Whose guilt is this?

The Supreme Court on July 10  held that charge-sheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya struck down as unconstitutional Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that allows convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence. The Bench, however, made it clear that the ruling will be prospective and those who had already filed appeals in various High Courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions would be exempt from it.
Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences: A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.
The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected.
Allowing two writ petitions filed by advocate Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S. N. Shukla, the Bench said: “A reading of the two provisions in Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly clear that Parliament is to make one law for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. Parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Patnaik said: “The language of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution is such that the disqualification for both a person to be chosen as a member of a House of Parliament or the State Legislature and for a person to continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature has to be the same.”
The Bench said: “Section 8 (4) of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature from the disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which the disqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.”
The Bench held: “Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3) (a) and 190(3) (a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
The Bench said: “Under Section 8 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act, the disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction. Thus, there may be several sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures who have already incurred disqualification by virtue of a conviction covered under Section 8 (1) (2) or (3) of the Act. Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment. This is because the knowledge that sitting members of Parliament or State Legislatures will no longer be protected by sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act will be acquired by all concerned only on the date this judgment is pronounced by this Court.”
However, the Bench said: “If any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.”
Publishing this news on the first page on July 11, the daily “The Hindu” also published photographs and details of some key cases of persons who will face automatic disqualification if convicted. In that table is the photograph of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha and the wordings “Trial in the Rs. 66 crore ‘Disproportionate Assets’ case against Jayalalitha is at advanced stage in a Bangalore court. The examination of witnesses is over.”
But how long did it take to reach this stage? Even now is there any assurance for the case to reach the logical end of judgment being delivered soon? What were the other cases against her and their ends?
Jayalalitha was clearly/admittedly found guilty in the TANSI case, censured and acquitted by the Supreme Court advising her ‘to atone her conscience’ after she returned back the ill-gotten property of the government.
On Jayalalitha adopting dilatory tactics so as to protract proceedings in cases registered against her, the CB-CID on 16.11.1998, just one year after trial began in TANSI case in 1997, (case filed in 1996) told the Special court judge that the case suffered 90 adjournments till then. The case was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court in November 2003. The number of appeals made and the adjournments sought by Jayalalitha in all the 17 cases against her have been lost count of by the prosecution agencies, various courts, the ‘records’ maintaining organization like the Guinness and even the battery of lawyers appearing for her!
It was an established case of Jayalalitha misusing her power for personal gains. Also during the course of the trial in the case she disowned her own signatures on the documents of purchase of TANSI property which was later proved to be a false statement before the court. Can such a person with proven record of misuse of her office for personal ends/gains and one who did not hesitate to make a blatantly false statement before the court, be allowed again to occupy the same office?
If she had to ‘atone by answering her conscience’ (if at all she had one) as directed by the apex court, she should not have sought power again and quit public life. As is her wont, she didn’t and neither did law and courts prevent her comeback.
Jayalalitha never had the guts to face corruption cases filed against her straightaway and adopted all vexatious and dilatory tactics to prolong trial. On several occasions courts – from the apex court to lower civil court and criminal courts had pulled her up for unnecessarily prolonging hearings in cases on trivial grounds. But she was least perturbed and took the censures of the courts like the buffalo drenching in rains.
Take the instance of the Income Tax Returns case against her which is still pending in the courts for more than 15 years. The IT department had originally filed a complaint against her under section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of returns for 1993-94. The department estimated her income tax for relevant years at about Rs.1.04 crore, for which she was liable to remit a tax of Rs.46 lakh. Till November, 2000 with interest the outstanding stood at over Rs. One crore. The department filed the charge-sheet before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economics Offences Court – I) in Chennai in 1996. Challenging the initiation of the case, Jayalalitha moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. In November 1996 the HC stayed the proceedings. The department filed the petition contending that the trial was being indefinitely delayed because of the stay. Allowing the petition the HC vacated the stay in November 2000 and trial proceedings began in December 2000.
But the case did not end here. Jayalalitha adopts the modus operandi of raising some objection or the other and going on appeals after appeals to the higher courts up to the Supreme Court. On dismissal of the pretexts she takes, she will raise some other objection… and the process go on unending, never seeing the day of completion of trial and conviction.
In the Disproportionate Assets case, also filed in 1996, after Jayalalitha’s protracting attitude, the Supreme Court in 2003, on a petition filed by DMK General Secretary, transferred the cases to a Special Court in Bangalore and directed the State government to submit all documents relating to the case to the Bangalore court where after the trial should be conducted on a day-to-day basis, all the accused including the Chief Minister Jayalalitha should personally appear and depose during the trial. ‘The SC could not be a spectator to the dishonest way of the trial proceedings so far’. Every word and sentence of the SC order was a stricture on her dishonest attitude.
 Jayalalitha suffered a major setback when on November 19, 2003 the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the two disproportionate assets cases against her and four others from a Chennai special court to a special court in Bangalore.
A Bench, comprising Justice S.N.Variava and Justice H.K. Sema, thereby allowed the petitions filed by the General Secretary of DMK, Prof. K. Anbazhagan, and the impleading application filed by the Janata Party president, Subramanian Swamy, praying for a direction to transfer the cases to a court outside Tamil Nadu to ensure a free and fair trial.
Besides  Jayalalitha, the other accused in the Rs. 66.65-crore wealth case are: N. Sasikala, . Jayalalitha’s erstwhile foster son, V. N. Sudhakaran and Ilavarasi and the former ADMK MP, T.T.V. Dinakaran is the accused in the other case.
The Bench held that Prof.Anbazhagan had made out a case that public confidence in the fairness of trial was being seriously undermined and great prejudice appeared to have been caused to the prosecution which could culminate in miscarriage of justice. The Bench rejected the charge made on behalf of Jayalalitha that the petitioner being a political opponent had filed the petition due to political vendetta and hence had no locus standi. “This submission has no force,” the Bench noted and added that “in a democracy, the political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House. They are the watchdogs of the Government in power.” In that view of the matter, the petition lodged by such persons could not be brushed aside on the allegation of political vendetta.
The petitioner being a political opponent “is vitally interested in the administration of justice in the State” and is a “party interested” within the meaning of Sec. 406 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (which provides for transfer of a case from one court to another), the Bench said. Even otherwise, Dr. Swamy, who was the original complainant, had supported these transfer petitions, the Bench said.
The petitioner’s senior counsel, T.R. Andhyarujina, argued that if this case was allowed to continue in Chennai in the hostile atmosphere prevailing in the State it might result in another “Best Bakery case” of Gujarat (in which all the 21 accused were acquitted by a trial court) and the Bench, by transferring the case to Bangalore, has agreed with the contention.
The judges said that “it is undisputed that 76 witnesses have been recalled. Many of them had earlier been cross-examined. We were informed that witnesses were recalled as senior counsel for Jayalalitha had been busy attending to some other case filed against her when they were first examined.”
The Bench said that the fact that witnesses were recalled for cross-examination on flimsy grounds after Jayalalitha assumed power as Chief Minister and the Public Prosecutor appointed by her Government did not oppose and/or gave consent to application for recall of witnesses was indicative of how “judicial process is being subverted.”
“Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law,” the judges observed.
In the present case, the Bench said, “it appears that process of justice is being subverted... The circumstances are such that it would create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public, at large, in general, and the petitioner, in particular, that there is every likelihood of failure of justice.”
The judges took serious exception to the trial court dispensing with the personal appearance of Jayalalitha and said “be you ever so high, the law is above you. The grounds cited by her in the application were not all mitigating circumstances to have granted dispensation of personal appearance. To say the least, that was a ploy adopted to circumvent the due process of law.”
Referring to the submissions made by K.K. Venugopal, senior counsel for Jayalalitha, that the apex court had allowed the accused to dispense with their personal appearance in certain cases, the Bench made it clear that “the general rule remains that the accused must answer the questions by personally remaining present in the court. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the general rule can be departed/dispensed with. In this case, Jayalalitha was available at Chennai and there was no exceptional exigency or circumstances such as her having to undertake a tedious long journey or incur a whopping expenditure to appear in court to answer the questions under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C... . The conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not opposing such a frivolous application has to be deprecated.”
The Bench issued the following directions: The State of Karnataka, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall constitute a special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom the two cases pending on the file of XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai shall stand transferred. The special court to have its sittings in Bangalore. The State of Karnataka shall appoint a special judge within a month and trial shall start as soon as possible and will then proceed from day-to-day till completion. Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the special court in Bangalore.
The State shall appoint within six weeks a senior lawyer having experience in criminal trials as the Public Prosecutor to conduct these cases and he shall have an assistant of his choice; the investigating agency shall render all assistance to the Public Prosecutor and his assistant; the Public Prosecutor will be at liberty to recall witnesses who had resiled from their previous statement and declare them as hostile and seek permission to cross-examine them. He will also be at liberty to take action for perjury against some or all such witnesses. In case any witness asks for protection, Karnataka shall provide protection to that witness; the special judge shall put to all the accused all relevant evidence and documents appearing against them whilst recording their statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.. All the accused shall personally appear in the court to answer questions under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on the day they are called upon to do so.
“In our view, the petitioner has raised many justifiable and reasonable apprehensions of miscarriage of justice and likelihood of bias, which would require our interference,” the judges said and ordered the transfer of the two cases to a special court in Bangalore.
But did she allow justice to prevail in the Special Court, Bangalore?
Had the trial taken place on a day-to-day basis and had Jayalalitha co-operated, the judgment would have been delivered in the case several years back. But the then ADMK regime took nearly two years to submit the documents in the Bangalore court as against six weeks prescribed by the SC. At least after that did the trial proceedings go on? A big no!
She and other five accused did not turn up in the court four times. Refusing any more time sought by her, the Judge of the Special Court posted the case for 18.4.2005. On that day also the senior lawyer appearing for her and the accused did not turn up. The judge warned of delivering ex-parte judgments and posted the case for May 5, 2005. Despite the court’s condition that she must appear without fail, she didn’t and her lawyer sought time for a longer period. The judge gave time up to June 16, 2005 and said that was final where after he will start the trial.
When her lawyer pleaded work in some other court, the irritated judge remarked, “Can the case be adjourned for you alone? This is unfair. Asking for time like this is unacceptable. For two and a half years you are prolonging the trial by seeking such adjournments. The Supreme Court has ordered for early completion of the trial. For the past six months no proceeding has taken place in the case. I am sitting alone here. I feel like being locked up in solitary confinement.”
Even after this outburst of the judge, nobody appeared on 16th and again three weeks’ adjournment was sought. The judge posted the case on 25th when also they didn’t appear and her lawyers pleaded for further adjournments.
And she was unabashedly seeking and getting repeated adjournments for more than 130 times acquiring the notoriety of being called “Vaaidhaa rani”.
In the meanwhile, once again she returned to power in May, 2011and on the very same evening of her assuming office, the Chief Secretary convened a ‘review meeting’ and directed the DVAC to ‘reinvestigate’ the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha. Once again Jayalalitha started her manoeuvres for ‘subverting judicial process’, as apprehended by the Supreme court.
The Special Court on June 16,2011 asked the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Chennai, why it bypassed protocol in the case of disproportionate assets filed against Jayalalitha. The DVAC has submitted a letter to the court, seeking time to re-investigate the matter. As per the rules, DVAC should submit the letter to the special prosecutor, who should then submit it to the court. The court asked DVAC why did it submit the letter directly to the court. DVAC Inspector Emannuel Jnanashekara, who submitted the letter to the court, expressed ignorance. The court then questioned DVAC DSP G Sambandham, who had written the letter. He said he had written the letter because his senior officials had instructed him to do so. The court then directed the DSP to find out the reason behind submitting the letter directly and tell it during next hearing.
Special prosecutor B V Acharya submitted that the Supreme Court had to shift the trial to Karnataka from Tamil Nadu because Tamil Nadu government was continually obstructing the trial by creating such hurdles.
But this Special prosecutor appointed on the direction of the Supreme Court also had to quit under duress. B.V. Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha, on August 12,2012 resigned from the post, stating that he had suffered untold hardship and embarrassment at the instance of interested parties whose sole objective appears to be to get rid of me as SPP.
 Acharya resigned from the post of Advocate-General in February this year, alleging that the BJP government in Karnataka was pressuring him to quit the post of SPP.
When contacted,  Acharya, 78, said: “The interested parties, having failed to achieve the objective by inducements and threats, initiated several proceedings with [an] oblique motive. Petitions were filed before the High Court and the Governor seeking my removal from the post of SPP when I was holding the post of Advocate-General.”
“As a last resort, a private complaint was filed before the Special Lokayukta Court making false and baseless allegations against me, citing my position in the BMS Educational Trust, and an order was obtained for investigation against me. Finally, the High Court recently quashed that complaint, imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the complainant. The filing of complaint and the order for investigation have hurt me deeply, causing acute embarrassment and mental agony to me,” he added.
Even the High Court, in its August 3 order quashing the complaint against him, had found that there was “sufficient weight” in Acharya’s contention that the complaint was motivated, and was an attempt to humiliate and coerce Acharya to quit his post as SPP.
Sources close to him said Acharya, who was appointed SPP in 2005 after the case was transferred to Bangalore from Chennai by an order of the Supreme Court, has narrated in his resignation letter the lack of progress in the trial due to the “obstructionist attitude” of defence.
 Acharya is said to have stated in the letter that he was not in a position to withstand the strain attached to the office of the SPP owing to these false allegations. He is also said to have expressed his “helplessness” in continuing in the post, though, by resigning he might be allowing the “interested parties” to achieve their objective [of removing him from the post of SPP] as he had to take care of his health too.
He is also said to have stated that he accepted the assignment of SPP assuming that it would be over in about a year, but even nearly eight years after the transfer of the trial to a Bangalore court, not much progress had been made because of petitions filed by the accused regularly before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. This is how Jayalalitha was able to use her political relations with the ruling BJP in Karnataka to thwart the case against her and tire out the zealous SPP by her delaying tactics.
Finally in September, 2011 the Supreme Court ordered Jayalalitha to appear personally on 20 October before a Karnataka trial court, adjudicating a disproportionate assets case against her.
A bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, however, left it to the trial court judge to decide her plea for being examined at a separate building, other than the regular court, in view of security considerations. The apex court said the presiding judge shall ensure that she is examined in a proper environment. The apex court passed the order after Jayalalitha, in response to the earlier directions that she must appear on an earlier date, agreed through senior counsel Harish Salve that she would present herself before the trial court judge in Karnataka.
Rejecting Jayalalitha’s earlier plea for grant of exemption from personal appearance, an apex court bench had on September 5 observed that she was trying to delay proceedings. Jayalalitha had sought exemption from personal appearance for recording her statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on grounds of threat to her security.
Earlier, appearing for her, Salve had contended that the trial court had erroneously rejected her plea for exemption from personal appearance and pointed out that section 313(5) of the CrPC grants liberty to an accused to answer the questions in writing. Jayalalitha had pleaded that it has become difficult for her to appear before the trial court after becoming chief minister and there were definite security threat perceptions.
However, the argument failed to convince the bench, which said Section 313 of the CrPC was a salutary provision intended to provide principle of natural justice and also allow the magistrate concerned to observe the demeanour of the accused.
On July 10, 2012, the DMK had to file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking monitoring  Jayalalitha’s disproportionate assets case in Bangalore, accusing the ADMK chief and her aide  Sasikala for derailing the trial proceedings. Demanding a day-to-day trial, the petition claimed that despite the court’s order in 2003 for a speedy trial, both the accused were trying to delay the proceedings, which had reached its final stage.
The petition claimed Sasikala’s demand to examine 15 year old documents is frivolous and an attempt to delay the trial.
Sasikala approached Supreme Court to seek permission to examine some police documents for answering questions by a trial court. The top court declined to stay the trial. With a view to ‘ensuring fair trial’, the Supreme Court on September, 28, 2012 permitted Sasikala to inspect certain unmarked and un-exhibited documents in the disproportionate assets case pending against her in a Bangalore court within 21 days.
Giving this direction, a Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi said “the liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression “due process of law” shall deem to include fairness in trial. The Cr.P.C. gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case.”
Writing the judgment Justice Gogoi said, “What has arisen before us is a situation where evidently the unmarked and un-exhibited documents of the case that are being demanded by the accused had been forwarded to the Court under Section 173 (5) but are not being relied upon by the prosecution.
The Bench said, “It will be difficult for the Court to say that the accused has no right to claim copies of the documents or request the Court for production of a document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic ingredients of law stated therein.”
The Bench said, “It is not for the prosecution or for the Court to comprehend the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the accused. The perception of prejudice is for the accused to develop and if the same is founded on a reasonable basis it is the duty of the Court as well as the prosecution to ensure that the accused should not be made to labour under any such perception and the same must be put to rest at the earliest.”
On the contention that the accused was seeking these documents at a belated stage, the bench said, “It is not the stage of making of the request; the efflux of time that has occurred or the prior conduct of the accused that is material.
The Bench noted that any failure on the part of the accused to put forward his/her version of the case in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. might have the effect of curtailing his/her rights in the event the accused chooses to take up a specific defence and examine defence witnesses.
Thus they were able to use the judicial lacunas to delay the proceedings in the trial on all available flimsy grounds. A battery of highly paid lawyers are reported to be working round the year for this purpose.
Finally recording of Sasikala’s statement was also completed. And now witnesses are deposing in the court. We do not know what more tactics will be employed by the accused to prolong this case.
Later, Jayalalitha, in a statement on spectrum issue said, “With the Supreme Court monitoring… I trust justice will prevail and the culprits brought to book.” Very good! If Jayalalitha has so much confidence in and regard for the Supreme Court, what she should have done when in November 2003, the apex court found her guilty of misuse of power and criminal conspiracy and directed her to ‘atone for the same by answering her conscience?’ She must have quit public life itself never seeking to return to power. But obviously the Supreme Court was wrong in addressing such a course to a person who has nothing called conscience!
Reflecting the opinion of people of the State on the delay in disposal of the DA case against Jayalalitha in the context of the present judgment of the Supreme Court, a reader of ‘The Hindu’ B.Prashit of Puducherry in his letter to the ‘Letters to the Editor’ column on July 16 writes: “If the judiciary were able to deliver timely judgments, we would not have to face the problem of criminals in politics or, for that matter, in all walks of life. It is because of long years taken to complete a trial that criminals walk with their heads held high and honest persons are driven to self-imposed exile”. Nearly 7 crore people of Tamil Nadu witness the accused person returning to power twice and ruling their destiny due to the inordinate delay in completing the trial and delivering judgment in this case. Whose guilt is this?     r

Nobility has no caste!

There have been love marriages involving Dalits and intermediate communities, but they never caught the attention of the world. The love affair between Ilavarasan and Divya bore the brunt of casteism as it happened at a time when Dr. Ramadoss revisited his old plank of Vanniyar mobilisation on the lines of a campaign he undertook in the 1980s to secure exclusive reservation for the community.
The PMK always had a Dalit as its general secretary and when the party got a berth in the Union government, Dr. Ramadoss made his friend and general secretary Dalit Ezhilmalai Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare. After Ezhilmalai fell out with the party leadership, Dr. Ramadoss appointed another Dalit, E. Ponnusamy, general secretary and later a Minister at the Centre. Though he sought to reach out to all sections, Dr. Ramadoss’ gesture was not taken in the right spirit in the PMK, which is predominantly a Vanniyar party. After mobilising a political party on sectarian lines, he could not afford to be accommodative and reward a member of another community.
Meanwhile, Puthiya Tamilagam founder K. Krishnaswamy, MLA, and Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi leader Thol Thirumavalavan have said the government should have adopted a tough stand against the PMK campaign against inter-caste marriages.
“That a marriage involving in inter-caste couple could not be saved indicates the failure of the State,” Dr. Krishnasamy said. He said the Anaithu Samudhaya Padhugappu Iyakkam, forum of non-Dalit castes, was established in the State and anti-scheduled caste feelings were fomented. This was against the Constitution and could attract action under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The government machinery, which ought to protect the weaker sections, did nothing to prevent such a forum from spewing anti-Dalit rhetoric. The forum sought to create a wedge between communities.
“The government gave a long rope to these casteist forces to function and gain a psychological impetus to oppress the Dalits. If the State had taken proper action, the Dalit boy’s death could have been prevented,” the PT leader added.
Thirumavalavan has said “The whole episode, starting from the Dharmapuri anti-Dalit violence to the separation of the inter-caste couple, was orchestrated by the PMK with political motives.” The PMK took complete control of the girl’s family and twisted the matter in court. “The government which supports inter-caste marriages with financial assistance under special schemes failed to protect the inter-caste couple.”
The campaign, at its peak, was that Dalit men wearing fashionable clothes and cooling glasses lured girls from other castes with false promises of marriage and discarded them after collecting money from their families.
Ilavarasan, in his short-lived relationship with Divya, has proved Dr. Ramadoss and his ilk wrong.
His father Elangovan has gone a step further and shamed the casteist forces by his noble  gesture for his daughter-in-law.
“We still believe Divya is our daughter and we would never misunderstand her, said Elangovan. After Ilavarasan’s death, the family that was plunged in despair did not disown Divya.
Speaking to reporters, Elangovan has said, “We would never misunderstand Divya because we know her well. The decision to reject my son was not of her, she was influenced by a few political parties. It’s the interference of political parties that is the only reason for my son’s death, not Divya.”
 Whenever they talk about Divya, Ilavarasan’s parents refer to her as daughter. “She was not our daughter-in-law, she was our daughter and that was how we treated her. After her father’s suicide, we took extra care of her. She also used to call me ‘Appa’. Now, some people are abusing Divya with words of hatred, we don’t agree with what is being said; we strongly believe that Divya was not the reason for my son’s death.”
Making an appeal to Divya to come to his house, he said, “Divya rejected my son saying her mother was alone, now we are alone. Although we have one more son, we are alone because he is in the army and is deployed in Manipur. If Divya comes back, we will treat her like a queen. We will even arrange for her to marry again if she is willing, at our own expenses.”
After Divya’s father Nagaraj committed suicide, Elangovan says he and his family took great care of Divya. “She used to call me ‘Appa’ and would promptly give me glass of water whenever I enter home after work”.
Both father and son proved that nobility has no caste! So too the above mentioned casteist forces by negative example!     r

Posterity won’t forgive!

Jayalalitha-led ADMK government on April 28, 2013 moved the Supreme Court to get the Sethusamudram project must be scrapped “as the project is of questionable economic value and not in [the] public interest.”  In its affidavit, It said: “The project ought not to have been commenced without the concurrence of the State government and without any specific management plan to mitigate the adverse impact on fisheries.”
Referring to the Centre’s stand that the project be implemented as per the original alignment, Tamil Nadu said: “The project has a potential danger of affecting the livelihood of fishermen living in the area. The entire coastline and territorial waters of the area is also a rich trove of marine food resources. “The project is a serious threat to the biodiversity of the region and hence needs to be looked at fresh taking into consideration the economic viability, ecological impact and sensitive religious sentiments of the people of the country.”
 Considering the extreme eco-fragility of the surrounding area and the Gulf of Mannar, the project was of questionable economic value and not in the public interest. It also sought to direct the Centre to declare Ram Sethu/Adam’s Bridge as a national monument and to restrain the Centre from undertaking any activity that would adversely affect Ram Sethu.
Thus by taking this stand on the dream project of Tamils, that too on behalf of Tamil Nadu government, Jayalalitha has rubbished the collective wisdom of tall political and social leaders, scholars, technocrats, environmentalists, economists, experts in navigation, trade and industry bodies of over 150 years since the British rule, including, to be more specific, the wisdom and vision of Arignar Anna, who is featured on their flag and their party also named after him, and MGR, whom she claims as her political mentor.
The Sethusamudram canal project is not the invention of the DMK or the UPA government at the Centre which approved and sanctioned funds for its execution. It has a history of over 150 years.
Although there were coast up to 3,554 nautical miles all over Indian sub-continent there was no facility for continuous sailing of ships in this region and for the shipping from the west coast to east coast, ships had to go around Sri Lanka. Because, between Rameswaram in southeast sea waters of India and Thalaimannar in Sri Lanka, there were sand dunes which is called as Adams bridge. In this area the sea is only 11 feet deep and ships had to go around because of this low depth.
Various plans were considered since 1860 even during the British rule for digging ‘Sethusamudram canal’ for facilitating shipping within Indian waters to reduce the shipping distance of the vessels. Proposals considered from the year 1860 onwards were: 1860 : Commander Taylor’s proposal, 1861 : Townsend’s proposal,1863 : Governor of Madras Presidency, His Excellency Sir William Denison’s proposal,1871 : Mr. Stoddart’s proposal, 1872 :Harbour engineer, Mr. Robertson’s proposal,1884 : Sir John’s proposal for the South India Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station Ltd,1903 : S.I. Railway Engineer’s proposal and 1922 :Harbour Engineer to Government of India Sir Robert Bristow’s proposal.
After India attained independence, the Government of India constituted the Sethusamudram Project Committee in 1955 with Sir A.Ramaswamy Mudaliyar as Chairman with  S.K. Mukherji , Chief Commercial Superintendent, Sothern Railway, B.N. Chatterji, Retired Chief Engineer of Calcutta Port Trust and Capt. J.R. Davis, Nautical Advisor to Government of India as Members and  R.A. Gopalaswamy ICS as Member Secretary to examine - the feasibility and desirability of connecting Gulf of Mannar with Palk Bay cutting a channel at the approaches to the Adam’s Bridge for enabling deep-sea ships to navigate from West to East coast of India, and - whether the construction of such a passage would increase the potentiality of the port of Tuticorin if it is to be developed into a deep-sea port. (Though Tuticorin Port was in existence for a very long time, ships had no berthing facilities and they had to be held in anchorage about 5 to 6 miles off the coast).
This committee made detailed investigations, collected particulars of volume of traffic, number of passages etc. They estimated a saving in distance of around 362 nautical miles, (in terms of voyage one and a half a day) and ensured a safe sheltered passage throughout the year. The committee was of strong view that the two projects namely the Sethusamudram Canal and Tuticorin Harbour were very closely inter-related and should be taken up and executed as part of one and the same project. They also found after careful evaluation of costs and benefits, the project was feasible and viable. This committee in 1956 recommended the project to be completed in the Second Five Year Plan itself.
When former Union Minister T.T. Krishnamachari contested from Tiruchendur Parliamentary constituency, he promised to get the projects implemented. Diraviyarathina Nadar, Rengasamy Nadar and traders of Tuticorin constituted the Tuticorin Port Development Committee on 8.3.1958 and this committee met the then Chief Minister Kamarajar and PWD Minister P. Kakkan. Tirunelveli M.P Thanu Pillai, M.Sankarapandian MP, Madurai P.T. Rajan and CPI MP K.T.K. Thangamani associated themselves in the tasks of this committee.
In 1958, this committee members went to Delhi to meet Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. P.T.Thanu Pillai MP, Chavalier J.L.P. Roach Victoria, M.Sankarapandian MP, former Municipal chairman S.Sankaranayana Pillai, M.M. Subramaniam, J.Wilfred Fernando, Subbaraman, A.Venkatachalam Iyer, P.Pon.Subbiah, Kalaithendral Thirunavukkarasu, N.Sivaraj MP, PT Rajan MLC, ‘The Mail’ daily correspondent N.A.Arockiyasamy and Port official G.M.Chikkaliagar found place in the delegation.
Now it is regrettable that due to the instigation of ADMK, some groups of fishermen were opposing this project. But J.L.P.Roach Victoria, who belonged to the community and was a respected personality in Tuticorin, Ponnusamy Vivarayar MLC and J.Wilfred Fernando supported this project in 1960s and pointed out that Tuticorin would prosper.
This delegation met Union Minister Rajbahadur in Delhi on 1.4.1958 and besides the Minister, higher officials of the Shipping Ministry discussed with them and later all of them met Shipping Minister S.K.Patil. Finally they met Prime Minister Nehru, presented a petition and demanded implementation of Tuticorin deep sea port and Sethusamudram projects. Nehru told them that there was no need for further deliberations, assured them that a new port in Tuticorin would be created and allocated Rs.5 crore for it. When this announcement of Nehru was broadcast by AIR the entire town of Tuticorin celebrated it.
On their return the delegation again met Kakkan and other State Ministers. On 2.4.1959, Nehru addressed a meeting at VOC College grounds Tuticorin, when he said the port would be formed. Chief Minister Kamarajar, APC Veerabahu, PS Ponnusamy Raja SSP Rengasamy Nadar and PSTS Diraviyarathina Nadar were present. It was on the same ground that when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi participated in the golden jubilee of the college in 1972, that Kalaignar, as the then Chief Minister, placed the demand for Sethu project, to look after the works of which Chief Engineer of Port Kovil Pillai was nominated.
The new port in Tuticorin was inaugurated by Prime Minster Lal Bahadur Sastri on5.11.1964, in which Kamarajar, Chief Minister M.Bhakthavatchalam and Speaker of the Assembly Chellapandian participated.
When the DMK stepped into the Lok Sabha for the first time in 1957, the demand for the project was raised in Parliament. K.T.Kosalram (Congress) and industrialist of Coimbatore G.K.Sundaram (Swatantra) pressed for the project in Parliament.
All these were the developments prior to the DMK assuming power in TN in 1967 led by Anna. After coming to power Anna announced ‘Uprising Day’ on 21.7.1967 and conducted public meetings throughout the State where resolutions were adopted for implementation of pending projects of the State.
Even before DMK came to power in TN, Arignar Anna delivered a lengthy speech in TN Assembly on Third Five Year Plan on 9.10.1960, in which he referred to Sethusamudram project in the following:-
“What we must firmly ask the Centre is what are the projects they are going to implement for the state? They must be categorically asked whether they are going to implement Sethusamudram project and Tuticorin expansion project or not? Now I earnestly ask the Minister. Your ability is well known to the people of the state. Only from the success you achieve in this, the people have to determine your ability hereafter. To study this and give report the Government of India appointed the best intellectual of our state Thiru. A.Ramaswamy Mudaliar. Keeping his study report and the controversy over figures of ten crore or fifteen crore we don’t know whether it could be added to the Third Five Year Plan. I once again ask this Ministry of TN. This government should courageously ask the Centre whether they are going to implement this project or whether we leave from this”.
Anna had spoken about this project like this even 50 years back in 1960. This project was pressed for in the resolutions of the DMK conferences in Tirupparankundram in 1961 and Virugambakkan in 1966. Only after the DMK came to power in 1967 the ‘Uprising Day’ was observed and Anna pressed for this project and Tuticorin deep sea port in the Assembly.
When the works of Tuticorin deep sea project slackened and efforts were made to convert it into a fishing harbour, Anna and Kalaignar as PWD Minister went to the place where the then Union Shipping Minister V.K.R.V.Rao  was staying and met him. Anna took along with him the former Chief Minister M.Bhakthavatchalam and former Industries Minister R.Venkataraman, gave the assurance that if the port were to meet losses it would be borne by the State government and thus strove for the advent of Tuticorin deep sea port.
Even when MGR was the Chief Minister, a resolution was adopted in the Assembly on 10.5.1986 demanding the project. ADMK election manifestos for all elections – Parliament and Assembly polls – till 2004 demanded Sethusamudram project,
Questioning the collective wisdom of all the above mentioned leaders and panels, Jayalalitha even rubbished her own wisdom.
In a lengthy statement on 25.6.2005, besides pouring her usual scorns for the DMK and Kalaignar, she also claimed credit for the Sethusamudram project becoming a reality, saying,
“Everyone knows that I will never relent in my efforts to get major development projects for Tamil Nadu. It may be recalled that it was on the request of the late Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R., that a Committee was constituted by the Government of India in 1981, to determine the feasibility of this Canal Project. While the Committee did find the project feasible, it was not taken up due to financial reasons. I raised this issue as a Member of the Rajya Sabha in 1984 and again in 1986 and stressed that the project should not be viewed merely in financial terms, but should be taken up keeping in view the national security concerns also.
On 10.5.1986, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly moved a Resolution demanding the implementation of the Sethusamudram Canal Project without any further delay. In July, 1991, as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, I presented a Memorandum to the then Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, insisting that the Sethusamudram Canal Project should be taken up. It was my Government, which entrusted a new study to M/s. Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Limited in 1994, to prepare an updated feasibility report. This was completed in 1996. It was on my insistence that the Sethusamudram Canal Project was taken up as a priority project in 1998 and an initial Environmental Impact Study was entrusted to the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in March, 1998. This report was also made available in August, 1998.  Thus, I have been instrumental in ensuring that the Sethusamudram Canal Project becomes a reality.”
But then she says, “At the same time, I have always maintained that extreme precaution should be taken before actually undertaking the project, in view of the fact that this is a unique ecologically sensitive zone with rich and rare biodiversity. Further, the zone where the Sethusamudram Canal Project is to be executed is a major fishing zone, which provides livelihood to lakhs of fishermen of Tamil Nadu.  I have always maintained that before taking up the canal project, it has to be ensured by careful studies that their livelihood is not affected in any way. Any canal project, such as the Sethusamudram Canal Project involves massive dredging of the seafloor. It is elementary that in such an ecologically sensitive project, where disturbance of the seafloor is involved, maximum safeguards have to be provided after detailed evaluation. The impact on the fishing community has to be carefully evaluated and any damage to their livelihood prevented. Thus, there are very serious environmental issues relating to this project, which need careful study. The whole point is that while the project is most important, it can only be undertaken after great care and preparation, paying attention to all the environmental concerns.”
But the latest affidavit filed by her regime in the Supreme Court rejected this part of her statement also and wanted the project to be scrapped.
Meanwhile, the dredging works in the Palk straits for constructing the canal was going ahead in a fast phase. It is noteworthy that Jayalalitha, who raised a hue and cry over the project in 2005 during the inauguration of project work was conspicuously silent on it in 2006 prior to and during the Assembly elections in May that year. For the first time ADMK election manifesto for 2006 Assembly elections did not contain any reference to Sethusamudram project and Jayalalitha also did not raise the issue in her election campaign, fearing it will create a backlash. In fact Kalaignar in his election campaign launched attack on those opposing the Sethu project but Jayalalitha did not respond.
In fact until mid-2007, there was no other opposition to the project other than on environmental, ecological grounds and on livelihood of fishermen, which were all convincingly addressed and settled.
It was only after the Archeological Survey of India’s affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in mid-2007 in which some unnecessary paragraphs on Ram Bridge were included that the Sangh Parivar led by the BJP started their venomous communal campaign against the project. They planned to consolidate Hindu vote bank by whipping up frenzy like their earlier campaign on Ram janmabhoomi and Ram temple in Ayodya, in the run up for LokSabha election in 2009. Neither the Sangh Parivar nor Jayalalitha thought of so-called Ram Bridge all along the over a hundred and fifty years when the idea of Sethusamudram canal was mooted and discussed by many and a movement for the launch of project was conducted in Tamil Nadu. Even Poet Bharathiyar envisaged infringing and elevating the Adams bridge and laying a road across Palk straits in his poem, “nrJit nkLW¤Â Å rik¥ngh«.”
Jayalalitha too joined this chorus on Ramar bridge suddenly.
The Indian Express on September 13, 2007 reported under the headline ‘Jaya toes BJP lines’,
“ADMK supremo J Jayalalitha on Thursday tailored her stand on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) to suit that of the BJP, insisting that the project be implemented without demolishing the Ram Sethu. Until now, Jayalalitha had stoutly opposed the project on the grounds that it would affect the livelihood of fishermen as well as destroy the rich marine biodiversity in the Palk Bay area.
Jayalalitha’s sudden volte face and the obvious strains within the UNPA of which she is one of the chief architects, has political circles abuzz that she might be moving closer to the BJP. While the ADMK and BJP struck up an alliance for the 2004 Lok Sabha election, the two parties faced a total rout with the DMK-led combine winning all the 39 seats in Tamil Nadu and the lone Pondicherry seat.
In a statement, Jayalalitha said the Sethusamudram Project be implemented without demolishing the Ram Sethu. She pointed out that in the past, several committees and experts had given four or five alternative schemes to implement the project without demolishing the bridge. “The Centre should explore the possibility of one of the alternative schemes and implement the project without damaging the Ram Sethu,” she said.”
Leave alone the future generations, can even the present generation forgive this lady-bundle of contradictions?
When Jayalalitha regime has taken such a stand against the widely acknowledged dream project of Tamils, what is the role of other opposition parties which had welcomed it in the past?
On the day of the inaugural function at Madurai, what did the leaders of many parties spoke on the occasion?
The Sethusamudram project inaugural function at Madurai on 2 July 2005 was flooded with people from all over southern districts. The then Union Minister for Shipping T.R.Baalu presided over the function. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh inaugurated the works of the Project in the presence of Kalaignar and Tmt. Sonia Gandhi. The then Governor of Tamil Nadu Surjit Singh Barnala participated as special guest and only representative of the state government. The then Union Ministers P. Chidambaram,  Dhayanidhi Maran, A. Raja, Anbumani Ramadoss, Mani Sankar Iyer and K.H.Muniyappa and leaders of political parties in TN, the then President of TNCC G.K.Vasan, MP, Dr. Ramadoss, Vaiko, N. Varadharajan, D.Pandian and K.M. Khader Moideen MP also participated in the function and spoke.
MDMK General Secretary Vaiko in his speech said, “it is most fitting that this festival is being conducted in the same month of July when in 1967, Anna observed ‘Uprising Day’ saying “Let Sethu canal be created, and rich Tamil Nadu prosper” (nrJfhšthŒmika£L«, brªjäœehLbrê¡f£L«). This is a project for which Naam Tamilar Iyakkam leader S.P.Adityan and Congress’s K.T.Kosalram raised voice. This is a project for which my dear elder brother Kalaignar beat drum in the Assembly in 1958 itself. A project for which Anna in the same Assembly gave a clarion call why the Centre was delaying implementation of the report of Dr. Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee. Due to the pressure of Perunthalaivar Kamarajar, Pandit Nehru announced the project on September 12,1963. A project that the then Prime Minister Vajpayee  announced that the Centre would implement at the Thanthai Periyar, Arignar Anna birth anniversary  Renaissance Rally on September 15,1998. For 24 years raising voice in parliament to the full of my energy, and because of the effort of my dear elder brother Kalaignar in 2004 when Dr. Manmohan Singh and Pranab Mukherjee took up the task of drafting the CMP they were told to include this project and they accepted and included this project. This day when it is inaugurated is a happy occasion. The name of Dr. Manmohan Singh who has allocated Rs.2427 crore for this canal of Tamils which will be renown like Panama canal and Suez canal, will find place on inscriptions of time”.
The then Union Minster Anbumani Ramadoss of PMK said ‘All Tamil hearts were yearning for this day. This day is a very important day. In history this is a very important day for all Tamils. More than that our leader of Tamil Nadu very much strove for getting this project for TN that dream is becoming real today. In the last one year the UPA government has been doing lot of achievements for TN and the most important of them is this project.”
The then TNCC President and now Union Minister G.K. Vasan said,” The UPA government led by the Congress is today implementing the long time dream of Tamils Sethusamudram project. This is a glory for TN. This project is a basic project that will make TN as the first state in the coming years. I would like to thank Kalaignar who effectively raised voice for that and Prime Minister and leaders of parties.”
The former State Secretary of the CPM N. Varadharajan said “I convey my greetings to this function. This is a time when people of India are fighting against poverty. The works of this project should be useful for that struggle. This project must be developed into one creating employment opportunities. All should cooperate for the implementation of a good project.”
Speaking on behalf of the CPI D. Pandian said ”This is a good festive day. A good day when a project lying stagnant is inaugurated. A day when the child conceived in the womb for 145 years is born. Although it is canal that will be dug today it will stimulate economic change and development  of this TN and help develop the economy of India. It will reduce the time of ships coming around. Hence this is a good news for the country. Some think that if they close their eyes the world will turn dark. But here the function is being held in an excellent manner.”
Having thundered so much then, why are these parties keeping quite now when Jayalalitha government has developed tenacity to move the Supreme Court for scrapping the project that too on an obscurantist and superstitious ground?
The CPM in the past even conducted movement for expediting the works of the project but now both communist parties have not protested against the move of ADMK regime. After DMK Treasurer Thalapathi M.K.Stalin repeatedly questioned ‘Walkathon’ Vaiko for keeping mum now after delivering a heroic speech at the inaugural function, he has responded at Madurai in a press meet, that too after he was quizzed by reporters. He has ‘mildly’ said that Ramar bridge was the stand of ADMK and the MDMK stood for the project but in the same breath ranted his usual anti-DMK rhetoric. Even though the Congress party is committed to the project, their leaders in TN have not protested against the State government stand.
How can posterity forgive such opportunist stands of these parties on such crucial issue?
Last but not the least is the role of media, particularly the English media. Most of them, except avowed communal dailies, have a tradition of taking secular stand and have played appreciable role in exposing Ramjanmabhoomi movement, demolition of Babari Masjid, the post-Godhra anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat and the attacks of Sangh Parivar on art and cultural diversity.
But what about their indeed shameful role in Tamil Nadu? Had it been any other government acrimoniously frittering away tax money of the people by colossally discarding an aesthetic structure constructed for a specific purpose at a cost of Rs.800 crore by the previous rule or an expressway at a cost of Rs.1,600 crore for the benefit of the city and industry etc, will these dailies and television channels play them down? And now because of the acquiescent attitude of the media in the State, this regime has developed such an audacity to move the Supreme Court for scrapping a unique infrastructure project that will change the face of Tamil Nadu and the nation as a whole. The media houses cannot be complacent that their shameful role will not go down in history because of their self-imposed censorship because the future generations will unearth truth with all the technological means they will possess. So, they too cannot escape the curse of the posterity?   r

BJP in Catch-22 situation!

Recent developments in the main opposition party, the BJP could not be wished away as incidental or unrelated or not germane. Known for their scheming, there seems to be a systematic electoral strategy that the party is working on in tandem with their mother organisation the RSS. Having lost in two successive general elections under the banner of National Democratic Alliance putting their communal agenda on the backburner, the Hindutva forces seem to have lost hopes of success in repeating the same tactics of using secular mask for the time being.
The projection of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the dreaded face of Hindutva notwithstanding all their talk of development plank, as their Prime Ministerial candidate even at the risk of losing their time-tested ally Janata Dal (United) in Bihar, was the first sign of the party moving on the path of “consolidation of Hindu votes”, particularly in Northern States and unveiling a programme of “majority appeasement”.
Amit Shah, Narendra Modi’s point man in Uttar Pradesh, on July 6 raked up the issue of Ram temple, saying the party would soon build a grand temple in Ayodhya. “I came here to pray to Ram Lalla. I wish we will soon build a grand temple for Lord Ram here and restore Lord Ram to his rightful place,” he told reporters in Ayodhya before attending a meeting with party workers from the Awadh region.
Shah’s comment comes amid growing speculation that the BJP might look to invoke Hindutava in the State, where it made reasonable gains during the heydays of the Ram janmabhoomi movement in the early 1990s. The observation gains further prominence with recent reports saying that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi could contest next year’s Lok Sabha election from Varanasi, an important city for Hindus. Shah, a former Home Minister of Gujarat and close aide of Modi, said he “prayed to Ram Lalla for good governance in the country and making it free of the Congress.” Shah, who is also the party’s general secretary, held a meeting with party workers at Karsewakpuram, where stones carved for the proposed grand temple are kept.
Last week, BJP chief Rajnath Singh stirred up a huge controversy with his comment that English has caused a great loss to India by eroding its cultural values and stymieing the growth of Sanskrit in the country. The comment was greeted with derision by intellectuals and political leaders..
Speaking at a function in New Delhi on July 18, Singh had said, “The English language has caused a great loss to the country. We are losing our language, our culture as there are hardly any people who speak Sanskrit now.” A television report showed Singh as saying: “We have started forgetting our religion and culture these days. There are only 14,000 people left in this country speaking in Sanskrit. Knowledge acquired out of English is not harmful but the Anglicization penetrated into the youth is dangerous.”
It took a while for the BJP chief’s remarks to circulate but the reaction would have left his party colleagues wincing as the all-around criticism comes just as the main Opposition is looking to project itself as committed to a modern social order and dynamic growth.  Singh’s views sounded like a throwback to when the BJP was often labeled a “Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan” party and not one that claims to have nurtured the IT revolution to its full potential during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s tenure as the Prime Minister.  Singh’s critics, ranging from I&B minister Manish Tewari, CPM leader Sitaram Yechury and Dalit ideologue Chandrabhan Prasad, were quick to point out that Singh had betrayed his medieval world-view while insisting that English has not wiped out “Indianness”.
For most Indians English is an additional skill apart from their mother tongues. Facility in English is seen to have allowed India to connect with the world and given it a critical share of the BPO and IT business which provides employment to more than 20 lakh people, Singh’s critics said. Tewari said, “I sometimes feel like laughing at our friends. On one side their vision document is outsourced to people who don’t speak any language other than English. Is this medievalism or hypocrisy?” Tewari pointed out that “This attempt to create a dispute over language or saying that one language is better or worse than another, doesn’t strengthen the country and is not expected from a responsible political party.”
CPM leader Sitaram Yechury criticized Singh saying the comments reflect the BJP chief’s preoccupation with Hindu revivalism. He said that just by learning a language, people don’t lose cultural roots or foundations. “For most Indians, English is an additional language, and it does not insulate or separate people from their identities,” he said. Knowing English will only help Indians to advance and develop further.
Dalit ideologue Chandrabhan Prasad also criticized Rajnath Singh, saying BJP was opposed to English language as it is at odds with modernity itself. “All things Indian by tradition, be it caste, be it social structure, political structure, have stopped India from growing into a modern society. If English is eliminating tradition, it is also eliminating a culture that is caste-driven,” he said.
“I am not surprised that BJP is upset. The party cannot succeed in a caste-neutral India. It is opposing English because of its opposition to modernity itself,” he said.
A day after BJP President Rajnath Singh’s English bashing, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on July 20 said it is an “illusion” that English is the only means of progress.
“This is an illusion that English is the only means of progress...this is not true,” Bhagwat said at an inaugural function of a school building in Delhi.
He said that the spread of English had “hurt Indian culture”.
“Earning money is not everything. Children should have sanskar (culture) and they should know relationship and love,” the RSS chief said.
Bhagwat came heavily on the prevailing education system which, he said, was not in the country’s interest.
‘The Times of India’ on July 20 commented : Anybody who thinks that the growth of English has been a bane for India is seriously out of touch with reality. In the era of globalization, it is one of the critical advantages India has vis-a-vis countries like China. Indeed, China has itself recognized this and is seeking to catch up in a hurry. In any case, to blame one language or culture for the sorry state of another language is to miss the point. There is no contradiction between the growth of English and the thriving of native cultures. English represents, for most Indians, the language of opportunity, while their mother tongues are often the language of expression. The BJP chief should see English as cause for celebration rather than mourning. But, when it comes to his home and children, BJP chief Rajnath Singh does not seem to have much of a problem with English or Western ways of life.  He had sent his younger son, Neeraj, to study abroad, and his daughter Anamika worked in the United States. While his criticism of the English language has not gone down well within the party, it was endorsed by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. Singh’s and Bhagwat’s remarks have upset the English-speaking media faces within the party. Fingers are now being pointed at Singh by his own party colleagues for maintaining two different faces.
BJP president Rajnath Singh’s elder son, Pankaj, who is in politics and likely to contest the 2014 elections, is also fluent in the English language.However, when contacted, Pankaj chose to reply in chaste Hindi to all questions asked in English. While admitting his younger brother had studied in UK, Pankaj Singh denied ‘proper knowledge’ about his father’s remarks on English.”Maine theek se dekha nahin (I have not seen it properly),” was his only reaction to his father’s severe criticism of English.
This sudden outburst by the party chief caught the BJP’s English-speaking media faces off guard. “There was no need for such a remark at this juncture,” an English-speaking BJP leader said. It was also pointed out that some of the other top BJP leaders’ children were sent to study abroad. Unlike the Congress, earlier there was an acute shortage of “English-speaking BJP leaders”, a senior party functionary said. However, over the years the party had brought in and promoted leaders who are equally fluent in Hindi and English. 
Some of the BJP’s top leaders, like  Arun Jaitley,  Ravi Shankar Prasad ,  Rajiv Pratap Rudy and  Varun Gandhi, are known for their command of both English and Hindi. Former BJP president M. Venkaiah Naidu and party spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman, however, are more comfortable in English. Other young faces, like the party’s national executive member, Siddharth Nath Singh, are among others who could be seen debating on television in both languages. There seem to be conflict of interests between the leaders, and between its core medieval ideology and the electoral necessity to sell a development agenda, the BJP appears to be in catch-22 situation.   r

Sinhala bigots wary of poll in North province

Retired Sri Lankan Supreme Court Judge C V Vigneswaran, the Chief Ministerial candidate of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) in the elections to the Northern Provincial Council (NPC), has said that the devolution of power over police and land is a must for the security and livelihood of the people of the Tamil-speaking province. “It will be suicidal to takeaway powers over land and police from the Provincial List,” Vigneswaran said.
“ln any system of devolution, powers over local law and order are given to the provinces, But in North Lanka, law and order are in the hands of police and army personnel who are outsiders and who do not speak Tamil. There are 15 battalions of army in the Northern Province, though the government touts a smaller figure. Such a huge army presence is putting tremendous pressure on the people,” he said.
Asked to comment on Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa’s remark that an autonomous provincial police force could develop into a ‘militia’ paralleling the Lankan army as the “Tamil National Army” did at the time of North Eastern Province Chief Minister A Varadarajaperumal, Vigneswaran said that such fears stemmed from a lack of trust in  Tamils. “Such things are repeated so often that they have become concretised. It is difficult to get out of such notions. The only way out is to build trust and understanding”, he said.
On the need for devolution of power over land, he said, “Over 6000 acres of fertile land have been taken away from the people to build army buildings and cantonments. In the rest of the province also, resettlement is hampered by the armed forces occupying peoples’ lands. Development is there, but the roads and buildings are for the army primarily?
Vigneswaran held the “powers-that-be” responsible for the “cultural degradation” in the North since the end of the war in 2009. “Certain forces the powers-that-be are not unaware of, are getting the youth hooked to drugs, with the idea of de-politicising them. War widows are forced into prostitution. This has been a tremendous problem in the past few years,” he charged.  
On the theory touted by Sinhalese politicians that a Northern Province defined by Tamil ethnicity would endanger the position of Tamils living in the South, Vigneswaran said he was not against Sinhalese settling in the North in the normal way, but warned that any bid to oust Tamils from the South would alienate Lanka from the world, and that any repetition of the 1983 pogrom, could invite another external intervention.   Justice C.V. Wigneswaran said that there is some doubt although the government had promised to hold the NPC election.
He said on July 19 to ‘Derana’ TV channel that a petition has been presented to the courts against election. He pointed out that the whole power of the North is with the government and therefore, the government is not willing to reduce it by holding an election. He said that as Commonwealth summit is going to be held here, there are more discussions on the election issues.  He pointed out that land and police powers should be given to the provincial council, otherwise people’s rights would not be protected.
According to the 13th amendment of the constitution, there should be governor’s approval and the Provincial council cannot take decisions all alone. He requested people in North to believe in him and he requested to get together. Then only all can go ahead.
Since Tamil Coalition , Tamil National Alliance (TNA) , announced its Chief Minister candidate for Northern Provincial council as former Tamil Chief judge C V Vigneswaran , Rajapakasa brothers and Sinhala nationalists (an alibi for bigots) claim they now see a serious threat to Sinhalisation of Sri Lanka. An high profile intellectual behind the Tamil Coalition will be recognised by world countries immediately which will destroy the plan of Rajapaksa brothers who postponed as abolition of Police and Land powers to council after CHOGM  in Colombo.
Former judge has already begun to speak, urging Rajapaksa government to remove the military governor Maj. Chandrasiri from the power of governor of Northern Provincial council and appoint a civil leader as a first step to release the military claws on Tamil areas. Also he has urged to replace military with police in Northern province.
 Vigneswaran not only brought Rajapaksa brothers into trouble , but also the right wing racists Sinhala leaders minister Chambika Ranawakke claimed that Vigneswaran’s arrival has brought new dimension in TNA’s long term plan to establish Tamil Eelam , the country of Tamils under Sri Lankan occupation. Chambika claimed that it is learnt that this had been done with two intentions. One is to get proper legal opinion and to go forwards in establishing another Ealam. Secondly the Minister quipped that with the knowledge of the retired Supreme Court judge they have intentions of proceeding of the Ealam matter to the US Human Rights commission.
The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) expressed its doubts about having a free and fair election in September, to the visiting five-member British Parliamentary delegation in Kilinochchi, on July 23.
 TNA’s Jaffna District Parliamentarian and ITAK’s General Secretary, Mavai Senathirajah, along with two other TNA MPs, S. Sritharan and E. Saravanabavan, met the visiting British Parliamentarians from the Labour and Conservative Parties, at the TNA office in Kilinochchi.
 Mavi Senathirajah expressing his views to the British MPs said the TNA expects a fully-fledged federal system as a political solution to the Tamils in the country. He also elaborated on the alleged land acquisition by the Security Forces in the North.
 Commenting on the TNA’s preparations for the forthcoming NPC polls, Senathirajah complained of the manner the government is manipulating the election process, particularly by engaging the Security Forces in polls related activities, the TNA doubted whether there would be a free and fair NPC polls. Prior to the meeting with the TNA MPs, the British Parliamentarians also visited Mullaitivu.
 Meanwhile, the TNA has successfully allocated seats for all five constituent parties in the Alliance in all five districts in the Northern Province. Several former Jaffna and Vanni District Parliamentarians such as V. Anandasangaree and D. Sidharthan will also be fielded in the NPC polls on behalf of the TNA. Former Kilinochchi parliamentarian and TULF General Secretary, Anandasangaree, and former parliamentarian from the Vavuniya District and the PLOTE leader, Dharmalingam Sidharthan, will contest from the Vavuniya District.
 The allocation of seats by the TNA for its five constituent parties is as follows:
Jaffna District: ITAK – seven seats, EPRLF – four seats, TELO – three seats, PLOTE – two seats, TULF – two seats.
Kilinochchi District: ITAK – three seats, EPRLF – one seat, TELO – one seat, TULF – two seats.
Mullaitivu District: ITAK – two seats, EPRLF – two seats, TELO – two seats, PLOTE – one seat, TULF – one seat.
Vavuniya District: ITAK – two seats, EPRLF – two seats, TELO – two seats, PLOTE – two seats, TULF – one seat.
Mannar District: ITAK – two seats, TELO – three seats, EPRLF – two seats, PLOTE – one seat.
The names of the candidates of the TNA from all five electoral districts in the Northern Province are expected to be announced on July 25.
Also another right wing leader Gunadasa Amarasekara of National Patriotic Movement claimed that Sri Lanka is facing a serious threat now from a recognised Tamil intellectual with TNA. He urged Mahinda to ‘buy’ him by offering a post in government even a minister post. In the past Luxman Kathirkamar , a Tamil intellectual , was a foreign minister of Sri Lanka which claimed a great diplomatic achievement in the history of Sri Lanka with western countries.  Luxman has a benefit to convince world leaders since he himself a Tamil, who was main key in proscribing Tamil Tiger rebels around the world. Now Gunadasa believes that Vigneswaran should be brought into Government and being with TNA means Tamils are moving towards freedom.
C V Vigneswaran’s nomination has now seems to be tactical diplomatic move by TNA at the right time , where control of Northern Province by legal professional might take the military off the streets as local Tamils are dreaming of such a day to live a normal life without fear of military. The game is on and next move from Rajapaksas is expected to be tough decision.
The wariness of Sinhala bigots over elections in Northern province and implementation of 13th Constitutional amendment in Sri Lanka has been spelt out by M.D.P.Dissanayake, a Professor of University of Colombo in his post under the headline “Invoke Emergency to suspend land and police powers etc.,” which read as:
“There are early indications that the Tamil National Alliance has already completed the ground work to create a direct conflict with the Central Government assuming that the TNA will capture  power in the Northern Province following the upcoming Elections.   The Government of Sri Lanka has taken a cautious approach to the proposed amendments intended to negate some of the powers vested in the 13 A by referring the matters to the Parliamentary Select Committee in compliance with the democratic governance, but in the meantime  the TNA and  Big Brother India have marched forward to dictate terms to the Government of Sri Lanka.
The Chief Ministerial nominee former Supreme Court Judge  Mr.C.V.Vigneswaran  has made it clear that he will demand powers well beyond the 13 Amendment if he becomes the Chief Minister.  There is no doubt that he spoke on behalf of LTTE and the Indian Government.
The Parliamentary Select Committee process and its deliberations including calling for views of the general public will drag on for quite some time.  This delay will provide ample opportunity and much needed time for the LTTE puppets of TNA and  the Indian Government  to create maximum publicity in the lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.  Such an adverse publicity will be counter-productive for the Government’s desire to “show case” Sri Lanka with its massive success stories throughout the country.
The Government has done sufficient “talking” on the issue and it is now time to act.  Pending the outcome of the PSC, the government should invoke the Emergency Regulations and under which suspend the provisions of the 13 Amendment which have been referred to the PSC.
Following the invocation of the Emergency, it could be debated in the Parliament which  will expose the weak hands of the UNP on this vital national issue. Malwatte Maha Sanga has already given its blessings, Inter-alia, for the removal of 13A in its entirety. The Catholic Church will continue to play its role of an “Egyptian Mummy”.
Holding the Elections in the North without any safeguard mechanism will directly play into the hands of the TNA.  The new North Provincial Council will have every constitutional and legal right to demand the Land and Police Powers etc. if the election is held under the existing provisions of the Constitution.
If some of the provisions of the 13A are suspended under the Emergency Regulations, there will be strong opposition from the LTTE supporters, their Puppets. The TNA itself may boycott the Elections as a result.  What a wonderful outcome will that be?
Our President has achieved a lot in the past, this should be a walk in the Park. Such a bold step will undoubtedly bring positive outcome to the Country as a whole”.
It is in this context that the ‘Tamils’ Massive Demonstration’ announced by the TESO on August 8 acquires significance to ensure total implementation of the 13th amendment, although it is no panacea for Eelam Tamils issue, nevertheless will serve as an immediate relief for them. Conduct of free and fair elections in the Northern province is pre-condition for it and India is morally and according to the pact between the two nations, obliged to ensure it.

Poverty of Philosophy

The Planning Commission has once again embarrassed us with its claims of decline in poverty by 2011-12 to grossly unrealistic levels of 13.7 per cent of population in urban areas and 25.7 per cent in rural areas, using monthly poverty lines of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 816 respectively, or Rs. 33.3 and Rs. 27.2 per day. These princely amounts will pay for one urban male haircut while they are supposed to meet all daily food and non-food living costs. The poverty decline claimed is huge, a full 8 per cent points fall in rural areas over the two years since 2009-10, and a 7 per cent points fall in urban areas. The logically incorrect estimation method that the Commission continues to use makes it an absolute certainty that in another four years, when the 2014-15 survey results become available, it will claim that urban poverty is near zero and rural poverty only around 12 per cent. This will be the case regardless of any rise in actual deprivation and intensification of actual poverty.
One Tendulkar makes the big scores. The other wrecks the averages. The Planning Commission clearly prefers Suresh to Sachin. Using Professor Suresh Tendulkar’s methodology, it declares that there’s been another massive fall in poverty. Yes, another (“more dramatic in the rural areas”). “Record Fall in Poverty” reads one headline. The record is in how many times you’ve seen the same headline over the years. And how many times poverty has collapsed, only to bounce back when the math is done differently.
 And so, a mere 29.9 per cent of India’s population is now below the official poverty line (BPL). The figure was 37.2 per cent in 2004-05. The “line” is another story in itself, of course. But on the surface, rural poverty has declined by eight percentage points to log in at 33.8 per cent. That’s down from 41.8 per cent in 2004-05. And urban poverty fell by 4.8 percentage points from 25.7 to 20.9 per cent in the same period. Millions have been dragged above the poverty line, without knowing it.
Media amnesia fogs the “lowest-ever” figures, though. These are not the “lowest-ever.”
“Kill me, I say,” said Prof. Madhu Dandavate in 1996, chuckling. “I just doubled poverty in your country today.” What that fine old gentleman had really done, as Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission, was to jettison the bogus methodology peddled by that body before he came to head it the same year. Even minor changes in methodology or poverty line can produce dramatically differing estimates.
The fraud he undid was “an exercise” bringing poverty down to 19 per cent in 1993-94. And that, from 25.5 per cent in 1987-88. These were the “preliminary results of a Planning Commission exercise based on National Sample Survey data”. Now if these figures were true, then poverty has risen ever since..
However, now Planning Commission numbers have achieved one thing. They’ve united most of Parliament on the issue. Members from all parties have blasted the “estimates” and called for explanations.
There’s also the Tendulkar report’s own fiddles. As Dr. Madhura Swaminathan points out, the committee dumped the calorie norms of “2,100 kcal per day for urban areas and 2,400 kcal for rural areas.” It switched to “a single norm of 1,800 kcal per day.” And did so citing an “FAO norm.” As Dr. Swaminathan observed: “the standards set by the Food and Agriculture Organisation for energy requirements are for “minimum dietary energy requirements” or MDER. That is, “the amount of energy needed for light or sedentary activity.” And she cites an FAO example of such activity. “…a male office worker in urban areas who only occasionally engages in physically demanding activities during or outside working hours.” As Dr. Swaminathan asks: “Can we assume that a head load worker who carries heavy sacks through the day is engaged in light activity?”
That the Planning Commission thought they could slip the present bunkum by sets a new benchmark for — and marriage of — arrogance and incompetence. First, they sparked outrage with their affidavit in the Supreme Court. There they defended a BPL cut-off line of Rs.26 a day (rural) and Rs.32 (urban). Now they hope to get by with numbers of Rs.22.42 a day (rural) and Rs.28.35 a day (urban).
The same year the government and planning commission shot themselves in both feet in 1996, a leading Delhi think tank joined in. It came up with the “biggest ever study” done on poverty in the country. This covered over 30,000 households and queried respondents across more than 300 parameters. So said its famous chief at a meeting in Bhopal.
This stunned the journalists in the audience. Till then, they had been doing what most journalists do at most seminars. Sleeping in a peaceful, non-confrontational manner. A veteran startled. “Did he mean they asked those households over 300 questions? My God! Thirty years in this line and the biggest interview I ever did had nine. That was with my boss’s best friend. And my last question was ‘may I go now’?” We did suggest to the famous economist that battered with 300 questions, his respondents were more likely to die of fatigue than of poverty. A senior aide of the think tank chief took the mike to explain why we were wrong. We sent two investigators to each household, he said. Which made sense, of course: one to hold the respondent down physically, twisting his arm, while the other asked him 300 questions.
 All official claims of low poverty level and poverty decline are quite spurious, solely the result of mistaken method. In reality, poverty is high and rising. By 2009-10, after meeting all essential non-food expenses (manufactured necessities, utilities, rent, transport, health, education), 75.5 per cent of rural persons could not consume enough food to give 2200 calories per day, while 73 per cent of all urban persons could not access 2100 calories per day. The comparable percentages for 2004-5 were 69.5 rural and 64.5 urban, so there has been a substantial poverty rise.
When the NSS released its nutritional intake data for 2011-12 we see the change up to that year, but given the high rate of inflation and sluggish job growth, the situation is as bad. The National Sample Survey Organisation’s newest set of consumption expenditure data for 2011-12 gives an insight into how those across the spectrum, from the poorest to the richest, live in different parts of India. An individual who spends over Rs. 2,886 per month in a rural area or Rs. 6,383 per month in an urban area is in the top 5% of the country (and this is using the modified mixed reference period, which gives the most generous expenditure estimates). This translates to spending Rs. 96.2 and Rs. 212.77 per day. The top 10% of the country includes anyone who spends over Rs. 2,296 per month in a rural area and Rs. 4,610 per month in an urban area.
Moreover, even though poverty rates are converging, massive inter-State differences remain. A person spending over Rs. 1,995 per head would be well into the top 5% of rural Bihar, but more than half of Kerala is spending at that level. Similarly, spending Rs. 1,710 per month would put a person in rural Jharkhand into the top 5% of her State, but over 60% of Punjab is spending at that level. In urban India, spending Rs. 3,400 per month in urban Bihar would put a person into the top 5% of that State, but only the top 30% of Delhi. Conversely, 30% of urban Chhattisgarh lives on a monthly per capita expenditure of Rs. 1,046, while less than 5% of Kerala lives at that level of expenditure. Then there is the question of what the rich and poor are spending their money on; absolute spending on food rises as one climbs the income ladder in both rural and urban India, even as its proportion in total expenditure falls.
What is the basic problem with the Planning Commission’s method which produces its low and necessarily declining estimates, regardless of ground reality? The Commission in practice gave up its own definition of the poverty line which was applied only once — to get the 1973-74 estimate. After that, it has never looked over the next 40 years even once for deriving poverty lines at the actual current spending level, which will allow the population to maintain the same standard of living in terms of nutrition after meeting all non-food costs — even though these data have been available in every five-yearly NSS survey.
The Commission instead simply applied price indices to bring forward the base year monthly poverty lines of Rs 49 rural and Rs.56 urban in 1973-74. The Tendulkar committee did not change this aspect; it merely altered the specific index.
Price indexation does not capture the actual rise in the cost of living over long periods. Those doing the poverty estimates would be the first to protest if their own salaries were indexed only through dearness allowance. A fairly high level government employee getting Rs.1,000 a month in 1973-74 would get Rs.18,000 a month today if the salary was only indexed. The fact that indexing does not capture the actual rise in the cost of living is recognised by the government itself by appointing decadal Pay Commissions which push up the entire structure of salaries — an employee in the same position today gets not Rs.18,000 but a four times higher salary of over Rs.70,000. Yet those doing poverty estimates continue to maintain the fiction that the same standard of living can be accessed by the poor by merely indexing the original poverty line, and they never mention the severely lowered nutritional access at their poverty lines which, by now, are destitution lines.
The fact is that official poverty lines give command over time to a lower and lower standard of living. With a steadily lowered standard, the poverty figures will always show apparent improvement even when actual deprivation is worsening. A school child knows that if last year’s percentage of students passing the annual examination is to be compared to this year’s percentage, the pass mark should be the same. The school principal cannot quietly lower the pass mark without informing the public, say from 50 out of hundred last year to 40 this year, and then claim that the school’s performance has improved because 80 per cent of students are recorded as ‘passed’ this year at the clandestinely lowered pass mark, compared to 75 per cent of students last year. If, at the same pass mark of 50, we find that 70 per cent of students have passed this year, we are justified in saying that the performance, far from improving, has worsened. If the school is allowed to continue with its wrong method, and lower the pass mark further next year, and again the next year, so ad infinitum, it is eventually bound to record 100 per cent pass and zero failure.
The case is exactly the same with the official poverty lines as with the pass mark: the poverty lines have been lowered continuously below the standard over a very long period of 40 years. ‘Poverty’ so measured is bound to disappear from India even though in reality it may be very high and worsening over time. The Commission’s monthly poverty line for urban Delhi state in 2009-10 is Rs.1,040 — but a consumer spending this much could afford food that gave only 1400 calories a day after meeting all other fast rising expenses. The correct poverty line is Rs.5,000 for accessing 2100 calories, and a staggering 90 per cent of people have been pushed below this, compared to 57 per cent below the correct poverty line of Rs.1,150 in 2004-05. Given the very high rate of food price inflation plus the rising cost of privatised medical care and utilities, it is not surprising that people are being forced to cut back on food, and the average calorie intake in urban Delhi has fallen to an all-time low of 1756. While a high-visibility minority of households with stable incomes is able to hire-purchase multiple cars per household and enjoy other durable goods, the vast working underclass which is invisible to the rich is struggling to survive. Fifty five per cent of the urban population cannot access even 1800 calories today, compared to less than a quarter in that position a mere five years earlier.
Why, it may be asked, do the highly trained economists in the Commission ignore reality and continue with their incorrect method? Surely they can see as we do, that their Rs.1040 poverty line gives access to a bare-survival 1400 calories. Part of the answer is that the ramifications of using the wrong method extend globally, for the World Bank economists have, for decades, based their poverty estimates on the local currency official poverty lines of developing countries, including India.
The World Bank claim of poverty decline in Asia is equally spurious. In reality, under the regime of poor employment growth and high food price inflation, poverty has been rising. To admit this would mean that the entire imposing-looking global poverty estimation structure, employing hundreds of economists busy churning out wrong figures, would come crashing down like a rotten termite-eaten house.
The media rarely mention that there are other methodologies for measuring poverty on offer. Also set in motion by this same government. The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) saw BPL Indians as making up 77 per cent of the population. The N.C. Saxena-headed BPL Expert group placed it at around 50 per cent. Like the Tendulkar Committee, these two were also set up by government. While differing wildly, all three pegged rural poverty at a higher level than government did. Meanwhile, we will have many more committees on the same issue until one of them gives this government the report it wants. The one it can get away with.
However, even while the Opposition pillories the Planning Commission for using a formal definition of poverty that ensures the percentage of people below the poverty line is lower than what it ought to be, the government itself has begun moving to a broader and more realistic de facto definition that will include roughly 65 per cent of the population. This notional poverty line will stand at a per capita expenditure of around Rs. 50 per day in rural areas and Rs. 62 in urban areas.
 While Planning Commission-derived poverty lines and estimates have been all-important in the past because they are used to draw up BPL lists and allot entitlements, their inappropriateness today is demonstrated by the fact that the government itself is now moving away from using these numbers altogether. Following the Union Cabinet’s clearing of the National Food Security Ordinance, the Planning Commission has estimated that subsidised foodgrain entitlements will cover 67 per cent of the population. Simultaneously, economists advising the Ministry of Rural Development say that the exclusion criteria to be derived from the ongoing Socio-Economic and Caste Census are likely to leave out the top 35 per cent of the population while the bottom 65 per cent will be considered BPL.
“This is a step away from the narrow definition of poverty we have been using, where the line is really what I call a ‘kutta-billi’ line; only cats and dogs can survive on it,” said N.C. Saxena, member of the National Advisory Council, who headed a Planning Commission panel on poverty that recommended automatic inclusion and exclusion criteria. A World Bank study of India’s social protection schemes had shown that universal schemes were far better at actually reaching the poor than those targeted at the poor.
By covering 67 per cent of the population, the government is in effect drawing the poverty line 85 per cent higher than what it is currently drawn at,
BPL and APL, what is poverty line? Why so much debate over what is very visible? What is wrong with the economists working for the Planning Commission?
In response to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s 1847 book, The System of Economic Contradictions, or Philosophy of Poverty, Karl Marx in 1847 wrote the critique of Proudhon’s economic (part one) and philosophic (part two) doctrines and titled it as “Poverty of Philosophy”. Our pundits of the Planning Commission remind us of this brilliant work of
Marx.    r

Selective response implies admission of other charges

The most transparent and responsive government that Tamil Nadu ever had was the previous one of the DMK led by Kalaignar. Even the massive scheme of distribution of free colour television sets was implemented with the participation of representatives of all parties in the Assembly at all stages from opening of tenders to procurement and distribution. Every statement of political parties on any irregularity or administrative inaction or laxity were immediately clarified by the Chief Minister or Minister concerned. All such reports in dailies and periodicals, even those which were hostile by their policy and practice, were immediately attended to or clarifications were given. For instance, the pro-Jayalalitha Tamil daily ‘Dinamani’ published a report on the improper maintenance of the statue of a freedom fighter in a mini-park in Madurai. Immediately the CM contacted Madurai Corporation and got it rectified and the daily reported about it the very next day.  ADMK leader Jayalalitha was accustomed to issue vague statements everyday criticising the government or announcing their demonstration in various cities and towns on issues as trivial as sewerage blocks, which were however responded mostly by Chief Minister Kalaignar.
In quite contrast now Tamil Nadu is witnessing a most concealed, inconspicuous and irresponsive government presided over by Jayalalitha. Now no information on the government is coming forth from any Minister or Chief Secretary or Secretaries of departments and only the Chief Minister is ‘empowered’ to issue any statement of information or clarification. But her statements will invariably be announcements (however bogus they are) or critical of the Central government. The media, which was very active and vocal earlier, keeps very subtle now and rarely brings out some shortcoming of the State government which are responded by the ADMK regime with defamation cases. All opposition parties, including the Left, keep low profile for reasons only known to them. The only Opposition leader who reacts almost every day to developments in the State now is DMK President Kalaignar and by and large the media, both print and electronic, dutifully blackout his statements in order not to antagonise the regime. None of his statements highly critical of the government and the Chief Minister are never responded.
But unusually, Jayalalitha responded to the statement of Kalaignar criticising her decision to buy the NLC shares disinvested by the Centre, missing the opportunity to force the Centre withdraw its move as it did in 2006 during DMK rule. It is a different matter that Kalaignar debunked her claims. The point is Jayalalitha’s unusual immediate response to Kalaignar’s statement only implies that she has no answers for and hence admitted all other allegations and charges levelled by Kalaignar so far in his statements.
There are hundreds of allegations made against her and her regime by Kalaignar during the past two years and to mention a few in the last two months of June and July are:
-the ADMK regime either do not act at all when important developments/events take place or act very late, for instance on fishermen languishing in prison in Iran for the past six months and on the Union Health Minister’s statement on SC verdict on NEET for medical courses.
-people being duped by repeating same announcements as new ones
-continuing caste atrocities
- Rs.1,800 crore Chennai port-Maduravoyal Elevated Expressway hampered due to political animosity of the CM
-Jayalalitha’s claims of being pioneer in India and on Cauvery water debunked
-opportunistic and politically malicious stand of Jayalalitha on Sethusamudram project
-against introduction of English medium in government schools
-failure to increase industrial investments
-chaos in TNPSC after ADMK assumed power
- frequent changes in ministry that all ADMK MLAs will become ministers before the end of tenure
- In two years since the ADMK returned to power, the CM had read out over 100 announcements under rule 110 in the Assembly not leaving even one or two to any other minister. Then why should there be those ministers?
-She had said that she was making those announcements after consulting officials on the demands raised by members during debates on demands for grants. But he gave instances where announcements were made for which no such demands were raised by any member, and what was her reply?
-The Chief Minister announced on 8.9.2011 that a satellite city would be set up at an estimate of Rs.2,160 crore at Thirumullaivasal; on 3.5.2012 that 36,000 houses would be constructed for police constables under ‘Own Your House’ scheme; on 7.5.2012, Rs. 1,500 crore project for storing flood waters in Cauvery delta region; on 9.5.2012, Rs.1,420 crore project for linking Mamallapuram with Ennore port. What happened to those projects announced by her?
-what is the reply of Jayalalitha to the statements of Sasikala’s husband   M.Natarajan?
-regime shielding accused Minister of Karur.
By her selective rejoinder to Kalaignar’s statement on NLC disinvestment issue in the absence of response to all other statements of the DMK President, Jayalalitha has willy-nilly admitted all other allegations and charges against her and her regime.