VILLAGE ECONOMY MUST BE THE AXIS OF NATIONAL ECONOMY

Gram Swaraj is a slogan of Mahatma Gandhi which is totally forgotten today. Most societies before invention of money were based on barter system, which necessitated every village to be self sufficient and inter-dependent on a cluster of villages in the neighborhood. The numerically highly populated village which is in the center of these cluster of villages had weekly markets known as Santhai in Tamil. Irulan Santhai was a village which had its Sunday market, equivalent to one we witness in Puducherry in this decade. Farmers, artisans, weavers and all craftsmen brought their produce to these Santhais, where barter system prevailed till it was replaced by money. British colonialism ended this self sufficient village economy and village markets. They planned agriculture in India to produce what they required in England.

Agriculture in England faced almost extinction and decline between 1875 and 1900. So they started to export from India. Every year from 3 million tons to 10 million tons the export of Indian agricultural products to England went on increasing year by year. Indian farmer fed the British and his farm produce was exported leaving him to face the music of starvation. This resulted in Great Drought of 1876-1879, 1889-1891 and 1896-1902 and resultant famine in India.

 A historian records : “ People died of hunger at the very gates of the grain store and along newly laid railway tracks to transport grains to Indian ports from where it was shipped to England. Prices were speculative and phenomenally high which was garnered by the middle men and not the farmer. Farmers were not getting remunerative prices. In Independent India our farm lands have become concrete jungles, farming had ceased to be a lucrative profession, and markets captured by middle men. N.Chandrababu Naidu, when he was Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh introduced the Ryathu Bazaar, i.e Farmer’s Market where farmers can directly sell to consumers and avoid middle men. Close on the heels of Andhra experiment Tamilnadu introduced the Uzhavar Santhai, Farmer’s Market, which are aimed at good purposes. But the Corporate Culture which builds big air-conditioned malls and shopping complexes have attracted the people who unmindful of the high prices flock to these markets which enrich multi-nationals.

The farmer with head load selling vegetables in your door step is treated with contempt and our household women find sadistic satisfaction in bargaining with him, but in malls whatever the price they pay. Fisher-folk who brings fresh fish to your door steps by head load is viewed with contempt. Such mind set had affected all Santhais which nurtured the village economy.

Dr.Kiran Bedi, Lt.Governor must order for building UZHAVAR SANDAI in old bus stand complex with seperate rooms with door locks and refrigerators to preserve the perishables for next day sales. Present arrangement of Uzhavar Sandhai results in hurry to Sell within this Day or Vegetables will have to be thrown out. The urinal cum latrine built for Uzhavar Sandai remains inaugurated but locked like Bank Lockers all day and night.

So in the aftermath of electoral defeat in states that are going to polls by next month, it is high time that all states and center which will present their budgets shortly keep village economy as axis of Indian economy. 

Let Land for Tillers slogan and Gram Swaraj find echoes in budgets.

TAMILS AND TAMIL COMPUTER USAGE

LET TAMILNADU GOVERNMENT PONDER ITS HALF HEARTED INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE TAMIL IN NET WORLD

THREAT TO LIFE DURING ANTI-LAND/HOUSE GRABBING STRUGGLE :1998

My life was under threat. Defence Minister George Fernandes wrote to Union Home Minister L.K.Advani , who spoke to Tamilnadu Chief Minister Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi. At Kalaignar's warnings all threats to my life in Pondicherry vanished, it is history.

NARENDRA SINGH THEN v/s MANMOHAN MODI : BOTH SIDES OF SAME COIN

MAKE AMARTHYA SEN FINANCE MINISTER

SACK CHIDAMBARAM

Today the meeting of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries is taking place initiated by Saudi Arabia which was pressurized by G-8 and others to ponder over stabilizing the oil prices. The panacea Saudi Arabia offers is a hike of 6 percent of its oil production, hoping other countries will follow suit. We are of the opinion that this will not work. The rising prices of oil and petroleum products could not be arrested. Why do we opine so, let me record our views.

1. Saudi Arabia is not, as many may be thinking, the largest producer of oil. Russia stands first, and there is no hope that Russian President will play the Saudi Arabian tune of increasing oil production.

2. The worlds largest 20 oil fields were all discovered between 1917 and 1979 and the annual output from these oil fields is falling by 4 million barrels per day, says a Report of Earth Policy Institute. Taking into account country specific data details and projections, German based Energy Watch Group concludes that world oil production has peaked. It will also decline by 7 percent a year falling to 58 million barrels per day in 2020.

3. The year our former President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam predicted to be a turning point to make India a super power, 2020, will make India run from pillar to post begging for oil. The begging for oil is going to be the order of this century, and there has to be introspection.

4. Venezuela, the fifth largest producer of oil had declined to attend the Summit of OPEC called by Saudi Arabia. It opines cosmetic exercises like hike in production a little bit will not be a long term solution. The Socialist President of Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez, who finds a place among leaders this century must emulate displayed in Dravida Peravai banners, feels the increase in production is not to ease oil prices and reduce the burden on common man, but to help speculation. He had earlier said in a BBC interview in 2006 that by 1990, the price of a barrel was just 20 US dollars. The oil producing countries must have a long term policy and fix the maximum profitable and reasonable price of 50 US dollars per barrel, and if the countries arrive at a consensus to sell oil at 50 US dollars per barrel for a long period, that alone will help the world, Mr. Hugo Chavez opines.

Dravida Peravai feels he is the voice of the conscience of the world. A nation that got Independence led by Mahatma Gandhi must back Venezuelan President in world forums but India also joins the chorus of greedy nations, sorry greedy companies that dictate their nation’s choices, in keeping oil prices in high. Our rulers are only for slight reduction in prices as eye wash. They are not even speaking loud for common good of the mankind.

The supply and demand of oil on an average remains 85 million barrels per day. Till 2003 USA was only holding 350 million barrels as buffer stocks. Now it had doubled to 750 million barrels, which also creates artificial scarcity resulting in hiking of prices. By 2006 when oil prices touched 60 US dollars per barrel, The Senate Committee of USA woke up and examined the ground reality and told the ‘stock piling of companies hoping to make a kill when prices go up’ is also one of the reasons of soaring oil prices.

M.R.Venkatesh, a Chennai based chartered accountant rightly pointed out in rediff.com, that OPEC is not determining the prices of oil, but 4 American finance companies. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P.Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley are determining the rise in oil prices, this Indian scholar points out an accusing finger. American financial markets are investing in commodity trading, which they see is profitable than stock markets.

How this is being done? “After loosing money in the housing market, big hedge funds and investment banks are now pouring money into commodity markets, including oil, which are much less regulated than stock markets. They are not buying or hoarding actual oil, and hence do not have to incur the cost of storage. Instead they are buying oil futures with borrowed money at low rates of interest that is buying papers that entitle the holder to get oil after, say three months, at a price negotiated today. These papers are traded in commodity exchanges, just like company shares in stock markets” says Alok Ray, Professor of Economics at IIM Calcutta.

Indian Government headed by Mr.Manmohan Singh, with a Finance Minister like Mr.P.Chidambaram, with whom we cannot sympathize because he is a Tamilian, will never rule India with the interests of Indian common man in mind. They will be the spokespersons of the American companies, helping greedy men of the world to rob the mankind. Their advisers like Mr.Shankar Acharya, not the enemy of Jayalalitha, but a Member of the Board of Governors at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations say that “oil pricing had been seriously bungled by the Government in last few years. Government should raise fuel prices gradually and more frequently”. If a Government that keeps such advisers is run by anti-people vested interests shielding the western countries and their greedy companies, we have to be content with periodical oil price rises followed by cosmetic reductions in election eve to hoodwink the people.

INDIA MUST HAVE A NON-POLITICAL FINANCE MINISTER. This demand by a registered political party Dravida Peravai may surprise the readers. We in our party manifesto registered with Election Commission of India, have advocated party-less democracy as panacea to Indian political party dominated political scenario. Hence it falls in our moral duty to suggest that Nobel Laureate Amarthya Sen should be made India’s Finance Minister.

The Union Government must have convened the National Integration Council or convened the Chief Ministers Conference to discuss the Value added Tax on petrol and diesel. Gujarat imposes 29.13 percent VAT on diesel and 29.88 percent VAT on petrol. The Left ruled West Bengal imposes 20.62 percent VAT on diesel and 27.66 percent on petrol. West Bengal also levies 4 percent tax each on kerosene and cooking gas. In Andhra Pradesh ruled by Congress 33 percent VAT on diesel is the order of the day. Punjab imposes 30 percent VAT on petrol. IS IT NOT THE DUTY OF THE UNION GOVERNMENT TO DISCUSS WITH STATES TO BRING UNIFORM REDUCTION IN VAT AND TO REDUCE OIL PRICES DRASTICALLY AFTER ALL THE PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE MASTERS IN A DEMOCRACY.

[Press Release of 22^nd June 2008, a part of which will be telecasted by a local channel Rainbow channel]

N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary Dravida Peravai

Declare Srilanka as Terrorist State

American President Obama

Declare Srilanka as Terrorist State    

   

“KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP, from India urges the President of United States of America Mr.Barack.H.Obama to declare Srilanka as terrorist state. Srilankan state sponsors terrorism against its own Tamil civilian population, which they claim as fight against freedom fighters and its own journalists, opposition leaders and even their kinsmen with conscience for human dignity.  But in no way Srilanka can justify its terrorist attacks on Indian Tamil fishermen. Our fishermen over centuries have been pursuing their professional pursuits like free birds, and these Indian Tamils are at the receiving end of Srilankan State sponsored terrorism in mid-seas pursuing their genocide beyond borders. This is cross border terrorism. "

 19th Feb.2009

President Mr.Barack H.Obama                                                             

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington DC 20520

Respected President

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP, from India urges the President of United States of America Mr.Barack.H.Obama to declare Srilanka as terrorist state. Srilankan state sponsors terrorism against its own Tamil civilian population, which they claim as fight against freedom fighters and its own journalists, opposition leaders and even their kinsmen with conscience for human dignity.

But in no way Srilanka can justify its terrorist attacks on Indian Tamil fishermen. Our fishermen over centuries have been pursuing their professional pursuits like free birds, and these Indian Tamils are at the receiving end of Srilankan State sponsored terrorism in mid-seas pursuing their genocide beyond borders. This is cross border terrorism.

We all know that "State Sponsors of Terrorism" is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to nations who are designated by the Secretary of State "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

The list began on December 29, 1979 with Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, Syria and Pakistan and now only first 4 are in current list, excluding Pakistan.

The sanctions which the US imposes on countries on the list are: State Sponsors of Terrorism Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors.

Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. The dates of declaration given in the list. Cuba March 1, 1982, Iran January 19, 1984, Sudan, August 12, 1993, Syria December 29, 1979.

On Feb 7 of 2009: The spokesman for India’s ruling Congress party Mr.Manish Tiwari called on the international community to consider declaring Pakistan a terrorist state in the wake of the release of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. “The world should now think whether to declare Pakistan a terrorist state,” Manish Tewari, the party’s spokesman, said in New Delhi. By linking his call to the release of Dr A. Q. Khan, the spokesman ensured that his words were not missed during next week’s visit to the region by US special representative Richard Holbrooke.“Pakistan is not only exporting terrorism, but also posing danger by allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists,” Mr. Tewari told journalists. In separate comments, Gen Deepak Kapoor, the chief of the Indian Army, said the “terror infrastructure in Pakistan is existing and active”. Braving chilly winter agitated Indian Americans gathered in front of the UN headquarters in mid-town Manhattan recently to demand the world body declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Raising anti-Pakistan slogans and displaying banners and placards denouncing the Mumbai terror outrage, Indian Americans alleged that almost all the major terrorists attacks of the world in recent years have their bases in Pakistan. As such it was high time the United Nations, the powerful Security Council in particular, takes measure to declare it as a terrorist state. The peaceful demonstration, which lasted for about two hours, was organized by Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP). "Pakistan should immediately be declared as a terrorist State," said Rajesh Shukla of the OFBJP. In a memorandum submitted to the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, the OFBJP urged him to take necessary action to ensure that terrorists from Pakistan do not strike again. "We urge the Security Council to immediately pass a resolution in this regard," the memorandum said.

Taking cue from the initiatives of both the ruling party and opposition party of India, we are now raising the demand to declare Srilankan state as terrorist state by USA and UN and urge the leadership of USA to use its clout in Security Council to impose sanctions on Srilankan Government. The public interview of Srilankan President Mahinda Rajapakshe that he will defy UN and UN has no locus standi to intervene in Srilanka, while it executes Tamils, annihilates Tamils, engage number plate-less white van attacks on its adversaries and media men in broad daylight amidst high security zones, proves that Srilanka is a Terrorist State and need to be branded so by USA and UN with imposition of sanctions.

We urge The USA President Mr.Barack H.Obama, whom 21st century sees not only a leader of a biggest democracy but a new hope, a redeemer, a savior of all oppressed, racially discriminated people in the world, where Tamils are the target of this century like Jews were the targets in 20th century, to declare Srilanka as terrorist state and impose sanction like the ones relevant in USA.

1. A ban on arms-related exports and sales.

2. Controls over exports of dual-use items, requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods or services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism.

3. Prohibitions on economic assistance.

4. Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including:

Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions; Lifting diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in U.S. courts; Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist-listed countries; Denial of duty-free treatment of goods exported to the United States; Authority to prohibit any U.S. citizen from engaging in a financial transaction with a terrorist-list government without a Treasury Department license; and Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist-list states are actions, which in whole or anyone appropriate should be imposed on Srilanka, particularly USA must stop Israel and Pakistan supplying arms to Srilankan army and through UN urge other nations including China to stop arms supply to the killer squads called army of Srilanka.

We have been urging Indian Government to sue the Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice.  Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases.  At present, this basically means the 192 United Nations Member States.  We are aware that The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States. We are urging India to take the Katcha Theevu maritime boundary dispute to International Court of Justice.

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned.  Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that “each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”. Judgments are final and without appeal.  If either of the parties challenges their scope or meaning, it has the option to request an interpretation.  In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment. As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not by whatever means are appropriate for them.

 We bring to the notice of Indian Government about some of the recent cases before the International Court of Justice such as Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine) - Judgment of 3 February 2009. 18/12/2008 - Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

Though with regards to maritime dispute we can urge Indian Government, for the Srilankan State sponsored attacks on Indian Tamils in international waters, we have to urge only the Members of the Security Council and UNO to brand Srilanka as terrorist state and to impose sanctions on it for violating UN directives.

Indian political parties in power in the State of Tamilnadu again and again raised the issue of Indian Tamils right to living and fishing. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi asked then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, to take up with the Sri Lankan authorities the issue of hardships faced by Indian fishermen in enjoying their traditional fishing rights in the waters around Katcha Theevu Island, The Hindu, newspaper report said. In his meeting with the Prime Minister Mr.Karunanidhi said Indian fishermen had the right to fish in the waters around Katcha Theevu Island as per the Indira Gandhi-Srimavo Bandaranaiake settlement of 1974. 

Monday, 21 July 2008  Inaugurating a fast against killing of Tamil fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi said on Saturday that Katchatheevu was ceded to Sri Lanka, brushing aside the objection raised by the DMK government in 1974, as reported by The Hindu. Mr. Karunanidhi said though the 1974 agreement between India and Sri Lanka included the rights of the Tamil fishermen to fish in and around Katcha theevu, to pray in the church and to dry the nets, they were taken away when the Emergency was declared in the country. After the DMK government was dismissed, correspondence between Sri Lanka and India led to the rights of Tamil fishermen being deprived in 1976. 

In Indian State of Tamilnadu Opposition leader and AIADMK General Secretary J Jayalalithaa had moved the Supreme Court to retrieve the Katchatheevu Islet from Sri Lanka. The killing of Tamil fishermen, allegedly by the Lankan Navy, on July 9 and 12 had set off a wave of protests in the coastal districts coupled with the demand to retrieve the islet which witnessed a number of shootings at fishermen from the state as well. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, territorial waters means the area from the baseline on the coast to 12 nautical miles into the sea, Jayalalithaa said, adding that as per this definition, the 285-acre, uninhabited Katchatheevu islet, lying at a distance of 11 nautical miles from Ramanathapuram, fell within Indian waters.

Sept 12 2008 Sri Lankan Foreign Affairs Minister Rohitha Bogollagama has said “Katchatheevu is a matter settled. As settled as much as Matara in the south of Sri Lanka to Sri Lanka. That’s how Sri Lanka views Katchatheevu. There is no issue. The fact that Katchatheevu is there in the northern part of Sri Lanka doesn’t mean anything. It is as much as a part of Sri Lanka in every sense of the word, so there is no further discussion needed on that.”

The ruling party of Tamilnadu and Opposition leader of Tamilnadu, a state in Indian Union have voiced concern and are trying to secure the fishing rights of Indian Tamils through representations to Indian Government and Supreme Court of India. These actions apart a reply given by the Indian Government to Indian Member of Parliament Mr. D.Raja National Secretary Communist Party of India, as told by him on January 8th January of 2008 reveals that Indian Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar had written to him stating that as per the agreement the Indian fishermen can only dry their nets and offer prayers at the St Antony's church in the island. "This position is not acceptable," he said and wanted the Centre to renegotiate the issue and arrive at a settlement to restore the rights of Indian fishermen.

Sri Lankan government resorts  to unprovoked firing upon the Indian fishermen, resulting in the loss of lives of fishermen once in few days repeatedly for years together, the Indian government, being a party to the aforesaid agreement, was duty bound to enforce the traditional fishing right of Indian fishermen off the Katchatheevu island.

The Supreme Court of India, in a case relating to the Indo-Pakistan agreement on Berubary Union and exchange of enclaves, ruled that any ceding of Indian Territory to another country resulted in “diminution of the Territory of Indian Union,” and therefore must be endorsed by Parliament through a constitutional amendment as laid down by Article 368. Since no such step was taken by the Indira Gandhi Government or any subsequent Government of India, Dr Manmohan Singh should seriously consider moving the Supreme Court to test the validity of conceding Katcha Theevu to Sri Lanka, the Opposition Leader of Tamilnadu Miss J.Jalalalitha had voiced demand and gone to Supreme Court of India. We are not debating the merits or demerits of a case pending in Indian Courts. We are just narrating the stand of various political parties of India in this regard.

Our prayers to The President is that already Former Attorney General of USA had filed 1000 page charge sheet against two American citizens for committing genocide against Tamils of Eelam who are fighting for a separate homeland.

Bruce Fein, counsel for US-based group Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), recently submitted to United States Attorney General, Mr Eric Holder, the Model Indictment charging U.S. citizen and Sri Lanka's Defense Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and U.S. green card holder and Sri Lanka's Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka, for genocide, war crimes and torture against Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Counsel urged the Department to open a grand jury investigation into the crimes, based on evidence amassed in the three volume 1000-page document which the Counsel said "amply satisfies the Department's threshold for commencing a criminal investigation."

 But Indian Tamil fishermen, more than 1000 people have been killed in mid seas, just because they are Tamils, and this will prove beyond an iota of doubt that Srilanka pursues genocide as its goal. One of the constituents of KUTSG, Dravida Peravai is collecting facts and figures to submit in the same case, to get justice for Indian Tamil lives.

Hence we the the Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group, a non-political peoples movement demanding separate Union Territory status for Karaikal within Unitary Indian state, in view of the economic neglect of the enclave of former French colony Pondicherry ever since its merger with India, are urging you to step in decisively.

It is needless to recall that after African Negroes were liberated from the clutches of slavery, British India only supplied plantation labour to all countries to replace African slaves. When in British Parliament there were protests, the practice ceased in British India.

Instead our Tamil brethren from the then French colony of Pondicherry only slaves were shipped to all Caribbean nations. That curse for Tamils continues even in this century. By genocide Srilankan Government wants to subjugate whole Tamils as slaves in their own homeland.

We hope you will redeem Srilankan Tamils from slavery and write new Profiles in Courage engraving your name in every Tamil heart and history. We only want you to follow the precedent of Franklin D. Roosevelt who brought together other nations to defeat Nazis, who wanted ethnic cleansing of Jews.

It is time you take all steps to stop the genocide of Tamils and save Indian Tamil lives too lost almost once in few days for years together in the mid sea of Bay of Bengal.

With Regards

Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman, Hon.President

A.S.T.Ansari Babu, General Secretary.

Ki.Subramanian, Chairman,

V.S.Nallusamy Vice Chairman,

Deputy Secretary Sundarraj.

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP

52, Church Street, Karaikal 609602, India : Tel +091-4368-224599

Hon. President N.Nandhivarman  Chairman .K.Subramanian Vice-Chairman V.S.Nallusamy, General Secretary A.S.T.Ansari Babu Treasurer : S.Radhakrishnan ,Deputy Secretaries : R.Sundarraj, O.S.Uduman, C.Raja , Public Relations Officer: A.A.Rahman, Propaganda Secretary.K.Krishnakumar ,Youth Wing Secretary N.P.Kumanan, Deputy secretaries R.Ayyamperumal, A.Raja Mohammed, T.Dharpareswaran ,Labour Wing Secretary : V.Jyothilingam Agricultural Wing Secretary M.Sheikh Mohammed. Joint Secretary M.Singaravelu, Minority Wing Secretary S.George, Joint Secretary A.Ahamed Maraicar, Organizers: Karaikal North: S.M.Faried, Karaikal South M.I.Samsudeen, Kottucherry: Subha.Sureshrajan Nedungadu: M.Singaravelu, T.R.Pattinam; Karai Jinna, Neravy: T.K.S.M.Kanagasundaram

PONDICHERRY ASSEMBLY : NANDHIVARMAN WROTE TO LT.GOVERNOR

 ON SPEAKER'S ELECTION : 

NANDHIVARMAN'S APPEAL TO LT.GOVERNOR

His Excellency The Lt.Governor of Puducherry

Subject : Division is best way to ascertain the wishes of legislators over the choice of Speaker regarding

The Speaker’s election is scheduled tomorrow. The present Chief Minister with 14 members in his party including one independent supporting has plans to put up a candidate for Speaker’s post. The combined opposition has 14 votes the ruling combine will have 14 votes if ONE legislator is chosen as Speaker. The ruling combine is banking upon cross voting in case of secret ballot and you 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. In case of Speaker getting elected 14 in ruling side and 14 in opposition side will remain. 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.

The expectation of the ruling combine is there will be secret ballot and for those it had cast its net through corrupt practices will secretly vote and bail the tottering Government in its first trial of strength. Such subversion of democracy and very first trial of strength should not be decided by corrupt ways and means. Hence the people have the right to know how their legislators behaved in the first trial of strength. Hence we urge you to ORDER the DIVISION as best WAY to decide in Speaker’s Election.

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.

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, THE LT.GOVERNOR AS CUSTODIAN OF DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTION AND IN VIEW OF PEOPLE’s RIGHT TO KNOW HOW AND TO WHOM THERE REPRESENTATIVES IN A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WHERE BOTH RULING SIDE AND OPPOSITE SIDE HAVE EQUAL NUMBERS, MUST ORDER FOR DIVISION OF VOTES TO DECIDE SPEAKER’s SELECTION

With Regards

Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

NARAMBAI FISHERMAN WON THE BATTLE TO SAVE THEIR VILLAGE

CALL FOR WATER SURVEY

A call to conduct immediately water surveys and preparation of water budgets every year in Pondicherry was made by the Dravida Ilaignar Peravai Convener N.Nandhivarman here on Saturday. In a statement here, Nandhivarman pointed out that while in the rest of the country the surveys are over, the territories of Pondicherry, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli were yet to institute survey under the aegis of the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water mission. Stating that while the ground water position  was becoming more and more problematic in Pondicherry the over mining of water, Nandhivarman said the surface water position also has become precarious due to encroachments in tanks and canals.

Criticizing the Government for allowing industries to tap ground water in abundant quantity, Nandhivarman cited the instance of a drug manufacturing unit in Kalapet now mining water to the tune of 3 lakh liters per day from a well earlier capped by the Pondicherry government. Suggesting the constitution of committees comprising environmentalists,local people, political representatives and hydrologists to visit industries and submit a Report to the Government for acting against various water consumiptive industries. Nandhivarman also demanded checkposts and special squads to prevent water smuggling by tankers to areas outside Pondicherry.

[The Indian Express and Dinamani of January 14-1996]

GOVERNMENT KEEPING ECO PANELS DEFUNCT

Pondicherry Government  was accused of keeping the two environmental bodies, The Environment Council and Pondicherry State environment Committee defunct thorough the years and clearing the applications for licences by polluting industries. The Dravida Ilaignar Peravai Convener N.Nandhivarman in a letter to the Lt.Governor demanded freezing of clearances for polluting industries and also a probe into clearances given so far. In a scathing attack on the government towards preserving environment, Nandhivarman pointed out that the two government panels, the Environment Council constituted in 1987 and later reconstituted as Environment Protection Council in 1990 and the Pondicherry State Environment Committee created in 1989 have not been functioning since their inception. The Department of Science Technology and environment is bereft of powers which is why clearances to polluting industries that can grease the palms are on the increase and with elections round the corner clearances are available to anyone who can manage the government. The Environment Council should have met twice or thrice a year but it has not been meeting at all these days, he said adding the Council had been kept under cold storage. He also demanded a white paper by the Ministry of environments into the functioning or non functioning of the council as well as the Committee.

[ The Indian Express- January 7- 1996]

NARAMBAI STRUGGLE BECOMES ELECTION ISSUE

The issue  was made an election issue, Dravida Ilaignar Peravai, meanwhile was renamed as Dravida Peravai. It extended support to the DMK led Alliance in the polls to the Assembly. On the eve of elections the Congress Chief Minister V.Vaithialingam promised the Narambai villagers that his Government will not and had not given No objection Certificate for the proposed LPG plant which will ultimately result in entire village being evacuated. Before the Chief Minister reached the village for his campaign, over night Dravida Peravai and Indian National League had scanned the official file signatures of the No objection Certificate and distributed in pamplets.

Thus the Chief Minister's false promises were exposed. In that election the Indian National Congress candidate lost. The newly formed  Tamil Maanila Congress won the Bahour seat.Dravida Peravai never contests. The Union Government meanwhile cancelled its clearance, thus yielding to peoples struggle.

LEGAL BATTLE : UNION GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWS CLEARANCE: HIGH COURT DISMISSES PETITION

[Meanwhile a writ petition jointly by the Narambai Fishermen Village Panchayat and Dravida Peravai was filed at the High Court of Madras. Environmental Lawyers T.Mohan and Ms.Devika Mohan argued these cases on behalf of the petitioners. But the writ was lost.W.P.14328 of 1996 and W.M.P No.19538 of 1996 before the Bench comprising Honourable K.A.SWAMI, Chief Justice and Honourable Justice Kanakaraj was dismissed on 7.03.1997 " Dismissing as infructous the writ petition and dismissed W.M.P as stated within"]

ORDER OF THE COURT MADE BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

In This petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the letter no.J-11012/31-94-1A.II{I] date
19. 01.1995 issued by the first respondent granting environment clearance for starting LPG bottling project.

Several grounds are raised in support of the relief sought for. However it is not necessary to go into the merits of these contentions having regard to the fact that Central Government has now withdrawn the environment clearance given and has held that the project cannot take place in the site proposed in respect of which the clearance was given. The communication is dated  15 th May 1996 and is issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests bearing No J-11012/31/94-IA.II{I} which reads thus; 

Subject: LPG facilities near Narambai village Pondicherry- environmental clearance regarding

Sir
This is in continuation of letter of even number dated 16 th August 1995 on the above subject. The proposal has been reexamined. The entire proposal of LPG terminal facilities comprises the following three components.
i] 40,000 tons of capacicity floating storage {off-shore}
ii} Laying of pipe line for transfer of LPG from mother vessel to on shore terminal.
iii} Creation of on shore terminal { pressurised storage of LPG and bottling plant including infrastructural facilities.}

The proposed on shore facilities are falling within 500 meters of the HTL and as per provisions of CRZ notification No.S.O 114 E dated 19 th Febraury 1991 location of such facilities within Coastal Regulation Zone is a priohibited activity. In view of the above it is not possible to accord clearance to the project in the present form from environmental angle.

3.Thus the fourth respondent cannot now establish the LPG bottling plant at the place for which clearance had already been granted, as the clearance has now been withdrawn. In addition to that, the fourth respondent in paragraph 3 of his counter affidavit has stated thus.

" I submit that the above writ petition has become infractous and is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the first respondent has since withdrwan their approval granted in letter No. J/11012/31/94 I a dated 15.05.1996, pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India not to locate any industrial unit within 500 meters of the High tide Line. As the company's project as originally envisaged and cleared bt the Government of india fell within the Coastal regulation Zone of 500 meters from HTL, the Government revoked its earlier approval. Hence the question of quashing the aforesaid approval does not arise.

4. On reading of the letter dated 15 th May 1996 issued by the Ministry of environment and Forests, it is clear that the earlier clearance granted for establishing the LPG bottling plant within 500 meters of the HTL has been withdrawn on the ground that the same is prohibited by CRZ Notification No S,0 114 E dated 19.02.1991. Consequently fourth respondent cannot at all establish the LPG bottling plant at the site already proposed to establish.

5. That being so, this writ petition has become infractuous. It is accordingly disposed of subject to the aforesaid finding recorded by us that the 4 th respondent cannot at all establish the plant at the place in question.

6. as far as the other objections raised by the petitioner are concerned, the same are left open and it is opnen to the petitioner to raise the same as and when it becomes necessary. No costs.

7. W.M.P no 19538 of 1996 is dismissed

FISHERMEN DRIVE AWAY SURVEY VESSEL

With The High Court of Madras passing this order the setting up of LPG unit must have been laid to rest. But it is not so. Emisaries were sent to N.Nandhivarman to persuade him and use him to pacify the Narambai villagers. A former MLA of Tamil Nadu called him to a Star Hotel in Pondicherry and tried his best. " I have fought against LPG plant when Congress government backed it, now how can I withdraw just because DMK Coalition had come to power" Nandhivarman retorded. Then one fine morning when fishermen woke up for the day, the found new vessels near their village surveying. This was on May 8 th 1997, two months after the High Court judgement. The infuriarated villagers took theit catamarans and boats went racing to the vessel. The officials who had come to survey on behalf of the LPG plant sponsors fled from the scene. This heroic struggle is recoded by Dinamani Tamil Daily on May10. 1997.

The struggle ended in success. First time in India a fishermen village succeeded in driving a multi national company out of its soil. This success of an indegenous community is an epoch making one. Among the leading figures of the Narambai Fishermen Panchayat Mr.A.Kanagasabai, Mr.A.Baskar and Mr.Mahalingam remain ever grateful for the services rendered by Dravida Peravai. Preseident of the Narambai Fishermen Panchayat. Mr.A.Kanagasabai was suitably punished by being denied of government job.