Wednesday, November 30, 2016

மாவீரன் செண்பகராமன்

மாவீரன் செண்பகராமன் 
............................. ....
வீரன் செண்பகராமன் எனும் பெயரை முதல் உலக யுத்தத்தின் போது கேட்டவர்கள் இருக்கிறார்கள். சென்னைக்கு வந்த "எம்டன்" எனும் ஜெர்மானிய கப்பலில் இருந்து குண்டு வீசித் தாக்கிய செய்தியில் செண்பகராமன் பிள்ளையின் பெயர் அடிபடலாயிற்று. இவரைப் பற்றிய ஒரு சில நூல்கள் வெளியாகியுள்ளன. சிலம்புச் செல்வர் ம.பொ.சியின் தமிழரசுக் கழகத்தில் இருந்த கவிஞர் வானம்பாடி அவர்கள் வீரன் செண்பகராமன் பற்றிய நூலையும் எழுதியிருக்கிறார். கவிஞர் வானம்பாடி தஞ்சை காசுக்கடைத்தெருவில் சுமார் ஐம்பது ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பு "வானம்பாடி அச்சகம்" என்ற ஒரு அச்சகம் வைத்திருந்தார். ஒரு வகையில் ம.பொ.சி. அவர்கள்தான் வீரபாண்டிய கட்டபொம்மனைப் பற்றியும், வ.உ.சிதம்பரம் பிள்ளையை 'கப்பலோட்டிய தமிழன்' என்று அடைமொழி சேர்த்து பெருமை சேர்த்த வகையிலும், மேலும் பற்பல சுதந்திரப் போர் புரிந்த பலர் வரலாறுகளையும் வெளிக் கொணரக் காரணமாக இருந்தார். அதோடு அரசாங்கமே செய்ய வேண்டிய ஒரு வேலையையும் தனிமனிதனாக அந்த தூய கதராடைத் தியாகி செய்து முடித்தார். அதுதான் "விடுதலைப் போரில் தமிழகம்" எனும் இரு நூல்களாகும்.
.
இனி வீரன் செண்பகராமன் பற்றி பார்ப்போம். இவர் வாழ்ந்த காலம் 1891 முதல் 1934 வரை. அன்றைய திருவாங்கூர் சமஸ்தானத்துக்குட்பட்ட பகுதியில் "எட்டு வீட்டுப் பிள்ளைமார்" எனப்படும் சீர்மிகுந்த குடியில் பிறந்தவர். இவர் திருவனந்தபுரத்தில் வசித்த காலத்தில் அங்கு வசித்த ஒரு ஜெர்மானியர் இவருக்குப் பழக்கமானார். அவருடைய அழைப்பின் பேரில் இவர் 1908ஆம் ஆண்டு செப்டம்பர் 22ஆம் தேதி தனது பதினேழாம் வயதில் தாய் நாட்டை விட்டுப் புறப்பட்டு ஜெர்மனிக்குச் சென்றார். 

அன்றைய ஜெர்மனியில் அதிபராக இருந்தவர் வில்லியம் கெய்சர் என்பவர். தன்னுடைய அறிவுத் திறனாலும், ஆற்றல்மிக்க செயல்பாடுகளாலும் அதிபர் கெய்சரை இவர் கவர்ந்தார். அங்கு சென்ற பின் இவர் பல மொழிகளைக் கற்றார்; புலமை பெற்றார்; பல பத்திரிகைகளையும் நடத்தினார். டாக்டர் பட்டமும் பெற்றார். அப்போது இந்தியாவில் இந்திய தேசிய காங்கிரஸ் நாட்டு சுதந்திரத்துக்காகக் குரல் கொடுக்கத் தொடங்கிய நேரம். இவரோ வேறு விதமாகத் திட்டமிட்டார். ஜெர்மனியின் உதவியோடு இந்தியாவை ஆட்சி புரியும் ஆங்கிலேயர்களின் மீது போர் தொடுத்து அவர்களை விரட்டிவிட்டு இந்தியாவைச் சுதந்திர நாடாகப் பிரகடனம் செய்ய எண்ணமிட்டார். அதன் பொருட்டு இந்தியர்களைக் கொண்ட ஒரு அமைப்பை ஜெர்மனியில் அமைத்தார். அதன் பெயர் "Indian National Volunteers". இவர்தான் முதன் முதலில் தாய்நாட்டை வணங்க "ஜெய் ஹிந்த்" எனும் கோஷத்தை உருவாக்கி முழங்கினார். இவரது அடிச்சுவட்டில்தான் நேதாஜி சுபாஷ் சந்திர போஸ் இந்திய தேசிய ராணுவத்தை அமைக்கவும், இவரது "ஜெய்ஹிந்த்" கோஷத்தை முழக்கமிடவும் தொடங்கினார்.

1914 தொடங்கி முதல் உலக மகா யுத்தம் நடைபெற்றது. உலகக் கடல் பகுதியெங்கும் ஜெர்மானியப் போர் கப்பல்கள் உலவிவந்தன. ஜெர்மானிய நீர்மூழ்கிக் கப்பல்கள் பிரிட்டிஷாரின் கப்பல்களை உடைத்தெறியத் தொடங்கின. அப்படிப்பட்டதொரு கப்பல் "எம்டன்" எனும் பெயரில் சென்னை கடற்கரைக்கு வந்து சென்னை மீது குண்டுகளை வீசியது. இப்போதைய உயர்நீதி மன்ற வளாகத்தில்கூட ஒரு குண்டு விழுந்தது. அந்த கப்பலில் தலைமை இன்ஜினீயராக வந்தவர் செண்பகராமன் பிள்ளை. இவரைப் பற்றி கவிஞர் வானம்பாடி தனது நூலில் குறிப்பிடும் செய்தி:- 

"யுத்தம் கடுமையாக நடந்து கொண்டிருந்தது. அந்த சந்தர்ப்பத்தில் யுத்த கேந்திரத்தின் மீது விமானத்தில் பறந்து பிரிட்டிஷ் பட்டாளத்தில் இருந்த இந்திய சிப்பாய்களின் மத்தியில் லட்சக்கணக்கான துண்டுப் பிரசுரங்களை வீசி, பிரிட்டனுக்கு எதிராக அவர்களது துப்பாகி முனைகளைத் திருப்புமாறு கோரினார். ஜெர்மனியிடம் பிடிபட்ட ஆயிரக்கணக்கான இந்திய யுத்தக் கைதிகளை மீட்டு அவர்களுக்கு மறுவாழ்வு அளித்தார்."

"மெஸபடோமியா யுத்த கேந்திரத்தில் போராடிய சுதேசி இராணுவத்தைக் கொண்டு சூயஸ் கால்வாய் வழியாக இந்தியாவிற்கு வரும் பிரிட்டிஷ் சப்ளைகளைத் துண்டித்து, மூன்று கடல்களிலும் முற்றுகையிட்டு உள்நாட்டில் நிகழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் விடுதலைப் புரட்சிக்கு உதவி செய்வதன் மூலம் பிரிட்டனை செயலற்றதாக்கி, காபூலில் அமைத்த சுதந்திர அரசாங்கத்தை டில்லிக்கு மாற்றத் திட்டமிட்டிருந்தார்".
இவர் ஜெர்மனியில் இருந்த காலத்தில் இவரைப் பல இந்தியத் தலைவர்கள், குறிப்பாக மோதிலால் நேரு, ஜவஹர்லால் நேரு, சுபாஷ் சந்திர போஸ் ஆகியோர் சந்தித்தனர். கெய்சர் அதிபராக இருந்த வரை வீரன் செண்பகராமன் பிள்ளைக்கு ஒரு தொல்லையுமில்லை. முதல் யுத்தத்துக்குப் பிறகு அடால்ஃப் ஹிட்லர் ஜெர்மனியின் அதிபராக ஆனபின்பு இவருக்குப் பல தொல்லைகள் விளைவதாயின. ஹிட்லர் இந்தியாவையும் இந்தியர்களையும் கேவலமாகப் பேசப்போக, அதனை வன்மையாகக் கண்டித்த செண்பகராமன் அவனை மன்னிப்பு கேட்க வைத்தார். விடுவான வஞ்சனையின் வடிவமான ஹிட்லர். இந்த இந்திய வீரனுக்குக் குழி பறிக்கத் தொடங்கினான். அதன் விளைவு 1936இல் வீரன் செண்பகராமன் மரணத்தைத் தழுவினார்.

செண்பகராமன் ரஷ்யாவுக்கும் சென்றார். அங்கு புதிய ரஷ்யாவை உருவாக்கிய லெனினைச் சந்தித்தார். இது குறித்து ஷவுகத் உஸ்மானி என்பார் எழுதியுள்ள ஆங்கில கட்டுரையின் சில பகுதிகள் இதோ:

"There were two other outstanding personalities who belonged to no group. They were Dr.Tarakanath Das and Dr.Chenbagaraman Pillai. The ashes of this renowned South Indian leader, Pillai, were very recently carried to their last resting place by the Indian Cruiser INS Delhi. This was indeed in fulfilment of a revolutionaries vow. As Free Press Journal of Bombay (Sep.12, 1966) put it, " In early 1930's Dr.Pillai incurred the wrath of Hitler whose ominous rumblings were just beginning to be heard. In May 1934, Pillai died of suspected slow poisoning. His body was cremated in Berlin."

அந்த மும்பை பத்திரிகை செண்பகராமன் பிள்ளையின் சபதம் என்ன என்பதையும் குறிப்பிடுகிறது. அது:-
"It was some years after the war (I World War of 1914-18) that he made a vow that he would one day return to the land of his birth in a powerful battleship flying the flag of the Indian Republic."

1947இல் இந்தியா சுதந்திரம் அடைந்த பின்னும் செண்பகராமன் பிள்ளையின் அஸ்தியை இந்தியாவுக்குக் கொண்டு வர முடியவில்லை. அவருடைய மனைவி, மணிப்பூர் பிரதேசத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர் அவரும் அலையாய் அலைந்தார் இதற்காக. இறுதியில் ஒரு நாள் அவரது மனோரதம் நிறைவேறியது. அந்த மாவீரனின் அஸ்தி இந்திய மண்ணில் ஐக்கியமானது.

Fake money


Separation of powers

Separation of powers would remain consigned to the book if reckless and extensive tribunalisation is allowed:
...................
Away from the real or perceived friction between the executive and the judiciary, it is widespread tribunalisation which is slowly eating away core judicial functions, thereby denuding real courts and imperiling actual independence of the judiciary

The recent statement of the Chief Justice of India on non-availability of chairpersons, members and infrastructure for tribunals again reflects a dangerous obsession with these bodies which have their roots in the emergency era and the 42nd Amendment. While much focus remained on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) verdict, what escaped notice is the irony that the cardinal principle of separation of powers is more under threat via reckless tribunalisation in our country, which tacitly, is not only ensuring the control of the uninitiated over judicial functioning but also curtailing access to justice for the common citizen. Away from the real or perceived friction between the executive and the judiciary, it is widespread tribunalisation which is slowly eating away core judicial functions, thereby denuding real courts and imperiling actual independence of the judiciary. Even the Prime Minister’s very valid and introspective question last year on the desirability of tribunalisation has failed to dent our complacent thought process. And it seems that many in the judiciary and government also are not keen to rock the boat for the concept provides comfortable post retirement sinecure.

It further appears odd that provisions for appointment of senior retired Constitutional Court judges have been made in many tribunals which at times are just courts of first instance. It is yet another interesting matter that the ostensible motives behind creation of tribunals, that is, of easing the burden of the regular judiciary and quicker dispensation of justice, are the biggest myths, with the backlog increasing, rather than decreasing, after creation of tribunals in certain jurisdictions.

So how does tribunalisation affect judicial independence furtively?

Firstly, tribunals operate under the thumb of parent administrative ministries against whom many of them are meant to pass orders, therefore remaining at their mercy with visible and invisible strings for facilities, infrastructure and also rule-making. Despite deprecation of this arrangement and constant efforts by the Ministry of Law and Justice to bring all tribunals under its own nodal control to offset such conflict of interest, there has been steadfast resistance by ministries eager not to loosen their respective grips. Even as back as in August 2001, Arun Jaitley, the then Law Minister, had informed the Parliament about the positives of bringing tribunals under the said ministry in line with Supreme Court directions, but 15 years down the line, the situation remains the same despite the desire of the political executive to undertake reforms. More than anything else, the confidence of litigants is shaken by the very thought of approaching a quasi-judicial body which operates under the aegis of the department against whom the case has been filed.

Secondly, the secretary of the said ministry sits on the panel for selecting and reappointing the adjudicating members and also has a role to play in disciplinary committees. For instance, the defence secretary is a part of the committee for selection and re-appointment of members of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the said secretary is that very officer against whom all tribunal orders are to be passed.

Thirdly, under the garb of providing cheaper and informal adjudication, appeals have been provided, on very limited grounds, directly to the Supreme Court from some tribunals making access to justice a far call with some litigants accepting injustice rather than challenging orders simply because they cannot afford prohibitive costs of litigation in the apex court. The very valid dicta of the Constitution and Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the cases of L Chandra Kumar and R K Jain respectively, favouring judicial review by the affordable and accessible High Courts from the orders of tribunals, has had no positive effect.

Fourthly, persons who at times have served as part of the same ministries are appointed as members and who carry with them their own personal experiences and over-familiarity making justice subjective as compared to judges who bear no such baggage and are trained to be objective. As back as in 1951, Simon Rifkind, an American judge, for the same reason, famously lambasted specialised courts by stating that such systems reinforce the seclusion of that branch and further immunise it against the refreshment of new ideas, which constitute the very tissue of any living system of law. He added, “in time, like primitive priest-craft content with its vested privileges, it ceases to proselytize”.

Fifthly, a majority of non-judicial members are not legally qualified and hence are not even eligible to appear before such tribunals while they are allowed to exercise judicial functions while sitting on the bench.

Sixthly, some tribunals are not even vested with powers of civil contempt thereby leaving them toothless qua enforcement.

The Supreme Court and many of our High Courts have expressed grave concern on almost all aspects flagged above. As stated at the outset, the Prime Minister too, last year, spoke about his dissatisfaction with tribunalisation, but then directions of Constitutional courts and words of the highest of the political executive are being held hostage to administrative lethargy, cussedness and not-so-praiseworthy intentions, which should be unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.

To salvage, and to ensure that tribunalisation does not threaten the judicial fabric of our country, the following pointers may warrant attention:

All tribunals must be immediately placed under the Ministry of Law and Justice and finally an independent National Tribunals Commission, totally out of the purview of parent ministries. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which functions under the Law Ministry (and not the Finance Ministry) is a healthy example of such an arrangement.

To offset conflict of interest, the secretary of the department against which the tribunal is to pass orders must not be associated with the selection process. Further, the ‘dangling carrot’ syndrome of re-appointment must be abrogated for former judges as well as non-judicial members. Legislations dealing with tribunals must ensure that at best High Court Chief Justices or judges or lawyers with impeccable credentials fulfilling the criterion of appointment are made eligible for appointment of chairperson or judicial members, and not Supreme Court judges, in order to maintain the majesty and dignity of the highest court of the land.

Tribunals should only be allowed to be constituted in highly technical matters, where scientific expertise of non-judicial members is required, such as engineering and electricity, or in benign areas such as consumer rights where an informal approach is preferred.

Tribunals must not be allowed to encroach upon core judicial functioning of regular courts in disputes which are essentially civil in nature or disputes between individuals and the State, involving fundamental rights. Instead, regular judiciary should be strengthened to relieve their burden and judges should be allocated consistently stable subject-wise rosters as per their aptitude and expertise. Another desirable system is introduction of a concept akin to the newly introduced Commercial Courts which exercise special jurisdiction and decide cases in a time-bound manner and within the existing judicial set-up, thereby boosting the confidence of litigants and the citizenry.

There must be no direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a tribunal with original jurisdiction. At least a three tier hierarchy with a time-bound framework be conceptualised for all tribunals out of which one should be a vested right of appeal or judicial review. It must also be realised that High Courts are much more accessible and affordable for litigants than the highest court of the land, approaching which is almost impossible for the common citizen. The system being followed from orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is a perfect positive example worth emulation.

All tribunals must be provided with the power of civil contempt and a statutory execution procedure to give effect to their decisions so as not to render them toothless.

Paradoxically, the landmark verdicts on judicial independence throughout our independent history or the much cherished concept of separation of powers would remain consigned to the book if we allow reckless and extensive tribunalisation, since in this roundabout manner, though the courts would remain independent in theory, their functions practically would stand transferred to tribunals thereby bringing to naught all positive strides in this direction, and if, in the words of the Calcutta High Court, which I often quote, “matters of justice and equity are left to tribunals manned by the uninitiated to pronounce upon, justice becomes the casualty and inequity the order of the day”.

A shrill alarm raised by the courts as well as the highest of the political executive, but would it awaken the legal-judicial ecosystem?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

black money generated in India:

How is black money generated in India: by avoiding paying taxes on it.

Rare photo

Nehru, on a summer holiday to Shimla in 1948, visits Mrs. Mountbatten. The two go through some photographs. The location: the quondam Vicerines sitting room on the first floor of the Viceregal Lodge

Pataliputra

The sarai at Ajintha, aka Ajanta. The town is more famous for the eponymous caves near it. This town has been inhabited for over two thousand years. It was along the major trade route connecting the Deccan to Pataliputra and beyond in the north-east direction. This sarai is one of the halting places for travellers. Built c. 18th century

சேலம் உருக்காலை

மத்திய உருக்குத்துறை இணை அமைச்சர் விஜய் தியோ சாய் அவர்கள் 28/11/2016 அன்று மக்களவையில் எழுத்துப்பூர்வமாக  சேலம் உருக்காலையை தனியாருக்கு அளிக்க அனுமதி வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று தெரிவித்துள்ளார் .

ஆனால் சில நாட்க்களுக்கு முன்பு மத்திய கனரகத்துறை அமைச்சர் மஹாரத்தினம் அந்தஸ்த்து பெற்ற சேலம் உருக்காலையை தனியாருக்கு வழங்கும் திட்டம் எதுவுமில்லை என்று சென்னையில் அறிவித்துவிட்டு சென்றார்  . அதற்கு முரணாக இந்த ஆலையை தனியாருக்கு வழங்க கமுக்கமாக திட்டமிட்டது வெளியே வந்துவிட்டது .

ஆண்டுக்கு 100 கோடி ரூபாய் லாபம் ஈட்டும் இந்த ஆலையை தனியாருக்கு தாரைவார்ப்பதற்க்கு என்ன காரணம் என்று தெரியவில்லை ! 

#சேலம்இரும்பாலையை மத்திய அரசிடம் போராடி பெற்றோம் தமிழகத்தின் உரிமை பறிபோகிறது !
-கே.எஸ் . இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்
29-11-2016
#ksradhakrishnanposting
#ksrposting
Poet and painter
William Blake was born in Soho, London, England on this day in 1757.

"Song: Memory, Hither Come" by William Blake

Memory, hither come, 
And tune your merry notes;
And, while upon the wind
Your music floats,

I'll pore upon the stream
Where sighing lovers dream,
And fish for fancies as they pass
Within the watery glass.

I'll drink of the clear stream,
And hear the linnet's song;
And there I'll lie and dream
The day along:

And, when night comes, I'll go
To places fit for woe,
Walking along the darken'd valley
With silent Melancholy. 

*

This is a selection of the poet's work, including all the great lyrics and the more important prophetic books. In her introduction the poet and critic expounds Blake's esoteric theory and shows how it helped to create a poetry which is unlike any other. The tigers that crouched in Blake's baleful spiritual forests, the roses and sunflowers whose mystical properties he rendered with such accurate music, the angels with whom he wrestled and who delivered prophetic books to him late at night, were literally more real to him than the London, where, in the period of the French Revolution, he lived out his life of poverty and indignant isolation.  One of England's great lyric poets; one of Europe's great visionaries. Intr

தொலைக்காட்சியில் குடும்பத்தினருக்குள் இருக்கும் பிரச்சினைக்கு சமரசம்

சபாஷ் ஸ்ரீப்ரியா!உங்களின் நேர்மையான கருத்துக்கு....
.............................................................
இந்த பிரச்னையை State Human Rights Commissonக்கு கொண்டு
செல்ல வேண்டும் 
-------------------------------------
தற்போது தொலைக்காட்சியில் குடும்பத்தினருக்குள் இருக்கும் பிரச்சினைக்கு சமரசம் என்ற பெயரில் பல்வேறு சேனல்களில் பல்வேறு நிகழ்ச்சிகள் நடைபெற்று வருகின்றன. சன் டி.வி.யில் குஷ்பு தொடங்கி ஜிடிவியில் லட்சுமி ராமகிருஷ்ணன், மலையாள டி வியில் ஊர்வசி, தெலுங்கு டி வியில் ரோஜா உள்ளிட்ட பலர் இதுபோன்ற நிகழ்ச்சிகளின் தொகுப்பாளர்களாக பணியாற்றி வருகிறார்கள்.

இந்நிலையில் இது போன்ற இந்நிகழ்ச்சிகள் குறித்து நடிகை ஸ்ரீப்ரியா குறித்து தன் ட்விட்டர் பேஜில் , “தம்பதிகளுக்கிடையே பிரச்சினை வந்தால் அதைத் தீர்த்து வைக்க குடும்ப நல நீதிமன்றம் இருக்கிறது. கிரிமினல் குற்றங்களை கையாள தனித்தனி சட்டப் பிரிவுகள் உள்ளன.தொலைக்காட்சி நிகழ்ச்சிகளில் நம்மைப் போன்ற நடிகர்கள் உட்கார்ந்து மற்றவர்களின் பிரச்சினைகளுக்கும் வலிகளுக்கும் தீர்வு சொல்வதை என்னால் பார்க்க முடியவில்லை / ஜீரணிக்க முடியவில்லை. இதை தயவு செய்து நிறுத்தலாமே? நாம் கைப்பிடி அளவு கற்று வைத்திருக்கும் கலைகளுக்கு மட்டும் நடுவர்களாக இருப்போமே? ப்ளீஸ்” என்று  தெரிவித்திருக்கிறார் ஸ்ரீப்ரியா.

மேலும் அவர் ‘இது போன்ற பிரச்சனைகளை தீர்த்து வைக்க நாம் நீதிபதிகள் அல்ல என்பதை உணருங்கள். நிகழ்ச்சித் தொகுப்பாளர்கள், இரண்டுக்கும் வித்தியாசம் உள்ளது தயவு செய்து இப்படி செய்வதை நிறுத்துங்கள்’ என்று அவர் உரத்தக் குரலில் கேட்டுக்கொண்டுள்ளார்.

Monday, November 28, 2016

SEMINAR

இந்தியாவின் வரலாற்று அறிஞராக போற்றப்படும் ரொமிலா தாப்பரின் செமினார் மாத இதழ் மிகவும் பழமையானது  ! அந்த இதழில் ஒரு தலைப்பை பற்றி பலவித கோணங்களில் ஆராய்ந்து,ஆய்வு கட்டுரைகளை  வெளியிட்டு வருகிறது . இவ்வாறு கீர்த்தி மிக்க அந்த ஏட்டின் அலுவலகம் டெல்லி ஜன்பத்தில் உள்ள மல்கோத்ரா பில்டிங்கில் உள்ளது.

அந்த அலுவலகத்திற்கு பல முறை சென்றுள்ளேன்.அங்கு இந்த கணினி யுகத்தில் இன்னும் தட்டச்சு செய்யும் டைப்பிரேட்டர்களை பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்.மூடபழக்க
வழக்ங்களை நீக்கி புதுமையை உருவாக்கும் செமினார் நாளிதழ் அலுவலகத்தில் கணினி தட்டச்சு இல்லாமல் பழைய காட்ரேஜ் மிசினை வைத்து  இருப்பது வியப்பாகதெரிகிறது .

பழமையான அழகையும்,உண்மையான புதுமையையும் நேசிக்கும் செமினார் இதழை போற்ற வேண்டாமா ? செமினாரோடு ஆய்வு கட்டுரைகளை வழங்கும் Economic and political Weekly(EPW) , Social Scientist , Main Stream என்ற இதழ்களை என் மாணவ பருவத்தில் இருந்து தொடர்ந்து படித்து வருகிறேன் .இந்தஇதழ்கள் லாப
நோக்கில்இல்லாமல்பிரச்சினைகளையும்,தீர்வுகளையும்அலசிஆராயும்ஏடுகளாகும் .
இந்த நினைவுகளோடு சென்னையில் வெளிவந்த ஆங்கில மாலை ஏடு The Mail ஏடும்  அற்புதமான நடுபக்க கட்டுரைகளை வழங்கும் .அண்ணா சாலையில் POR & Sons  இந்து நாளிதழ் அலுவலகத்தை தாண்டி தி மெயில் இதழ் அலுவலகத்தை கடக்கும் போது 1 நிமிடம் The Mail ஏட்டின் நினைவுகள்  மனதில் வந்து செல்லும்.

Still leading radical monthly SEMINAR 
using manual typewriters even after 
Computers era. It was founded by
Great scholar, late Raj and Ramesh Thapar. Romila Thapar did her the best for SEMINAR.

REFERANDUM

WHEN INDIA HAD ITS REFERANDUM(‘S) GOAEXIT AND SIKKIMEXIT
Posted on June 27, 2016 by indianhistoryynot
brexit-leave7591You might have heard in news for the past few days about Brexit. It’s a referendum called by the UK government to allow people of Britain to vote in order to decide whether Britain will be part of European Union anymore. This might sound like a new concept to us. In India generally these kind of decisions are taken by the Members of Parliament or State Assembly who are elected by people and is there referendum concept allowed in our constitution? But hold on is it true?

 There has been one referendum or technically two referendum held in independent India.

Goa, Daman and Diu referendum to be a union territory or Goa merge with Maharashtra and Daman, Diu merge with Gujarat
Sikkim referendum to abolish monarchy in turn support to join India as a new state. Techincally as Indian army was present in Sikkim (under the request of then Sikkim Prime minister)when was referendum happened its already part of India (“Techincally”)
 

Goa, Daman and DIU Merging:
Goa now a state of Republic of India was under Portuguese rule for more than 450 years. The Portuguese annexed Goa even before the British landed in India and refused to leave it even after the British left India. The Portuguese left Goa after an armed annexation by Indian government on 19 December 1961. The then Prime minster of Portugal asked to hold a #referendum so that people of Goa can vote whether to join India or not. But Jawaharlal Nehru refused the proposal granted Goa Union territory status and promised to hold a referendum about future of Goa after 10 years thus setting a trigger for a time bomb. (During the annexation of Goa INS Rajput played an important role. If you would have read my article on “Pakistan Submarine which died in its own trap” you will know more about his battleship. Its true world is so small same ship referred in two articles in a gap of two days)

 End of 1966 saw the uprising of factions in Goa politics. By this time all the states in India are separated based on language spoken. Goa lies well within Maharashtra, Daman and Diu within Gujarat. During the first election for Goa in 1963 (after annexed as a part of India) Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party won the elections. This party is a pro Maharashtra merger party. Citing this as a reason the party wanted to simply pass a resolution in the state assembly for the merger with Maharashtra. The opposing party United Goans along with Congress lobbied for a referendum. They argued that the fate of a region cannot be decided by elected representatives but by people themselves. They met Jawaharlal Nehru and convinced him for a referendum. Nehru passed away and the next Prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was also on favor of referendum but he died under some mysterious circumstances in Taskent(Topic for an another article). Indira Gandhi the third prime minister of India agreed for the referendum and passed the law got it approved in parliament and signed by President of India.

 The Referendum was held on 16 January 1967 . Only people who are currently residing in Goa, Daman and Diu are allowed to vote. Postal votes were not taken. At the end the verdict was to continue to be a Union territory and not to merge with Maharashtra/Gujarat. 54.20% voted to be a union territory and 43.50% for a merger.

 
Sikkimexit:
In 1947 when the British left India they held a referendum for people of Sikkim to decide whether to join India or to be independent and Sikkim decided to be independent country. Ah Ah i know you thought this will be an easy one nope. People of Sikkim suddenly after 25 years found that they voted wrongly and wanted to join India. The catch is Sikkim is a constitutional monarchy like Britain. So the king has to approve such a law even though it’s passed by the parliament. On 4th July 1974 the parliament of Sikkim passed a resolution in favor of merging Sikkim to India. 4th September 1974 Indian parliament passed a bill absorbing Sikkim as a part of India. On repeated calls from the ruling government and opposition from the monarchy Indian Army entered into Sikkim disarmed the palace guards and conducted a referendum on 14th April 1975.The results were overwhelming with 90 percent voting for abolition of monarchy and joining India. Indian parliament immediately made changes to the constitution on 26th April 1975 to include Sikkim as the official 22nd state of India

REFERENDUM’S BEFORE INDEPENDENT INDIA (JUNAGADHXIT, FRENCHXIT AND FAILED REFERENDUMS)
Posted on June 28, 2016 by indianhistoryynot
43-referendum_immagine

In my last article we saw the possible referendum’s which occurred in #independentIndia. Now let’s dive into the referendums held before India was a republic. These referendum’s where held during the time of princely states and colonies integration to India. This was headed by Sardar Vallbhai patel also known as the Iron Man of India. Out of the 565 princely states many accepted the integration to India only a few had conflicting views and either wanted to join Pakistan or become an independent country which would probably become an enclave. Enclave is a country whose border is completely covered by a country completely. Sardar Vallbhai Patel was against such an idea and forcibly pushed these states to join India.

Junagadh:

The only princely state which was supporting to join Pakistan which is completely enclaved by India was Junagadh. It’s situated in Gujarat and was ruled by The Nawab of Junagadh, Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III. When the Indian independence was declared he wanted to join Pakistan stating the reason that it’s connected with Pakistan through sea .Lord Mountbatten suggested it as not a good idea as its geographical position is not suitable to join Pakistan. Ignoring this on 15 September 1947 the Nawab acceded to the Dominion of Pakistan .Pakistan accepted it the very next day and Jinnah was happy about this. Two of the states under Junagadh namely Babariawad and Sheikh of Mangrol protested against this and signed instrument of annexation to India. The Nawab of Junagadh send this troops to occupy these states. Saradar Vallabhai saw this as a war against the State of India sent V.P.Menon , the secretary of state’s asking for the Dewan of Junagadh to join India. The Dewan refused the proposal and also didn’t permit V.P.Menon to see the Nizam.

V.P.Menon went to Mumbai and met with Samaldas Gandhi and asked him to start a provisional exile government which India will support in order to overthrow the Nawab. Meanwhile the Indian Army liberated the two states of Babariawad and Mangrol from the Nawab forces. Indian government put up an economic blockade thereby cutting off all supplies to Junagadh. Situation became worse as the possibility of an armed annexation by Indian goverment was becoming possible. The Dewan of Junagadh also the Prime minister of Junagadh decided to ask the help of Pakistan to lift the economic blockade but it went in vain. So they requested Indian goverment to take over Junagadh peacefully and avoided bloodshed.

The Nawab along with his associates and the Prime minister of Junagadh left for the Sindh province of Pakistan .The Indian Army entered Junagadh on 10th November 1947 and held a referendum for people to decide whether they want to be with India or not. The referendum was held on 20th February 1948 and 91 percent of the people voted for joining India. Did you notice I didn’t mention the name of the Prime minister of Junagadh till now wait for it. His name is Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of the first prime minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the grandfather of the first lady prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto. India and Pakistan are so much related Pakistan first prime minister was born in India.

 

French colonies:

The French had a few colonies in India namely

Chandernagore
Pondicherry
Karaikal
Mahe
Yanam
The French goverment signed an agreement with the Indian goverment in 1948 to have a referendum in these places so that the people can decide whether they would like to join India or not. Referendum was held in Chandernagore on 19th June 1949 and 90 percent voted to join India. Referendum were held in Pondicherry and Karaikal on October 1954 and it was also merger majority vote. The French Goverment passed a ratification on May 1962 making them part of India

Places which missed a Referendum:

Jammu and Kashmir:

Jammu and Kashmir king insisted Nehru to have a referendum for people to decide which country they want to select. Initially it was agreed to have a referendum but due to international attention on Kashmir issue the referendum didn’t happen and on January 26 1950 Indian constitution came into force in Kashmir there by making it a part of India.

Hyderabad:

Nizam of Hyderabad wanted the State of Hyderabad to be declared as an independent country .He got the support of Jinnah and even wrote letters to Winston Churchill so his support to pursue the goverment to declare Hyderabad an independent country. India goverment annexed Hyderabad by force and had an initial idea of holding a referendum but dropped the idea later.

About these ads

Share this:
TwitterFacebook8Google

Related
When India had its Referandum('s) Goaexit and Sikkimexit
Nehru vs Jinnah-The extraordinary league of lawyers
India in Olympics
2 Comments
Post navigation
PREVIOUS POST
When India had its Referandum(‘s) Goaexit and Sikkimexit
.....................
 “Referendum’s before independent India (Junagadhxit, Frenchxit and failed referendums)”
The interesting part is, post Independence Hyderabad wanted to be a country on its on rite. it was a very large state. And India in all sense attacked Hyderabad. So, in a true sense I find that this is one of the very rare instance were India starts the war on an other rule, technically. But yes, Hyderabad was not a declare country during this “fight”.
Also i feel you incorrectly mentioned that Junagadh was the only Princely state which wanted to join Pakistan. Jodhpur too initially had high interest to join Pakistan because of the Port.

Permanent Security Council Seats?

What about India......?Permanent Security Council Seats? 
....................................
Should India, Japan, Brazil and Germany be Awarded Permanent Security Council Seats? 
thepacificperspectiveNovember 13, 2016Uncategorized
coucil
Established in the aftermath of the Second World War the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has stood as the primary international institution regarding solving and addressing international crisis. However, the outdated structure of the institution and it’s failure to represent the modern political environment has led many to speculate that the political legitimacy of the Security Council is in decline.  In particular, the Security Council’s  frequent paralyzation as a result of the conflicting partisan interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ member states (Russia, China, the US, the United Kingdom and France) – which each have the ability to veto any Security Council resolutions, has eroded international trust in the ability of the #SecurityCouncil to effectively and appropriately address international crisis.

p5
The permanent five members of the #UnitedNations Security Council and their respective territories.
While these conflicting interests were primarily predominant throughout the Cold War, the rise of China, and the resurgent nationalist tendencies of the Russian Federation have again exposed the vulnerability of the Security Council to internal diplomatic confrontations and dysfunction. Whilst the recent ascension of Donald Trump to the Presidency could well further aggravate the internal disunity within the Security Council. Additionally as previously elaborated upon, the failure of the UNSC to adapt in the face of an altering geopolitical environment has the potential to compromise the legitimacy of the Security Council as relative power gains within the international system erode both the status and prestige of the ‘Permanent Five’ within the international hierarchy of nations. This erosion of legitimacy is particularly concerning given the economic rise of India and Brazil, along with Germany’s increasingly prominent role as Europe’s hegemonic power and Japan’s monolithic economic power and strategic potential in terms of developing and expanding it’s defense capabilities.

 

arms
The Flags and Coats of Arms of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
 

In order to explore various means through which the United Nations Security Council might be reformed three potential policies are discussed throughout the remainder of this article. With these three reformation policies being assessed on the basis of the ability to fulfill the following criteria: 

The proposed reformation must be balanced to favor the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ if there is to be realistic likelihood of a reformation being consented to. Thus the key policy objective of any UNSC reformation policy is to create a realistic framework or mechanism acceptable to the current ‘Permanent Five’ members of the Security Council
The reformation must be implemented with the explicit intention of improving the efficiency of the Security Council. With regards to the ability of the Security Council to address and resolve international crisis. The success of this particular criteria will ultimately be measured by the ability of the proposed reformation to reduce the frequency with which the ‘Permanent Five’ utilize their ‘veto’ rights.
The proposal must contain an element which addresses the decline in the legitimacy of the Security Council.  This criteria is primarily directed at the under representation of developing nations on the Security Council, and the comparative decline of Anglo-French power and prestige in the 21st century. The success of a proposed policy reformation regarding this specific criteria will be measured by the degree to which the reformation enhances the representation of emerging and neglected great powers on the Security Council.

Retaining the present UNSC structure 
The first proposed policy is to retain the present state of the United Nations Security Council making no alterations to it’s existing structure. While the Security Council in its current form arguably does not fulfill the international communities expectations as an institution, it has nevertheless produced a never before seen period of global peace and prosperity. Particularly with regards to great power politics. While not perfect, the Security Council has proven itself to be an immensely effective body when the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ are aligned, and their response universal. For example, in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UNSC swiftly passed Resolution 678, authorizing ‘all necessary measures’ to repulse Iraq from Kuwait. This, in turn allowed the United States and thirty-two other countries to form a military collation and forcibly expel all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A clear illustration of the Security Council’s present capabilities, with regards to its effectiveness and efficiency, when the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ are aligned.

first-gulf-war
Collation fighter jets achieving air superiority over Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, The First Gulf War, 1990.
However, the recent resurgence of diplomatic hostilities between NATO and the Russian Federation, along with the militaristic and economic resurgence of China, has again exposed the vulnerability of the UNSC to internal partisan interests and divisions. For example, China’s refusal to conform to and subsequent violation of the ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ regarding its territorial claims in the South and East China Seas has created an exceptionally volatile international crisis in Asia. One which the which the Security Council is powerless to resolve due to the competing national interests of the United States and China in the dispute, both of whom can exercise their veto rights to prevent any Security Council resolution regarding the issue being adopted. Additionally, Russia’s covert deployment of troops and arms to Ukrainian territory in violation of the ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances’ and the ‘United Nations Charter’ has further exposed the Security Council’s enduring lack of checks and balances; constraining it’s ability to govern and address international crisis involving one of it’s veto wielding members.

ukraine convoy.jpg
A Ukrainian Armoured Division stationed in Kramatorsk, Eastern Ukraine, 16 April 2014, to deter local unrest. The columns progress further east was blocked by Pro-Russian protesters.
In more immediate terms, the failure of the Security Council to address both the humanitarian and military crisis currently unfolding in Syria has presented a significant challenge to the legitimacy of the Security Council. With the resulting refugee crisis and the massive loss of life prompting an international outcry regarding the Security Council’s perceived inaction of the crisis. This lack of a unified and direct response to the crisis has again been attributed to the structure of the UNSC, and the lack of internal norms and mechanisms governing its approach to humanitarian and security crisis. Thus, the primary cost of retaining the present structure of the UNSC, is the inevitability of proxy conflicts and partisan interests paralyzing the UNSC in matters of international security. While the legitimacy of the Security Council in the absence of the addition of permanent representation for the developing world will inevitably erode.

ap_293434580963
Alan Kurdi, a three year old Syrian child who drowned in 2015 whilst his family attempted to cross the Mediterranean and enter Greece in search of refuge from war ravaged Syria. His death caused immense political controversy in the West, fueling a public outcry demanding increased refugee quotas.  Whilst simultaneously fueling international anger regarding the continued inaction of the Security Council with regards to both the Syrian Civil War and the refugee crisis.
 

Reform the Membership of the Security Council
The second proposed policy is to reform the established structure of the Security Council. Such a reformation would likely involve the promotion of either India, Germany, Brazil or Germany to permanent Security Council member status. This would however require the amendment of ‘Chapter 5 Article 27 of the UN Charter’ and thus, the approval of the ‘Permanent Five’. Creating particularly complex dilemma as the ‘Permanent Five’ are unlikely to approve the promotion of any states deemed as ‘rivals’ or ‘in conflict with their national interest’ to permanent member status. Any attempt by Japan to join the Security Council for example, would likely be vetoed by China, owing to their bitter strategic and historical rivalry. However, this concern could possibly be alleviated if the promoted members were to be promoted to permanent member status without being awarded the ‘veto privileges’ currently afforded to the ‘Permanent Five’.

Interestingly, a mechanism for such a structural alteration to the Security Council already exists in the form of the G4. A coalition consisting of Japan, Brazil, Germany and India – all of whom mutually support the others attempts to win a permanent seat on the UNSC. To date, the G4 has received endorsements from the UK and France while Japan has received endorsements from both the UK and US. India has notably received gestures of support from all members of the ‘Permanent Five’, on the condition its bid is not associated with that of Japan’s – China’s primary regional rival.  However, all members of the G4 are opposed by regional rivals through the ‘Uniting for Consensus Movement’ – a coalition of nations opposed to the ascension of the G4 to the UNSC.

g4
A map showing the G4 nations, each of whom support one another’s bid for promotion to permanent Security Council member status.
consensus
The various members of the ‘Uniting for Consensus Movement’ whom collectively oppose the promotion of the G4 to permanent Security Council Membership status. 
Ultimately however, given both the widespread opposition to the promotion of any of the members of the G4 to ‘permanent status’ and the tendency of the ‘Permanent Five’ to refrain from adding new ‘permanent members’ it is extremely unlikely any member of the G4, with the possible exception of India, will be promoted to ‘permanent member’ status with ‘veto privileges’. With this being due to the fact that the promotion of any state to ‘permanent status’ with ‘veto privileges’ would ultimately relatively dis-empower the ‘Permanent Five’ whilst likely increasing the potential for the veto mechanism to internally paralyze the Security Council given the introduction of additional interest groups to the Security Council. As mentioned, India is the only likely member of the G4 to be an exception to this and be promoted with full veto rights to ‘permanent member’ status. With this being due to the fact that India’s enormous latent power, remarkable economic growth (which rivals that of China) and rapidly expanding defense capabilities (along with it’s status as a nuclear power) demand it’s eventual accession to permanent member status – else the legitimacy of the Security Council would in the not- so distant future be severely compromised.

projected-size-of-economies
A graph illustrating the relative estimates of economic power for China, India and the United States over the first half of the 21st Century. With India expected to overtake the United States in terms of overall economic power in 2046.
However in the case of both Germany and Brazil full promotion to ‘permanent status’ with veto privileges is extremely unlikely. This is because both states face fierce regional opposition in the form of their regional rivals to their accession to ‘permanent status’. Germany for example, is opposed by France, the UK, Italy, Spain and various other European countries which dear both relative dis-empowerment and the prospect of German regional hegemony. Whilst it’s history with regards to Fascism and the Second World War further impedes it’s efforts to obtain ‘permanent member status. With this being said however, Germany has in the 71 years since the conclusion of the Second World War largely reconciled with it’s neighbors regarding it’s past ‘aggressive expansion’ whilst steadily framing itself in the eyes of both it’s neighbors and the international community as a conscientious state and a responsible global partner. As evidenced by it’s acceptance of over 1,000,000 refugees of the Syrian Civil War in 2015.

 

Ang merk.jpg
German Prime Minister Angela Merkel has led European efforts allow entry of Syrian Refugees into Europe, with her trademark policy allowing approximately 1,000,000 to enter Germany. She has also been described as the ‘last leader of the free world’ following the election of Donald J Trump in the United States.
By contrast, Brazil’s ascension is opposed by Argentina, Columbia and Mexico – all of which fear that Brazil’s ascension would relatively dis-empower them, whilst destabilizing the regional balance of power in Latin America. Additionally, Brazil’s current internal dysfunction following the ousting of President Dilma Rousseff and the ongoing constitutional crisis in the country – in combination with it’s stifled economic growth further impede the likelihood and appeal of promoting Brazil to ‘permanent member’ status.

pro-brazil
Massive populist protests in 2015 and the Constitutional Crisis which followed have crippled both Brazil’s economy and political system. Greatly degrading both Brazil’s international prestige and political ‘clout’ 
With this all being said however, Brazil is the dominant South American state, member of ‘BRICS’ and as an economic powerhouse, has a near undeniable claim to eventual ‘permanent status’, while having the added benefit of providing the developing world with significant and permanent representation within the Security Council. While Germany is a proven influential and effective moderator in international disputes, and is a state renowned for its moderate and well considered responses to international crisis. For example, it held a significant role in the formation of the Iran nuclear deal, while it boasts an exceptionally pragmatic relationship with Russia providing a potential diplomatic bridge between Russia and western members of the Security Council. However – owing to intense regional opposition it is unlikely that either Germany of Brazil would be promoted to the Security Council with full ‘veto rights’, thus their permanent inclusion in the Security Council would likely require the two states to compromise and accept a permanent position among the “Permanent Five” whilst conceding and forgoing their ‘veto privileges’.

p5-1
The envoys of the ‘Permanent Five’ plus One (Germany) and Iran at the conclusion of the Iranian Nuclear Deal – 2015. 
Thus as illustrated by the discussion above, bestowing permanent status upon Germany and Brazil, absent veto rights would achieve the majority of the stated policy objectives. While catering to the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ and mitigating the concerns of the ‘Uniting for Consensus movement’ by denying the additional of additional veto wielding members and empowering regional representation on the Security Council. All without overtly altering the balance of power internationally and within either Europe or Latin America. India, by contrast as a diplomatic, economic and militaristic powerhouse rivaling and exceeding that of several UNSC members, demands entry to the council based on pure merit and a need for the council to be proportioned to the balance of geopolitical power. Pakistan’s opposition to the appointment of India however, will be substantial and a potential diplomatic obstacle. Yet the supremacy of the Security Council as an international decision making body would mean that it’s decision would inevitably and significantly outweigh Pakistan’s objections.

modi kat.jpg
Prime Minister of India Narenda Modi visiting Kathmandu in 2015. Under his administration, India’s economic development continues to enhance it’s status and prestige on the international stage. With India’s economic growth now beginning to rival that of China. 
The appointment of Germany (without veto), Brazil (without veto), and India (with veto) to the Security Council, would legitimize and solidify their influence on the council without threatening the supremacy of the ‘Permanent Five’, enhancing the developing world’s representation, and increasing pressure on the ‘Permanent Five’ to act when international crisis occur. The promotion of these three states to the Security Council does however have the potential to introduce overt bureaucracy to the council as a result of enlarged membership. This would likely need to be compensated for through the removal of various rotating democratically elected council seats, which would require an alteration ‘Chapter Five Article 27 of the UN Charter’ and the consent at least 4 non-‘P5’ states to the alteration, along with that of the ‘Permanent Five’.

The case of Japan’s possible promotion to the Security Council however would constitute an immensely ambiguous endevour as a consequence of both it’s past ‘aggressive expansionism’ and it’s complicated relationship with it’s regional neighbors in a contemporary sense. With both Koreas, China and many South-East Asian states opposing Japan’s ascension to the Security Council on the grounds that unlike Germany, Japan has as of yet, failed to adequately take account for, and recompense it’s neighbors for the war crimes committed under the era of ‘Imperial Japan’. As a result, Japan is particularly unlikely to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, especially given the currently hostile state of relations between Japan and China, and China’s likely exertion of it’s ‘veto’ to block Japan’s accession to the Council. However – if Sino-Japanese relations and the relations of Japan with it’s other regional neighbors were to improve in the future, it is entirely plausible that Japan may be able to follow in the potential example of Brazil and obtain permanent status on the Security Council, without veto rights being awarded to Japan. However owing to it’s minimal likelihood under current circumstances  Japan’s potential promotion to the Security Council has been excluded from this recommended reformation, on the basis that China will never consent to its ascension. The promotion of Japan would be an ambiguous endevour.

 

war shrine.jpg
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits a controversial War Shrine which commemorates many Japanese soldiers from the era of Imperial Japan, many of whom were later convicted of war crimes. These visits have generated significant controversy and animosity between Japan and China. 

Implement norms to govern veto use 
The third proposed means of reforming the Security Council is the implementation of a Security Council protocol, or a ‘code of conduct’ so to speak. With this code of conduct addressing the situations in which it would be viewed as acceptable for a veto wielding member to utilize their respective veto. This proposal is based primarily on France’s ‘veto restraint proposal’ which through the institutionalization of various international norms aims to restrain the use of the veto in the event of a humanitarian crisis. France has proposed essentially that the ‘Permanent Five’ voluntarily commit to refrain from the use of a veto in the event of a ‘mass atrocity’, while envisaging the General Secretariat as having a significant role in the governance of such a structural alteration.

France's Foreign Minister Fabius speaks at the U.N. Security Council meeting on counter-terrorism in Manhattan, New York
France, one of the ‘Permanent Five’ has led the campaign to introduce a code of conduct to govern the use of the Security Council veto. Dozens of nations have endorsed the French campaign to have such a reformation of the Security Council implemented. 
However, France’s proposal is unfortunately overtly open to the interpretation of the ‘Permanent Five’ in regards to what exactly constitutes a mass atrocity. Thus leaving the proposal open to political manipulation. Whilst the ‘Permanent Five’ have in recent years moved to sideline the General Secretariat’s role in Security Council affairs, significantly decreasing the likelihood that a code of conduct would be by any means enforceable. If a code of conduct were to be adopted however it could well prove to be an effective means of reducing the frequency of the veto being utilized depending on the ever changing geopolitical environment on the Security. Thus, this reform would likely be a temperamental fix, to a perpetual problem, which stands as a firm testament to it’s likely inadequacy.

However the suggestion of adopting a ‘code of conduct’ does indeed have many merits. A code of conduct, unlike a structural reformation, would ensure that the ‘Permanent Five’ maintain their supremacy, as opposed to surrendering a portion of their autonomy to the General Secretariat. Whilst the policy, as it would likely be crafted to suit the interests of the Permanent Five, would be virtually guarantee to be adopted. This does however, come with the substantial consequence of minimizing the positive impact of the policy. In short – a code of conduct is likely be be accepted by the ‘Permanent Five’, however it’s ability to efficiently govern and reduce the frequency in which vetos are utilized would likely be both temperamental and minimal.

The Pacific Perspective’s Recommendation 
To conclude this article’s analysis of the United Nation’s Security Council, The Pacific Perspective has concluded that no policy reformation on it’s own has proven itself to be viable of addressing the criteria specified at the beginning of this article. Thus, an ideal reformation of the Security Council would likely need to involve the adoption of a hybrid policy, which incorporates aspects both from the proposal to introduce norms and the proposal to reform the structure and membership of the Security Council. This would likely need to involve the ascension of India to ‘permanent member’ status with full veto rights and the ascension of Germany and Brazil permanent membership without veto rights. Though admittedly this process would likely be complex, with the possibly of Brazil and India refusing ascension in the circumstance that they were to be denied a veto of their own.

If these three states were to ascend to permanent status however, this structural reform would provide an enormous opportunity for the Security Council to review and adopt a code of conduct as specified in the third policy. Particularly because the he subsequent increase in influence of these states would place substantial pressure on the veto wielding members to act in a manner more acceptable to the international community. This diplomatic pressure if applied correctly and consistently would likely result in the introduction of customary norms surrounding the use of the veto. This would inherently result in reduced usage of the veto and by extension a more active and effective Security Council greatly enhancing both its legitimacy and efficiency while leading to minimal negative externalizes as a result of the reforms. To retain the status quo within the Security Council however, would serve only to invite continued dysfunction, a decline in legitimacy and would ultimately result in the institution itself fading into irrelevance.

For more on the UN’s ability to enforce international law, follow the below link:

https://thepacificperspective.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/has-the-united-nations-failed-international-law/Published by thepacificperspective

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Tirunelveli

கல்லூரி நாட்கள், நினைவுக்கு வருகின்ற்து 
பரபரப்பாக இயங்கி கொண்டிருக்கும் #Tirunelveli பாளையங்கோட்டை தெற்கு பஜாரின் 1950ல் தோற்றம்.

  Thanks to:Photo : Wonderful Tirunelveli & Fans of Tirnelveli
The name Cuba is derived from  the Taino Indian designation for the island "coabana" meaning "great place".
.
The native Amerindian population of #Cuba began to decline after the European discovery of the island by Christopher COLUMBUS in 1492 and following its development as a Spanish colony during the next several centuries. Large numbers of African slaves were imported to work the coffee and sugar plantations, and Havana became the launching point for the annual treasure fleets bound for Spain from Mexico and Peru. Spanish rule eventually provoked an independence movement and occasional rebellions that were harshly suppressed. US intervention during the Spanish-American War in 1898 assisted the Cubans in overthrowing Spanish rule. The Treaty of Paris established Cuban independence from Spain in 1898 and, following three-and-a-half years of subsequent US military rule, Cuba became an independent republic in 1902 after which the island experienced a string of governments mostly dominated by the military and corrupt politicians. #Fidel CASTRO led a rebel army to victory in 1959; his authoritarian rule held the subsequent regime together for nearly five decades. He stepped down as president in February 2008 in favor of his younger brother Raul CASTRO. Cuba's communist revolution, with Soviet support, was exported throughout Latin America and Africa during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
.
The country faced a severe economic downturn in 1990 following the withdrawal of former Soviet subsidies worth $4-6 billion annually. 
In  2014, the US Coast Guard interdicted 2,111 Cuban nationals at sea, the highest number since  2008. Also in  2014, 24,289 Cuban migrants presented themselves at various land border ports of entry throughout the US. 

 Obama as President of US began efforts to re-establish diplomsic links with Cuba in 2014. The US and Cuba reopened embassies in their respective countries on 20 July 2015.
-   Thanks to India History




காஸ்ட்ரோ...

காஸ்ட்ரோ கியூப மக்களை மனதார நேசித்தவர் எனப் பலரும் புகழ்கின்றனர். அதில்எந்தஐயப்பாடும்இல்லை.

தமிழீழத்தில் இந்தியமும் சிங்களமும் கைகோர்த்துக் கருவறுத்த போது கைகொட்டிச் சிரித்தவர் காஸ்ட்ரோ. 

2009 மே மாதம் தமிழீழத்தில் குருதிக் குளியல் நடைபெற்று முடிந்து அடுத்த மாதம் ஐநாவில் ஐரோப்பிய, அமெரிக்க உலகம் இலங்கையில் நடைபெற்ற அத்துமீறல்கள் குறித்து விவாதிக்கக் கோரிக்கை எழுப்பிய போது கொதித்துப் போனார் காஸ்ட்ரோ. கியூபா ஐநாவில் கூறியது. இது உலக வரலாற்றில் நடைபெற்ற மிக வெளிப்படையான போர். இதற்கு இலங்கையைப் பாராட்ட வேண்டும் என்றது காஸ்ட்ரோவின் கியூபா.

அருந்ததி ராய் உள்ளிட்டோர் தமிழீழத்தில் நடைற்றது சாட்சியற்ற போர் என வர்ணித்த போது, அதனை வெளிப்படையான போர் எனப் பாராட்டுகிறார் காஸ்ட்ரோ. 

அத்துடன் நிற்கவில்லை கியூபா. தமிழீழத்தில் நடைபெற்றது இனப்படுகொலையா என ஐநா இலங்கையில புலனாய்வு செய்ய வேண்டும் என்ற தமிழர்களின் அறக் கோரிக்கையைக் கூட இந்தியத்துடனும் சிங்களத்துடனும் கைகோர்த்து ஈவிரக்கமற்று எதிர்த்தது .
காஸ்ட்ரோ தன் மக்களுக்கு நேர்மையாளராக இருந்து அவர்களது பகைவரான அமெரிக்கரை எதிர்க்கிறார் என்றால், தமிழர்களுக்கு நேர்மையாக இருந்து, இந்திய வல்லாதிக்கத்தின் இனப்படுகொலையை ஆதரிக்கும் காஸ்ட்ரோவை எதிர்க்க வேண்டாமா? 

அமெரிக்க வல்லாதிக்கதிக்கத்தை எதிர்த்த காஸ்ட்ரோ கியூபர்களுக்குப் பெருந்தலைவர்.

ஆனாலும்,நாம்காஸ்ட்ரோவை மதிக்கிறோம் .அது நமது  நாகரிகம் .....

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Constitution of India:

The Constitution of India: A Citizens’ Charter By: Mohit Sharma | 
-------------------------------------
“Constitution is not a mere lawyers document, it is a vehicle of Life, and its spirit is always the spirit of Age.”                              – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar The very fact that the Constitution of the Indian Republic is the product not of a political revolution but of the research and deliberations of body of eminent representatives of the people who sought to improve upon the existing system of administration, makes a retrospect of the constitutional development indispensable for a proper understanding of this Constitution. Modern Constitutions, apart from delineating the composition of the “State”, also embody the interface between citizens and the government. In this manner, the ‘bill of rights’ which incorporates the ideas of John Locke who argued in his 1689 work “Two Treatise of Government” that civil society was created for the protection of property & natural rights (which is Part III in Indian Constitution) has come to become a key feature of modern liberal Constitutions. After the British rule in India between 1600-1947 through the East India Company, Viceroys & Governor Generals with the help of Charters and other enactments made by the British Parliament, India gained its independence on 15th August, 1947. Three important legislations should be referred to as they contributed to the making of the Indian Constitution. They are; the Indian Councils Act, 1909; the Government of India Act, 1919; & the Government of India Act, 1935. The demand that India’s political destiny should be determined by the Indians themselves had been put forward by Mahatma Gandhi as early as in 1922. This was reiterated by the Working Committee of the Congress in 1939. The demand was, however, resisted by the British Government until the outbreak of World War II when external circumstances forced them to realise the urgency of solving the Indian Constitutional problem. In 1940, the Coalition Government in England recognised the principle that Indians should themselves frame a new Constitution for autonomous India & they sent Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of cabinet, with a draft declaration on the proposals of the British Government which were to be adopted provided the two major political parties (Congress & the Muslim league) could come to an agreement to accept them, viz.; that the Constitution of India was to be framed by an elected Constituent Assembly of the Indian people; that the Constitution should give India Dominion Status – equal partnership of the British Commonwealth of Nations; that there should be one Indian Union comprising all the Provinces and Indian States; but that any province (or Indian State) which was not prepared to accept the Constitution would be free to retain its constitutional position existing at that time and with such non-acceding Provinces the British Government could enter into separate constitutional arrangements. But the two parties failed to come to an agreement. After the rejection of ‘Cripps Proposal’, various attempts to reconcile the two parties are made including the ‘Simla Conference’, but that too failed. But then somehow & the other the forming of Constituent Assembly became reality, but sadly the two nation theory also became reality. On 26th July 1947, the Governor-General announced the setting up of a separate Constituent Assembly for Pakistan. The plan of June 3, 1947 (i.e. “Mountbatten Plan” as to partition of provinces of Bengal & Punjab) having been carried out, nothing stood in the way of effecting the transfer of power by enacting a statute of the British Parliament in accordance with the declaration. With the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, two independent Dominions of India & Pakistan were created with effect from 15th August 1947. This Act also conferred full powers on the Constituent Assembly of each Dominion to frame & adopt any Constitution and to supersede the Indian Independence Act without any further requirement of any legislation from the British Parliament. The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held on 9th December, 1946. On 11th December 1946, Rajendra Prasad was elected as the permanent Chairman of the Constituent Assembly (however the first/interim President was Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha). Later, the Constituent Assembly adopted the “Objective Resolution” that became the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. It reassembled on the 14th August, 1947 as the sovereign Constituent Assembly for the Dominion of India. On 29th August, 1947, a seven member committee, the Drafting Committee was set up under the able guidance and leadership of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The most significant & historic moment for the Constituent Assembly was the mid-night session on 14th& 15th August, 1947. At this session, all the members of the Constituent Assembly took the pledge read out by its President. The Constituent Assembly of India assumed power for the governance of India & the Constituent Assembly endorsed the recommendations that Lord Mountbatten be the Governor-General of India (Independent India) from 15th August, 1947. On 29th August, 1947, the Constituent Assembly adopted a resolution by which the “Drafting Committee” was appointed. By October 1947, the Constitutional Advisor (Sir B.N. Rau) completed the task of preparing the first draft of the Constitution of India. The draft constitution as approved by the drafting committee based on the debates contained 315 Articles and VIII Schedules and the same was submitted to the President of the Constituent Assembly on 21st February 1948. After certain other developments, the draft was finally adopted in the Constituent Assembly on  4th November, 1948 that discussed the same in detail and finally adopted on 26th November, 1949. However, the text was considered by the Constituent Assembly on 14th, 15th & 16th November, 1949 that considered the motion of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar that the Constitution as settled by the Constituent Assembly be passed. The Constituent Assembly took total of two years, eleven months & seventeen days  (2 years, 11 months, 17 days) to complete the lengthiest written constitution of the world & its labours are reflected in the twelve volumes of the Constituent Assembly Debates. Total of 2473 amendments were considered by the Constituent Assembly during this period. On 26th November, 1949 the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad authenticated the New Constitution of India & fifteen articles of a provisional & transnational nature were given effect to, immediately on the passing of the constitution i.e. on 26th November, 1949 as enumerated under Art. 394. These provisions were Arts. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 (Part II i.e. Citizenship), Art. 60 (Ch. I of Part V i.e. The Executive under The Union), Art. 324 (Part XV i.e. Elections), Arts. 366, 367 (Part XIX i.e. Miscellaneous), Arts. 379, 380, 388, 391, 392 (Part XXI i.e. Temporary, Transitional & Special Provisions) & Art. 393 (Part XXII i.e. the Short Title, Commencement, Authoritative Text in Hindi & Repeals). The remaining provisions of the Constitution came into force on the designated day given under Art. 394 i.e. on 26th January 1950, the day India became Republic. The same day, the Constituent Assembly also ceased to exist and transformed itself into a Provisional Parliament of India till the first Parliament was duly constituted after the first General Elections in 1952 (Art. 379). The Constitution of India consists of the Preamble, 395 Articles arranged in 22 Parts & XII schedules. Till now 101 amendments have been made to the Constitution. Conclusion Let me put it like this, its “ We the people of India in our Constituent Assembly, this Twenty Sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact & give to ourselves this Constitution,” (which though had commenced on Twenty Sixth day of January, 1950) & declared that the objectives of the Constitution were Justice, Liberty, Equality & Fraternity. As a student of Constitutional Law I would say that the Constitution is not just a document, its a way of life. Its a way towards the progress of the nation, of the society & of the individual as a whole. Its a charter of the liberties & the desires. Its a document on which the pyramid of the Government is structured. And its because of these reasons the Constitution is the ‘Suprema Lex’ which is beyond the pale of any controversy. Its because of all these reasons all the organs of the State derive their authority, jurisdiction & powers from the Constitution & owe allegiance to it. This includes our hallowed Supreme Court. This Principle of supremacy was also reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in its several decisions, viz. Kesavananda Bharti case (1973), Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), Minerva Mills case (1980), Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability case (1991), Rameshwar Prasad case (2006), Raja Ram Pal case (2007). Mohit Sharma is a lawyer practising in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/constitution-india-citizens-charter/

வி.பி .சிங் நினைவுநாள்

முன்னாள்  இந்திய பிரதமர் வி.பி .சிங் நினைவுநாள் 
-------------------------------------

சமூகநீதி காவலர்,நேர்மைக்கு இலக்கணமானவர்,ராஜவம்சத்தில் பிறந்திருந்தாலும் எளிமைக்கு அடையாளமாகதிகழ்ந்தவர்வி.பி.சிங் .
ராம்விலாஸ் பஸ்வான் மூலமாக 1987 ல் ஜனமோட்சா கட்சி ஆரம்பித்த காலமுதல் எனக்கு அறிமுகம் உண்டு  . 1989 ல் நடைபெற்ற சட்டமன்ற தேர்தலில் திமுகழகத்தின் சார்பில் கோவில் பட்டி தொகுதியில் நான் போட்டியிட்ட போது எனக்கு ஆதரவாக தேர்தல் பரப்புரை ஆற்றவும் வந்தார்.

என்னுடைய நதிநீர் இணைப்பு வழக்கு தொடர்பாக மறைந்த இந்திய பிரதமர்கள்,  1990ல் வி.பி.சிங் , 1992ல்பி.வி நரசிம்மராவ் மற்றும் 1996ல் தேவகௌடா ஆகியோரை சந்திக்கும் வாய்ப்பு கிடைத்தது .

திரு வி.பி சிங் அவர்களை சந்தித்த போது தன் நேரமில்லாத பணிகளுக்கு இடையில் எனக்கு அரைமணி நேரம் ஒதுக்கி என்னோடு பேசியது  என்னால் மறக்க இயலாது ! அப்போது அவர் மண்டல் கமிசன் பிரச்சனைகளில் அவரின் கவனம் முழுவதும் திரும்பி இருந்தாலும் நதிநீர் பிரச்சனைகளை முழுமையாக கேட்டு அதனை தீர்க்கவும் முயற்சி செய்வதாகவும் கூறினார் . 

அதே போல மறைந்த முன்னாள் பிரதமர் பி.வி நரசிம்மராவ் அவர்களும் கேட்டரிந்தார் 
ஆனால் முன்னாள் பிரதமர் தேவகௌடா அவர்கள்  மற்றும் சரியாக முகம் கொடுத்து பேசவில்லை ஏனெனில் காவிரி பிரச்சனையில் அவரை எதிர்த்து வழக்கு தொடுத்து இருந்தேன் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. 

நதிகளை இணைக்க வலியுறுத்தி மன்மோகன் சிங் அமைச்சரவையில் நீர்வளத்துறை அமைச்சராக,தற்போது உத்தரகண்ட் மாநில முதல்வர் ஹரிஷ்ராவத்இருமுறைசந்தித்தேன் .
தற்போதய மோடி அரசில் நீர்வளத்துறை அமைச்சராக இருக்கும் உமாபாரதி சந்தித்து  நதிநீர் பிரச்னைகளை தீர்க்க வலியுறுத்தியுள்ளேன் 

ஆனால் முன்னாள் பிரதமர் தேவகவுடாவை போல் சங்கடபடுத்தியது யாருமில்லை .
பண்புக்கு வி.பி. சிங் அவர்கள் ஒரு சிகரம்.

யாரையும் மதித்து அன்பு காட்டிய மறைந்த முன்னாள் இந்திய பிரதமர் திரு விஸ்வநாத் பிரதாப் சிங் என்ற #விபிசிங் அவர்களை நினைவு கூருவோம் !
கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்
26-11-2016

#vpsingh
#ksradhakrishnanposting

அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டத்தின் தினம் (Constitution Day) :

நவ 26அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டத்தின் தினம் (Constitution Day) :

#இந்தியஅரசியல்அமைப்பு சாசனத்தில் கடந்த 16/09/2016 வரை 101சட்டதிருத்தங்களை கடந்த 68 ஆண்டுகளில் கொண்டுவந்துள்ளோம் ! 

உலகத்திலேயே பிரிட்டனிலும்  இஸ்ரேலிலும் அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டம் கிடையாது .அங்குமரபுகளையும்,பழக்கவழக்கங்களையும் கொண்டு தான் அரசியல் அமைப்பு நிர்வாகம் நடக்கிறது .

240 ஆண்டுகள் கடந்த சுதந்திர அமெரிக்காவின் அரசியல் சாசனம் வெறும் 25 பக்கங்களில் அடங்கிவிடும் .ஆனால் இந்திய அரசியல் சாசனமோ உலகிலேயே மிக அதிக பக்கங்களை கொண்ட அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டமாகும் . அமெரிக்காவில் இதுவரை ஒரு 20 க்கும் மேலான திருத்தங்கள் தான் என்பதும் குறிப்பிடதக்கது .

இந்திரா காந்தி பிரதமராக இருந்த போது அரசியல் சாசனத்தில் 42 வது திருத்தம்அனைவராலும்விமர்சிக்கப்பட்டு இருந்தாலும் ;நாட்டின் நடைமுறை படுத்த வேண்டிய கொள்கைகள் (Directive principles of the State policy ) என்பது ஒரு முக்கியமான வரவேற்கபட வேண்டிய முடிவாகும் .

திரு அடல்பிகாரி வாஜ்பாய் அவர்கள் பிரதமராக இருந்த காலத்தில் நீதிபதி வெங்கடாசலய்யா தலைமையில் ஒரு குழு சில பரிந்துரைகளை 
வகுத்து தந்தன.
கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்
26-11-2016

#constituionofindia
#ksradhakrishnanposting

"பிடல் காஸ்ட்ரோ மரணித்தார்"

புரட்சித் தீ அணைந்தது...

"பிடல் காஸ்ட்ரோ மரணித்தார்"

Fidel castro passed away;Towering Personality 
HEROES WILL NEVER DIE 

Rest in power Comrade. Your legendary life will continue to inspire those who are fighting against the injustice and striving for a better world.

வல்லரசு அமெரிக்காவின் காலடியில் ஒளிந்து கிடப்பது தான் கரும்புத் தீவு கியூபா. அதன் தன்நிகரற்ற தலைவர் தான் பிடல் காஸ்ட்ரோ. ஆப்கனிஸ்தான், ஈராக் போன்ற நாடுகளில் சின்ன ரிமோட்டுக்கள் மூலமே வன்முறையை தோற்றுவிக்கும் அமெரிக்காவால் தன் காலடியில் ஒளிந்து கிடக்கும் கியூபாவின் ஒற்றை முடியைக் கூட பிடுங்க முடியவில்லை. காரணம் காஸ்ட்ரோ. 50 வருடங்களாக அமெரிக்காவின் 9 ஜனாதிபதிகள் கியூபாவிற்கு எதிராகப் போராடித் தோற்று இருக்கிறார்கள். அமெரிக்காவின் உளவு நிறுவனமான C.I.A இதுவரை 638 முறை கணைகளைத் தொடுத்து தோல்வியுற்றிருக்கிறது. உடல்நிலை ஒத்துழைக்காததால் அரச நிர்வாகத்தில் இருந்து விலகுவதாக 2008 யில் காஸ்ட்ரோ அறிவித்தபோது அமெரிக்கா பட்டாசு கொளுத்திக் கொண்டாடாத குறை தான்!!.

மாவீரன் வேலுப்பிள்ளை பிரபாகரன் பிறந்த தினத்தில் மறைந்தார் மாவீரன் பிடல்காஸ்ட்ரோ இனி உலகெங்கும் நவம்பர் 26 மாவீரர்தினம்  தான்....

Friday, November 25, 2016

Constitution Day

Yes 
நவம்பர் 26ம் நாள் ஒவ்வொரு ஆண்டும் அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டத்தின் தினம் என்று இந்திய அரசு அறிவித்துள்ளது. 26-11-2016இந்திய அரசியலமைப்பு (Constitution Day) தினமாகும். 

26-நவம்பர் 1949அன்று இந்திய அரசியலமைப்பு சபையின் பரிந்துரைகளை ஏற்று நமது அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டம் இறுதி படுத்தப்பட்டு நமக்கு நாமே என உருவாக்கிக்கொண்டோம். மக்களின் உணர்வுகளையும், அபிலாசைகளையும், உரிமைகளையும், வேட்கைகளையும் என அனைத்து எண்ணப்பாடுகளையும் ஒருமுகமாக பிரதிபலிப்பதுதான் இந்திய அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டம்.

இதுகுறித்து பல பத்திகள் தினமணி, 
தி இந்து போன்ற நாளேடுகளில் எழுதியுள்ளேன். இருப்பினும் இதுகுறித்தான சிந்தனைகளையும், பிரச்சனைகளையும் இந்த ஒரு பத்தியில் அடக்கிவிடமுடியாது. 

இந்தியாவில் பல்வேறு தேசிய இனங்கள், மொழிகள், கலாச்சாரங்கள், எனக் கொண்ட பன்மையில் ஒருமை என்ற அடிப்படையில் பல வட்டாரங்கள் இணைந்து வாழ்கின்றோம். 

சமஸ்டி அமைப்பின் வேகத்தையும் தாக்கத்தையும் மத்தியில் ஆளும் மத்திய அரசு உணரவேண்டும்.

மாநிலங்களுக்கிடையே பாரபட்சமில்லாமல் சம உரிமைகளோடு, மாநில சுயாட்சி பெற்றிடும் வகையில் நம்முடைய பணிகளும், நம் அணுகுமுறைகளும் இருக்கவேண்டும். 

டாக்டர் அம்பேத்கார் அவர்கள் இந்திய #அரசியலமைப்புசட்டத்தை வடிவமைத்து உயிரோட்டமான ஜீவனாகநாட்டுக்கு  அர்ப்பணித்தார் !

#இந்தியஅரசியலமைப்புசட்டம் வெறும் எழுத்து வடிவம் இல்லை நம்முடைய உணர்வுகளையும் அபிலாசைகளையும் வெளிபடுத்துகின்ற பிரகடனமாகும் .

இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு நிர்ணய சபை பல நாள் அமர்ந்து விவாதங்களும் ஆலோசனைகளும் நடத்தி வடித்தெடுக்கப்பட்ட அரசியல் சிற்பம் தான் நம் அரசியல் சாசனம்

டாக்டர் அம்பேத்கரோடு இணைந்து அந்திராவை சேர்ந்த அறிஞர் பி.என்.ராவ் பல நாடுகளுக்கு சுற்றுப்பயணம்  மேற்கொண்டு அங்குள்ள அரசியல் அமைப்பு சட்டங்களை எல்லாம் அறிந்துகொண்டு அதை நம்நாட்டின் சூழலுக்கு ஏற்றவாறு மாறுதல் செய்து இந்திய அரசியல் சாசனம் எழுத பெரும் பங்காற்றினார்!

அவர் இல்லையென்றால் பெரும் சிரமம் ஏற்பட்டு இருக்கும்  திரு பி.என் ராவ் அவர்கள்  மறைக்கப்பட்ட மாமனிதர்களில் ஒருவராவார் 

இந்நாளில் இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்பு சாசனத்தை நாட்டுக்கு தந்த டாக்டர் அம்பேத்கர் அவர்களையும் திரு பி.என். ராவ் அவர்களையும்  நினைவு கூறுவோம் !
கே.எஸ்.இராதாகிருஷ்ணன்
25-11-2016

CONSTITUTION DAY - 26  NOVEMBER

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

THE NATION’s CONSCIENCE

AS INDIA CELEBRATES ITS 1ST CONSTITUTION

DAY, A THROWBACK TO THE EARLY YEARS

The Constitution of India was handwritten and calligraphed in both

English and Hindi — not typeset or printed. The original copies are kept in a special helium-filled case in the library of the Parliament.

No foreign consultants were involved in framing it. The founders were adamant that Indians should have full control over the drafting

procedure. Thus, the assistance of several lawyer-members were

sought: Nehru, Prasad, Ambedkar, and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar were part of the historic draft.

It consists of 90,000 words besides illustrations of events

from Indian history by Nandalal Bose of Santiniketan and others

284 members of the Constituent Assembly (including 15 women)

signed the hand-written document on January 24,1950. It came

into force two days later.

By the time the Assembly convened for its final session

in January 1950, Rajendra Prasad had been elected

as India’s fi rst President.After members of the Assembly

signed the document — with Nehru being the first —

Prasad decided that he also must sign. And he chose to

insert his name in the space between the last line of the text

and Nehru’s signature.

The Constituent Assembly took two years, eleven months

and seventeen days to draft the document after the drafting panel

submitted it to them.

The Indian Constitution is the longest in the world,with 44 articles, 12 schedules and 100 amendments. The American constitution

is the shortest.

India’s constitution has been hailed as one of the world’s

best Constitution,especially since it has only seen 100 amendments so far.

The Constitution has borrowed several features from other

constitutions. The concepts of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were

taken from the French constitution, the concept of 5-year Plans from

the USSR and the Directive Principles from Ireland

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

Constitution is sublime, failings are of our own making

As a college student, I remember hearing a speech by the legendary Palkhivala on what he called “the Sublime Constitution”.

There can be no doubt that the epithet coined by him was

anything but fully deserved. The government’s decision to characterise November 26 as Constitution Day is a remarkable step — albeit a token of gratitude which this nation owes to one who can fairly be called the principal architect of the Constitution.

The framing of the Constitution was a painstaking exercise. On August 29, 1947 the Constituent Assembly appointed a

drafting committee (B R Ambedkar was chairman) which presented a draft in February 1948. This draft was discussed and altered and finally adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 26,

1949. The Indian Constitution drew upon models in countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, Ireland, but crafted its own architecture. Ambedkar in his speech to the Constituent

Assembly quoted the powerful words of Grote [the Greek historian] “…

The diffusion of constitutional morality….

Is the indispensable condition of government at once free and peaceable…Since even any powerful and obstinate

minority may render the working of a free institution impracticable even without being strong enough to conquer ascendancy

for themselves.” With his characteristic bluntness

Ambedkar said: “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people

have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” We are no longer an infant democracy— 65 years is a fairly long time in the life of a nation, sufficient to assess whether we have imbibed constitutional morality, in sufficient measure. India has had its share of problems, the biggest being the economic non-inclusiveness of nearly

1/3rd of its population. Sociologically, we continue to let caste and religion divideus. Gender justice is a distance away.

India is the perfect social cauldron where strife could be a way of life. Add to this mix the freedom of speech and a media

driven by popularity ratings — there’s hardly any surprise that on its surface India has started to appear as an intolerant society. But the gains of six decades of democracy should never be underestimated.The biggest success of Indian democracy

has been its ability to sustain the system of a popular government — the experiment of 1975 and its aftermath has hopefully dispelled any fantasies of dictatorship harboured by any political leader.

The second has been that, despite populist attempts at dismantling the basic freedoms as a ruse to usher in a socialist order, we have maintained the fundamental freedoms engrafted in the Constitution

— the gift of freedom for which our forebears took on the might of the British Empire and sacrificed their lives. An adjunct of this is that the Supreme Court in particular, and judiciary generally, is considered perhaps the world’s most powerful institution of its kind.

Barring certain aberrations, SC has been at the forefront of the battle to preserve these freedoms, using judiciously its power

to enforce constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms even if it meant overriding popular sentiment. The SC has been proactive in attempting to make constitutional rights a living reality even

for those who do not have the resources to seek redress of the judicial system, and to use these as a weapon to address executive

and legislative lethargy. Ambedkar, in his speech in the constituent

assembly on November 4, 1948, expostulated the features of the draft Constitution. He explained the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Presidential form of government and the

Westminster form of democracy. He said a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions — it must be a stable executive

and it must be a responsible executive. The presidential forms impart greater stability but lesser responsibility as the

executive isn’t dependent for its existence on a majority in Congress. The British system imparts greater responsibility

because of an executive dependent on Parliament for its existence, but this is at times at the cost of stability. It isn’t that the former is unaccountable — it’s the degree of accountability and its pervasiveness that differs in the two systems.

By this touchstone, Indian democracy is clearly work in progress. The lack of stability in government inherent in the Westminster system has taken its toll — coalition politics has seen national interest being sacrificed for political stability — the need for consensus has been seen to constrain ambitious economic measures.Constitutional morality is another area which is shown

up in grey light.Some areas of dismal failure are criminalisation

of politics, radicalisation and intolerance, populist measures that

fester the caste divide, and, most of allegregious, corruption. We replace governments every five years, unfortunately

each government uses the same red beacons to torment the common man.And when all else fails, we blame the

Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution have been made designed to emasculate the courts and make our fundamental

freedoms subject to the whim and caprice of those in power, on the excuse that it was the fundamental rights that prevented removal of poverty.Such attempts are now dust on the shelves of history. No government in present times would dare tinker with the basic values enshrined in the Constitution. In a broadcast on the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, Lord Wavell had in prophetic

words said “… No country and no form of government can work satisfactorily without goodwill; with good will and determination to succeed even an apparently illogical arrangement can be made

to work....” Our Constitution is truly sublime – if there have been any failings we have only ourselves to blame.

Harish Salve is former solicitor general of India

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

How we codified what India stands for

WHEN DID THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING INDIA’S CONSTITUTION BEGIN?

In 1934 Indian leaders demanded a constituent assembly to draft a Constitution reflecting the ideals of an independent India,

the process began more than a decade later. The constituent assembly first met on December 9, 1946 in the Central Hall of

Parliament, then called Constitution Hall; more than 200 representatives attended, including nine women. Sachchidananda

Sinha was elected temporary chairman, to be soon replaced by Rajendra Prasad.

How was the assembly constituted? Constituent Assembly

members were chosen mainly through indirect election

by provincial assemblies, as per Cabinet Mission recommendations. 292 members were elected through provincial

assemblies, 93 represented princely states and four represented chief commissioners’ provinces, including the Northwest Frontier

Province, Balochistan, Coorg, Ajmer-Merwara, Andaman

and Nicobar. Total membership: 389. How did it function?

On December 13, 1946, Nehru moved the ‘Objectives

Resolution’ stating the assembly’s declaration proclaiming

India an independent sovereign republic. It resolved to draw the operational characteristics of government in independent India.

Soon after Mountbatten’s partition plan was declared

on June 3, 1947, a separate constituent assembly

was set up for Pakistan, reducing the Indian body’s

members to 299. Before Independence, legislation was

through the Central Legislative Assembly. On August 14,

1947 midnight, this was replaced by the constituent

assembly. It had 17 committees to discuss all aspects of

the new democracy. How often has the Constitution been

amended?The Constitution has been amended

100 times, making it the world’s most amended statute. The

first amendment came in 1951, a year after the Constitution

came into effect. The last one became effective this

May to make it possible for the India-Bangladesh land boundary

agreement to be implemented.The Constitution framers felt the process of amending it should be neither too easy, which would defeat the very purpose of having a Constitution, nor too difficult,

which would make it impossible for the document to keep

up with changing social values. For amending the Constitution,

a Bill can be introduced.in either House, but must win support of a majority of the total membership of each House (including vacancies,if any) and two-thirds of those present and voting (including“ayes” and “nays”, excluding those abstaining)

in each House. If the Bill fails to pass this test in one House, no joint sitting of Houses can be used to get it passed. Where the

proposed amendment impinges on the power of the states,

it must be ratified by at least half the state legislatures.

How long did it take to draft the Constitution? It took two years, 11

months and 17 days to compile the world’s longest national statute. The constituent assembly held 11 sessions over 165 days. On August 29, 1947,it set up a drafting committee under Ambedkar.

The constitution was adopted on November 26,1949. It came into force on January 26, 1950. That day the assembly became the provisional Parliament of India. This date was chosen to honour the

“purna swaraj” declaration of 1930

Which are the important amendments?

Some amendments have been significant. The first amendment in 1951 introduced Schedule 9 to protect laws that are on the face of it contrary to constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights from judicial review. For example, a law allowing the state to forcibly acquire land for public good would seem to violate the right to

property, but placing it in Schedule 9 (as the 17th amendment

of 1964 did) was to put it beyond the reach of the courts. In 2007, the SC ruled that even laws under Schedule 9 are open to judicial review, if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Seventh Amendment of 1956 was to enable creation

of linguistic states and of UTs while abolishing the earlier classification of Class A, B, C and D states.The 39th and 42nd amendments passed during Emergency in the mid-70s were

controversial. The 39th placed restrictions on judicial scrutiny of the PM and the 42nd curtailed fundamental rights while introducing

the concept of fundamental duties. It added the words secular and socialist to the preamble that defines the republic’s nature.

The 43rd and 44th amendments passed after Emergency

reversed some of the excesses. Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure saw some crucial changes.The 52nd amendment of 1985 was to introduce an

anti-defection bill while the 61st in 1989 reduced voting age to 18 from 21. The 73rd and 74th amendments allowed creation of a third tier of government through local bodies in rural and urban areas. The 86th amendment of 2002 conferred the right to education.

coutesy - The Times of India 27 November 2015.

#constitution of #India

#KsRadhakrishnan #KSR_Posts


27/november/2016




#constitutionofindia
#ksradhakrishnanposting

#*தகுதியே தடை* *நான் பார்த்த அரசியல் இதுதான்*…

#*தகுதியே தடை* *நான் பார்த்த அரசியல் இதுதான்*…  ——————————— இங்கு அரசியல் என்ன நிலை, ஓட்டுக்கு பணம் Vote for sales வாரிசு அரசியல், குடும்ப அ...