ISSUES FACING EELAM REFUGEES

APPEAL AGAINST DEPORTATION OF EALAM REFUGEES

At the party headquarters of Dravida Peravai various Human right activists met on 18,12,2000 and sent a Joint Memorandum To National Humans Rights Commission of India, which is given in verbatim here:

Ealam refugees came to India in three stages. After the ethnic holocaust in the year 1983 nearly 1,20,000 refugees came feeing from the clutches of Srilankan hoodlums. Particularly in between 24 th June 1983 to 29 th July 1989 the total number of refugees arrived here from Srilanka amounts to 1.34.053. Thereafter in the aftermath of 1987 accord between India and Srilanka particularly between 24 th December 1987 and 31 st August 1989, 25, 585 refugees were sent back to Srilanka. Most of them preferred to go to Western countries than to Srilanka. In the second phase after the 20 th January 1992 around 54,188 refugees were sent back. Now as on 31 st May 2000, the Ealam refugees in India number to 66464. They are kept under 129 special camps.

We, the signatories to the memorandum urge the National Human Rights Commission to study the conditions of these refugees and order for remedial measures. The Indian Government deals with refugees at both political and administrative levels. The result is that refugees are treated under the law applicable to aliens. In the case of refugees protection, the Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights, which are applicable to all non citizens, namely, the right to equality (article 14), the right to life and personal liberty (article 21) and the freedom to practice and propagate their own religion (article 25). Any violation of these rights can be remedied through recourse to judiciary as the Indian Supreme Court has held that refugees or asylum seekers cannot be discriminated against because of their non citizens status.

The National Human Rights Commission, we are aware has functioned effectively as a watch dog for protection of Refugees. The Commission has approached the Supreme Court of India under article 32 of the Constitution and obtained protection to Chakma refugees from the Chittagong hill areas of Bangladesh when their life and security was threatened by local politicians and youth leaders in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Relief was granted by the Supreme Court on the basis of the rights of aliens under article 14 and 21.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Ahamadi speaking for the court in the National Human rights Commission vs. State of arunachal Pradesh (1996 SCC 742) said that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being. He pointed out that the rights of the refugees under the constitution of India were confirmed by article 21, which also included the right to non-refoulement . In case of Khy Htoon and others vs State of Manipur, The Imphal Bench of the Guahati High Court ruled that refugees have fundamental rights under article 10, 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer considers article 14 which provides equal protection of law, as being applicable to all persons, not merely citizens.

India's refugee policy is further governed by certain administrative regulations. The standard of human treatment set by these administrative regulations flows from the ethos that persons displaced from their homes need both protection and economic sustenance. The administrative experiences of the government department responsible for rehabilitation and the laws adjudicated at the time of the partition have contributed towards a refugee policy for India. In India refugees are registered under the 1939 Registration Act, which is applicable to all foreigners entering the country. Under the 1946 Foreigners act The Government of India is empowered to regulate the entry, presence and departure of aliens in India, though the word alien itself is no where defined. Entry is also governed by the Passport act of 1967.

Entry can be restricted if a person does not have a valid passport or visa to individuals who can enter Indian borders without a valid visa or any other document though the government can exempt persons when it so deserves. These procedures are linked at this stage to illegal migrants, the exemption provision is applicable to refugees. It should be noted that refugees in developing countries unlike those in the West (barring those from former Yugoslavia) usually descend in large numbers. Under these circumstances refugee determination becomes an administrative task to oversee the relief and rehabilitation process rather than to supervise who stays or does not stay.

As mentioned previously the Government of India determines the refugee status and has no specific legislation to deal with refugees. Professor Saxena of Jawaharlal Nehru university maintains that despite this lacunae, India does apply in practice certain articles of the 1951 U.N Refugee Convention. These include Article 7 as India provides refugees the same treatment to all aliens, Article 3 as India fully applies a policy of non discrimination, Article 3 a as no penalty is imposed on illegal entry, article 4 as religious freedom is guaranteed, Article 16 as free access to Court is provided, Article 17 &!8 as work permits have no meaning and refugees do work, thus complying with these articles on wage earning rights, article 21 as freedom oh housing is allowed and refugees need not stay in camps, for freedom of movement is guaranteed to all aliens, except in certain areas where special permits are required not only for aliens but also for all Indians and article 27 and 28 as identity and travel cards are issued to refugees.

However many activists have contested the assertions of Professor Saxena. They point out that the majority of Srilankan Tamils and almost all of the Jammu and Chakma refugees were forced to live inside camps. Severe restrictions were imposed on their freedom of movement. In addition, asylum seekers from Burma were arrested and jailed and during 1995-1997 approximately 5000 Chin refugees from Burma were pushed back over the border. They also point out that since the government does not issue residence permits to all the refugees they are unable to open bank accounts, rent houses and set up a business. Moreover Indian educational institutions do not admit refugees. as a result young refugees are unable to pursue their academic careers.

To conclude though India is not a party to 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or its protocol, its domestic laws have not been found to be in conflict with international laws. While it can be justifiably proud of having followed a pragramme of humane treatment to refugees, there is still an absence of uniform treatment of different refugee groups with respect to refugees rights resulting in discrimination in terms of assistance and opportunities. To protect refugees by means of activists approach has its own limitations. Thus there is a need for enactment of national law to provide for refugees in a systematical manner.

HENCE WE THE SIGNATORIES TO THIS MEMORANDUM URGE THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TO MONITOR THE POSITION OF SRILANKAN TAMIL REFUGEES KEPT IN 129 CAMPS.

Physical Security : Indian Courts have decided in a number of cases that the Constitutional protection of life and liberty must be provided to refugees. In the case of Louis de Readt [1991 -3 SCC 554] and Khudiram [ Nos 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 615] the Supreme court held that article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of Indian citizens is extended to all including aliens. Below are some of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of National Human Rights Commission vs State of Arunachal Pradesh restrained the forcible expulsion of Chakma refugees from the state [Civil WP No 720/95 : 1996 {1] Supreme 295 ]. The Supreme Court in its interim order on November 2, 1995 directed the State Government to ensure that Chakmas situated in its territory are not ousted by any coercive action not in accordance with the law. The Court directed the State Government to ensure that the life and personal liberty of each and every Chakma residing within the State should be protected. Any attempt to forcibly evict or drive them out of the state by organized groups should be repelled by using para-miltary or police force and if additional forces are required, then the state should take necessary steps. The Court also decided that the Chakmas shall not be evicted from their homes except in accordance with the law, the application for their citizenship should be forwarded and processed expeditiously and pending the decision on these applications, they shall not be evicted.

WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THE MEMORANDUM POINT OUT THAT NOW FORCIBLE EXPULSION OF TAMIL REFUGEES HAS COME TO LIGHT. THE FORCIBLE DEPORTATION OF MR.EALAVENDHAN, to the country wherefrom he expects danger to his personal security marks a new phase in India's refugee policy which warrants the intervention of National Human Rights Commission.

Non-Refoulement and the Right to Refugee Status

In number of cases Indian Courts have protected the rights of refugees where there are substantial grounds to believe that their life would be in danger. There are cases where the Courts have ordered the life of refugees who are in danger to be safeguarded and have allowed them to be granted refugee status by the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees.

In Zothansangpuri vs State of Manipur (Civil Rule 981 of 1989) the Guwahati-Imphal bench of the Guwahati High Court ruled that the refugees have the right not to be deported if their life was in danger. In Dr.Malvika Karlekar vs Union of india (Criminal 583 of 1989) in Writ Petition, The Supreme Court held that authorities should consider whether refugee status should be granted and until the decision was made, the petitioner should not be deported. In Boghi vs union of India (civil Rule 981 of 1989) the Gauhati High Court not only ordered the temporary release of a Burmese man from detention but approved his stay for 2 months so that he could apply for UNHCR for refugee status ( Civil rule No 1847/89 Gauhati High Court). The case of U.Myat Kayvew vs State of Manipur ( Civil rule 516 of 1991) has contributed substantially to India's refugee policy. It involved eight Burmese people aged 12 to 58 who were detained in Manipur central jail in Imphal for illegal entry. The people had participated in the Democracy Movement had voluntarily surrendered to Indian authorities and were taken into custody. The cases were registered under section 14 of the Foreigners Act for illegal entry into India. They petitioned for their release, however to enable them to seek refugee status with UNHCR in New Delhi. The Gauhati High Court under article 21 ruled that asylum seekers who enter India, even if illegally should be permitted to apraoch the office of the Un High Commissioner to seek refugee status.

Right to Basic Amenities:

In Digvijay Mote vs Government of India [Writ Appeal No 354 of 1994]The High Court of Karnataka considering the rights of 150 Srilankan refugee children ordered the State to make necessary arrangements to provide basic amenities to the refugee children in the camp on humanitarian grounds. In Majid Ahmed Abdul Majid Mohd.Jad Al-Hak vs Union of India [ Crl. WP No 60 of 1997] the court held that basic amenities like food and medical care must be provided while in detention. In the case of Gurunathan and others (WP Nos 6708 of 1992] The Madras high Court on March 27, 1994 stayed the repatriation process as it was not voluntary. It held that when there is an international organization to ascertain the volanteriness of the consent it is not for the court to decide whether the consent was voluntary or not. It also directed the Government to transmit this order in Tamil to the camps as well as an order that refugees will not be sent back against their will.

Right to Leave

The court has upheld a refugees right to leave the country. In Nuang Maung Mye Nyant vs Government of India (CWP No 5120/94) and Shar aung vs Government of India (WP No 110 of 1998) the courst ruled that even those refugees against whom cases were pending for illegal entry should be provided exit permits to enable them leave the country for 3 rd country resettlement.

We point out that this right has been denied to Mr.Ealavendan though no case of illegal entry was pending against him.

Certain vested interests in this country wants to wipe out Tamil linguistic identity and ethnicity and are unleashing a campaign of hatred against Tamils. As part of their campaign of hatred against Tamils, these forces do not want fellow Indians to be concerned over the genocide in Srilanka or to treat Tamil refugees on par with Tibetan and other refugees as per our constitution. Tamil refugees should be confined to special camps and forcibly deported, whereas others may get preferential treatment, these forces argue. We bring to your notice that a fear psychosis is being created amidst Srilankan refugees that they can be deported to the land from where they fled for fear of life. Please ensure that none is deported to the land from where they escaped from the jaws of death. Also probe the manner in which Mr.Ealavendan was deported as some reports say in media that bypassing a duly elected State Government the deportation had taken place.

This memorandum drafted by Dravida Peravai was signed by Dravida Peravai General Secretary N.Nandhivarman, P.Sankaran Vice President Pondicherry PMK, Professor M.L.Thangappa of Thamizh Valarchi Nadavadikkai Kuzhu, N.M.Thamizhmani of Senthamizhar Iyakkam and others. It was sent to National Human rights Commission Chief Justice J.S.varma on 18,12.2000

DUTCH PLANNED & FRENCH EXECUTED

BUT WE SPOILED PONDICHERRY’S URBAN DEVELOPMENT

N.Nandhivarman

If you go to Old Delhi you will be shocked by its irregular street pattern but in New Delhi you will appreciate the concept of planned city. In old Pondicherry you can see straight roads but in the suburban areas in post independence era all that symmetry of streets is lost. How could such a legacy be thrown to winds? There is a saying in Pondicherry. In Tamil they say “Veethi Azhagu undu, Neethi Azhagu illai”. Veethi Azhagu means beauty of the streets. Who were the people who laid down the blueprint for straight streets in Pondicherry? Some may think it is local people. Some believe it is French. “ No, it is the work of the Dutch, “ says Jean Deloche, Historian based at the Ecole Francaise d”Extreme Orient at Pondicherry.

“ Some Indian scholars consider that the town was built according to the principles of the ancient Hindu treatises or architecture, particularly the Shilpa Sastra. French historians, on the other hand, feel that the plan should be considered as an achievement of French mind. In fact, the Dutch plans of Pondicherry preserved at the National Archives at The Hague show that the orthogonal street pattern of the town is a creation of the Dutch. The plans of 1693 show that, in Francois Martin’s time, the streets or lanes were following an irregular pattern, without any shape or symmetry, whereas in the plans drafted in 1694, during the Dutch occupation, one finds the design of a large new town, with a very regular geometric lay out, rectangular blocks of houses, separated by straight streets, intersecting at right angles. This great urban project of the Dutch company was adopted by the French who systematically carried out the extensive straightening out of streets into a planned grid, during the first half of the 18 th century” This is how Jean Deloche summarizes the contents of his book published in 2004 with 11 figures and 6 plates. “ Origins of the Urban Development of Pondicherry according to 17 th Century Dutch Plans” is a masterpiece placing truth in its right place. People must appreciate the French Institution here and the French author who did not falter in placing truth above all.

How did Pondicherry look like in 1700 A.D. “ Like an active hive developing its honeycomb, the town extended in a grid pattern along the left bank of the coastal river Uppar, to the north west of its citadel which was still no more than a small rectangular fort, Fort Barlong” This is how Professor M.Bourdart of the Lysee Francaise narrates in his book “18 th century Pondicherry “published in 1992. There is another map engraved as “ Map of Pondicherry” published by Nicholas de Fer in Paris in the year 1705. There is another plan of Pondicherry of 1741, which depicts Pondicherry, a year before the arrival of Dupliex. “ On this excellent plan are already shown the principal monuments of the town which was riveted to the Indian soil by the star shaped bolt of its fort, Fort Louis. The town’s appearance was to alter but little with time, at least as regards its outer contours. The fortifications would be leveled and would give place to the boulevards that today encircle the town.”

Well there are other evidences of that hoary past. One is the watercolor map of 1750 and the other is drawing of. Le Gentil who authored “Voyage dans les mers de l’inde, and visited Pondicherry twice in 1761 and 1769.

The Dutch evidences had thrown more light on the History of Pondicherry’s Urban Development. The Plan of the fortress and town “Poedechery” as it is currently being built on 20 th November 1694, available with Dutch Museum not only gives authentic version of the scene of those days but also spells Pudhucherri, the correct Tamil name instead of the corrupted version of Pondicherry.

In his book “City Planning and Architecture in Pondicherry “ P.Pichard thinks that the French adapted “their plan to the natural conditions of the littoral. This was possible because of the straight coast line was a very strong feature of the site and has from the beginning, determined the general orientation of the buildings and the direction of the streets, behind the dune, the low marshy lands and their outlet, running parallel to the seashore, increased this trend.”

Ron van Oers is of the opinion that Dutch colonial settlements were built on a “Strict geometrical design to subdivide the usable area into building plots. All had a common image of being neat and well organized.” On the orthogonal street model applied in Pondicherry he says Dutch preferred this pattern since” it was symbolic of an ordered, well managed society, hierarchical but democratic, it was emblematic for the hard working god fearing Dutch Calvinists”

“French appropriated this great design and that the extensive straightening out of the streets into a planned grid, systematically carried out by their governors in the first half of the 18 th century, was therefore the extension of the existing Dutch orthogonal pattern into the rest of the town.”  Says Historian Jean Deloche who lives in Pondicherry  A great scholar who loves Tamil lives here unknown to fellow Tamils and he humbly refuses to get photographed because he wants his works to speak for ages to come. The billion  dollar question is “If French could appropriate whatever good plans of the Dutch and beautify Pondicherry, who misled and buried such a planned legacy in the post independence era while sub urban colonies mushroomed here?” Let soul search begin.

     1700jpg: Pondicherry in the year 1700

     1705jpg : Map of Pondicherry by Nicholas de Fer in Paris (1705)

கச்சத் தீவு மீட்சிக்கு இந்தியாவில் எந்த ஆட்சியும் சிந்திப்பதில்லை

KACHCHATIVU: ISLAND LOST

"We are tracing the Kachchativu conflict from its past to present" Dravida Peravai

In Indian Parliament on July 23, 1974 Government of India made a statement on

THE RE-AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SRILANKA ON BOUNDARY IN THE HISTORIC WATERS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES AND RELATED MATTERS

Then Minister of External Affairs Mr.Swaran Singh will make a statement, The Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha announced.

Mr.Madhu Limayi M.P (Banka constituency) rose and said " On point of order, I had already given notice." Mr.K.Manoharan M.P( DMK Parliamentary Party Leader): "Each member must be given proper opportunity to express his views".

Mr.Era.Sezhiyan M.P (DMK): Before the Hon'ble Minister makes his statement, I want to submit that we should have been consulted and the House should have been taken into confidence before they entered into this unholy agreement for the surrender of territory by India. While we are anxious that friendly and cordial relations should be maintained with Srilanka the legal and constitutional properties involved have to be taken into account. This agreement goes against the interests of the country since it amounts to pure surrender of our territory without going through any norms. This is an unholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship unworthy of any government. Therefore we do not want to associate ourselves with the statement that is going to be made by the Hon'ble Minister, and we want to disassociate ourselves by walking out of the House.

K.Manoharan.M.P(DMK): Please allow one member from each party to express his views. We have decided to stage a walk out and therefore before we walk out we want to tell you the reasons which have prompted us to walk out. The agreement entered into between Srilanka Government and the Government of India is anti national and unpatriotic, it is the worst agreement ever signed by any civilized country of the world. I do not like to insult or hurt the feelings of either the people of Srilanka or the Prime Minister of Srilanka.

Hon'ble Speaker: Hon.members are going to have a debate on foreign affairs when they can raise all these points.

K.Manoharan M.P(DMK) : I must be permitted to speak now. Through this unholy agreement, the Srilanka Prime Minister has emerged as victor and the Prime Minister of India as a pathetic vanquished. It is an assault on the integrity of the country. In view of this, we have decided to stage a walk out and we are walking out.

Mr.Speaker: " He has a right to make a statement in the House"

Then in Hindi spoke Mr.ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE, Member of Parliament from Gwalior. In his speech he claimed that the original name of Kaccha Theevu was Valideep, an island where Sri Rama and Vali fought.

After exchanges in Hindi, the turn of another Tamil Nadu Member came.

P.K.THEVAR M.P. (Forward Block) (Ramanathapuram): Kachchativu forms part of my constituency. You are acting like a dictator. You are speaking like a democrat, but at the same time you are acting like a dictator. The whole life of thousands of fishermen...... today the Ceylon Government has moved their forces, their military, towards that island. Thousands of mechanized boats were stopped, movements were restricted. Their lives are in danger. You have simply betrayed. You have no sympathy and courtesy to consult those people.... It is going to be the basis for future war. It is going to be the base and challenge for the life of the nation. I have to warn all these things because in the past it has been the tradition of our government to give bhoodan of the northern borders. ( Interruptions).

Mr. Speaker: Kindly sit down.

Mr.P.K.N.Thevar : The division of India has cost the life of Mahatma Gandhi. It is not a part of Tamil Nadu but it is apart of the holy land of India. You are betraying...On behalf of my constituency and on behalf of the Forward Block, I walk out.

Mr.Muhamed Sheriff (Periakulam): Even on the 1 st April 1968, I produced sufficient records in this House to show that Kachchativu belongs to the Raja of Ramnad. Government has failed to go through these records. I was the elected representative of that constituency here previously. It is a shame on the part of the Government that they have not consulted the people of this place and the Chief Minister of the State. We condemn this action of Government and along with my friends, I also walk out in protest.

(P.K.N.THEVAR & MUHAMMAD SHERIFF THEN LEFT THE HOUSE)

Then Madhu Limayi spoke in Hindi.

After his lengthy speech Mr.P.K.Deo M.P( Kalahandi): One point of order, Sir. The statement that the Foreign Minister is going to make deals with cession of India territory. In this regard, two important issues are involved. This is the constitutional issue. Article 1 of the Constitution says: " The territory of India shall comprise the territories of the states, The Union Territories specified in the First Schedule, and such other territories as may be required. So further acquisition of territory can be accepted, but nowhere does the constitution provide for cession of even an inch of Indian territory. The Kachchativu controversy was raised only a few years ago by the Ceylonese Government when Bandaranaike came to power. all the Revenue records of the Madras Government corroborate that Kachchativu was a part of the former Ramnad Zamindary and an integral part of this country. So under no circumstances the Government has got any power under the constitution to cede even an inch of our country. Sir they cannot consider this country as Zamindary of the Congress party. A few days back the Coco island which is part of the Andaman group of islands was ceded to Burma. The question of Beru Bari was raised by the previous speaker. Now has come the question of Kachchativu . If we go on ceding our territory like this what will be left of this country? Secondly it is utter contempt and disrespect shown to this House by not taking the House into confidence and facing us with a fait accompli. The shutting out of the views of the opposition parties in this manner is most anti-democratic. So I would say that the statement which is going to be laid on the table of the Loksabha is not worth the paper on which it had been typed. Therefore I would submit that the External Affairs Minister should consider these matters and should not lay the statement on the Table of the House. Otherwise we will be forced to take the extreme step of walking out.

Then ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE intervened and spoke one sentence in Hindi.

Mr.Speaker: " My ruling is that the Minister has a right to make a statement. When the Governments enter into an agreement, that must come before the House. the Members must be informed of what is taking place.

Mr.Sezhiyan: But the agreement is unconstitutional

Mr. Speaker: How can we know it ?

Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpayee:" It is published in the news papers."

Mr. Speaker : " How can the House be seized of the matter unless the Minister makes the statement ?

Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpayee: " Can they violate the Constitution ?"

Mr.Speaker : I have given the ruling. Now, the Minister...

Then Mr.Atal Bihari Vajpapee and another Member intervened. Meanwhile Mr.Kachwai tore up some papers and threw them away. Some members left the House at this stage.

Mr.L.Lakkappan: Sir the tearing of papers by a Hon'ble Member is contempt of the House. I want your ruling on this.

Mr.Speaker: 'My ruling is that tearing of papers is not keeping with decorum or dignity of the House.

THE MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MR.SWARAN SINGH :

Over the years, since our independence, there has been a number of questions and discussions in the House regarding the Island of Kachchativu. Government have of course fully shared this interest and concern of arriving at an early and amicable solution of this long standing matter, and I am happy to say that an agreement was signed between the two Prime Ministers on June 28 th, a copy of which I am laying on the table of the House.

The Island of Kachachativu about 3/4 of a square mile is situated in the Palk Bay. It is about ten and half miles for the nearest landfall in Srilanka and about twelve and half miles from the nearest Indian shore. The Palk Bay which constitutes the historic waters of India and Srilanka is some 10 miles wide at its entrance through the Palk Straits and has an average width of 28 miles. The issue of deciding Indian and Srilankan claims to Kachachativu was closely connected with determining the boundary line between India and Srilanka in the waters of Palk Bay. The entire question of the maritime boundary in the historic waters of the Palk Bay required urgently to be settled keeping in view the claims of the two sides, historical evidence, legal practice and precedent and in the broader context of our growing friendly relations with Srilanka. Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island. Neither Srilanka nor India had any permanent presence there. During the long colonial rule period the question whether Kachachativu was part of India or part of Ceylon was frequently discussed with Governments of the day putting forward claims and counter claims. In recent years both countries had agreed that there should be no unilateral action which would seek to change the undetermined status of Kachchativu pending a final solution to be reached through amicable bilateral efforts.

I would particularly like to draw the attention of Honorable Members to the fact that when two sides have a good arguable case on a particular issue and the problem cannot be resolved expeditiously through bilateral negotiations, there is inevitably an attempt to seek outside interventions by appeal either to International Court of Justice of to third party arbitration. For our part, we have always been firmly of the view that in any differences with our neighbouring countries, we should seek to resolve them through bilateral discussions without outside interference on the basis of equality and goodwill. It is a matter of satisfaction to us that our Prime Ministers resolve to settle this issue through direct bilateral talks was met with an equally warm response from the Prime Minister of Srilanka and the agreement could be reached in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual understanding.

Exhaustive research of historical and other records was made by our experts on Kachachativu and every available piece of evidence collected from various record offices in India, such as in Tamil Nadu, Goa and Bombay as well as abroad in British and Dutch archives. An intensive examination of evidence and exchange of views took place specially during the past year between senior officers of the two governments. This question of Kachachativu, for reasons I have just explained had necessarily to be dealt with as part of broader question of the boundary in the Palk Bay so as to eliminate the possibility of any further disputes on similar matters in these historic waters.

On the basis of dispassionate examination of the historical records and other evidence and in keeping in mind the legal principles and also keeping in mind our policy and peaceful settlement of disputes, I feel confident that the agreement demarcating the maritime boundary in the Palk Bay will be considered as fair, just and equitable to both countries. At the same time I wish to remind the Hon'ble Members that in concluding this agreement on rights of fishing, pilgrimage and navigation which both sides have enjoyed in the past, have fully been safeguarded for the future. It would be wrong to see this agreement as a victory for one side or the other. Both the countries have gained as a result of the agreement which is a result of mature statesmanship a victory for the cause of friendship and cooperation in the area.a potential major irritant in relations between the two countries which have remained unresolved over the years has now been removed and both countries can now concentrate on the exploitation of economic and other resources in these, now well defined waters and generally on intensifying cooperation between themselves in various fields. The agreement marks an important step in further strengthening the close ties that bind India and Srilanka.

Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram (CPI): Sir while my party welcomes the agreements reached between Srilanka and India, there are problems to come up during the implementation of the agreement, so far, our fishermen had a right to go even beyond Kachchativu, fish and come back. The Honorable Minister says that these rights are fully protected. But there are problems which we would like our Government to take up with Srilanka and seek their solution for the reason, I submit, there should be a discussion on this statement. I have given notice of a motion. Would request you to allow a discussion on that.

Mr.Speaker : The general debate on foreign affairs is coming up next week.

Mr. Dipen Battacharya (Serampore) : I want to seek one clarification. In the statement he has mentioned that Kachchativu has always been an uninhabited island, but an Hon'ble Member said that it was within his constituency. If that is so, I do not know how it could be said that it has not been inhabited by any human being ? How could it then be a part of his constituency ?

Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram : The Tamil Nadu Government has a grievance that it has not been consulted properly. May I know what is the actual fact in regard to that ? I also want to know the details about the protection given with regard to fishing rights.

Mr.Swaran Singh: The Honorable Member would no doubt be aware that in the year 1921 when both India and Srilanka were under British rule, fishery line had been decided by the British Government because they had control over both India and Srilanka as well as India. I am sure that the Honorable Members know that the 1921 fishery line was a line which was about three and half miles west of Kachchativu. That is to the western side of the fishery line was the exclusive fishery right of the Indian citizens and to the east of that was the right of Srilankan fishermaen. But in spite of that division the fishermen generally were free to fish even round about Kachchativu and they also used the Kachchativu island for drying their nets. As would be known to the House there is no fresh water available there. Mostly they used it for spreading their nets and trying to dry their nets etc.

About the traditional rights, if the Honorable Members goes through the terms of the agreement, a copy of which has been placed on the table of the House, he will get the answer because it is mentioned there that although Srilanka's claims over sovereignty over Kachchativu has been recognized, the traditional rights of Indian fishermen and pilgrims to visit that island will remain unaffected. Similarly the traditional navigation rights exercised by India and Srilanka in each others waters will remain unaffected (interuptions)

Mr.Speaker: Later on we may have a debate on this but not now. I am not allowing anymore.

(Source: Lok Sabha Debates July 23 1974 Cols 186-201)

This will indicate which party stood where and how far they raised their voices.

DMK members fought valiantly in Parliament. DMK Government earned the wrath of the Union Government. In that darkest days of emergency DMK government was dismissed. But almost all Tamil Nadu Governments and parties have raised theit voice against bartering of Kachchativu. Years passed. Meanwhile OUTLOOK magazine published a news story which caught the attention of Dravida Peravai.

This was distributed, mailed, sent to all Members of Parliament with the help of the personal staff of Comrade George Fernandes." Kathiravan"Tamil daily reported about this which is given in the box below:

DEMARCATE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE:

There is an urgent need to sue Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice for compensation to 980 Indian fishermen killed in the International waters, as well as retrieval of the Katcha Theevu. It is will be appropriate to recall the words of our Present Prime Minister in the Parliament on 23 rd July 1974 (cols 186-201), when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh made a statement on the Re Agreement between India and Srilanka on the boundary in the historical waters between the two countries and related matters.

Hon'ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee who strongly condemned the bartering away of Katcha Theevu, had said that the old mythological name for Katcha Theevu is VALI DEEP, the island where legendary Rama fought a mythological Vali. Dravida Peravai now reminds the Government headed by the same Atal Bihari Vajpayee to fulfill what he had once demanded while he was in opposition; namely retrieval of the Katcha Theevu islands from the Srilankan government. The lives of 980 of our fishermen is lost due to this agreement imposed during the darkest days of emergency and it is time that we scrap this agreement or take it to the International Court of Justice to get due compensation for our fishermen.

There has been precedents in international inter country matters where issues have been taken to the International Court of Justice.1). In the English Channel there is a rocked island known as Minquires-Enrou. They are far way from the British coast and were closer to the French coast. Since it was near its international waters France staked the claim over that island. Britain showed the documents in its possession and the basis of the documents in 1953 the International Court of Justice decided that this island belongs to Britain. As in this case the documentary proof will be in our favour and we will retrieve KachachaTivu, if we approach the Court.2) An island Clipporton which was closer to Mexican coast actually belonged to France, and since it was far away from French soil no one visited there and hence Mexico claimed right over these islands. But the International Court of Justice decided in the favour of France.

3). Near Philipines an island Palmus Mianjus was in the possession of Spain. Spain one fine morning handed over that island to America. But Netherlands had rights over that island much before Spain had, and in view of this when this matter came before the Court, the Court decided in favour of Netherlands.

These are past precedents. We have recent judgments too wherein decisions by International Court of Justice had been impartial and in the interests of natural justice. Let me quote about a recent judgment in 2002.

The International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given (17.11.2002) Judgment in the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia). In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court finds, by 16 votes to 1, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia". Ligitan and Sipadan are two very small islands located in the Celebes Sea, off the northeast coast of the island of Borneo.

Reasoning of Court: The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examines the titles invoked by them. Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10' north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated. As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, "[I] t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia". Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island. After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court finds that the Convention, when read in context and in the light of its object and purpose, cannot be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and as a result the Convention does not constitute a title on which Indonesia can found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court states that this conclusion is confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention. The Court further considers that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case does not contradict that conclusion.

Having rejected this argument by Indonesia, the Court turns to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claim to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court determines whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. The Court begins in this connection by observing that, while the Parties both maintain that the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were not terrae nullius during the period in question in the present case, they do so on the basis of diametrically opposed reasoning, each of them claiming to hold title to those islands. The Court does not accept Indonesia's contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder. Nor does the Court accept Malaysia's contention that it acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan further to a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, the United States, Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and finally to Malaysia.

Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties' claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands. In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that "it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia". As for the second argument, the Court considers that "activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority". Having rejected Indonesia's arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turns to consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cites inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time. It relies on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintains that the Ordinance "was applied until the 1950s at least" in the area of the two disputed islands. It further invokes the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia ... are modest in number but ... they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands". The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".

There are many cases, which can be quoted. But the need here is to stress that India must revoke the Katcha Theevu agreement with Srilanka since it was imposed during emergency and take it to the International Court of Justice to establish India's right over this island. Also As per clause 76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 " The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the base lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured on sub marine ridges. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." Inview of this clause there is a necessity to redraw the territorial waters between India and Srilanka. So we have compulsions as per UN obligations to carve out our Exclusive Economic Zone, and while such opportunity is at our doorstep we must reopen the Katcha theevu issue with Srilanka and get it back.

Tamil Nadu assembly had passed many resolutions demanding the retrieval of Katcha Theevu, and the Miss J.Jayalalitha in a sudden reversal of assembly demand had favoured for taking Katcha theevu on lease.

The lives of 1000 fishermen is lost because of this agreement to barter Katcha theevu and it is time that we claim compensation from Srilanka for the lives lost apart from staking our rights to regain Katcha Theevu.

REGAIN KACTCHATIVU ISLANDS

Dravida Peravai sent a Memorandum to the Union Minister of External Affairs Mr.Jaswant Singh on 31.07.2000. Personally memorandum was given to the Union Defense Minister George Fernandes. The memorandum in booklet form containing English and Hindi versions were given, mailed, sent to almost all Members of Parliament in India. The memorandum in verbatim is given below;

Subject: Plea to uphold Indian interests in Exclusive Economiv Zone of the Oceans and urgent need to place our claims to demarcate our zone before United Nations Organizations in accordance with the International Law of Seas 1982 regarding...

In a long drawn process through four conventions covering high seas, territorial seas, continental shelf and living marine resources which began in 1958, United Nations Organization had strived to evolve consensus which ended in U.N.O mooting out International Law of Seas 1982. It was ratified by India in 1995.

This Law is a boon to Indian maritime trade, Indian seafood exports, Indian mid-sea oil exploration and more particularly to our Indian fishermen and it is rather unfortunate that Indian Government is making inordinate delays in presenting its case before U.N.O. Though time is still left till 2005, in the interests of boosting Indian economy without wasting a single minute, it is essential, Dravida Peravai urges our government to stake our claim for demarcating our Exclusive Economic Zone.

As per article76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 " The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. On the submarine ridges, the continental shelf's outer limit shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the sea is measured."

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROVISION INDIA IS LIKELY TO GAIN 7 to 9 LAKH SQUARE KILOMETERS. It will not be out of context to invoke the comments of Late Ram Manohar Lohia and our beloved Comrade George Fernandes on the loss of more than 1 lakh square kilometers to our neighbours. This loss can be made good if timely steps are taken to press for our rightful boundaries under the Exclusive Economic Zone.

As a party of the Dravidian Movement we are interested in the revoking of the treaty granting our Kachchativu islands to Srilanka. If the NEW EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE COMES INTO OPERATION INDIA AND SRILANKA HAVE TO FRESHLY DEMARCATE THEIR ZONES. And by natural application of Article 76 of the International Law of Seas India will have to regain Kachchativu.This will also put an end to indiscriminate killing of our Indian fishermen.

(Then the Parliamentary debate of 1974 was quoted verbatim)

We have reproduced the debate with the sole purpose to help the present Government and Parliamentarians gain insight about the views of Thiru.Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Kachchativu.

The External Affairs Minister of the day had agreed that bartering away of Kachchativu is inter linked to the demarcation of our maritime boundary. Now that the time has come in view of the necessity to redraw our maritime boundary Dravida Peravai urges the Union Government

1. To reopen the deplorable agreement signed bypassing the Indian Parliament and without consulting the Tamil Nadu Government. An agreement that intensified the plight of Indian fishermen who fall a prey to the bullets of Srilankan navy in view of the ambiguity prevalent in its definition of our territorial waters.

2.The so called rights of Indian fishermen were never honoured and the Government of India must place a white paper in Indian Parliament on the merciless shootings and killings of fishermen by Srilankan side violating this agreement.

3. The new boundaries as per International Law of Seas 1982 must be redrawn and India should take care to get back Vaalideep, i.e.Kachchativu as called by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as an island where legendary Rama and Vaali fought.

4. Without wasting time Indian Government must stake its claim before United Nations for demarcating our territorial waters.

Dravida Kazhagam General Secretary Dr.K.Veeramani visited Dravida Peravai party office on 18.11.2000 in connection with a meeting of his party. To him Kachchativu issue was brought to notice.

He in a hand written note had said that Dravida Kazhagam had filed a Writ Petition at High Court of Madras.

GO TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TO RECLAIM KACHCHATIVU

Dravida Peravai Memorandum to Union Defence Minister on 23.09.2003

The Tamil bi weekly in its issue dated 24.12.2003 said "VAJPAYEE WHO FORGOT VAALIDEEP". 

FRENCH CITIZENS OF PONDICHERRY AND THEIR RIGHTS

 [Mr. Jean-Pierre Cantegrit, receiving detailed memorandum on land-house grab of Pondicherry's French citizens by politicians in power in Pondicherry. N.Nandhivarman briefs him as Azhagiri looks on]

N.Nandhivarman French drafted men for their army from colonies, and these soldiers have sacrificed their lives fighting for France in the World War I and II. Large sections who  completed their services in French army comprise the main component of French citizens in Pondicherry. There are more than 20 million French citizens living abroad in various former French colonies including Pondicherry. It will be interesting to note that in the post-colonial period too France maintains links with these citizens in a unique fashion giving them representation. One hundred and fifty five delegates are elected by direct universal suffrage by the French communities abroad for a period of 6 years and this body is presided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France.  French citizens in America elect 32 delegates and from Africa 47 seats thus representatives from the total of “A series of constituencies” is 79. In “B series” there are 76 seats and the break up is 52 seats from Europe and from Asia-Oceania and from the Orient 24. Within these 24 seats two are chosen from Pondicherry. Half of the electoral  college is renewed every 3rd year.  All former colonies are divided into 52 electoral districts, with one or more delegates per district. A country may have several electoral districts, just as an electoral district may cover several countries. Apart from Indian elections, the regular exercise in Pondicherry is the elections  to choose 2 representatives to the “Assembly of French People Living Abroad” known  as CSFE ( Counseil Superieur des Francaise de l’Etranger). It is recently renamed as AFE from 9^th August 2004, published in Official Gazette of 11 August 2004 by the Government of France.  Lieutenant-Colonel Mouhamad Moustafa and Mr. Ejilane Souprayen were elected on 18 June 2000 for a 6 year-term for the Pondicherry constituency comprising all segments of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The next elections will be held in 2006. It is interesting to note that both these representatives have served in the French army.

French people residing abroad through their 155 representatives elect twelve Senators to French Parliament. They get elected one-third at a time for 8 years in 2004 and for 7 years in 2007 and for 6 years from 2010. Currently the political party UMP (Union pour un mouvement populaire, which means Union for Popular Government) has 9 members thus elected. They are Mrs. Paulette Brisepierre, Mr. Jean-Pierre Cantegrit, Mr. Christian Cointat, Mr. Robert-Denis Del Picchia, Mr. Hubert Durand-Chastel, Mr. Louis Duvernois, Mr. André Ferrand, Mr. Michel Guerry, and Mr. Xavier de Villepin. Parti Socialiste has 2 Senators, Mrs Monique Cerisier Ben Guiga and Mr. Guy Penne.The party CRC (Communiste, Républicain et Citoyen) has one Senator Mr. Pierre Biarnes.Twelve personalities appointed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs for six-year terms "by reason of their competence in matters concerning the general interests of France abroad". They are renewed one-half at a time every three years.
  

The Constitution of 27 October 1946 (IVth Republic) stipulated that the new Parliament would comprise a National Assembly and a "Council of the Republic" (as the Senate was called until 1958) within which "the French of the Exterior" would be represented. This may be like our lower and upper houses in Parliament. The National Assembly pondered and decided how to effect this representation. It decreed, in a resolution dated 13 December 1946, that three "Councillor of the Republic" seats (out of 320) would go to personalities representing Non Resident French citizens living in Europe, America and Asia-Oceania-Orient respectively.

Subsequently then Prime Minister, Robert Schuman, and his Foreign Minister, Georges Bidault signed a Decree setting up the High Council for French People residing abroad. on 7 July 1948. The first High Council was composed of 55 members and 8 ex officio members.. The first CSFE elections of 1950 were held in seventy countries of Europe, America, Asia and Oceania, according to a protocol defined in a Ministerial Decree dated 10 December 1949 and signed by Robert Schuman..

 

Article 24 of the Constitution of 25 September 1958 states, "French nationals settled outside France shall  be represented in the Senate." Two Executive Orders were issued, on 15 November 1958 and 4 February 1959 respectively, for organizing this representation and providing the CSFE with new status. The CSFE, while retaining its advisory role, became the sole electoral  college for electing Senators from abroad.

Their numbers   increased from three to six, two representing Europe and America, one representing Asia-Oceania and three representing Africa. It was thus divided into three sections for the Senatorial elections of 23 April 1959. The CSFE had 84 elected members   but it  became clear that Europe and America were under-represented in comparison with Africa.  The number of Senators was therefore brought up to nine for 1962 elections.

After the creation of the Democratic Association of French Citizens Abroad (Association Démocratique des Français à l´Etranger - ADFE) in 1980, the CSFE was reconstituted in 1982. The Act of 7 June 1982 paved way for the election by universal suffrage of Delegates to the CSFE, which (with the exception of twenty-one members chosen for their competence but not having Senatorial voting rights) was no longer a body of appointed personalities. And the election of twelve Senators thereafter is only by the elected members of the CSFE.

The AFE  is entrusted by law with the task of advising the Cabinet. The Minister of Foreign Affairs defines the objectives and priorities of the assembly chaired by him. The Senators place before the Senate, the National Assembly and the Economic and Social Council the propositions, motions, resolutions and wishes expressed by their electors. The twelve Senators, ex officio members of the AFE, can introduce Bills or legislative amendments reflecting the hopes and needs of French people living around the world.

By this unique system the ties between  French citizens living in Pondicherry and their chosen country France remains fostered conferring rights to its citizens and providing them a voice in the democratic set up.

Courtesy : New Indian Express dated : 19^th March 2005