Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Sunday, March 11, 2018
Lack of Political will of the Union Government deprived Tamils of Cauvery Waters for decades
Lack of Political will of the Union Government
deprived Tamils of Cauvery Waters for decades
By:
N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai
Poets
are respected beyond cultures. Suppose in Karnataka there exists a British
settlement, naturally the British people would install the statue of
Shakespeare. Such statues will be honored in any civilized country, except
under Talibans. On par with Taliban, we cannot equate Kannada people. But
certain political leaders of Karnataka who have lost their mental equilibrium
have made an issue out of Saint Thiruvalluvar’s statue.
On
the banks of Ulsoor Lake a statue of Saint Thiruvalluvar was unveiled under
Bangarappa’s rule and many Chief Ministers have occupied his seat with decades
passing, yet the unveiled statue remains wrapped in gunny bag without public
view and is guarded by gun wielding police men. In whole of India the statues
of many leaders and Poets are respected and no issue is made out of any statue.
No statue in India is under police custody beyond life sentence too. Saint
Thiruvalluvar’s statue faces such ignominy because of handful of Taliban type
Kannada terrorists. Now it is the turn of Cauvery water to be made a pawn in
the power play of these Kannadabans.
Dravida
Peravai recalls the memorandum it sent to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee on 24.4.1998. Let me quote extracts from that letter.
“In
civilized society disputes of whatever nature will be either resolved through
mutual discussions or by third party mediation be it government or courts. It
is needless to recall that the Indus water dispute between India and Pakistan
stands settled. The Danube water dispute among 8 European nations, the Tangus
water dispute between Spain and Portugal, the Tennessee water dispute among 8
states of USA have all been resolved amicably, while the Cauvery water dispute
still evades settlement due to lack of political will on the part of successive
Union Governments. It will be appropriate to point out that all these inter
state river water disputes were settled only by upholding and accepting the
priority principle in favour of lower riparian states.
While
much water has flown in Cauvery within Karnataka, the legitimate share of lower
riparian states of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry has dwindled year after year. We
bring out this fact as follows:
Year
Agreement
Share
of Tamilnadu/Pondicherry
1924
Agreement
between Madras Presidency and Mysore State during British period
575.68
TMC
[Comments:
Under this agreement based on Nile river settlement Tamilnadu got 489 TMC
approximately]
1972
G.C.Committee
Report
489
TMC
[Comments:
Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Kerala utilized 489, 177 and 5 TMC respectively as per
the formula in this report accepted by the Chief Ministers of 3 states stated
above]
1972
On
31.5.1972 in the presence Union Minister for Water Resources K.L.Rao three
states agree
489
TMC
1974
Meeting
of Chief Ministers convened by Union Irrigation Minister Jagjivan Ram agree
for
Status
quo
1978
Compromise
worked during the period of Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi
489-100
= 389 TMC
[Comments:
This grave injustice perpetuated by Indira Gandhi’s emergency rule reduced 100
TMC overnight and deprived Tamilnadu and Pondicherry its due share. Tamilnadu
did not ratify this]
1980
Karnataka’s
own proposal on the basis of total flow in Cauvery during previous 75
years
375
TMC
[Comments: This proposal suggested 47 percent, 47
percent, 5 percent and 1 percent shares for Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Kerala and
Pondicherry in the total flow of the river]
1990
Statement
of Karnataka Chief Minister Veerendra Patil
489-73
= 416 TMC for Tamilnadu
177+73
=250 TMC for K”nataka
[Comments:
Karnataka which was receiving 177 TMC under previous arrangement now will use
250 TMC and this satisfied Karnataka Chief Minister Mr.Patil as Tamilnadu
agreed to this proposal]
1991
Interim
order of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on 25.6.1991
205
TMC
Having
traced the history I think I have made it clear that Tamilnadu’s share has been
on decline and great injustice is inflicted upon Tamil people.
The
major lacunae in the Tribunal’s order is that it fixed the quantum on the basis
of the average flow into the Metur Dam of Tamilnadu and not on the basis of the
average of the total flow in the entire Cauvery.
On
July 25 th of 1991 Karnataka urgently convened the legislature and upper house
and passed Cauvery Irrigation Protection Act, which was against the
Constitution of India since it defies the highest Court of the land.
So
goes on the Dravida Peravai memorandum to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee, and its concluding prayer is as follows:
As
per the 1991 census out of the total population of 55.60 millions, 16.85
million people live in the Cauvery river basin, by 2001, the total population
of Tamilnadu is expected to increase to 95 millions and in this increase
particularly in Cauvery river basin the figures will be around 29 million
people. The cultivable lands in Cauvery basin, which stood at 39.83 lakh
hectares, have come down to 28.94 lakh hectares. While population is on
increase cultivable lands are diminishing in Cauvery basin. Union Government by
its inaction is driving Tamils into the Kalahandi syndrome.
The
Center should under section 6 [a] of Interstate Water Disputes act 1956 frame
schemes to implement interim award and let the final award also be complied
with.
The
Cauvery River Water Disputes Tribunal had given its final verdict in 2007.All
these years the farmers of Cauvery river basin, particularly in Tamil Nadu had
lost crores and crores due to crop losses and agricultural labourers lost work
and famine haunted their homes. Apart from delayed justice, there is needed to
compensate for all these losses. Though in between paltry pittances had been
given by Tamilnadu and Pondicherry on year by year basis according to
exigencies, the Center has failed to implement the Interim Award and now also
we cant be sure of Final Award being implemented soon, it is necessary to pay
heavy compensations from National Calamity Fund to Cauvery delta farmers, The
Karaikal Struggle Group had demanded on 6 th February 2007. After the revamp of
Karaikal Struggle Group while introducing the new 36 office bearers, I who was
chosen as Honorary President addressed the press conference at Karaikal, wherein
this demand was made.
KARNATAKA GAINS IN FINAL AWARD
All
advocates who advocated the cause of Karnataka before the Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal are of the view that Karnataka had gained by this final
verdict. The Interim award told to allocate 205 TMC Cauvery Water to Tamil
Nadu. But 227 TMC water was given. In addition within Tamilnadu catchments
areas the river basin got 25 TMC of rainwater. So 252 TMC was going to
Tamilnadu all these years. But as per the final verdict Karnataka had to give
only 192 TMC. Hence in no way it is loss to Karnataka. There is no use in going
on appeal against the Tribunal order, advocates opine. As per Dinamalar special
correspondent from New Delhi, Senior Counsel for Karnataka Mr.Nariman and all
concerned with this case from Karnataka side have stated that if appeal is made
it will go against Karnataka. They feel the Tribunal’s final award is
favorable.
As
per the fact-finding committee’s report of 1971, Karnataka should get only 177
TMC. As per the agreement made in the presence of Hon’ble Jaga Jivan Ram in
1976, it was recommended that Karnataka would get 239 TMC. But in the final
award Karnataka gets 270 TMC. There was also a ban to hike cultivable areas
beyond 11.2 lakh hectares. Now that ceiling had been totally withdrawn. Instead
of accepting Tamilnadu’s contention that the yardstick to calculate waters
should be flow into Mettur Dam, the Tribunal has accepted Billigundlu, the area
within Karnataka as calculating point. Only draw back for Karnataka side is
they cannot go on arbitrarily constructing new dams.
In
spite of a favorable verdict, in spite of lawyer’s who fought the case for
Karnataka expressing opinion that the judgment is in their favor, instigated
protests are going on in Karnataka. There has been total stoppage of inter
state transport. Today i.e. 9 th the Karnataka lorries, buses and cars have
started coming into Tamilnadu, which shows and proves once again that Tamils
are mature and civilized people. Whereas Tamilnadu transport vehicles could not
enter Karnataka. A few handful politicians of Karnataka are raising hue and cry
and all Karnataka Governments till date are using it as a ploy to deny
Tamilnadu of its legitimate share.
The
unity shown by political parties even to defy the Tribunal’s order must be an
eye opener to the warring Tamilnadu political parties, who never in the history
of Tamilnadu stood up for a public cause sinking petty political differences.
This lack of unity and the open invitation to divide and rule Tamils extended
by the political parties of Tamilnadu enables Union Government and national
parties to impose on Tamil unjust settlements, on many issues including Kacha
Theevu and Cauvery.
Petition to Indian Parliament and to Tamil Nadu Assembly by Dravida Peravai
Petition to Indian Parliament and to Tamil Nadu
Assembly by Dravida Peravai
Created
2007-10-05 01:41
Chennai,
05 October, (Asiantribune.com): The book published by Lok Sabha Secretariat
with G.C.Malhotra as Editor and titled Practice and Procedure of Parliament in
page 957 Chapter XXXIII on Petitions and Representations says" It is an
inherent right of the people in a democracy to present petitions to the
Legislature of the land with a view to ventilating grievances and offering
constructive suggestions on matters of public importance. This right has been
well recognized in India and has been in vogue since time immemorial.
The
concept of petitioning for redress of grievances now finds an indirect
recognition in the Constitution also. [ Art.350]. Dravida Peravai exercises its
right to petition the Parliament on the question of judiciary over stepping its
limits to usurp the powers under Article 356 empowered with the Parliament and
the Contempt threats posed against duly elected State Government of Tamilnadu.
The
issue of Contempt of Court that has become a subject matter of debate once
again could have been resolved if only The Indian government decision to amend
the Contempt of Courts Act which has resulted in several contrary decisions in
the past had been effected in time. Since issue is pending before Parliament we
are here presenting this petition to urge the Parliament to take note of many
controversies arisen in this country and evolve and enact a fool proof Contempt
of Courts Act in the winter session of Parliament
The
lawyer would withdraw and leave it to the court to decide the matter, without
taking note of the editor's plea that the news item was not untrue. But
the court had taken a contrary view while dealing with Shiv Sena chief Bal
Thackeray against whom it had initiated (suo-motu) contempt of court proceedings.
In the Sena's mouth piece `Samna'. Thackeray had questioned the locus (right)
of judges who were hearing petitions alleging electoral corrupt practice by
him.
Thackeray
had called Muslims names and also said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of
the country's highest court to look into what he had to say, and what he always
believed in. The court had asked Thackeray's lawyer Ram Jethmalani to counsel
his client to apologize. Otherwise, the judges had warned, they would send him
to jail. The counsel, instead, counseled the court not to resort to the extreme
step as ordering Thackeray's arrest would lead to mass unrest in the country.
Later, the contempt proceedings were dropped.
Former
bureaucrat and the then Trade Fair Authority of India's chairman Mohammad Yunus
got away with his statement about the judges who passed a judgment that the
members of Jehovah's Witnesses could not be compelled to sing the national
anthem or asked to stand in respect of the national flag. Yunus had said these
judges deserved deportation, as they were anti-national. The court surely
passed a detailed judgment, but did not order any action against Yunus.
In
another case, however, a poor Muslim litigant who had lost everything in coming
up to the apex court and lost his case was sent to the jail for committing its
contempt. He pleaded before a judge, who also happened to be a Muslim, to have
pity on him and on his children who would be rendered homeless. He invoked the
name of religion to secure the court's indulgence. The judicial discretion
however found him guilty of contempt and sent him to jail. These and many more
instances of COCA would surely demonstrate that absolute judicial discretion
plays a vital role in dispensation.
with
vulnerable categories of people, perhaps worked as a pressure on the law
ministry to review its decision.
In
the Karnataka judge's sex scandal case, a number of journalists, editors and
publishers have been facing prosecution by the high court for indulging in
character assassination of judges. The media had written about the conduct of
judges when they were not performing any official duty as prescribed in the
Constitution or any law. The reports were based on the police information and
other material. What is the truth is not the issue. The issue is whether media
crossed its limits.
The
proposed amendment in section 13 of COCA says: ``Provided that the court may
permit the defense of justification by truth on satisfaction as to the
bonafides of the plea and it being in public interest''. The Law ministry's
explanation is that the amendment is based on the recommendation of the
Constitution Review
We
in verbatim quote extensively an article by leading Supreme Court Advocate
Prasant Bhusan son of the legendary lawyer Shanthi Bhusan of Indira Gandhi case
fame.
The
report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the proposed amendment to the
Contempt of Courts Act has again focused attention on the issue of judicial
impunity and the lack of accountability of the judiciary as an institution. The
Courts in a manner that has had the effect of intimidating the media from
exposing corruption and misbehavior by the courts and judges have interpreted the
wide and unregulated power of contempt given to the courts.
Thus
Arundhati Roy was jailed for commenting in her affidavit that the court's
contempt notice to her on an untenable petition indicated a disquieting
inclination on the part of the Court to "muzzle dissent and stifle
criticism."And the very judge against whom this comment was directed made
the order.
Although
this was clearly a legitimate comment on the court, and an exercise of a
citizen's fundamental right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of a
democratic republic, the Supreme Court declared it to amount to contempt of
court.
This
sent a clear signal to the media in particular that the court would not
hesitate to use this power to "muzzle dissent and stifle criticism."
The question is: does the judiciary stand above our democratic republic? The
draconian power of contempt is not the only reason for the lack of
accountability of the judiciary.
The
primary reason is the lack of any practical mechanism for holding judges of the
High Courts and Supreme Court responsible for any misconduct. In order to keep
the judiciary independent of the executive, the Constitution provided
impeachment as the only method for disciplining errant judges.
That
remedy was shown to be completely impractical in the Ramaswami case, where the
judge escaped removal because the then ruling party, the Congress, abstained
from voting in Parliament. This was after a committee of three judges found the
judge guilty of many charges of misconduct appointed under the Judges Inquiry
Act. In that case, evidence of misconduct surfaced in a report by the
Accountant General on the purchases made by him from government funds.
Normally, it will not be possible for a citizen
to get evidence of a judge's misconduct even for the purpose of drafting an
impeachment motion, without an official investigation.
By
a judge-made law (in Veeraswami's case), the judiciary has ruled that no
official investigation can be conducted against a judge without the written
permission of the Chief Justice of India. Nobody, of course, dares apply for
such permission unless they already have evidence against the judge. This is
why there has not been a single official investigation against a judge in the
15 years since the Veeraswami judgment, despite the fact the former Chief
Justice Bharucha publicly lamented that at least 20 per cent judges of the
higher judiciary were corrupt.
This
triple shield — no practical remedy for the removal of corrupt judges, no
investigation of charges against judges, and the power of contempt — has served
to provide complete immunity to judges and has institutionalized judicial
impunity.
It
is against this background that the proposed amendment to the Contempt of
Courts Act must be viewed. The amendment provides that truth may be considered
a good defense in contempt proceedings provided it is in the public interest.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee, in its recently tabled report on this
amendment, while approving it, has suggested the removal of the additional requirement
of showing that the truth is also in the public interest.
This
is the part of the definition of contempt that is used to stifle speech,
allegations, and comments against judges. This will still leave intact the
parts dealing with disobedience of court orders (civil contempt) and
interference with the administration of justice, which would include any
attempt to threaten or influence a judge, lawyer, litigant, or witness.
Medieval origins In fact, contempt by `scandalizing' the court owes its origin
to the medieval ages in Britain, when the courts were considered
representatives of the monarch and were called King's Courts or Queen's Courts.
Thus,
any imputation against the courts was considered an imputation against the
sovereign and therefore punishable. The United States has a more liberal
dispensation, where only something that presents a clear and present danger to
the administration of justice is considered contempt. Although the British
origin of contempt law in India has absolutely no relevance today, the
judiciary has continued this jurisdiction and gone on to declare that even
truth cannot be a valid defense against a charge of contempt. That is why the
proposed amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act falls far short of what is
required to prevent the abuse of this draconian power.
orders,
Uttar Pradesh Government failed in Babri Masjid issue to comply with Supreme
Court orders. We can list out incidents where no one raised hue and cry over
such violations, it is unfortunate and unwarranted two Supreme Court Judges are
for exercising Article 356 to dethrone a duly elected Government without giving
chance for a fair trial.
This
situation warrants the deliberations in Parliament not only to do away with the
contempt of Court Act 1971 if it cannot be replaced or amended with suitable
safeguards for media and executive to play their roles in a free democracy.
Also the need to subject judiciary to investigation in case of corruption and a
due mechanism for that be evolved in Parliament, Dravida Peravai, the political
party that keeps away from electoral politics in view of the unclean politics
gaining upper hand with circulation of black money and criminalization of
politics, urges Indian Parliament to debate these issues, since Parliament is
Supreme, and take remedial legal steps to contain over reach of judicial
intervention in people's power to have elected governments of their own.
Thanking
You
Yours
sincerely
N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida
Peravai
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
SINGAPORE SURGES AHEAD N.Nandhi Varman Role of Tamils in history of Singapore “The second successful six year term of unanimo... -
G U Pope’s Metrical Translation of the Tirukkural: An Evaluation of the Translation of a Classic R. Margaret Joy Priscilla Wom... -
THE TAMILS OF REUNION AND THEIR HYBRID CULTURE Colonialism cannot be condemned outright. This may sound outrageous. But colonia...
