EVALUATION OF N>RANGASAMY GOVERNMENT OF PAST

EVALUATION OF N.RANGASAMY's MISRULE OF PONDICHERRY

APPAPAITHYAM SWAMY, the ghost saint who guides all the actions of Chief Minister N.Rangasamy and Chief Minister's personal astrologer Kurinjipaadi Swamigal have created a constitutional crisis in Puducherry. West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil nadu and Assam which went to polls along with Puducherry had proven their majority in the floor of the assembly and had fulfledged cabinets functioning. But the Tainted Lt.Governor of Puducherry Iqbal Singh had invited N.Rangasamy of All India NR Congress which exists only in Puducherry on the basis of 15 plus one independent's letter saying in the 30 member legislative assembly N.Rangasamy has majority. Rangasamy who won two seats resigned one seat creating a vacancy and thus current strength of the assembly is 29 only. Since May 13 till July 1 he had not proven his strength in the floor of the assembly. Till June 8 th he was LONE cabinet, and how come a Lone Man be construed as cabinet is for Supreme Court to decide. How long without proving majority a Chief Minister can function it is for Supreme Court to decide. After inducting 4 in cabinet and none were allocated portfolios, and media reports say these 4 Ministers without cabinet do not have the right even to choose their private secretaries.

Without proving majority N.Rangasamy went to choose his Speaker and opposition was not consulted at all over his choice as is customary in Indian democracy. He thought though he enjoys only 14 member support, opposition with 14 members will not join together because of DMK-AIADMK divide. But on common issue whole opposition with 14 members boycotted yesterday's Speaker's election. The opposition benches were empty as all televisions screened it nation knows, that Chief Minister has only 14 member support. In case of assembly functioning each and every time Speaker had to cast his casting vote and how many times Speaker can bail out a minority government is for Supreme Court to decide.

The Tainted Lt.Governor Iqbal Singh should have sought legal opinion  from Law Ministry before conducting the Election of Speaker to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and giving sufficient time limit for legislators to decide.Unprecedented happenings in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly had necessitated for seeking legal opinion from Union Law Ministry on holding Election to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly but Lt.Governor created a constitutional crisis.

Election results were out on 13 th May 2011. All India N.R.Congress won 15 seats and All India Anna DMK bagged 5 seats. This pre-election alliance if had staked to form Government the strength would have been 20 in the 30 member assembly reflecting majority in the floor of the assembly. But All India N.R.Congress broke its pre-election alliance and indulged in horse trading securing the support of lone independent and the leader of All India N.R.Congress was invited to form the Government thinking All India N.R.Congress had 15 seats plus 1 independent gives them majority in the 30 member legislative assembly. But Chief Minister who won from 2 constituencies resigned from one thereby reducing his party to 15 member support only. As constitutional authority Lt.Governor should have given shortest time to prove the majority in the floor of the assembly. Even the number 16 got reduced to 15 with Chief Minister without a cabinet, at that point of time , resigning one out of two seats he had won. Thus the effective strength of the group Lt.Governor invited to form Government was just 15 with independent .This created a constitutional crisis. The Government does not have a MAJORITY. Under such circumstances it had to elect a Speaker. Chief Minister in suspense  announced on 29 th June Speaker’s election will be held. Let me quote the procedure in Parliament/ States/ and Union Territories with regard to election of a Speaker.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER AND DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS.

8. Election of Speaker – (1) The election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix, and the Secretary shall send to every member a notice thereof: [Art. 178.]

Provided that the date so fixed shall, in the case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be within fifteen days from:

a. The date of the occurrence of the vacancy, if the Assembly is at that time sitting and

b. The date on which the Assembly first meets thereafter, if it is not so sitting.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER, DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS Chapter III of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly

9. Election of Speaker: [1] The Election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Administrator may fix and the Secretary shall send every member notice thereof:

Provided that the date so fixed shall in case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be not beyond 15 days from…….

So identical provisions for States and Union Territories exist. But with regard to State , Governor had to decide, but in Union Territory Administer had to decide but after taking clearance from the President of India acting on the advice of the Home Ministry..

The constitutional crisis in this Union Territory had never been envisaged when these laws were drafted and passed. These Acts and Rules are silent on HOW MUCH TIME should be given to CONVENE THE ASSEMBLY AND ELECT A SPEAKER. It is also silent on HOW LONG A GOVERNMENT WITH NO MAJORITY DELAY THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER.  Speaker’s election is held and ruling combine with 15 member strength elected its Speaker and got reduced to 14 numbers. Combined opposition strength is 14. And all times Speaker cannot cast casting vote to save the Government of the day.

Having broken the pre-election alliance the Chief Minister designate with a Cabinet with no portfolio is wooing the Main Opposition through media and NO NEW ALLAINCE RE-STRUCTURING HAD TAKEN PLACE. Everything is in fluid state. Everything is ambiguous. Horse trading is on.

The Lt.Governor of Puducherry  turned blind eye to the horse trading that took place to ensure NR Congress nominee win Speaker’s post. In hurried state Administrator i.e Lt.Governor  fixed the date for Speaker’s election  leaving room for following questions arise. We are not sure on how without proving strength in floor of the assembly one man can rule without Cabinet for some days and with cabinet without allocation of portfolios for some days and how long can a Chief Minister re-negotiate alliance or resort to horse trading infringing the rights of the Elected Members of this Legislative Assembly.

Since these issues which are silent in Acts and which has no precedence in India had landed our Union Territory in a constitutional crisis and we hope Lt.Governor will seek the advice of the Union Law Ministry and Attorney General through the President of India  or Supreme Court had to be approached and we will do it.

THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Bill, 1975 which was enacted as the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Article 71 of the Constitution provides that disputes arising out of the election of the President or Vice-President shall be decided by the Supreme Court. The same article provides that matters relating to their election shall be regulated by a parliamentary law. So far as the Prime Minister and the Speaker are concerned, matters relating to their election are regulated by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this Act the High Court has jurisdiction to try an election petition presented against either of them.

So the constitution provides scope for judicial intervention, but it would be unnecessary if Administrator acts on the advice of Union Law Ministry and every step taken in this situation must be measured one with wider consultation with Union Government.

“The life of the Assembly is 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting beginning with the address of the Governor under Article 176 (1), unless sooner dissolved. The expiry of the said period of 5 years operates as dissolution of the Assembly”. Life of the assembly itself had to begin with Governor’s address, unfortunately precedents practiced since independence is taken for a ride here ever since recent election results were out. A Government in Coma keeps Assembly in Suspense depriving people’s representatives to function as legislators for which public have given their mandate.

In Canada when the House convenes on the first day of a new Parliament or on any day when the House is to elect a Speaker, the election of a Speaker must be the first order of business and has precedence over all other matters. Only after a Speaker has been elected is the House properly constituted to conduct its business

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA & GARWE JA HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 & MARCH 10, 2011

T Hussein, for the appellants Ms C Damiso, for the first respondent M Chaskalson SC, for the second respondent

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker"). The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, sought the following relief set out in the draft order:

"WHEREUPON after perusing the documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby declared that: - 1. The election of (the) second respondent as the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 25 August 2008 is null and void and set aside.

These examples of other countries prove the importance of the Office of the Speaker and even the Highest Courts of other countries intervening to protect the sanctity of the Speaker’s post. Under such global scenario, the Administrator failed to seek the advice, guidance and instructions of the Union Law Ministry on how to proceed to fix a date for Speaker’s post and such a Speaker will be a prisoner of circumstances with bailing his government with casting vote at all occasions, since without casting vote the government will not sail. In this constitutional crisis now only Supreme Court had to lay down conditions.

If the opposition with 14 members had fielded a candidate for Speaker's post then division would have been the best way to ascertain the wishes of legislators over the choice of Speaker. But that failed since 10 crores were demanded for contesting and opposition dropped pursuing such proposal.

The Speaker’s election took place . The present Chief Minister with 14 members in his party including one independent supporting  put up a candidate for Speaker’s post. The combined opposition has 14 votes and the ruling combine had 14 votes as proven by combined opposition boycotting the declaration of Speaker's election.. The ruling combine banks upon cross voting in routine to run the government and Lt.Governor should not be a party to endorse horse trading subverting democracy, a process which began with one man without majority occupying the Chief Minister’s chair. Speaker got elected with 14 in ruling side and 14 in opposition side. Though opposition is divided suppose on fuel hike or any common issue of people then on each occasion the Speaker had to exercise his casting vote. Never in India in any legislature such precedent exists. MORE THAN THAT CHIEF MINISTER HAS NO MAJORITY AND CANNOT CONTINUE IN OFFICE. SUPREME COURT MUST SUO MOTO TAKE NOTE OF THIS AND ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF THIS ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LT.GOVERNOR WHO VIOLATED CONSTITUTION.

In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly (also division of the house or simply division) is a voting method in which the members of the assembly take a rising vote (stand up) or go to different parts of the chamber, literally dividing into groups indicating a vote in favour of or in opposition to a motion on the floor. A division of the assembly is often undertaken upon a motion, It can be contrasted with voice voting and electronic voting.

This was the method used to decide motions in the Roman Senate (and was occasionally used in democratic Athens).

In the Australian House of Representatives divisions follow a form similar to that of the United Kingdom, but the requirements are generally more stringent. For instance, a Member in the Chamber when the tellers are appointed must vote, while a Member not then present may not. Furthermore, members must vote in accordance to their voice votes. The voice vote is held as in the British House of Commons. If a Member objects, then the division bells are rung throughout Parliament House. When not less than four minutes have elapsed since the question was first put, the Speaker orders that the doors to the Chamber be locked, and directs that the Ayes proceed to the right side of the Chamber, and that the Noes proceed to the left. Members then take seats on the appropriate side of the Chamber, rather than entering a lobby, and then the Speaker appoints tellers for each side, unless fewer than five Members are seated on one side, in which case the Speaker calls off the division and declares the result for the side with the greater number of Members. If the division is still on, the tellers count and record the names of the Members. The Speaker announces the result, but does not himself vote unless there is an equality of votes.

In the Australian Senate, a procedure similar to that of the House of Representatives is followed. The voice vote is taken, and, if two Senators object, a division is held. Senators take seats in the right or left of the Chamber as in the House, and the President of the Senate appoints one teller for each side to record the votes. The President may vote by stating to the Senate the side on which he intends to vote. If the result of the division is an equality of votes, then the motion is in all cases disagreed to.

The procedure used in the House of Commons of Canada is similar to that in the British House of Commons, with a few differences. The Speaker reads the question aloud, and then asks, "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?" If anyone dissents, the Speaker then states "all those in favour of the motion will please say yea." After the cries of 'yea', the Speaker says "all those opposed will please say nay," and all members opposed to the question cry out 'nay' all at once. The Speaker then announces his opinion of the outcome of the vote. If five or more MPs challenge the Speaker's opinion, a formal division follows.

A formal division is invoked by the Speaker asking to "call in the members." Bells are rung throughout the Parliament Buildings for either 15 or 30 minutes to allow all present MPs time to enter the chamber and take their seats. The division begins with the whips from both the government and the official opposition bowing to the Speaker and each other before returning to their seats. There are no division lobbies in the House of Commons, so each member votes by simply standing up from his or her seat. "Yea" votes are recorded first, followed by the "Nay" votes, on the Speaker's order. Finally, the clerk of the house reads the result of the vote aloud to the Speaker.

In the German Bundestag, when it is unclear what the majority wants, the president can call for the so-called Hammelsprung (literally, sheep herd). In this voting procedure, the MPs leave the plenary hall and re-enter through one of three doors designated for "yes", "no", or "abstention".

According to the Duden dictionary, the expression refers to the MPs grouping themselves like sheep behind their respective bellwether(s) before re-entering the chamber.[1] The procedure was introduced in 1874 by a Reichstag vice president. In 1894 the architect of the new Reichstag building made a reference to the Hammelsprung: above the door for "yes", he depicted Ulysses and his friends escaping from Polyphemus.

Republic of Ireland In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the procedure for divisions is specified by standing orders 68–75.[2] The Ceann Comhairle (chair) puts the question and TDs (deputies) present say the Irish word Tá or Níl respectively if they agree or disagree.[3] The Ceann Comhairle then gives an opinion on the voice vote; a TD may demand a division by calling Vótáil ("vote").[4] If fewer than ten TDs call for a division, the Ceann Comhairle asks them to rise in their places; their names are recorded in the journal but the original decision stands. Otherwise the Ceann Comhairle calls Vótáil, which starts the voting process. The division bell sounds around Leinster House and the adjoining Oireachtas buildings, calling TDs to the chamber to vote. The bells ring for six minutes[citation needed] and the doors to the chamber are locked after a further four minutes.The Ceann Comhairle then appoints two tellers for each side and deputies present are given one minute to vote. Voting is usually electronic, with deputies pressing either the Tá or Níl button on their desks. After the voting time has concluded a Division Paper recording the result and each TD's vote is signed by the four tellers and given to the Ceann Comhairle, who declares the result. Electronic voting was introduced in 2002.[5] The traditional practice of voting by physically entering division lobbies is retained for some symbolically important votes: motion of no confidence, election of the Ceann Comhairle, and nomination of Taoiseach and cabinet ministers. A group of at least 20 TDs may demand a non-electronic repeat of an electronic vote, a tactic which Opposition parties sometimes use to increase media coverage of major votes. Notably, in 1969 when Jack Lynch sought the nomination of the Dáil to be appointed Taoiseach by the President, after the division had been called and the doors locked, the bells continued to ring and several deputies Fianna Fáil deputies subsequently entered the chamber through an unlocked door. After other deputies objected, The Ceann Comhairle called the division again. Lynch won the nomination 74 votes to 66.[6] In Seanad Éireann, the upper house, a similar procedure is laid out by standing orders 56–63.[7] The relayed sound of the bell for Seanad divisions differs from that of the Dáil bell.

United Kingdom In the House of Commons, the Speaker says "The Question is that…", then states the question. Next, he says, "As many as are of that opinion say Aye." Then, following shouts of "Aye", he says, "of the contrary, No," and similar shouts of "No" may follow. If one side clearly has more support, the Speaker then announces his opinion as to the winner, stating, for example, "I think the Ayes have it". Otherwise, the Speaker declares a division.Any member may object to the Speaker's determination. If the Speaker feels that the division is unnecessary, he may first ask those who support his determination of the voice vote to rise, and then ask those who oppose the opinion to rise. Then, the Speaker may either declare that his ruling on the voice vote stands, or proceed to a division.If a division is to be taken, the Speaker first states, "Division! Clear the Lobbies!" The Division Bell then sounds across the Parliamentary Estate as well as several buildings in the vicinity, such as restaurants and pubs, and Members' Lobby in front of the Commons' Chamber is cleared of strangers, primarily journalists who have access to the Lobby. Division bells notify any members not currently in the chamber that a vote is about to start. A recent development has been the use of pagers and mobile phones by party whips, to summon members from further afield.One minute into the division the Speaker puts the question to the House again. It is often the Whips who answer the question this time after which the Speaker announces the Tellers, two (one Government MP, one Opposition MP) for the Ayes and two for the Noes. Tellers are usually whips, but on occasions can be rebel MPs, or even frontbench spokesmen (in the case of the Liberal Democrats).MPs have to walk through the two Division Lobbies on either side of the House and give their name to the Division Clerks at the end of the respective Lobbies to vote. They are then counted by the Tellers as they leave the Lobby. The Whips keep check on which MPs enter which Lobby and try and persuade them to enter the Lobby that the Party would like them to enter.

Whips have historically been brutal to Backbenchers to secure their vote. There have been cases where Members of Parliament were wheeled from far afield to vote for the government of crucial vote. Former MP Joe Ashton remembered a case from the dying days of James Callaghan's government: I remember the famous case of Leslie Spriggs, the then Member for St. Helens. We had a tied vote and he was brought to the House in an ambulance having suffered a severe heart attack. The two Whips went out to look in the ambulance and there was Leslie Spriggs laid there as though he was dead. I believe that John Stradling Thomas said to Joe Harper, "How do we know that he is alive?" So he leaned forward, turned the knob on the heart machine, the green light went around, and he said, "There, you've lost - it's 311." That is an absolutely true story. It is the sort of nonsense that used to happen. No one believes it, but it is true.[8]

Originally, there was but one lobby. In A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson writes: The one party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it important which go forth, and which remain; because the latter gain all the indolent, the indifferent and inattentive. Their general rule therefore is, that those who give their votes for the preservation of the orders of the House, shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established course, are to go out.After the fire of 1834, the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt. At that time, a second lobby was added.Eight minutes after the question has been put for the first time, the Speaker declares, "Lock the Doors." The lobby entrances are locked, and only those within the Lobbies may continue to vote.After all members have voted in the lobbies, the vote totals are written on a card and the numbers are read out to the House by the Tellers. The Speaker then announces these numbers a second time, announcing the final result by saying 'The Ayes/Noes have it, the Ayes/Noes have it'. The Speaker himself does not vote, except in the case of a tie and then only strictly in accordance to precedent. This means that the Speaker will let vote in accordance with these principles:

Legislation remains unchanged unless there is a majority in favour of amendment,

Legislation is allowed to proceed to the next stage unless there is a majority in favour of rejection, and

All other motions are rejected unless there is a majority in favour of passage.

Members may signify, but not record, an abstention by remaining in their seats during the division.

It is stipulated that all Members of Parliament are required to stay in or around the premises of the House of Commons until the main business of the day has ended, however long that may be. In the unlikely event that fewer than forty members voted in the division, the division is ignored, the question at hand is postponed until the next sitting, and the House proceeds to the next business.

The nature of divisions in the House of Commons is one which traditionally could go on well into the night, sometimes past midnight. However, in 2000 the House introduced, on an experimental basis, the procedure of "Deferred Divisions." Essentially, some divisions are delayed until the next Wednesday. The procedure is used for very few matters; most divisions still occur normally.

There have been suggestions that electronic voting may be easier and quicker to do than physically going through a division lobby. However, MPs have often found that a division is the best way to interact for senior members of the government. And it can be considered a way to sort out problems for the Member's constituents.

In the United States Congress, divisions are used, but not in the same manner as in the British Parliament. In Congress, lobbies are not used, and the division is not a final determination of the question. The vote is first taken by voice vote, as is the case in Parliament. Then, any member may demand a division. If a division is demanded, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate (or President pro tempore) asks those voting Yea to rise and remain standing until counted, and then asks those voting Nay to do the same. Thereafter, a recorded vote may, under the provisions of the US Constitution, be forced upon the demand of one-fifth of the members present. In the Senate, the recorded vote is accomplished by the Clerk's call of the Roll. In the House, a Roll Call may be used, as may electronic voting devices.

India : Election of Speaker

In the Lok Sabha, the lower House of the Indian Parliament, both Presiding Officers—the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker- are elected from among its members by a simple majority of members present and voting in the House. As such, no specific qualifications are prescribed for being elected the Speaker. The Constitution only requires that Speaker should be a member of the House. But an understanding of the Constitution and the laws of the country and the rules of procedure and conventions of Parliament is considered a major asset for the holder of the office of the Speaker. The election of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is an important event in the life of the House. One of the first acts of a newly constituted House is to elect the Speaker. Usually, a member belonging to the ruling party is elected the Speaker. A healthy convention, however, has evolved over the years whereby the ruling party nominates its candidate after informal consultations with the Leaders of other Parties and Groups in the House. This convention ensures that once elected, the Speaker enjoys the respect of all sections of the House. IN PUDUCHERRY THIS CONVENTION HAD NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

There are also instances when members not belonging to the ruling party or coalition were elected to the office of the Speaker. Once a decision on the candidate is taken, her name is normally proposed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. If more than one notice is received, these are entered in the order of receipt. The Speaker pro term presides over the sitting in which the Speaker is elected, if it is a newly constituted House. If the election falls later in the life of a Lok Sabha the Deputy Speaker presides. The motions which are moved and duly seconded are put one by one in the order in which they are moved, and decided, if necessary, by division. If any motion is carried, the person presiding shall, without putting the latter motions, declare that the member proposed in the motion which has been carried has been chosen as the Speaker of the House. After the results are announced, the Speaker-elect is conducted to the Chair by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She is then felicitated by Leaders of all Political Parties and Groups in the House to which she replies in a thanks-giving speech. And from then the new Speaker takes over.

In 2011 in Andhra Pradesh Assembly Speaker chose from secret ballot to division of votes as best way and transparent way to find our the majority with public knowing where stood where and for whom.

IN VIEW OF GLOBAL PRACTICE IN ALL DEMOCRACIES AND IN VIEW OF PRECEDENTS IN INDIA BOTH IN PARLIAMENT AND ASSEMBLY, LT.GOVERNOR HAD FAILED IN ALLOWING SPEAKERS ELECTION WITHOUT PROVING MAJORITY. THEREBY EVEN BY DIVISION THE STRENGTH COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED.

Hence Supreme Court must set right the discrepencies in implementation of UT Act and as immediate measure sack the proxy rule by dead saints and astrologers, whose rule is not permissible under Indian constitution.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

Date :1.07.2011

HORSE TRADING :CROSS VOTING : BIDDING STARTS IN PUDUCHERRY

Legal opinion should be sought from Law Ministry to conduct the Election of Speaker to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and giving sufficient time limit for legislators to decide.

Unprecedented happenings in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly had necessitated for seeking legal opinion from Union Law Ministry on holding Election to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly...

Election results were out on 13 th May 2011. All India N.R.Congress won 14 seats and All India Anna DMK bagged 5 seats. This pre-election alliance if had staked to form Government the strength would have been 19 in the 30 member assembly reflecting majority in the floor of the assembly. But All India N.R.Congress broke its pre-election alliance and indulged in horse trading securing the support of lone independent and the leader of All India N.R.Congress was invited to form the Government thinking All India N.R.Congress had 15 seats plus 1 independent gives them majority in the 30 member legislative assembly. But as constitutional authority you should have given shortest time to prove the majority in the floor of the assembly. Even the number 16 got reduced to 15 with Chief Minister without a cabinet, at that point of time , resigning one out of two seats he had won. Thus the effective strength of the group you invited to form Government is just 15 with independent .This created a constitutional crisis. The Government does not have a MAJORITY. Under such circumstances it had to elect a Speaker. Chief Ministry in suspense had announced on 29 th June Speaker’s election will be held. Let me quote the procedure in Parliament/ States/ and Union Territories with regard to election of a Speaker.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER AND DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS.

8. Election of Speaker – (1) The election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix, and the Secretary shall send to every member a notice thereof: [Art. 178.]

Provided that the date so fixed shall, in the case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be within fifteen days from:

a. The date of the occurrence of the vacancy, if the Assembly is at that time sitting and

b. The date on which the Assembly first meets thereafter, if it is not so sitting.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER, DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS Chapter III of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly

9. Election of Speaker: [1] The Election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Administrator may fix and the Secretary shall send every member notice thereof:

Provided that the date so fixed shall in case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be not beyond 15 days from…….

So identical provisions for States and Union Territories exist. But with regard to State , Governor had to decide, but in Union Territory Administer had to decide but after taking clearance from the President of India acting on the advice of the Home Ministry..

The constitutional crisis in this Union Territory had never been envisaged when these laws were drafted and passed. These Acts and Rules are silent on HOW MUCH TIME should be given to CONVENE THE ASSEMBLY AND ELECT A SPEAKER. It is also silent on HOW LONG A GOVERNMENT WITH NO MAJORITY DELAY THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER. If the Speaker’s election is held and ruling combine with 15 member strength elects its Speaker it will be reduced to 14 numbers. Combined opposition strength is 14. And all times Speaker cannot cast casting vote to save the Government of the day.

Having broken the pre-election alliance the Chief Minister designate with a Cabinet with no portfolio is wooing the Main Opposition through media and NO NEW ALLAINCE RE-STRUCTURING HAD TAKEN PLACE. Everything is in fluid state. Everything is ambiguous.

The Lt.Governor of Puducherry is turning blind eye to the horse trading that is taking place to ensure NR Congress nominee win Speaker’s post. As per rumour mills 2 AIADMK MLA’s will be POACHED BY NR CONGRESS and I had sent TELEGRAM TO TAMILNADU CHIEF MINISTER to ISSUE WHIP to her MLA’s and the black sheep in her party may even throw her a surprise. Similarly I had sent telegram to Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi, DMK PRESIDENT that out of 2 MLA’s of DMK in Puducherry Legislative Assembly ONE may follow the precedent laid by S.S.Rajendran M.P by going to toilet to abstain at the time of voting for privy purses issue and will enable NR Congress nominee to snatch victory. Auction for MLA’s vote had started, and day by day bid amount is on increase.

If in hurried state Administrator i.e Lt.Governor you fixes the date for Speaker’s election following questions arise. We are not sure on how without proving strength in floor of the assembly one man can rule without Cabinet for some days and with cabinet without allocation of portfolios for some days and how long can a Chief Minister delay Speakers Election and re-negotiate alliance or resort to horse trading infringing the rights of the Elected Members of this Legislative Assembly.

Since these issues which are silent in Acts and which has no precedence in India had landed our Union Territory in a constitutional crisis and we hope Lt.Governor will seek the advice of the Union Law Ministry and Attorney General through the President of India before taking hasty and wrong steps in fixing date for election of Speaker.

THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Bill, 1975 which was enacted as the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Article 71 of the Constitution provides that disputes arising out of the election of the President or Vice-President shall be decided by the Supreme Court. The same article provides that matters relating to their election shall be regulated by a parliamentary law. So far as the Prime Minister and the Speaker are concerned, matters relating to their election are regulated by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this Act the High Court has jurisdiction to try an election petition presented against either of them.

So the constitution provides scope for judicial intervention, but it would be unnecessary if Administrator acts on the advice of Union Law Ministry and every step taken in this situation must be measured one with wider consultation with Union Government.

“The life of the Assembly is 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting beginning with the address of the Governor under Article 176 (1), unless sooner dissolved. The expiry of the said period of 5 years operates as dissolution of the Assembly”. Life of the assembly itself had to begin with Governor’s address, unfortunately precedents practiced since independence is taken for a ride here ever since recent election results were out. A Government in Coma keeps Assembly in Suspense depriving people’s representatives to function as legislators for which public have given their mandate.

In Canada when the House convenes on the first day of a new Parliament or on any day when the House is to elect a Speaker, the election of a Speaker must be the first order of business and has precedence over all other matters. Only after a Speaker has been elected is the House properly constituted to conduct its business

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA & GARWE JA HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 & MARCH 10, 2011

T Hussein, for the appellants Ms C Damiso, for the first respondent M Chaskalson SC, for the second respondent

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker"). The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, sought the following relief set out in the draft order:

"WHEREUPON after perusing the documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby declared that: - 1. The election of (the) second respondent as the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 25 August 2008 is null and void and set aside.

These examples of other countries prove the importance of the Office of the Speaker and even the Highest Courts of other countries intervening to protect the sanctity of the Speaker’s post.

Under such global scenario, the Administrator should seek the advice, guidance and instructions of the Union Law Ministry on how to proceed to fix a date for Speaker’s post and such a Speaker will be a prisoner of circumstances with bailing his government with casting vote at all occasions, since without casting vote the government may not sail.

With Regards

Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

http://www.dravidaperavai.org.in/

 

Date :27.06.2011

MANMOHANOMICS EXPOSED BY DINAMANI DAILY

The great economist who opened the floodgates for corporate socialism is putting up an innocent face while behind the curtains favoring corporate and acting before public domain as if he is paragon of virtue to be kept beyond the purview of Lokpal. The petroleum price hike and the arguments advanced under Manmohanomics are punctured by Dinamani Tamil daily of 23.06.2011 in its center-page article by P.S.M.Rao.

Argument: Internationally crude oil prices have shot up and hence it is inevitable to raise petroleum product prices in India… so says Manmohanomics.

Expose : Current prices of crude per barrel is around 94 dollars. If we take up the prices from last month average price would be 100 dollars per barrel. Exchange rate of dollar is Rs 44.9. On average a barrel costs Rs 4,490. One barrel contains 159.99 liters. So the price of crude oil per liter will be Rs 28.

In petrol production crude oil is used 90 percent and remaining 10 percent of substances available in India. So per liter production cost of Petrol wont exceed Rs 30.

In 2006-2007 the cost of refining and producing petrol was Rs 19.47. In 2007-2008 it was Rs.24.71 and for 2008-2009 it was Rs26.11 only. In 2009-2010 it was Rs 21.75 only. If the Government of India had kept people as priority or cared for consumers more than corporate sector it could have sold petrol within Rs 30 or around Rs 30 with reasonable tax. So the argument that companies had to hike petrol prices due to international prices of crude rising is a myth.

Argument : The necessity to hike price is due to mounting losses of petroleum companies. In last year the losses for petroleum companies was Rs.78,000 crore and in current year it stood at Rs 1,80,208 crore.

Expose : Petroleum companies are not incurring losses at all. If you look at their yearly financial statements it will reveal all were earning profits. Rangarajan Committee too had pointed out this true state of affairs. The difference between government rates and import price is shown as loss. If these companies had incurred loss how come between 2006-2010 in four years petroleum companies could have shown Rs 1,26,888 crore of profit. By statistical jugglery a false picture is created to show as if petroleum companies are incurring losses and hence price rice is inevitable.

If only so-called Left parties which frequently resort to road-roko or bandh over petrol/diesel/gas price hike have explained like Dinamani, Indian people would have understood the dirty tricks of Manomohanomics, but they too failed the people.

Argument : Mounting subsidies led to inevitable price hike.

Expose : In between 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 the subsidy given by Government of India for petroleum products stands at Rs.23,325 crore. But in same period by way of taxes on petroleum products GOI had earned Rs 4,10,842 crore. If we calculate this the subsidy would be only 5.67 percent in profits made by GOI. If we include State taxes of Rs 2,63,766 crore then the subsidy will be only meager 3.45 percent of the profits made by governments.

By hiding the truth the Government of India will be telling the country that it incurs Rs 18.19 loss in diesel per liter given through public distribution system and Rs 29.69 in per liter of kerosene, and Rs 329.73 per cylinder of gas. By repeatedly drum beating these statistics, Government wants to hike the prices of these products and crush the consumer. Tax the corporate and not common man, which economist will teach basic democratic principle to Dr.Manmohan Singh.

Dinamani Tamil daily writes as eye-opener, turban covered ears of Prime Minister may not hear people’s woes at least Tamil knowing Home Minister P.Chidambaram or Finance Minister’s Minister of State Palani Manniccam must translate Dinamani and advice the Government that Manmohanomics must stop helping corporate to loot the National Exchequer.

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

22.06.2011

OIL AND GAS : NATIONAL LOSS AND GAIN TO CORPORATE INDIA

BIGGEST SCAM : NATURAL GAS SCAM

The draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General had accused the Petroleum Ministry and Director General of Hydrocarbon of “having failed to protect Governments financial interests”. This news shook the nation when media broke it .But the CBI had been lethargically and in slow pace pursuing a preliminary enquiry from 2009 into the role of Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry and of Directorate General of Hydrocarbon in their corporate dealings more specifically with Reliance Industries Limited.

Government of India headed by Dr.Manmohan Singh had always stood by corporate lobby and had extended step-motherly treatment to Government organizations like Oil and Natural Gas Commission. British Petroleum in 2005-2006 proposed to partner ONGC in three of its deep sea-blocks in Krishna-Godavari block in Bay of Bengal and in Gujarat-Kutch basin in Arabian Sea.

Our question to Honorable S.Jaipal Reddy current Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister who yesterday 20th June in press conference had defended his predecessor’s decisions is as follows :

1. British Petroleum made formal proposal to take 40 to 50 percent stake in ONGC’s three blocks in 2005-2006. Why did Oil and Natural Gas Ministry and Director General of Hydro-carbon REJECT IT ?

2. The same British Petroleum had no other option but to embrace Reliance Industries Limited by agreeing to pay $7.2 billion dollars to acquire 30 percent stake in oil blocks of Reliance Industries Limited including KG-D6 fields . ONGC lost $7.2 billion dollars and Reliance Industries Limited bagged this, due to the nepotism and favoritism shown by Oil and Natural Gas Ministry towards a corporate organization at the cost of Government organization. Is it not a scam or is it not a matter of shame ?

3. ONGC has a gas discovery block next to Reliance Industries Limited block of KG-D 6. The ONGC block is named as KG-DWN -98/2. In September 2007 ONGC proposed to give out 15 percent interest in the block to Brazil’s Petrobras. ONGC also wanted to give out 10 percent to Norway’s Norsk Hydro. Why did the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry drag the issue for over a year and driving out two major nations Oil giants . Their partnership would have been a boost to ONGC , a government of India enterprise. Why Manmohan Singh was not aware of this act ?

4. In Gujarat-Kutch basin ONGC had license for petroleum exploration valid till August 2008. So British Petroleum which had an oil block in Pakistan bordering ONGC’s GK-DW 1 block was interested to tie up with ONGC. Both British Petroleum and ONGC had even signed an Memorandum of Understanding. But the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry adamantly refused and rejected by the end of 2007. It was not for extending the license of ONGC which ends in August 2008. Why people of India need not break their heads. ONGC is after all a Government of India enterprise, so it need not be encouraged is the policy thrust of UPA government. The irony is that British Government lobbied hardly for this project and even UK government’s lobbying does not melt the Petroleum Ministry.

5. For KARAIKAL-TAMILNADU media : In Cauvery basin CY-DWN-2001/1 deep water block production sharing contract duly signed by ONGC, Oil India and Petrobras of Brazil was submitted to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry in 2009 January for clearance. It was stonewalled by the Ministry.

6. Six oil blocks three of which in KG basin, two off the Kerala-Konkan basin and one in Gujarat’s Kutch were given on nomination basis to ONGC in 2000. The Government organization struggled hard but it did not get clearances, may be a lobbyist had not been hired by ONGC.

7. Out of 33 oil blocks identified Reliance Industries Limited bagged 23 oil blocks and on that strength entered into a tie-up with British Petroleum. It is crystal clear that Government of India wanted to hand over all oil blocks to RIL, and the gigantic scam with Himalayan proportions has yet to be quantified.

8. CPI[ M] had alerted the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry and Prime Minister over this gas scam. But as usual deadly silence from Government quarters. CPI[M] in official statement accuses “ The price of natural gas for consumers was fixed at 4.2 dollar/unit by Empowered Group of Ministers in September 2007 in favour of RIL overlooking its earlier offer of 2.34 dollar/unit for the same to National Thermal Power Corporation.” SO RIL MUST MAKE PROFITS, that seems to be the Government of India policy which wants to kill the consumer with burden.

9. Dinamani, Tamil daily in its editorial dated 20-5-2011 says that we are offering the crude oil produced by ONGC to corporate giants at 30 percent less than international rates. If you read this along with CPI[ M] statement the GAS SCAM of UPA could be understood, though we have to wait for Comptroller and Auditor General to QUANTIFY it. Anyhow this will be the BIGGEST SCAM of THIS CENTURY IN INDIA.

We urge the CBI which prepared the Preliminary Enquiry in 2009 to hasten to file an FIR in the wake of CAG’s draft report and start the probe without delay.

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai     21.6.2011

Where does wealth go ? Who benefits under UPA governments policies?

Where does wealth go ? Who benefits under UPA governments policies?

There are 1,20,000 high net worth individuals who have investible assets of $ 1 million dollar and more and these 0.1% of India’s population owns one third of India’s Gross National Income. According to Asia-Pacific Wealth Report of 2009 the combined net worth of 84000 high net worth individuals is $310 million dollars. So 1 percent of our populations grows richer day by day and UPA is benefitting only them.

How long it will take for us, the other 99 percent of India’s population to reach the level attained by 1 percent of the population. ?

A Indian from rural areas will have to wait for 3814 years to reach that stage. An average urban Indian will take 2238 years to become rich like the 1 percent rich of our society.

Do you say UPA is not taxing the rich ?

I am not saying. Auditor Gurmurthy in Open-Editorial in The Hindu recently accuses “ UPA has altogether stopped taxing corporate and others who are tax worthy. According to Economic Survey 2010-2011 the ratio of excise revenue to GDP has come down from 3 percent in 2005-2006 to 1.7 percent in 2010-2011 and customs from 1.8 percent to 1.5 percent. On the basis of excise-customs to GDP ratio of 2005-2006 the government had under-levied excise by 1,00,000 crore and customs by 43,000 crore in 2010-2011. Yes 1.43,000 crore loss to government coffers. If government losses who benefits, even a child will point the finger at corporate .

The under levy of excise started in 2006-2007 at 13,000 crore and by 2008-2009 rose to 63,000 crore. By 2010-2011 it reached 81,000 crore. It means the Government refused to levy the legitimate tax. Common man can bear tax burden and nor corporate our Finance Minister Pranab Brokerjee thinks. Sorry if he continues to behave like a broker to corporate common man will only curse him by slightly modifying his name.

The companies posted a profit before tax of 4.08 lakh crore in 2005-2006. In 2007-2008 the profit stood at 7.11 lakh crore and in 2008-2009 at 6.68 lakh crore. Super profits in 2009-2010 is 8.24 lakh crore. So it is clear that our people have to bear more and more tax burdens by hikes in petrol diesel prices whereas companies in the field grow richer and richer.

You spoke in 2011 beginning itself in Karaikal that the biggest scam is not 2G but KG , now CAG [ Comptroller and Auditor General] report seems to vindicate you ?

Recent scams started with 80,000 crore revenue loss caused by Reddy brothers, in mining scam of Karnataka. Then came 2 G scam where CAG quantified to 1.76 lakh crore. Rs 214 crore beneficiaries are in prison. Totally 30,000 crore is only in CBI chargesheet against the so far accused. Balance 1,46,000 crore loot and those who looted definitely must be in UPA waiting for getting exposed. After Tamilnadu’s 2 G scam, mining scam of 3,00,000 lakh crore rocked the Orissa Assembly. In that series next came the center page article Corporate Socialism’s 2 G orgy in The Hindu dated March 7 of 2011. Mr.P.Sainath quoting government statistics said “ Government had forgone from 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 corporate income tax, excise and customs duty, to the extent of Rs 21, 25,023 crores. Yes 21 lakh crores government helped corporate sector . Half a trillion dollars nation lost in revenue. 12 times BIGGER than 2 G scam, Sainath wrote. This is not DMK scam, it is Congress scam.

Global Financial Integrity , a watch dog organization brought out a report on illegal financial flows from India to tax havens. The figure they quote is 21 lakh crore since 1948 to 2011 is black money slashed abroad. Everyday 240 crores is written off in corporate income tax in India under UPA. This money becomes black money creating black economy. So in these scams KG scam had yet to be quantified. 

CAG on KG….

The Hindu dated June 16 th of 2011 in its editorial All is not well with gas and oil writes “ To the list of acronyms and alphabets -2G,CWG,ISRO- that have given the UPA government such an un-savoury image in recent times must now be added another KG.According to draft report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on hydrocarbon production sharing contracts the public exchequer has suffered an as yet unquantifiable loss thanks to the undue benefit provided by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to Reliance Industries Ltd, the operator of gas-rich Krishna Godavari basin fields…… The Ministry as per report allowed the company to expand 1600 square kilo meters the contract area. Is it sea grabbing like land grabbing? That is why I wrote few weeks ago in Makkal Manasatchi, a Tamil investigative weekly that Malladi’s Real Estate Business in Bay of Bengal.

To continue…

SAVE OUR SEAS AND RIVER BASINS

Hon’ble Tamilnadu Chief Minister Dr.J.Jayalalithaa                        

Government of Tamilnadu

Respected Madam

Subject : Interlinking of Rivers in changed geo-political scenario..

British could interlink India with Rail link, but now the UN project to interlink all continents through rail link remains a dream. In Bering Straits a land bridge would have linked all continents. In India too we have been toying with a rail link from Vietnam to London through Delhi of course this UN dream project had made news when Lallu Prasad was Railway Minister. Like these dream projects in India we have been talking about interlinking of rivers. If Government of India had initiated this project when K.L.Rao mooted now we could have boosted our agrarian economy. Chaudry Charan Singh who as Prime Minister accommodated 2 from Anna DMK in his cabinet was for giving preference and predominance to agriculture but his term was shortest.

Now I am enclosing the Public Interest litigation I prepared and filed in Supreme Court in 2001, and since I engaged name sake lawyers in admission stage it was dismissed as withdrawn. Then I wrote in New Times Observer which reached then President Dr.Abdul Kalam who spoke in Republic Day speech. Later some other lawyer filed in same Supreme Court which admitted and we don’t know what happened to that case.

North India faced flood fury every year, so I suggested let at least North Indian rivers be linked. Please read my article in Tamil magazine Surya Kathir about China arresting Himalayan Rivers by constructing dam after dam while our Government did not wake from slumber even while tiny nations around us had lodged protest. Not only this cross border water detention but our river basins have been identified as potential areas where shale gas could be extracted. You may think what harm will come ? Let us see what happened in USA.

On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, The Washington Times reported receiving a secret 21-page Obama Administration memo that revealed plans by the federal government to seize several million acres of land in several Western States. Since that memo was issued last year, the amount of land being targeted for seizure by the Obama Administration quickly escalated from 10 million to 220 million acres. The document, marked "Internal Draft—Not For Release" named 14 different lands Obama coould close to any form of development by unilaterally designating them as "national monuments" under the much abused Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law 16 USC 431-433) which was legislated to protect prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts in the American West. The Antiquities bill was proffered in 1906 by Congressman John F. Lacy, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands to allow the President, by Executive Order, to restrict the use of public lands already owned by the federal government. While Lacy expected those restricted areas to be small—like an old Indian burial ground here or a prehistoric Indian village there—that's not what happened. Or, you might say, the government—growing greeddier by the year—simply "grew into" the land grab they now use to steal the weealth of America from the people for the self-appointed caretakers of America...the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business .Social Progressive President Teddy Roosevelt, who saw the Antiquities Act as the perfect devise to arbitrarily seize millions of acres of land containing countless billions of dollars of mineral wealth for the federal government, even though the bill specifically stated that the national monuments the Act was designed to protect "...are to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." Congress gave the President the power to create national monuments by Executive Order to quickly protect archeological finds from being pillaged and decimated before Congress could enact legislation to protect them. The president who signed the Antiquities Act into law on June 8, 1906, Teddy Roosevelt, was the first President to abuse it. Where Lacy and the US Congress tried to save an archeological dig in Iowa, Roosevelt strutted his newfound power and created a 1,346.91 acre national monument called Devil's Tower in the Black Hills in Crock County, Wyoming.

It is needless to go at length, but it is enough to bear in mind that such power could be abused or used in India too where River Basins instead being meant for agriculture could get diverted to extraction of shale gas. This danger is ahead and we who want to interlink rivers must be aware of China diverting our rivers in its source and also the plans of Petroleum Ministry of Government of India whose Director General of Hydrocarbon had let the cat out of the bag in May of 2011 by proclaiming bids for shale gas blocks would be invited. Though Northern river interlink would get seriously affected by such greedy mining of river basins, we have to bear in mind that our Bay of Bengal had been demarcated as 33 blocks for which 9 times international bidding had been done. The picture shows that our fishermen had only to go to sky to catch stars, since whole Bay of Bengal would be the possession of corporate extracting oil/gas and minerals.

The Report in Japan Times on line states :Exploiting the ocean's riches

By MICHAEL RICHARDSON

SINGAPORE — In the 1970s, the oil and natural gas industry decided to take a leap into the deep. With many of the biggest and cheapest petroleum deposits on land already discovered, the search for new finds went offshore into ever-deeper waters. The move has transformed the energy business. About one-third of the world's oil and gas now comes from beneath the seabed, although some accidents and spills have caused extensive damage to the environment and been costly to clean up. Despite the risks and technical challenges, the mining industry is about to do what oil and gas drillers have done. Buoyed by recent high prices of precious and base metals, leading mining and mineral-using economies are on the verge of opening a new frontier of deep-sea metals recovery.

Those involved in the hunt include companies from Canada, Australia, the United States, Japan, China, India and South Korea. One of their main targets is the Asia-Pacific rim where volcanic activity and tectonic plate movements create vast mineral and gas deposits on or just below the seabed. Japan has calculated that in its waters alone, total recoverable metal and energy resources in sea floor deposits amount to at least ¥300 trillion. Multi-metalic sulphide concentrations of gold, silver, copper and zinc in Japan's claimed exclusive economic zone, out as far as 200 nautical miles from the coast, were estimated to be worth ¥80 trillion in late 2008, when most commodity prices were depressed by the financial crisis.Cobalt-rich crusts containing titanium, manganese, nickel and platinum as well as cobalt are valued at ¥100 trillion, while reserves of methanehydrate, icelike gas formations trapped in sediment on the seabed, are put at ¥120 trillion.State-owned China Minmetals, the country's largest metals trader, is intensifying research and development into deep-sea mining. Noting that China relied heavily on costly raw-material imports, Minmetals president, Zhou Zhongshu, said in March that "this will push the country to go for deep-sea mining to explore (for) metals including copper, nickel, silver and gold."

No one has yet attempted full-scale commercial mining to exploit the trove of seabed mineral riches. But earlier this year, the Papua New Guinea government granted the world's first deep-sea mining lease to Nautilus Minerals Inc, a Canadian-based firm backed by several multinational and Russian mining groups.

Nautilus is assembling a combination of proven technologies from different industries, among them mining, oil and gas, and dredging, to create what it says will be a cost-efficient system for deep-sea mining. In 2013, it plans to start mining a high-grade copper-gold resource about 1,600 meters below the surface of the Bismarck Sea in Papua New Guinea waters.The company says it will use remotely operated undersea vehicles and machines to cut ore from the sea floor and pump it up to a production support vessel on the surface as seawater slurry. The water will then be removed and the ore shipped to shore for smelting into ingots. After investing about $400 million, Nautilus aims to produce ore at an annual rate of more than 1.3 million tons, containing approximately 80,000 tons of copper and up to 200,000 ounces of gold for a number of years before shifting its moveable production system to other nearby deposits it has found. Multi-metallic sulphides are found around seabed hot springs emerging from volcanic vents. Seawater percolates down through the crust and reacts chemically with the rocks at very high temperatures, collecting metals as it does so. When the hot vent water rises and mixes with the cold seawater on the ocean floor, the metals precipitate out to form concentrated deposits. Exploiting these deposits in national waters is already controversial. After returning from a recent visit to Papua New Guinea, Australia's Greens party leader, Sen. Bob Brown, said he would seek a Senate inquire into the environmental impact of undersea mining.

Other critics say that the Asia-Pacific rim is being made a test bed for a potentially damaging new form of mining as technology races ahead of regulation.

Another Canadian-based company, DeepGreen Resources Inc., is seeking financial backing to mine a massive copper-nickel deposit in international waters in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico. The deposit lies 4,500 meters below the surface of the sea.

Meanwhile, China and India have filed applications with the United Nations International Seabed Authority (ISA) for high seas mining rights of the Indian Ocean. The ISA has regulatory authority over seabed mineral resources in international waters. Its mandate is to ensure that these resources are exploited in a way that is fair to all countries. However, it has yet to spell out whether and to what extent conservation is part of the common heritage of mankind. [Michael Richardson is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.]

If in our Bay of Bengal mining is to happen near the geo-fracture zone shown in the above picture, we are inviting danger to our shores. These issues I had written in New Indian Express in post-tsunami phase and now in little known Tamil magazine Makkal Manasatchi a serial which continues with lot of spelling mistakes. In such a scenario was must understand that mining our sea bed is because our rivers had gifted the ocean with mineral wealth as would be seen in this picture.

This Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) is characterized by its tropical climate. It is situated in the monsoon belt and receives high rainfall. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are the countries bordering the LME. Intensive fishing is the primary force driving the LME, with climate as the secondary driving force. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is supporting a fisheries project, now in the preparation stage, to address critical threats to the coastal and marine environment, and to promote ecosystem-based management of coastal and marine resources. LME book chapters and articles pertaining to the Bay of Bengal LME include Dwivedi, 1993, and Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998.

Productivity :For a description of the Bay of Bengal as a shared ecosystem, see Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998. The LME is affected by monsoons, storm surges, and cyclones but has no seasonal upwelling. However, in nearshore areas, the mixing of nutrient rich bottom waters and warm surface waters creates conditions similar to upwelling (see Dwivedi and Choubey, 1998). The number and intensity of cyclones in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal are likely to increase due to global warming. For more on the southwest monsoon, see Desai and Bhargava, 1998. Major rivers such as the Brahmaputra and Ganges discharge large quantities of fresh water into the Bay of Bengal (see Dwivedi and Choubey, 1998). For a map of freshwater drainage of the Northern Bay of Bengal, see Dwivedi, 1993, p. 45. This input of freshwater and silt impacts the salinity of the coastal and estuarine waters as well as coastal circulation patterns. It influences and governs LME dynamics during the southwest monsoon. For more information on hydrography and productivity, see Dwivedi, 1993. Wetlands, marshes, and mangroves play an important role in the overall productivity. The Bay of Bengal LME is considered a Class II, moderately productive (150-300 grams of carbon per square meter per year) ecosystem based on SeaWiFS global primary productivity estimates. Changing environmental conditions are influencing currents, productivity and coastal pollution. Lakes connected to the Bay of Bengal LME are changing. Some coastal areas serving as nursery grounds for commercially valuable species of prawns are polluted. For a map of distribution of zooplankton biomass in the Bay of Bengal LME, see Desai and Bhargava, 1998, p. 303. For more information on biological production and fishery potentials in India’s EEZ, see Desai and Bhargava, 1998. For benthic biomass production in the shelf region of the Bay of Bengal, see Parulekar et al, 1982. A graph is reproduced on page 303 of Desai and Bhargava, 1998. Six areas of critical biological diversity are: the Sundarbans, one of the world’s most extensive mangrove systems, Palk Bay, the Gulf of Mannar, the Marine (Wandur) National Park in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Maldives Atolls, Mu Ko Similan National Park and Mu Ko Surin National Park in Thailand.

Fish and Fisheries :The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 10-year trend shows a steady increase in catch from 1.4 million tons in 1990 to 2.2 million tons in 1999 (see FAO, 2003). The average catch is 2 million tons. This tropical region has a relatively great marine biodiversity that is reflected in the catch composition. There is a high catch percentage for miscellaneous coastal fishes and pelagic fishes (tuna, yellowfin, big eye and skipjack). Herrings, sardines and anchovies represent more than 15% of the catch. The crustacean catch (shrimp is the major export earner) is just below 15% of the total catch (see FAO, 2003). Catch trends are quite diverse and it is difficult to identify a pattern due to the fact there is inadequate information on the status of the fisheries resources and their exploitation. For more information on the major fisheries in this LME, see Dwivedi, 1993. Despite a steady rise in total landings since the 1950s, there are signs that the harvest levels may not be sustainable, especially with regard to tuna fishing in the Maldives, Malaysia, Thailand’s Andaman coast and Sri Lanka. Ecological changes in the estuaries and coastal areas have not yet affected total production trends (see Dwivedi, 1993).

The GEF-supported project is examining the issue of sustainable fisheries and food security. Heavy fishing through open access and the unauthorized incursions of foreign fleets is a comparatively recent phenomenon. There is an increase of competition and conflicts between artisanal and large-scale fisherman. There is an alarming increase in cyanide fishing in this LME’s coral reefs for the lucrative live food fish markets in Hong Kong and Singapore. Mangroves and estuaries--critical fish spawning and nursery areas-are also under stress or threatened by pollution, sedimentation, dams for flood control (as in Bangladesh), and intensive coastal aquaculture. In most of the countries surrounding the Bay of Bengal, clear policies, appropriate strategies and measures for the sustainable management of the fishery resources are weak. There is a need to establish a systematic data collection system in order to prepare a regional strategy. The University of British Columbia has detailed fish catch statistics for this LME.

Pollution and Ecosystem Health

(Source: NOAA)

The ecosystem stresses experienced are connected to the size of the coastal populations bordering the LME (see Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998). Issues of ecosystem health that are common throughout the region are: environmental stresses on the Bay of Bengal’s water quality; the degradation of many of the coral, mangrove, wetland and seagrass bed habitats that support fisheries; and the use of fishing gear that may affect the long-term sustainability of the fisheries resource. For more information on anthropogenic changes, see Dwivedi, 1993. The major rivers bring in large concentrations of pollutants from agricultural pesticides and industrial waste that damage fish spawning and nursery areas, cause fish kills and lead to possible changes in trophic structure. High levels of pesticides can be found along the coast, especially near cities and ports (see Dwivedi, 1993). A major part of Bangladesh consists of a delta plain positioned below the confluence of the Ganga, Brahmaputra and Meghna Rivers. Environmental refugees regularly flee the flooded plain, and many deaths occur with the floods. For a map of the effect of sea-level rise on low-lying Bangladesh, see Dwivedi, 1993, p. 51. Sediment loading in the Ganga-Brahmaputra watershed caused by accelerated soil erosion in the Himalayas is considered to be one of the main factors contributing to downstream flooding. In some regions of the Bay of Bengal, a change in composition of plankton species has been observed (see The Bay of Bengal Programme, 1994). There is heavy oil tanker traffic between Japan and the Middle East, with the main shipping route passing South of Sri Lanka before entering the Straits of Malacca via a passage below the Nicobar Islands. For this reason, oil spills are a major concern. In 1993, India approved a national oil spill contingency plan. There is inadequate information on pollution and sedimentation loads entering the Bay of Bengal, on coastal habitats and endangered species. This information is necessary in order to understand the functioning of the ecosystem and its reaction to stress over time.

Socio-economic Conditions

(Source: NOAA)

A quarter of the world's population resides in the countries bordering the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (see Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998). The high population depends on coastal resources for food and livelihood security. India will soon reach a population of 1 billion. It will require millions of tons of fish to meet minimum protein needs. This puts significant pressure on marine resources. There is an urgent need for long term planning for the conservation and management of the LME. Millions of tons of fish must come from aquaculture. Of the 400 million people living in the LME's catchment area, many subsist at or below the poverty level. For more information on artisanal fisheries, see Dwivedi, 1993. There are conflicts between large scale and small-scale fishermen. Poverty, unsustainable fishing practices and a decline in income from fisheries are contributing to a crisis. Addressing this crisis requires the coordinated effort of the 8 countries bordering the LME. Other economic activities in the LME are tourism (for instance in the Maldives), and the mining of coral and sand for construction. The Global Environment Facility is supporting a project to protect the Bay of Bengal’s marine environment. The initiative is mobilizing national and regional efforts to improve the food and livelihood security of the region’s coastal populations.

Governance

Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand are the countries bordering the LME. A Project Description for The Bay of Bengal Programme is available. For a map showing EEZs in the Bay of Bengal, see Desai and Bhargava, p. 298. There are numerous stakeholder groups involved in the fisheries of the Bay of Bengal (see Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998). For more information on policy frameworks in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Maldives and Malasia, and on the success of a community-based aquaculture enterprise in West Bengal, India, see Aziz Ahmad et al, 1998. A multitude of international, regional and sub-regional institutions operate in the Bay of Bengal, many of which have similar mandates, resulting in overlap and duplication. Fisheries organizations include the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (IOFC), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the International Forum for the Indian Ocean (IFIOR), the Indian Ocean Rim Initiative, the Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC), and the Network of Aquaculture Centres for Asia (NACA). The Bay of Bengal Program (BOBP) is a regional fisheries project executed by FAO. It became operational in 1979 and involves all the countries bordering the Bay of Bengal with the exception of Myanmar. For more information on fisheries management and regulation, see the FAO web site. Other trans boundary areas are oil spill planning, legal and institutional review, and pollution control measures. On the whole, the region lacks enforcement capabilities. Major organizations of the area include the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC), the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the South Asian Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP), the UNEP Regional Co-ordinating Unit for East Asian Seas, and the Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Co-operation (IOMAC).

Fisheries and Agriculture should be Tamilnadu Governments twin areas of thrust.

Hence necessity arises on not only interlinking our rivers but also saving our coast from sea level rise. A Report by IIT-Chennai published in Times of India throws more light on saving our coast. Saving our Sea and River Basin had become imperative with corporate sharks encircling India after International Sea Bed Authority of UN had focused on mining in seabed. Chinese encirclement of India planned three decades ago too is aimed at looting the mineral wealth in our seas.

Hence on interlinking of rivers I would add the Sagar Mala scheme announced by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It was mooted by me. To divert cargo and passenger traffic from road to sea lanes, I urged for creation of National Sea ways on the lines of National High Ways. It was intended to reduce lorry traffic in roads and to use then existing 12 major ports and 138 minor and intermediary ports for inland cargo and passenger traffic. But now 180 ports captive ports under private hands are planned every 30 kilometer not for the purpose I speak but to use them for oil-mineral exploitation from our seas depriving fishermen of livelihood, and turning the rice bowl of Tamilnadu into an oil tanker of Tamilnadu.

Interlinking rivers is meant for boosting agriculture but vultures hover around to make our river basins as gas and oil fields. For Water we have to go to Moon and For power too moon is our savior as enclosed Times of India report says. But where to produce food and for which how to interlink our rivers is an area over which political leaders like you who have will must engage in brainstorming sessions.

With Regards

Yours fraternally

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai                  7.6.2011

http://www.dravidaperavai.org.in/