Kalaignar slams move to impose Sanskrit

“The BJP government is adamant on imposing Sanskrit as it would be useful for attaining their Hindutva goals”: ‘The demand to declare all 22 languages as the official language has been ignored’
DMK President Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi, on June 10, slammed the Centre for its wanton efforts to impose Sanskrit on students and said such linguistic and cultural chauvinism would disturb the nation from the path of growth.
Citing media reports that Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Smriti Irani on Jun 7 interacting with students of Kakaraparti Bhava Narayana (KBN) College in Vijayawada said that a Vedic Board would be established soon to oversee the teaching of the Vedas, Sanskrit, and modern subjects. The essence of our culture is in Vedas and without studying Vedas we could not put forward our culture. The Centre would launch ‘Vidyanjali’ programme on June 16, she has said.
The Ministry was trying to set up a board for Vedic studies in schools, he said ever since the BJP came to power at the Centre, there has been a conscious attempt to thrust Sanskrit as a convenient way of furthering the “fundamentalist” Hindutva policies. Some Union Ministers and officials were wantonly bent on imposing Sanskrit. It is well known that only a few thousand people in India spoke Sanskrit. In one of the attempts to impose Sanskrit, the Union Home Ministry issued orders that Sanskrit would be taught as third language in Central schools like CBSC and ICSC from the coming academic year 2016-17. A consultative meeting on education headed by Smriti Irani in New Delhi discussed about the programmes to be implemented in the coming academic year, when the Minister has said that “though English and regional languages were essential for students Sanskrit had to be prioritized so as to teach our wide ranging culture. At present two languages were taught in schools under Central government. It had been decided to make Sanskrit compulsory third language to give importance to culture. Hence from the coming academic year (2016-17) Saskrit will be made compulsory in these schools. In the coming years Sanskrit education would be introduced from 8-12th standards”. This announcement of the Union Minister the intention to impose Sanskrit first followed by cultural imposition in India was revealed. The members of the consultative meeting said all books of Sanskrit would be printed soon and sent to the schools.
Kalaignar also recalled Irani’s earlier statement that she would mobilise the support of all the nations to make Hindi as one of the official languages of United Nations. Union Minister Sushma Swaraj said that India was trying to mobilize the support of 129 nations to make Hindi as one of the official languages of United Nations and the Union government was ready to spend Rs 270 crores for this. “And we are now trying for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. We feel after we get permanent membership, the work of getting Hindi included in the UN will become easier”, she said.
Citing the Minister’s statement that Sanskrit would be necessary to teach Indian culture, the DMK leader said the Minister’s remarks showed that imposition of culture would follow the imposition of Sanskrit. The BJP government is adamant on imposing Sanskrit as it would be useful for attaining their Hindutva goals, he added. After the BJP government came to power at the Centre, there is urgency in acts of imposing Sanskrit. Besides celebration of Sanskrit and Hindi weeks, 30 minutes had been allotted in Doordarshan to news in Sanskrit, Kalaignar said. Kalaignar said while the Centre was eager to promote Sanskrit citing culture, the over five decade-old demand to declare all 22 languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution as the official language has been ignored.
He stepped up his attack on the BJP government on the move to teach Sanskrit as the third language in schools under the Union government and said it was against the concept of equal status for the all languages recognised by the Constitution. The DMK leader said, “The Union government was ignoring our plea to declare all the languages placed in the eighth schedule as official languages of India. But, it is showing keen interest in imposing Hindi and Sanskrit. Is it equal justice for all languages?”
He said ‘such discriminatory acts based on language and cultural chauvinism’ would derail the nation from development path and divert attention from the basic issues for people’s livelihood. Equal status to all the languages alone would ensure strengthen the federal structure, he said.

Kalaignar warns of anti-Sanskrit agitation

Alleging that there was an attempt to impose Sanskrit with the support of the ruling party at the Centre, DMK President Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi on Jun 13 said that there was no place for that language in Tamil Nadu threatened to launch an anti-Sanskrit protest on the lines of the anti-Hindi agitation.
Addressing a gathering at the marriage of the daughter of former Minister Poongothai Aladi Aruna Selvi Samantha with Selvan Kiran, Kalaignar initially said he would not be able to attend the marriage function and finally participated in the function despite the condition of his health with the feeling that it was the wedding in his family and the wedding of his granddaughter as much as she was late Aladi Aruna’s .
“While I was thinking of improving the conduct of self-respect marriages, we should also be aware that a few attempts affecting our language policy are going on in the country. There is a question if Sanskrit will invade Tamil Nadu again. The people should not forget that there were lunatics who said that they would include Sanskrit as academic language. Only chaste Tamil should dominate our life and state, but there are people who are thinking of making Sanskrit compulsory in schools”.
Citing a derogatory reference on Sanskrit by Tamil scholar Somasundara Bharathiar, Kalaignar said those who want to impose Sanskrit should stop their moves. If they refused to do so, an agitation against Sanskrit similar to the anti-Hindi agitations will take place in Tamil Nadu, he warned.
He said those who sought to impose Sanskrit should stop the “atrocity” immediately.
He warned that there would be an anti-Hindi like agitation -the likes of which kept popping up every so often in Tamil Nadu till protesters broke out into full-scale riots in January 1965 -in the State against the move.
Kalaignar said if anyone advocated Sanskrit, every Tamil should take a whip and be ready for eradicating the language. “We will not allow domination of Sanskrit not only in Tamil Nadu, but in any State. We will chase it away,” he warned.
He recalled the antiquity of Tamil and how it was the dominant language during the reign of the ancient Tamil kingdoms. He also alleged that there were efforts to give a prominent place for Sanskrit in Tamil Nadu and people should take the whip against the dominance of Sanskrit.
 “Tamils should vow to drive away Sanskrit, who ever imposed it. There is no place for Sanskrit in Tamil Nadu”, he asserted.
 “Otherwise, there will be protest against the imposition of Sanskrit as it happened in the case Hindi. No one should be responsible for such a situation,” he said.
DMK General Secretary Prof K. Anbazhgan, Treasurer Thalapathi M.K. Stalin, principal secretary K. Duraimurugan and TNCC president E.V.K.S. Elangovan, former Union Minister T.R.Baalu, Kanimozhi MP, Rajya Sabha members TKS Elangovan and R.S.Bharathi, former legislator Peter Alphonse and others attended the marriage function.

The stupidity of pushing Sanskrit

This whole Sanskrit-Hindi mess, where does one begin when one wants to write about it? That it is completely unnecessary? That forcing children to study something will achieve nothing? That the extreme-Hindutva brigade lacks anything remotely resembling finesse? That this is just the sort of thing about the Sangh Parivar that turns reasonable Indians off? That these people, by trying to ramrod Sanskrit into the education system, are doing a great disservice both to the language and to the so-called ancient Indic culture they are supposedly celebrating?
Where does one begin?
When the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power, Human Resources Minister Kapil Sibal changed the Indian Institute of Technology entrance examination system for no reason at all. Delhi University, against all logic and widespread protest from teachers, extended the three-year undergraduate programme to four (a decision that has been overturned by the current government). Quite likely, introducing Sanskrit as a mandatory subject in the Kendriya Vidyalayas will have less of a negative impact than the two UPA moves we have mentioned, since it affects no one’s career prospects. But why do it at all?
And if you want to promote Sanskrit, why be so hamhanded that you actually end up hurting your own cause? Minister Smriti Irani’s Sanskrit campaign, as far as I can make out, has gone through the following stages:
v She announced that Sanskrit will replace German as third language in the central schools.
v She then said that this has to be done from the next term itself, not next year. This is, quite simply, pure undisguised bullying, without any concern for the disorientation and difficulties that 78,000 schoolchildren may face halfway through the academic year.
v Parents of some KV students filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the imposition of Sanskrit. Irani then claimed that she was doing it only because it was unconstitutional for KVs to offer a foreign language as part of their curriculum. Well, here one must say that if she is correct, it should be investigated how the earlier government allowed the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan to enter into an agreement with German government agencies to introduce the language into the syllabus. However, is it really such a big issue? Why not allow children to study French, Mandarin, Spanish, Japanese, whatever they want to, as long as there are competent teachers?
v Irani then said that of course she was not banning the learning of German. Students could always take the language as a hobby course.
v A couple of days later, in an interview with PTI news agency, Irani complained that no one was understanding what she had been saying. Apparently, she had never said that Sanskrit be made compulsory. Students were free to take any Indian language as their third language and Sanskrit was just one among the many choices they had. This, of course, implies that everyone reporting what she had been saying till now had either been hard of hearing or delusional, or both.
More importantly, even what she was saying now meant nothing. Because she knows very well that while students currently studying German theoretically have the option of picking any modern Indian language as third language, it’s logistically impossible for KVs to fulfill students’ choices in this limited timeframe. The KV policy is that a language will be offered only if 15 or more students opt for it. But even if 19 students in a KV in Maharashtra say that they want to study Tamil, how will the school manage to hire good Tamil teachers so quickly? So all the students of German will perforce have to switch to Sanskrit, for which there are teachers available.
In the meantime, the weird and most regressive side of the Sangh Parivar  emerged in full flower. Uma Bharti has said that Sanskrit could, in the course of time, replace English as a link language for the country. This begs for a simple question: But why?
No one can accuse the Chinese government of being dumb, and it has been spending enormous amounts of money for almost two decades now on getting its countrymen to learn English. Knowledge of English is about the only—slim—advantage we Indians have over the Chinese (and a lot of other nationalities). Bharti’s thinking is just daft thinking.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok Singhal, who was unhappily lurking on the sidelines for quite some time, has now found something to get him back into the field. He wants Sanskrit to be made compulsory and has been quoted in the media saying: “One foreign language (English) is enough… Sanskrit is the language of our country. Everything was written in Sanskrit thousands of years ago. If you want to eliminate it, you want to eliminate this country.”
First of all, with all due respect for Sanskrit, a mere fraction of Indians ever spoke Sanskrit. That is why the Buddha preached in Pali. In fact, there are many things that all Indians actually did thousands of years ago that you possibly wouldn’t want us to do today. For instance, all Indians wore garments of unstitched cloth. And all women went around bare-breasted.
But then, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other such Sangh Parivar organisations have never been noted for scientific temper. By keeping on making absurd claims like we built flying machines and nuclear weapons thousands of years before the Wright brothers and the Manhattan Project scientists were born, they actually do a huge disservice to our ancient learnings and real discoveries.
By promoting Vedic mathematics, they obscure the fact that the 6th century astronomer-mathematician Brahmagupta developed the concept of zero, the foundation of all modern mathematics. By focusing on cow urine, they damage the credibility of Ayurveda, which has thousands of medicine formulations that Western Big Pharma is dying to patent.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It is the same with extreme-Hindutva claims about Sanskrit. It is a similar disservice they do to the language when they go around insisting that the world’s top computer scientists have said that Sanskrit is the ideal computer programming language. (This claim hasn’t yet been made in the present controversy, but I am sure that someone will come out of the woodwork soon hollering about this.)  No scientist with any sense has ever said that. However, these are still arguments in a theoretical space. At the practical level, let us make three points.
One, to know and appreciate ancient Indic wisdom, one does not have to learn Sanskrit. Just as, to read Aristotle or Plato, one need not know ancient Greek. Most great Sanskrit texts are available in English translation and in most Indian languages. The Sangh Parivar would serve its own cultural cause far better if, instead of pushing Sanskrit down everyone’s throat, it tried to ensure that the texts are translated better, and made more accessible in more languages, Indian or foreign, in every way—in terms of availability, price and so on.
Do spread the knowledge of the language too, but by encouraging students to learn, not by imposing it on them. Do it with a positive energy, not based on arguments that reek of rancour and grievance and an exclusionary mindset.
Two, forcing students to learn something does not work. It goes against every enlightened concept of education and individual choice. And it can only ensure that the student develops an antipathy for the subject. Sure, there are some things everyone should learn: the three Rs—reading, writing and arithmetic. But just as everyone does not have to know calculus everyone does not need to know Sanskrit. One can be steeped in Indian culture and even spirituality, without knowing the language. For instance, Ramakrishna Paramhansa did not know Sanskrit.
The number of children who would retain their knowledge of Sanskrit or pursue it beyond school level will remain unchanged whether it is an optional or a compulsory subject. If it is made mandatory, you will only be curtailing a student’s freedom and diminishing her joy of learning.
So also the debate on increasing the importance of Hindi is amusing. When you scratch beneath the surface, you see that the dominant thought driving these “pro-Hindi” types is that India is a homogeneous country. Either from ignorance, or wishful thinking, these deluded individuals including the entire Sena brigade and these enthusiastic RSS types keep pointing to other countries wistfully. “Look at France!”, they say. “OMG see Japan! They have one language throughout their country and they’re super awesome. Yay for one national language!”
 In their naïveté, they want to pretend that India is something it’s not. The populations of countries like France, Japan, Greece, Russia etc are not disparate. They dress the same way, have the same facial characteristics, share a common cultural heritage, and eat the same food. Their language hasn’t been imposed on them. It’s organic. No one in Japan stood up and said “Today we will all speak Japanese!” That’s because they didn’t have to. When the entire population is highly homogeneous, having one language is a natural outcome.
Hardcore Hindutva types want to reverse causality. They think that by writing a declaration on a piece of paper, they can suddenly ignore the hard fact that India’s population is not homogeneous. In fact, it’s a lot more like Europe with each state corresponding to a different country. Try making all the member states of the EU settle on one language and watch the fireworks fly! They might be united under a single currency, but the same language? Forget about it.
We do believe that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a pragmatic man. We hope that he sees that this whole commotion is totally unnecessary, and will not help ground Indians in their culture. There are far more important issues that the government and the Human Resources Ministry should be spending their energies on. This Sanskrit sloganeering evokes the worst fears of many Indians about a BJP government, a majority of whom might have even voted for the party in the Lok Sabha
elections!       r

ADMK regime formed against majority wish!

If we say that the ADMK government led by Chief Minister Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu was formed contrary to the expectation of the majority of people who voted and that there was nothing for the ADMK minions to feel proud of that, they would certainly be provoked. But these were not our word but those of their colleague in Puducherry.
Addressing the Puducherry Assembly, ADMK Legislature Party leader A. Anbalagan said, “Over 65 per cent of voters had voted against the Congress-DMK alliance government in the just concluded Assembly polls.” Hence the ruling alliance MLAs should be keeping in mind this fact as they go about their duty, he said. Contrary to the expectation of the majority of people who voted, a government was formed. There is nothing to be proud of that, he pointed out. Anbalagan said Speaker should respect the views of Opposition and protect the values of Assembly.
What applies to Puducherry also applies to Tamil Nadu.
Borrowing the words of ADMK Legislature Party leader in Puducherry Assembly A. Anbalagan, the DMK Legislature Party leader in Tamil Nadu Assembly can say, “Over 60 per cent of voters had voted against the ADMK government in the just concluded Assembly polls.” Hence the ruling party MLAs should be keeping in mind this fact as they go about their duty. Contrary to the expectation of the majority of people who voted, a government was formed. There is nothing to be proud of that, he could point out and say that the Speaker should respect the views of Opposition and protect the values of Assembly.
IN the Assembly elections, the ADMK alliance contested in all 234 constituencies in ‘two leaves’ symbol, whereas after allocating 41 seats to the Congress Party, 5 seats to IUML, 4 seats each to  Manitha Neya Makkal Katchi and Puthiya Thamizhagam, the DMK contested in its ‘rising sun’ symbol only in 180 seats. Even in these 180 seats, after allocating 3 seats to Makkal DMDK and one seat each to Perunthalaivar Makkal Katchi, Vivsayaigal Thozhilalar Katchi and Samugasamaththuva Padai, the DMK contested only in 174 seats.
Of the official results announced for 232 constituencies, the ADMK secured 134; DMK alliance secured 98 seats, which included DMK 89, Congress 8 and IUML one. In 172 constituencies where there was a direct fight between ADMK and DMK, the DMK emerged victorious in 89 seats and ADMK won only 83 seats. However, ADMK won in 51 out of the 60 seats contested by the allies of DMK including the Congress and IUML. The daily ‘Daily Thanthi’ reported in detail that the DMK suffered loss due to allocation of more seats to alliance parties.
 A detailed analysis was published by ‘The Hindu’ on May 20 under the heading, “DMK ahead of ADMK in ‘contested vote share’- Party’s performance was pulled down by that of its allies, including Congress” in which it noted that “While DMK polled 41.05% in 176 seats, the ADMK polled 40.78% in 232 seats”.
In the 2011 general elections, the votes secure by ADMK alliance was 1,90,81,571 and the votes secured by DMK alliance was 1,35,13,816. The difference between the two alliances in 2011 general elections was 55,67,755 votes. In this 2016 Assembly elections, the ADMK alliance secured 1,76,17,060 votes, 14,64,511 votes lesser than 2011 elections. Whereas the DMK alliance now secured 1,71,75,374 votes, 36,61,558 votes more than what it secured in 2011 elections. Then who had won?
The ADMK has retained power in the State by a narrow margin of 1.1 vote percentage. DMK missed a decisive victory by a narrow gap. The ruling party had got only 4,41,646 votes more than the DMK and the opportunity to govern was missed by a narrow margin.  While ADMK and allies polled 1,76,17,060 votes, DMK and its allies got 1,71,75,374. That is, ADMK has got the opportunity to form government by a margin of 1.1 per cent and it is the truth.
As a whole the ADMK candidates had won in very narrow margin of less than 100 votes in 2 constituencies, less than 101-1000 votes in 8 constituencies, from 1001-5000 votes in 22 constituencies and from 5001-10000 votes in 53 constituencies.
Hence, what applies to Puducherry also applies to Tamil Nadu. Over 60 per cent of voters had voted against the ADMK government in the just concluded Assembly polls. Hence the ruling party MLAs should keep in mind this fact as they go about their duty. Contrary to the expectation of the majority of people who voted, the ADMK government was formed. There is nothing to be proud of that! 

Kalaignar demands army withdrawal from Sri Lanka’s Northern Province

DMK President Kalaignar M Karunanidhi has urged Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena to honour his poll promise of demilitarisation of Tamil-dominated areas in the north and east of the country and withdraw army from the Northern Province.
In a statement, Kalaignar said that after the end of the final war between the LTTE and army in Sri Lanka, army had been deployed in large numbers in Northern and Eastern provinces inhabited by Tamils and the threat to the day to day means of livelihood of people continued to persist. Tamils and leaders of Tamils’ political parties insisted that the army be withdrawn and they were allowed to breathe the air of freedom.
He pointed out that President Sirisena had won the elections with the support of ethnic Tamils and that “Tamils believed the promises he made before the elections-that army would be withdrawn from Tamils’ areas, lands and houses encroached by the army and Sinhalese could be obtained back, Tamils would not be treated as second class citizens any more, all steps would be taken for them to lead life with self-respect and dignity and that the 13th amendment of the Constitution pending for over 30 years would be implemented honestly.
But Sirisena issued a notification on February 2, 2015 calling on armed forces to help maintain public order in Tamil areas. In his letter to Prime Minister if India on Feb 13, 2015 Kalaignar said this notification against the promise made by Sirisena during the election would only result in negative consequences.
Last week the Chief Minister of the Northern Province Wigneswaran demanded the withdrawal of the military from the north. "Even after seven years of ending the war, the military is remaining here. We want the police to do the job and not the military," Wigneswaran said. Sri Lankan troops will stay in the Tamil-dominated former war zone of North and look after the minority community, a senior army officer has said, virtually rejecting Northern Province Chief Minister CV Wigneswaran’s demand of withdrawal of military.
In the meanwhile, following the major fire break out at the ammunition dump of the Sri Lanka Army Camp at Salawa, there was demand for removal of army camps in the north. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe has told reporters that the army had incurred loss of Rs 500 crore in Salawa camp fire. After this accident the demand for removal of army and army ammunition dumps in the North inhabited by Tamils. He said a senior Sinhala Buddhist monk told him that army camps must remain in the North in order to preserve national security. The Mahanayake of Asgiriya, Warakagoda Sri Gunnaratana has told Minister Samarasinghe that army camps in the North must not be removed, despite repeated calls for the military to be withdrawn from Tamil areas of the island. Hence the Minister declared that the military camps would not be withdrawn.
The recent announcement by Sri Lankan Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, on the advice of a senior Sinhala Buddhist monk, that army camps in the north will not be removed, had caused great distress among Tamils.
In order to prove that the Sri Lankan government is not discriminating against ethnic Tamils, the DMK chief said the first step should be to remove the army camps from Tamil areas. The DMK patriarch said before the elections, Sirisena had promised demilitarisation of Tamil-dominated areas and to ensure that seized lands and houses were returned to Tamils.

Why did EC wake up from slumber after polls: Kalaignar

Questioning the timing of the Election Commission’s move to purify the electoral rolls in Tamil Nadu, DMK President Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi on Jun 12 sought to know why such an exercise is being undertaken after elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly are over which was akin to shutting the stable after the horse bolted.
In a statement, Kalaignar referred to the order of the CEC to Chief Election Officer, Tamil Nadu to undertake purification of the electoral rolls, by removing the names of the dead, repetition of the same name to be deleted and door to door checking of absent, shift and dead. These instructions, Kalaignar said reminded the saying ‘shutting the stable after the horse bolted’. What was the use in this purification of rolls after the completion of general elections, he asked.
Kalaignar said he and his party, DMK, have been crying hoarse for the past one year about bogus voters in the electoral rolls but the Election Commission never took it seriously. He issued a lengthy statement on Jan 23, 2016 citing a report in ‘The Times of India’ on Jan 21 under the caption “Tamil Nadu has 1cr more voters in 2016, sees 22% jump in 4 years”. Kalaignar on Jan 23 alleged big fraud in the increase in the number of voters between 2011 and 2015 in Tamil Nadu electoral rolls. He urged the Election Commission to intervene and delete the names of bogus voters to ensure free and fair elections this year.
In a statement, Kalaignar quoted a report in ‘The Times of India’ on January 21 under the heading ‘State has 1cr more voters in 2016, sees 22% jump in 4 yrs’ according to which: “One crore more people have registered to vote in Tamil Nadu since the last Assembly elections. In a State where the population growth rate is declining, first time voters number only 6 lakh in the 2016 polls -not enough to explain the 1 crore increase. In 2011, the voting population was just about 71% of the total State population. This year, four out of every five persons in TN are voters”.
Of the total population of 7.77 crore in TN, according to the final electoral rolls released on Jan 20, the number of voters was 5.79 crore, i.e., 75.56 percent. These figures are unbelievable. According to 2011 census, those under 14 years constituted 23.4 percent of the population. Those in the age group of 15-18 years were 6 percent. Hence those who could not be enrolled constituted 23.4+ 6= 29.4 percent. Only the rest of 70.40 percent in the population should have been the voters. But it is surprising and a big fraud that 75.56 percent have been included as voters in the present electoral rolls. 5.16 percent who could not be included in electoral rolls, that if bogus voters, have been included as voters. Of the total population of 7.77 crore of TN about 40 lakh have been included as bogus voters.
“There is doubt about the numbers in the electoral rolls when compared with the figures of the Census.TOI report says there is an increase of 22% in the number of voters in the last five years but it is unbelievable that so many voters were enrolled since 2011 as there were not many migrants who have settled in Tamil Nadu,” said Kalaignar. An estimated 40 lakh bogus voters are there, he said.
According to the details given by ‘Indian Express’ daily, the Election Commission has estimated that the number of voters of over 18 years of age would be 71.16 percent of the population. Even by that estimate 4 percent more have been included as voters than the estimate of the EC. By this calculation the number of bogus voters is 31 lakhs.
Generally there will be increase of 10-12 percent of voters between two elections. But according to the final electoral roll released now, the increase is 22 percent. Kalaignar said though migration was cited as the main reason for increase in number of voters, there has been no appreciable construction work in the State for migrants to settle in Tamil Nadu.
 “We have every now and then complained to the Election Commission about inclusion of bogus voters in the electoral rolls at the instance of the ADMK. It should have been stopped at the start. But, due to officials’ laxity, it has reached bigger proportions and is reflected in the final electoral rolls,” said Kalaignar.
If the Assembly elections need to be held in a free and fair manner, the Election Commission must intervene and delete the names of bogus voters, he said.
Again in a statement on 9.2.2016, he said in a meeting convened by Chennai district election officer recently, it was informed that 1.85 lakh bogus voters were removed from the list. In Chennai alone, names of 1.1 lakh dead people were included in the voters list earlier.
In Mylapore Assembly segment, 16,798 bogus voters were detected and in Virugambakkam 17,831bogus voters were found. The list includes 14,830 bogus voters in Anna Nagar, 13,823 in T Nagar and 13,323 in Perambur If a similar weeding exercise was carried out in other districts as well, it would ex pose the malpractices involved in the preparation of the voters’ list, he said.
With just two months left for the election, the EC needed to carry out the cleaning exercise on a war-footing, he said, adding that without this free and fair election cannot be ensured.
“In my constituency of Tiruvarur, we told the EC that there are around 11,000 bogus voters, 19,723 in Avadi, 5,598 in Kolathur, 13,404 I  Tiruporur, 20,199 in Palacode, 10,768 in Vanur, 11,592 in Vikaravandi, 21,247 in Kallakurichi, 23,270 in Avinashi, 24,286 in Tirupur (north), 12,024 in Tirupur (south), 28,805 in Udamalpet, 21,231 in Kunnam, 22,227 in Sholaingar, 25,105 in Perambalur, 23,956 in Kangeyam and 20098 in Kalasapakkam; but the EC never took us seriously. Only based on the electoral rolls which would be purified now, the EC had conducted the 2016 Assembly elections and also the 2014 election,” he said in his statement.
After the elections, the EC now comes out with an announcement on purification of electoral rolls. “Who will take responsibility for the Himalayan mistake committed by the EC during the last two polls?” he asked.

Jayalalitha’s demands are ‘old wine in new bottle’

DMK President Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi on Jun 15 described as “old wine in a new bottle” the memorandum submitted by Chief Minister Jayalalitha to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Jun 14. He said even in 2014 and again in 2015 she brought the Centre’s attention to similar issues.
In a statement, Kalaignar said that according to reports in all dailies Chief Minister Jayalalitha flew to Delhi in a special aircraft and returned the same evening after presenting 29 demands to the Prime Minister.
Kalaignar said immediately after Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, Jayalalitha visited Delhi on 3.6.2014 and presented him a 31-point charter of demands and met President Pranba Mukerjee and Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. After that two years later she visited Delhi and returned to Chennai after presenting a 29-point charter of demands to the Prime Minister.
In between, when Modi visited Chennai for a function in Aug 2015 met her at her residence when also she presented a petition containing 19 demands.
But if the requirements in those memorandums were seen it could be understood that most of the demands were repeatedly placed before the Prime Minister including constitution of the Cauvery Management Board and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
Kalaignar said most of the 29-points charter are the same as those presented to the PM in the last two years. “For example, the demands for Cauvery Management Board and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee were there in the memorandums in 2014 and 2015,” he said.
The demands to stop the construction of a dam at Megedatu and linking of inter-State rivers were given to the Prime Minister last year. The demands on Avinashi-Athikadavu project, protection of traditional fishing rights of fishermen, redeeming Katchtheevu, commissioning of Cheyyur thermal plant, release of balance funds vide 13th Finance Commission policy, modernisation of police force, commencement of second phase of Metro Rail project, Tamil as official language at the Centre, AIMS hospital in TN, license for digital transmission for TN Arasu Cable Ltd and lifting of jallikattu ban had been already been presented in 2015, the DMK leader said.
“We can easily understand that these demands have not been fulfilled, from the fact that they are being repeatedly taken up (with Modi),” he said adding it creates doubt over the seriousness of the affair.
 Kalaignar said the State government should not stop with making requests to the Prime Minister and follow the demands through meeting the ministers concerned.
Pressure should be mounted through political and bureaucratic channels to implement the demands, but the Chief Minister is giving the same set of demands again and again.
The DMK chief said that after demands are made with the Centre, “political and administrative pressure” has to be exerted to ensure they are fulfilled, as state Ministers have to call on their Union cabinet counterparts and officials.
“That the Chief Minister has put forth the same pleas made two years back, one is reminded of the saying - old wine in a new bottle,” he said.

“Governor’s Address is empty statement full of contradictions and disappointing”

The Governor’s address delivered on June 16 after the assumption of office by the ADMK was just an empty statement without any policy notes,  full of contradictions and causing disappointment, said DMK President Kalaignar.
Reacting to the Governor’s address, Kalaignar said that it was just conventional address as usual listing ‘Amma’ schemes of the ADMK regime and once again reminding the demands placed by the Chief Minister Jayalalitha to the Prime Minister few days back.
Contrary to the expectation of many that announcements for the implementation of various schemes/projects in the ADMK election manifesto would find place in this address, only those already announced by the Chief Minister had been mentioned and no new announcements were found causing disappointment.
Issues such as Lankan Tamils issue, fishermen problem, Cauvery Management Board, Regulatory Committee, Mullaiperiyar, river linking and Katchtheevu found place in the Governor’s address delivered on 20.1.2016.
The claim in the address that Tamil Nadu has become a power surplus State is the biggest joke of the year. Everyday there are reports in dailies of people suffering for hours due to power cut. Similarly far from truth details have been said in the address about investments in Tamil Nadu and new employment opportunities, Kalaignar said.
As a whole, the Governor’s address was just an empty statement without any policy notes, full of contradictions and causing disappointment.

‘DMK will raise voice in Assembly to establish the rights of Muslims’

DMK Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly Thalapathi M.K. Stalin on Jun 18 said that the DMK would raise its voice in the Assembly for establishing the rights and demands of Muslim community.
Participating in an Iftar party organised by the Tamil Maanila Desiya League in Chennai, Stalin said that he had been participating in this Iftar party for the past nine years. He said there were several instances to show how the Muslim community had stood with the DMK whether it was in power or not.
Stalin said, “Those who have emerged victorious in the recent Assembly elections are not very happy. (But the) DMK, which has not been able to form the government, is not exhausted. Even in the defeat the party faced in the Assembly election it had created history by managing to win as many as 89 seats. In 1971 the party won in 184 seats an unprecedented feat. We are proud of our performance.” This was the ninth year he was participating in an Iftar party thrown by the TMDL, he said. The minorities had supported his party while in power as well as Opposition, he said.
TMDL general secretary Tirupur Altaf, former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran, former Ministers A Rahmankhan and TPM Maideen Khan MLA, Chennai East district DMK secretary P K Sekarbabu MLA, IUML MLA KAM Mohamed Abubacker and others also participated.

Stalin hits out at OPS; rubbishes canard of rift with Kalaignar

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly Thalapathi M.K. Stalin on Jun 18 said it was below the dignity of Finance Minister and leader of the House O. Panneerselvam to insinuate that he had difference of opinion with his father and DMK President Kalaignar adding that instead of bothering about his family affairs, Panneerselvam should concentrate on his party work.
In a statement, Stalin said on Jun 17 he told reporters that the Assembly Speaker had not only failed to make proper seating arrangement for the wheel chair-bound DMK President Kalaignar to attend the House, but also had not provided a spacious office to accommodate all the 89 members of the party, three of its members were permitted to participate in debates and the leader of Opposition to address the House on the day the Chief Minister would make a reply to the Governor’s address. It the demands were not met the next course of action would be decided in consultation with Thalaivar Kalaignar.
“We have already made a request to the Assembly Speaker to make proper arrangement to our leader. Before he could respond to us, Panneerselvam has assumed the role of the Speaker and has tried to drive a wedge between the members of the family. It is unbecoming of the leader of the House to issue such a statement,” Stalin said in the statement.
He said Panneerselvam was not known to make such statements “but has been forced to do so”. Stalin charged the Minister with issuing a statement written by someone and described media reports about clashes between himself and his father as wrong.
“The contention by Panneerselvam and reports in some dailies supporting them (ADMK) that there are differences between the father (Kalaignar) and the son (Stalin) are completely false. The efforts by ADMK to create confusion in DMK will not succeed,” he said. “Panneerselvam should not stoop to the level of a third rate politician.”
Reacting to Panneerselvam’s charge that that he had failed to seek seat allocation for his father, Stalin said since DMK whip K. Chakrapani had already submitted a letter there was no need for him to once again mention Kalaignar’s name. The attempt of ADMK to create confusion in the DMK would not succeed, he asserted. Stalin said, “I had in mind the idea of giving a separate letter to the Speaker on allocation of seat to Kalaignar according to his health. So, his name was not mentioned in the list given by me. There is no separate reason for leaving his name as stated by Panneerselvam”. Later, a letter was submitted to the Speaker through DMK whip Chakrapani on seating arrangements for Kalaignar, he added.
Stalin said “it was base and mean that Panneerselvam had accused me of snatching the post of Leader of the Opposition from our leader. It is he who conferred the post on me. Even in the previous Assembly, he made me the leader of the DMK and I replied to the Governor’s address,” he said.
“Let not Panneeerselvam, with the crisis in his family and party in mind, not imagine that there was confusion in our party and family. Without indulging in such attempts to cover up the Chef Minister not taking the Finance Minister along with her even when she visited Delhi (to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and present a dossier of demands for funds for projects in various sectors), the crises he faced there (in his party) and the condition of the relation between him (Panneeerselvam) and Karur Anbunathan (who is under the I-T scanner for holding unaccounted money. Anbunathan’s premises were raided by the election commission and I-T officials and Rs 4.87 crore, 12 currency counting machines and a van with fake registration number seized from there. Following the seizure, the EC also cancelled the election for Aravakurichi constituency) through Natham Viswanathan, and behave with the magnanimity go taking office again”, Stalin said,

Stalin rebuts charge of Jayalalitha on Katchatheevu

Rebutting the charge of Chief Minister Jayalalitha that the DMK government in 1974 did not protest against the ceding of Katchatheevu by India to Sri Lanka and that the DMK chief did nothing to prevent it, Leader of the Opposition Thalapathi M.K.Stalin said that on the other hand it was only her party the ADMK which did not sign the all party resolution against the move by the Centre.
Participating in the debate on motion of thanks for Governor’s address on Jun 20, DMK member K. Ponmudi said that the address did not contain any long term or short term development projects and referred to Jayalalitha swearing to retrieve Katchtheevu when she hoisted the national flag in the ramparts of Fort St George in 1991.
Intervening Jayalalitha said that the DMK had no locus standi to speak about the island and his leader ceded it during the DMK rule.
Responding to her, Ponmudi said that the DMK chief filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and took many other steps. He said he referred to the issue to know the position of her pledge to retrieve the island.
Intervening Jayalalitha said that they were taking steps within the limits of State’s powers and filed the case in the apex court. Ponmudi said accordingly the DMK chief also took steps within the powers of the State.
At this point, Stalin intervened and said he wanted to register some points with evidences. When the issue arose Thalaivar Kalaignar wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 6.1.1974 in which he had cited many evidences to show that Katchatheevu was an integral part of India and belonged to Tamil Nadu which could not be given up.
Afterwards the Prime Minister deputed the secretary of External Affairs department for consultations with Kalaignar; but ultimately in spite of the protest of Kalaignar the Centre using its powers ceded the island to Lanka. The notification was issued on 28.6.1974 and Kalaignar convened an all party meeting at the secretariat on 29.6.1974 in which a resolution was adopted. The then CM Kalaignar wrote a letter to the Prime Minister stating “On behalf  of the Government  of Tamil Nadu and on behalf  of the people of  Tamil Nadu,  I am constrained to express our deep  sense of disappointment  over the recent Indo-Sri-Lanka agreement,  according to which, Sri Lanka’s  claim to Kachativu has been  conceded by the Government of India, May I express  the hope that you will  take into consideration  the unanimous  decision  contained in the Resolution  and take appropriate action?”
Following this on 23.7.1994 the then DMK member of the Lok Sabha Era Chezhiyan spoke in the House saying that the DMK would not accept the deal with Lanka. In the Rajya Sabha also DMK member S.S.Marisamy said the pact with Lanka was anti-democratic. The then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh was also not in agreement with the pact.
On 24.7.1974 an agitation against the Katcatheevu agreement was conducted all over the State by the DMK. On 21.8.1974 a resolution was adopted in the Assembly registering its protest against the decision of the Centre, Stalin said.
Following this DMK member Ponmudi spoke on various issues. But the Speaker ruled that most of his speech was charges and expunged them. This was loudly protested by DMK members.

No proper seating arrangement for DMK chief, alleges Stalin

Leader of Opposition M.K. Stalin on Jun 17 alleged that the Assembly Speaker had not only failed to make proper seating arrangement for the wheel chair-bound DMK President Kalaignar to attend the House, but also had not provided a spacious office to accommodate all the 89 members of the party.
After the House was adjourned following the adoption of condolence resolution for the death of former members S. Mani, T.R.Rajaram Naidu, D.Selvaraj, N.S.Palanisamy and N.Nachimuthu Gownder and Tiruparankundram elected member Seenivel, Stalin accompanied by deputy leader Duraimurugan, whip R Chakrapani, deputy whip K.Pichandi, K.Ponmudi, E.V.Velu, J.Anbazhagan and former Ministers and members met the Speaker Dhanapal in his chamber.
Later, talking to reporters, Stalin, who is the party’s floor leader in the Assembly, said the DMK MLAs had met Speaker P. Dhanapal and requested him to make arrangements in the Assembly to facilitate Kalaignar’s movements inside the House.
“But he has not considered our request. A seat in the second row had been allotted for our leader and it is impossible for him to enter the House on his wheel chair. Our request for a spacious office to match our status as an 89-member opposition party also was not considered. We pressed for our demand once again today,” he said.
Stalin alleged that the Speaker had refused allow leaders of Opposition to address the House on the day the Chief Minister would make a reply to the Governor’s address. “We raised the issue in the Business Advisory Committee (BAC). Congress leader in the House and IUML member also made a similar demand. But the Speaker is not ready to accept our request,” he claimed.
Stalin said in the past Opposition leaders would address the House on the day Chief Minister would make a reply and it was against the rules of Assembly to change the procedure.
The DMK also demanded that three of its members were permitted to participate in debates but the Speaker said only two would be permitted. In the past all parties including the Congress, ADMK. DMK, CPI, CPM and ADMK allies were permitted to speak. But now wantonly the Speaker refused permission for three of the 89-member DMK to speak. The Speaker had been asked to review his stand.
So far no satisfactory reply came from the Speaker. He seemed to be under some compulsion. It the demands were not met the next course of action would be decided in consultation with Thalaivar Kalaignar.
Stalin also pointed out that the DMK wholeheartedly accepted the adjournment of the House to condole the death of ADMK member elect from Tiruparankundram constituency Seenivel, but recalled that the same regime and the same Chief Minister refused the same demand in 2001 when the DMK member V. Perumal from Saidapet constituency died. “It is regrettable that the magnanimity of us the opposition party is not present with those in power”, he said.

Legacy of Murasoli Maran continues!

In mid-November 2001, the 142 member nations of the World Trade Organization gathered in Doha, Qatar, and voted to press ahead with a new round of talks. The accord was irrefutable proof that the events of September 11 would not halt the world economy’s integration.
But the script for globalization also changed at Doha, thanks in large part to the efforts of one astute negotiator: Murasoli Maran, India’s Minister for Commerce and Industry. Previous rounds of trade talks focused largely on an agenda that was set by the U.S. and Europe. But at Qatar, the 67-year-old Maran was bent on ensuring that developing nations--which make up three-fourths of the trading club--get their share of concessions, too.
Western negotiators, acutely aware that the failure of trade talks so soon after September 11 would be a major setback, had no choice but to hear out Maran, even if it meant dragging the talks into overtime. “We didn’t come to Doha to capitulate,” says Tapan Bhowmick, a WTO expert for the Confederation of Indian Industry, who worked closely with Maran at the summit.
Thanks to Maran’s hard-nosed bargaining tactics, India and other developing nations walked away from the Qatar meeting with several important victories. Maran wanted the WTO to limit non-tariff barriers to trade, such as U.S. antidumping laws and European subsidies on agricultural products. Such issues were guaranteed a place on the agenda at the next round of international trade talks. Maran also won developing nations more time to conform to WTO rules on patents and foreign investment. “We all want a strong trading forum, but we want it to be rule oriented, not power oriented,” said Maran.
Thanks to his efforts, the WTO soon allowed companies in developing nations to supply low-cost generic drugs for the treatment of AIDS and other diseases in times of national emergencies. India and Brazil, both of which had robust pharmaceutical industries, especially stood to benefit from the decision.
Maran’s skills as a negotiator was honed during a 35-year career in politics, which followed a brief stint as a scriptwriter. The Minister was no longer India’s trade negotiator by the time the next round of global trade talks kicked off. But his legacy remained.
The text of Murasoli Maran’s speech at Doha meet:
“I thank you, Mr Chairman, and your Government for hosting this 4th Ministerial Conference and for the excellent arrangements and hospitality.
I also welcome the delegations of the Peoples Republic of China and Chinese Taipei in our midst.  India has consistently supported the accession of China to WTO and we are happy to see it realized, bringing greater universality to our organization.
I am constrained to point out that the draft Ministerial Declaration is neither fair nor just to the view points of many developing countries including my own on certain key issues.  It is negation of all that was said by a significant number of developing countries and least-developing countries.  We cannot escape the conclusion that it accommodates some view points while ignoring “others”.  The forwarding letter most surprisingly and shockingly also does not dwell on the substantive differences and focuses more on what are individual assessments.  Even after these were reiterated in the strongest possible terms in the General Council on 31 October and 1 November, we recognize that there is a refusal to reflect these points in a substantive manner even in the forwarding letter.  The only conclusion that could be drawn is that the developing countries have little say in the agenda setting of the WTO.  It appears that the whole process was a mere formality and we are being coerced against our will.  Is it not then meaningless for the draft declaration to claim that the needs and interests of the developing countries have been placed at the heart of the Work Programme?
After the setback at Seattle, all of us want Doha to be a success.  Success, however, does not necessarily require over-reaching objectives or launch of a “comprehensive” round.  Also the global unity achieved in the wake of the most unfortunate and tragic event of September 11 should not be undermined by proposing an agenda, which would split the WTO membership.  Rather than charting a divisive course in unknown waters, let this Conference provide a strong impetus to the on-going negotiations on agriculture and services, and the various mandated reviews that by themselves form a substantial work programme and have explicit consensus.
We cannot be held hostage to unreasonable demands that concessions be made for carrying forward what are already mandated negotiations.  Nor can one accept the argument that there is mandate only for commencing certain negotiations and not for completing them.  Progressive reform in agriculture now requires elimination of the large-scale domestic support and other trade distorting subsidies and the removal of all unfair barriers facing farm exports of developing countries.  At the same time, considering the critical dependence on agriculture by large rural populations in developing countries, we need to adequately provide for their food and livelihood security and for promoting rural development.  Similarly, in services, facilitating the movement of professionals, must receive priority attention.
WTO has to recognize the existing development deficit in various WTO agreements and take necessary remedial action.  WTO has also to recognize that development strategy has to be related to country specific situations.  The “one size fits all approach” has clearly failed to deliver.
The asymmetries and imbalances in the Uruguay Round agreements, non-realization of anticipated benefits and non-operational and non-binding nature of special and differential provisions have been the basis for implementational issues and concerns raised by a large number of developing countries right from 1998.  Expectations rose when the May 2000 decision was adopted by the General Council to find meaningful solutions at the latest by the Fourth Ministerial.  The draft decision on implementation related issues and concerns before us have addressed some issues but left many more unresolved.  Even among those addressed, the manner of resolution has left many gaps.  We must make sincere efforts at this Conference to resolve the outstanding issues or give clear directions on how to deal with them.  Notwithstanding our disappointment, we have already indicated in Geneva that we are prepared to join a consensus in favour of adopting the decision proposed as a package.  It would be appropriate to take this item first in the Business Session and adopt the decision.
In relation to market access, even after all the Uruguay Round concessions have been implemented by industrialized countries, significant trade barriers in the form of tariff peaks and tariff escalation continue to affect many developing country exports.  These will clearly need to be squarely addressed.  Meanwhile, sensitive industries in developing countries including small scale industries sustaining a large labour force cannot be allowed to be destroyed.
New issues or new agreements will obviously extract new prices and developing countries are hardly prepared for the same.  This becomes particularly relevant now since negotiations for agreements on several new areas are being proposed even while the study process is on.  In the areas of Investment, Competition, Trade Facilitation or Transparency in Government Procurement, basic questions remain even on the need for a multilateral agreement.  Most importantly, do the developing countries have the capacity to deal with them?  Will we be able to say that they do not impinge strongly on domestic policies that are well removed from trade?  Are the basic trade principles like non-discrimination or market access appropriate for dealing with issues like Investment and Competition?  Would the Marrakesh remit for WTO which talks only of multilateral trade relations permit these other issues to be covered?  We are very doubtful if we can give affirmative replies to all these questions.  It is our considered view that we need to carefully study them further before rushing to decisions.  In any case, the Singapore Declaration requires an explicit consensus for any decision to move to negotiations.  Let us therefore wait till an explicit consensus emerges on these issues.
We firmly oppose any linkage between trade and labour standards.  The Singapore Declaration had once and for all dealt with this issue and there is no need to refer to it again.  Similarly, on environment we are strongly opposed to the use of environmental measures for protectionist purposes and to imposition of unilateral trade restrictive measures.  We are convinced that the existing WTO rules are adequate to deal with all legitimate environmental concerns.  We should firmly resist negotiations in this area which are not desirable, now or later.  We consider them as Trojan horses of protectionism.
The Uruguay Round Agreement on TRIPS has invited strong reactions from developing country stakeholders.  It is important that negotiations are held for extending geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits which are important to many countries.  There should also be no misappropriation of the biological and genetic resources and traditional knowledge of the developing countries.
Availability and affordability of essential medicines is a universal human right.  WTO should not deny that right.  This Conference must send out a clear message to the world that nothing in the TRIPS Agreement shall prevent governments from taking measures to protect public health.
Accordingly, the TRIPS Agreement must be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ right to protect public health and ensure access to medicines for all.
In conclusion, we are of the view that the issues which are not yet ripe must remain with the working groups for further study.  India, including many other developing countries, are not ready to accept a new set of onerous commitments.  The road map already charted by the Uruguay Round Agreements should be the future work programme and this crucial Ministerial Conference should provide negotiating mandate for resolving outstanding implementation issues and clear guidance on mandated negotiations and reviews.  WTO is for multilateral trading system only.  It should not encompass the responsibility for rule making of non-trade-related  subjects.  Globalization and liberalization have to be addressed at various fora and not in WTO alone.  WTO is not a global government and should not attempt to appropriate to itself what legitimately falls in the domain of national governments and Parliaments.  WTO’s core competence is in international trade and we would strongly urge that it stays that way.  Then only we can save and strengthen the multilateral trading system.
Mr Chairman, I am confident that you in your capacity as the Chairman of this Ministerial Conference is fully aware of the expectation, aspirations and concerns of developing countries on all the issues.  I am absolutely sure that your experience, wisdom and commitment will enable all of us to find collective solutions to difficult issues in such a way that the final declaration really keeps the needs and interests of developing countries as the central theme of all future WTO activities”.

Stalin seeks Lokayukta, transparent governance

Thalapathi M.K. Stalin, Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, on Jun 22 urged the government to usher in transparency in governance and administration.
Speaking on the discussion on the motion of thanks to the Governor for his address, Stalin said the election verdict meant people expect more from the government and the mandate for the DMK is to monitor the government. He said the difference between ADMK and DMK in the Assembly elections was very small.
To start with, the Assembly proceedings should be broadcast live as people should know the happenings in the House. Transparency should be the hallmark of administration also. The Agriculture Department should publish the list of beneficiaries in the waiver of farm loans on its website. Co-operation Minister Sellur K. Raju assured to do so in time.
Like farmers, Stalin said milk producers had also given him representation saying 20 per cent of the milk was being rejected by Aavin. Responding to it, Dairy Development Minister S.P. Shanmuganathan said the milk produced by the members of the society was all procured and only the lesser quality from the traders was rejected.
Producing a bill of commodities purchased at Amudham stores, Stalin informed the House how the prices of toor dhal, uradh dhal, gingelly oil and few other essential commodities had gone up by over hundred per cent in the past five years. In reply, Food Minister R. Kamaraj recalled the efforts taken by the government to control inflation.
Stalin started off his speech with price rise narrating his purchase of groceries in a Kamadhenu store on Anna Salai. “A comparison of the price of dal varieties and oil between 2011and 2016 shows many of them have increased by more than 100%. Middle class families have been affected due to the continuous increase in prices of essential commodities and what measures has the government taken to contain price rise?“ he asked. Immediately, more than three Ministers stood up to counter Stalin’s claim.
As the Minister took plenty of time to reply and began explaining about the ‘Amma’ brand of welfare schemes, the DMK MLAs objected to it and the Speaker, after a bit of commotion, asked the Ministers to reply in short and to the point.
Stalin charged that the arrears of Rs. 1,167 crore of post-matric scholarship from Centre were pending as the State government had not sent the utilisation certificate. After a while, when Adi Dravidar Minister V.M. Rajalakshmi wanted to reply, the Speaker asked her to sit down and said that she could reply later.
Noting that the December 2105 floods had wreaked havoc on the city, Stalin said the government should undertake schemes on a fast-track mode to ensure that such devastation does not recur. “The DMK MLAs in the city will co-operate fully,” he promised. He also sought the government to help the MSME sector affected by the flood for which the Minister concerned gave a lengthy reply detailing the steps.
Reiterating his demand for total transparency, Stalin asked the government to appoint and transfer teachers in a transparent manner.
 Stalin on demanded the formation of Lokayukta in the State with powers to enquire into complaints against Chief Minister and other Ministers, besides transparency in governance.
The people had given such a verdict as they want the opposition party to monitor the government’s actions.
Stalin welcomed the Governor’s demand for a fair share of tax revenues for the State government and making Tamil as one of the official languages at the Centre and one of the languages in the Madras high court. He demanded that all loans obtained by all farmers should be waived.
However, Co-operatives Minister K. Raju said the ADMK had promised to waive the loan of small and marginal farmers and the poll promise had been fulfilled. Stalin said the details of waiver for farmers should he put in the website.
He charged that the government was refusing to procure milk produced by manufacturers. However, dairy development minister Shanmuganathan said some vendors were trying to sell low quality milk which could not be bought by government.
When Stalin listed the price of essential commodities and appealed to the government to control the spiralling prices, food minister R. Kamaraj said 20 kg of rice was being given freely, while pulses were being sold at Rs 30 per kg and palmolein at Rs 25 per kg through special PDS schemes.
The government was selling vegetables cheaply through farm outlets, besides giving cheap food at Amma canteens, selling Amma water at low price, and medicines at lower prices through Amma pharmacies.
State Finance Minister O. Panneerselvam, who intervened, recalled the answer by Minister K. Ponmudy during the DMK rule to a question on price rise. Quoting Ponmudy, he said prices would be going up all the time, but people’s income had increased.
The Food Minister said the State government is spending Rs 24,600 crore as food subsidy and this was a major step to control prices of essential commodities.
Stalin demanded a white paper on the new companies that are coming up and asked the government to put them in government website. He also wanted the government to control the activities of hired gangs, besides seeking early completion of flood protection schemes for the city.
To provide a transparent administration, the government should come forward to set up a Lokayukta immediately without waiting for the amendments in Parliament, Stalin said.
According to the Lokpal 2013 Bill, the States can establish a Lokayukta on their own and there was no need for Parliamentary amendment. The Lokayukta should have powers to try all categories of public servants, including the Chief Minister, he said.
White Paper: Stalin also demanded a White Paper on investments and progress made in the MoUs signed at the Global Investors Meet as the Chief Minister had said that the State had attracted Rs 2.42 lakh crore of investments during the event. M.C. Sampath, Industries Minister, assured him that there will not be any lapse as there is continuity in the government.
Stalin started his speech at 12.45 and ended at 2.59 pm speaking for 134 minutes amidst din and shouting and interventions.

“It’s better for Jayalalitha to stop exposing chinks in her armour on Katchatheevu”

Rebutting her charge that he agreed for giving up Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka and explaining the steps he took to register the opposition to the Centre’s move, DMK President Kalaignar on Jun 21 turned the table on Jayalalitha and told her that it would be better for her to stop exposing chinks in her armour on the issue because her contentions that “reclaiming Katchatheevu did not seem to be an immediate possibility” and “The Ceding of this tiny Island to the Island Nation had been done by the Government of India in the interest of better bilateral relations” and “Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty over Katcha Theevu could be upheld” were registered on various occasions.
In his epistle to party cadre, Kalaignar referred to Jayalalitha’s speech in the Assembly on Jun 20 that he had no locus standi to speak about Katchatheevu issue and stated that she had been repeating the same since 1991 in the Assembly and outside and he had been explaining then and there. But we can wake up those who slept but not those who pretended sleeping. However, as she had again raised the issue he explained again.
For instance, in a statement issued on 22.3.2009 Jayalalitha had said that he kept quite when the island was ceded to Sri Lanka by India. Immediately he countered asking if she was prepared to apologise if he established with evidence his protest against the move.
The heading given by dailies for the speech delivered by her from the ramparts of Fort St George on 15.8.1991 after hoisting the tricolor flag on the occasion of Independence Day was “Jayalalitha swears to retrieve Katchatheevu”. Jayalalitha thundered “this government is prepared to argue with the Centre and if need be to agitate for the retrieval of the island. This was a promise made by our election manifesto. I say this as a pledge to retrieve a part this soil”. It is 25 years since she swore to retrieve it, what did she do? What did she speak on 15.8.1991?  Having challenged like that, is it fair to question me why I did not agitate or accusing me of doing nothing?  Similarly how many times did she meet the Prime Minister and the President for Kachchatheevu issue? Can she list the dates and types of agitations conducted by her? What else she did except writing letters? This was what Ponmudi asked for which she has said that Karunanidhi has no locus standi to speak about Katchatheevu, Kalaignar said.
Did she ever announce the resignation of ADMK government if she was firm in retrieving Katchatheevu? Except filing a petition in the Supreme Court what else did she do? But she has alleged that he did not protest against the ceding of the island. Was it true?
The DMK government had, in 1974 itself, adopted a resolution in the Assembly objecting to ceding of the island to Sri Lanka. The resolution moved by him in the Assembly registered its deep regret for the decision taken by the Centre on Katchtheevu issue and urged it to respect the feelings of people of Tamil Nadu by reviewing it and amend the pact with Sri Lanka to reiterate the sovereignty of India over the island. “Besides expressing its deep pain on the decision of the Centre on the Katchatheevu issue belonging to India and having close rights to TN, the Assembly wants the Centre reconsider this, take efforts to amend the agreement to have India’s sovereignty over the island and respect the feelings of the people of TN”, the resolution read.
Moreover, speaking on the resolution he had said that the Centre was told several times that people of Tamil Nadu would not like Katchatheevu ceded to Sri Lanka and in every talk the DMK government urged that India should not give up that island. There could not be any different view on the issue for the people and any political party in the State. We have told that the Centre did not seek the approval of TN government on such big issue and no opportunity was provided for discussions between the PM and CM. He had also explain the leaders of all parties about the letters written to the PM and evidences presented to prove that the island belonged to India.
He immediately wrote to the Prime Minister after the all-party meeting stating:
“Dear Prime  Minister,
On behalf  of the Government  of Tamil Nadu and on behalf  of the people of  Tamil Nadu,  I am constrained to express our deep  sense of disappointment  over the recent Indo-Sri-Lanka agreement,  according to which, Sri Lanka’s  claim to Kachativu has been  conceded by the Government of India,
May I express  the hope  that you will  take into consideration  the unanimous  decision  contained in the Resolution  and take appropriate action?”
Further in his speech then, Kalaignar said that he said the announcement came suddenly on Jun 27, 1974 and no indication about it was conveyed to the State government. On seeing the report on 27th in dailies he gave telegrams to all party leaders and spoke over telephone with some of them. Officers were also sent to meet some leaders. In no way we were party to this decision to cede the island to Sri Lanka.
Besides convening all party meeting and adopting resolution the DMK conducted agitations throughout the State on this issue on 24.7.1974 and he as CM participated in the meetings in Thanjavur and Papanasam in Thanjavur district.
Later when he was speaking to reporters, he said the DMK vehemently opposed the ceding of the island but the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi consoled him saying that rules had been framed for ensuring our rights in the island. We had the right to visit the church there and fishermen for fishing and drying their nets. During the Emergency period in 1976, through another pact with Lanka without consulting people, the traditional right of Indian fishermen for fishing near Katchatheevu was also given up.
The daily ‘Dinamani’ wrote in its editorial on 17.8.1991, ”In the pact signed by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi with Lankan Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranayaka in 1974 it was announced that Katchatheevu was given up to Sri Lanka for creating better relations between the two nations. Before signing this agreement, the Centre did not consult people of TN’. In the same editorial it was also written,” During the Emergency period in 1976, through another pact with Lanka without consulting people, the traditional rights of Indian fishermen for fishing near Katchatheevu was also given up”.
Jayalalitha has also spoken about the case in the Supreme Court and his speech at the TESO conference.
In the affidavit filed by the Centre has said in its affidavit that the question of retrieval of the island did not arise since no territory belonging to India was ceded to Sri Lanka. It had submitted that the island belonged to neither side during the British rule and it went to Sri Lanka when the international boundary lines were drawn. Later an agreement was reached between India and Sri Lanka in 1974 and in the pact made in 1976 also India had agreed that Katchatheevu was in Sri Lankan territory. It was wrong to create an impression as if the island within the boundary of India was ceded to Lanka, the Centre stated.
Jayalalitha also asked why the difference between his speech in the Assembly that he came to know of the deal only through dailies but in 2013 claiming that some clauses were included only at his behest.
The resolution adopted on 15.4.2013 it was stated, “When the 1974 pact was implemented the DMK government severely opposed it at the initial stage itself. When the pact was signed overlooking the protest, the DMK government insisted that at least the rights of TN fishermen for fishing in the region of the island and for drying their nets should be included and they were included”.
At the end of the TESO resolution it was stated that according to section 368 of the Constitution, the Parliament has to approve the nation ceding any part of the country. As this procedure was not followed in the case of Kachchatheevu, ceding the island through a pact was not constitutionally valid. And hence it was decided to approach the Supreme Court to abrogate the 1974 pact and to get the island declared as a part of India.
Accordingly he had filed a petition in the Supreme Court on 10.5.2013 which came for hearing on 15.7.2013 before the bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabeer, Justices FM Ibrahim Kalifulla and Vikram Jith Sen, which ordered notice to the Centre.
There was severe opposition to the 1974 pact in Parliament when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh tabled a copy of the pact on 23.7.1974. The then DMK member Era.Chezhiyan said that we would not accept giving up of Katchatheevu belonging to TN to Sri Lanka. He said, ”I want to submit that we should have been consulted and the House should have been taken into confidence before they entered into this unholy agreement for the surrender of territory by India. While we are anxious that friendly and cordial relations should be maintained with Sri Lanka, the legal and constitutional proprieties against the interests of the country since it amounts to pure surrender of our territory without going through any of the norms. This is an unholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship unworthy of any Government. Therefore, we do not want to associate ourselves with the statement that is going to be made by the Hon. Minister, and we want to disassociate ourselves by walking out of the House.”
Forward Bloc member Mookaiah Thever said “Katchativu forms part of my constituency. You are acting like a dictator. You are speaking like a democrat but at the same time you are acting like a dictator. The whole life of thousands of fishermen….. Today the Ceylon government has moved their forces, their military towards that island. Thousands of mechanized boats were stopped; movements were restricted. Their lives are in danger. You have simply betrayed. You have no sympathy and courtesy to consult those people. You are thinking of it as a part of Tamil Nadu. Do not think it as part of Tamil Nadu. It is going to be the base for a torture war. It is going to be the base and challenge the life of the nation. I have to warn all these things because in the past it has been the tradition of our Governement to give bhoodan of the northern borders. (Interruptions). The division of India has cost the life of Mahatama Gandhi. It is not a part of Tamil Nadu but it is a part of the holy land of India. You are betraying. On behalf of the constituency and on behalf of the Forward Block, I walkout”.
BJP member A.B.Vajpayee said that the island was doled out to Sri Lanka through a secret deal to get the friendship of that nation.  In the Rajya Sabha DMK member S.S.Marisamy said that the unilateral action of the Centre without consulting TN government was anti-democratic. SP member Raj Narain and IUML member Abdul Samad also spoke.
Did not Jayalalitha on 20.4.1992 say in the Assembly that “We adopted a resolution her for retrieving Katchatheevu and sent to the Centre. But it does not seem to be immediate possibility’?
Moreover, on 30.9.1994 as CM she wrote to the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao “The Ceding of this tiny Island to the Island Nation had been done by the Government of India in the interest of better bilateral relations”.
Again in a letter written by Jayalalitha as CM to the then Prime Minister Vajpayee on 23.7.2003, had stated that the only way to maintain cordial relations between India and Sri Lanka and to protect the traditional rights of Tamil Nadu fishermen. “The best possible solution is to get the island of Katchatheevu and adjacent seas on lease in perpetuity solely for fishing, drying of nets and pilgrimage. Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Katchatheevu could be upheld at the same time”.
In another statement Jayalalitha had said that the issue was with another country and the power to retrieve it was vested with the Centre. If the State Chief Minister had had the powers it would have been retrieved long back. Forgetting all these she was now telling the Assembly that he (Kalaignar) ceded the island. Kalaignar said he had never agreed to it and registered opposition then itself. He also convened the meeting of leaders of all parties and fought for retrieving it to the extent possible. But had Jayalalitha even once convene the meeting of all party leaders? told her that it would be better for her to stop exposing chinks in her armour on the issue because her contentions that “reclaiming Katchatheevu did not seem to be an immediate possibility” and “The Ceding of this tiny Island to the Island Nation had been done by the Government of India in the interest of better bilateral relations” and “Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty over Katcha Theevu could be upheld” were registered on various occasions.

The politics over Mayoral election

As ADMK enjoys majority in all Corporations, the decision has surprised many; The move will encourage horse-trading
The ADMK Government’s move to abolish direct elections to the prestigious post of Mayor of Municipal Corporations and empower councillors to elect a Mayor has come as a surprise.
Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill introduced to amend the law in the Assembly state that in certain councils of Municipal Corporations, Mayors do not enjoy the support of councillors, Tamil Nadu has not witnessed any known case of rebellion against any of its 12 Mayors in the last five years. The ADMK enjoys a majority in all Municipal Corporations.
The only case where a Mayor did not get the cooperation of councillors was in 2001 when DMK leader Thalapathi M.K. Stalin was elected to the post in Chennai but his party did not have a majority in the council. This has prompted the DMK to go in for indirect elections in 2006.
Considering that it was the ADMK Government which restored the direct elections five years ago, it is not clear what compelling reasons have forced the latest move. Opinion is, however, divided on the move.
Retired IAS officer M.G. Devasahayam feels the Mayor in a city should be elected directly, as the requirements of urban local bodies, particularly in terms of governance and administration, are different those of rural local bodies.
P. Sattanathan, former Chairman of the Sengottai Municipal Corporation, also strongly advocated direct election to local bodies, saying it alone would ensure election of a person who had direct contact with people though he agreed that councillors in all local bodies had become trouble makers.
What prompted the government to introduce a Bill abolishing direct elections for the post of Mayor is a matter of conjecture, as in all the 12 Municipal Corporations, the Mayors belong to the ADMK and the party has a majority in the respective councils. Since 1996 when elections to the civic bodies were revived, the manner of conducting the Mayoral polls has undergone changes and the number of Municipal Corporations has also expanded from six to 12.
Mayors were directly elected to the six Corporations – Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchi, Tirunelveli and Salem – in 1996. The process remained unchanged in 2001. But the DMK Government amended the law in 2006 paving the way for indirect elections, after its Mayor M. K. Stalin faced a harrowing time in the Chennai Corporation where councillors belonging to the ADMK-Congress-TMC outnumbered those of the DMK and its allies during 2001-02.
He resigned later under the one-man, one-post rule.
Municipalities in Vellore, Thoothukudi, Tirupur, Erode, Dindigul and Thanjavur were converted into Corporations in the last 10 years during the ADMK and DMK regimes.
In 2011, the ADMK restored direct elections and subsequently converted Dindigul and Thanjavur Municipalities into Corporations.
Now, it has moved a Bill to go back to indirect elections.
Horse-trading: The next Coimbatore Mayor will be the person who the Corporation councillors vote for, not the people. The change has come as a result of a Bill the State Assembly on Jun 22.
In the past 20 years, the city had seen five Mayors. Of those the first, second, fourth and fifth were elected directly by the people.
Only R. Venkatachalam, the third Mayor, was elected by the councillors. He was in office from 2006-11.
The new process will not bring about any change in the way the city is administered, says the city’s first Mayor V. Gopalakrishnan, who served between 1996 and 2001.
In case of indirect election, the political parties nominate a councillor, whom they think will be best suited to lead the city.
The party councillors would vote for the candidate and he or she would function with the officials the way directly elected Mayors would do. Therefore there would be no change.
But, if there has to be a change, the political parties should nominate a well-read and a capable administrator, who should have a quick grasp of the administration. More so at a time when the city would be implementing projects under the Smart Cities project, he adds.
The State Government’s move is not about administration but about capturing power, says former councillor K. Purushothaman.
The CPI leader says that given the narrow difference in vote margin between the ADMK and DMK in the just-concluded Assembly election, the ruling party, to capture as many urban and rural local bodies, has tweaked rules so as to buy councillors. This will lead to horse-trading.
Plus, the political parties could change Mayors or Chairpersons as and when they want and elect a new one as indirect election makes it easy, he adds.
A retired bureaucrat says that under the new rules, the leader of the urban body will not be as powerful as directly elected one because they could be removed if a majority of councillors/elected representatives want them out.
In case of a directly elected Mayor or municipal chairperson, he or she can only resign and cannot be removed. The bureaucrat also says that this will lead to horse-trading.
For the first time since DMK’s M Subramanian in 2006-07, Chennai will have an indirectly elected mayor come October. The amendment bill tabled in the Assembly indicates the ADMK government’s unwillingness to continue with a tradition it re-introduced in 2011.
Observers, however, say the change will have little impact on Chennai’s development. Criticising the `vague nature’ of city governance laws -which permit ruling parties to alter the election pattern -experts said the move would only allow the state government to reaffirm its grip over the local body .
“It is a political move. Since the DMK outperformed the ADMK in Chennai in the Assembly election, the latter wants to gain the lost ground in the local body elections. Winning in Chennai creates the impression that the ruling party has not lost its influence,” said Venkatesh, faculty member at Anna Centre for Public Affairs, University of Madras.
The DMK, which is the principal opposition in the Assembly, will oppose the bill though. Saidapet MLA Subramanian told TOI the move would affect transparency. Asked why the DMK preferred indirect elections a decade ago, Subramanian said, “The situation was different back then.”
He said the change would encourage “horse-trading on the council floor“. Incidentally, as opposition in 2006, when the DMK scrapped the polls, the ADMK had similar reservations.
With the mayor’s post being perceived as one invested with more pomp than power, former deputy mayor Karate R Thiagarajan said the change wouldn’t matter much.“The new mayor will be hoisting flags and distributing chocolates,” he said.
But the same cannot be said of cities like London where the Mayor, elected by the people, is vested with power and responsibility. The Mayor puts together plans and policies, and runs and funds projects. “Chennai too can be similar if it weren’t for the prevalent political culture. The system here is such that an individual can’t promote an agenda without the support of his/her party ,“ said Venkatesh.
There are some for whom the move is a welcome change. Bureaucrats want a handpicked Mayor since they wouldn’t have to conduct a second election. Last time, polls to elect councillors were followed by the mayoral election. “The corporation gets most of its funds from the government. A councillor-elected mayor will have a better standing with government. It will be easy to impeach him if things go wrong,” said a senior government official.
Saidai flop show: The government’s decision to change the mode of election of mayors from direct to indirect may have been triggered by its bitter experience with Chennai Mayor Saidai S Duraisamy , who fell from grace with the party leadership within two years of assuming office in 2011. The party, apart from sidelining him, couldn’t risk replacing him as it would have meant testing the popularity of the ADMK government in Chennai city.
After his October 2011 win, Duraisamy had said he would convert Chennai into Singapore. Five years on, the streets continue to be littered. Neither his ambitious Amma theaters nor weekly markets took off. He announced them without even knowing that such projects did not come under the corporation’s purview. The city, meanwhile, faced the December floods and the Mayor seemed completely lost. He could not differentiate between storm-water drains and underground sewerage. As fallout, the ruling party lost 10 seats to the DMK in the city in the Assembly election.
All the 12 municipal corporations in the State are now headed by ADMK Mayors, directly elected by voters in 2011. Analysts say independent Mayors are a threat to the ruling party which wants to control civic administration. If the party wants to change a Mayor, it cannot do it at present. “But the party leadership can rein in wrong-doers in an indirect election,” political analyst M Kasinathan said.
After Thalapathi M K Stalin’s election was nullified by the one-man, one-post law in 2002, DMK changed the law in 2006 to introduce indirect elections. In 2011, the ADMK brought back direct election saying Mayors were concentrating only on their wards. Now, the ruling party has changed its position for indirect election.
“We’ve seen the two modes and found direct elections better,” said deputy leader of opposition, Duraimurugan. He said the ADMK was scared of holding direct election for mayors because it was on a sticky wicket. After losing Assembly seats like Trichy, Tirunelveli, Vellore, and 10 seats in Chennai city, Jayalalitha’s government was worried, he said.
VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan and CPM state secretary G Ramakrishnan said the move was politically-motivated and would lead to horse trading among councillors.

“All those who speak policies of Dravidian movement don’t belong to the movement”

Cautioning people against trusting fake movements, DMK President Kalaignar said all those who conduct their movements speaking the policies of the Dravidian movement did not belong to the movement.
He was speaking at a function at Kalaignar Arangam in Anna Arivalayam to mark the completion of 543 episodes of the television serial ‘Romaapri Paandian’, based on the historic plays penned by Kalaignar, on Kalaignar TV channel and for felicitating all artistes who took part in the serial.
At the outset, excusing himself for not speaking at length like the previous speakers Duraimurugan, Vairamuthu and Pazha Karupiah, due to ill health, Kalaignar said two of his plays had been made into a television serial and acclaimed by many. He was one among those who wished that such historic and social plays should be spread among people and he was happy to have played a constructive role in it.
Punning on the word ‘Pazha’ the initials of Pazha Karupiah, Kalaignar said Karupiah was our old (pazhaya) Karupiah only and wished and hoped that he stayed here hereafter.
When the DMK conducted such literary events and historic functions, Tamil people were told the policies and view of the Dravidian movement by which the DMK the Dravidian movement would grow further. But all those who conduct their movements speaking the policies of the Dravidian movement did not belong to the movement and such fake movements should not be believed as representing the movement. Since the days of Thanthai Periyar we were carrying forward this movement, he said and appealed to all for associating themselves in the task.

Approving the view expressed by lyricist Vairamuthu on literature Kalaignar said though the DMK was a political party it has realized the importance of literature and strived to grow literature. He said the view expressed by the poet could be followed by the youth of the future.
Appreciating the skill of director Dhanush, Kalaignar said the last scenes of the serial were so perfectly made that they virtually brought Rome in front of the viewers and introduced Cleopatra and other heroes and thanked the director for his contribution. He also thanked the producers Vaishnavi Media Works like Kutti Padmini and others.
It was not enough for the people of Tamil Nadu to know only the history of the State. There was a time when the influence and fame of Tamils spread up to Rome which symbolized that Tamils were spread all over the world. This serial was produce to remind the glory of Tamils.
Kalaignar distributed mementos to all artists who took part in the serial.
DMK Principal Secretary Duraimurugan, lyricist Vairamuthu, Pazha Karupiah, Kalaignar TV director Amirtham, director of the serial Dhanush, producer Kutti Padmini of Vaishnavi Media Works, and important characters of the serial O.A.K. Sundar, Devipriya, Lavanya, Minnal Deepa, Raja, Girish, Vijesh, Nethiran, Murali, V.K.R.Ragunath, Manikanda raj, T.V.Ramanujam, Karishma, Chitra, Deepa, Veda, Vaijayanthi and others participated.

Democracy is casualty in TN Assembly: Kalaignar

Taking strong objection to the manner in which the ruling party resorted to numerous interventions from the beginning of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition Thalapathi M.K.Stalin in the Assembly in the debate of the motion of thanks for Governor’s address on Jun 22, DMK President Kalaignar on Jun 23 said that democracy was the casualty in Tamil Nadu Assembly and wondered whether only such scenes would continue to be enacted and whether there was any way for the rejuvenation of democracy struggling of life.
In his epistle to party cadre on the day, Kalaignar said that after the elections Governor K. Rosaiah read out the address on behalf of the ADMK regime on Jun 16. In 2006 also after the DMK assumed office the then Governor S.S.Barnala read out the address and the Speaker R. Avudaayppan read out the Tamil version of the address. But prior to 2006 the ADMK regime had dispensed with the practice of reading out the Tamil version of the Governor’s address which was renewed by the DMK in 2006. Fortunately the ADMK which came to power in 2011 continued with the practice.
After the House was adjourned following the Governor’s address the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting would be held in the Speaker’s chamber in which members of all parties participated and spoke about many issues. During DMK rules, he (Kalaignar) used to participate in every BAC meeting but Jayalalitha did not seem to have participated in any such meetings, possibly because it was below her stature. If any important decision had to be taken in such meetings the Ministers would rush to the CM’s chamber to know her opinion and came back to inform it. Till then other members of the committee had to wait. “This was an example for how democracy is preserved in the Assembly in ADMK regime”, he said.
On 30.5.2006 as the then Chief Minister he replied to the debate on Governor’s address, Kalaignar said adding that on the same day G.K. Mani (PMK) and D. Sudarsanam (Cong) also spoke and he only spoke after them not insisting that only he as the CM should speak.
In 2007, the Governor delivered his address on 20.1.2007 when the ADMK members rose up, shouted in uncivilized manner and walked out. On 27.1.2007 he replied to the debate after G.K. Mani (PMK) and D. Sudarsanam (Cong) spoke. In 2008, Governor Barnala spoke on 23.1.2008 and he replied to the debate on 1.2.2008. In 2009 Governor Barnala spoke on 21.1.2009 and as he was admitted in hospital following back pain Local Administration Minister M.K.Stalin replied to the debate.
In 2010, the Governor’s address was read out on 6.1.2010 and after G.K. Mani (PMK), Peter Alphonse (Cong) and Jayalalitha (ADMK) spoke, the then Deputy Chief Minister replied to the debate on 11.1.2010, when he (Kalaignar) was also present in the House. He said that he was recollecting all these details only to show the convention that the Chief Minister would reply to the debate on Governor’s address on the last day only after the Leader of the Opposition spoke. This convention was followed for long. But this had been changed and the Leader of the Opposition was asked to speak on the previous day to the reply of the CM. “This is how conventions are being preserved now”, Kalaignar said.
Though the DMK has unprecedented strength of 89 members as opposition party, Stalin said it would not conduct itself as rival party and placed some demands, the first of which was seating arrangement facilitating his (Kalaignar’s) attendance and participation in the proceedings in consideration of his health condition. But they allocated seat in the second row into which the wheel chair could not enter. The second was opportunity for three member of the DMK to speak every day in consideration of its strength, there were not many parties in the opposition and the fact 90 minutes for Question Hour was unspent. But neither the ruling party nor the Speaker had the magnanimity to accept it and only two members from the parry were allowed to speak. “This is also a tight one-way path democracy of the ADMK”, Kalaignar said.
The next demand was opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to speak on the same day the Chief Minister replied to the debate for the continuation of the longstanding convention. But that democratic right was also refused.
If the circumstances warranted a Minister next to the Chief Minister had to reply due the health of the Chief Minister, he/she should remain in the House when opposition members spoke, take notes, prepare reply and come to the House for replying. If possible the CM should reply to the points raised by those in opposition rows. But now Jayalalitha was present in the House on only one day for one or one and a half hour only to blame him for Katchatheevu imbroglio and left the House. Then she had come only on the last day for replying to the debate. She did not come when the Leader of the Opposition M.K.Stalin and others in opposition rows spoke in the debate. Than showing to what extent she honoured the House and opposition members, this made clear to what extent she trampled upon democracy to be preserved, Kalaignar said.
The Speaker was the presiding officer for ruling and opposition parties and to be respected by all. But in Tamil Nadu, the Speaker carrying a huge bouquet bowed down to the Chief Minister to present it to welcome her to the House. Where such atrocious democracy could be witnessed?
Next, last time now in the Assembly, it was atrocious that Ministers intervened when members of the opposition spoke and the Speaker ordering the member concerned to resume his seat as the time allotted to him was over. The clarifications offered by Ministers mostly were ‘Amma’ puranas! If the questions were such that they could not reply the Speaker would come to their rescue and expunge what was spoken. “This is the legislative democracy followed by the ADMK” he said.
In particular, from the moment Leader of the Opposition M.K.Stalin started speaking there were lot of interventions but without giving in he spoke on many issues of the State. In between when he tried to speak on the confiscation of Rs 370 crore in containers, the raid in the places of one Anbunathan near Karur, close to the Ministers, the government lawyer giving letter to the judge to relieve him as the police was not cooperating in the case against the younger brother of the Finance Minister- he was not permitted to speak. “If this issue should not be spoken in the House which was uncivilized and below dignity word that should not be uttered in the House? Does not democracy in the Assembly permit seeking clarification to people? It there was honesty and fairness on the side of the ruling party they should have come forward to clarify. Why they are running away from democratic approach? Is this Tamil Nadu Assembly? Will only such anti-democratic scenes continue to be enacted? Is there any way for democracy already struggling for life to get rejuvenated?” Kalaignar asked.