Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Indian National Movement – A panorama



Indian national movement is a crucial part in General Studies. Enough material on the subject is available. However, given the quantum of material, it is very hard for any aspirant to read everything at one-go. But, the twist lies in the fact that reading the whole movement at one stretch is required to clearly understand the conditions and changing circumstances that guided the course of the freedom struggle. This article gives you the entire national movement in just a few pages driving a wedge between brevity and adequacy of the content.
Any national movement is a struggle to liberate the nation from foreign yoke. As you know, Indian national movement is a struggle to drive British out of India. The genesis of national movement lies in the emergence of Indian nationalism. The emergence of nationalism was two-pronged. On the one hand, it was due to discontentment over the exploitative nature of British rule which ruined the lives of peasants, artisans and others and thereby draining Indian of her wealth and putting Indian economy in tatters. Lytton’s enactment of two infamous acts – Vernacular Press Act and Arms Act and the repeal of Ilbert Bill at the instance of British disillusioned Indian to the fact that their interests shall not be safeguarded where English interests are involved. On the other hand, it was due to the exposure of Indian youth to the western principles of liberty, constitutionalism, parliamentary democracy and the propagation of the same to masses via the development of press. The contribution of socio religious reform movements can be hardly overemphasized.
The growth of Indian nationalism resulted in the formation of an all-India level organization Indian national Congress (INC) in 1885 to further Indian interests. The INC was set up a retired ICS officer AO Hume. Many theories revolve around the formation of INC. While one theory contends that it was set up by Hume to give a ‘safe valve’ to the expression of Indian discontentment, the other its origin to the efforts made by theosophists to engender a national level organization. However, present historians tend to view the formation of INC as a logical culmination of the nationalism that grew in the aftermath of 1857-revolt.
The INC was dominated by leaders, popularly called Moderates, for the first two decades. The moderates nursed a sense of loyalty to the British crown and regarded it to be boon to India. Their assumption was British wanted to be just to Indians but were not aware of realities. So they believed that creation of public opinion about issues and lucid presentation of the same to British could bring about reforms. Their main demands were ‘dominion status to India’ and ‘inclusion of more and more Indians in administration’. Their approach to struggle was epitomized in “three P’s – Prayer, petition and protest”. However they did not taste much success and the British paid no heed to their prayers. Their approach was criticized as “Political Mendicancy”. However, it is to be noted that moderates laid a solid foundation for national movement. As rightly, they sowed the seeds of nationalism well and deep. They educated the people in political agitation and exposed the economic exploitation of British rule. The important moderate leaders include Dadbhai Naoroji, Surendernath banerjea, Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozshah Mehta etc.
The methods adopted by Moderates did not go well with younger leaders with INC. The non-inclusion of demands of Moderates in Indian Councils Act, 1892 coupled with the reactionary policies of Curzon (Calcutta Corporation Act of 1899, Indian Universities Act of 1904 and Official Secrets Act of 1904) had disillusioned the people of workability of moderates’ methods. Then came the issue of Partition of Bengal. Lord Curzon announced the partition of Bengal in 1903 under the pretext of administrative convenience. However the real motive was to break Hindu-Muslim unity in Bengal. Moderates launched campaign against the partition of Bengal but failed to prevent the proposal. Finally, the partition was notified in early 1905. A resolution to boycott the British goods to protest the partition was taken in August 1905. The partition of Bengal was effected on 16-Oct-1905. That day was observed as a day of mourning in Bengal. Hindus and muslims tied Rakhi to each other to signal the bond of solidarity. Bande Mataram became the theme song. At the Benaras Congress Session, the young leaders of INC led by LAL-BAL-PAL and Aurbindo Gosh, popularly called Extremists, got the resolution of Swadeshi passed despite the opposition from Moderates. Swadeshi program include the boycott of foreign goods and usage of Indian goods instead. It also involved the boycott of foreign institutions like schools, colleges, courts. National colleges sprang up. Arrangement to deliver technical, literary education in Bengali was made. Many traditional imaginative festivals like durga pooja in Bengal, Ganesha Chaturthi in Maharastra were revived. With the progress of the swadeshi movement, the differences between extremists and moderates also widened. This discordance culminated in the split of INC which is popularly known as “Surat Split” in 1907. Later, the swadeshi movement became leaderless when TILAK was arrested and transported to Mandaley, Aurbindo Gosh and B.C.Pal retired from active politics. The Swadeshi movement saw a natural end. But, it had introduced a new form of struggle –Passive Resistance.
This period contemporarily witnessed the raise of revolutionary terrorism. In Maharastra, Vasudeva Balwant Phadke resorted to dacoits of zamindars and for some time created terror in the hearts of zamindars of Maharastra. He started off a movement called Ramoshis. The Chapekar brothers – Balakrishna and Damodar- killed the then plague commissioner W.C.Rand and his assistant Ayerest. Savarkar brothers set up ‘Mitra Mela’ which was later to be rechristened as ‘Abhinav bharat’. V.D.Savarkar went to London and became active in ‘India House’ set up by Shyamji Krishnaverma. Savarkar started revolutionary activities from there. His brother Ganesh Savarkar was arrested on petty charge of sedition by the then District-Collector of Nasik Jackson at the instance of Sir Curzon-Waillie. VD savarkar resolved to avenge bothe the officers. Madhan Lal Dhingra shot Curzon-Waillie dead iin London and was hanged there only. One of the members of Abhinav Bharat in India, Ananth Lakshman Karkare shot Jackson dead. VD Savarkar was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. The revolutionary activities in Bengal revolve around Anushilan Samithi established by Barin Gosh, brother of Aurbindo Gosh and an inner circle of Anushilan Samithi ‘Yuganthar’. Barin Gosh had set up bomb manufacturing unit at Maniktala in Kolkata. This group planned to execute the infamous magistrate Kingsford and the task was entrusted to Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki. They hurled a bomb at horse carriage believed to carry Kingsford, but two ladies were killed instead. Chaki shot himself dead. Khudiram Bose was hanged at barely 18. The police raided the maniktala bomb factory, thanks to a traitor and arrested 37 revolutionaries who were sentenced to varying punishments ranging from ten years’ imprisonment to Death sentence. This episode came to be called Alipore Bomb Conspiracy. The revolutionaries killed Narain Gosain who had turned approver in this case. They also killed a public prosecutor, Deputy Superintendent of police and a police officer connected with the Alipore Bomb conspiracy. Bagha Jatin who was not arrested in the alipore bomb conspiracy took over the reins of ‘Yuganthar’ and planned to conduct pan-India revolt in 1915 with the help of Germany. This came to be called Indo-German Conspiracy. However, this plan was also foiled and Bagha Jatin died in September 1915. The members of ‘Bengal Volunteers’, Benoy Basu, Badal Gupta, Dinesh Chandra Gupta killed a prisons officer named Simpson. Benoy shot himself dead, Badal took cyanide and Dinesh was hanged. This came to be known as Benoy-Badal-Dinesh martyrdom. The revolutionary activity was not confined to India but extended beyond India. In London, Shyamji Krishnavarma set up ‘India House’ as a hub of revolutionary activities and he ran a newspaper ‘Indian Sociologist’. In Paris, Madam Bhikaji Cama ran a revolutionary newspaper ‘Bande mataram’. She attended socialist conference as Indian representative along with Sardar Rana. She had the credit of unfurling Indian flag for the first time outside India. In Berlin, Veerendranatha Chattopadhyaya took the lead of revolutionary activities and he ran a newspaper “Talwar”. In san Francisco, “Hind Association of Asia Pacific”, popularly known as “Ghadr Party” was established. It was an organization of Sikhs who had migrated to US and Canada. The Ghadr party had planned for an all India uprising on 21-Feb-1915 but the attempt was foiled.
In 1916, Lucknow pact was signed which brought together moderates and extremists on the one hand and INC and Muslim League on the other.
Political activity halted for quite some time before it was revived by Tilak and Annie Besant in Home rule movement. The home rule movement was about demanding self-rule for India. Two leagues were set up – one at Poona by Tilak which spread across Central Province, Bombay presidency except Bombay and Karnatka. Annie Besant’s League was head quartered in Adyar, madras which spread throughout the India. Tilak toured India and urged people to be a part of home rule movement. Annie Besant also toured India and spread the message through ‘Commonweal’ and ‘Free India’. The government came down heavily and imposed about Rs. 20000 penalty on both of them. The government spoke of reforms and the movement lost its strength in the light of the anticipation of reforms.
The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were eyewash. The INC declared these reforms to be disappointing and unsatisfactory. In order to curb any dissenting over reforms, the government enacted Rowlatt Act which empowered the government to detain and sentence the people without trial. By this time, Gandhiji had emerged on the national scene and was successful in Champaran and Kheda. Gandhiji called for a nationwide bandh opposing the Rowlatt Act and the bandh was observed on April 6, 1919. An unfortunate event in Amritsar happened in the meanwhile. The Government of Punjab arrested the popular leaders of Punjab – Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew. People protested for their release and violence erupted and a few were killed. Curfew was imposed in Amritsar. Unaware of the curfew, people planned for a meeting at Jalianwall Bagh in Amritsar to condole the deaths on April 13, 1919. About 20000 people had gathered. General O’Dyer came with the army and opened fire on the unarmed crowd without warning. This heinous incident came to be known as ‘Jallianwall Bagh massacre’ in the history of India. Rabindranath Tagore renounced his Knighthood in protest. British government appointed Hunter commission to investigate into the excesses and it was merely eyewash. Gandhi demanded strict action against the perpetrators of violence.
At the same time, Khilfat issue also cropped up. Khilfat movement was the resentment of the Indian muslims to the stripping off the sultan of Turkey, Caliphate, the politico-religious leader of Islam, of the control over religious places by the Britain as a result of Britain’s victory over the Axis powers of which Turkey was a part. Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali launched Khilafat movement and demanded British to restore the control over religious places to sultan of turkey. Gandhiji supported the movement with the view of cementing Hindu-Muslim unity. The congress also supported Khilafat movment. Gandhiji placed two demands before the British – to punish the perpetrators of Jallianwalla bagh tragedy and to resolve the Khilafat issue. Non-cooperation movement was launched when the British government did not heed the Gandhiji’s demand. Non-cooperation movement involved the boycott of foreign goods and usage of swadeshi and boycott government institutions. Charaka was popularized. National schools came up. Gandhiji renounced “Kaiser-i-Hind”. Gandhiji also announced to launch civil disobedience since the government refused to release political prisoners held during the movement. But the movement was brought to an abrupt end when about 22 policemen were torched in police station at Chauri Chaura. Gandhiji was pained by violence and dismissed the movement. Gandhiji was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
Now, a new controversy erupted in congress about contesting 1923-elections. A group led by CR Das and Motilal Nehru urged to contest election and to wreck the functioning of council from within. But another group led by Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad and others wanted the congress to focus on constructive work and not to contest elections. Group led by CR Das and Motilal Nehru went ahead and established a separate party called “Swaraj” party. Swaraj party contested in elections and won 42 out of 141 seats in central legislature. It fared well in Central Provinces, Bombay Presidency and Bengal. The party legislators did remarkable work and outvoted a few budget proposals. It also stalled the ill Public Safety. However, the Swaraj could not fare well in 1926 elections, thanks to the split within the party and the sad demise of CR Das.
The Simon Commission visited India 1927 to assess the working of Government of India Act, 1919. The Commission was to decide the political future of India since it was to recommend further constitutional reforms to India in the light of the working 1919 act. The commission was boycotted since it consisted of only Englishmen, no Indian. The Simon commission was greeted with black flags wherever it went. Lala Laj Pat Rai succumbed to the injuries which he sustained during lathicharge at anti-simon protest.
Responding to wide spread campaign against Simon commission, Lord Birkenhood justified the government stand of excluding Indians from the commission and openly challenged Indian to come up with a constitution agreeable to all. All Parties Conference was convened and a committee headed by Motilal Nehru was constituted to draft a constitution agreeable to all. The Nehru report proposed for Dominion Status, reservation for Muslims in provinces where they were in minority, a federation with residuary powers vested in Union Government and provision of fundamental rights. Consensus could not be evolved on Nehru report since Md. Ali Jinnah proposed three amendments – residuary powers to provinces, one-third reservation to Muslims in Central Legislature and reservation to Muslims in all provincial legislatures. These amendments were not agreed by Hindu Mahasabha and Nehru report failed to meet the challenge of Birkenhood.
During the second half of 1920s, revolutionary activities were revived. In Punjab, Hindustan Socialist Republican Association was formed. It carried out Kakori robbery and Ramprasad Bismil was hanged. Then Bhagat Singh shot dead Saunders responsible for the death of Lala Lajpat Rai. Bhagat Singh and Bathukeshwar Dutta threw bomb at Central legislature when ‘Public Safety bill’ was being discussed. They were arrested. In the jail, the revolutionaries went on hunger strike condemning the inhumane conditions at the prison. Jatin Das died on the 64th day of fast. In Bengal, Surya Sen carried out Chittagong Armoury raid. There were two brave women in his camp- Kalpana Dutta and Preetilata Waddedar. Surya Sen was hanged.
In 1930-Lahore Congress Session, article 1 of INC constitution was amended to widen the meaning of SWARAJ to mean complete independence. On Dec 31, 1929 midnight, tricolor flag was hoisted on the banks of R.Ravi. Jan 26,1930 was observed as Independence Day throughout the country. People took pledge to sever ties with British since they considered to be a crime against man and god to submit to British rule any longer. At Lahore session, a resolution to launch Civil Disobedience movement was adopted and Gandhiji was made in-charge of this movement.
Gandhiji placed 11 demands before Lord Irwin. When the latter, refused to accede to these demands, he launched Civil Disobedience movement. Gandhiji marched from his Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi with 78 satyagrahis and broke salt law on April 12, 1930. Civil Disobedience movement spread to nook and corner of the country. In the meantime, first Round Table Conference (RTC) was held. And INC did not participate. Any political settlement for India without INC would lack moral authority. Then, Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed to persuade Gandhiji to attend second RTC. The government agreed to release all political prisoners not convicted of violence, restore the confiscated property, remit the fines due, permit the production of salt for domestic consumption by coastal people etc. On the other hand, Gandhiji agreed to suspend CDM and attend second RTC. Second RTC talks also failed. The government had failed to keep up its terms of Gandhi-Irwin pact. Gandhiji revived the CDM which was not as successful as the first phase.
Gandhiji was pained by grant of communal award to depressed classes. Gandhiji started fast unto death demanding the repeal of Communal award to depressed classes. Poona Pact was signed between Gandhiji and Ambedkar whereby the joint electorate with reservation of seats to depressed classes to the extent of 18% was agreed.
Then came the passage of Government of India Act, 1935. Its main provisions were abolition of Dyarchy at provinces and institution of the same at the center. The Act disappointed the INC. Nehru went to the extent of calling the act a car without engine but only brakes. However, the INC decided to contest 1937 provincial elections. It witnessed the resounding victory in the majority of provinces and Congress ministries were formed.
However, World War 2 broke out in 1939. On the question of Indian support to Britain in the war, the opinion was divided among congressmen. Gandhiji advocated full support to Britain. Subash Chandra Bose and other radicals saw was as an opportunity to wrest independence from the British and thus recommended an immediate mass movement. Nehru favored no support to the Britain. He also disfavored launching an immediate movement. The British made India, party to the war without consulting the latter. Congress ministries in seven provinces resigned.
In 1940, Muslim League passed a resolution for a separate state- Pakistan. This was to complicate the matters relating to the transfer of power to Indians in the days to come.
With the victorious march of Hitler and Japan taking possession of South-Eastern colonies of Britain, Indian help in war became crucial. The British government sent Cripps mission to break constitutional deadlock and seek India’s support to Britain. Cripps mission offered dominion status to India. The INC rejected the offer. Gandhiji termed it “post-dated cheque drawn on sinking bank”.
With the failure of Cripps mission, Quit India movement was spelt out on August 8, 1942 exhorting the British transferring power to Indians immediately and quit. Gandhiji called upon the people to do or die. All leaders were arrested in the wee hours of August 9, 1942. People were left leaderless. People ran amuck. Railway stations, Police stations, Post Offices were attacked, telegraph lines were cut. The movement witnessed the most serious revolt since 1857 revolt.
Simultaneously, SC Bose took charge of INA (an army of Indian Prisoners of war conceived by Mohan Singh). With the British Support, INA took control of Andaman and Nicobar Island and marched to occupy the Manipur. However, the army ran shortage of food and ammunition. The setbacks faced by Japan in the great war upset the prospects of INA. About 7000 INA soldiers were taken as war prisoners. SC Bose mysteriously died in an air crash (the death of SC Bose is a matter of controversy). The INC came to the help of INA soldiers and many of them were finally released.
The proposals of Rajagopalachari formula, Desai-Liaqat plan and Wavell plan to resolve constitutional deadlock in India failed. Then came the Cabinet Mission plan. Accordingly, the idea of Pakistan was rejected. Indian provinces were grouped into three ‘sections’. A three-tier executive – at provincial, sectional and union level was proposed. The constituent assembly was to be formed by the members of provisional legislative assemblies by means of proportional representation. The members of each group were to sit separately to draft constitution to their provinces and if possible to their groups. Then all the members were to sit together to draft constitution for the union. The Union government was to be in charge of defence, communication and external affairs. The provinces will have the right to secede from a group after first general election and to call for a reconsideration of provincial or even national constitution after 10 years. Bothe League and INC accepted the plan. However, a controversial press statement by Nehru made Jinnah to withdraw his acceptance. Muslim League called for Direct Action and about 5000 Hindus were killed on a single day (Aug 16, 1945). Nehru formed Interim Government. Even Muslim League joined the government but continued direct action. It made the working of Government impossible and it also boycotted the first meeting of constituent assembly.
On Feb 20, 1947, Clement Atlee, then PM of Britain announced the withdrawal of British for India on or before June, 1948. He appointed Lord Mountbatten the new Viceroy of India and assigned him the responsibility of bringing consensus between INC and Muslim League. Mountbatten plan includes – the Muslim and Hindu members of Bengal and Punjab would separately vote for partition and if either of the two groups favored partition with simple majority, then these two provinces would be partitioned. The Sindh will take its own decision. Referendum will be held in Sylhet and NWFP. In case the partition was to be effected, two constituent assembles would be formed and a boundary commission be set up to demarcate the border. This plan also ruled out the independence of princely states. They must either join India or Pakistan. This plan also ruled out Hyderabad joining Pakistan. This plan was accepted by both INC and Muslim League. It was incorporated in India Independence Act, 1947. Pakistan was created on August 14, 1947 and India on August 15, 1947.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

CAG report on Privatization of Delhi International Airport



The news-world in India is abuzz with the tabling of CAG report in the parliament and its implication on the government. Much has also been disclosed about the contents of the report. This write-up is an attempt to explain simplistically the contents of CAG report with respect the privatization of the Delhi International Airport so that even the novice could understand it.
Delhi International airport is built and maintained by Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL). It is a private company. It is a joint venture of consortium GMR group (54%), Airport Authority of India (26%) and Fraport and Eraman Malaysia (10% each). It means the money required (technically called ‘equity capital’) has been invested by these parties, in the capacity of proprietor, in the proportion indicated in the parenthesis next to them. The break-up of contribution of various players towards equity capital may be tabulated as below:
Investor
Contribution (in %)
Amount (in Rs crores)
Private
GMR Group
Fraport
Eraman

54
10
10

1323
245
245
Government
Airport Authority of India

26

637
TOTAL
100
2450

The CAG smells of corruption or irregularity in the award of contract to build and maintain Delhi airport because of the undue favors being granted to the private consortium for paltry sum of money.
There are many dimensions to the irregularities being reported by the CAG about DIAL.
a.       The CAG slams the government for the very intention of inviting private participation. The money required for the projected has been raised from the following sources and in the following proportions.
Source
Percentage
Amount (in Rs. Crore)
1.      Private equity capital
2.      Government Equity
14.4
5.0
1823
637
A.     Total Equity (1+2)
19.4
2450
1.      Loans
2.      Security Deposits
3.      Internal Accruals
4.      Airport Development Fee
41.6
11.6
0.4
27
5266
1471
50
3415.35
B.     Other Sources
80.6
10202
Grand Total (A+B)
100
12652

Thus, it is clear from the above table, that private companies just invested Rs. 1823 crore but were able to raise Rs.10202 crore from loans and other sources. This has been refuted by CAG. Any book on commerce would suggest that it is prudent to raise loans only to the extent of twice the equity capital. To put it numerically, the ratio between debts and equity should ideally be 2:1, but in this case, it is 4:1. A question as to what is wrong in raising loans may be pondering your mind. It is like this: the contributors of equity capital are entitled to the profit left over after making payment to those who have given loans (creditors). Thus, by making very small investment, private companies have been allowed to make windfall gains. The contention of the CAG is that this deal of award of contract to a private party has let the latter to make windfall gains by a meager investment. Instead, the government could only have made that investment and made profit.
The idea of inviting private participation must have emanated from the need to invest huge money into the project which the government is unable to finance on its own. So, if the private party is also raising loan instead of putting its own money, then government could only have raised loans and grab all the profits (the raising of little amount of loan is not objectionable but such disproportionate loan is not acceptable). What purpose has been served by this deal? It just paved the way for private party to make profit.
b.      Now the second dimension. Initially when the deal was struck, way back in 2004, the DIAL was granted the project for the period of 30 years with a further concession period of 30 years subject to “the mutual agreement and negotiation of terms”. But later when the deal was signed in 2006, the clause incorporating the words “subject to the mutual agreement and negotiation of terms” were mysteriously dropped and DIAL was given the unilateral right to extend the concession period by another 30-years – and as in the same terms as in the first concession period. Thus, it got a deal for 60 years when it bid for just 30 years. This undue favor to the private parties has also led to suspicion of corruption.

c.       The contract was awarded to the one who bid for the highest share of revenue to the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Thus, GMR group-led consortium was awarded the consortium on the merit of its bid to share the revenue to the extent of 45.99% with the AAI. But the catch lies in the fact that several key revenue areas- ground handling, cargo handling, parking fees etc., - have been left out of the definition of aeronautical revenue and are thus not taken into calculation of the revenue to be given to the AAI. The report says just 30% of revenue is taken into consideration while calculating the revenue to be given to AAI.


d.      The government has also faulted in the sense that it granted a near-monopoly to the private party for running the airport in the area for about 60 years, A clause in the agreement reserves the right of the GMR group – led consortium to bid for any airport in 150-km radius and take away the deal even if its bidding price is less than utmost 10% of the best bid by matching the best bid. Why should there be so generosity towards one private party on the part of government?

e.       The most stinking part of the deal is the grant of land. Initially, about 4608.9 acres was granted in return for an infinitesimal rent of Rs. 100 per annum. About 5% of this land can be used for commercial purposes. Later, an additional 190.19 acres has been granted for a meager one-time payment of Rs. 6.19 crore, needless to say, even 5% of this land can be used for commercial purposes. Thus, the private consortium has been allowed to develop 239.95 acres of land (5% of the total) for a one-time payment of Rs. 31 lakh (5% of 6.19 crore) and annual payment of Rs. 100!!!
Thus, the action of the government has drawn ire of the CAG.
(Inputs to this article have been borrowed from THE HINDU daily and firsrpost.com)

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Tit-Bits of Olympics 2012


·         Yi shilling of China snatched the first gold medal of the event when she won ‘the yellow metal’ in 10m rifle.
·         London 2012 volunteers are called ‘Games Makers’, as they are helping to make the Games happen.
·         ‘Towards One Planet 2012’ is the theme of sustainability upon which the London Olympics 2012 has been conducted.
·         The motto for London 2012 is 'Inspire a generation'
·         There are four original colors of London Olympics identity – pink, blue, green and orange representing energetic, spirited, bright and youthful respectively.
·         GET SET is the official London 2012 education programme.
·         Mascots of London 2012 Olympics – Wenlock and Mandeville.
·         Worldwide Olympic Partners – Coca-Cola, Atos,GE, Omega, Acer, Dow, McDonalds, Panasonic, P&G, Samsung and Visa.
·         London 2012 Olympic Partners – BMW, Adidas, British Airways, British Petroleum, British Telecom, EDF Energy, Lloyds TSB.
·         London 2012 Olympics Supporters – United Parcel Services, Arcelor Mittal, Cadbury, Cisco, Thomas Cook and Adecco.
·         Last Gold Medal – ASADAUKAITE L from Lithunia in Women’s Pentathlon.
·         Four athletes competed as Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics. After the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and subsequent withdrawal of the country's National Olympic Committee, athletes from the country who qualified for the Games were allowed to compete independently. Three such athletes qualified.The National Olympic Committee for South Sudan was not established between the formation of that state and the 2012 Olympic qualifying. One athlete from South Sudan qualified for the Games, and was allowed to compete as an independent.

Oscar Pistorious

Oscar Pistorious hogged the lime light in London Olympics. This track athlete, known as Blade Runner, has run into the pages of history.  He is a double-amputee sprinter. He became the first double leg amputee to participate in Olympics when he took part in ''men's 400 meters''. He was also a part of South Africa's 4*400 meters relay. Indeed a source of inspiration to all!!!!

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Adjournment Motion - An example

Dear Friends,

As we know, in parliament, an adjournment motion is introduced to discuss any issue of urgent public importance. The motion, if admitted, seeks to suspend the regular business of the house in favor of the discussion on the issue contained in the adjournment motion..

I came across a news item concerning an adjournment motion being introduced in Lok sabha on Aug 8, 2012. The adjournment motion was admitted to discuss the recent violence erupted in Bodoland Tribal Autonomous District in Assam.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

An Illustration to the privilege of State Legislature


Privileges are special rights enjoyed by the state legislature. The privileges enjoyed by the state legislature as a whole and its members individually are contained in Article 194 of our constitution.
Accordingly, the state legislature is competent to punish its members and outsiders for breach of its privileges or contempt by reprimand, admonition.
I came across a case of the Karnataka State Legislature reprimanding Kiran Thakur, the editor of a Marathi daily, Tarun Bharat, published from Belgaum for publishing allegedly defamatory report on two MLAs. He was summoned to the floor of house and a resolution reprimanding the editor was passed on July 30, 2012.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Sri Lanka and UNHRC resolution


Sri Lanka (SL) is a war-ravaged Asian country. The Northern and Eastern parts of SL are dominated by Tamil-speaking people (Tamils). The rest of SL is largely inhabited by Sinhalese. SL is a Unitary Republic. The Tamils have been fighting for devolution of powers to provinces. Their fight had been institutionalized with the formation of LTTE. SL had been in conflict with LTTE for more than three decades.

In 2009, SL army routed the LTTE from the Northern and Eastern parts of its mainland. It was a complete victory to the army with every ranking leader of LTTE is either killed or arrested and put behind bars. However, during the war, the army is alleged to have committed the violation of Human rights. And the International Community is demanding for settling the problem of Tamils amicably.

Moreover, after the war, the army marched to occupy the northern and eastern parts of SL with the objective of preventing any possibility of formation of LTTE-type organization. The SL government has permitted ex-servicemen to set up shops in these areas. Thus, intervention of army into the economic activities of the people has given death blow to the livelihoods of population.

LLRC report

In the aftermath of victory over LTTE, Mahinda Rajapakse, the Prsident of SL, constituted Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to recommend on the steps to be taken to heal the wounds of war. LLRC submitted its final report on November 20, 2011. The main recommendations of LLRC can be outlined as below:

- take up seriously the investigation of cases of disappearances and abductions;

- act stringently to curb activities of illegal armed groups

- reduce the high-security zones;

- return private lands occupied by the military;

- set in motion a process of demilitarization, including the phasing out of the involvement of the security forces in civilian activities and the restoration of civilian administration in Northern Province.

Steps taken by SL post-war

Indeed, the SL government has taken significant steps to rebuild the infrastructure that the LTTE allowed to crumble to its advantage. Roads, communication, connectivity, education have been improved. However, it is to be noted that the SL government has done little to address the issue of provision of minority “rights” to Tamils, for which LTTE had been fighting. After the submission of LLRC report, the SL government has constituted 3 committees to implement of recommendations of LLRC.

UNHRC resolution

Despite the seemingly positive steps taken by SL government, United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has initiated a resolution against SL government. Why? The SL government, soon after the war in 2009, passed a resolution at UNHRC promising to evolve a political solution, by beginning with broader dialogue with all the parties, to the problem of tamils based on 13th amendment (13th amendment shall be discussed later). The SL government has gone back on its word. Even at the end of 3 years, no dialogue with all political parties, including Tamil National Congress, has been brokered successfully.

The SL government wants the matter to be discussed only at Parliament Select Committee (PSC). But PSC is a microcosm of SL parliament and since the representation on PSC is directly proportional to the representation in parliament, the TNC is bound to have less members of it on PSC and thus its contention is that any solution from PSC will not be in its favour. This intransigent stands by SL government and TNA have halted any progress towards seeking amicable political solution to the problem of Tamils.

The failure of SL government to keep its words has led to the initiation of resolution against it at UNHRC.

The UNHRC resolution

- Calls upon the government to implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the LLRC and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.

- Requests the government to present, as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive report detailing the steps it has take, and will take to implement the recommendations of LLRC and address alleged violation of international law

- Encourages UN high commissioner for Human rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and concurrence of SL government, advice and technical assistance for the implementation of above mentioned steps.

The resolution has been passed in 47-member body with 24 countries voting in favour, 15 against and 8 abstaining from vote. India voted in favour of the resolution, i.e. against SL government.

India and UNHRC resolution

On the face, it appears that India voted against SL government because of the mounting pressure by an important constituent of ruling UPA, DMK. But this is not all the case. India voted against SL government when all Asian counterparts voted in favour is to be mooted deeply.

India supported Tamil cause in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It had trained LTTE troops in its homeland. It had offered food and medical assistance to LTTE. But SL government forged INDO-SRI LANKA accord in 1987. Accordingly, SL government agreed to the devolution of powers to provinces and the merger of Northern and Eastern SL and declaration of Tamil to be official language. This accord is termed 13th Amendment. In return, Indian government agreed to establish order in SL and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was dispatched to SL for this purpose. After 3 years of struggle with LTTE, India established interim peace.

However, SL government went back on its word. It is an irony to note that when SL government devolved some power to all provinces, the provinces for which INDO-SRI LANKA accord in 1987 was forged, North and East SL, did not get any power!

The SL government has falsely promised Indian government many times that it is committed to implement 13th amendment.

India wanted to send a strong message to the SL that it wanted the latter to implement 13th amendment. So it voted in favour of resolution, as against its convention not vote for any country-specific resolution.

However, India watered down a few provisions in the resolution. India insisted that the clause on reporting to UNHRC on the developments and the clause that insisted that SL accept the technical advice of UNHRC be deleted.

This seems to have actually kept India in bad books of both SL government and Tamils. While SL government is unhappy that India voted against it; Tamils are unhappy that India watered down the resolution.

(The inputs to this article have been borrowed from FRONTLINE April 20, 2012)