பழமையான குடந்தை அரசு கல்லூரி

பழமையான குடந்தை அரசு கல்லூரி . சீனிவாச ராமானுஜம் பயின்றகல்லூரி. தியகராஜா செட்டியார் , உ வே சா உலவிய வளாகம் . vibrant campus.

An iconic institution founded in 1854 - 'The Cambridge of South India'.Government Arts College,

Kumbakonam.

South Indian Oxford, Palyamkottai. My almamator.

-PhotosRajagopalan

கன்னியாகுமரி தமிழகத்தோடு இணைப்பு போராட்டம்

கன்னியாகுமரி தமிழகத்தோடு 

இணைப்பு போராட்டம்

------------------------------------

புதுக்கடைதுப்பாக்கிச்சூட்டில் இறந்தவர்கள்-11/8/1954.

**************************

தொடுவட்டி துப்பாக்கிச் சூட்டில் உயிரிழந்தவர்கள் 

***********************

1. திரு. எஸ். ராமைய்யன், மேக்கன்கரை, ஆயிரம் பிறை

புத்தன்வீடு, நட்டாலம், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

2. திரு. எ. பொன்னைய்யன் நாடார், அணைக்கரை,

தேமானூர், ஆற்றூர், செங்கோடி அஞ்சல், கல்குளம் வட்டம்.

3. திரு. எம். பாலைய்யன் நாடார், கொச்சுக் காரவிளை,

மணலி, சாரோடு், தக்கலை அஞ்சல், கல்குளம் வட்டம்.

4. திரு. எஸ் குமரன் நாடார், கோடிவிளை வீடு,

தோட்டவாரம், குன்னத்தூர் கிராமம், புதுக்கடை

அஞ்சல், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

5. பெயர் தெரியாத ஒரு தாய், சந்தை வியாபாரம் செய்த

மூதாட்டி.

6. திரு. சி. பப்பு பணிக்கர், மரக்கறிவிளாகத்து புத்தன் வீடு,

காளைச்சந்தை, தொடுவட்டி, மார்த்தண்டம் அஞ்சல்,

விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

புதுக்கடை துப்பாக்கிச் சூட்டில் இறந்தவர்கள்

*************************************

1. திரு. எ. அருளப்பன் நாடார், வண்ணான்விளை வீடு,

பைங்குளம் கிராமம், புதுக்கடை அஞ்சல், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

2. திரு. என். செல்லைய்யா பிள்ளை, (செக்காலை)

R.C.கிழக்குத்தெரு, புதுக்கடை அஞ்சல், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

3. திரு. எஸ். முத்துசுவாமி நாடார், நாயக்கம் முள்ளுவிளை

வீடு, சடையன் குழி, கிள்ளியூர் அஞ்சல், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

திரு. எ. பீர்முகமது, புதிய வீடு, அம்சி, தேங்காபட்டணம்

அஞ்சல், விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

5. திரு. முத்து கண்ணு நாடார், புதுக்கடை அஞ்சல்,

விளவங்கோடு வட்டம்.

1948-துப்பாக்கிச் சூட்டில் உயிர் துறந்தவர்கள் ்

******************************

1. எ. தேவசகாயம் நாடார், S.T. மங்காடு, விளவங்கோடு

வட்டம் (12.02.1948)

2. பி. செல்லைய்யன் நாடார், பெரியவிளை, கீழ்குளம்,

#விளவங்கோடு வட்டம் (14.02.1948).

ஆக பட்டம் தாணுபிள்ளை முதலமைச்சராக இருந்த

இரண்டு காலகட்டங்களிலும் 13 தமிழர்களின் உயிரைப் பறித்து அவரது தமிழர் குரோதத்தை நிறைவேற்றினார்.

குமரி தமிழ் பகுதிகள் தமிழ் நாட்டுடன் இணைந்த இந்த நன்னாளில் (1/11/56) மறைந்த தியாக செம்மல்களை நன்றியுடன் நினைவு கூர்வோம் ------------- 

மார்ஷல் நேசமணி - வக்கீல் பி ராமசாமி பிள்ளை - சிதம்பரநாதன் - - வக்கீல் குஞ்சன் நாடார் - ரசாக் - லூர்தம்மாள் சைமன் - நூறு முகமது - பி எஸ் மணி - பொன்னப்ப நாடார் - - வக்கீல் சி கோபாலகிருஷ்ணன் - தாணுலிங்கம் நாடார் - கொடிக்கால் - சாம் நந்தாணியல் - - காந்திராம்- சிவ தாணு பிள்ளை - சிதம்பரம் - டி டி டானியல் - நெய்யூர் சிங்கராய நாடார் --- இவர்களுடன் குமரி எல்லை மீட்ப்பு போருக்கு உறு துணையாய் நின்ற அன்றைய தினமலர் நாளேட்டின் நிறுவனர் ராமசுப்பையர் என எண்ணிலடங்கா தியாக செம்மல்களை நன்றியுடன் நினைவு கூர்வோம் -------------

போராட்டங்களில் காவல்துறையினரால் கொன்று குவிக்கப்பட்ட மங்காடு தேவசகாயம்-, பைங்குளம் செல்லையன் -. , தேம்பனூர் பொன்னையன் -, மேக்கன்கரை ராமையன்,- மணலி எம்.பாலையன்,- தொடுவெட்டி பப்பு பணிக்கர் -. புதுக்கடை அருளப்பன் -, கிள்ளியூர் முத்துசுவாமி,- தோட்டவரம் குமாரன், - புதுக்கடை செல்லப்ப பிள்ளை -, தேங்காய்பட்டணம் பீர்முகம்மது ஆகியோரின் தியங்களுக்கு நமது வீர வணக்கம்----

அன்றைய குமரி விடுதலை போராளிகளின் போராட்டம் முழு வெற்றி அடைந்து தமிழர்கள் மிகக்கூடுதலாக இன்றும் வாழும் தேவிகுளம் - பீர்மேடு - நெய்யாற்றின்கரை எஞ்சிய பகுதி - தென்காசி   செங்கோட்டை    முழுப்பகுதி ஆகியவையும் தமிழ் நாட்டுடன் இணைக்கப்பட்டிருந்தால் இன்றைக்கு தமிழன் தண்ணீருக்காக கையேந்தும் நிலை வந்திருக்காது -

திருவிதாங்கூர் தமிழ்நாடு காங்கிரஸ் 

************************

தமிழர்களின் நலம் காத்திட உருப்படியான அரசியல் கட்சி

எதுவும் அவ்வமையம் இல்லாதிருந்த நிலையில், நாகர்கோவில் வக்கீல் சங்கத்தில் மதிப்புமிக்க வழக்கறிஞர் திரு. சிதம்பரம்பிள்ளை, அதே சங்கத்தில் முன்னணி வழக்கறிஞராக விளங்கிய திரு. எ. நேசமணியை, திருவிதாங்கூர் தமிழர்களின் துயர் துடைக்க வருமாறு அழைப்பு விடுத்தார். இந்த அழைப்பை ஏற்ற திரு. நேசமணி 1947 செப்டம்பர் திங்கள் 8 ஆம் நாள், நாகர்கோவில் கிறிஸ்தவ வளாகத்தில் அமைந்திருந்த “ஆலன் நினைவு மண்டபத்தில்”  தமிழர்களின் ஆலோசனைக் கூட்டம் ஒன்று கூட்டப்பட்டு, “திருவிதாங்கூர் தமிழ்நாடு காங்கிரஸ்” என்ற அரசியல் அமைப்பை உருவாக்கினார். திரு. நேசமணியின் தலைமையில் இந்த இயக்கம் புயல் வேகவளர்ச்சியடைந்தது. மலையாளிகளுக்கும், மலையாள அரசுக்கும் சிம்ம சொப்பனமாக அமைந்தது இந்த இயக்கம். திருவிதாங்கூர் தமிழ் பிரதேசங்களின் தனி மாகாணம் அமைத்தே தீருவோம் என்ற மக்களின் கோஷம் வானைப் பிளந்தது.

#கன்னியாகுமரி

#கன்னியாகுமரிஇணைப்புபோராட்டம்

#ksrposting

#ksradhakrishnanposting

TAMIL NADU-60

TAMIL NADU-60(1/11/1956)

Formation day(1/11/2016)

..............................................................

RESIZING OF STATES

--------------------------

K.S. Radhakrishnan

This is the 60th Anniversary of reorganization of the State of Tamil Nadu. After the split of the Madras Presidency, Kerala is celebrating “Nava Keralam”. Andhra is celebrating “Visala Andhra”. Present Andhra Pradesh is exactly as it was with the Madras Presidency. Karnataka is celebrating “Broad Karnataka”, likewise “Samyuktha Maharastra”, “Maha Gujarat”, etc.

At the time of the original reorganization of linguistic Sates in 1954, there was no representation from Madras State. Kerala lobby was very much dominant and had membership in the Fazl Ali Commission. It is very unfortunate situation to Madras State not to have a voice then. At that time Madras State was unable to represent their grievances and their own rights.

Under these reasons, now some feelings and sentiments in Tamil Nadu, the reorganization during the 1950’s was unjust and biased. 

Dhar Commision, JVP Committee and Fazl Ali Commission:

Dhar Commission:  There was a demand from different regions, mainly South India, for reorganization of  States on linguistic basis. Consequently, in June 1948, the Government of India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the chairmanship of S.K.Dhar to study the feasibility of organizing states on Linguistic basis.

 

The Commission, later on, rejected the linguistic basis of reorganization of States and recommended the reorganization of States on the basis of following criterias :

1. Geographical contiguity

2. Financial self-reliance

3. Administrative viability

4. Potential for development

JVP Committee (Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya): The report submitted by Dhar commission led to much resentment among the people. As a result, in the Jaipur session of 1948, Congress appointed a three member committee to consider the recommendations of Dhar Commission. This committee also rejected the linguistic factor of reorganization of the states. This committee recommended the reorganization of States on the basis of security, unity and economic prosperity of the nation.

However, the Indian Government was forced by the death of Potti Sriramulu to create the first linguistic state, known as Andhra State, by separating the Telugu speaking areas from the Madras State. Potti Sriramulu became famous for undertaking the hunger strike in support of the formation of an Indian state for the Telugu-speaking population of Madras Presidency; he lost his life in the process. His death sparked public rioting, and Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared the intent to form Andhra State three days following.

 

Fazl Ali Commission:  (Chairman: Fazl Ali, Members : Hridaynath Kunzru and K.M.Panikkar)

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of linguistic factor, all hell break loose. The other regions also started demanding for creation of separate states on the basis of linguistic factor. The intense pressure forced the Indian Government to form a new commission to visit the whole question of whether the linguistic basis of separation of states can be considered or not. It led to the formation of Fazl Ali Commission in December 1953.

The commission submitted its report on September 1955 and acknowledged 4 major factors to be taken into account in any scheme of reorganization of states :

1. Linguistic and Cultural homogeneity

2. Preservation and strengthening of the unity and security of the nation.

3. Financial, Economic and Administrative considerations.

4. Planning and promotion of the welfare of the people in each state as well as of the Nation as a whole.

 

It suggested the reorganization of 27 states of various categories into 16 states and 3 Union Territories. The recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission was accepted by the Indian Government with minor modifications. As a result, the State Reorganization Act of 1956 was passed by the Parliament to give effect to the recommendation of the commission. It led to the formation of 14 states and 6 Union Territories on 1st November, 1956.

Under the above said circumstances in toto Tamil Nadu lost its soil in different directions. Some territories unreasonably given to Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala from Madras Presidency.

Now there is a demand in Southern Districts, for separate State of Southern Tamil Nadu, with its headquarters in Madurai, ancient cultural headquarters of the Tamil Community.

For this cause propaganda is going in low profile some parts of South of Tamil Nadu. It is debatable question.

During reorganisation of boundaries of Tamil Nadu so many leaders dedicated themselves for this noble cause.  Late leaders Ma.Po. Sivagnanam, Mangala Kilar, K. Vinayagam, C.V. Srinivasan, Chengalvarayan, Saraswathi Pandurangan were played major role on Tirutani agitation. Likewise, Shencottai was also joined in Tamil Nadu from Trivancore province with the dedicated service and agitation of late Karaiyalar. Similarly in Kanyakumari P.S. Mani, Marshal Nesamani, Kunjan Nadar, Razack, M. Subramaniya Nadar, Packianathan and others participated Southern border-Kanyakumar agitation. Kanyakumari was under the control of Princely state of Trivancore. At that time, Thovalai was the border of Trivancore Province.

It is high time we think of restructuring of Tamil Nadu after 60 years of the creation of the State. People from Deep South are compelled to come to Chennai, the capital which is almost near Andhra Pradesh. We lost several traditional Tamil Soils like, Nellore, Chittor and Tirupathi. This leads to the loss of our rights to Palar, Pennar, Ponniyaru and Pazhaverkadu. We lost some parts to Karnataka like, Udupi, Kollegal, Mandiya and KGF. This led to the Cauvery and Hogenakkal issues.

Some parts in the Palakkad region went to Kerala. This has led to loss of some West bound river basins like Siruvani, PAP, Pambaru, etc.  Likewise, Mullai Periyar Dam issue arises because of the loss of Devikulam, Peermedu to Kerala. Similarly, Alagar Dam issue, Ullaru, Shenbagavalli Dam, Neyyaru in Kanyakumari district etc should geographically be with Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu lost Nedumangadu, Neyyatrusarai during reorganization of States in 1956.

The deciding factors for restructuring of states should be based on, The size of a state should be the primary deciding factor, Industrial development should take place along the corridors where raw materials are available, this will provide employment to the local people and avoid migration, one language – two states concept is already in existence in several parts of northern India.

Many of the people from South Tamil Nadu have mooted a bifurcation of Tamil Nadu, with the northern districts being carved out to form a separate state. Historically also there is some basis to this as the Tamil speaking region in the past comprised of kingdoms centered around Kanchipuram, Tanjore and Madurai. Several personalities have quite expectedly, shrilly denounced this demand as “secession”, in a smaller state within the Indian Union. The Madras centred Tamil Nadu State we now know was the creation of the British. Similarly Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat and other linguistic states have no historical basis. The yearning for linguistic sub-nationalism is a post-independence phenomenon. Often this linguistic sub-nationalism has been a fig leaf for secessionism as we have seen in Tamil Nadu in the past.

The biggest states of India, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are also worst off states and hence the acronym BIMARU for them is most appropriate. They are also predominantly Hindi speaking states and hence quite clearly there is no linguistic or historical basis for their creation and existence as they are. It would be however unfair to club MP and Rajasthan with Bihar and UP, both of whom are in an advanced state of political degeneracy with none of their institutions left with an acceptable degree of integrity. Since there is lot to a name, acronym creators apparently needed Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for imparting vividness. Yet within their blanket linguistic conformity these states cover a vast diversity of distinct regions, with characteristic commonly spoken languages, culture and historical traditions. Each of these states either in terms of landmass or population still would be larger than most countries in the world. Even without Uttaranchal, UP would be larger in terms of population than Brazil, Japan or Bangladesh. It was not surprising that despite the supposed linguistic affinity, there were and still are demands for smaller states from within them. All the major political parties supported such aspirations and three new states are the result.

The creation of the new states, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh from the BIMARU big three has provoked a rash of demands for similar restructuring in other areas. Telangana happened. The demand is now particularly strong Vidharba where there has been a mother land of discontent just below the surface for out of work politicians to seek their political fortunes. In the recent days there is a demand for a Harit Pradesh consisting of the fertile regions of Western UP being fanned by Ajit Singh who is at best a political buccaneer of the worst kind. At the farthest corner of India there is a gathering demand for the creation of a predominantly Naga state Nagalim, consisting of all the hilly regions inhabited by the Naga tribes.  The Ethnic conflict in Nagaland in North eastern India is part of insurgency. They want to establish a ‘greater Nagaland’ – Nagalim or The People’s Government. Then of course there is a demand for Bodoland out of the already much truncated Assam, a Gorkhaland out of West Bengal which has shown the Bengali Marxists to be as good or bad petty chauvinists when it relates to their sub-nationalism. This list can be quite long.

What contributes most to these demands for smaller or in some cases larger states are a sense of strong regional affinity that is stronger than the sub-national identity, uneven economic conditions leading to wide and easily discernable disparities in development, and the perceived concentration of political power with an identifiable political elite like the Kammas in Andhra Pradesh and Marathas in Maharashtra. Contributing in equal measure to these is the non-ideological political climate that has descended upon us after one foreign economic paradigm so obviously failed and its economic opposite was deemed as the only way to go.

At a time when caste has so fragmented the polity, particularly in the BIMARU big two, making the return to power of a single political party a near impossibility, the demand for small states with a long and traditional affinity often cemented by a common agro-climatic reality becomes a strong motivating force to rally the disenchanted and dispossessed to a common cause. But this must not be allowed to discredit the case for smaller and more manageable states.

The late Dr. Rasheeduddin Khan most eloquently made out this case; of Hyderabad I would like to add, way back in April 1973 in the Seminar, at that time edited by the late Romesh Thapar. He had India divided according to its 56 socio-cultural sub-regions and a map showing these was the centrepiece of the article. That picture still remains embedded in my mind, and whenever I think of better public administration that map would always appear. Since the subject of small states has begun to emerge as a major issue again, with the recent by-poll results in Telangana writing its message very clearly on the wall, and a vociferous cry for a Bundelkhand out of UP, it is a matter of time, before small states will become a major political issue nationwide.  Other States too will soon see the writing on the wall.

The Seminar map is a veritable blueprint for the structuring of India. Out of UP and Bihar eight distinct sub-regions are identified. These are Uttaranchal, Rohelkhand, Braj, Oudh, Bhojpur, Mithila, Magadh and Jharkhand. The first and last of these have now become constitutional and administrative realities. But each one of the other unhappily wedded regions is very clearly a distinct region with its own predominant dialect and history. For instance Maithili spoken in the area around Darbhanga in northern Bihar is very different from Bhojpuri spoken in the adjacent Bhojpur area. Similarly Brajbhasha in western UP is quite different from Avadhi spoken in central UP. India’s largest state in terms of area, MP, is broken into five distinct regions, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra into four each, AP, West Bengal and Karnataka into three each, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Orissa into two each, and so on.

Since 1971, India’s population has doubled to cross a billion. Even at constant prices (1980-81) the GNP has grown by ten times. In 1971 the total money supply (M3) was Rs.11,019 crores, whereas it has now grown to over Rs. 1000,000 crores (ten lakh crores). Naturally the size and scope of government has also changed. The 1980-81 budget of the Government of India was a mere Rs. 19,579 crores. It is now about Rs. 350,000 crores. The annual budgets of state governments too have grown likewise. States like UP, Maharashtra and AP now have annual budgets of about Rs.20,000 crores each. All the states together have a total annual expenditure in excess of about Rs.300,000 crores. Last year the total gross fiscal deficit of the states alone was over Rs. 90,000 crores or about the same as the Government of India’s.

The total population of India in 1947 was about 320 million. Today, we have about that number of people who are below the poverty line. In the meantime India has become a very youthful country with 70% of its people below the age of 30 of whom about 350 million are below the age of 14. Clearly the task of government is not only much more enormous, but also much more complex when the rising expectations, impact of new technologies and demographic changes are factored in. Our record so far is cause for great concern and is a severe indictment of the failure of the system of governance in India.

That “the nature of the regime determines the nature of the outcome” is a well-known adage in public administration and public policy studies. The nature of a regime is not only influenced by its constitution, guiding philosophy, and the consequent system of government, but also by the structure of the system. We know from experience, both in the corporate world and in public administration, that monolithic and centralized structures fail when the size and scope of the organization grows. Thus to compete with Honda and Toyota, General Motors and Ford have had to restructure into smaller and independent operating units. Still they are not healthy enough. In public administration this is called de-centralization. De-centralization not only implies the downward flow of decision-making but also greater closeness of the reviewing authority to the decision-making level.

Thus, if more decision-making flows to the districts and sub-districts, the state government, which is the reviewing authority, must also have fewer units to supervise. I have always held that the real concentration of power is not with the Central Government but with the State Governments. Thus when a person like Chandrababu Naidu clamours for greater functional autonomy, he is actually calling for a greater concentration of power to himself. From the perspective of good governance, this is clearly unacceptable. Good government also means lesser government, responsive government, closer government, quicker government and a very transparent government. Large centralized governments are inimical to good government. State Governments are the worst kind of centralized governments masking their regional jingoism as a demand for autonomy.

In 1973 Rasheeduddin Khan wrote: “the process of the infra-structuring of the Indian federation is not yet over. Therefore, political demands of viable sub-regions for new administrative arrangements are not necessarily antithetical to the territorial integrity of the country. For, every urge for autonomy is not a divisive, but most probably a complementary force; it would not lead to balkanization but to the restructuring of national identity; it is not a fissiparous but a normal centrifugal tendency in a federation; it should not be taken as a call for disintegration of the national sovereignty, but its re-integration.” The “Report of the States Reorganization Commission, 1955” states: “Unlike the United States of America, the Indian Union is not an indestructible union composed of indestructible states. But on the contrary the Union alone is indestructible but the individual states are not.” It would be unfortunate if demands for the restructuring of India by creating more states are seen only as mere political contests, where the just causes of individual socio-cultural and agro-climatic regions is just a weapon in the hands of out of work politicians deprived of a share of the benefits of office.

During NDA regime, the Prime Minister Vajpayee very much favoured to smaller states. Then Home Minister L.K. Advani, advocated smaller states is good for easy governance and better administration. So, he is the person mooted various steps to form a smaller states. Now there are demands for similar states with their race, language, culture etc. How it will work in future? That is the question mark……

- K.S. Radhakrishnan

rkkurunji@gmail.com

#tamilnadu60#

#tamilnaduformationday

#smallarstates##resizeingofstates

#ksrposting#ksradhakrishnanposting

cauvery

A relevant post on Cauvery...

Also timely...

Courtesy: Mr. Kalyanaraman Durgadas.

cauvery

ஐநா மனித உரிமைப் பேரவையில் ரஷ்யா வெளியேற்றம்

ஐநா மனித உரிமைப் பேரவையில் இருந்து ரஷ்யா வெளியேற்றம்!

ஐநா அவையில் வெள்ளிக்கிழமை (28.9.2016) நடந்த தேர்தலில் உலகின் அனைத்து நாடுகளும் ரகசிய வாக்கெடுப்பு முறையில் வாக்களித்தன. 47 உறுப்பினர்களைக் கொண்ட ஐநா மனித உரிமைப் பேரவைக்கு (UN Human Rights Council), 2017 ஆம் ஆண்டுக்காக 14 உறுப்பினர்கள் சுழற்சி முறையில் தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டார்கள். அதில் ரஷ்ய நாடு தோற்கடிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. 

உலகின் அனைத்து மனித உரிமை அமைப்புகளும், "சிரியா நாட்டில், நேரடியாக போர்க்குற்றத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ள ரஷ்யா எவ்வாறு மனித உரிமைப் பேரவையில் உறுப்பினர் ஆகலாம்?" என்கிற கேள்வியை முன்வைத்தன.  ரஷ்யாவுக்கு எதிரான பிரச்சாரம் செய்தன. 

எனினும், பன்னாட்டு அரசியலில் ரஷ்யாவுக்கு இருக்கும் பலத்தை வைத்து, அந்த நாடு வெற்றிபெரும் என்றே பெரும்பாலான ஊடகங்கள் கருத்து தெரிவித்தன. ஆனால், அனைத்து நம்பிக்கைகளையும் மீறி, ரஷ்யா தோற்கடிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ஐநா பாதுகாப்பு அவையில் நிரந்தர உறுப்பினராக இருக்கும் ரஷ்யா, மனித உரிமைப் பேரவைக்கான தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட்டு தோற்றுப்போயிருப்பது சர்வதேச அளவில் அதிர்வலையை உண்டாக்கி இருக்கிறது.

மனித உரிமைப் பேரவை உறுப்பினர் பதவி என்பது மூன்று ஆண்டுகளுக்கான உறுப்பினர் தகுதி ஆகும். தொடர்ந்து இரண்டு முறை உறுப்பினராக இருந்த நாடுகள் மூன்றாவது தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட முடியாது. ஒரு ஆண்டு இடைவெளிவிட்டு மீண்டும் தேர்தலில் நிற்கலாம்.

அமெரிக்கா, இங்கிலாந்து, தென் ஆப்பிரிக்கா, ஜப்பான் உள்ளிட்ட நாடுகளும் இந்த தேர்தலில் வெற்றிபெற்றுள்ளன. 2016 ஆம் ஆண்டில் உறுப்பினராக இல்லாத அமெரிக்கா, இந்த தேர்தலில் வெற்றி பெற்றதன் மூலம் மீண்டும் 2017 ஆம் ஆண்டுமுதல் ஐநா மனித உரிமைப் பேரவையில் உறுப்பினராக சேர்கிறது. இந்தியா ஏற்கனவே, உறுப்பு நாடாக இருந்துவருகிறது.

திரும்ப வராத கடன்

நாட்டுடைமையாக்கப்பட்ட வங்கிகளில் கடன் வாங்கி திரும்ப கொடுக்காத

பெரும்புள்ளிகளின் பட்டியலை ரிசர்வ் வங்கி வெளியிட வேண்டும் என வழக்கு

தலைமை நீதிபதி 

டி.எஸ். தாக்கூர்அவர்களின் அமர்வு

முன்பாக வழக்கு விசாரணைக்கு வந்திருக்கிறது. 57 பேர்

கொண்ட ஒரு பட்டியல் சீல் இட்ட கவரில் ரிசர்வ் வங்கி கோர்ட்டில் ஒப்படைத்தது. ரகசியமான விஷயம் .நீதிபதி மட்டுமே பார்க்க

பட்டியலை கொடுத்திருக்கிறது.

57 மாபெரும் கொள்ளைக் காரர்களிடமிருந்து மட்டுமே

வர வேண்டிய மொத்த கடன் தொகை –

85,000 கோடிக்கு மேல்.

இது 500 கோடிக்கு மேல் உள்ளவர்களின் பட்டியல் .500 கோடிக்கு கீழே உள்ள வராத கடங்காரர்களையும் சேர்த்தால், திரும்ப வராத கடன் தொகை ஒரு லட்சம் கோடியை தாண்டும்.

இந்த கடங்காரர்களின் பட்டியலை இதுவரைநீங்கள்ஏன் வெளிப்படுத்தவில்லை என்று கேட்டக

ரிசர்வ் வங்கியின் வழக்குரைஞர் ,

” ஏமாற்ற வேண்டும் என்பது இவர்களின் நோக்கமல்ல…

அவர்களின் இயலாமை தான் காரணம்…. மேலும் அவர்களின்விவரங்களை வெளியிட சட்டம் இடம் கொடுக்கவில்லை…

5 லட்சம், 10 லட்சம் கடன் வாங்கியவர்களின்

பெயர்களையும், பெண்களாயிற்றே என்று கூட பார்க்காமல்

புகைப்படங்களையும், பத்திரிகைகளில் விளம்பரங்களாக வெளியிடும் வங்கிகள்,

வங்கிகளில் கடன் வாங்கி விட்டு திரும்ப கொடுக்காமல்

ஏமாற்றுபவர்களின் பெயரையோ, புகைப்படத்தையோ

வெளியிடக்கூடாது என்று எந்த சட்டம் கட்டுப்படுத்துகிறது..?

ஒரு வேளை அப்படி ஒரு சட்டம் இருந்தால் அது –

கோடிக்கணக்கில் ஏமாற்றுபவர்களை மட்டும் தான் பாதுகாக்குமா…? வீட்டுக்கடனை உரிய நேரத்தில் திரும்ப

கொடுக்க தவறும் சாமான்ய மக்களை அந்த சட்டம் பாதுகாக்காதா…?

Human Rights Council, the United Nations body

General Assembly, by Secret Ballot, Elects 14 Member States to Serve Three-year Terms on Human Rights Council

The General Assembly today elected, by secret ballot, 14 States to serve on the Human Rights Council, the United Nations body responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

Those elected were Brazil, China, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tunisia, United Kingdom and the United States.  All would serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2017.

The 14 outgoing members were Algeria, China, Cuba, France, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and Viet Nam.  In accordance with Assembly resolution 60/251, those Member States were eligible for immediate re-election except the delegation which had served two consecutive terms, namely Maldives.

The 14 new members were elected according to the following pattern:  four seats for African States; four seats for Asia-Pacific States; two seats for Eastern European States; two seats for Latin American and Caribbean States; and two seats for Western European and other States.

Newly elected to the Geneva-based body were Brazil, Croatia, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Rwanda, Tunisia and United States.  Re-elected for an additional term were China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Assembly President Peter Thomson (Fiji) announced that the following States would also continue as members of the Council:  Albania, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, Togo, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

Created by the Assembly in May 2006 (resolution 60/251) as the principal United Nations body dealing with human rights, the Human Rights Council comprises 47 elected Member States.  On the basis of equitable geographical distribution, Council seats are allocated to the five regional groups as follows:  African States, 13 seats; Asia-Pacific States, 13 seats; Eastern European States, 6 seats; Latin American and Caribbean States, 8 seats; and Western European and other States, 7 seats.

Voting Results for Human Rights Council

African States (4 seats)
Elected:
Tunisia	189
South Africa	178
Rwanda	176
Egypt	173
Others Receiving Votes:
Morocco	2
Mauritius	1
Senegal	1
Sierra Leone	1
Asia-Pacific States (4 seats)
Elected:
China	180
Japan	177
Iraq	173
Saudi Arabia	152
Others Receiving Votes:
Malaysia	10
Fiji	6
Iran	1
Eastern European States (2 seats)
Elected:
Hungary	144
Croatia	114
Others Receiving Votes:
Russian Federation	112
Bulgaria	1
Latin American and Caribbean States (2 seats)
Elected:
Cuba	160
Brazil	137
Others Receiving Votes:
Guatemala	82
Western European and Other States (2 seats)
Elected:
United States	175
United Kingdom	173
Others Receiving Votes:
France	2
Greece	2
Spain	2
Canada	1
Israel	1
Italy	1
Liechtenstein	1
Sweden	1

At the outset of the meeting, the Assembly paid tribute to King Bhumibol Adulyadejn of Thailand, one of history’s longest-reigning monarchs, who had died on 13 October.  United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recalled meeting King Bhumibol in 2007.  Mr. Ban said he long admired his commitment to improving the lives of the people of Thailand.  A visionary and humanitarian, King Bhumibol had been loved and revered by the people of Thailand and respected around the world.  Throughout his 70-year reign, he had remained commitment to sustainable development and moving the country towards a vibrant economy, he said.

President of the General Assembly, Peter Thomson (Fiji), expressed his deepest condolences to the Royal family, Government and the people of Thailand.  King Bhumibol had been the “people’s King” for having significantly improved the livelihoods of the Thai people.  As a strong supporter of the multilateral system, his achievements had garnered many United Nations awards throughout the years.  He had also been a leader in sustainable land resource management.  King Bhumibol’s profound legacy would always be remembered, Mr. Thomson said.

Thailand’s representative said King Bhumibol had been a “guiding light” through the many crises the country had faced over the last 70 years.  A symbol of national unity dedicated to sustaining the Kingdom’s culture integrity, King Bhumibol had empowered the poorest and most vulnerable while promoting an economy that was mindful of the environment.  King Bhumibol was no stranger to the United Nations, which, on several occasions, had recognized his role in humanitarianism and global leadership.  His reign promoted practical approaches to achieving sustainable development in both agricultural and business sectors.

Several countries also paid tribute to the long-reigning leader, with Georgia’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States, saying King Bhumibol had been an advocate for education and building bridges between nations and had been known as the “development King”.  Echoing that sentiment, Niger’s delegate, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said more than 4,000 projects, ranging from flood alleviation to public health, had been undertaken under his leadership.  “This loss in not only the loss of Thailand, but also the loss of the world,” he said.

Emphasizing King Bhumibol’s role as an internationally recognized and unifying leader, Kuwait’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Asia-Pacific States, said Thailand’s loss was a loss for the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.  Chile’s speaker, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States, said he had worked tirelessly to improve the lives of his people.  The United Kingdom’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of Western European and Other States, said he had embodied the post-war generation, spending years of his reign touring Thailand’s agricultural provinces and asking local leaders about the challenges to their lives.  He had also been an accomplished painter, photographer, composer and saxophonist.

The delegate from the United States, speaking as the United Nations host country, described the deep devotion that King Bhumibol had inspired in people around the world.  Among other things, King Bhumibol had been “ahead of the curve” in many critical areas, including development and environmentalism.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 November, to discuss the question of implementation of major United Nations conferences in the economic, social and related fields and the socioeconomic effects of El Niño.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court said today that it “cannot allow the executive to decimate the system”

-------------------------------------

Questioning if the Central government wants the entire judicial system to be “locked out”, the Supreme Court said today that it “cannot allow the executive to decimate the system” by what it called was its “inaction, inefficiency or unwillingness” to appoint judges.

Lashing out at the government for sitting over the files of judges’ appointments despite clearance by the collegium nine months ago, a bench led by Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said that the government can niether “scuttle the working of the institution” nor be allowed “to bring the entire system to a grinding halt”.

The bench told Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that although the judiciary would not want a “clash” with any other institution, it was for the government to make sure such a situation is averted.

“This system of appointing judges (collegium) has worked well till date. We want this cordiality (with the government) to continue but we cannot allow the institution to be decimated by inaction, inefficiency or unwillingness of the executive.you cannot decimate the system,” the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L N Rao, told the AG.

Hearing a clutch of PILs on shortage of judges and delays on the part of the government in making appointments, the bench got upset after Rohatgi put forth a list of names cleared by them since October 3.

The AG said 18 names had been cleared but appointments would take another two weeks. When asked by the CJI, the AG said out of eight names approved by the collegium for appointment as judges in Allahabad High Court, only two were cleared. This irked the bench which sought to know what caused the delay when the eight names had been recommended by the collegium in February.

“What about the remaining six names? You don’t make appointments nor do you send back the names if you have any objection. Who are the officials concerned? We will have Secretary, PMO; and Secretary, Justice Department summoned here and they will now have to explain the delay,” retorted the bench.

At this, the AG brought up the issue of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which will guide future appointments after it is finalized by the judiciary and the government. Rohatgi pointed out that although one year has gone by, the MoP, in terms of the October 2015 judgment by a five-judge Constitution Bench, was yet to be finalized.

But the bench called this argument a “red herring” and clarified that until the new MoP is framed, appointments will keep happening on the basis of the old guidelines. It further reminded the AG that the government itself had declared that modification of the MoP had nothing to do with appointments.

“You have cleared 88 names after the judgment. Have you changed your mind now and want a deadlock in matters of judges’ appointments?,” it asked the AG, who replied that the government did not want a stalemate but the old MoP was not in line with the October 2016 judgment that had quashed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) but favoured a new mechanism.

However, the CJI discarded Rohatgi’s argument, saying: “Let us make it clear to you that appointment cannot stop for want of a new MoP. You cannot bring the entire institution to a grinding halt by insisting on a new MoP. Where is the question of sitting over names? You have cleared two out of eight names (in Allahabad HC) while the second lot is still pending. You cannot do that. Ultimately, we are the casualty of this delay and inefficiency.”

When the AG said that the new MoP could fasten the process, the court said that if the government chose to stick to this argument then they would sit in a five-judge bench and declare it once and for all that new MoP cannot impede the process of judicial appointments.

“You cannot scuttle the working of the institution like this.are you waiting for some revolutionary changes in the system? It is not adversarial. It is not about ego of individuals. We don’t want to pass judicial orders in such matters. But this cannot go on like this. We don’t want to create a very bad situation where one institution has to clash with another institution. Please don’t compel us,” said the bench.

The court underlined that out of a sanctioned strength of 160 judges, only 77 judges were there in Allahabad High Court. “In Karnataka High Court, half the courtrooms are locked because there are no judges. There was a time when you had no courtrooms for judges and now most of the courtrooms are locked. You should very well have the whole institution.justice locked out,” it said.

The bench said that judges in the collegium were also human beings and they could make errors of judgments in recommending names for appointments but the government has to send them back with objections and not sit over them indefinitely, stalling the whole process.

With the writing on the wall, the AG pleaded for some time to enable him deliberate with the competent authorities and revert with positive updates after the Diwali break. The court then fixed the matter for November 11 when the government would adduce a fresh status of judicial appointments.

Madras state-Andhra .

Madras state-Andhra 

.........................................

Rajendra Prasad, the President's State visit to Madras on 15th of August 1956, by the time of which the fight over MADRAS had come to an end. 

This is the history of the brotherhood  fight over MADRAS, between the Tamils and the Telugus. (btw, the Telugu language, which is also a claasical one, had its original roots from the Classical  Tamil language itself )

About 70 years ago, the Madras City, as it was earlier known faced anxious moments when Telugu-speaking citizens demanded the city as theirs and wanted it to be the capital of their future state.

The demand in itself was not problematic, but the solutions proposed to solve the dispute between Tamil and Telugu-speaking citizens over the future

The city came close to being split into two along River Cooum – the northern part assigned to Andhra and the southern to Tamil Nadu. 

However, a combination of factors settled the issue in Tamil Nadu’s favour. This not only saved the traumatic partition, but also avoided two other equally vexatious possibilities: declare Madras as a plebiscite or a centrally administered province. 

As the city celebrates its past, it would be worthwhile to recall how the city survived its testing moments and retained its cosmopolitan nature.

Madras was a presidency town – the largest colonial city in south India with Telugus, Tamils, Kannadigas and Malayalees all living here. As the struggle for independence intensified, the formation of States on linguistic principles became imminent. Telugus were among the first to raise the demand for the need of a separate province.

As early as 1912, Telugu leaders and newspapers started to complain that the ‘progress of Dravidians overshadowed’ that of the Andhras (Telugu speaking) and the creation of a separate province would ‘cure this handicap.’  However, they did not step up the demand immediately, but wanted to do so only after independence. Until then, they decided to keep the issue alive.

In the initial years, the status of #Madrascity was not a central issue. The situation changed in the 1940s. An intriguing tale in November, 1941 brought the city of Madras to centre stage. 

T. Prakasam, the Congress leader, who later became the first Chief Minister of Andhra told the Mahasabha conference in Vishakapatanam that the cabinet of the Madras Province had met a few months ago to discuss the formation of Andhra province. 

They invited Lord Erskine, the Governor, to attend the meeting as a matter of goodwill.

Erskine suggested that both provinces — Andhra and Madras — be located in the city. Everyone including the Tamil Ministers agreed to this idea, #Prakasam claimed.  Prakasam then alleged that an ‘evil genius in the cabinet’ poisoned Erskine’s mind later and made him write a letter to the Secretary of State against the move. 

Prakasam refused to divulge the name of the ‘evil genius’ but told the gathering that Erskine cautioned the British government that ‘blood would flow in the streets of Madras’ if Andhra was formed.  

Remarks by O.P.#RamaswamyReddiar, the premier of Madras province in September, 1947 complicated matters. He told a group of press persons that if Andhra claimed Madras then Tamils would claim Nellore, Chittor and Tirupati in return. Positions hardened and Telugu leaders demanded that the government settle the future of the city first.

For their part, Tamil writers and leaders aggressively opposed Andhra’s claim over Madras. Notable writer Kalki Krishnamuthi remarked that the Tamils and Telugus had turned ‘strange brothers’ and the city had greater contact with Tamilians than with Telugus.  

Rajaji dismissed the claim over Madras as untenable and citied population figures in support.

A few readers writing to The Hindu said that the politicians must be kept out of this issue and the government should hold a referendum. This did not happen.

A solution was in sight in 1949. The Indian National Congress set a three-member committee comprising Nehru, Patel and Pattabi Sitaramiah to look into linguistic provinces. The committee report — known as the JVP report — recommended the formation of Andhra province but concluded that Madras would not be part of it. 

With Nehru and Patel involved, many thought the JVP report would be accepted. On the contrary, the fight over Madras escalated.

While the JVP’s position pleased Tamil leaders, the Telugus agitated. Sitaramiah, who was a signatory to the report tried to clarify that though the JVP report said Madras could not be part of Andhra, it did not specify that it should be part of the Tamil province. The city should be a centrally administered area, he demanded.

Matters came to a flash point in 1952 when #PottiSreeramulu, a Gandhian who was fasting for an Andhra province and the inclusion of Madras, died.  

#Sreeramulu, was born in Madras. He quit his well-paying job in the Railways in 1930 to join Gandhi in his Sabarmati ashram. Later, after independence, he took up social work. On October 19, 1952, Sreeramulu decided to indefinitely fast in support of the Andhra issue. 

His fast neither altered the position of the national Congress or the Madras government.  After 51 days, Sreeramulu died.

His death sparked violent protests across Telugu-speaking areas of the Presidency. Nehru appealed for calm and assured people that the issue would be settled soon. Following this, in January 1953, the government appointed Justice Wanchoo to look into the formation of the Andhra province. 

The Wanchoo committee identified boundaries of the new State, but concluded that Madras could be the temporary capital for three to five years. If that was not possible, until a permanent city was found, Guntur or Vishakapttanam could the temporary capital, the committee suggested.

This was not acceptable to Rajaji and other Tamil leaders.  Finally, in March 1953, Nehru announced that Madras would not be the temporary capital. In October 1953, the Andhra province was formed with Kurnool as its temporary capital.

V. Kaleeswara Ro, the vice-president of the Andhra Pradesh Congress committee was practical. He told other Telugu leaders that they should now work ‘increasingly with the Karnataka brethren for the disintegration of Hyderabad State’ and combine the Telugu-speaking areas with #Andhra. 

This way, Andhra could get the twin city of Hyderabad and Secunderabad as its permanent capital. 

He was right. After two years, a larger Andhra Pradesh with Hyderabad as its capital emerged.  Madras remained with #TamilNadu.

President's visit to the City of Madras, after the declaration that it belongs only to the State of Madras(here the word Madras represents Tamilnadu, the name of which was later fought for and made possible by the serious efforts of Arignar Anna.

-Sheena John Peter

ஆட்டுச்சந்தை- எட்டயபுரம் :

ஆட்டுச்சந்தை- எட்டயபுரம் :

.............................................

தென் மாவட்டங்களில் பிரச்சித்தி பெற்ற ஆட்டு சந்தைகளில் மிகவும் முக்கியமான ஆட்டுசந்தை கோவில்பட்டி அருகேயுள்ள  ஆட்டுசந்தைதான். எட்டயபுரம் ஆட்டுசந்தையில் தரமான ஆடுகள் கிடைப்பது மட்டுமின்றி, இங்குஆடுகள் விற்பனை செய்தால் நல்ல லாபம் கிடைக்கும் என்பதால் வியாபாரிகளும், பொது மக்களும் அதிகளவு வருவது இயற்கை, அது மட்டுமின்றி இந்த பகுதியில் நல்ல விவசாயம் நடைபெறுவதால் ஆடுகளின் வளர்ச்சியும் நன்றாக இருக்கும் என்பதால் ஆடு வாங்குபவர்கள் எட்டயபுரம் சந்தையை நோக்கி வருவது வாடிக்கை. தமிழகத்தின் பல்வேறு பகுதிகள் மட்டுமின்றி கேரளா மாநிலத்தில் இருந்து வியாபாரிகள் எட்டயபுரம் சந்தையில் ஆடு வாங்கி செல்வதை வழக்கமாக கொண்டுள்ளனர். வழக்கமாக வாரந்தோறும் சனிக்கிழமை தான் எட்டயபுரம் ஆட்டுசந்தை நடைபெறுவது வழக்கம். ஆனால் இந்த ஆண்டு தீபாவளி நாளை வருவதால் ஒரு நாள் முன்பாக இன்று காலையில் ஆட்டுசந்தை துவக்கியது. வழக்கமான சந்தையுடன் தீபாவளி பண்டிகையும் சேர்ந்து விட்டதால் மற்ற வாரங்களை இன்று அதிகாலையில் இருந்தே சந்தை களைகட்ட தொடங்கி விட்டது. கோவில்பட்டி, விளாத்திகுளம், கடம்பூர், கயத்தார், மற்றும் திருநெல்வேலி, விருதுநகர், இராமநாதபுரம் மாவட்டங்களின் பகுதிகளில் இருந்து ஆடுகள்; வாகனங்களில் கொண்டு வரப்பட்டு விற்பனை செய்யப்பட்டன. மழையின், வறட்சி போன்ற காரணங்களினால் கடந்த ஆண்டு தீபவாளி வியாபாரத்தினை விட சுமார் என்றாலும் கூட வியாபாரம் பரவ இல்லை என்று வியாபாரிகள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். மேலும் கடந்த ஆண்டை விட ஆடுகளுக்கு நல்ல விலையும் கிடைத்துள்ளதால் வியாபாரிகள் மகிழ்ச்சி அடைந்துள்ளனர்.10 கிலோ வரையுள்ள ஆடுகள் கடந்த ஆண்டு ரூ.4000 ஆயிரம் வரை விற்பனையாகியுள்ளது. இன்று ரூ.5000  வரை ஆடுகள் விற்பனையானதால் வியாபாரிகள், ஆடு வளர்ப்பவர்கள் மகிழ்ச்சியடைந்துள்ளனர். நாளை தீபாவளி பண்டிகை என்பதால் மதுரை மாவட்டம் திருமங்கலம், திருநெல்வேலி மாவட்டம் வள்ளியூர்,கயத்தார் போன்ற பகுதிகளில் ஆட்டுசந்தைகள் நடைபெற்ற போதிலும் எட்டயபுரம் சந்தை குறிப்பிட தக்கது.

வேம்பார் ஆடுகள் இங்கு கிடைக்கும் . கிடை ஆடுகள்இங்குகிடைக்கும்

130 years- Statue of Liberty

130 years- Statue of Liberty 

...........................................................  

It's Lady Liberty like you've never seen her before — in pieces.

On October 28, 1886, the Statue made its debut as about 1 million New Yorkers gathered for the ceremony. Sculptor Auguste Bartholdi released a French flag that covered the Statue of Liberty’s face. And then President Grover Cleveland dedicated the Statue of Liberty, as a gift from France and a sign of mutual friendship.

The Statue of Liberty had arrived in New York Harbor June 17, 1885 to great fanfare, but to the surprise of no one familiar with the Statue project, its full public debut was put on hold for another year after a logistical problem cropped up: the statue’s mammoth pedestal didn’t exist.

The project started in 1865 and it took 21 years for the Statue of Liberty to be conceived, built in pieces, shipped to America, and hoisted on its pedestal on Bedloe’s Island.

Edouard de Laboulaye, a leading French intellectual and an expert on the U.S. Constitution, dreamed that the statue would inspire the French people to follow the example of the American people, including the late President Abraham Lincoln.

Laboulaye also believed the 13th Amendment, which abolishing slavery in the U.S. in 1865, was proof that justice and liberty for all was possible.

It took 10 years for Laboulaye to come up with plan for the Statue. He enlisted Bartholdi to design the monument and Bartholdi helped to raise 400,000 Francs in conjunction with the Franco-American Union.

Bartholdi selected Bedloe’s Island as the spot for the Statue, and the plan included American fundraisers paying the pedestal, while the French said for the Statue.

The arm holding the torch was completed in 1876 and shown at Philadelphia’s Centennial Exposition. It was then moved to Madison Square Park in New York City until 1882 to help with the fundraising.

The Statue was built in Paris and presented by the Franco American Union to the United States Ambassador, Levi Morton, on July 4, 1884. The Statue was then taken apart, and sent to the United States aboard the French Navy ship, Isère.

The Statue arrived in New York Harbor on June 17, 1885, well before the pedestal was completed. The next year, once the pedestal was finished, immigrant workers re-assembled the Statue, and on October 28, 1886, the Statue made its debut.

The 151-foot-tall Statue cost $250,000, paid for by the French. The pedestal, at 154 feet, cost $270,000 paid for by American sources.

One thing missing from the Statute and pedestal was the famous plaque with a poem from Emma Lazarus. She wrote the sonnet as part of the fund raising effort , and it was added in 1903.