Dear Civil Services Aspirant,
To access Resources and have interaction fully, please register yourself as a Free User. It is Free.
Furnish your e-mail id as user id and set your own password. Immediately after the registration is over, you will be sent an email to the registered email address. Please click the link given in the email to activate your account and then have unlimited access with all resources.
Best Wishes, Jeywin Team
Official celebrations are taking place in southern India for the 1,000th birthday of one of the grandest temples ever built on the subcontinent. The Brihadisvara temple – in the town of Thanjavur, 350km (220 miles) south-west of Chennai – is considered the finest example of southern Indian architecture.
R Nagasami, the state of Tamil Nadu government’s retired director of archaeology, says it is not clear when work started on the attraction, which is better known as the Big Temple. He claims that they can definitely say it was completed in the year 1010. This conclusion was made from stone inscriptions.
Unlike other Hindu temples built during that period, this one was made using granite. Dedicated to Lord Shiva, a major Hindu deity, it consists of 13 tiers, and its main tower soars majestically to a height of 60m (200ft). The master designers built the hollow tower by interlocking stones without using any binding material.
“This is the only temple in the whole of India,” says R. Nagaswamy, former Director, Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department, “wherein the builder himself has left behind a very large number of inscriptions on the temple’s construction, its various parts, the daily rituals to be performed for the Linga, the details of the offerings such as jewellery, flowers and textiles, the special worship to be performed, the particular days on which they should be performed, the monthly and annual festivals, and so on.”
Raja Raja Chola even appointed an astronomer called ‘Perunkani’ for announcing the dates, based on the planetary movements, for celebrating the temple’s festivals.
Three temples in Thanjavur and Ariyalur districts, namely the Brihadeeshvara temple, Iravateswarawamy temple and the Big temple at Gangaikondacholapuram built by the great Chola kings have been declared as world heritage monuments by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
The Brihadisvara temple at Thanjavur built by Raja Raja Cholan is celebrating its millenium this year; the Iravateswarawamy temple at Darasuram near Kumbkonam was built by Raja Raja II and the Big temple at Gangaikondacholapuram was built by Rajendran Cholan, son of Raja Raja Cholan in Ariyalur district.
The three temples are in stone and have almost same architecture and design except for the size. While the Big Temple at Thanjavur remains colossal in all its aspects — a towering Vimana with a height of 212 ft, a big Linga in the sanctum sanctorum, a huge Nandi in the front and Goddess Periyanayaki also standing tall, Darasuram and Gangaikondacholapuram account for smaller forms of the Big temple. Despite the general concept of a chariot being pulled, the sculptures differ in the three temples.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) maintains the three temples well and has almost reconstructed the whole temple at Darasuram.
The construction of the Big Temple — also known as Rajarajeswaran Udaiyar after the great king — began in 1003A.D. and was consecrated for worship on the 275th day of the 25th year of the King’s reign (1010 A.D.). The temple is 1000 years old this year (2010). This edifice is one of the finest and most exquisite specimens of the Chola architecture. Dedicated to Lord Siva, it is located within a spacious inner courtyard measuring 240 X120 m. The temple is replete with inscriptions relating to its origin and endowments and also sports a profusion of friezes from the epics.
Chola Dynasty
Considered one of the tallest structures in India at that time, the temple was built on the orders of the King Raja Raja Chola, the most prominent sovereign of the Chola dynasty. The Cholas reached their zenith during the 11th Century, subduing smaller kingdoms and bringing most of southern India under their rule.
They were also pioneers in naval warfare, carrying out hostile waterborne expeditions to Sri Lanka and the Far East. Raja Raja Chola, who ruled from 985 AD to 1014, was a Saivite, a branch of Hinduism that worships Lord Shiva.
His capital was the town of Thanjavur, situated on the banks of the River Cauvery, which is considered sacred by Hindus. “King Raja Raja was also known as Sivapada Sundaran [which means a man devoted to the feet of Shiva],” says Mr Nagasami.
“Temple inscription says he first placed all the spoils of war at the feet of god and sought blessing from the almighty.”
Again, this is the only temple in India where the King specifically mentions in an inscription that he built this all-stone temple called ‘kattrali’ (‘kal’ meaning stone and ‘tali’ a temple). This magnum opus, running to 107 paragraphs, describes, among others, how Raja Raja Chola, seated in the royal bathing hall on the eastern side of his palace, instructed how his order should be inscribed on the base of the vimana, how he executed the temple’s plan, the list of gifts he, his sister Kundavai, his queens and others gave to the temple.
The inscriptions provide a list of 66 beautiful bronze idols Raja Raja Chola, Kundavai, his queens and others gifted to the temple. The inscriptions elaborate on the enormous gold jewellery, inlaid with precious stones such as diamonds, emeralds, sapphires, rubies, corals, pearls, for decorating each of these bronzes. Interestingly, the measurements of all these bronzes — from crown to toe, the number of arms they had and the symbols they held in their arms — are inscribed. Today, only two of these bronzes remain in the temple — that of a dancing Siva and his consort Sivakami. All the jewellery has disappeared.
Raja Raja Chola gifted gold vessels to the temple, and their weight, shape and casting were mentioned in the lithic records. Even a small spoon, ‘nei muttai,’ for scooping out ghee, finds a mention. The inscriptions throw light on the temple’s revenue from various sources, the mode of payment and the meticulous accounting procedures. “It shows the care and attention with which the temple property was entered in the registers and the responsibility fixed for handling them. Raja Raja Chola had an extraordinary administrative talent, unsurpassed either before or after him,” Dr. Nagaswamy said.
The inscriptions even speak about the temple’s cleaners, sweepers, carriers of flags and parasols, torch-bearers for processions at night and festivals, cooks, dancers, musicians and singers of Tamil and Sanskrit verses.
Rock transported
The temple is 240m long and 120m wide. There was no rock formation near the temple, so it had to be transported from quarries 50km away. It is believed the rock was brought to the building site by river boat.
PS Sriraman, Assistant Superintendent Archaeologist of the Archaeological Survey of India, says that the Big Temple when compared to other temples of that time, is at least 40 times bigger. He claims that this was a dramatic scaling up. It shows their confidence and imagination. It has a very unique design. It is the first Hindu temple to be built on such a grand scale.
Interestingly, the temple also has number of statues and stone carvings depicting the life of Buddha.
V Ganapati Sthapati, a well-known temple architect, says: “The temple tower incorporates the same building principles used in the construction of great pyramids. They designed the temple using traditional knowledge which is held as family secrets, and passed down from father to son. They carved out rocks using hand-held tools.”
The inscriptions found in the temple have helped scholars understand the Chola Empire.
Excellent condition
The temple, which also has fresco paintings, has survived the ravages of countless monsoons, six recorded earthquakes and a major fire. It is now maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India, a central government body.
Its superintendent archaeologist, Sathyabama Badrinath, says: “The temple is in excellent condition. It has no structural problems. The weight load is evenly distributed among pillars and beams. It needs very little maintenance.”
Unlike its sound structure, patronage for the temple is somewhat shaky.
Soon after its completion, its chief patron Raja Raja died. His son, Rajendira I, succeeded him. He was a far more successful military leader and wanted to build a much bigger version of the Big Temple.
He shifted the capital of the Chola kingdom to Gangaikondacholapuram, about 60km away, and started building a new temple there. ”Raja Raja had donated large tracts of land to provide money to maintain the temple. But Rajendira Chola diverted all these revenues to his newly built temple,” says Mr Badrinath. Why Rajendira did this still baffles historians today.
His decision deprived the Big Temple of royal patronage. As artisans went to work at his new temple, work on the Big Temple began coming to a halt.
But Rajendira was only able to build a smaller version of the Big Temple.
Further down the line, the Cholas built hundreds of temples along the banks of the River Cauvery, changing its landscape forever. None of the forts and palaces built by the Cholas survives today.
But the remaining temples stand testimony to their achievements and are a major tourist attraction for both local and foreign visitors.
There are, however, concerns about the up-keep of the Big Temple. Recently, an ill-conceived move to drill a bore-well just a few metres away from the main structure had to be stopped by a court order. Increasing commercial and construction activities near the temple has prompted local authorities to impose tighter building restrictions.
August 2010
The State government drew up plans to celebrate in a grand manner the contribution of Chola King Raja Raja I to the renaissance of art and culture besides governance.
This happened because the Chief Minister M.Karunanidhi was of the view that the celebration should not be delayed any more and there could be no better occasion to remember the King than the 1000th year of the Brihadeeswarar Temple.
The government wanted to organise the celebrations much earlier, but preparations for the World Classical Tamil Conference gave little room for any other elaborate event between January and June this year.
Using Raja Raja Chola as the theme, the Chief Minister wants to use the opportunity to inculcate in the younger generation the great achievements of Tamil leaders.
Of particular relevance will be the effort to place history in a context and make people realise the importance and the odds against which the great structures were built.
Noted archaeologist R. Nagasamy said “clarity of mind and drive for excellence in all the fields” were the hallmark of Raja Raja.
Dr Nagasamy, former director of Department of Archaeology said claimed that he was a hero who applied his mind to every aspect of governance. He conducted land survey and introduced intelligent tax system and increased the area of cultivation, realising that it was vital to the State economy.
While Raja Raja Chola encouraged higher studies in every field by organising scholarly settlements in the form of Brahmin colonies, side by side he set up commercial establishments.
Dr Nagasamy pointed out that Raja Raja also encouraged a vibrant rural democratic system by introducing election to the village administration and that he entrusted the administration in the hands of experienced persons and that he had the highest judicial standards.
Raja Raja also involved all the villages in the maintenance of royal temples and introduced an unsurpassed payment system.
Explaining why Chola bronzes are celebrated across the world, D. Srikanta Sthapathy, director Poompuhar, said they were proportionate and followed the traditional iconometry to perfection.
“For the Chola bronze the face is the prominent unit and all other parts of the body would derive from it. Even the size of the finger is decided based on the size of the face,” he said, adding that people across the world were visiting Swamimalai to see for themselves the making of bronzes.
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is likely to come out with a book, digitally documenting Chola paintings in the 7 panels inside the sanctum sanctorum of the big temple in Thanjavur.
P.S. Sriraman, an archaeologist with the ASI, said the murals were brilliant considering the fact that the possible use of true fresco technique provided the artists with very little time to execute and finish the murals.
The artists had to work in near dim conditions. They never had the distance to fall back to have a look at the figures to check the relative proportion.
“But when we analysed the paintings digitally and in the large format reproductions, the proportion of individual figures and ensemble of figures is near perfect,” he said.
Celebration on September 25th 2010
Thanjavur town reverberated with dance and music as the millennium celebrations of the Big Temple kicked off with gaiety on Wednesday the 22nd of September 2010.
Hundreds of people thronged venues like Sivaganga Park, Karanthai Thamizh Sangam, Raja Rajan Mani Mandapam, Tholkappiar Arangam and the Old Housing Unit besides the Big Temple, to relish the folk dances and classical music. Union Minister S.S.Palani Manickam and State Co-operation Minister Ko.Si.Mani, inaugurated the Thanjai Sangamam programmes at Karanthai Thamizh Sangam by beating the drum.
V. Irai Anbu, Secretary, Tourism, P. A. Mani, Commissioner of Art and culture, A.C.Mohandoss, Director, Tourism and M.S.Shanmugham, District Collector, were present on the occasion.
Spellbound performances
The opening of the gala event was followed by Poikkal Kuthiraiyattam by Nadi Rao and party. Subsequently, Mayilattam, Kavadiyattam, Kummi and other folk dances cast a spell on the audiences .
Raja Raja Cholan who had built the temple patronised artistes. According to an epigraph, there were 640 selected dancers who performed in the temple during the King’s period . The temple also has 108 karna sculptures of Bharata Muni.
At the beautifully illuminated Big Temple, the programmes started with Karagattam by Thenmozhi Rajendran party. Thamizhisai by ‘Sirkazhi’ Siva Chidambaram followed the Karagattam.
Array of programmes
Starting with “Thirumudi Sootiduvom, Thamizh Thaikku” and Sivachidambram enthralled the audience with the popular song from film Raja Raja Cholan, “Thanjai Periya Koil Pallandu Vazhgave” which was sung by his father Sirkazhi Govindarajan in the film. Dance by “Thirunagai” Narthangi Nataraj and vocal by Sudha Ragunathan left the audience spellbound.
S. N. M. Ubayathullah, State Commercial Taxes Minister, M.Rajendran, Vice-Chancellor, Tamil University, Babaji Rajah Bhonsle, senior prince and hereditary trustee of Palace devasthanam participated in the programmes.
People enjoyed the programmes in LED screens put up near the Elephant Mandapam, at the entrance of the temple and the car parking in front of it. Thappattam and Therukuthu went on at Sivaganga Park, while Kuravan Kurathi and Puliyattam went on at Raja Rajan Mani Mandapam.
Nayyandi melam and other programmes were performed at Tholkappiar Arangam and the Old Housing Unit.
The town wore a festive look with serial lights, festoons and decorations in many buildings.
The Dance Event
It was a challenge to make everyone feel that there were 1,000 dancers on the floor. After all, the event could make it to the Guinness book of records and had to be verifiable.
K.Sudhakar of Swathi Soft Solutions and S.B.Khanthan, director, had to meet the organising challenge. Now that the event is over, they have filed an application for the mammoth dance event, marking the completion of 1000 years of Brahadeeswarar Temple at Thanjavur, for listing as a Guinness achievement.
Here’s how the organising part was done: technical crew of Swathi Soft Solutions arrived 48 hours in advance with 9 cameras, two Jimmy jib cranes and fitting accessories to capture the excitement of 1,000 Bharatha Natyam virtuosos and to feed live web casting through www.kalakendra.com and www.kutcheribuzz.com as also for release as DVD. Vantage camera positions had been marked based on the floor map and dancers positions meticulously drawn by Dr Padma Subrahmanyam. Mock camera drills were conducted till 2 am on the previous night by S.Jayakumar, the chief videographer and his crew.
The task of assembling 1,000 dancers belonging to various dance schools across the globe two hours before the schedule start right on their respective positions was handled by ABHAI, Brahan Natyanjali and Dr Padma Subrahmanyam.
Stamp and Coin
The curtains came down on the five-day-long millennium celebration of the Big Temple here on Sunday the 26th September with Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi making a slew of announcements and the release of a special postal stamp and a five- rupee coin.
At a function held at the Armed Reserve Police training grounds here, the Chief Minister said that a paddy variety would be named as Rajarajan 1000. A number of infrastructure development schemes for Thanjavur would be taken up, including improvement of roads, widening of the Irwin Bridge and creation of wings in the Thanjavur Medical College-Hospital for trauma care and cancer treatment. Referring to the State government’s sanction of Rs. 25 crore for the schemes, Mr Karunanidhi said the Union government had also announced the sanction of Rs. 25 crore but the State government was yet to receive the amount. He wanted Union Ministers G.K. Vasan and V. Narayanaswamy to ensure that the funds were released.
Union Minister for Communications A. Raja handed over the first copy of the new stamp to Mr Vasan. Union Minister of State for Finance S.S. Palanimanickam presented the inaugural coin to Mr Narayanaswamy. Praising the greatness of the Chola emperor, Mr Karunanidhi said the administration of the emperor was famous for its elaborate system of land measurement and taxation. The proceeds collected through taxes were used for the welfare of people The Chief Minister presented 1,000 coins to Padma Subrahmanyam for the dance programme organised at the Big Temple on Saturday in which she and 1,000 dancers participated.
Sonia Gandhi has been re-elected the Congress chief for a record fourth time. She was re-elected unopposed. By doing so she will be setting several records in the history of the 125-year-old party, among them being the longest-serving incumbent. Her name was announced at a ceremony at the Congress headquarters in New Delhi on Friday the 3rd September 2010. She has been the Congress president since 1998, and is the seventh person of foreign origin to become the president of the Congress – a party formed to secure a greater share in governance for educated Indians.
Hard work and perseverance have negated a sea of hurdles.. From the very limited experience in the art of governance, she has eventually risen to the present position with the hope of realizing her late husband Rajiv Gandhi’s vision and in following the footsteps of her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi. Besides being in the office for 12 years, Sonia is also the Chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance which is into its second successive term. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi each held the post of Congress president-ship for only seven years.
Addressing the party workers after her re-election, Sonia said that it was a great responsibility. She thanked all Congress workers and said that whether they were in power or not they should always work for the oppressed.
The leaders who proposed her name included party chief ministers – Sheila Dikshit of Delhi, Ashok Gehlot of Rajasthan and Bhupinder Singh Hooda of Haryana – as also several senior leaders and ministers.
Gandhi has created a record for the longest tenure as Congress chief by steering the party since April 1998 when she replaced the late Sitaram Kesri. Only once she had to face a contest with senior leader Jitendra Prasada throwing his hat in the ring a decade back but she had defeated him.
Biography of Sonia Gandhi
Born into a family of modest means in an Italian village on the banks of a river in 1946, Sonia Maino, now Sonia Gandhi, has made waves in history by becoming the President of India’s century-old Congress party. Being the third woman of foreign origin to hold the prestigious post after Annie Beasant and Nelli Sengupta, Sonia Gandhi also became the fifth from the Nehru family to take over the Congress reins. The other four were Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. She also is the eighth person of the foreign origin to be the Congress president.
She officially took charge of the Congress party in 1998 and was elected to parliament in 1999. She was first elected as a Member of Parliament to the 13th Lok Sabha from the Amethi Parliamentary Constituency of Uttar Pradesh in 1999, getting 67% of the polled votes. She has been elected to the 14th Lok Sabha from the Rae Bareily Constituency of Uttar Pradesh. On 18 May 2004, after her Congress party won the Indian election, she was slated to become Prime Minister, but declined after fierce opposition and the promise of future turmoil from the defeated right wing
2004 General Elections
In the 2004 general elections, Gandhi launched a nationwide campaign, criss-crossing the country on the Aam Aadmi (ordinary man) slogan in contrast to the ‘India Shining’ slogan of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) alliance. She countered the BJP asking “Who is India Shining for?” In the election, she won by a large margin in the Rae Bareilly constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Following the unexpected defeat of the NDA, she was widely expected to be the next Prime Minister of India. On 16 May, she was unanimously chosen to lead a 15-party coalition government with the support of the left, which was subsequently named the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).
After the election result, the defeated NDA protested once against her ‘foreign origin’ and senior NDA leader Sushma Swaraj threatened to shave her head and “sleep on the ground”, among other things, should Sonia become prime minister. The NDA also claimed that there were legal reasons that barred her from the Prime Minister’s post. They pointed, in particular, to Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955, which they claimed implied ‘reciprocity’. This was contested by others and eventually the suits were dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.
A few days after the election, Gandhi appointed Manmohan Singh as prime minister. Her supporters compared it to the old Indian tradition of renunciation, while her opponents attacked it as a political stunt.
In a short span since she plunged into active politics before the mid-term Lok Sabha elections, Sonia in fact, had wrought a political miracle by becoming the dual chief of the 113 year old Indian National Congress and its Parliamentary party. In the process, Sonia Gandhi also emulated her husband, mother-in-law and grandfather-in-law—Rajiv, Indira and Nehru— who all held the two posts during their career.
Birth and Growth
Sonia Gandhi, nee Maino, was born in a place called Ovassanjo, 80 km away from Turin, on Dec. 9, 1946. Married into India’s best known family of Nehru-Gandhi in 1968, the 64-year-old Sonia Gandhi became a primary member of the Congress less than a year ago before the Calcutta Congress Plenary Session in August 1997. Since Rajiv’s death, Sonia had led a life of near recluse for six years but for her appearances at a few official functions. She touched many a heart when she poured out her (agony) at a public meeting a few years ago in Amethi about the delay in the probe of Rajiv assassination case.
Barring such veiled political statements, Sonia hid her emotions behind a thick veil of secrecy keeping observers guessing about whether she nursed political intentions at all. But fawning Congressmen, looking for a charismatic personality to lead the party to electoral success, kept sending their appeals to her to come and take over the party. After an excruciating spell of suspense, Sonia, who long remained something of an enigma to many, finally decided to campaign for the Congress in the just-concluded Lok Sabha electors and is credited by observers with preventing a doom for the party. Congress, which was forecast not to cross the double digit mark managed a tally of 141 seats, largely due to her charismatic presence during the campaign.
In fact, the top job of the Congress organisation was offered to her on a platter immediately after the death of her husband on May 21, 1991. But a grieving and reluctant Sonia declined the offer. Travelling the length and breadth of the country in a hurricane election tour, Sonia caught the imagination of the masses, by her emotional speeches in Hindi prepared in advance. Observers commented that Sonia successfully adopted her mother-in-law’s mannerism and style in warming her way to large crowds which had turned up at her election rallies. Sonia, whose Italian origin gave her opponents propaganda grist, became a full-fledged Indian citizen in 1984 after the death of Indira Gandhi.
Sonia met Rajiv Gandhi in Cambridge during 1960s when the former Prime Minister was studying at the famous British University. They were married in 1968 after three years of courtship which began in a Greek restaurant in the university town. The simple ceremony was held on Vasant Panchami day in February, the same day when Indira Gandhi married Feroze decades earlier. The wedding was a simple nondenominational ceremony in the garden of 1, Safdarjang Road. The new addition to the family became an instant favourite. Sonia and Indira became extremely fond of each other. It was a relationship that time would deepen still further.
Strange as it may sound now, Sonia had, in fact, shown aversion to politics for long. She detested politics and opposed her husband Rajiv entering it. Eventually, Rajiv resigned from Indian Airlines to join politics after Sanjay’s death in 1980. Now not only Sonia is in the thick of politics, but her children, Rahul and Priyanka, too are in great demand in the Congress circle for taking over the Youth Congress.
After the death of her husband Rajiv Gandhi and her refusal of becoming Prime Minister, the party settled on the choice of P. V. Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister. Over the next few years, the Congress fortunes continued to dwindle and it lost the 1996 elections. Several senior leaders such as Madhavrao Sindhia, Rajesh Pilot, Narayan Dutt Tiwari, Arjun Singh, Mamata Banerjee, G. K. Moopanar, P. Chidambaram, Jayanthi Natarajan were in open revolt against the incumbent President Sitaram Kesri and quit the party, splitting the Congress into many factions. In an effort to revive the party’s sagging fortunes, Sonia Gandhi joined the Congress Party as a primary member in the Calcutta Plenary Session in 1997 and became party leader in 1998.
She contested Lok Sabha elections from Bellary, Karnataka and Amethi, Uttar Pradesh in 1999. In Bellary she defeated veteran BJP leader, Sushma Swaraj. She was elected the Leader of the Opposition of the 13th Lok Sabha in 1999 during the regime of the BJP-led NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. As Leader of Opposition, she called a no-confidence motion against the NDA government led by Vajpayee in 2003.
In the 2004 general elections, Sonia Gandhi launched a nationwide campaign on the Aam Aadmi (ordinary man) slogan challenging the ‘India Shining’ slogan of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. She won the election by a large margin in the Rae Bareilly constituency in Uttar Pradesh. On 16 May 2004, she was unanimously chosen the leader of the United Progressive Alliance, a 15-party coalition government with the support of the left.
In March 2006, Sonia resigned from the Lok Sabha and also as chairperson of the National Advisory Council under the office-of-profit controversy. She was re-elected from her constituency Rae Bareilly in May 2006 by a huge margin of over 400,000 votes.
As chairperson of the National Advisory Committee and the UPA chairperson, she played an important role in making the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Right to Information Act into law. She addressed the United Nations on 2 October 2007on the occasion of international day of non-violence coinciding the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. Under her leadership, the Congress-led-UPA returned to a near majority in the 2009 general elections with Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister. The congress party’s unique achievements and promotions in the uplift of the millions of downtrodden Indians and in nurturing the nation to become an economically powerful country in south-east Asia are attributable to the able and determined leadership of incumbent president Sonia Gandhi. May the vision of the former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and his fore-fathers be realized with the bless of god under Sonia’s leadership.
The Foreign Presidents
Sixty-three-year-old Sonia Gandhi, who settled in India after marrying Nehru family scion Rajiv Gandhi in 1968, is the first person of foreign origin to become the Congress chief since Independence.
Though Alan Octavio Hume, a Scotsman, had founded the Congress in 1885, he did not become its president. Instead, W.C. Bonnerjee, a prominent lawyer and nationalist of what was then Calcutta, was elected the Congress president at its inaugural session in Bombay (now Mumbai).
George Yule became the first foreigner to become the Congress president at its 1888 Allahabad session.
The other foreigners who have held the top post during the freedom struggle were William Wedderburn (1889-Mumbai session), Alfred Webb (1894-Chennai session), Henry Cotton (1904-Mumbai), Annie Besant (1917-Kolkata) and Nalini (Nellie) Sen Gupta (1933-Kolkata).
While the other six foreign-born Congress chiefs were British, Sonia Gandhi is the first Italian-born to hold the post. Sarojini Naidu became the first Indian woman to assume the post at the 1925 Kanpur session.
Sonia Gandhi’s mother-in-law and former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi first became the Congress chief in 1960, when her father Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister. She assumed the post again in 1978, when the Congress was in the opposition. She continued in the post till her assassination in 1984.
Indira Gandhi set the trend in 1980 of the prime minister also being the Congress chief, which continued during the tenures of prime ministers Rajiv Gandhi and P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Sonia is the fifth member of the Nehru-Gandhi family to become the Congress president, and belongs to the fourth generation of the family to hold the post.
Rajiv Gandhi’s great grandfather and eminent lawyer Motilal Nehru was the first from the Nehru family to be elected to the party chief’s post at the Amritsar session in 1919. He again assumed the post in 1928 at the Kolkata session.
Motilal Nehru was succeeded by his son Jawaharlal Nehru at the 1929 Lahore session. Jawaharlal Nehru became Congress chief seven more times – 1930, 1936, 1937, 1946, 1951, 1953 and 1954.
Sonia Gandhi, who has been in office for 12 years, has already become the longest-serving Congress president. Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi each held the post for only seven years. However, Jawaharlal Nehru was elected to the post eight times.
“Sonia Gandhi’s importance in the Congress’ history should not be viewed only by the longevity of her career. She has held the post during crucial times and led the party very ably,” recalled 93-year-old K. Karunakaran, a special invitee to the Congress Working Committee and one of the oldest active Congress leaders. “She defended the Congress against the National Democratic Alliance government for six years and brought the party back to power at the centre, that too, without compromising on the party’s principles,” Karunakaran told.
Initiating long-pending reforms in the selection process for the elite all-India services like the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS), the Government has decided to introduce an aptitude test at the preliminary examination level while doing away with the assessment on the optional subjects.
The Civil Services Aptitude Test, which will be common for all candidates, would be introduced from 2011, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Prithviraj Chavan said on 25.09.2010 in an interaction with The Indian Express journalists at the ‘Idea Exchange’ programme in New Delhi.
“We have taken a decision that we will drop the 23 optional subjects at the preliminary stage and substitute that with a common aptitude test that will assess the reasoning ability of the candidates,” Chavan said. “There will be a test for minimal English language skills as well — of Class X level,” he said.
In the existing system, the candidates have to sit for a test of general studies — which is common to all — and another on their elective subject. Both consist of objective type questions. Marks obtained in the optional subjects are normalised on a common standard so as to provide a level playing field for all candidates.
Since the candidates are assessed in detail on the elective subjects in the main examination, it was decided to replace the optionals at the preliminary stage with an aptitude test that will judge the candidates’ decision making skills and aptitude for a demanding career in civil services. The new process would also do away with the need for normalisation since every candidate will have to answer the same question paper.
The main examination will remain unchanged as of now.
“The new system will bring in further objectivity into the examinations,” Chavan said.
The Ayodhya issue is a political, historical and socio-religious debate. The controversial issue of Ram Janambhoomi and Babri Masjid has always been a big influence on Indian politics for several decades.
The main issues revolve around access to the birthplace of the Hindu God Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
The tension started with the Mughal emperor Babur, who entered India after defeating Hindu King Rana Sangram Singh in 1527. Babur made his General Mir Banki in-charge of the area. Banki visited Ayodhya in 1528 and reportedly built a mosque destroying a Hindu Temple.
The first Hindu-Muslim riot broke out over the issue in 1853 during British Rule. Following the clashes, the then British Government erected fences around the place to divide the Hindu-Muslim worship area. Muslims were allowed to offer prayers in the inner part of the mosque and Hindus to worship outer side of the disputed construction.
In the year 1949, both the communities moved the Court claiming ownership of the land. Later, the Faizabad District Magistrate declared the place as disputed land and locked the main door of Babri Masjid.
On January 16, 1950, one Gopalsingh Visharad filed a petition in Faizabad District Court seeking rights for Hindus to visit their Lord and offer pujas to Rama.
In a retaliating suit, the Babri Masjid side also filed a petition on February 21, 1950, claiming that the land should be handed over to Muslims because structure was built by Babur’s General Mir Banki in 1528. The furious Hindus held massive demonstrations outside the Court against the petition.
In the year 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara had filed a claim petition in the Court and requested transfer of land from the receiver.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) formed a committee to build Ram Temple at disputed place in Ayodhya in 1984. Later on February 1, 1986, the Court granted permission to Hindus to offer pujas at Babri masjid on a petition filed by one Umesh Chandra Pandey.
The judge ruled that the temple be opened for unrestrained Hindu worship. Subsequently, the Vishwa Hindu Parihad started a nationwide campaign for the replacement of the existing mosque-turned temple with a proper temple structure.
Just after the Court’s verdict in favour of Hindus, the Muslim community formed Babri Masjid Sangharsh Samiti to fight for the place.
The Ayodhya issue was intensified in 1989 following the VHP’s move to lay down foundation stone for Ram Temple at the controversial monument on November 11, 1989.
In the year 1990, the then Prime Minister Mr. Chandrashekhar tried to find out the solution through dialogue but the outcome was zilch.
On December 6, 1992 the Babri Masjid structure was demolished by karsevaks, despite a commitment by the government to the Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people were killed in the riots following the demolition.
On December 16, 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of Babri structure. It is the longest running commission in India’s history with 48 extensions granted by various governments.
In 1994, the Apex Court directed acquisition of 70 acres of land at disputed place and maintained the status quo till the final decision is made on the ownership of the land. In his order, the Supreme Court stated that it would not be in favour of democracy if the land was given to a particular community without ownership decision.
On June 30, 2009, Liberhan Commission submitted its finding before the Prime Minister but the report has not been made public yet.
On 23 November 2009 the Liberhan commission report was leaked to the media. The leaked report concluded that the demolition was planned by top leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
The hearing on the ownership of land was completed on July 25, 2010 and final verdict will be delivered by Special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on September 24, 2010.
Once again the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy has taken centre stage in the country. The debate over the ownership started off between Hindus and Muslims. State Governments have been on high alerts following the possible backlash after the verdict.
On the other hand, religious leaders once again swing into the action to take the mileage. In this series, former BJP leader Kalyan Singh visited the Ayodhya on September 16, 2010 along with 200 supporters.
The Central government also made an appeal to maintain calm and peace after the verdict. In its appeal government said that the verdict will not be final it will be one step forward to find out the permanent solution to the dispute.
Considering the sensitivity of Verdict, the Special Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has called counsels of the both party to find out any possibility of amicable solution into the matter on September 17 2010.
In the lieu with past examples of Hindu-Muslim communal harmony, the High Court is hopeful about an out-of-court settlement to set another example of unity.
What are these title suits about?
The Lucknow High Court will rule on four title suits on 24.09.2010. The first suit was filed sixty years ago, on January 16, 1950, by Gopal Singh Visharad, asking for the right to worship. The court restrained the removal of idols, and allowed the worship to continue. The State of UP appealed against the injunction on April 24, 1950. In 1950, Ramchandra Paramhans filed another suit, but this was withdrawn later. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara entered the fray and filed the third suit, asking for possession of the spot, doing away with the court-appointed receiver and claiming that it was the custodian for the spot at which Ram was supposedly born. On December 18, 1961, the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs moved in to claim possession. On July 1, 1989, another civil suit was filed in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession of the Masjid complex. All the four disputes were pending before a Faizabad court till 1989, but were later transferred on October 23, 1989, to a special bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Measures for Security
The government has decided to impose Section 144 of the CrPC (Prohibition of Assemblies and Processions) in the entire State on September 24, as a precautionary measure against untoward incidents that could arise after the Supreme Court verdict is delivered on the Ayodhya issue.
A high-level meeting of ministers, police and bureaucrats also decided to hold peace committee meets in sensitive areas on the day.
Home Minister’s Advice
Home minister P Chidambaram on Wednesday the 22nd September 2010 stepped in with calls for a more mature and a more balanced approach to the judgement of the Allahabad high court in the four Ayodhya title suits scheduled to be delivered on Friday the 24th September, 2010.
Addressing a press conference, the Home Minister said the parties to the suits as well as the general public and the media should reserve their opinions on the judgement and not make any hasty pronouncements. “While the parties to the suits study the judgement and ponder over the next steps, I would appeal to the general public to receive the verdict of the court as the culmination of the legal process that deserves our respect and acceptance.”
There is concern in the government that forces on both sides of the religious aisle could use the “easy-to-offend” types in both communities to foment trouble over the judgement. The verdict presents a tricky situation for the Centre and Forces associated with the issue for a variety of reasons.
In the event of the verdict going in favour of those favouring a Mandir, they would immediately demand permission to construct the Ram temple. A major impediment in this will be the fact that 67 acres around the disputed site is in the possession of the Union government.
The temple advocates could pile up pressure on the government to enact a Law to hand over the acquired land to the temple trust. But this is certain to be contested by Muslims.
In the event of the verdict favouring the Masjid votaries, there would be calls to immediately correct a ‘historic wrong’ and hand over the site to the Babri committee. As the next legal step is available to the losing party, the latter is sure to approach the higher judiciary for relief.
Any intervention that would delay the transfer of the land is certain to provide an opening to community members to invoke ‘victimhood politics’ — despite the court’s order, justice was being denied to them.
Realising the challenge posed by the verdict fallout, Mr Chidambaram said that it would be inappropriate to reach any hasty conclusion that one side has won or that the other side has lost.
“It would be reasonable to assume that one or both sides would immediately apply to the special bench of the high court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issues that either side may think have been decided against it.
Article 134 (A) of the Constitution allows a party aggrieved to make an oral application in this regard immediately after the passing of the judgement,” the home minister said.
Plea for deferment of case
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, one of the litigants in the Ayodhya land title dispute case approached the Supreme Court for deferment of the high court decision. A three judge bench of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had on September 17 dismissed Tripathi’s application for deferring the verdict, scheduled for September 24, holding that the same lacks cogent and substantial grounds and also imposed a Rs. 50,000/- cost on him.
Petitioner’s counsel Sunil Jain in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court argued that the decision pertaining to the Ayodhya land title dispute needs to be deferred in view of the impending Commonwealth games and the security implications it may pose. The petition also states that parties to the dispute must be given some more time to arrive at an amicable solution. Further arguing that the Uttar Pradesh government has not been given the required central forces as requested, Jain contended that this can result in the State government’s inability to control any untoward incident or violence post decision of the High Court.
Inviting the Court’s attention to the dissenting judgement by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma of the three judge bench at the High Court the petition argued that the case must be seen in the light that the order of the High Court lacked consensus. On the point of cost imposed on Tripathi, it has been argued that in the dissenting opinion the Judge clearly stated that “There is no provision under the law through which a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- can be imposed for making the application to relegate the matter for mediation under section 89 Civil Procedure Code”.
Justice Altamas Kabir however refused to hear the matter on the ground that the assigned roster does not allow his bench to hear the petition. Justice Kabir stated that it was for the Registrar with the permission of the Chief Justice to assign an appropriate bench to hear the case. Justice Kabir stated, “I am not entitled to determine civil suits as per the roster”.
The Verdict was slated on 24.09.2010
The verdict is awaited for September 24th, 2010. Over a lakh uniformed men have been brought in to police every corner of Ayodhya , Faizabad , Lucknow and 19 other sensitive areas in the State. The High Court will decide that day on whom the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land belongs to? And was the Masjid built over a temple? It’s been one of India’s most divisive and sensitive disputes.
Not wanting to take any chances the Mayavathi government has banned all peace rallies – protest rallies and distribution of sweets post the verdict. Entry into the premises of the Lucknow High Court where the verdict will be delivered on 24.09.2010 has been restricted – the registrar has asked lawyers who don’t have a case on the 24th September 2010 not to come to High Court. Not just that, security for the three judges who will read out the historic Babri verdict has been doubled.
Rumour mongering – a big worry for the State government has been taken care of by the Center. Mass SMS’ and MMS have been banned till the 27.09.2010 across the country. While Home Minister P Chidambaram has asked all Governments of all the States to be on high alert, the Karnataka Government has gone a step ahead ordering all schools to be shut on the 24th and 25th September, 2010. These two days will also be dry days in the State.
If the verdict goes in favour of Babri mosque, it will definitely hurt Hindus sentiments. Muslims will feel the heat of partiality if it goes against them.
It seems no conclusion of this dispute in the both circumstances. However, meeting and discussion are on to douse the fire calmly but it will be important to see next development after the court verdict.
SC stays Ayodhya title suit verdict for one week – 23.09.2010
The Supreme Court on 23.09.2010 stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court on 24.09.2010 and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next 28.09.2010.
The Court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60—year—old Ram Janambhoomi—Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.
Tripathi, in his plea before the apex court, claimed that the verdict might disturb communal harmony and lead to violence in the country. In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in “public interest” in view of the apprehension of communal flare up, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal—hit states. The petition had feared that there would be inadequate security personnel in Uttar Pradesh to provide security.
Chief Justice to head bench on plea to defer Ayodhya verdict – 25.09.2010
A three judge bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia will on 28.09.2010 decide the fate of the special leave petition seeking deferment of the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit. Besides the Chief Justice, the bench would include Justices Aftab Alam and K.S. Radhakrishnan. The matter has been listed as the first item on the agenda at 10.30 a.m on 28.09.2010. The court had also asked Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati to be present and assist the Supreme Court.
The special hearing on 28.09.2010 assumed considerable importance in view of the fact that one of the three judges of the Ayodhya bench in Lucknow — Justice D.V. Sharma — is due to demit office on October 1, 2010.
CJI replaces Justice Kumar with Justice Aftab Alam for Ayodhya Case -26.09.2010
CJI S H Kapadia heads the Bench in Supreme Court Number 1 of Supreme Court, also known as Chief Justice’s Court, and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar sit with him almost regularly.
But, with the Apex Court due to hear the Ayodhya matter which can have repercussions for Hindu-Muslim equations, the CJI appears to have put into practice the oft-recited adage — “justice should not only be done, but also appear to be done” — and drafted in Justice Aftab Alam in place of Justice Kumar for the crucial hearing on 28.09.2010.
Supreme Court stay goes; High Court to deliver Judgement on Sep, 30 2010
The Allahabad High Court verdict in Babri Masjid-Ramjanma Bhoomi title suit will be pronounced on September 30, 2010 at 3.30 pm. The three-member bench decided to deliver judgment after the Supreme Court rejected the application of one of the defendants Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for the deferment of verdict in case on 28.09.2010. The Supreme Court lifting the stay on the verdict granted on September 23, 2010 cleared the decks for the High Court the judgment. With three days left for the retirement of Justice Sharma, the court has now decided to deliver the verdict on September 30, 2010.
Ayodhya land to be divided into three parts – Allahabad High Court – 30.09.2010
A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court on 30.09.2010 ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple was built after razing the Babri mosque in 1992 was Lord Ram’s birthplace.
However, it ruled that the land be split among three contesting parties equally. Justices S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma delivered a split verdict in 60-year old Ayodhya title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The majority of the bench ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya was a joint property, held by all the three claimants namely Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Waqf Board.
The majority also ruled that the central dome of the disputed structure, where idols of Lord Ram are presently kept in the makeshift temple, be allotted to Hindus. Justice Khan ruled that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple, but on the ruins of a temple.
Justice Sharma categorically rejected the claim of Sunni Central Waqf Board and has ruled that the ‘disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama’.
However, the entire bench was of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque. The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.
The judges said that none of the litigants would take any action on the land for the next three months.
Lawyers K N Bhat and Ravi Shankar Prasad, who represented two of the Hindu litigants, announced to reporters that the bench had decided that Lord Ram was born where the Babri mosque was built.
“All the three judges, including S U Khan, are unanimous in accepting that the idol of Ram cannot be removed from the place where it is installed right now,” said lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad in Lucknow after the court verdict.
The bench invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land.
The bench delivered the verdict in Court No 21, where entry of only 47 persons including the litigants and their counsels was allowed. The High Court had been totally fortified. Uttar Pradesh almost came to a virtual halt at 3.30 p.m., when the historical judgment was being delivered.
What the Judges said:
Justice S U Khan
“Disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belong to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque, but it was constructed on the ruins of the temple or some of its material was used in the construction of the mosque.”
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
“It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janma Sthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiff- Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman. and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants, Rajendra Singh and others.”
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
“The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Rama. Disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain, but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The ASI has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949.”
Muslim groups disappointed
Muslim groups on 30.09.2010 reacted with disappointment to the dismissal of the Sunni Central Waqf Board (SCWB) suit and the three-way division of disputed land ordered by the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya title suits.
SCWB lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said the Board, the main litigant on behalf of Muslims, will appeal against the decision in the Supreme Court: “The High Court’s formula of one-third land is not acceptable to the Waqf Board and it will go to the Supreme Court.”
He, however, added that the matter would come to a “full stop” with Muslims accepting the decision once the apex court gave its final verdict. He also said he was gladdened by the mature and calm response of the people to the verdict. “What is important is that we as a nation have matured. This reflects the faith of the people in the Constitution.”
Hindu Mahasabha to challenge ruling
The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the early litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, on 30.09.2010 said it would challenge the Allahabad High Court order to divide the “Ramjanambhoomi” land in three parts.
“We have decided to challenge the decision to divide the Ramjanambhoomi land in three parts”, said State president of ABHM Kamlesh Tiwari. “Our fight for the Ramjanmbhoomi was acknowledged by the entire bench unanimously”, he said.
He said the legal battle was initiated by Mahasabha president of Faizabad Gopal Singh Visharad in Janauary 16, 1950.
The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is the official document that outlines the fundamental laws and the structure of government in the island nation of Sri Lanka. This is Sri Lanka’s second republican constitution and was promulgated in its original form on 7th of September 1978 by the National State Assembly.
September 8th 2010
Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution
The Sri Lankan Parliament this week voted to approve a constitutional amendment, the Eighteenth Amendment that removes the two term limit on the presidency and authorizes the President to appoint the chairs and members of several key independent commissions, judges, and other government officials.
Article 30 of the Sri Lankan Constitution sets the presidential term at six years, but Article 31 limits a president to two terms. The Eighteenth Amendment lifts that limit and allows a president to run for an indefinite number of six-year terms.
The government’s press release says that the change “will enhance the people’s franchise and give the people a wider choice in the election of a President.
The Amendment also empowers the president to appoint the chairs and members of an array of independent commissions, judges, and other government officials. The Amendment abolishes the Constitutional Council, a ten-member body created under the Seventeenth Amendment and comprised of members appointed by both the President and leaders in Parliament (including opposition members and a minor party member). Under the Seventeenth Amendment, the President was empowered to appoint independent commission chairs and members, judges, and certain other officials only upon the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
The Eighteenth Amendment replaces the old Constitutional Council with a new Parliamentary Council, consisting of five members of Parliament (with only two opposition members). Under the Eighteenth Amendment the President alone is empowered to appoint independent commission chairs and members, judges, and certain other officials, but “in making such appointments, the President shall seek the observations of the Parliamentary Council.”
The Eighteenth Amendment also requires the President to attend Parliament once every three months. Under the old Article 32, the President had “the right at any time to attend Parliament.”
The Amendment comes in the wake of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s 18-point re-election victory in January. The Amendment will allow President Rajapaksa to run for a third term in 2016. The BBC has more on the politics behind the Amendment.
History of the Constitution
When the UNP came to power in July 1977 with a five-sixths majority, the second amendment to the 1972 Constitution was passed on 4 October 1977 to bring in the Executive Presidency, and Mr. J. R. Jayewardene, the then Prime Minister, became the first Executive President on 4 February 1978. Before the 1977 General Election the UNP also sought a mandate from the people to adopt a new Constitution. A Select Committee was appointed to consider the revision of the Constitution. The new Constitution, promulgated on the 7th of September 1978, provided for a unicameral Parliament with legislative power and an Executive President. The term of office of the President and of Parliament is six years. It also introduced a form of multi-member proportional representation as the electoral system. The Parliament was to consist of 196 Members, but this was later increased to 225 by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Constitution provided for an independent Judiciary and guaranteed Fundamental Rights, providing for any aggrieved person to invoke the Supreme Court for any violation of his or her fundamental rights. The Constitution also provided for a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) who could investigate public grievances against Government Institutions and State officers and give redress. It also introduced anti-defection laws, and referendums on certain bills and on issues of national importance.
Constitutional Amendments
Amendment
Date
Subject
First
20.11.1978
Dealing with jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
Second
26.02.1979
Dealing with resignations and expulsion of Members of the First Parliament
Third
27.08.1982
To enable the President to seek re-election after 4years; vacation of office of President
Fourth
23.12.1982
Extension of term of First Parliament
Fifth
25.02.1983
To provide for by-election when a vacancy is not filled by the party
Sixth
08.08.1983
Prohibition against violation of territorial integrity
Seventh
04.10.1983
Dealing with Commissioners of the High Court and the creation of Kilinochchi District
Eighth
06.03.1984
Appointment of President’s Counsel
Ninth
24.08.1984
Relating to public officers qualified to contest elections
Tenth
06.08.1986
To repeal section requiring two-thirds majority for Proclamation under Public Security Ordinance
Eleventh
06.05.1987
To provide for a Fiscal for the whole Island; also relating to sittings of the Court of Appeal
Twelfth
(Not enacted)
Thirteenth
14.11.1987
To make Tamil an official language and English a link Language, and for the establishment of Provincial Councils
Fourteenth
24.05.1988
Extension of immunity of President; increase of number of Members to 225; validity of Referendum; appointment of Delimitation Commission for the division of electoral districts into zones; proportional representation and the cut-off point to be 1/8th of the total polled; apportionment of the 29 National List Members
Fifteenth
17.12.1988
to repeal Article 96A to eliminate zones and to reduce the cut-off point to 1/20th
Sixteenth
17.12.1988
to make provision for Sinhala and Tamil to be Languages of Administration and Legislation
Seventeenth
03.10.2001
to make provisions for the Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions
Eighteenth
08.09.2010
to remove the sentence that mentioned the limit of the re-election of the President and to propose the appointment of a parliamentary council that decides the appointment of independent posts like commissioners of election, human rights, and Supreme Court judges.
September 2010
Sri Lanka’s 1978 constitution is much maligned for it was seen as the root cause of the island’s many problems, social and political. It created an all powerful executive presidency which had no parallels. The Sri Lankan President has no peers when it comes to the powers he/she enjoys. It is the president’s prerogative to appoint judges, personnel to head all key institutions. He also has the power to dissolve the parliament by dismissing governments. No court can institute action against the president.
The move of incumbent Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking to repeal the Article 31 (2) of the constitution to pave the way for his third-term election sparks controversy in the country. The article stipulates: “No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the people shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the people.”
The president’s immense powers were reflected in the statement of Junius Jayawardene, the creator of the system, which said as President of the Republic, the only thing remained beyond him was the capability to convert a man to a woman and vice versa.
Rajapaksa has achieved what none of his predecessors did – ending the 30 year-old military campaign of the Tamil Tiger rebels to set up a separate state in the north and east regions. He was elected for his second term with a resounding 60 percent of the vote. He won the hearts of the majority Sinhalese who for reasons of sheer nationalism voted for the man whom they claimed liberated them from the clutches of terrorism and unified the Sinhala nation.
Ranil Wickremesinghe, the main opposition leader claims Rajapaksa had no mandate for a change. He claims that he did not get enough votes to change it and that what he tried to do now is to use defectors from other parties to vote for it.
Other people may have different opinions. Common people insist that the move is a good one. Ajith Nandalal, a fruit seller said that he supported the move to extend the term for the president.
Rajapaksa has become a cult political figure after his military success. His detractors point to the president’s desire to create a Rajapaksa dynasty.
The Rajapaksas waited in the sidelines as the Senanayake and Bandaranaike dynasties dominated the island’s politics since winning independence from Britain in 1948 until Jayawardene changed the pattern in 1977.
The popular president’s elder son Namal is already a key figure in the administration and the president’s three brothers, Chamal(parliamentary speaker), Basil (the powerful economic development minister) and Gotabhaya (defense secretary and the man credited for plotting the down fall of the Tiger rebels) are all figures of immense stature.
A senior minister Dallas Alahapperuma said that when Jayawardene became president he was 72 years old. Realistically there was no way for him to go beyond a second term. That was why there was only a two term limit.
Rajapaksa was 60 when he was first elected. He will be 72 when he completes his second term in 2016 and by Jayawardene’s precedent should look good for more terms beyond the two.
Rajapaksa is not the only successor of Jayawardene who took office on the strength of the pledge to abolish Jayawardene’s monstrous creation. But like Chandrika Kumaratunga before him, he chose to ignore the pledge once he found himself firmly in the saddle.
The 17th amendment (17A) adopted with cross party support in 2001 was a case in point. The constitutional council was empowered with the presidential prerogative to make the key appointments in the broader concept of depoliticizing the key institutions.
Rajapaksa ignored to implement the 17A throughout citing it was undermining his presidential authority. Purists saw it as the president’s discomfiture to stick to principals of good governance and accountability.
“The government should have implemented the 17A, which would create good governance and improve the rule of law in the country. Therefore this amendment would have an adverse impact on the country,” Newton Wickramasuriya, the chairman of the National Chamber of Industries said.
The Minister of Construction Wimal Weerawansa told reporters that the 18th amendment has eliminated room to topple the government. Weerawansa said the constitutional provisions which sought to weaken the government have now been laid to rest with the passage of the amendment on September 8.
The government’s defense of the amendment is mainly centered around economic development in the post conflict phase that the island is currently going through. “It is generally recognized that to accelerate development a fundamental requirement is a strong executive. That is an absolutely essential condition,” G. L. Peiris, the minister of External Affairs argued.
The Tamil and the Muslim minority have been generally supportive of the powerful presidency relatively better than their majority Sinhala counterparts. Minority leaders, particularly the Tamils used the powers to make demands which the Sinhalese presidents sometimes were obliged to fulfil.
The presidency had at least been able to confer the due status to the Tamil language. Jayawardene in the 1980s was able to legalize the official language status to Tamil.
The main Tamil party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) still stands to oppose 18A.
“It is very undemocratic and flawed in principle,” Suresh Premachandran, a senior TNA legislator claimed. The main Muslim party is in support. “We have risen to the occasion,” Rauff Hakem, leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress said.
The 1978 constitutional process and the 18A both have a thing in common — the lack of time allowed for public debate to weigh the pros and cons.
US Condemns Sri Lanka Constitutional Amendment
The United States on Saturday condemned Sri Lanka’s passage of a constitutional amendment granting the president new powers, saying it undermined democracy.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called on Mr. Rajapaksa’s government to take steps to strengthen independent institutions, increase transparency and promote national reconciliation.
The government argued the constitutional change was justified to give Mr. Rajapaksa time to build Sri Lanka’s economy after a long civil war with Tamil Tiger separatists.
Opposition and rights groups criticized the measure as a blow to democracy and a step toward dictatorship by Mr. Rajapaksa. Critics also accuse him of stifling dissent, jailing opponents and disregarding the rule of law as he holds an office with almost unchecked control of the government.
India’s most controversial dam project, the Narmada project, was first envisaged in 1940s by the country’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The dam was part of a vision of development articulated by Mr Nehru. The Narmada Dam Project is a large hydraulic engineering project involving the construction of a series of large irrigation and hydroelectric multi-purpose dams on the Narmada River in India. But several legal and logistical arguments between various Indian states delayed the announcement of the project until 1979. The multi-million dollar project involves the construction of some 3,200 small, medium and large dams on the Narmada river. The Narmada originates in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh and empties into the Arabian sea after flowing through Maharashtra and Gujarat states. Of the thirty large dams planned on river Narmada, Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) is the largest structure to be built. It has a proposed final height of 136.5 m (448 ft). The project will irrigate more than 18,000 km2 (6,900 sq mi), most of it in drought prone areas of Kutch and Saurashtra. Critics maintain that its negative environmental impacts outweigh its benefits. It has created discord between its government planners and the citizens group Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that mobilised tribal people, adivasis, farmers, environmentalists and human rights activists against the Sardar Sarovar Dam being built across the Narmada River, Gujarat, India.
Their mode of campaign includes hunger strikes and garnering support from noted film and art personalities (notably Bollywood film actor Aamir Khan). Narmada Bachao Andolan, together with its leading spokespersons Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, were the 1991 recipient of the Right Livelihood Award.
Controversy
The controversy over large dams on the River Narmada has come to symbolise the struggle for a just and equitable society in India. Shortly put, the Government’s plan is to build 30 large, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to harness the waters of the Narmada and its tributaries. The proponents of the dam claim that this plan would provide large amounts of water and electricity which are desperately required for the purposes of development.
The Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement), which is spearheading the protest, says the project will displace more than 200,000 people apart from damaging the fragile ecology of the region. NBA activists say the dams will submerge forest farmland, disrupt downstream fisheries and possibly inundate and salinate land along the canals, increasing the prospect of insect-borne diseases.
Some scientists have added to the debate saying the construction of large dams could cause earthquakes. They say that in a country as disorganised as India, it is likely that the necessary maintenance of these dams may suffer.
But those in favour of the project say that the project will supply water to 30m people and irrigate crops to feed another 20m people. In what was seen as a major victory for the anti-dam activists, the World Bank withdrew from the Narmada project in 1993.
Several other international financial institutions also pulled out citing human and environmental concerns. The construction of Sardar Sarovar dam itself was stopped soon afterwards.
Go ahead
However, in October 2000, the Indian Supreme Court gave a go-ahead for the construction of the dam. The court ruled that the height of the dam could be raised to 121.92 metres and no higher, until cleared by an environmental authority appointed to undertake the task. This is far below the proposed height of 130 metres, but higher than the 88 metres that the anti-dam activists want.
Opponents of the dam question the basic assumptions of the Narmada Valley Development Plan and believe that its planning is unjust and inequitous and the cost-benefit analysis is grossly inflated in favour of building the dams. They claim that the plans rest on untrue and unfounded assumptions of hydrology and seismicity of the area and the construction is causing large scale abuse of human rights and displacement of many poor and underprivileged communities. They also believe that water and energy can be provided to the people of the Narmada Valley, Gujarat and other regions through alternative technologies and planning processes which can be socially just and economically and environmentally sustainable. They claim that large numbers of poor and underprivileged communities (mostly tribals and dalits) are being dispossessed of their livelihood and even their ways of living to make way for dams being built
Large dams imply large budgets for related projects leading to large profits for a small group of people. A mass of research shows that even on purely technical grounds, large dams have been colossal failures. While they have delivered only a fraction of their purported benefits, they have had an extremely devastating effect on the riverine ecosystem and have rendered destitute large numbers of people (whose entire sustenance and modes of living are centered around the river). For no large dam in India has it been shown that the resettled people have been provided with just compensation and rehabilitation.
Critics say that Sardar Sarovar takes up over 80% of Gujarat’s irrigation budget but has only 1.6% of cultivable land in Kutch, 9% of cultivable land in Saurashtra and 20% cultivable land in North Gujarat in its command area. Moreover, these areas are at the tail-end of the command and would get water only after all the area along the canal path get their share of the water, and that too after 2020 AD. In summary, they fear that all available indicators suggest that these needy areas are never going to benefit from the Sardar Sarovar Project.
So as the anti-dam activists ponder their next move, the government has started again with construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam.
Reasons for the present unrest in Jammu and Kashmir
The immediate trigger for the current phase of protests was the death of 17-year-old Tufail Mattoo, who was killed by a tear gas canister which struck his head during a protest in Srinagar in June, 2010 against the Machhil fake encounter of April 30, 2010. Many observers have blamed his death — and the deaths of other young men since then — on the security forces lacking the training and means for non-lethal crowd control. Tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon are used all over the world in situations where protests turn violent but in India, live ammunition seems to be the first and only line of defence. Even tear gas canisters are so poorly designed here that they lead to fatalities.
Whatever the immediate cause, however, it is also safe to say that young Tufail died as a direct result of Machhil. Though the Army has arrested the soldiers responsible for the fake encounter, the only reason they had the nerve to commit such a heinous crime was because they were confident they would get away with it. And at the root of that confidence is Pathribal, the notorious fake encounter of 2000. The army officers involved in the kidnapping and murder of five Kashmiri civilians there continue to be at liberty despite being charge-sheeted by the CBI. The Ministry of Defence has refused to grant sanction for their prosecution and has taken the matter all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to ensure its men do not face trial. What was the message that went out as a result?
Had the Centre made an example of the rotten apples that have spoiled the reputation of the Army instead of protecting them all these years, the Machhil encounter might never have happened? Tufail would not be dead and angry mobs would not be attacking police stations and government buildings. Impunity for the few Army personnel has directly endangered the lives of all policemen and paramilitary personnel stationed in Kashmir. There is a lesson in this, surely, for those who say punishing the guilty will lower the morale of the security forces.
Criticism against AFSPA
Whatever is its logic, it is certain that the Armed Forces Special Protection Act (AFSPA) has long been regarded a heavy-handed law, one that allows the Army overweening powers and special immunity in areas that are deemed “disturbed”. Primarily intended for the Northeast when it was crafted in 1958, it was extended to Jammu and Kashmir in 1990. In both cases, the Law has been central to the region’s resentments.
Though it has long been contested as disproportionate and “draconian”, the Armed Forces and Defence Ministry have long objected to its withdrawal saying that the forces need that special cover to maintain control in volatile areas, and that taking it away could have serious security implications. On the other hand, there is unanimity in Kashmir that AFSPA should be relooked, given the new normal in the state, it’s clear investment in the electoral process and then waning of violence, and there were signs that this would be heeded, even through this new cycle of conflict in the Valley. The debate over the act continues but now, there is indication that AFSPA may be relaxed in six districts in Jammu and Kashmir — Srinagar, Ganderbal and Budgam, Jammu, Samba and Kathua (conveniently, NC and Congress bastions). This is not just a huge symbolic move, it will also compel Security forces to reorient their actions in the interiors of the State and make a visible difference in daily life.
However, now it all hinges on Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. He has received a tremendous boost, having demonstrated the Centre’s backing on a core demand — the question is whether he can channel this newfound political capital into keeping these regions secure. Imphal witnessed a round of extortions and separatist trouble, after AFSPA was withdrawn, and the Chief Minister looks hapless. Omar must be careful not to become another Ibobi, and end up proving the necessity of a harsh Act that no one really wants.
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) is supposed one of the most draconian pieces of legislation passed by Parliament. Under the Act, all security forces are given unbridled powers to carry out their operations once an area is declared ‘disturbed‘. Even a non-commissioned officer can shoot to kill based on the mere suspicion that it is necessary to do so to “maintain public order”.
The people of Jammu & Kashmir have been agitating for the past three months for withdrawal of the Act. Chief Minister of Jammu Omar, too, has stressed that AFSPA should be withdrawn from areas where it has not been used at all.
The Indian Defence Minister, Thiru Antony, however, is believed to have told the chief minister that the army has reservations against any amendment to or partial withdrawal of the AFSPA from the State.
The Act was imposed on Jammu & Kashmir at the height of the separatist terrorist movement. Now, as most places in the State have reported a drop in terrorist violence, the people are demanding its withdrawal. But others believe the State is still ’sensitive’ and withdrawing the Act will handicap the Army.
Passing of the Act
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) was passed on 11 September 1958 by the Parliament of India. It conferred special powers upon armed forces in what the language of the act calls “disturbed areas” in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.
The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 was an Act to enable certain special powers to be conferred upon members of the Armed Forces in the disturbed areas in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. “Armed forces” means the Military forces and the Air forces operating as land forces and includes any other Armed forces of the Union so operating.
Special powers of the Armed Forces
Section 4:
This section sets out the powers granted to the military stationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted to the commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer, only a jawan (private) does not have these powers. The Section allows the armed forces personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.
Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in a disturbed area,-
(a} if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of firearms, ammunition or explosive substances;
This means the army can shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4:-
(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses: acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used as a fire-arm or ammunition. To justify the invocation of this provision, the officer must be “of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order” and should give “such due warning as he may consider necessary”.
(b) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilized as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence;
This means the army can destroy property under section 4(b) if it is an arms dump, a fortified position or shelter from where armed attacks are made or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as a training camp or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.
(c) arrest, without warrant, any persons who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest;
This means the Army can arrest anyone without a warrant under section 4(c) who has committed, is suspected of having committed or of being about to commit, a cognizable offence and use any amount of force “necessary to effect the arrest”.
(d) enter and search, without warrant, any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongful restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawful kept in such premises, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary, and seize any such property, arms, ammunition or explosive substances;
Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search without a warrant to make an arrest or to recover any property, arms, ammunition or explosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the premises. This section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.
(e) stop, search and seize any vehicle or vessel reasonably suspected to be carrying any person who is a proclaimed offender, or any persons who has committed a non-cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a non-cognizable offence, or any person who is carrying any arms, ammunition or explosive substance believed to be unlawfully held by him, and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary to effect such stoppage, search or seizure, as the case may be.
Search and Seizure
Every person making a search under this Act shall have the power to break open the lock of any door, almirah, safe, box, cupboard, drawer, package or other thing, if the key thereof is withheld. Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act and every property, arms, ammunition or explosive substance or any vehicle or vessel seized under this Act, shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest, or as the case may be, occasioning the seizure of such property, arms, ammunition or explosive substance or any vehicle or vessel, as the case may be.
Protection of persons acting in good faith under this Act
No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.
Section 5: This section states that after the military has arrested someone under the AFSPA, they must hand that person over to the nearest police station with the “least possible delay”. There is no definition in the act of what constitutes the least possible delay. Some case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But since this provision has been interpreted as depending on the specifics circumstances of each case, there is no precise amount of time after which the section is violated.
Section 6: This section establishes that no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces acting under the AFSPA, without the permission of the Central Government.
Though human rights advocates term these provisions as draconian, one must consider the armed forces point of view as they have to actually operate on ground against trained and armed insurgents without any concern or protection of their own human rights. If we want our armed forces to operate effectively against armed insurgents, we as a nation are obliged to provide them with necessary wherewithals and constitutional support. This is exactly what has been catered through AFSPA by our national parliament.
Immunity of the Security Forces
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, which grants soldiers far-reaching powers to arrest and kill, has impunity scripted into it. In line with Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 6 of AFSPA prohibits the prosecution of a soldier accused of misusing its provisions unless the central government grants sanction.
In Kashmir, the Army brass has used this section to protect its men from going to trial even in incidents where they stand accused of heinous crimes such as the abduction and murder of unarmed civilians. In States like Manipur, so powerless have the civilian authorities become in the face of the Army presence that no one is even willing to take cognizance of serious crimes allegedly committed by soldiers.
In 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh promised the people of Manipur that he would seriously consider replacing AFSPA with a more humane law. He appointed a committee headed by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy to examine the functioning of the law; and the committee, noting the way in which the law was being abused, suggested its replacement by an amended version of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In the face of the Defence Ministry’s objections, however, the report was quietly shelved.
Now, in the wake of the resurgence of mass protest in the Kashmir valley, the central government has once again started making promises about amending AFSPA. The time to make these changes is now. Section 4 should be amended to explicitly incorporate the principles of necessity and proportionality and
Section 6 must be changed to allow for the prosecution of illegal acts in all cases except where the government is able to convince the courts otherwise. Expedient steps like taking some districts out of the ambit of “declared areas” just won’t do, it is felt.
13th September 2010
Cabinet Committee on Security is set to decide on the J&K government’s demand for partial withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Indications suggest that the political leadership is coming around to accept J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s demand for partial lifting of AFSPA, the Armed Forces are stating that the State government is trying to pass the buck to the Army to conceal its own failure. The Army’s argument already has support within the CCS with Defence minister A K Antony refusing to give in to persuasion by Home minister P Chidambaram who has been spearheading the move to withdraw or amend the law which the Army believes to be crucial for its operations in the troubled State. The Army has a sympathiser also in Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Army’s reservations have been conveyed to the Prime Minister by its Chief, General V K Singh, himself. Significantly, General Singh had earlier publicly complained about the political leadership frittering away the gains the armed forces have made in the fight against terror at a huge cost.
The key question before the CCS headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be whether to or not to withdraw the AFSPA from certain parts of the strife-torn Valley. It is a proposal backed by Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah as a confidence building measure after months of unrelenting protests in the Valley.
Do you think the time has come to withdraw the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from Jammu & Kashmir? Or will such an action lead to greater problems in the State?
September 2010
BJP holds dharnas in J&K to protest against autonomy
Pradesh BJP staged dharnas in 41 assembly constituencies of the State to protest against the demand for granting autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir terming it as a “dead issue”, as per a Jammu report.
BJP State President Shamsher Singh Manhas, along with party MLA Jugal Kishore Sharma, led protest dharna at Nagrota, which was attended by over 600 party activists from different parts of the constituency.
Speaking on the occasion Manhas said except for a handful of NC leaders, including its chief Farooq Abdullah and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, no one from any of the State’s three regions has uttered even a single word in favour of autonomy during all these years of Independence.
Since the NC-Congress combine has failed to come up to the expectations of the people and maintain law and order in the State, the NC leaders are now trying to divert the attention of people from the real problems confronting the State by talking about dead issues like autonomy, he alleged.
The BJP on 15th September 2010 put up a staunch opposition to any move to tinker with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and grant of autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. However, the party’s stance regarding the AFSPA drew support only from ally Shiv Sena and the Samajwadi Party. The party blamed Pakistan for violence in the Valley and sought a say for the Jammu and Ladakh regions while taking any decision to defuse the ongoing crisis.
Reflecting the seriousness with which the BJP takes the Kashmir issue, its top four leaders, L K Advani, Nitin Gadkari, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, attended the all-party meet. Having already made its stand clear, Gadkari minced no words in arguing that the BJP would oppose any move to partially withdraw or dilute the AFSPA. The party leaders also asked the government not to concede to demands for autonomy.
Sources said the BJP leaders argued that security forces including the Army have done an exemplary job in dealing with separatists and fighting terrorists. They contended that no decision should be taken under pressure which would demoralise the Forces.
Pak trying to exploit unrest in Kashmir: Army Chief
Pakistan is trying to take advantage of the unrest in Kashmir as indicated by a few infiltration attempts across the border, Army Chief General VK Singh said on 19.09.2010.
“There have been more attempts at infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir in the last two months. There could be some links (between the attempts and the situation in the border State). Pakistan is trying to exploit the situation,” said Gen Singh, who was in Chennai to review the passing out parade at the Officers’ Training Academy (OTA).
The army chief’s comments came a day after India asked Pakistan to take effective action against infiltration from across the Line of Control (LoC) and dismantle terror infrastructure as it is people of Jammu and Kashmir who suffer its consequences.
On the demand for dilution of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and its partial withdrawal from Kashmir, Gen Singh said as the Supreme Court observed, the provisions of AFSPA are neither arbitrary nor in violation of the Constitution of India. “We have told the Ministry of Defence whatever the army has to say and the matter is under the Government’s consideration,” he said.
Congress top body discusses Kashmir
The Congress Core Group on 17.09.2010 met at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s residence in New Delhi to discuss the present unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. The meeting is learnt to have discussed the current unrest in the Valley that has claimed nearly 70 lives since mid-June, 2010.
Ways to restore peace and normalcy in the Valley was reportedly explored during the meet.
The government has been trying hard to bring the situation under control as stone-pelting mobs continued to clash with security personnel routinely. There has been relative calm in the Valley since the past two days due to Eid celebrations on Saturday.
Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi were present at the meeting, as were Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, Home minister P Chidambaram and party’s president’s political secretary Ahmed Patel. Prithviraj Chavan, AICC in-charge of Jammu and Kashmir, and senior party leaders from the state Ghulam Nabi Azad and Saifuddin Soz also attended the meeting.
I am a fighter and will overcome this crisis – Omar Abdullah
On the eve of the all-party delegation’s visit to Kashmir, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on 19.09.2010 ruled out his resignation and hoped the controversial AFSPA would be removed from the entire State for which people should create conducive atmosphere of peace.
Removal of the AFSPA would be the first confidence building measure for the people of Kashmir by the Centre to demonstrate its sincerity and it could build on it to take further steps in future to resolve the problem, he said.
“I am not the one who shows his back when problems are there. I am a fighter and will overcome this crisis for the people who have voted me to power. Insha Allah we will overcome this soon,” he told in an interview.
J & K unrest: Death toll crosses 104 in 100 days – 19.09.2010
Death continues to be the only constant in the Kashmir Valley with the toll mounting to 104 over the last 100 days.
Home Minister to lead team, invite goes to Hurriyat as well
Home Minister P Chidambaram and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal will be part of the all-party delegation that will visit Jammu & Kashmir to assess the ground situation and gather views for inputs to the Centre on tackling the unrest in the Valley. The delegation is expected to commence its two-day visit from 20.09.2010.
While there will be an “open invitation” to all stakeholders to meet the delegation, official sources said that written invitations would be sent to over 30 leaders, including separatist leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umer Farooq.
Sources said Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee could also join the delegation, but it has not been finalised yet. All political parties have been asked to nominate one representative to the delegation.
Earlier, Congress president Sonia Gandhi held deliberations with senior party leaders on the modalities of the visit. Those present included Mukherjee, Chidambaram, A K Antony, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Prithviraj Chavan and PCC chief Saifuddin Soz.
All Party Delegation visit Jammu and Kashmir – 21.09.2010
With a thick security blanket in place to enforce curfew, a 39-member all-party delegation on 20.09.2010 began the task of assessing the situation in Kashmir by meeting representatives of political parties in Jammu and Kashmir.
Some of the delegates called on separatist leaders, including hardliner Syed Ali Geelani, and moderates like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Mohammad Yasin Malik.
The Mirwaiz, in a memorandum to the delegation, said: “Let the Government of India act on the suggestions given by the Kashmiris and facilitate to establish and empower an official body, a Kashmir Committee, consisting of senior representatives of all major Indian political parties to develop and enter into a process of engagement with the representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Let this process be transparently designed to deliver a negotiated solution to the Kashmir issue that is mutually worked towards by and acceptable to all parties concerned.”
The delegation, headed by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, arrived Sri Nagar early in the morning and drove to the S.K. International Conference Centre (SKICC). Setting the tone for three-day deliberations, which will conclude in Jammu on 22.09.2010, Mr. Chidambaram told the visiting delegations that they were in Jammu and Kashmir to listen to their views and give them a patient hearing and reach out to the State people.
In a closed door session, leaders of the National Conference (NC), the Congress, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other smaller groups put forth their views on putting an end to the cycle of violence.
However, informed sources said most of the participants largely spoke about the resolution of the Kashmir issue and reaching out to the victims of excesses in the past three months.
State Finance Minister Abdur Rahim Rather, who headed the NC delegation, said: “We stressed on the restoration of autonomy as permanent solution to the Kashmir problem and also demanded that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act be withdrawn and a dialogue process initiated. We did not expect immediate results.” He said the NC would not reconsider its alliance with the Congress.
Pradesh Congress Committee chief Saifuddin Soz led the party delegation. “We stressed upon the unity of the State, which cannot be compromised at all. We also asked the all-party delegation to reach out to civil society in order to get the real feel of the situation,” he said.
The PDP delegation was led by its general secretary, Mohammad Dillawar Mir. Its senior leader and MLA, Nizamuddin Bhat, said the party was shocked as they could not get adequate time to express their ideas. “We only got 15 minutes and that was not enough.”
The PDP was even thinking of not meeting the all-party delegation as the government had “declared war on its own people by imposing 72-hour long curfew,” but “since we were part of a decision taken about it in Delhi, we were morally bound to come here.”
CPI(M) State secretary Y. Tarigami told the delegates: “The current crisis is the manifestation of aggregation of failed political approaches to resolve the basic problem. There has been failure to develop and evolve a sustainable, result-oriented dialogue process, debates and discussions aimed at resolving the main problem rather than dealing with its offshoots.”
Mr. Tarigami reminded Mr. Chidambaram of his various statements, including the one in which the latter termed Kashmir a “unique problem, which requires a unique solution.” He told the Minister that his statement needed to be implemented in letter and in spirit. “This approach needs to be carried forward and strengthened.”
“Cutting across the party lines and their respective positions vis-à-vis the Kashmir problem, Parliament is expected to address the Kashmir issue with the utmost seriousness. There could be difference of opinion, but that does not denote that Kashmir can be made a battleground for the conflicting political ideology at the cost of Kashmiris’ genuine political aspirations,” he added.
Centre unveils 8 point formula for Kashmir – 26.09.2010
The Centre will appoint a group of interlocutors, under the chairmanship of an eminent person, to begin the process of sustained dialogue in Jammu and Kashmir with political parties, groups, students, civil society and other stakeholders.
The decision to begin the process of sustained dialogue was part of an eight-point initiative taken at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) in New Delhi on 25.10.2010. The meeting was chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Briefing journalists on the slew of measures finalised, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the decisions were based on the report submitted by him to the Prime Minister and the inputs of the all-party delegation that had visited Srinagar and Jammu on September 20 and 21.10.2010. Mr. Chidambaram had led the 39-member all-party delegation to the State.
In a step aimed at reaching out to the people of the State, the Centre would advise the Jammu and Kashmir government to release all students detained for stone-pelting and similar violations of law, and to withdraw all charges.
Mr. Chidambaram said the Centre would request the State government to immediately convene a meeting of the Unified Command to review deployment of security forces in the Kashmir Valley, especially in Srinagar, with particular reference to descaling those at bunkers and checkpoints in the city and other towns. He said the Unified Command would review notifications issued for disturbed areas.
Replying to a question, he said that withdrawal or dilution of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) was not discussed.
He said the government would grant an ex gratia of Rs. five lakh to the family of each of those killed in civil disturbances in Kashmir since June 11, 2010. He said the Centre would also advise the State government to review cases of all Public Safety Act (PSA) detenus and withdraw detention orders in appropriate cases.
Replying to a question, the Home Minister said there were 84 persons under judicial custody, 110 under police custody and 51 had been detained under the Public Safety Act since civil disturbances began in the Kashmir Valley in June. He said that 108 persons had lost their lives in civil disturbances.
The Centre would request the State government to take steps to immediately reopen all schools, colleges, and universities, hold special classes and ensure that examinations are conducted on schedule for the current academic year.
Mixed reactions from mainstream and separatist political parties – 26.09.2010
Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s announcement of an eight-point formula to defuse the crisis in Kashmir has evoked mixed reaction from mainstream and separatist political parties.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah welcomed the Centre’s decision to move towards finding a solution to the Kashmir problem. Four points concerned the State government and of that “we have already decided on one regarding opening of schools on 27.10.2010.” He said his government would take gradual steps to de-escalate the tension in the area.
“The Unified Headquarters will review areas under the Disturbed Areas Act but don’t expect results after the first meet, it will take time. We need to discuss how to reduce security forces’ footprint,” Mr. Abdullah said.
Opposition People’s Democratic Party’s senior leader Nizamuddin Bhat was cautious in responding to the announcement. “To address the current situation in Kashmir is a complex issue. We will have a look at the announcement and will discuss it within ourselves before making a response but one thing is clear that the thrust is to be given to minimising the trust deficit,” he said.
Senior NC leader and Law Minister Ali Muhammad Sagar said it was a good initiative especially the one on appointing interlocutors. “We hope that these interlocutors would meet separatist leadership and take forward the dialogue process for the peaceful resolution of Kashmir issue. Other announcements are also positive in nature,” he said.
Pradesh Congress Committee chief Saifuddin Soz too welcomed the appointment of interlocutors, saying it was a good beginning. “I have heard about the release of all students, reviewing the laws, and a package to the families who have lost their dear ones. This all has relieved me,” Professor Soz told.
Describing the eight-point package as mere ‘eye wash,’ Chairman of hard-line Hurriyat Syed Ali Shah Geelani said India was buying time. “None of our demands has been discussed.” “This is mere time-buying tactics adopted by India. We will not bow down to the economic packages by the New Delhi. Our youth did not sacrifice their lives for the economic packages,” said Mr. Geelani. He said the protests would continue “till India accepts Kashmir as an international dispute and other four conditions laid down by our party.”
On removing bunkers from Srinagar city, Mr. Geelani said this is was just a cosmetic measure which won’t help. “We want complete demilitarisation of Jammu and Kashmir and not cosmetic measures.”
Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman Yasin Malik said, “Our working committee will meet and discuss it threadbare and comment.”
Three interlocutors chosen for Jammu and Kashmir – 13.10.2010
Government on 13.10.2010 named three interlocutors, including eminent journalist Dilip Padgaonkar, to hold talks with all shades of opinion including the separatists in Jammu and Kashmir as part of efforts to bring peace in the state.
Besides Mr. Padgaonkar, Information Commissioner M.M. Ansari and noted academician Radha Kumar were the other two named by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram as interlocutors chosen in consultation with the state government.
Mr. Chidambaram said the three interlocutors are “very credible people” and they will begin work as early as possible. “We may add one more interlocutor later,” he said.
The decision to appoint a set of interlocutors was taken at the Cabinet Committee on Security meeting chaired by Prime Manmohan Singh on September 25, 2010.
The terms and references of the panel will be to hold talks all shades of opinion including mainstream political parties and separatists. The panel will cover views of all the three regions — Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir.
Radha Kumar, who heads the Nelson Mandela Institute of Peace in Jamia Milia Islamia, has been engaged in back-channel discussions with moderate Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani.
Recently, she was in the Valley and had met Geelani who was undergoing treatment in Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences in Srinagar.
Padgaonkar was part of Kashmir committee led by eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani.
Ansari, who was professor and Director at the Hamdard University, is an educationist and economist before moving as an Information Commissioner.
Two special task forces for Jammu, Ladakh constituted 13.10.2010
The Government has constituted two special task forces for Jammu and Ladakh regions to examine the allocations in terms of infrastructure needs and make suitable recommendations to overcome the deficiencies.
While Abhijit Sen, a Planning Commission member, will be leading a task force on Jammu, Narendra Jadhav, another Planning Commission member, will be the chairperson of the team on Ladakh, an official notification said on 12.10.2010.
It said the two task forces have been constituted keeping in view the immediate objectives to maintain peace and order and defuse the situation through confidence building measures.
The decision on forming of three task forces was taken at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on September 25, 2010.
The terms and references of the two task forces would be to identify the special development needs of the region and suggest measures to address them and to examine allocations to the regions in terms of infrastructure needs. They will make suitable recommendations to overcome the deficiencies.
The task forces have been given three months to submit their reports.
Besides Sen, the other members for Jammu task force are Joint Secretary, (Plan Finance-I), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Divisional Commissioner (Jammu), Dr Najeeb Jung, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University and Dr Amaresh Dubey, Prof of Economics, Centre for the Study of Regional Development, School of Social Sciences, JNU. Joint Secretary (Kashmir), Ministry of Home Affairs will be the Convenor.
Besides Jhadav, the task force on Ladakh will comprise Joint Secretary, (Plan Finance-II), Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Prof Akhtar Majeed, Director, Centre for Federal Studies and Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Hamdard University, Dr Navnita Chadha Behera, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi as members and Director (Kashmir), Ministry of Home Affairs as Convener.
The task forces may co-opt officers of the state government and such other officers of the Central and State Governments as and when necessary. They include Commissioner and Secretary to state government, Principal Secretary, Planning, Development and Ladakh Affairs and Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.
Those intending to become doctors and treat patients may soon have to clear a common exit test after getting the MBBS degree from medical colleges.
The regulating body, Medical Council of India (MCI), has given a statutory recommendation for a mandatory exit test, which is under active consideration of the health ministry, the Supreme Court was informed on 17.08.2010.
Considering the sensitive nature of the profession — dealing with life and death — and keeping in mind varying standards of education in medical colleges, MCI has proposed a common exit examination for MBBS pass-outs intending to become doctors and treat patients, Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told a Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale.
This recommendation of the MCI was to standardise the skills of doctors, said the regulatory body’s counsel senior advocate Amarendra Saran supplementing the arguments of the health ministry advanced through the SG.
This is in line with the decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) making it mandatory for law graduates to clear a test to be able to practice in courts.
Importantly, both Subramaniam and MCI counsel, senior advocate Amarendra Saran, informed the Bench that very soon a notification would be issued to put in place a single window admission test for filling post-graduate course seats in all private and government medical colleges from the next academic session (2011-12).
The Centre on Friday informed the Supreme Court that it supported the Medical Council of India’s proposal to have a common entrance test (CET) for admission to post graduate medical courses and that it wanted to notify it within a week.
This would ease the tension and trouble of thousands of students competing for few PG seats, for which they have to travel to different places to appear in entrance examinations for PG courses of different colleges. Clashing of the dates of examination used to add to the woes of the students. But, these will be a thing of past from next year, thanks to the common entrance test for PG seats in all private and government medical colleges.
However, the joint attempt of MCI and the government to push through the common admission test for MBBS courses in private and government medical colleges did not get the stamp of approval from the apex court, which said it could not do so without getting the responses from the state governments.
The reluctance of the Supreme Court stemmed from the fact that Tamil Nadu, which has a special law for the purpose which has already received President’s assent, had strongly objected to the common admission test for MBBS across the country.
The Bench said: “We do not know which all states will object to this and how the students, a volatile community, would react to this proposal. So, let the Centre put before us the proposal and we will seek the response of the state governments.”
The Solicitor General agreed and said though the health ministry was carrying out the task of achieving a consensus among the states for a single window admission test for MBBS courses in all medical colleges, it would be easier and expeditious if the apex court helped through the judicial process to achieve the goal that would benefit the entire community of students aspiring to be doctors.
Giving the Centre a week to place the proposal before it for issuance of notices to the state governments to elicit their response, the Bench said: “The courts have already contributed to a lot of problems and we do not want to contribute to this by giving a go-bye to the settled procedure.”
Senior counsel Amrender Saran, appearing for the Medical Council of India, said new rules and regulations for the CET had been put in place and they had been approved by the government. There would be centralised counselling after the CET and at the end of the course there would an exit test for doctors. The Bench directed the matter to be listed after a week.
The National Film Awards is the most prominent film award ceremony in India. Established in 1954, it is administrated by the Indian government’s Directorate of Film Festivals since 1973.
Every year, a national panel appointed by the government selects the winning entry, and the award ceremony is held in New Delhi, where the President of India gives away the awards. This is followed by the inauguration of the National Film Festival, where the award-winning films are screened for the public. Declared for films produced in the previous year across the country, they hold the distinction of awarding merit to the best of Indian cinema overall, as well as presenting awards for the best films in each region and language of the country. Due to the national scale of the National Film Awards, it is considered to be the equivalent of the American Academy Awards.
The 57th National Film Awards will be presented to the best of Indian cinema released during the year 2009. The 57th National Film Awards 2009 was announced on 15th September, 2010. The 57th National Film Awards is presented to the best of Indian Cinema released during the year 2009.
Eminent director Rituparno Ghosh was declared Best Director for Bengali film Abohomaan. The movie ‘Delhi 6? claimed the award for national integrity while Aamir Khan’s blockbuster ’3 Idiots’ won the national award in the most popular category. Malayalam film ‘Kutty Srank’ was declared Best Film while Well Done Abba clinched the award for Best film on social issues.
The awards has also been announced to the following:
Best Actor award Amitabh Bachchan adjudged as Best Actor for ‘Paa’
Best Actress award went in favour of Ananya Chatterjee for her role in Abohomaan.
Best Camerawork: Anjali Shukla.
Best Sound Engineer: Oscar winner Resul Pookutty
Best Supporting role (Male): Farooq Sheikh for the film Lahore
Best Supporting role (Female): Arundhati Naag for the film Paa
Best Playback singer (Male): Rupam Islam
Best Playback singer (Female): Niranjana Sarkar (Housefull)
Best Music: Dev D
Best lyrics: Swananad Kirkirey for the film 3 Idiots
Best Music Director: Amit Trivedi for the film Dev D
Best Child Film: Ottani Pati and Kesu
Best Child actor: Jiva and Anba Karasu
Best Music score: Illyaraza for Pazhassi Raja
Best Choreography: K Shivashankar for film Magadhira
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Tuesday announced a new agency – UN Women – headed by former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, to oversee all programmes aimed at promoting equality for women.
‘Ms. Bachelet brings to this critical position a history of dynamic global leadership, highly honed political skills and uncommon ability to create consensus and focus among UN agencies and many partners in both the public and private sector,’ Ban said at the UN headquarters in New York.
‘I’m confident that under her strong leadership, we can improve the lives of millions of women and girls throughout the world,’ Ban said of Chile’s first female head of state.
He said the creation of UN Women is the fruit of four years of effort to achieve one of his priorities as secretary-general.
The process to select the head of UN Women began shortly after the General Assembly approved the plan for the new agency in July 2009 and a 26-member selection committee proposed three candidates.
Ban chose Bachelet, who the committee unanimously endorsed, he said.
UN Women
UN Women, by amalgamating four United Nations agencies and offices, is to create a new single entity within the Organization to promote the rights and well-being of women worldwide and to work towards gender equality. It is set to become operational in January 2011 and will merge the UN Development Fund for Women, the Division for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues, and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women.
The agency’s status will be comparable to that of Unicef and Bachelet will hold the rank of deputy secretary-general.
The General Assembly adopted a resolution on 14.09.2010 on improving system-wide coherence within the UN, and the text spells out the support of Member States for a new consolidated body – to be headed by an under-secretary-general – to deal with issues concerning women.
The resolution means the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Division for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (UN-INSTRAW) will be merged.
In a statement issued today by his spokesperson, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was “particularly gratified” that the Assembly had accepted his proposal for “a more robust promotion” of women’s rights under the new entity.
“An important step has been made in strengthening the United Nations’ work in the area of gender equality and empowerment of women, as well as in ensuring the effective delivery of its operational activities for development, which constitutes the other key components of the resolution,” the statement noted.
Mr. Ban said in the statement that he had appointed more women to senior posts than at any other time in the history of the UN, including nine women to the rank of under-secretary-general. The number of women in senior posts has increased by 40 per cent under his tenure.
The Assembly’s resolution tasks Mr. Ban with providing Member States with a comprehensive proposal outlining the mission statement, structure, funding and oversight of the new entity so that it can be created as soon as possible.
The resolution also calls for greater measures to harmonize business practices within the UN development system, ways to improve the funding system for such activities, and other steps to streamline practices within the world body.
After the resolution, UNIFEM – which currently operates in autonomous association with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) – issued a statement welcoming “the unanimous strong support” among Member States, which follow three years of extensive consultations on the structure and operational details of the new body.
“UNIFEM trusts that deliberations can resume soon ensuring an informed and swift establishment of the composite entity,” the statement said.
A storm (from Proto-Germanic *sturmaz “noise, tumult”) is any disturbed state of an astronomical body’s atmosphere, especially affecting its surface, and strongly implying severe weather. It may be marked by strong wind, thunder and lightning (a thunderstorm), heavy precipitation, such as ice (ice storm), or wind transporting some substance through the atmosphere (as in a dust storm, snowstorm, hailstorm, etc).
Storms are created when a center of low pressure develops, with a system of high pressure surrounding it. This combination of opposing forces can create winds and result in the formation of storm clouds, such as the cumulonimbus. Small, localized areas of low pressure can form from hot air rising off hot ground, resulting in smaller disturbances such as dust devils and whirlwinds.
Storms are disturbances of the atmosphere, accompanied by strong winds and often by some form of precipitation such as rain or snow. Violent storms include the following:
Blizzard – a severe snowstorm accompanied by strong winds with a minimum speed of 35miles per hour combined with either falling snow or snow on the ground to reduce visibilities to ¼ miles for at least 3 hours.
Dust Storm – also known as sandstorm is a common phenomenon in dry regions. It is characterized by high winds which carry great clouds of dust, usually in an area that has undergone a long period of drought. Dust storm cause soil loss from the dry lands and they can remove organic matter and the nutrient-rich lightest particles, thereby affecting the agricultural productivity in that region.
Hurricane – a tropical cyclone (wind that rotates round a calm central area) that originates over the warmer areas. The cyclone is accompanied by thunderstorms and extremely high winds (74 mph) and heavy rains that often inflict extensive damage in coastal areas.
Ice Storm – is a type of winter storm characterized by freezing rain or freezing drizzle causes a glaze of ice on all exposed objects. It happens when a warm cloud rains above a layer of colder air. This lowers the temperature of the droplets to below zero; however it remains in liquid form. The super cooled droplets freeze into ice on impact when they fall onto a surface.
Squall – is a sudden, sharp increase in wind speed (18mph – 25mph) that is usually associated with brief (at least 1 minute) and heavy precipitation. This usually occurs in a squall line.
Thunderstorm or Electric Storm – is a form of weather that is characterized by severe storm accompanied by lightning and thunder, strong gusty winds, heavy rain, and occasionally hail. Sometimes thunderstorms produce tornadoes and waterspouts (a tornado or lesser whirlwind occurring over water and resulting in funnel-shape of rotating cloud-filled wind usually extending from the cumulus cloud down to a cloud of spray torn up by the whirling wind from the surface of an ocean.
Tornado – a violent, whirling storm of small size, it is usually very destructive. Tornado is formed when huge masses of clouds moving in different directions meet. The air starts to spin in a spiral and a funnel of twisting air, low pressure inside the funnel sucks up anything it touches. It can travel across land at very high speeds and its roaring noise is heard up to 40km away.
Typhoon – is a tropical cyclone that is similar to a hurricane, except that it occurs over the western Pacific Ocean and its shores.
Storms are one of those incredible forces of nature that can change life in a single instant, but just how do we measure how destructive a storm is? Is it by the number of lives lost? Is it having lasting impact on a population? What are the financial costs of the destruction? Most violent storms produce a terrible and terrifying combination of all three — the overall effects often leave people stunned and devastated that so much chaos could happen on the whim of weather.
All circling weather patterns with low-pressure centers technically are called cyclones. So hurricanes and tornadoes fall under the cyclone designation, but the term can be used to denote anything in the category that fits the definition. For example, middle-latitude (or midlatitude) cyclones, huge weather systems of varying strengths, are also in this category.
The term “hurricane” is used for a storm that begins east of the International Date Line. This type of storm is called a typhoon if it’s spawned to the west. If you’re in the Indian Ocean, you call this same storm a cyclone.
Five Most Destructive Storms
1. Bhola Cyclone
A year before Bangladesh would become an independent nation by seceding from Pakistan, it was struck by a raging cyclone. The cyclone caused chaos on the low-lying coastal delta, and according to some, was a contributing factor in the fight for independence.
Although cyclones do not necessarily occur more often in and around Bangladesh, when cyclones strike they cause immense devastation because of the country’s topography. The 1970 storm, nicknamed the Bhola Cyclone, proved to be one of the greatest natural disasters in recorded history, even though it only made landfall as a Category 3 storm. Fatality estimates range from 300,000 to one million people, although most estimates put the tally at 500,000 people.
2. The Great Hurricane of 1780
No hurricane in the Atlantic had even come close to matching the death toll from this massive storm until 1998’s Hurricane Mitch, which struck Central America. That hurricane took the lives of 11,000 to 18,000 people, mostly from Nicaragua and Honduras.
However, the Great Hurricane of 1780 still overshoots that devastating statistic. An estimated 22,000 people perished between October 10 and October 16 in the eastern Caribbean, mainly in the Lesser Antilles, with the heaviest losses on the islands of Martinique, St. Eustatius and Barbados. Beyond these casualties, it’s estimated that thousands of sailors, mostly French and British, who were campaigning in the region also perished in the storm when the dramatic weather plowed into their vessels [source: NOAA].
3. The Galveston Storm
On Sept. 8, 1900, Galveston, Texas, braved a storm of biblical proportions. The island city, located just off the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico, had a population of about 37,000 people and bright economic prospects before that fateful day. But on September 9, the city had a population of about 30,000 and millions of dollars in damage [source: The 1900 Storm].
So what brought this turn of events to the people of Galveston? A hurricane — estimated to be Category 4 strength — slammed into the unprotected, low-lying island, and the destruction it brought with it was immense. Generally, researchers estimated the Galveston storm’s death tolls to be between 8,000 and 10,000 people (wider estimates range from 6,000 to 12,000 people). However, remains were still washing ashore in February of the following year. To this day, it’s the deadliest natural disaster to ever strike U.S. territory.
The hurricane’s 225 kilometer-per-hour (140-mile-per-hour) winds and 4.5-meter-high (15-foot-high) storm surge demolished 3,600 buildings [source: The 1900 Storm]. The whole island was submerged, and when the waters finally receded, 12 city blocks (nearly three-quarters of the city) were washed away [source: Zarrella]. In the intervening hours, people struggled to stay alive, clinging to anything they could find above water.
After the hurricane and as the town moved to rebuild, efforts were made to provide some protection in the event of a similar future disaster. The town propped up buildings — in some cases as high as five meters (17 feet) above their original elevation — and the whole grade of the island was raised. The town also constructed a sea wall five meters (17 feet) high and 16 kilometers (10 miles) long, which thankfully helped protect the city in 1961, when another hurricane hit.
4. Hurricane Katrina
Although the death toll from this furious storm wasn’t a record-breaker, Hurricane Katrina’s financial impact was incomparable. Let’s take a look at the storm that changed New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast region forever.
In August 2005, trouble began brewing in the Atlantic. The storm first began to form in the vicinity of the Bahamas and proceeded to travel across the southern end of the Florida peninsula. The hurricane was relatively tame during its journey in Florida, compared to what was coming. Upon returning to open waters, Katrina strengthened with a vengeance and grew into a Category 5 hurricane. In the 18 hours prior to landfall, it mellowed into a Category 3 storm.
But what remained remarkable about Katrina was its enormous size. On August 27, Katrina’s expanse almost doubled, with tropical storm-force winds felt 161 nautical miles from the eye of the storm in every direction. When it slammed into the Gulf Coast on August 29, Katrina hovered in the upper reaches of a Category 3 storm, and the eye of the hurricane passed only 23 miles (37 kilometers) from downtown New Orleans [source: Knabb].
Katrina’s storm surge towered almost 30 feet in some places, and its effects were registered throughout the Gulf Coast region. The combination of extreme storm surges and time-weakened levees caused New Orleans and the surrounding communities to sustain severe flooding. Eighty percent of New Orleans was underwater — up to 20 feet (6 meters) in some places — and it would be 43 days, in part because Hurricane Rita showed up about a month later, before the last of the deluge could recede [source: Knabb].
Eventually, the world heard of Katrina’s lethal results. Hurricane Katrina spawned 43 tornadoes that traveled across the southeastern United States. The storm directly caused the deaths of an estimated 1,500 people in four states — the most fatalities occurred in Louisiana. Thousands of homes were destroyed and damaged. In Louisiana and Mississippi, the storm surge was so severe in some places that it annihilated entire coastal communities. The oil rigs and other facilities in the region that were hit spilled millions of gallons of oil. The financial toll is nearly incalculable because of its complexity — lost jobs, missed revenue opportunities and destroyed businesses all factor among the financial losses. Preliminary damage costs (mainly figured through insured losses) were estimated to be about $81 billion [source: Knabb]. Hurricane Katrina’s total financial impact was later estimated at approximately $200 billion, and some suspect that number will hit the $300 billion mark when the final totals are released [source: Galvin].
5. Tri-State Tornado
Many tornadoes leave death, injury and destruction in their wake, but one tornado stands in a class by itself. On March 18, 1925, the Tri-State Tornado struck, and it still remains the deadliest tornado in U.S. history.
Sweeping out from southeastern Missouri, the Tri-State Tornado careened clear across the southern tip of Illinois before finally dissipating in the lower regions of Indiana. What’s remarkable is that these three locales are 352 kilometers (219 miles) apart, and the tornado traveled this distance in just three and a half hours [source: SEMP].
To really understand how impressive the Tri-State Tornado was, let’s compare it to an average tornado. Typically, tornadoes travel about 45 kilometers (30 miles) per hour and are between 150 to 600 meters (500 to 2,000 feet) wide. Generous estimates suggest they travel an average of 10 kilometers (6 miles) before dissipating [source: Tarbuck]. The Tri-State Tornado, on the other hand, had an average speed of 100 kilometers (62 miles) per hour and a top speed of 117 kilometers (73 miles) per hour. It traveled more than 36 times an average tornado’s usual distance, and some eyewitnesses said its path was nearly a mile wide [source: NOAA].
Scientists today wonder if the Tri-State Tornado was actually a family of tornadoes created from a massive supercell storm, which could account for the extremity of its activity. The central argument against this theory stems from the path of the tornado, which would have been very unusual had it been caused by multiple twisters. For 183 of the 219 miles, it traveled to the same degree along a perfectly straight vector [source: NOAA].
All told, the EF5 storm killed 695 people. Of that total, 234 lived in the town of Murphysboro — sadly setting the record for the most fatalities incurred by a tornado in a single city in U.S. history. In total, 2,027 people sustained injuries from the tornado’s passage, and 15,000 homes were destroyed. Some towns were completely obliterated [source: SEMP].
The U.S Central plains — nicknamed Tornado Alley — have the highest frequency of tornadoes in the world [source: Tarbuck].
Australia’s incumbent Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who is the first woman to hold the position, was on 14.09.2010 sworn in along with her 19 cabinet ministers in Canberra, Australia.
The History
Conservative parties in virtually all western democracies have shifted to the right economically, and this includes the Australian Liberal Party. But, in most countries a new generation of conservative leaders displays eagerness to adopt more socially liberal policies in tandem with full-throttle free market (ie right wing) economics. In the case of Tony Abbott’s Liberals, however, the party has not only moved right of the earlier Turnbull leadership years, but it has also shifted to a more authoritarian position on the social scale.
The Labour Party reflects this drift, now occupying a space to the right of the 1980s Liberals. The debate between the two main parties, however heated, is within narrowing parameters. The two parties are now closer together than at any other time. The clash of economic vision of earlier campaigns is absent. It’s no longer about whether the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy is actually desirable, but merely a question of which party can manage it best.
By contrast, the Greens, once pretty much a single issue party, have emerged with a comprehensive social democratic manifesto, more in tune with an earlier Labor Party, and significantly more socially liberal than either of the others.
The Australian federal elections, 2010
The Australian federal elections were held on Saturday, 21 August 2010 for members of the 43rd Parliament of Australia. The incumbent centre-left Australian Labour Party led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard defeated the opposition centre-right Liberal/National Coalition led by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, forming a minority government with the support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs.
Labor and the Coalition each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, four short of the requirement for majority government, resulting in the first hung parliament since the 1940 election. Six crossbenchers hold the balance of power. Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply. After gaining the support of four crossbenchers Labor will be able to form a minority government.
Crossbench is designed as below:
Adam Bandt won the first seat for the Greens at a general election in the seat of Melbourne. He had previously announced he would align with Labor in the event of a hung parliament. On 1 September the Greens declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply.
Andrew Wilkie, a former Greens candidate and now independent, was elected as the Member for Denison. On 2 September he declared his support for Labor on confidence and supply.
Tony Crook won the seat of O’Connor for the National Party of Western Australia, defeating Liberal Party incumbent Wilson Tuckey. There was dispute over affiliation, with some classing Crook as a member of the Coalition and including him in their Coalition totals. This was subsequently clarified by the WA National Party: “The Nationals WA as an independent political party is not bound by the rules of a coalition agreement”.Crook says, “In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn’t be”. There is no federal Coalition agreement in Western Australia; Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench.
Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, all independents, were re-elected. Both Katter and Windsor were successful at previous elections, while Oakeshott was elected at the 2008 Lyne by-election. All are former members of the National Party, a minor party in the Coalition. However, all three said they would be open to negotiating with either side to form government. They said they would engage in discussion as a bloc but vote individually. On 7 September Katter declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply. Later that day, Windsor and Oakeshott declared their support for Labor on confidence and supply.
Independent MP Bob Katter and National Party of Western Australia MP Tony Crook declared their support for the Coalition on confidence and supply.
The resulting 76–74 margin allowed Labor to form a minority government. On 14 September 2010 Prime Minister Julia Gillard, government ministers and parliamentary secretaries were sworn in by the Governor-General Quentin Bryce.
In the Senate, the Greens will gain the balance of power on 1 July 2011 with nine seats after winning one seat in each state.
More than 14 million Australians were enrolled to vote at the time of the election. Australia has compulsory voting (since 1925) and uses preferential ballot (since 1919) in single-member seats for the House of Representatives and single transferable vote (since 1949) with optional group voting tickets (since 1984) in the proportionally represented Senate. The election was conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
Swearing in
Ms Julia Gillard was joined at the swearing-in by partner Tim Mathieson and frontbench colleagues including Treasurer Wayne Swan and his wife Kim. Ms Gillard, now Australia’s first elected female prime minister, signed a document and swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II.
It is the second time in just a few weeks that Ms Gillard has been sworn in as Prime Minister on 14.09.2010, after she ousted Kevin Rudd from the top job on June 24. Her pledge of allegiance was followed by the swearing in of 19 other cabinet ministers, 10 ministers and 12 parliamentary secretaries.
At a meeting of the federal executive council after Ms Gillard was appointed Prime Minister, a new department was created, the names of two others were changed and provisions made for the legal basis of the new ministry.
Gillard’s cabinet includes Rudd, who is the new foreign minister, her deputy and treasurer Wayne Swan and former pop star Peter Garrett, who switches from environment to education. Former foreign minister Stephen Smith will now be the defence minister.
There are 19 cabinet ministers, 10 ministers and 12 Parliamentary Secretaries in the new government.
The wafer-thin majority of one seat in Parliament will force Gillard to negotiate issue-by-issue with the opposition Liberals led by Tony Abbott, according to analysts.
SECOND JULIA GILLARD MINISTRY
TITLE
MINISTER
OTHER CHAMBER
Prime Minister
Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government Minister for the Arts
Minister for Social Inclusion
Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information
Minister for Sport
Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity
Cabinet Secretary
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
The Hon Julia Gillard MP
The Hon Simon Crean MP
The Hon Simon Crean MP
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
The Hon Gary Gray AO MP
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Treasurer (Deputy Prime Minister)
Assistant Treasurer
Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
The Hon Wayne Swan MP
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
The Hon David Bradbury MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations
(Leader of the Government in the Senate)
Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth
Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development
Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins
The Hon Simon Crean MP
(Jobs and Workplace Relations)
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
(Tertiary Education and Skills)
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
(Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate)
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Minister for Trade
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade
Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP
The Hon Justine Elliot MP
The Hon Richard Marles MP
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Defence
(Deputy Leader of the House)
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
Minister for Defence Materiel
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence
The Hon Stephen Smith MP
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP
The Hon Jason Clare MP
Senator the Hon David Feeney
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship
The Hon Chris Bowen MP
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
(Leader of the House)
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport
The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
The Hon Catherine King MP
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Minister for Health and Ageing
Minister for Indigenous Health
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing
Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP
The Hon Warren Snowdon MP
The Hon Mark Butler MP
The Hon Catherine King MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Minister for the Status of Women
Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers
Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Senator the Hon Jan McLucas
The Hon Julie Collins MP
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
The Hon Jenny Macklin MP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water
The Hon Tony Burke MP
Senator the Hon Don Farrell
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Finance and Deregulation Special Minister of State
Minister Assisting on Deregulation
Senator the Hon Penny Wong The Hon Gary Gray AO MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
The Hon Wayne Swan MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
Minister for Small Business
Senator the Hon Kim Carr
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
The Hon Bill Shorten MP
Attorney-General
(Vice President of the Executive Council)
Minister for Home Affairs
Minister for Justice
The Hon Robert McClelland MP
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP
The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
(Manager of Government Business in the Senate)
Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig
The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP
The Hon Tony Burke MP
Minister for Resources and Energy
Minister for Tourism
Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP
The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry
Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
The Hon Greg Combet AM MP The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP
Senator the Hon Penny Wong
Minister for Human Services
The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib
Tony Abbott’s Stand
Tony Abbot has started ringing MPs to confirm his new frontbench team, dumping Queensland MP Alex Somlyay as party whip. In the finely balanced hung Parliament the role of the whip to ensure MPs turn up to crucial votes will be vital and Mr Abbott has handed the job to Queenslander Warren Entsch.
Mr Somlyay claimed that Tony wanted renewal and that he had announced before the last election that this would be his last term. Mr Abbott could announce his frontbench amid rumblings in the ranks sparked by finance spokesman Andrew Robb’s aborted leadership challenge for Julie Bishop’s deputy’s job.
His real target however was regarded as Joe Hockey, who holds the Treasury portfolio.
If Mr Robb had secured the deputy leadership he would have been able to request his portfolio of choice. Mr Abbott is expected to elevate his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull to the frontbench and shadow cabinet under the changes.
Come 2011 and there will be only one common entrance test each for over 30,000 MBBS seats and over 11,000 MD seats in all government and medical colleges in the country.
This important decision, taken by the Medical Council of India and accepted by the Union ministry of health, was conveyed to the Supreme Court on 13.08.2010 bringing huge relief to lakhs of aspiring doctors.
Earlier, students wanting to take up courses in medicine had to appear in at least five to six entrance tests for various colleges and worry about attendant problems like clash of exam dates as well as travel to distant places for counselling for allotment of seats.
But from 2011, there will be just one entrance test each for MBBS and MD courses offered by all 271 medical colleges, 138 government-run and 133 under private management. These colleges together offer over 31,000 seats for MBBS courses and another 11,000 for PG.
The confusion caused by multiple entrance tests and counselling saw hundreds of students rush to the Supreme Court every year complaining about the system where they were left high and dry even for making a single mistake in their choices.
One such petition filed by Simran Jain through advocate A D N Rao had sought a direction from the apex court to MCI and the Centre for a single window system for admissions.
During hearing of the petition before a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale, the decision for one common entrance test was conveyed by MCI counsel and senior advocate Amarendra Saran. Additional solicitor generalP P Malhotra said the government had accepted MCI’s suggestion to amend the regulation concerning admissions to medical colleges.
The state of affairs of private medical colleges and their admission process had come for some serious scrutiny in the apex court, which said last year, “Every year, this is happening. We know how these tricks are played on students every year.”
Interestingly, the malaise seems to have spread to government medical colleges too as the apex court had in 2009 asked Director General of Health Services Dr Mangla Kohli to look into allegations of malpractices in admissions into some such colleges in various states.
Decision on All India Medical Common Entrance Test put on hold
Bowing to pressure from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, the Centre has put on hold the decision by the Medical Council of India for conducting a common entrance test (CET) for MBBS courses from the next 2010 – 2011 academic session. The move has also been opposed by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
The decision comes just two days after the Medical Council of India (MCI) announced with much fanfare its decision to hold an all-India entrance test for admission to medical colleges for undergraduate courses from 2011-2012. The MCI was awaiting formal approval of the notification to this effect. Mr. Karunanidhi had written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging him to “reconsider” its move to conduct a national-level common entrance examination for MBBS courses and said that the State could not accept the move as it amounted to an “infringement by the Union government on the autonomy of States.” A copy of the letter was sent to Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad
Mr. Karunanidhi wrote to the Prime Minister on 16.08.2010 referring to the submission made by the Centre in the Supreme Court on the MCI recommendation to conduct a common entrance examination from next year. The Board of Governors of the MCI formally announced the decision the following day, saying that a notification would come in a day or two. According to Mr. Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu had scrapped the entrance examination for engineering and medical admissions in 2007-08 through legislation with the Presidential assent. This had been done to safeguard the interests of the socially and economically disadvantaged students from the rural areas. The move benefited many such students and also resulted in more doctors agreeing to work in rural areas.
Tamil Nadu had also implemented 69 per cent reservation for socially disadvantaged sections, which would be difficult to implement when there was a common entrance examination, Mr. Karunanidhi said in his letter.
On 19.08.2010, Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court seeking to implead itself in a pending matter on which the Centre submitted that the MCI would come out with a notification for the CET for admission to medical courses.
On the same day, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the AIADMK raised the matter in Parliament with the members demanding that the common entrance examinations for medical and engineering admissions be done away with, alleging infringement on the rights of the States.
TN State allowed to implead in All-India medical entrance testcase – 10.09.10
The Supreme Court on 10.09.2010 permitted the Tamil Nadu government to implead itself in a case relating to the proposal for introduction of a common all-India entrance test for medical courses in the country.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and H.L. Gokhale, while allowing Tamil Nadu’s application, asked the petitioner to file an application impleading all the States when it was pointed out that they had not been made parties. It directed the matter to be listed for further hearing next week.
In its application, the State opposed the proposed Medical Council of India regulation for conducting a single common entrance test. It sought permission to implead itself in a pending matter in which a submission had been made on behalf of the Centre about the MCI’s proposal for amendment of the regulations relating to graduate and postgraduate courses to pave the way for a CET.
The MCI decided to keep the proposal in abeyance following objection from Tamil Nadu.
The application stated that though the State was not a party in the pending matter any order passed by the court in it would seriously prejudice its interests and hence it must be heard before any order was passed approving the amendment and the CET.
It submitted that Tamil Nadu had abolished entrance tests for admissions to professional courses from 2007 and the selection and admissions were being made as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Admission in Professional Educational Institutions Act.
The entrance test was abolished on the recommendations of an expert committee, which found that CET was a cumbersome process. “The CET causes mental agony to the students and parents especially from rural areas and the persons hailing from lower strata of society,” it said.
Tamil Nadu said that it was found that rural students were unable to compete with urban students in the CET since there was lack of training for rural students to undertake and face such competitive-level examination.
“The number of institutions and study materials that are available in the urban areas are not available in rural areas and, therefore, students hailing from urban areas always have an edge over rural students.”The application said the proposed MCI regulation for conducting a single entrance test for admission to medical courses would be in contradiction to the State legislation and would affect the policy of the State government. Tamil Nadu also made it clear that if there was any conflict between the basis of selection made by the Centre and the State legislation, the State law would prevail.
MBBS Doctors must clear ‘Exit Test’ to commence Practice – 18.09.2010
Those intending to become doctors and treat patients may soon have to clear a common exit test after getting the MBBS degree from medical colleges.
The regulating body, Medical Council of India (MCI), has given a statutory recommendation for a mandatory exit test, which is under active consideration of the health ministry, the Supreme Court was informed on 17.08.2010.
Considering the sensitive nature of the profession — dealing with life and death — and keeping in mind varying standards of education in medical colleges, MCI has proposed a common exit examination for MBBS pass-outs intending to become doctors and treat patients, Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told a Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale.
This recommendation of the MCI was to standardise the skills of doctors, said the regulatory body’s counsel senior advocate Amarendra Saran supplementing the arguments of the health ministry advanced through the SG.
This is in line with the decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) making it mandatory for law graduates to clear a test to be able to practice in courts.
Importantly, both Subramaniam and MCI counsel, senior advocate Amarendra Saran, informed the Bench that very soon a notification would be issued to put in place a single window admission test for filling post-graduate course seats in all private and government medical colleges from the next academic session (2011-12).
The Centre on Friday informed the Supreme Court that it supported the Medical Council of India’s proposal to have a common entrance test (CET) for admission to post graduate medical courses and that it wanted to notify it within a week.
This would ease the tension and trouble of thousands of students competing for few PG seats, for which they have to travel to different places to appear in entrance examinations for PG courses of different colleges. Clashing of the dates of examination used to add to the woes of the students. But, these will be a thing of past from next year, thanks to the common entrance test for PG seats in all private and government medical colleges.
However, the joint attempt of MCI and the government to push through the common admission test for MBBS courses in private and government medical colleges did not get the stamp of approval from the apex court, which said it could not do so without getting the responses from the state governments.
The reluctance of the Supreme Court stemmed from the fact that Tamil Nadu, which has a special law for the purpose which has already received President’s assent, had strongly objected to the common admission test for MBBS across the country.
The Bench said: “We do not know which all states will object to this and how the students, a volatile community, would react to this proposal. So, let the Centre put before us the proposal and we will seek the response of the state governments.”
The Solicitor General agreed and said though the health ministry was carrying out the task of achieving a consensus among the states for a single window admission test for MBBS courses in all medical colleges, it would be easier and expeditious if the apex court helped through the judicial process to achieve the goal that would benefit the entire community of students aspiring to be doctors.
Giving the Centre a week to place the proposal before it for issuance of notices to the state governments to elicit their response, the Bench said: “The courts have already contributed to a lot of problems and we do not want to contribute to this by giving a go-bye to the settled procedure.”
Senior counsel Amrender Saran, appearing for the Medical Council of India, said new rules and regulations for the CET had been put in place and they had been approved by the government. There would be centralised counselling after the CET and at the end of the course there would an exit test for doctors. The Bench directed the matter to be listed after a week.
The Venice Film Festival (Italian Mostra Internazionale d’Arte Cinematografica) is the oldest film festival in the world and one of the most prestigious. Founded by Count Giuseppe Volpi in 1932 as the “Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte Cinematografica”, the festival has since taken place every year in late August or early September on the island of the Lido, Venice, Italy. Screenings take place in the historic Palazzo del Cinema on the Lungomare Marconi. It is one of the world’s most prestigious film festivals and is part of the Venice Biennale, a major biennial exhibition and festival for contemporary art.
The festival’s principal awards are the Leone d’Oro (Golden Lion), which is awarded to the best film screened at the festival, and the Coppa Volpi (Volpi Cup), which is awarded to the best actor and actress. In 2002, the San Marco Award was introduced for the best film of the Controcorrente (”Against the stream”) section.
The 67th annual (2010) Venice Film Festivalheld in Venice, Italy, took place from September 1 to September 11, 2010. American film director Quentin Tarantino was the head of the awards jury. John Woo was awarded the Golden Lion for Lifetime Achievement prior to the festival starting.
Mani Ratnam honoured at Venice Film Festival
Mani Ratnam’s latest film Raavan in Hindi and Raaavan in Tamil might not have been received well in India but the director has been honoured with the prestigious Jaeger-LeCoultre Glory to the Filmmaker Award, at the 67th Venice Film Festival on Monday. He’s the first Indian to be awarded and honoured with the award.
The award ceremony was followed by the screening of Raavanan at the end of which over 600 delegates gave a standing ovation which lasted for 5 minutes.
2010 Venice Film Festival marked its 67th edition and saw 24 films in competition.
The following is the list of Venice Film Festival 2010 winners:
GOLDEN LION (Best Film)
Somewhere (Sofia Coppola, U.S.)
SILVER LION (Best Director)
Balada triste de trompeta (The Last CircusBalada triste de trompeta (Alex de la Iglesia, Spain, France)
Alex de le Iglesia, Balada triste de trompeta (The Last Circus/Balada triste de trompeta)
American director Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere,” her exploration of the relationship between a father and his young daughter under the flashbulbs of movie celebrity, won the top prize Golden Prize at the Venice Film Festival on 11.09.2010.
“Thanks to my dad for teaching me,” she said in her acceptance speech. “This film enchanted us from its first screening,” said Quentin Tarantino, chairman of the jury which unanimously chose Copppola’s film as the festival’s best. Coppola’s last film, Marie Antoinette, was booed at its premiere during the Cannes Film Festival four years ago. Somewhere stars Stephen Dorff and Ella Fanning. She is best known for her 2003 film, Lost in Translation, which starred Bill Murray and made her one of only a handful of women directors to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. The 39-year-old Coppola, daughter of famed director Francis Ford Coppola, added the coveted Golden Prize to a trophy shelf that already includes a Best Screenplay Oscar for her 2003 film “Lost in Translation”, which, like “Somewhere,” was set mostly in hotel rooms. Both films premiered on Venice’s Lido Island where the festival was held.
Announced during a gala ceremony in the Palazzo del Cinema, the Silver Lion prize for Best Director went to Alex de la Iglesia for his Spanish civil war drama “A Sad Trumpet Ballad.” Jerzy Skolimowski’s “Essential Killing,” about an Afghan prisoner who escapes in Europe, won the festival’s special jury prize.
Vincent Gallo, the protagonist in “Essential Killing,” won the Coppa Volpi for Best Actor, while “Attenberg” star Ariane Labed won the Coppa Volpi for Best Actress.
Mikhail Krichman won the Best Photography prize for his work in Aleksei Fedorchenko’s “Silent Souls,” about a man’s moving effort to return his dead wife to the area where she grew up, while de la Iglesia took home his second prize, for Best Screenplay.
In other prizes announced on Saturday, Mila Kunis, who starred in Darren Aronofsky’s “Black Swan,” was given the Mastroianni Prize for the best emerging actor in a film that screened on the Lido. Kunis and Natalie Portman played rival ballet dancers in this opening night film at Venice.
“Majority,” from 35-year-old Turkish director Seren Yuce, won the Venice Days Lion of the Future award, and “20 Cigarettes,” which screened in the Italian sidebar Controcampo Italiano, was given the prize from Italian Film Journalists. The film is the first work from writer and director Aureliano Amadei.
Union Human Resource and Development (HRD) Minister Kapil Sibal on 10.09.2010 said the Indian Institute of Technology (IITs) across the country will soon introduce new courses in medicine and even enroll foreign students as well as recruit foreign faculties at the post graduate level.
“The government has decided to seek the approval of the Medical Council of India (MCI) for the course. The IIT council meeting decided to carry out appropriate amendment in the Institute of Technologies Act to enable the IITs to offer the medicine programme,” said Sibal.
“We are making sure that wherever the instruction leads to a degree relating to any branch of medicine, then of course clearances from Medical Council of India under the Act will have to be taken,” he added.
Sibal said the council has also decided to enable IITs to recruit foreign faculties, which should not be more than 10 per cent of the total faculty strength.
“In principle, we agreed that IITs are entitled to recruiting foreign faculties. A mechanism will be set up with the help of the Home Ministry to ensure that there is no hiccup in the process and there is easy exit and entry of people,” he added, after a meeting of the IIT council.
Crack IIT entrance with 12th marks, aptitude test
Excellent chance has come to the IIT aspiring students, who struggle a lot to crack IIT entrance. Just get good marks and give aptitude test, you will get through IIT entrance soon.
Kapil Sibal, the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, announced major changes in the process of getting admission in Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and other engineering colleges. Class 12 marks along with an aptitude test would decide admissions into IITs, informed Sibal.
However, he also stated that modalities were still being worked out to make the changes in the admission process and no timeframe has been set for implementing the new proposals.
The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) entrance exams needs an overhaul to discourage coaching institutes, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal said on 10.09.2010. “The present system of coaching must go as it is detrimental to the quality of intake,” Sibal told reporters after a meeting of the council of IITs. The changes in the pattern of engineering entrance exams had been proposed by the ministry earlier as well.
A committee was formed under IIT Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya which suggested including weightage of the 12th Class result and a national level aptitude test for admission in engineering courses.
“The Acharya committee has given its report and it was widely agreed that the entrance exam system needs to be changed but it is yet to finalize how,” Sibal said.
Though a consensus could not be built on the recommendations of the Acharya report, Sibal said all members agreed on the need for a change. “There are two things. Firstly, the present system of coaching must go as it is detrimental to quality of intake; secondly, the problem of children appearing for multiple entrance exams causes financial and psychological pressure on the children and their family,” Sibal said.
The minister said there were suggestions that state-wise percentile given to students will be considered for the entrance. “We should look at the 12th level performance… otherwise students from some states may get left out,” he said.
“Weightage will be given to 12th exam marks, and that marks will be based on the performance through the year. It will automatically discourage coaching,” he said.
The minister said a committee has been formed under Science and Technology Secretary T. Ramasami and it will submit its report in three months. “After that we’ll involve all IITs and have a full discussion,” he said.
Sibal added that the IITs have said they wanted to continue with the joint entrance exam. ”The IITs don’t want to do away with the JEE but they have said that if an alternative is provided they will discuss it with their faculty,” he added.
Plans for parts of the Indian Rivers Interlink were mooted in the British period. In 1972 the then Minister for Irrigation K. L. Rao proposed a 2640 kilometer long link between the Ganges and Cauvery rivers. In 1974 plans were proposed for the Garland canal. In 1982 the National Water Development Agency was set up to carry out surveys of the links and prepare feasibility studies.
The Project
The Interlink would consist of two parts, a northern Himalayan River Development component and a southern Peninsular River Development component.
Himalayan development
The northern component would consist of a series of dams built along the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers in India, Nepal and Bhutan for the purposes of storage. Canals would be built to transfer surplus water from the eastern tributaries of the Ganges to the west. The Brahmaputra and its tributaries would be linked with the Ganges and the Ganges with the Mahanadi River. This part of the project would provide additional irrigation for about 220,000 square kilometres and generate about 30 gigawatts of electricity. In theory it would provide extra flood control in the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins. It could also provide excess water for the controversial Farakka Barrage which could be used to flush out the silt at the port of Calcutta.
Peninsular development
The main part of the project would send water from the eastern part of India to the south and west. The southern development project would consist of four main parts. First, the Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery rivers would all be linked by canals. Extra water storage dams would be built along the course of these rivers. The purpose of this would be to transfer surplus water from the Mahanadi and Godavari rivers to the south of India. Second, those rivers that flow west to the north of Bombay and the south of Tapi would be linked. Due to the irregular fluctuations in water levels in the region, as much storage capacity would be built as possible. The water would be used by the urban areas of Bombay and also to provide irrigation in the coastal areas of Maharashtra. Third the Ken and Chambal rivers would be linked in order to provide better water facilities for Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Finally a number of west-flowing rivers along the Western Ghats simply discharge into the Arabian Sea. As many of these as possible would be diverted for irrigation purposes. The Peninsular part of the project would provide additional irrigation to 130,000 square kilometres and generation an additional 4 gigawatts of power.
History
Long-distance inter-basin transfer of water has been in practice in India for over five centuries. The Periyar Project, Parambikulam-Aliyar Project, Kurnool-Cudappah Canal and the Telugu-Ganga Project are some of the examples of inter-basin water transfers executed in south India in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Periyar Project is the most notable endeavour of the last century in trans-basin diversion. A 47.28 metre high gravity dam was constructed across a gorge on the west-flowing Periyar River. A 1740 metre long tunnel with a discharge capacity of 40.75 cubic metres was drilled across the mountain barrier to convey the waters eastwards to the Vaigai basin. The project was commissioned in 1895 and provided irrigation to 58 thousand hectares initially. This has since been extended to 81 thousand hectares. There is also a power station of 140 MW capacities.
The Parambikulam-Aliyar Project is a complex multi-basin multipurpose project. Seven streams-five flowing westward and two towards the east- have been dammed and their reservoirs interlinked by tunnels. The water is ultimately delivered to the drought-prone areas in the Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu and the Chittur area of Kerala. The project has a command area of 1.62 lakh hectares with 185 MW of power generation capacity.
The Kurnool-Cuddappah canal is 304 km long with a capacity of 84.9 cubic metres extending from the Krishna to the Pennar basin for irrigating an area of 53 thousand hectares of land. The Telugu-Ganga Project brings the Krishna waters from the Srisailam reservoir through an open canal to Somasila reservoir in the Pennar valley. From Somasila the water is taken through a 45 km long canal. By agreement among the riparian States 12 thousand metric cubic metres (TMC) of water will be delivered to Tamil Nadu to increase the water supply to Chennai.
Similarly in Himachal Pradesh, inter sub-basin transfers in the Indus basin and the Rajasthan Canal is some of the projects executed in the 19th and 20th centuries. A diversion dam, Pandoh, 140 km upstream of Pong on the Beas River enables the diversion of its water to the Bhakra reservoir and generates 165 MW of power on the way. The Beas-Sutlej link is 37.25 km long. Of this, 25.45 km passes in tunnel through difficult rock formations. The Rajasthan Canal Project diverts water from the Himalayas to the deserts of Rajasthan. The project comprises of a huge multipurpose project constructed across the Beas River at Pong, a barrage at Harike and a Grand Canal system. Executed both in the southern and northern parts of our country these projects have been highly beneficial and have not caused any noticeable environmental damage.
The USA, which is water-rich and scarcely populated, is transferring 45 billion cubic metres (BCM) of water through inter-basin transfer and plans to add 376 BCM. In Canada the existing schemes are designed to transfer 268 BCM. In comparison, India is transferring 10 BCM through the existing schemes and has plans to add about 200 BCM. China has a scheme under implementation which will transfer about 45 BCM. This indicates that India is already late in implementing the water transfer links.
Present Proposals
In India 30 links have been identified as technically feasible and economically viable on the basis of pre-feasibility studies. These are: Mahanadi (Manibhadra – Godavari (Dowlaiswaram) link, Godavari (Inchampalli Low Dam) – Krishna link, Godavari (Inchampalli) – Krishna (Nagarjunasagar) link, Godavari (Polavaram) – Krishna (Vijayawada) link, Krishna (Almatti) – Pennar link, Krishna (Srisailam)- Pennar link, Krishna (Nagarjunasagar) – Pennar (Somasila) link, Pennar (Somasila) –Cauvery (Grand Anicut) link, Cauvery (Kattalsi)- Vaigai-Gundar link, Ken-Belwa link, Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link, Par-Tapti-Narmada link, Damanganga-Pinjal link, Bedti-Varda link, Netravati-Hemavati link and Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link.
Similarly, based on various water balance studies carried out for the Himalayan component, the link proposals identified for preparation of feasibility reports include the Manas-Sankosh-Tista-Ganga link, Kosi-Ghagra link, Ghagra-Yamuna link, Sarda-Yamuna link, Yamuna-Rajasthan link, Rajastan-Sabarmati link, Chunar-Sone Barrage link, Sone Dam – Southern Tributaries of Ganga link, Ganga-Damodar-Subernarekha link, Subernarekha-Mahanadi link, Kosi-Mechi link, Farakka-Sunderbans link, and Jogigopa-Tista-Farakka link.
Advantages of Interlinking
Interlinking of rivers in India is expected to greatly reduce the regional imbalance in the availability of water in different river basins. Surplus water which flows waste to the sea would be fruitfully utilized. It is assessed that the inter-linking of rivers will provide additional irrigation benefits to 35 million hectares (Mha) -25 Mha from surface water and an additional 10 Mha from increased ground water recharge- which will be over and above the ultimate irrigation potential of 140 Mha envisaged from the conventional irrigation projects.
Construction of storage dams as proposed will considerably reduce the severity of floods and the resultant damages. The flood peaks are estimated to come down by about 20 to 30 per cent in the Ganga and Brahmaputra basins.
The benefits of drought mitigation from inter-basin water transfers will accrue to an area of about 25 lakh hectares in West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Hydro power could also be generated on a massive scale by the storage dams proposed under the interlinking of rivers. Hydro power development has not kept pace with the potential and requirement in our country. Against a potential of 84,000 MW, only about 22,000 MW capacity for hydro power generation has been developed so far. For an efficient working of electrical energy generating system, the mix of thermal to hydro should be about 60:40. In our country it is about 75:25. The storage dams proposed under interlinking of rivers will greatly improve this situation. The total hydro power potential of the interlinking systems is estimated to be 34,000 MW.
Most of the mega cities and urban centres in our country are already suffering from water shortages. Many of the metropolitan cities depend upon long-distance inter-basin transfer of water for their domestic and industrial water supply. Delhi gets parts of its water supplies from the Ganga and Sutlej, while Mumbai gets water from Vaitama and Batsai, over 100 km away. Water supply in Chennai is being increased from Srisailam on the Krishna river which is 500 km away. A major part of the future requirements of big cities will have to be met from long-distance inter-basin transfer of water. In the link proposals under study, water supply to Mumbai and Delhi and many other villages and habitations enroute the link canals are proposed to be raised.
Perspective
India, with its geographical area of 329 million hectares but consisting of only 2.45 per cent of the earth’s land mass, supports a population of about 1027 million as per the 2001 census. This is about 16 per cent of the global population. The renewable fresh water resources of India at 1869 billion cubic metres (BCM) per year is only about 4 per cent of the earth’s fresh water resources. Thus the average Indian has hardly one-sixth of land and one-fourth of water as compared to the world average. In view of the severe disparity in regard to water and land, its optimal use is essential to ensure a comfortable living for the people of India.
There are more inequities in the distribution of the water resources. The total renewable water resources as of the year 2001 correspond to about 1820 kilo litres (KL) of water per person per year. The population of India is expected to stabilize at around 1500-1800 million by 2050 when the per capita availability of water would further come down to nearly 60 per cent of the availability as in 2001. At that time, the per capita availability in the Brahmaputra basin would still be around 9000 KL and in the Sabarmati basin below 200 KL. This is against the minimum requirement of 1000 KL per person per year.
In view of the large variations in rainfall over space and time, the country experiences frequent floods in some parts and severe droughts in some others. Floods are a recurring feature particularly in the Brahmaputra and Ganga rivers which carry 60 per cent of the water resources of our country. Flood damages, which were of the order of Rs. 52 crore in 1953, went up to Rs. 5846 crore in 1998 with an annual average of Rs. 1343 crore, affecting Assam, Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh besides causing untold human sufferings. On the other hand, large areas in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu face recurring droughts.
It is expected that by 2050, India would need about 450 million tonnes of food grains. In order to attain this target, it would be necessary to increase the irrigation potential under all-food crops by 2050.
Most of the link canals will be 50 to 100 metres wide and more than 6 metres deep. That would greatly facilitate inland navigation from the north to down south. A boost to fresh water fisheries is also expected as a result of the programme. Apart from these benefits, guaranteed minimum flows in the rivers will enhance ecology and environment.
Benefits and Pitfalls in all areas
Agriculture: The projected benefit in terms of agriculture include 25 million hectares of irrigation from surface water, 10 million hectares by increased use of ground water, totaling to 35million hectares which will be over and above the ultimate irrigation potential of 140 million hectares. India has one of the lowest yields of cereals at 2134kg/hectare of land. Hence expanding the irrigated land area is only one way of increasing food production. Another way may be changes in farming technology, the kind of crops grown (generally hybrid varieties use more water than the indigenous varieties), better management of available land and water. Indiscriminate irrigation over a period of time can also lead to problems like water logging and rise in salinity in soil. Hence, besides increasing the area under irrigation, implementation of mixed agriculture and other such techniques of sustainable agriculture need to be emphasized on.
Power It is estimated that net 34,000 MW of hydro-power will be generated as a result of this project. But this figure is a little hard to believe because in most cases of inter basin transfer, it is understood that the requirement for pumping water across basins exceeds that produced by tapping the potential energy of the water. The pumping energy requirement is exceptionally high in this case as water will be pumped across the entire length and breadth of the country.
Flood Control and Drought Mitigation
While flood control is one of the major motivations behind this idea, it is now generally acknowledged that big dams play only a modest role in flood moderation. Flood cushion tends to get eaten into by the more powerful demands of irrigation and power generation. The safety of structures sometimes necessitates the release of waters causing ‘man-made’ floods downstream. Reliance needs to shift from structural to non structural measures for the purpose of flood control. Floods in moderation have certain benefits too. They are a free source of minerals for the land, help in recharging groundwater resources, help in conservation of biological diversity, give bumper harvests, flush out silt from riverbeds to deltas, prevent intrusion of saline water from the Sea and most importantly wash out saline deposits on the top soil. So what has been termed as ‘surplus’ is not really surplus? It is performing salient functions which are extremely important for the preservation of ecological balance and is helpful for the farmers.
The project aims at mitigating drought by transferring water from ‘surpluses to ‘deficit’ areas. The problem of drought is something that we have a solution to already in the form of rainwater harvesting structures. The success stories are numerous and so are the solutions implemented. Also, even if the Linking of rivers project is implemented, it will take water to only a fraction of the drought prone areas, large parts of rain fed areas will remain unaffected.
Inland Navigation
It has been proposed that some of the canals will be opened for inland navigation. It will not only connect the North with the South but will also lead to multiple economic benefits and substantial saving in terms of imported fossil fuel. The cost of this set up will amount to about 24 billion usd.
Cost
The national water development agency has estimated a budget of 112 billion usd at 2002 prices for the entire project. However, it is estimated and accepted widely that the cost may go up to 200 billion usd. Other sources cite that large projects have had cost overruns in the region of 400-500%. Apart from estimated cost, recurring expenditure would be incurred in maintenance of dams, de silting reservoirs, relining canals and creating artificial drainage where needed. External costs like those arising from harm done to the environment, ecology, wildlife and social costs have not been taken into account.
The estimated cost itself represents 20% of India’s Gross Domestic Product, 2.5 times the annual tax collection, 2 times the foreign exchange reserves and equals the amount spent on irrigation in the last 44 years. According to the Government’s Economic Survey for 2001-02, this amount is higher than the Gross domestic savings, and also the total outstanding external debt of the country. The total pending cost for incomplete major, medium and minor irrigation projects sum up to 30 billion usd.
The above numbers imply that the cost of the project is huge and the burden arising from it will have to be borne by the government and the people for a very long time. Starting a project of this magnitude, when there are so many incomplete projects trying to solve the same purpose are pending, seems impractical.
Criticism of Interlinking
The idea of interlinking the rivers of India was actually cited by President Kalam in 2002 and pushed by Chief Justice Kirpal. River basin management in the context of gigantic water planning is discussed in national and international laws. Inter river transfer has come under criticism since the Irrigation Commission of British days, and plans such as Captain Dastur’s “garland canal” rejected decades ago, even when big dams were in full swing. Interlinking rivers was rejected in the nineties by the centre, on advice of experts and bureaucrats such as Dr. M.S. Reddy.
The basic aspects of each river basin, including catchment area treatment, command area development, benchmark survey of the affected population, impacts of the reservoir and canal system on farmers, and fisheries, and public health should be studied. Environmental Impact Assessment will be inevitable. Compensatory and mitigatory plans must be rationally conceived. The River Valley Guidelines (1983) discuss environmental and social impacts due to transfer of water and people beyond suitability. Unless these become part of the project planning, they are neither considered nor dealt with.
Struggles in the Narmada Valley and on other projects pushed due to political expediency without complete appraisal, have brought out the seriousness of large scale displacement as well as impacts on and injustice to the proposed beneficiaries. Basic questions demand investigation. Will such a linking of rivers actually prevent drought? Or merely transfer drought? What will be the extent of displacement, and provisions for rehabilitation? Canals also displace. In the Sardar Sarovar project, 1,50,000 landholders stand to lose land due to the canal network, of whom 23,500 will lose more than 25% of their land, and 2,000 will become landless. None is considered project-affected nor eligible for rehabilitation.
For intra-river basin transfers, the principle of subsidiarity requires that water be harnessed from where it first drops. The whole crisis of water management today is due to total neglect of water harvesting, either because it is considered peripheral or to be a non-replicable, non-profitable micro-level experiment.
Therefore we see the destruction of cultures, communities, and ecosystems, creating conflicts between states, as in Cauvery, and between state and people, as in Narmada. Conflicts are dealt with more politically than scientifically.
As our national highways have become conveyor belts for enormously polluting noxious emissions, the huge interlink threatens to become an open sewage garlanding India. The canals, designed for carrying irrigation waters rather than large peak flows, will not be sufficient to control or divert floods in the northern states but will transfer silt. Several large dams built to provide the head and storage required to supply the canals will permanently submerge fertile lands, forests, village communities and towns, leaving millions of people displaced or dispossessed. Any attempt to obtain full information, question impacts and demand just compensation requires sacrifice by communities living on the natural resources.
Political Consensus
This project will involve coordination between not just States but also countries. Dams will need to be built in Nepal and Bhutan, in order to store the surplus water and later divert it to deficit regions. Water that flows into Bangladesh will now be diverted from upstream by India. Both Nepal and Bangladesh have not been taken into confidence regarding the project as of now. This has the potential of future conflict with these countries. This could also lead to a conflict between India and China in the future as China controls the flow of water in the Brahmaputra, Indus and Sutlej Rivers. China is considering a proposal to build a dam on Yarlung Tsangpo (which becomes Brahma putra in India) which will generate 40000 megawatts of energy (more than twice generated by the Three Gorges dam). If this project goes through, the entire equation of ‘surplus’ and ‘deficit’ in India will change. This project and other similar grand projects being planned by China have the capacity to completely throw India’s plans off the mark.
Within India, a number of interstate conflicts over water, remain unresolved for decades now (for example the Cauvery Tribunal). The Interlinking project, which runs canal from almost every state of India, could become a major source of contention between the Sates rather than uniting them.
Concept of Surplus and Deficit and unknowns in the study of environmental impact
Looking at this project from a reductionist view, the concept of transferring water from surplus to deficit regions and creating a win-win situation sounds perfect. But if we look at it from a holistic point of view, every drop of water performs some ecological service at all times. The ecosystems have evolved over a period of thousands of years to make optimum use of the water available. Hence, any amount of water diverted from or to a region will cause damage proportional to the amount diverted. There is no thing as ‘surplus’ water from the holistic point of view.
Water from rivers flowing into the Aral Sea, which was seemingly going waste, was diverted on a large scale from these rivers for irrigation purposes. This led to a boom in the agricultural sector and prosperity in the region in the short term, but in the long run, the salinity of the sea increased manifold, making the water unfit for any kind of human use, also effecting the aquatic flora and fauna. This has led to the collapse of the economies in the area.
It is estimated that this project will upgrade the ecology due to minimum flow guarantee in rivers. The forest cover is expected to increase from 13% to 33%. At the same time, the dams that will need to be built will cause submergence of thousands of hectares of virgin forests.
Rehabilitation From a humanitarian perspective, millions of people will be forcibly displaced by this project. A sound rehabilitation and resettlement program for these people needs to be put in place. It has been estimated that 21-56 million people have been displaced by large dams over the past 50 years in India, 40% of them tribal people. Less than 50% of those displaced were rehabilitated. The submergence of land has been 2 to 3 times of that originally estimated in these projects. The displaced are people who had lived in rural areas or forests all their lives and that is the way of living they have known. Even if they are rehabilitated, will they be ever able to resettle? They are the ones, who are paying the price, are they the ones who are benefiting from the project?
The 9th plan document laments that against the national per capita (based on 1991 census) annual availability of 2214 cubic metres of water, the average availability in Brahmaputra river basin is as high as 18470 cu.m while it is as low as 383 cu.m in the east flowing rivers between Pennar and Kanyakumari transfer of river waters. NDA in its manifesto promised interlinking of rivers.
Thereafter in 1974 Captain Dastur suggested a canal known as Garland canal. In July 1982 National Water Development Agency was created to carry out surveys and prepare feasibility reports. In September 1987 the National Water Policy stated that its prime goal is to interlink national rivers. Over all these years none of the feasibility report is made public nor the interlinking of rivers has been undertaken even in a phased manner
The national Water Development agency is only collecting the data offered by various state governments and compiling them into reports. Even to do that the agency seems to be having 2010 as the time frame to complete all feasibility studies. Moreover like previous proposals this may also be jettisoned citing similar reasons or fresh excuses. Thereafter after 2010, India is expected to go for global tenders to make a study of this project and all will be back to square one in 21st century too.
The project prepared by the National Water Development Agency has two components namely Himalayan Rivers Development Component and Peninsular Rivers Development component. Himalayan Rivers Development envisages construction of storage reservoirs on the principal tributaries of the Ganga and the Brahmaputra in India, Nepal, and Bhutan, along with interlinking canal systems to transfer surplus flows of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the West, apart from linking of the main Brahmaputra and its tributaries with the Ganga and Ganga with Mahanadi. The Himalayan component would provide additional irrigation of about 22 million hectare and generation of about 30 million KW of hydropower, besides providing substantial flood control in the Ganga & Brahmaputra basins. It would also provide the necessary discharge for augmentation of flows at Farakka required interalia to flush the Calcutta port and the inland navigation facilities across the country.
Peninsular Rivers Development
This component is divided into four major parts.
Interlinking of Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-Cauvery Rivers and building storages at potential sites in these basins.
This is the major interlinking of the river systems where surpluses from the Mahanadi and the Godavari are intended to be transferred to the needy areas in the South.
Interlinking of west flowing rivers, north of Bombay and south of Tapi
This scheme envisages construction of as much optimal storage as possible on these streams and interlinking them to make available appreciable quantum of water for transfer to areas where additional water is needed. The scheme provides for taking water supply canal to the metropolitan areas of Bombay; it also provides irrigation to the coastal areas in Maharashtra.
Interlinking of Ken-Chambal Rivers
The scheme provides for a water grid for Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and interlinking canal backed by as much storage as possible.
Diversion of other west flowing rivers
Heavy rainfall on the western side of the Western Ghats runs down numerous streams, which empty, into the Arabian Sea.
Construction of an interlinking canal system backed up by adequate storages could be planned to meet all requirements of Kerala as also for transfer of some waters towards east to meet the needs of drought affected areas. The peninsular Component is expected to provide additional irrigation of about 13 million hectare and is expected to generate about 4 million KW of power.
While rivers that flow through different countries had benefited such countries with mutual agreements on water sharing, some Indian states prefer waters to be emptied in oceans instead of benefiting fellow Indians.
Shiney Ahuja (born 15 May 1973) is an Indian actor, who won Filmfare Best Debut Award for Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi in 2006. Shiney Ahuja was born in New Delhi. His father was in the Indian army. His early schooling was at St. Xavier’s School, Ranchi. He then studied at The Army Public School, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi. His initial plans were to join the armed forces. While studying at Hansraj College University of Delhi from 1992-1996, he was attracted to Theater and joined the Barry Johns Acting School in Delhi. Sometime after 1996, he moved to Mumbai.
The film won Shiney Ahuja rave reviews and was viewed as one of the best films of that year. In 2006 Ahuja was awarded Best male debut by Filmfare Awards, Screen Awards, IIFA Awards, Zee Cine Awards and Stardust Awards for his performance. He however grew more familiar with mainstream audiences with Karam (2005), where he starred alongside John Abraham and Priyanka Chopra. He played lead role in the popular movie Mahesh Bhatt’s Gangster. He acted in the filmed life story of Parveen Babi and Mahesh Bhatt “Woh Lamhe” in the year 2006 opposite Kangana Ranaut. The film was appreciated for its screenplay, Kangana’s acting and the music by Pritam.
Shiney Ahuja is married to Anupam Ahuja. They have a daughter named Arshiya, born in 2007.
Case against Shiney Ahuja
On 15th June 2009, the Oshiwara police on Sunday evening detained Bollywood actor Shiney Ahuja for questioning in connection with a rape case. Ahuja’s teenaged domestic maid lodged an FIR against the actor alleging that he had raped her while they were alone at the actor’s flat.
The 18-year-old maid (name withheld), said police sources, had been working with Ahuja for the last one-and-a-half months since she made the complaint. The complainant told the police that she had come for domestic work to Ahuja’s flat. The actor’s wife was not at home. She claimed that at that time the actor had molested her. The complainant told the police that she was traumatised after the incident and went to her relatives’ place who along with the girl then approached the police station. This was stated by the DCP Niket Kaushik.
Soon after the complaint was registered, the girl was sent to the Nagpada police hospital for a medical examination. A preliminary medical check-up hours after the alleged rape showed she had been sexually violated. A detailed medical report from Nagpada Hospital showed injuries. And a DNA test confirmed the accusation. A police team went to Ahuja’s flat and called him for inquiry.
While he initially maintained that whatever had happened was consensual, Shiney Ahuja finally confessed to committing the horrendous act of raping his 18-year-old domestic help. The actor completely broke down after the medical reports confirmed that the maid has been raped; seeing no way out he then confessed to his crime.
He said that he told her to stay mum. He was confident that she would tell none of the incident and he was ready to give her whatever she wanted to make sure that she would keep quiet. He claimed that he had made a grave mistake.
In custody, Shiney was said to be in a remorseful state. Shockingly, Ahuja during the interrogation reportedly told police that it never occurred to him that the crime he was committing was “so much serious”.
His wife Anupam claimed that her husband was being framed as she came out in his defence yesterday.
The actor spent three months in jail and was granted bail in October 2009. Throughout the case, there have also been rumours that Shiney has been framed and was a victim of blackmail himself.
September 2010
But in a shocking turn-around, the woman who worked as domestic help for actor Shiney Ahuja has denied in court that the actor raped her. The 18-year-old says her aunt bullied her into accusing Ahuja of rape in June, 2009. The domestic help has told the court that she lodged the police complaint against Shiney after the woman who got her the job with the Ahujas asked her to do so.
The police say that the domestic help’s latest statement contradicts what investigations have revealed. A preliminary medical check-up hours after the alleged rape showed she had been sexually violated.
The public prosecutor says that the domestic help has been declared a hostile witness, and the trial will continue. Medical reports and the statements of other witnesses will serve as evidence.
Ahuja’s wife has argued consistently that the actor has been framed and that the rape case was an extortion attempt.
Following media reports about the complainant who accused actor Shiney Ahuja of raping her turning hostile, lawyers say she is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. The victim has made a statement before the magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is admissible in court unless proven involuntary.
The trial is being conducted in-camera before the Sewri fast track court. In-camera trial refers to a case where the court bars the media from reporting about the case as per section 327 of the CrPC, applicable in sensitive cases like rape.
Advocate Majeed Memon said that the victim’s statement under oath has been recorded under section 164 of the CrPC at the investigation stage. That would mean two versions on oath from the same witness diagonally opposite. Both can never be true. One is bound to be false. Hence, she is liable for prosecution under perjury.
Police officers, however, claim that their case against Ahuja is watertight, despite the complainant’s alleged retraction from her earlier statement. Deputy Commissioner of police (zone IX) KMM Prasanna said the victim’s statement was recorded under section 164 of the CrPC, along with at least four other witnesses.
The witnesses then reportedly encouraged her to lodge a complaint with the police.
Lawyers, however, are cynical. Memon said the victim’s deposition before the court will hold more weight than the one before the magistrate.
The maid’s volte-face came during trial last month when the ‘victim’ who was being cross-examined for a day identified Ahuja in the court and said she worked at his residence as a domestic help. But when asked about the incident, she said it never happened and that she was never raped.
However, the prosecution is confident that this will not be a major setback given the strong medical evidence supporting her initial allegations. Ahuja’s defence, too, asserted it was unlikely that the case would end based solely on the maid’s statement. Even legal experts are of the opinion that the prosecution can move forward with the case by providing other evidence.
After the victim’s cross-examination, Ahuja’s neighbour who accompanied the maid to lodge a police complaint gave a testimony in court. The prosecution will now continue presenting other evidence.
Scores of civil service aspirants on 08.09.2010 staged a protest outside UPSC office in New Delhi demanding that cut-off marks for the preliminary examinations be made public.
Some protesters also continued their indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on the same issue, which began on four days ago.
The aspirants marched towards UPSC building near India Gate on the afternoon of 8.9.2010 and pasted posters there demanding transparency in the functioning of UPSC with regard to civil services examinations. “We demand that the cut-off marks be made public for the preliminary examinations, the results of which were published recently,” Anay Mishra, one of the protesters, said.
Dissatisfied with the evaluation process of the Union Public Service Commission, members of a student body, Youth for Justice, held a protest outside the commission on 8.09.2010. They demanded more transparency in the evaluation process of the UPSC.
The protesters submitted an RTI application to know the process through which “scaling” of a candidate is done — through scaling marks of students are reduced or increased arbitrarily.
Around 75 students, who took part in the protest, complained that the UPSC never reveals the process of scaling, unlike in some state level civil services exams. The state level exams, the students said, are more transparent.
The Youth for Justice has been demanding more transparency in the UPSC evaluation process since 2006. Today’s protest was planned after some 200 UPSC aspirants expressed concern over the schedule of the interviews, to be held later this month.
A student Vishal Vasvani said candidates who did well and were selected for various posts were given below average feedback in their interviews in the previous years.
Another member of the group, Ashwini, said he has names of over 40 students who haven’t got the interview calls despite making it to the interview last year. “People who have taken the exam more than 2-3 times are not getting any call, though they are the ones preparing since years,” he said.
Ashwini said the UPSC is “trying to escape from revealing information under the Right to Information Act”. “But we will seek justice not only for us, but for those who may appear in the exam in the coming years,” he said.
This is not a dispute which has arisen recently. The sharing of waters of the river Cauvery has been the bone of contention of a serious conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River originates in the Brahmagiri ranges of Kodagu district flows through large parts of Tamil Nadu and also some parts of Kerala and Pondicherry. No attempt was made to utilise its waters for irrigation until 1883 when the Diwan of the princely state of Mysore launched a scheme. His primary aim was to increase the revenue to the King’s coffers. This move was resented by the Madras presidency under the British Raj. Thus began the Cauvery dispute which is yet to be solved.
Mysore’s plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the then British government as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing “…on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore reasonable freedom in dealing with her irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against injury to her interests” and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed There was some respite after two rounds of talks between the Mysore state and Madras presidency in 1892 and 1924. Mysore was permitted to construct a dam in Kannambadi village to impound 44.8 thousand million cubic feet of water. The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.
Madras had what is called prescriptive rights over the upper riparian state of Mysore. Malabar district was then part of the Madras presidency. Malabar is now part of Kerala, and Kerala too has joined the Cauvery fray. As per this agreement, Mysore was required to obtain Madras’ consent for any new irrigation reservoirs across any of the main rivers it wished to utilize and share information on any new irrigation scheme it wished to undertake to utilize the waters
After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras’ hackles and the dispute continued. As a result, the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The Cauvery dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time
The agreement also stipulated that Mysore was not to increase its area under irrigation more than 110,000 beyond what was already existing acres while the same cap for Madras Presidency was pegged at 301000|acre|km2. Nonetheless, Madras still appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Finally an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years. As a result of these agreements, Karnataka claims that Mysore was forced to give up rights
The 1924 Agreement
The 1924 agreement was valid for 50 years, after which there was to be a review. It stipulated that Mysore could undertake any extension of irrigation by impounding Cauvery waters only with the prior consent of the Madras presidency. Twelve years after Independence and 15 years before the expiry of the pact, Mysore, by then rechristened Karnataka, wrote to Tamil Nadu, inviting its attention to several clauses, and suggesting changes. Tamil Nadu turned down the plea. Changes, it said, would be contemplated only after the expiry of the pact in 1974.
The central government began an initiative soon after, but the entire issue was given the appearance of a bilateral dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the other two riparian states, namely Kerala and Pondicherry, having been left out until the 1970s.
Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu had expanded its irrigation by leaps and bounds against the letter and spirit of the agreement. Its acreage increased from 1.665 million in 1924 to 2.82 million by 1971. Karnataka’s score showed a rise from 314,000 to 682,000 acres. The agreement had stipulated that Madras was entitled to increase its irrigation land to only 300,000 acres. Mysore’s quota was 110,000 acres. Both had violated the agreement.
What the dispute is all about
The state of Karnataka feels that it has not got its due share of water utilization as against Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that agreements between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has since demanded a renegotiated settlement based on “equitable sharing of the waters”. Tamil Nadu on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state.
Countless rounds of talks have taken place to resolve the issue, without any success.
According to a study conducted by the central government in 1972, the utilisation of water from Cauvery in Tamil Nadu was 489 tmc ft against Karnataka’s 177 tmc ft. Now Karnataka wants to utilise 465 tmc ft, against its present usage of 312.32 tmc ft. It is against this background that Tamil Nadu went to the Supreme Court.
The Cauvery Water Tribunal, in its interim award of June 1991, ordered that Karnataka release 205 tmc of water to Tamil Nadu during one water year, that is from May to June. It also stipulated a weekly quantum of flow, much to the chagrin of Karnataka. This led to large-scale violence on Tamils living in Karnataka. Karnataka has followed the interim order and has released much more than 205 tmc ft of water every year except during the year 1995-96. This led to the Supreme Court coming down heavily on Karnataka.
Effect of Negotiations
When decades of negotiations between the parties involved bore no fruit, the Government of India finally constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. The tribunal after hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the last 16 years delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³) to Karnataka; 30 billion ft³ (0.8 km³) of Cauvery river water to Kerala and 7 billion ft³ (0.2 km³) to Puducherry. The dispute however, seems far from over with all four states deciding to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order.
Post independence developments
After independence, the equations changed drastically. Tamil Nadu was carved out of Madras Presidency and Mysore province became a state. Coorg (the birthplace of the Cauvery), became a part of Mysore state. Huge parts of erstwhile Hyderabad state and Bombay Presidency joined with Mysore state.
All these changes further changed the equations as Kerala and Pondicherry also jumped into the fray. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Cauvery, the Kabini, now originated in Kerala. Karaikal region of Pondicherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it had always used for drinking and some minimal agriculture. While these additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute.
During the 70s, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was constituted, in order to inspect the ‘ground’ realities and come up with a report. Finally in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley Authority was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation. This draft however, was not ratified.
While all these discussions went on, Tamil Nadu’s irrigated lands had grown from a pre-Mettur command area of 1,440,000 acres (5,800 km2) to 2,580,000 acres (10,400 km2) while Karnataka’s irrigated area stood at 680,000 acres (2,800 km²). Karnataka maintains that these figures demonstrate the lop-sided nature of the agreement.
In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the Central government, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was accepted by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament. Tamil Nadu came under President’s rule soon after that and the agreement was put on the backburner. When President’s rule was lifted, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) with M. G. Ramachandran at the helm came to power for the first time in Tamil Nadu and the dispute took a new turn.
The Tamil Nadu government now rejected the draft agreement and started insisting that the 1924 agreement had only provided for an extension and not a review. It began insisting that status quo be restored and everyone go back to the agreements of 1892 and 1924. This however, did not cut ice with Karnataka which had throughout maintained that those agreements were partisan and had been signed between unequal partners.
When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam in Kodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Inter State Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. As a result of Tamil Nadu’s protests, Karnataka had to fund the construction under the non-plan head and this led to a severe strain on its finances.
Several rounds of discussions were held in the 80s. The result was still, a stalemate
The constitution of the tribunal
The Supreme Court then directed the government headed by Prime Minister V. P. Singh to constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it. A three man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June 1990.
The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under
Karnataka – claimed 465 billion ft³ (13 km³) as its share
Kerala – wants 99.8 billion ft³ (2.83 km³) as its share
Pondicherry – claims 9.3 billion ft³ (0.3 km³)
Tamil Nadu – wants the flows to be ensured in accordance with the terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (ie., 566 billion ft³ (16 km³) for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; 177 billion ft³ (5 km³) for Karnataka and 5 billion ft³ (0.1 km³) for Kerala).
Once the tribunal was set up, Tamil Nadu demanded a mandatory injunction on Karnataka for the immediate release of water and other reliefs. The tribunal dismissed this. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court which directed the tribunal to reconsider Tamil Nadu’s plea.
An interim award was given on 25 June 1991, in which the tribunal calculated the average inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 1980–81 and 1989–90. The extreme years were ignored for this calculation. The average worked out to 205 billion ft³ (5.8 km³) which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year. The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year. The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase it irrigated land area from the existing 1,120,000 acres
Karnataka could not digest this award and issued an ordinance seeking to annul the tribunal’s award. The Supreme Court now stepped in at the President’s instance and struck down the Ordinance issued by Karnataka. It upheld the tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991.
In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard pressed to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 billion ft³. The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadu’s petition and asked it to approach the tribunal. The tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karnataka release 11 billion ft³. Karnataka pleaded that 11 billion ft³ cannot be implemented in the circumstances that existed then. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao intervene and find a political solution. The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 billion ft³ instead of the 11 billion ft³ that the tribunal ordered.
Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over.
Constitution of the CRA
In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured. Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority.
Under a new proposal, the Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority, which would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four States (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi and Cauvery Monitoring Committee, which would be an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the ‘ground realities’ and report to the Central Government.
In 2002, reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The dispute point yet again, as in 1995–96 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.
The Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 billion ft³ of water every day unless CRA revised it. Karnataka started the release of water but pressed for another meeting of the CRA which was fixed later. The CRA revised the Court’s order from 1.25 billion ft³ to 0.8 billion ft³ per day.
This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the CRA, refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Cauvery districts of the state. When Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a protesting farmer committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and the protests threatened to take a dangerous turn.
The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. While the CRA inspected the reservoirs in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu flatly refused to grant them permission to inspect its reservoirs. On 30 September 2002 the Supreme Court ordered Tamil Nadu to co-operate with the CRA and Tamil Nadu gave in.
Demonstrations
Things took an ugly turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all around in both states. The opposition parties in Tamil Nadu too had jumped into the fray and at the same time joining the then Chief Minister Ms Jayalalitha in stinging rebukes of both the Centre and the CRA.
To add to all this, the dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the district of Mandya in Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too. Precipitating the matters on the streets, the SC ordered Karnataka to comply with the CRA and resume the release of water.
Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of SC. Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a ‘free for all’ with all and sundry from both states joining the protests. Soon, film actors and various other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. The belligerence soon hit a crescendo and even as some groups in Tamil Nadu called for a stoppage of power from the Neyveli Power stat ion to Karnataka as a tit-for-tat measure, a Pan-Tamil militant outfit (a month or so later) went ahead and blasted a major power transformer supplying power to the neighbouring states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
In the meanwhile, Tamil Nadu’s contempt suit on Karnataka came up for hearing. The Karnataka government, by now saw the gravity of the situation, and in a bid to salvage the situation, decided to resume the release of water; while at the same time compensating its own farmers for the loss. The Supreme Court censured the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister for attacking the CRA and the Prime Minister and ordered Tamil Nadu to tender an unqualified apology. Tamil Nadu complied with it and tendered the apology.
2003–2006
The last four years haven’t seen any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 were quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts.
The extension for the term of the tribunal was granted and the tribunal’s term was extended for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the ‘Assessor’s report’ that was apparently ‘leaked’ to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the ‘ground realities’ yet again. This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all the four states party to the dispute.
Judgment
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007. According to its verdict, Tamil Nadu gets 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 billion ft³ (5.4 km³) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft³ and Puducherry 7 billion ft³. Tamil Nadu appears to have been accepting the verdict while the government of Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review.
Is it going to be a never-ending dispute or a dispute to test National Integrity?
The Emmy Award, often referred to simply as the Emmy, is a television production award, similar in nature to the Peabody Awards but more focused on entertainment, and is considered the television equivalent to the Academy Awards (for film), Grammy Awards (for music) and Tony Awards (for stage).
They are presented in various sectors of the television industry, including entertainment programming, news and documentary shows, and sports programming. As such, the awards are presented in various area-specific ceremonies held annually throughout the year.
Originally there was only one Emmy Awards ceremony held per year to honor shows nationally broadcast in the United States. That changed when the Daytime Emmy Awards, a separate awards show specifically just for daytime programming, was first held in 1974. Other area-specific Emmy Awards ceremonies soon followed. Also, the International Emmy Awards, honoring television programs produced and initially aired outside the U.S., was established in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, all Emmys awarded prior to the emergence of these separate, area-specific ceremonies are listed along with the Primetime Emmy Awards in the ATAS’ official records.
In 1977, due to various conflicts, the ATAS and the NATAS agreed to split ties. However, they also agreed to share ownership of the Emmy statue and trademark, with each responsible for administering a specific set of award shows.
The best known of these ceremonies are the Primetime Emmy Awards, honoring excellence in American primetime television programming (excluding sports), and the Daytime Emmy Awards, honoring excellence in American daytime television programming.
The first Emmy Awards were presented on January 25, 1949 at the Hollywood Athletic Club, but solely to honor shows produced and aired locally in the Los Angeles area. Shirley Dinsdale has the distinction of receiving the very first Emmy, for Most Outstanding Television Personality, during that first awards ceremony.
In the 1950s, the ATAS expanded the Emmys into a national event, presenting the awards to shows broadcast nationwide. In 1955, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (NATAS) was formed in New York as a sister organization to serve members on the East Coast, and help to also supervise the Emmys. The NATAS also established regional chapters throughout the United States, with each one developing their own local Emmy awards show for local programming.
History of Emmy Statuette
The Los Angeles-based Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (ATAS) established the Emmy Awards as part of an image-building and public relations opportunity. The name “Emmy” was chosen as a feminization of “immy“, a nickname used for the image orthicon tubes that were common in early television cameras. To complement the name, the statuette was designed to depict a winged woman holding an atom, which “has since become the symbol of the TV Academy’s goal of supporting and uplifting the art and science of television: The wings represent the muse of art; the atom the electron of science.”
After rejecting 47 proposals for what was to become the Emmy® statuette, Academy members in 1948 selected a design that television engineer Louis McManus had created using his wife as a model.
The statuette of a winged woman holding an atom has since become the symbol of the Television Academy’s goal of supporting and uplifting the arts and science of television: The wings represent the muse of art; the atom the electron of science.
Academy founder Syd Cassyd suggested “Ike,” the nickname for the television iconoscope tube. But with a national war hero named Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, Academy members thought they needed a less well-known name. Harry Lubcke, a pioneer television engineer and the third Academy president, suggested “Immy,” a term commonly used for the early image orthicon camera. The name stuck and was later modified to Emmy, which members thought was more appropriate for a female symbol.
The statuettes weigh four and three-quarter pounds and are made of copper, nickel, silver, and gold. Each one takes five and one-half hours to make and is handled with white gloves so as to leave no fingerprints.
62nd Annual Primetime Emmy Awards
The 62nd Annual Primetime Emmy Awards, presented by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, took place on August 29, 2010. NBC broadcasted the event, which took place at Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles, California. Late Night host Jimmy Fallon hosted the telecast. This was the first telecast to be televised live coast-to-coast since the 34th ceremony held in 1976.
Primetime Emmy Awards
The Primetime Emmy Awards are awards presented by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences in recognition of excellence in American primetime television programming. First awarded in 1949, they were originally referred to as just the “Emmy Awards” until the first Daytime Emmy Award ceremonies were held in the 1970s, and the word “primetime” was added to disambiguate between the two.
The Primetime Emmys generally air in mid-September, on the Sunday before the official start of the fall television season. They are currently seen in rotation among the four major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX). Because of NBC’s coverage of Sunday Night NFL Football beginning in September, when NBC has had the rotation in 2006 and again in 2010, the Emmys move to late August for those years only.
2010 Emmy Prime Time Award Winners
Drama Series:Mad Men Comedy Series: Modern Family
Acting
Lead Actor in a Drama Series: Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Lead Actress in a Drama Series: Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer
Lead Actor in a Comedy Series: Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory
Lead Actress in a Comedy Series: Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Supporting Actor in a Drama Series: Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad
Supporting Actress in a Drama Series: Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series: Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family
Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series: Jane Lynch, Glee Lead Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie: Al Pacino, You Don’t Know Jack
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie: Claire Danes, Temple Grandin
Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie: David Strathairn, Temple Grandin Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie: Julia Ormond, Temple Grandin
Directing
Drama Series: Steve Shill, Dexter
Comedy Series: Ryan Murphy, Glee Variety, Music or Comedy Special: Bucky Gunts, Vancouver 2010: XXI Olympic Winter Games Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special: Mick Jackson, Temple Grandin
Writing
Drama Series: Matthew Weiner and Erin Levy, Mad Men
Comedy Series: Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd, Modern Family Variety, Music or Comedy Special: 63rd Annual Tony Awards Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special: Adam Mazer, You Don’t Know Jack
Made for Television Movie: Temple Grandin
Miniseries: The Pacific
Reality Competition Program: Top Chef Variety, Music or Comedy Series: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Bob Hope Humanitarian Award: George Clooney
Daytime Emmy Awards
The Daytime Emmy Awards are awards presented by the New York-based National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles-based Academy of Television Arts & Sciences in recognition of excellence in American daytime television programming. Ceremonies generally are held in May or June. The first daytime-themed Emmy Awards were given out at the primetime ceremony in 1972, when The Doctors and General Hospital were nominated for Outstanding Achievement in a Daytime Drama.
2010 Daytime Emmy Award winners
The 2010 Daytime Emmy Award winners were announced at the Las Vegas Hiltion on June 27, 2010. Regis Philbin, Live With Regis and Kelly, hosted the awards, which featured a special tribute to TV icon Dick Clark.
Outstanding Drama Series
The Bold and the Beautiful
The Bold and the Beautiful won for the second year in the row. It has now won this category twice.
Outstanding Lead Actress
Maura West as Carly Tenney Snyder on As the World Turns
Maura West was nominated last year. The award went to Susan Haskell from One Life to Live.
Outstanding Lead Actor
Michael Park as Jack Snyder on As the World Turns
Christian LeBlanc won in this category last year. He also won in 2007 and 2005.
Outstanding Supporting Actress
Julie Pinson as Janet Ciccone on As the World Turns
Julie Pinson was nominated last year, but lost to Tamara Braun. She won for her stint on Days of Our Lives.
Outstanding Supporting Actor
Billy Miller as Billy Abbott on The Young and the Restless
There was a tie in this category last year, with both Vincent Irizarry and Jeff Branson winning. Billy Miller wasn’t nominated.
Outstanding Younger Actress
Julie Marie Berman as Lulu Spencer on General Hospital
This is the second year in a row that Julie Marie Berman has won an Emmy in this category. She was pre-nominated in the category with fellow General Hospital star Kirsten Storms.
Outstanding Younger Actor
Drew Tyler Bell as Thomas Forrester on The Bold and the Beautiful
Darin Brooks from Days of Our Lives won last year. This is the first Emmy for Bell.
Outstanding Writing Team
The Bold and the Beautiful
General Hospital won last year.
Outstanding Directing Team
General Hospital
One Life to Live won last year.
Outstanding Entertainment Talk Show
The Ellen DeGeneres Show
Rachael Ray won last year. The Ellen DeGeneres Show started in 2003.
Outstanding Informative Talk Show
The Doctors
The Doctors started in 2008. The Tyra Banks Show won this last year.
Outstanding Talk Show Host
Dr. Mehmet Oz on The Dr. Oz Show
The women of The View won this award last year. The View started in 1997.
Outstanding Morning Program
The Today Show (NBC)
Good Morning America won last year. The popular morning show started in 1975.
Outstanding Game/Audience Participation Show
Cash Cab
Cash Cab won last year and in 2008 as well. The show started in 2005.
Outstanding Legal/Courtroom Program
Cristina’s Court
Cristina’s Court won last year as well. The show started in 2006.
Outstanding Game Show Host
Ben Bailey, Cash Cab
Meredith Viera, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, won this award last year. This is Bailey’s first Emmy as host.
Outstanding Children’s Animated Program
Curious George
Word World won this award last year. It started in 2007.
Lifetime Achievement Award
Agnes Nixon
Nixon created All My Children and One Life to Live. Sesame Street received the Lifetime Achievement Award last year.
Dream Dare Win
It extends east to the Jordan River, north to the border between Israel and Lebanon, west to the Mediterranean, and south to the Negev desert, reaching the Gulf of Aqaba. The political status and geographic area designated by the term have changed considerably over the course of three millennia. The eastern boundary has been particularly fluid, often understood as lying east of the Jordan and extending at times to the edge of the Arabian Desert.
A land of sharp contrasts, Palestine includes the Dead Sea, the lowest natural point of elevation on Earth, and mountain peaks higher than 2,000 ft (610 m) above sea level. In the 20th and 21st centuries it has been the object of conflicting claims by Jewish and Arab national movements.
The region is sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Settled since early prehistoric times, mainly by Semitic groups, it was occupied in biblical times by the kingdoms of Israel, Judah, and Judaea. It was subsequently held by virtually every power of the Middle East, including the Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, and Ottomans.
It was governed by Britain after the end of World War I (1914–18)—from 1922, under a League of Nations mandate—until 1948, when the State of Israel was proclaimed. Armies from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq attacked the next day. They were defeated by the Israeli army.
Geographical Locations of Palestine
The land variously called Israel and Palestine is a small, (10,000 square miles at present) land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. During its long history, its area, population and ownership varied greatly. The present state of Israel occupies all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean ocean, bounded by Egypt in the south, Lebanon in the north, and Jordan in the East. The recognized borders of Israel constitute about 78% of the land. The remainder is divided between land occupied by Israel since the 1967 6-day war and the autonomous regions under the control of the Palestinian autonomy. The Gaza strip occupies an additional 141 square miles south of Israel, and is under the control of the Palestinian authority.
Palestine has been settled continuously for tens of thousands of years. Fossil remains have been found of Homo Erectus, Neanderthal and transitional types between Neanderthal and modern man. Archeologists have found hybrid Emmer wheat at Jericho dating from before 8,000 B.C., making it one of the oldest sites of agricultural activity in the world. Amorites, Canaanites, and other Semitic peoples related to the Phoenicians of Tyre entered the area about 2000 B.C. The area became known as the Land of Canaan
Israel
This country isofficially known as State of Israel, Hebrew Medinat Yisraʾel, Arabic Isrāʾīl.
Area: 8,357 sq mi (21,643 sq km). Population (2009 est.): 7,128,000 (includes population of Golan Heights and east Jerusalem; excludes population of the West Bank). Capital (proclaimed): Jerusalem.
Jews constitute some four-fifths of the population and Arabs about one-fifth. Languages: Hebrew, Arabic (both official). Religions: Judaism; also Islam, Christianity. Currency: new Israeli sheqel (NIS).
Geographical Locations of Israel
It is a country in the Middle East, located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition.
Israelcan be divided into four major regions: the Mediterranean coastal plain in the west; a hill region extending from the northern border into central Israel; the Great Rift Valley, containing the Jordan River, in the east; and the arid Negev, occupying nearly the entire southern half of the country. Its major drainage system is the interior basin formed by the Jordan River; Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee) provides water to much of the country’s agricultural land.
Israelhas a mixed economy based largely on services and manufacturing; exports include machinery and electronics, diamonds, chemicals, citrus fruits, vegetables, and textiles. Its population is nine-tenths urban and is concentrated largely in the Mediterranean coastal plain and around Jerusalem. It is a multiparty republic with one legislative house, the Knesset; its head of state is the president, and the head of government is the prime minister. The record of human habitation in Israeldates to the Paleolithic Period. Efforts by Jews to establish a national state there began in the late 19th century.
Britain supported Zionism and in 1923 assumed political responsibility for what was then called Palestine. Migration of Jews to Palestine, which increased during the period of Nazi persecution, led to deteriorating relations with Arabs. In 1947 the UN voted to partition the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.
The State of Israelwas proclaimed in 1948, and Egypt, Transjordan (later Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq immediately declared war on it. Israelwon that war as well as the 1967 Six-Day War, in which it occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and east Jerusalem.
Another war with its Arab neighbours followed in 1973, but the Camp David Accords led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from that country, and in late 1987 an uprising broke out among Palestinians of the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab states and Palestinians began in 1991. Israel and the PLO agreed in 1993 to a five-year plan to extend self-government to the Palestinians of the occupied territories. Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994.Israeli soldiers and a Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, clashed throughout the 1990s. Israelitroops withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and negotiations between Israeland the Palestinians broke down amid violence that claimed hundreds of lives. In an effort to stem the fighting,Israel in 2005 withdrew its soldiers and settlers from parts of the West Bank and from all of the Gaza Strip, which came under Palestinian control.
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict
The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the ongoing dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, an enduring and explosive conflict. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between Jewish and Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman or British rule. It forms part of the wider, and generally earlier, Arab–Israeli conflict. The remaining key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement and legalities concerning refugees. The violence resulting from the conflict has prompted international actions, as well as other security and human rights concerns, both within and between both sides, and internationally.
Zionism
In the late 1800s a group in Europe decided to colonize this land. Known as Zionists, they represented an extremist minority of the Jewish population. Their goal was to create a Jewish homeland, and they considered locations in Africa and the Americas, before settling on Palestine.
Initially, this immigration created no problems. However, as more and more Zionists immigrated to Palestine – many with the express wish of taking over the land for a Jewish state – the indigenous population became increasingly alarmed. Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence. Hitler’s rise to power, combined with Zionist activities to sabotage efforts to place Jewish refugees in western countries, led to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, and conflict grew.
UN Partition Plan
In 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.
Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state – despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.
1947 – 1949 War
Throughout this war, Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined – often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel – virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.
Finally, Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as “splendid,” and stated: “As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.” Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.
By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population.
1967 War & USS Liberty
In 1967, Israel conquered still more land. Following the Six Day War, in which Israeli forces launched a highly successful surprise attack on Egypt, Israel occupied the final 22% of Palestine that had eluded it in 1948 – the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since, according to international law it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war, these are occupied territories and do not belong to Israel. It also occupied parts of Egypt (since returned) and Syria (which remain under occupation).
Also during the Six Day War, Israel attacked a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, killing and injuring over 200 American servicemen. President Lyndon Johnson recalled rescue flights, saying that he did not want to “embarrass an ally.
Current Conflict
There are two primary issues at the core of this continuing conflict. First, there is the inevitably destabilizing effect of trying to maintain an ethnically preferential state, particularly when it is largely of foreign origin. The original population of what is now Israel was 96 percent Muslim and Christian, yet, these refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes in the self-described Jewish state (and those within Israel are subjected to systematic discrimination).
Second, Israel’s continued military occupation and confiscation of privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza, are extremely oppressive, with Palestinians having minimal control over their lives. Over 10,000 Palestinian men, women, and children are held in Israeli prisons. Few of them have had a legitimate trial; Physical abuse and torture are frequent. Palestinian borders (even internal ones) are controlled by Israeli forces. Periodically men, women, and children are strip searched; people are beaten; women in labor are prevented from reaching hospitals (at times resulting in death); food and medicine are blocked from entering Gaza, producing an escalating humanitarian crisis. Israeli forces invade almost daily, injuring, kidnapping, and sometimes killing inhabitants.
According to the Oslo peace accords of 1993, these territories were supposed to finally become a Palestinian state. However, after years of Israel continuing to confiscate land and conditions steadily worsening, the Palestinian population rebelled. (The Barak offer, widely reputed to be generous, was anything but.) This uprising, called the “Intifada” (Arabic for “shaking off”) began at the end of September 2000.
Quite a few attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, which would mean the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside an independent Jewish state or next to the State of Israel (after Israel’s establishment in 1948). In 2007, a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, stated a preference for the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict.
Also, a majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians’ demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution. However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments. An alternative is the one-state or binational solution, whereby all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and West Bank would become a bi-national state with equal rights for all.
Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also within each society.
There are prominent international actors involved in the conflict. The two parties engaged in direct negotiation are the Israeli government, currently led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas. The official negotiations are mediated by an international contingent known as the Quartet on the Middle East (the Quartet) represented by a special envoy that consists of the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. The Arab League is another important actor, which has proposed an alternative peace plan. Egypt, a founding member of the Arab League, has historically been a key participant.
Since 2003, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas. Following Hamas’ seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority (the Palestinian interim government) is split between Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance between the parties has effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance of the Palestinian National Authority (PA).
A round of peace negotiations commenced at Annapolis, Maryland, United States, in November 2007. These talks were aimed at having a final resolution by the end of 2008. The parties agree there are six cores, or ‘final status,’ issues which still need to be resolved.
Palestinians sceptical of talks – 1.09.2010
The stage is set for the revival of peace talks on 1.09.2010 in Washington between Israel and the Palestinians amid scepticism in the Palestinian territories that the latest round of international diplomacy that seeks to establish an independent Palestinian state will make much headway.
U. S. President Barack Obama will preside over the relaunch of talks on 1.09.2010 attended by Palestinian Authority ( PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The 22- nation Arab League backs these talks.
However, Israel’s refusal so far to extend its moratorium on fresh construction in occupied Palestinian territories, which expires on September 26, 2010 threatens to disrupt Washington’s new initiative. The international “ Quartet” group, which also includes Russia, the European Union ( EU) and the United Nations as members, backs the resumption of negotiations. The Palestinians have threatened to walk out of direct talks, unless Israel extends the freeze on new housing, which can impact on the nature of the future Palestinian State. The Palestinians want that the West Bank and Gaza Strip should comprise their future state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Palestinian Hamas which runs the Gaza Strip has strongly rejected the talks. However, imparting a positive spin to the prospects of talks, U. S. State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said the Obama administration visualised that negotiations could achieve success “ within a one- year time frame”. “That is what our goal is,” he said on 30.08.2010.
Israel-Palestine: Are the talks meant to fail?
Held in Washington at the instigation of President Obama, the first direct talks between Israel, represented by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinians, represented by President Mahmoud Abbas, for 20 months were presaged with much fanfare.
The rhetoric before the meeting was certainly ambitious, with the main stated aim being the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. The only substantive result so far, however, is that the two sides will meet again on September 14, 2010 in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheikh, and every fortnight thereafter. The U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, will attend on September 14, 2010 as will former Senator George Mitchell, who is now Mr. Obama’s special peace envoy to the Middle East.
The first key issue for the Palestinians is an end to the Israeli construction of settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan, which Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Another is the right of return for millions of displaced Palestinians, both the victims of that war and those expelled by Israel in 1948; huge numbers still languish in camps around the region and in Gaza. A third point is the status of Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as a shared capital with Israel.
For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has said bluntly that the legitimacy and security of Israel are paramount. According to him, the demand for a nation-state for the Palestinian people must be matched by a Palestinian recognition that Israel is the nation-state for the Jewish people, though he adds that the million or more non-Jews living in Israel have full civil rights.
A major problem is that Israel is not even dealing with Hamas, the elected majority representatives of the Palestinians. It may be trying to pretend that Hamas does not exist, though it is prepared to go to war with it; Israel has also imposed an economic stranglehold upon Gaza which amounts to nothing less than the collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, and it continues to bomb supply tunnels in southern Gaza. The physical departure of Israeli settlers and Israeli forces from Gaza over the last few years is therefore almost an irrelevance, and ordinary Palestinians’ hostility to the reopening of talks is entirely unsurprising.
There is therefore virtually no prospect that the reopened contacts between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas can succeed. If Israel shows any willingness to make concessions, the Palestinian President will be under severe international pressure to accept, but will alienate his own supporters even further; if the talks break down for any reason, Mr. Netanyahu can blame the Palestinians.
All the evidence is that that is exactly what Israel wants. The next Israeli chief of military staff is to be Major-General Yoav Galant, who led the 2008-09 offensive in Gaza, during which 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed, and in respect of which the U.N. fact finding report said there had been war crimes on both sides. Israeli rights groups have called for an examination of Galant’s actions in Gaza, but, as is so often the case in such matters, those at the top can be sure they will escape, however tainted they are. In effect, Israel is ruling out any possibility that its own security could be ensured by a fair, just, and equitable settlement with all Palestinians. It clearly will not accept a tenable two-state solution, but a one-state solution would annul its claim to being a Jewish state. So Israel may well be moving towards the creation of a permanently demonised and subjugated other, which may be essential for the very preservation of the idea of a Jewish, or in more extreme terms Zionist.
Israel must be recognised as Jewish state: Netanyahu -13.09.2010
Israel’s Prime Minister says peace will be possible only if the Palestinian leadership agrees to recognise Israel as a Jewish state — a demand the Palestinians have long rejected. Benjamin Netanyahu says such recognition will be the “real basis” for peace and that he regrets the Palestinians have not agreed.
He spoke on 12.09.2010 at his Cabinet’s weekly meeting, ahead of talks in the coming week with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Mr. Netanyahu has made recognition of Israel’s Jewish character a central demand, suggesting the Palestinians’ failure to do so means they have not come to terms with Israel’s existence.
The Palestinians say they will not extend such recognition because it would compromise the rights of Palestinian refugees and Israel’s Arab minority.
