport department officials were unable to take any action. Even for that there was no response from the government.
An interview of BJP Tamil Nadu State President Pon. Radhakrishnan appeared in dailies on March12. In that interview he had alleged that “a gang was involved in manufacturing of spurious liquor in Karur and there were links between this gang and those who were arrested in arrack case four years back. They were alleged to be manufacturing spurious brandy, whisky etc. besides brewing arrack. The doubts of locales of link between this gang and Minister Senthil Balaji could not be ignored. The State government should pay attention to this matter.” Did the government pay attention to this? Is there not a responsibility for the government to explain and clear doubts over the report linking the minister with the illicit liquor gang?
All these were reports in dailies appeared some weeks back. But there was a banner report in ‘The Times of India’ on March 28, which was as below:-
“The award of a contract for India’s biggest GPS-driven bus ticketing system, introduced by the Tamil Nadu state transport department, has raised allegations of irregularities.
Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services (PTCS), an agency under the transport department, has awarded the Rs 200-crore project to a consortium headed by a company incorporated the day the tender was floated. It has neither experience in manufacturing the ticketing machine nor does it have the required net worth, going by information on the Registrar of Companies (RoC) website.
The tender was given to the consortium on a build-operate-own-transfer basis. It is to install a system in buses for electronic ticketing machines that are GPS compatible or for GPRS-enabled hand-held devices that send signals to the service provider every time a ticket is issued to a passenger, enabling live tracking and accounting. The consortium gets 0.134 paise per ticket issued, which means a daily income of more than Rs 20,000 if it is introduced across 21,500 buses of the eight TN state-run transport corporations that sell more than 1.5 crore tickets every day. The arrangement would last five years.
Documents available with Times of India show that while the tender notification stipulates a minimum of three years experience for the main bidder, the consortium that won the contract is led by a company called Ingenerie Technologies Solutions which was incorporated the day the tender was floated on January 24, 2013. Till then, the company was called Mango Health Care Solutions. PTCS had postponed the tender date twice, first from December 31, 2012 to January 18, 2013, and then to January 24.
The tender norms insist that the bidding consortium should have a net worth of Rs 25 crore, with the lead member accounting for 60% of it. Going by the RoC website, the company’s net worth (as shown under the name of Mango Health Care Solutions) was less than Rs 8 lakh in the last financial year (2011-12), instead of the required Rs 15 crore.
Sources said that an evaluation committee that includes officials from the state finance department had pointed out some deficiencies, but the deal went through anyway. “It was found that some of the attached documents submitted by the bidder were handwritten, which is against rules. Also, the evaluation committee had made some notes on the ineligibility of the company,” said a senior official in the loop.
A couple of bidders who didn’t get the contract have complained to PTCS that two of the three members of the winning consortium - Abhi Bus and Analogics - were either blacklisted or found as defaulters in connection with previous projects in the transport sector. Abhi Bus was accused of failure in transferring money as part of an online ticket booking system into the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) account. “
As such a detailed report about a department of the government had appeared in leading English daily, Stalin had asked in the Assembly on the same day (March28) government’s response about it. But as he was not permitted to speak about this in the House the DMK members staged a walkout. After a very long time later, they had expunged the remarks made by DMK from the minutes of the House. “If what the ADMK regime had done is correct, could not the explanation they offered yesterday ( April 1) be told on that day (March 28) itself? Why should permission be refused to even speak? Four days after the publication of that report in that daily, the Minister explains. Why this delay? Will not the people doubt in various ways about this delay?” Kalaignar asked.
Somehow, a big allegation against the government had appeared in that daily and they had published it on the basis of documents in their possession. The government should give explanation in the appropriate manner, and it is not fair to file defamation case against them also. As the government is filing defamation cases for everything and cripple those who point out mistakes, various wrongs of the government do not come to light. “If it is a honest regime, it is duty bound to suitably reply the charges and it is not good to file case and threaten”.
Not only the DMK but also the CPM, CPI and Puthiya Tamilagam party members raised an issue over an allegation appearing in the first page of a national daily, the responsible Minister should only give reply and not telling  “no capability”, “they are making allegation here holding a daily news report like the character Dharumi in the film Thiruvilaiyadal claiming the lyric written by somebody as his and demanding prize”  and “allegation written by some virus” etc. is not in the capacity of a Minister. This will also not help to preserve the dignity of the House”, Kalaignar said.
There are reports in some dailies that the Minister said “If Dhakshinamurthy changes name as Karunanidhi birth trait will not change”. From this itself the capacity of the Minister could be understood by the people of the state”, Kalaignar said.
“Finally, only one explanation needed from the Minister! The Minister admits that the contract was awarded to Ingenerie Technologies Solutions. When was this company started? When was the contract awarded? Why the tender condition of three years’ experience ignored? But the Minister says that the company was functioning in some other name. If it was functioning in some other name why the tender was not asked in that name? Why the condition laid by the government was relaxed? Will the Minister or the Chief Minister reply these questions? And establish their credentials?” Kalaignar asked. 

Betrayal of Purpose for which JPC was set up!

Just a week after DMK Rajya Sabha member Tiruchi Siva shot off a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on 2G spectrum allocation, P.C.Chacko, terming his decision of not letting former Telecom Minister A Raja appear before the panel as “unilateral” and “against parliamentary convention”, BJP leader and member of the panel Yashwant Sinha has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on April 1 asking the Prime Minister to appear before the panel and direct PC Chacko to allow Raja to do the same.
In his letter dated April 1 to the Prime Minister, Sinha has said he should advise Finance Minister P.Chidambaram as well to appear before the JPC. Raising questions about the manner in which the JPC has been functioning, Sinha wrote, “You had publicly offered to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to enable it to reach the right conclusion. You had not made a similar offer to the JPC though many members of the panel have demanded that you appear.”
Also citing Raja’s communication to the JPC, which is in the public domain, Sinha said a former Telecom Minister has levelled a “serious allegation against the Finance Minister and you”. He then went on to advise that it would be in the Prime Minister’s “personal interest’ to “Clear” his name. “You may also suggest to the Finance Minister to make a similar offer and ask the chair man of the JPC to call Raja to depose before the JPC.” He added that any “hesitation” on the Prime Minister’s part can be construed as an attempt to “hide” facts.
Already CPI member of the JPC Gurudas Das Gupta, who is very active in the panel, had demanded that Raja should be allowed to testify before the panel. DMK Parliamentary Party leader T.R.Baalu had also vociferously made that demand.
With almost all MPs of the opposition parties in the JPC apprehensive of the outcome of the panel with its chairman reticent about permitting Raja to depose his version before the panel, we may expect an insipid, vacuous report, (sharply divided) with little substance or punch, to be delivered sometime in the future, unless of course this Parliament is dissolved in the interim period.
Two recent developments need to be noted. Former Telecom Minister A.Raja, the main accused in 2G case, has formally asked to depose before the panel. The JPC, in its wisdom, has denied his request- the chairman of the JPC has advised him to send a ‘written deposition’, if he so desired. (It has recently been reported that Raja indeed has sent a 15-page deposition in writing to the JPC) The ostensible reason why Raja cannot depose is that he is an accused in a criminal case, and that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for him to be ‘examined’ by the JPC. If that be so, is it ‘appropriate’ for the JPC to ‘examine’ all others involved in the allocation of spectrum and pricing of it like the Telecom Secretary, C&AG, the then Solicitor General et al., who had deposed before the court as witnesses? At other times, the ‘reason’ trotted out is that calling him as witness may entail asking all previous telecom ministers to depose before the JPC.
Both so-called ‘reasons’ appear to be hogwash. First, a Member of Parliament can always make a statement in Parliament, whether being an undertrial or not. Parliament and the judiciary are separate fora- there is no reason why an individual cannot engage or be engaged with both. Raja is not a convict- at present he is merely charge-sheeted. It is common practice that even convicts have interacted with Parliament and allowed to be present on special occasions. Former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian has opined that “Indeed, Raja can be examined under Section 313 of the CrPC by the trial court, with no reference to the proceedings in the JPC. Raja is squarely in the radar for the ‘2G scam’ –if earlier telecom ministers need to be called to provide information, so be it; they should be called. Indeed, Justice Shivraj V.Patil committee had recommended the extension of probe to spectrum allocations made during the previous NDA regime.
The Prime Minister and Finance Minister are not accused, nor are they charge-sheeted.- they are Members of Parliament with special knowledge and information on the 2G matter. It is utterly inconsistent to propagate the argument that Raja cannot be called to depose since he is an accused- however, Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram will not be called because they are not charge-sheeted! Indeed, the Prime Minister had earlier offered to appear before the JPC. It is astonishing that the three individuals who know most about the so-called ‘scam’, two of whom have offered to give their version of what happened, have not been asked to depose. The logic of Section 311 of the CrPC clearly applies- anyone who has information on the subject should be called to provide evidence. If the three are not called to provide information, there is the danger that the proceedings may be seen as a charade or farce.
Should not Parliament find out how such a ‘huge failure’, if it had happened, of government took place? The JPC may not be a court of law to award punishment to wrong-doers and enforce the law; it has, however, a large role to play. Its duty is to find out the circumstances under which such a ‘massive failure’ took place., how the system was ‘subverted’ – and make proposals how to improve the system. How can this task even start if there is refusal by the JPC to ascertain the basic facts from the people who know most about it? A refusal to look into the whole truth can be seen as a betrayal of the purpose for which it was set up.
Now information has recently emerged in the public domain that the details of all decisions, including those relating to policy and implementation, were known in the PMO, analysed there thoroughly, and that all concerned were in the loop. Similarly, a detailed internal government memo, mentioning the major developments relating to pricing etc., indeed going to the extent that “the then finance minister could have prevented the loss”, has been in existence.
The Prime Minister and the then finance minister along with Raja are in the best position to explain how the irregularities or ’scam’ occurred. Does the JPC see its role as uncovering the truth, or to cover up wrong-doings? After all, these three ‘directed’ the entire operation and not just one. In a recent separate court development, the chiefs of major telecom companies have been summoned to depose on the ground that they are presumed to have ‘directed’ the operations in their companies. And hence why should the JPC not permit Raja to depose before it and consequent to his deposition, if need be ask the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister also to depose, so that it is saved from the charge of facts swept under the carpet and truth not uncovered. r

Farce and Tragicomedy

While senior citizens of Tamil Nadu will shed tears and lament the shameful conduct of the State Assembly which has a glorious record in the past, those below the age of 30 years will only wonder whether serious proceedings were ever held in the House, except for 10 years during the DMK rule. Tamil Nadu Assembly had witnessed lively debates, sharp and witty exchanges between Treasury and Opposition benches but bonhomie at personal levels among members of all political parties. There are several instances when some opposition party member made very angry and provocative remarks, the Treasury benches cooling down the agitated mood of the House by making witty remarks and vice versa. Arignar Anna and Kalaignar on many occasions had made such lively interventions to bring the House to order and conduct the proceedings with all seriousness and purpose. For instance, immediately after the DMK assumed power in 1967, during the proceedings of the Assembly on a day Congress member K.Vinayagam winding up his speech angrily remarked at the ruling party, “Your days are numbered”. Anna instantly stood up and coolly said “My steps are measured”, the word ‘measure’ having more than one meaning. The entire House including Vinayagm merrily enjoyed Anna’s timely punch and pun. Gone are those days of purposeful and cultured  conduct of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, except for ten years between 1996 and 2001 and 2006 and 2011 in the last nearly four decades.
Since the advent of the ADMK, the cultural degeneration that pervaded politics and society in the State penetrated into the Assembly also. The lumpen culture, which was somewhat under check during the late MGR’s time manifested in full ugly form ever since Jayalalitha assumed the mantle. Defiance of rules and norms of the House by the ADMK members turned into the rule and norm of their conduct in the House.
Jayalalitha adopts two sets of conduct for her party members, one while the ADMK is in power and another where it is in the opposition. The entire nation was a witness to the unruly behaviour of ADMK MPs in both Houses of Parliament and her MLAs during the DMK rule. Recently in the Rajya Sabha, her members menacingly moved towards the seat of the presiding officer, raised slogans and one ADMK member, a physician by profession, V.Maithreyan pulled out two mikes from the table of the Chairman and broke them. Just two days later when DMK members in the TN Assembly protested against unnecessarily provocative remarks of an ADMK minister, the Speaker called it a ‘misconduct’ and orders their eviction. Under the ADMK regime, even raising the hands by opposition members, the posture of their sitting and the manner in which their tongues moved are ‘offences’ inviting punishment from the Chair on the signal of their ‘revered’ leader.
The modus operandi and modus vivendi of ADMK minions being singing paeans for their Amma and abusing the DMK and Kalaignar, their legislators and minister vie with each other to outperform their colleagues and House of People to discuss their problems and find solutions is being reduced to a bhajan mutt. Both ADMK members and ministers waste much of the precious time of the Assembly in praising their leader and the rest of the time in cursing the DMK. And the ‘convent-educated’ lady aspiring for Prime Minister post is seen enjoying the whole tamasha.
To add fervour to the speech of a member, there is no harm in adding some praise for his/her leader, but if it becomes the whole it becomes repulsive for civilised opinion. Even during question-answer sessions, the ADMK members and ministers while away most of the time in praising their leader and come to the point in one sentence or one word. For instance, an ADMK member praised the Chief Minister for five minutes and asked whether a veterinary subcentre would be set up in his constituency. While replying the minister concerned also kept praising the CM for five minutes and then said the veterinary substation could not be sanctioned. For this negative reply why should there be so much build-up and waste of time of the House? But there is no place for such sensible and rational questions in Jayalalitha’s Assembly. Whenever ADMK comes to power ghost writers with ‘expertise’ in the art of praising Jaya from all over the state invade Chennai and set up their camps in some particular lodges in and around Royapettah to avail themselves for hire to ADMK legislators and ministers. This absurd and ridiculous practice is going on with the full ‘blessings’ of their megalomaniac leader.
If only the speeches and ‘contributions’ of ADMK MLAs and ministers are printed verbatim as appearing in the minutes of the Assembly and circulated among the people of their constituencies they will teach fitting lessons to them. The dailies like ‘Dinamani’ and ‘The New Indian Express’, which go out of the way to placate Jayalalitha, can also be challenged to publish the speeches of the ADMK legislators and ministers verbatim and ‘improve’ the image of their publications. Those ‘highly informed’ columnists and apologists who project Jayalalitha can also be challenged to sit through the entire proceedings of a session of the Tamil Nadu Assembly now and objectively write review in their columns.
What is enacted during the sessions of the Assembly during the ADMK regime is tragicomedy containing elements of both comedy and tragedy, the above said conduct of the ADMK benches providing the comedy elements and the fate of decency, decorum, culture and democracy taking the tragic turn.
No member of the opposition parties, particularly of the DMK, can complete a sentence of his/her speech, if at all they were permitted by the Chair, without interruption by ministers and MLAs of the ruling party and ‘B’ team parties of the ADMK. If the minutes of the proceedings which are published in due course are perused, it can be noted that many words of sentences and some sentences as whole in the speeches of DMK legislators are expunged by the Speaker, whose only mandate is to throttle the voice of opposition and refuse to heed to their pleas and ‘rule’ in favour of the treasury benches. Ruthless and senseless application of guillotine for any call attention motion given notice of by DMK members is the norm of the Assembly under ADMK seize. For instance, when the DMK legislative party leader M.K.Stalin gave notice for taking up the issue of the arrest of a senior doctor for requesting the CM and her securities to remove their footwear while entering into the internsive care unit of Apollo hospital, Chennai when she went to visit ‘Daily Thanthi’ owner Sivanthi Adityan admitted there in critical condition, the Speaker refused permission to speak on the issue which had agitated the minds of doctors and lawyers all over the State and their protest actions not permitted by the police. For three consecutive days he was refused permission to raise the issue of public importance.
On the same day (April 3), DMK member Dr. Pushpaleela Alban delivered her maiden speech participating in the debate on grants for Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal department. It is a norm that maiden speeches of new members are not interrupted unnecessarily. But violation of norm being the norm of ADMK, the ruling party members could not digest the woman member listing the measures introduced by Kalaignar to make the Nutritious Meal scheme really and materially nutritious. She also listed the schemes introduced by the DMK rule for women’s progress, which was also constantly intervened by the ministers by turn. At this point, Minister Valarmathi (notorious for her crude remark in the Assembly during the first tenure of Jayalalitha, that her leader did not ascend to power by showing the picture of a male corpse with only under garment in the waist lying upside down- meaning the assassinated body of Rajiv Gandhi) rose up and alleged that the DMK leader called the meals scheme as beggar’s scheme. Immediately Stalin objected to the remark of the minister. Another ADMK member permitted to speak and a minister asserted that there was evidence for the allegation. In the subsequent exchanges between Stalin and ministers, the Speaker expunged the words used by Stalin. When he asked for the evidence for what the ministers had mentioned, even as the nonplussed ministers blinked at each other, the Speaker ruled that he would verify from the House records and then decide about expunging the words used by ministers, and thus came to their rescue.
If any person on the road is asked whether there was any connection between nutritious meals and the TESO conference organised in New Delhi on Eelam Tamils issue, he would certainly rubbish the idea. But under Jayalalitha’s regime, her minister can invent a connection between the two and will go on record in the Assembly. That is what the same ‘queen over the tongue’ as Valarmathi is called, did while replying to the debate on the grants for Social Welfare and Nutritious meals department. Her low level, derogatory and vulgarised reference was objected to by DMK members. Pacifying them Stalin stood up and told the Chair that members were sitting to listen to the reply of the minister to the points raised by them during the debate and her unnecessary reference to TESO meet should be deleted from the records. The Speaker gave s strange ruling that the minister did not speak derogatively about anybody. The two more ministers harped on the same subject when Stalin asked who defended the killing of Eelam Tamils by the Lankan army and wanted Prabhakaran to be arrested and brought to India for trial. Unable to reply the ministers, parrot like, repeated the same points. As the Speaker pulled up the DMK members without restraining provocative speeches of ministers, they had to walkout.
The above said was only an instance on a particular day and the House is conducted in the same anti-democratic and useless manner on all days by the ADMK regime, reducing the Assembly to a farce and tragicomedy. An appeal to the people of India- Beware of the talks of the minions and apologists of Jayalalitha as Prime Minister of country.

KACHCHA - THEEVU- RIGHTS OF TAMIL NADU FISHERMEN - Justice Dr. A. K. Rajan

Kachcha- theevu , is  an islet (small island) of one mile in length and three- fourth of a mile in breadth and a  total area of  about half a square mile. It lies 10 miles North East of Rameswaram  [India] and 9 miles South West of  Delft  island [Sri Lanka].  It was an uninhabited islet, used by  British army for bombing practices. A catholic church, (Saint Antony’s  church)  in the islet is visited by devotees, mostly  fishermen from Tamil Nadu , for the weeklong  festival every year. The seas surrounding Kachcha –theevu are fertile fishing ground, rich in prawns, chank  shells ,pearls ,oysters, and corals. From time immemorial the fishermen of Tamil Nadu and Ceylon were fishing in the area around this islet and were using the islet for all activities and purposes connected with fishing, like drying the fishing nets, taking rest etc.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

02.      Over the islet, Kachcha- theevu,  the ruler, ‘Raja (King) of Ramnad ‘ had exercised sovereignty and  jurisdiction continuously; that was also recognised by the then rulers of Ceylon, the Dutch Company, as could be seen from the Treaty of 1660.The Raja of Ramnad had granted leases  of chank bed and the adjacent areas in 1870-1873,1875,1880, 1889 . Also the documents, the Memoirs of the Governor of Ceylon from 1757 to 1762, the treaty of 1766 by King of Kandi , the letter of Lt .Governor of Ceylon in1845, clearly show that the islet  Kachcha theevu was under the sovereignty of king of  Ramnad, which  was a ‘vassal State’ of Brtish India.  After India became independent, the islet was part of Ramanathapuram district in Tamil Nadu; its survey number was 1250; it is so recorded in the ‘Gazetteer- Ramanathapuram’   published in 1972 by TamilNadu Government.

CLASSIFIATION  OF  OCEANS,  SEAS  AND  SEA BEDS:

03.      There exists a well recognised principle,  accepted by Nations,  that Oceans, Seas and Sea beds are classified as High-seas, Continental shelves, Territorial waters, Contiguous zones, Exclusive Economic zones and Internal - waters.  Each category has a definite and different connotation, rights and

obligations. Out of these, the concept of ‘Internal –waters ‘denotes almost the same or similar characters of the ‘landed territory’ of a Nation. That is the internal waters are treated as a landed area of the Nation for all practical purposes, and has all the rights as it has over the landed territory of that Nation.

 ‘HISTORIC  BAYS’  OR  ‘HISTORIC  WATERS’  :

04.      There is yet another category known as ‘historic waters’ or ‘historic bays’ In the 19^th century, when efforts were made to determine the ‘ baseline’  of territorial sea in bays , the theory of “ HISTORIC BAYS”  emerged. The definition of “historic bays given in the project submitted in 1933 to  the Seventh International Conference  of American States  by the American Institute of  International Law refers solely  to the attitudes of the coastal State. It provides that bays or estuaries called historic are those over which the coastal states have traditionally exercised and maintained their sovereign ownership. Also   in the ‘Preparatory documents for the Geneva Conventions on Law of the Sea 1958’, it has been recorded as follows:-

“In view of the intimate relationship between bays and their surrounding land formation and in the light of provisions of municipal  laws and of conventions governing the subject, proposals were made  the object of which was to advance the starting line of line of the territorial sea towards the opening of bays. The intention was that , in bays, the territorial sea should not be measured from the shore....... but should, rather, be reckoned  as from a line drawn further to seaward . On this point the agreement was unanimous, though the exact location of the line from which the territorial sea was to be reckoned continued to be the subject of controversy. According to various proposals put forward , the territorial sea was to be measured from a straight line drawn across the bay at a point at which  its two coasts  were a specified  distance apart ( six miles ,ten miles, twelve miles, etc.); the waters lying  to landward of that line would be  part of the internal waters of the coastal state”.

The International Law experts had also opined that    “ the legality of the claim is to be measured , not by the size  of the area affected, but by the definiteness and duration of the assertion and acquiescence of foreign Powers”. Therefore the “Historic bays or historic waters” have the characteristics similar to INTERNAL WATERS. The regime of Law of Sea does not extend or apply to the historic bays. That is, there is no such area like ‘territorial waters’ within the historic waters.

05.      Applying these tests of ‘definiteness‘ duration of assertion and acquiescence of foreign nations, the bay area situated on the north of Adam’s Bridge  known as ’ Palk-Bay’, was treated as a ‘Historic waters’ or ‘Historic- bay’. Some such ‘historic bays ‘ are  ‘Hudson bay’ in Canada , bay of ‘Peter the Great’ of USSR etc. Therefore the Palk –Bay had the status of historic waters /bay, an extended landed area, of British Empire. Historic –bays are explicitly exempted, under Article – 7, from the operation of the Geneva Conventions on Law of sea 1958.   Therefore an island or islet within the Pak-Bay cannot have ‘territorial water’ around it.  When India and Ceylon got independence, all the rights and obligations over this  historic waters devolved on the two Nations.

VERDICT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 1903-04:

06.      The research document, issued by the geographer, “U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Intelligence and Research” dated December 12,1975, has recorded ( with a disclaimer) that “ The historicity of Palk –bay was resolved by the decision of Madras High Court in 1903-1904 in Annakumaru Pillai Vs Muthupayal case. During  that period both India and Ceylon were under the British rule. The suit involved rights to chank - beds and pearl - grounds in Palk Bay and adjacent gulf of Mannar. According to the decision, Palk Bay was “land locked by His Majesty’s dominions for eight-nineths of its circumferences ... and effectively occupied for centuries by the inhabitants of the adjacent districts of India and Ceylon respectively”. The Madras High court also found that Palk Bay was not part of open sea and the British occupation had received acquiescence of other nations. Therefore the Palk Bay was only “historic waters” under the British sovereignty and that was succeeded by both India and Ceylon.

THE DISPUTE AND THE AGREEMENT:

07.01:                        There are many islands and islets within the Pak Bay. One such islet is Kachcha-Theevu. There was overwhelming documentary evidence that Kachcha –Theevu was under the sovereignty of the Raja of Ramnad, and  therefore of India.         Ceylon also claimed right over the islet. Thus there was a dispute over the islet, between the two Nations. In the year 1974, an agreement was signed, on 26 and 28 June, by ‘The Government of Republic of India and the Government of Republic of Sri Lanka’, “ Desiring  to determine the boundary line in the historic waters between India and Sri Lanka and to settle the related matters in a manner which is fair and equitable to both sides”.  That agreement came into force on July 8^th 1974,

07.02:  In the agreement, Article 1 reads that “The boundary between Sri Lanka and India in the waters from ‘Palk-Strait to Adams Bridge’ shall be ...... defined by (the following) latitude and longitude “.  

Article 4 reads thus:- “ Each country shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the islands, the continental shelf and subsoil thereof, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary”.

Article 5 reads “Subject to the foregoing, Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Kachcha - thivu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visa for these purposes”. 

Article 6 reads thus “The vessels of Sri Lanka and India will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed therein”.

TRADITIONAL  FISHING  RIGHTS CONTINUE :

08.      Thus in the agreement, it is clearly mentioned that the rights ‘traditionally enjoyed’ by the vessels of both countries, continue notwithstanding the newly agreed boundary line. The word vessel includes ‘fishing vessels’ and the words ‘such rights’ include ‘fishing rights’.  Therefore, the traditional rights of fishing enjoyed by the fishermen of both India (Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lanka have not been altered, or modified or restricted  in any manner, by the agreement;  that is the traditional rights  of fishing  by both the countries continues, in-spite of and even after, the agreement.

09.      The research paper of U.S. Department of State, cited above, also summarised the result of the agreement in the following words:-

“The delimitation reflects a selective, i.e. modified, application of the   principle of equidistance.   As noted, the maritime boundary divides the historic waters and the seabed of Palk Bay. Traditional fishing rights of both parties, however, are preserved. The boundary agreement further serves to settle peacefully the Kachchithivu island dispute and to delimit the India Sri Lanka    boundary in the Adams Bridge region”.

From the foregoing paragraphs, it is absolutely clear that the traditional fishing rights of Indian (Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lankan fishermen have been safeguarded fully in the above agreement. Though the agreement fixes a new boundary line between India and Sri Lanka; but there is absolutely no change in the traditional fishing rights of the fishermen of both the countries.  Their fishing rights do not end on the boundary line; it extends to the whole of the Pak Bay, the entire water area of the ‘historic waters’. Thus there is no restriction on the traditional fishing rights for the fishermen of India (Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lanka over the entire Pak bay.  The traditional fishing right does not end at the newly agreed boundary line.

 AGREEMENT BINDING:

10.      The reason for signing the 1974 agreement by India and Sri Lanka was the ‘desire to determine the boundary line and to settle the related matters.’ The settlement of the ‘traditional right of fishing’ by the fishermen of India and Sri Lanka, over the Palk Bay was a ‘related matter’ in the agreement. The agreement not only re-define the boundary line between the two nations, but also reiterates and reaffirm the traditional right of fishing of the fishermen of both the countries over the historic waters. Fixing of boundary line  between India and Sri Lanka as well as ensuring and reaffirming the traditional fishing rights of the fishermen of the two Nations,  over the historic waters  of Pak Bay, are  vital terms of the agreement. Neither India nor Sri Lanka can object or prevent the fishermen of the two countries exercising that right, since admittedly the fishermen, of India and Sri Lanka, were traditionally fishing in those waters. Therefore both India and Sri Lanka are bound to respect the terms of the agreement, and not to hinder the exercise of such fishing rights.

BREACH OF AGREEMENT BY SRI LANKA:

11.      But on the contrary, almost every day, the media reports that the  Sri Lankan army, prevented the fishermen of India (Tamil Nadu) from fishing , confiscated their catches, arrested and imprisoned the fishing vessels and the fishermen of Tamil Nadu. It has also been reported that so far about 500 or more Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen have been shot and killed by the Sri Lankan army while they were fishing in the Palk Bay, in the common historic waters. It has also been reported that a number of boats and fishing vessels of Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen and their fishing nets had been destroyed by the Sri Lankan army. There cannot be any doubt, for any one, that all such acts of Sri Lankan authorities are illegal and in breach of the terms of the agreement. Yet, it appears that, Govt. of India has, so far, not even registered any complaint or raised any protest against such illegal acts of Sri Lankan army, or has taken any effective steps to prevent such violations in future. The reason for such inaction of authorities in India is difficult to perceive. Probably the persons entrusted with such duties, are not aware of the rights of Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen under the agreement or not aware of their duty and responsibility to take appropriate action, when the rights of Indian fishermen are violated.

CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF AGREEMENT:

12.01:                        It is well settled principle under the International law [ also under the  domestic laws of civilised countries] that any failure to fulfil  or  committing  breach of, the terms of the agreement would create a right  on the aggrieved party for taking steps to compel compliance. Even the entire agreement can be repudiated by the aggrieved party. As per Article 60, of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties 1969, it is also permissible to terminate the treaty where one of the contracting parties has committed breach of treaty obligations. The Convention provides for “Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach”, in the following words:-  

“1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part”.

Therefore, in view of the breach of the vital terms of the agreement, India has the right and option even to terminate the treaty/agreement in its entirety, and assert its rights as it existed prior to the date of agreement.

12.02:                        In so far as the shooting and killing of the Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen for fishing in the Palk Bay, such acts amount to crimes punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Courts in India get jurisdiction over such crimes.  I.P.C. provides in Section 4 as follows:-

“4. Extension of Code to extra –territorial offences:— The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by –

(1)  ………..

(2)  any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

The prosecution of the Italian marines for shooting and killing two Indian fishermen, on board a vessel registered in India, in the Arabian Sea, is done only under this provision. Similarly the persons responsible for shooting and killing Indian fishermen in the Palk Bay, while they are exercising a right recognised by both India and Sri Lanka, can be prosecuted before the Indian Courts. But no such action has been taken

13.      But, on the other hand, strangely, some persons of authority, in India also, have gone on record that the Indian fishermen have no right to cross the Sri Lankan border, in the Palk Bay, for fishing, and therefore when they cross the border, the Sri Lankan authorities can take action and prevent them from fishing; the seizure of the catches and destruction of vessels and boats are natural consequences of such violations of the border. Such observations are made, probably not being aware of the terms of the agreement or not knowing the rights of Indian fishermen that flow from the agreement. Neither India nor Sri Lanka can arrest any fishermen while exercising their traditional right of fishing in the historic waters of Palk Bay, north of Adams Bridge.  India can take appropriate steps for effective enforcement of the obligations under the said agreement signed on June 1974, by Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime ministers of India and Srilanka.

THREE AGREEMENTS:

13.      In all, three agreements have been signed between India and Sri Lanka, relating to the waters in Palk-Strait and Pak- bay.  The first was signed on 26^th and 28^th June 1974, relating to the ‘historic  waters’ of Palk Bay. It relates to the area falling north of Adams Bridge. The second agreement was signed on 23^rd March 1976.That relates to area falling South of Adams Bridge up to a certain limit. It also deals with ‘territorial waters’, as that area was not part of the ‘historic waters ‘. The third agreement was signed on 22^nd November 1076. That relates to area falling South of the area covered under the second agreement and refers to Maldiv islands as well. Apart from these three agreements no other agreement seems to have been made. Hence there appears to be no modification of the terms of the agreements.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF GOERNMENT OF INDIA:

14.      From the contents of what has been stated above, Government of India has got the right to enforce the terms of the 1974 agreement. It also has the obligation to ensure that Indian  citizens, Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen, safely and  continuously exercise and enjoy their traditional right of fishing in the ‘historic waters’ of Palk Bay, north of Adams Bridge, as per the terms of the agreement. The Government of India also has the Constitutional duty to ensure, safeguard and protect the lives and interests of Indian citizens, Tamil Nadu fishermen. Government of India can take appropriate action to enforce the rights and obligations that flow from the agreement. It can even repudiate and terminate the entire agreement and take back Kachchathivu. It can, if needed, move the International Court of Justice and enforce the obligations accepted by Sri Lanka, by the agreement; since the agreement itself was signed only for the settlement of disputes in a peaceful manner.

CONCLUSION

 15.     The 1974 agreement has safeguarded the rights of the fishermen of Indian (Tamil Nadu) fishermen. In case any difficulty they can move the Govt. of India for effective implementation of the terms of the said agreement. If necessary they can move either the Hon’ble High Court of Madras or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for the protection of their rights and for  any other appropriate relief, guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

                                                                          E-mail   ...   justiceakrajan@yahoo.co.in    

MULLAI - PERIYAR DAM -- SOME FACTS TO PONDER - Dr. Justice A.K.Rajan

Historical Background:

1.         The geography of the Indian Peninsula is very peculiar at the southern end.  The Western Ghats stands tall at the western end and the gradient on the western side is smooth; but on the eastern side there is no gradient at all; it suddenly falls to abyss.  The south-west monsoon that brings rains to whole India is blocked in Kerala by the tall mountains preventing its entry into Tamil Nadu and made Tamil Nadu a ‘Rain shadow’ state.  The North East Monsoon is very erratic and does not reach the entire area of Tamil Nadu .  Hence, Tamil Nadu is rain starved State.            While most of the river waters go waste into Arabian Sea, as it cannot be used for irrigation, in Kerala .But in Tamil Nadu, large extent of irrigable agricultural lands was fallow due to unavailability  of water.  That resulted in frequent famines in Madras Province.

2.         Under those circumstances, the unique idea of controlling and using the westward flowing waters of the Mullai and Periyar rivers and diverting it to the eastward flowing Vagai river was first explored in 1789 by Pradani Muthirulappa Pillai, a minister of the Ramnad king Muthuramalinga Sethupathy.  Though it was found feasible, the King of Ramanadapuram gave it up as he found it very expensive.  Subsequently, Captain J. L. Caldwell, Madras Engineers identified the location for a dam; he directed to investigate the feasibility of providing water from the Mullai and Periyar rivers to Madurai by building a tunnel through the mountains. Caldwell discovered that the excavation needed would be in excess of 100 feet in depth and hence the project was abandoned; while so deciding, he made the comment in his report that the project was `impossible to complete and unworthy of any further consideration`.

3.         In spite of such a strong and negative conclusion, it was tried again and again because of the compelling necessity of fighting famine.  The first attempt at damming the Periyar with an earthen dam was made in 1850 but was given up due to demands for higher wages by the labour citing unhealthy living conditions.   The proposal was resubmitted a number of times.  In 1862 Captain J. G. Ryves, M.E. carried out a study and submitted proposals in 1867 for another earthwork dam, 62 feet high. The matter was debated by the Madras Government but it was further delayed by the great famine of 1876-77.  Finally, in 1882, the construction of the dam was approved. Major John Pennycuick, M.E. was placed in charge to prepare a revised project and estimate.  His report was approved in 1884 by Madras Government.

Agreement 1886:

4.         Meanwhile, negotiations were also going on between the Maharaja of Travancore and the British for a period of 24 long years.  Then, on 29 October 1886, a lease agreement for 999 years was made between the Maharaja of Travancore, Visakham Thirunal Rama Varma and the British Secretary of State for India for Periyar Irrigation Works. The lease agreement was signed by Dewan of Travancore V Ram Iyengar and State Secretary of Madras State J C Hannington.   The lease indenture granted full right, power and liberty to the Secretary of State for India to construct make and carry out on the leased land and to use exclusively when constructed, made and carried out, all such irrigation works and other works ancillary thereto to. The agreement gave 8000 acres of land for the reservoir and another 100 acres to construct the dam. The rent for an acre was fixed at Rs.5 per year. The lease gave the British the rights over `all the waters flowing into through over or from the said tract of land`. 

Agreement 1970:

5.         In 1947, when India obtained Independence, the Princely States of Travancore and Cochin joined the Union of India and State of ‘Travancore-Cochin’ was formed.  The Madras Presidency became ‘Madras State’. As per the principle of ‘State Succession’, one of the Cardinal principles of International law, the 1886 agreement came to be binding on State of Travancore-Cochin and Madras State.  Thus the agreement between Maharaja of Travancore and Govt. of India was binding on the State of Travancore and Cochin and State of Madras.  After 1956, it became binding on the State of Kerala and State of Madras (Tamil Nadu) under S.108 of State Reorganization Act.   Therefore, the State of Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu were bound by the obligations under the 1886 agreement. Hence, the agreement was enforceable by either party.

6.         Thereafter, in 1970, two other agreements were signed by the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, whereby of Tamil Nadu gave up certain rights (accrued under the 1886 agreement) in favour of State of Kerala.  These agreements also re-affirmed the entire 1886 agreement. But clause 6 of 1886 agreement (relating to the fishing rights over the impounded waters) was deleted; that right was given to Kerala.   Changes in the quantum of rent and its periodic revision once in 30 years were also agreed upon. 

Important Terms of Agreement :

7.         A perusal of the terms of the agreements would show that there was no aspect that was not foreseen by those who had drafted the 1886 and 1970 agreements. The terms of the agreements are the basis on which Tamil Nadu is drawing water and Kerala is harvesting the fishery resources and other benefits. 

8.         While so, the Kerala Government is trying to project the Mullaperiyar agreement as if it is only about the water in the 8,000-acre and the 155-feet height reservoir.  But the fact is that the agreement is not just about water but also about anything and everything over the land and also related to the storage and drawing of water in that particular territorial segment.  The pact says that it is about the land where the water is stored by specifically explaining that it concerns the “tract of land situated in or near the Periyar River bounded on all sides by contour line 155 feet above the deepest point of the river bed at the site of the dam to be constructed”. Thus the water and the land would belong to Tamil Nadu for 999 years, and as long as the agreement period.

Earthquakes ?

9.         It is now alleged by some that frequent earthquakes occur in this area.  As per the ‘List of major earthquakes in the 21^st century’ recorded up to 14^th December, 2011, no major earthquake occurred in Kerala.  As per the list published by ASC, ‘Seismicity of Kerala and Lakshadweep Islands, India’, from 1784 till date, only three instances are referred with respect to Idukki in Kerala.  It is to be noted that these earthquakes had occurred only after the construction of Idukki dam.  There was no earthquake before 1988 in the dam area though a few earthquakes were recorded in Kochi, Trivandrum and Palakkad and other areas in Kerala.  All these, including the three earthquakes near Idukki, were of lesser magnitude.  As per the list published by ‘National Geographic Research Institute’, they are all of insignificant intensity.

Dam strengthened :

10.       In view of the doubts raised by the Kerala State about the strength of the dam, Expert Committee by the Supreme Court was formed.  The Committee examined in detail and gave certain suggestions to strengthen the dam.  All the suggestions were followed and implemented and strengthening of the dam also has been done in accordance with the advise given by the Expert Committee.  It is said that 15 ft. of solid concrete capping has been made to support the original masonry dam.  Further, it is said that pillars were inserted from the top of the dam  filled  with  reinforced concrete using the latest technology and holes were made 30-40 feet deep on the solid rocks on the mountain and therefore, the present strengthened  dam can withstand any earthquake that may occur in future.  It is said that even if the mountain breaks, the dam will not collapse.

Other masonry dams in India:

11.       The National Register of large dams of India shows that there are 60 masonry dams, many of which have crossed 100 years and some of the dams are more than 1000 years old.  They are in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.  Therefore, masonry dams do not loose strength even after 100 years.  It is also said that as age grows, the concrete dams get weakened whereas the masonry dams grow in strength.

Attempt to nullify the agreements :

12.       The argument that Govt. of Kerla, after constructing a new dam, is prepared to give water to Tamil Nadu, is only a ruse to nullify the two agreements.  As per the agreements Tamil Nadu is entitled for possession of 8000 acres of land and for using the the entire water collected therein.  If the present Mullai Periyar dam is de-commissioned, it is tantamount to losing all rights of Tamil Nadu over the waters, unless and until another dam is constructed on the same site.  It appears that the Govt. of Kerala wants to nullify the rights and obligations created under the two agreements in favour of T.N.   If the real concern of the Govt. of Kerala is the safety of  the  people of Kerala, living downstream, the Kerala govt. should only make a request to Tamil Nadu to strengthen the dam.  The proposal of the Kerala govt. is to construct a new dam at a level (1300 feet) below the present level.  It would be impossible to divert water eastward to Tamil Nadu from that level.  It would be unfair to suggest that during the period 1850-1886, the Chief Engineers of Madras did not think of the feasibility of drawing water from any lower level, than from the present height.  In fact, the Mullai Periyar Dam is an engineering marvel, considering the period when it was built.  Water is taken out only through a tunnel over a length of 5700 feet, before reaching the ravine. 

Kerala can construct dams down stream :

13.       There would be no doubt in the minds of right thinking people of Kerala and Tamil Nadu that the Southern Districts of Tamil Nadu would become deserts and would go back to pre 1800 era when famine was  a regular feature in these areas.  At the same time, all the waters that would flow into Idukki Dam would only go waste into Arabian sea after using for generating electricity.  The waters of the Mullai and Periyar rivers cannot be put to use for irrigation by Kerala.  In fact of Kerala is free to construct any number of dams downstream. But  Kerala wants to de- commission the present dam  only to go out of the agreement in order to obliterate the rights of T.N. accrued under the 1886 and 1970 agreements.

Inter-dependent States:

14.       States of T.N. and Kerala are inter dependent in almost all activities. The benefit received from the water from Mullai and Periyar rivers are returned in kinds by T.N. in the form of rice, milk, vegetables, animals, etc. People of both states are depending on each other for their livelihood. The present uneasiness amongst Tamils and Malayalies has been created unnecessarily by some vested interests.

15.       As per the agreement, the catchment area of land through out the contour, when the water table reaches 155 feet from the bottom of the dam, has been leased out to Tamil Nadu.  When the strengthening work of the dam was being carried out and when water level was maintained at 136 ft, many encroachments have grown in the said contour area and they have developed vested interest over the encroached area.  Those are would submerge when the storage level is increased.  It appears, therefore, that they are also behind the scene in preventing the raising of the water level from 136 ft to 142 or 152 ft.

False propaganda :

16.        A falsehood repeatedly said and propagated  will not become true.    Justrice V.R. Krishna Iyer has gone on record stating that the Mullai Periyar Dam was built only to last for 50 years.  This statement is not based on facts. Further it is really uncharitable to Pennycuick and other engineers.  The research, planning and the sacrifices made by the Madras  Chief Engineers before deciding to construct the dam, cannot be ignored or lightly taken  by any one.  The dam was intended to last for 1000 years and more.  One should not forget the fact that even if the present dam is de-commissioned or destroyed, Tamil Nadu has the right to build another new dam at the same site and draw the waters.

Agreements cannot be repudiated:

17.       A few days ago a former Kerala  judge ,Justice Narayana Kurup ,has called out Kerala govt. to ‘harden the stand’, in a press conference. He has also stated that  Kerala can repudiate the agreement , relying on the principle of ‘clausula rebus sic stantibus’ that is ‘due to  change of  circumstances’.  This is a doctrine followed only in the ‘ Civil law’ countries such as France  Germany , Italy etc. This is not followed in the  ‘Common law countries’ like U.K. ,USA, India ,Australia etc. Even among the civil law countries all states do not accept this. So far no international tribunal has held any agreement unenforceable applying this doctrine. Thus treaties cannot be modified without the consent of the contracting parties. Judges of High courts and Supreme Court, even after their retirement, should be neutral and cannot take a partisan stand. They shall never kindle the emotions of the people in any dispute as their views are taken seriously by all.

Back to 1886 Agreement ?

18.       It is also learnt that some have approached the Kerala High Court for a declaration that the 1970 agreements are invalid. They failed to see that if those agreements are held invalid by any court, the result would be that Kerala would be bound by all the clauses of 1886 agreement, including clause 6 which has been deleted.  In that case Kerala will lose the fishing tights and other benefits granted by those agreements.

Case pending before Supreme Court :

19.       The ostensible reason for the apprehension in Kerala is that the dam is weak and will not withstand earthquakes and may break and collapse.  Those issues relating to the strength of the dam and the effect of earthquakes on the dam etc. are pending  before the Supreme Court. Any assertion by any individual is unwarranted under the circumstances.  All shall await the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

20.       The good neighbor relationship between the people of the two states shall not be spoiled for narrow ends.  When the opposition parties in Tamil Nadu demanded for inclusion of Devikulam district including Peermedu and Moonar and the dam site with Tamil Nadu as the majority inhabitants of that area were Tamils, Kamaraj, the former Chief minister of T.N., had observed “both Kerala and T.N. are only in India”.

Chennai                                              

20 - 12- 2011                                                                                                         [ Justice A.K.Rajan ]