Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY

STRUGGLE GROUP

Report to Ministry of Home Affairs


Government of India

Delegation :

N.Nandhivarman Hon’President KUTSG

Y.S.Nallusamy Vice Chairman KUTSG

A.S.T.Ansari Babu General Secretary KUTSG

A.A.Rahman Public Relations Secretary

New Delhi : Date 17.05.2010

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 1


[Report of the Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group presented to the Home
Ministry of Government of India on 17 th May of 2010 at North Block by a
delegation comprising Honorary President N.Nandhivarman , General Secretary
A.S.T.Ansari Babu, Vice Chairman Y.S.Nallusamy and A.A.Rahman, Public
Relations Secretary]

HON’BLE HOME MINISTER Thiru.P.CHIDAMBARAM 17th MAY


2010

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

Respected Sir

Subject: The demand for separate UT status for Karaikal and our
grievances due to neglect of our enclave by Government of
Puducherry regarding.

Disparities in national development: Policy makers, political leaders,


development analysts and other concerned citizens are increasingly focusing
attention on the disparities in levels of development between different sections
of the population in India. Such disparities have important political, social,
economic and law and order implications. Many violent, anti-constitutional
movements can be traced to stark economic disparities. The different
successful and continuing agitations for smaller states have both a political
and cultural as well as an economic dimension. The disparities are also a
matter of concern as they threaten the nation's hopes of achieving various
internationally accepted Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

Our peaceful movement : Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group started in


2005 to draw the attention of the Government of India towards the economic
backwardness of our region since independence namely Karaikal, an enclave
of the Union Territory of Puducherry separated by 140 kilometers and
surrounded by neighboring State of Tamilnadu. All development were
grabbed by the main enclave of Puducherry which elects 21 legislators to the
assembly, and we made a point in last elections that since our 6 legislators
failed to argue for our region effectively and to bring development irrespective
of party affiliations people should vote out all the 6 M.L.A.’s. People heeded
our call by defeating 4 Congress legislators of our enclave while DMK’s 2
legislators scrapped through in double digit vote difference. This was treated
like referendum and the Government of the day declared that Karaikal be
made into a District and started increasing allocations in budgets. Though it
was declared as District, it remains a mystery whether it has the
approval of the Union Home Ministry.

Our enclave had not been included in the most backward districts
identified by the Government of India.

On this occasion we urge the Home Ministry to clarify the ambiguity over the
district status of Karaikal. We urge the Union Home Ministry to include
Karaikal in the most backward district list, in order to catch up in development
with the rest of the regions/enclaves. It is unfortunate that Government of
Puducherry could have urged through proper channel and procedure to make

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 2


the Union Government issue notification declaring Karaikal as District.
Tamilnadu each year declares few districts as backward and gets Central
schemes for backward districts. In spite of Tamilnadu teaching the art of good
governance, the Government of Puducherry is yet to get due approval for
Karaikal and if that step had been accomplished then only we can get
declared as backward district to avail Centers schemes. Our struggle is to
educate people, organize protests on Gandhian lines and non-violence is our
motto to win our goal of separate UT status for Karaikal.

Karaikal in this background we would like to state that on the basis of


population, our enclave should get 33 percent of plan and non plan
allocations and special component plan for the SC/ST’s. In short all
infrastructure should reach our region wherein the 33 percent due share is
given to our region. But only in education we won a concession for 18 percent
regional quota in admissions in professional colleges.

A study by reliable intelligentsia reveals that though we were told 18


percent is our quota in reality we are getting only 13 percent. Our group
first brought out the step motherly treatment meted to our region in a
memorandum submitted to the then Lt.Governor of Puducherry His
Excellency Mukut Mithi. He alone sought details of funds allocated; jobs that
went to our region and all such details to study in whatever ways our region
had been neglected.

We now urge Union Home Ministry to depute a high level team to find
out the quantum of neglect to our region, so that Union Government will
feel justified to grant us separate UT status.

Our regional Quota and the Conspiracy to deprive us:

On 19th June of 2006 Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group and Karaikal
Parents & Students Association fasted along with 1200 students demanding
hike in regional quota for admissions in medical/engineering colleges,
proportionate to the population of Karaikal enclave. Almost all media reported.

Then on 25th March 2007 KUTSG, Karaikal Parents & Students Association
jointly took out a rally reiterating this demand.

In 2007-2008 heeding to the justifiable demand of the neglected region of


Karaikal Government of Puducherry issued guidelines for the Centralized
Admission Committee for reservation and special allocation for Karaikal
enclave’s students based on the population of our region. Thus KUTSG won
the regional quota for Karaikal students.

Subsequently in 2008-2009 again in Centralized Admission Committee details


of reservation and special allocation for Karaikal’s students were reassured,
with our students getting their due.

On 3rd April of 2009 speaking in the assembly DMK legislator S.P.Sivakumar


while demanding the scrapping of entrance examinations welcomed the

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 3


regional quota granted to the students. But he does a volt face in 12th April of
2010 and opposes regional quota is another story.

On 12th April 2010 AIADMK legislator A.Anbazhagan, DMK legislators from


Puducherry enclave S.P.Sivakumar and R.Siva along with PMK’s
Anantharaman sought scrapping of the regional quota given to Karaikal
students. But the DMK legislator and Former Speaker/Minister
VMC.Sivakumar told the house that what the MLA’s of his party had told is
their personal opinion, not party opinion, and he is for Karaikal students
continue to get the regional quota.

KUTSG issued statement condemning the illogical demand made by


individual members to snatch the existing quota, won after great struggle. On
22nd April 2004, with due police permission KUTSG organized a Peaceful
Protest in Gandhian lines to condemn the MLA’s.

On 23rd April 2010 as media reports the protest, AIADMK legislator


A.Anbazhagan raises the issue of MLA’s speech in assembly being criticized
outside Assembly and instantly Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry Assembly
issues directions in open floor of the assembly to take appropriate steps
against KUTSG that organized the protest.

KUTSG reiterated that it is within its democratic right to criticize the demand
for scrapping an existing quota, and this snowballed into an unnecessary
controversy. All 5 legislators of Karaikal enclave irrespective of political
affiliations came out in open to support the continuance of existing quota. The
Opposition leader of DMK who in assembly wanted to scrap, changed his cap,
and thundered that he will fight against scrapping of the quota.

In this background since the Speaker’s order had raised the People’s
Freedom of Speech versus MLA’s Freedom of Speech, KUTSG wrote on 30 th
April 2010 to the Loksabha Speaker, Vice- President, and to all the Speakers
of various assemblies. Admitting the MLA’s have immunity, the right of
expression given to people could not be suppressed, the memorandum urged
the Speakers to discuss and frame guidelines for future in the next All India
Speaker’s Conference.

THIS ONE INCIDENT SHOWS HOW INTOLERANT THE MAIN ENCLAVE


IS TOWARDS KARAIKAL.50 Years KARAIKAL FACED NEGLECT.
STUDENTS GOT A RELIEF in 2007 and THE POLITICIANS OF MAIN
ENCLAVE COULD NOT ASSIMILATE OUR STUDENTS GETTING DUE
SHARE. It is altogether another story that though we were promised 18
percent, actually only 13 percent was obtained by our students.

Hence we urge the Union Home Ministry to recommend to the Union Cabinet
to consider granting UT status to Karaikal.

Let us look back at the historical accident that brought various enclaves with
no contiguous areas into a Union Territory.

A short note of Past History:

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 4


Puducherry (or Pondicherry) was a part of the Pallava kingdom of
Kanchipuram in the fourth century AD. During the next few centuries
Pondicherry was continued to be under the control of several dynasties of the
south. In the tenth century A.D. the Cholas of Thanjavur ruled the region for
over 300 years but later on it was replaced by the Pandya Kingdom. Till 1638,
Pondicherry came under various rulers like the Muslim rulers of the North; the
Vijayanagar Empire and then the Sultan of Bijapur came to rule over Gingee.
The 17th century marked the beginning of colonial era in India. The French
East India Company set up its trading centre at Puducherry in 1673. This
outpost eventually became the chief French settlement in India. Dutch and
British trading companies also wanted trade with India. Wars raged between
these European countries and spilled over into the Indian subcontinent. The
Dutch captured Pondicherry in 1693 but returned it to France by the Treaty of
Ryswick in 1699.

The French acquired Mahe in the 1720s, Yanam in 1731, and Karaikal in
1738. During the Anglo-French wars (1742-1763), Pondicherry changed
hands frequently. On January 16, 1761, the British captured Puducherry from
the French, but the Treaty of Paris (1763) returned the city to the French. It
was taken again by the British in 1793 amid the Wars of the French
Revolution, but once again returned to France in 1814. When the British
gained control of the whole of India in the late 1850s, they allowed the French
to retain their settlements in the country. Pondicherry, Mahe, Yanam, Karaikal
and Chandernagar remained a part of French India until 1954.

But after India gained her independence in 1947, an agreement between


France and India in 1948 agreed to an election in France's Indian
possessions to choose their political future. On 1st November 1954,
Pondicherry was transferred to India. A treaty of Cessation (together with
Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam) was signed on May 28, 1956. It became a Union
Territory to be administered by the President of India in 1962 under the 14th
Amendment of the Indian Constitution.

GOA PRECEDENT: KARAIKAL SEEKS SAME PRINCIPLE

The economic neglect of our region and total insensitivity to our problems by
the leaders of the main enclave, made Karaikal Union Territory Struggle
Group write to all in the Cabinet and to the most prominent and vociferous
members of both houses of Parliament, as well as all Leaders of Parties in
Parliament, seeking their support for getting UT status for Karaikal, when
Puducherry main enclave is elevated to statehood. Here we cited the
precedent of Goa Statehood, while other enclaves of Goa obtained UT status.
This precedent Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group wants to be applied
and Karaikal be made into separate UT. With liberal Central assistance, main
enclave of Puducherry had neglected Karaikal, and if it becomes State with
resource crunch hitting its coffers, it won’t even care to any demands from our
region. Hence we urge for separating us and making us a UT. Even after
getting UT status, the prolonged economic neglect of Goa is past, still keeps
Dadra & Nagar Haveli among the most backward regions of this country.
Karaikal too will take at least a decade to repair the damage done and to

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 5


breathe freely to march towards development. [Our memorandum to Union
Council of Ministers dated…… comes as Annexure 1 to this memorandum.

BAD GOVERNANCE LEADS TO BACKWARDNESS

A comprehensive estimation of district-level deprivation made recently by


Bibek Debroy of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, New
Delhi, and Laveesh Bhandari of Indicus Analytics in District-level Deprivation
in the New Millennium (Konark Publishers, New Delhi; 2003), came up with
other significant findings: One often touted cause for backwardness is bad
governance. All the various lists of most backward districts include notoriously
ill-governed regions. However, one cannot pinpoint poor governance or lack
of political will as the overriding cause of extreme backwardness.

Since Karaikal was not officially declared as District, data clubbed with
developed Puducherry will not reveal our backwardness.

Other Initiatives: A study

To end economic backwardness, Government of Orissa created Western


Orissa Development Council, and reports in media suggest it failed to yield
desired development. If that being the case imagining that by making Karaikal
into a District all its ills will be addressed is just a mirage chase

Western Orissa Development Council

Ten Western Orissa districts lag behind their counterparts of coastal districts
in core sectors with meager percentage till date. Looking at the degree of
development/ backwardness of 10 Western Orissa districts, it can be said that
out of 87 blocks only 5 blocks are developed, 25 are developing, another 25
are backward and 32 blocks are very backward, whereas in coastal districts
70 blocks are developed, 50 blocks are very backward out of total 227 blocks.
WODC was formed to upgrade the levels of development with a view to
removing regional imbalances, upgrade the relative levels of development in
different sectors in each Districts having regard to the levels of development
for the State as a whole, prepare long-term and short-term plans and
programmes for removal of developmental imbalances and formulate plans
and programme accordingly.

Koshal Discussion and Development Forum reports that the


Government of Orissa had completely failed in Western Orissa
Development Council (WODC) experiment as reported in Oriya daily Samaj
by Amiya Bhusan Tripathi on May 11 of 2010 SO THE ONLY WAY WHERE
KARAIKAL CAN IMPROVE IS TO BECOME AN UT, other options like
districts or development councils have failed.

UN to assist India's backward districts

The Planning Commission and the United Nations (UN) have signed a Joint
Programme on Convergence to help India’s backward districts achieve the
Millennium Development Goals by better utilization. Backward Districts

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 6


Initiative – Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana – The Scheme and Guidelines for
Preparation of District Plans etc exist but our region cannot avail.

TO AVAIL THESE SCHEMES GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY HAD


PUT ROAD BLOCKS WITHOUT LEGITIMIZING KARAIKAL DISTRICT AS
BACKWARD, HENCE WE DEMAND UT STATUS FOR KARAIKAL.

The General Secretary of KUTSG Mr.A.S.T.Ansari Babu had obtained


information’s under RTI. Those are just pieces of information. It does not give
comprehensive picture on our regions economic backwardness. As per his
version the Non-Plan allocation for 2001-2002 stood at 356.65 crore. Out of
which Karaikal got only 47.54 crore, whereas Mahe got 9.22 crores and
Yenam got Rs 9.97 crore. In the year 2002-2003 in total of 416.10 crores,
Karaikal got 67.95 crores, whereas Mahe got 14.00 crores and Yenam got
14.41 crores. For the year 2003-2004 in the allocation of Rs 468.63 crores,
Karaikal got 69.04 crores, whereas Mahe got 12.86 crores and Yenam gets
16.30 crores. For the year 2004-2005 in the amount of 615 crores, Karaikal
gets 83 crores, Mahe gets 15.32 crores and Yenam gets 23.98 crores.

For 2005-2006 after our group’s emergence in scene the total is 925 crore,
Karaikal is said to have got 144.42 crore, Mahe gets 26.45 crore and Yenam
bags 41.19 crore. For 2006-2007 in the total 1043.45 crore, Karaikal gets
153.60 crore, Mahe gets 30.89 crore, and Yenam gets 42.85 crore. In budget
estimate for 2007-2008 the figure is 1455.00 crore and Karaikal is supposed
to have got 268.54 crore but in actual it got only 177.07 crore. Mahe gets
27.72 crore, and Yenam gets 80.99 crore. So goes on statistics, as
telephonically told by our sources, which will mail you all the replies under RTI
in short time. These only indicate the urgency and need for the Union Home
Ministry to depute a high level team to probe what we got and where it went
and why an enclave faces neglect for half a century, forcing it to raise the
voice for separate UT status.

KARAIKAL NEGLECTED IN GOVERNMENT JOB AVENUES:

As per the information collected by our team, in between 2001 -2005 when
650 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers were filled up, Karaikal’s share was
just 16.

For the posts of LDC, out of 181 vacancies, Karaikal got only 16, whereas the
ONE constituency Thattanchavady of Former Chief Minister N.Rangasamy
bagged 46 seats.

When 54 Sub Inspectors posts were filled up Karaikal got only 2 seats. Out of
600 policemen chosen, Karaikal got only 20. Out of 182 vacancies in
Electricity Board, Karaikal was given only 19.

In 20th November 2005 when 46 Village Administrative Officers were selected


Karaikal got only 2 posts. When 30 Deputy Tahsildars were chosen Karaikal
got only 1.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 7


Out of 664, NMR’s Yenam got 150 whereas Karaikal got 75 only, Mahe
getting 25, rest going to Puducherry. On 13th June 2006 when 74 daily rated
persons were chosen Karaikal and Mahe got 6 each, 0 for Yenam, all other to
Puducherry.

In December 4th 2006 when 111 Men constables were selected Puducherry
got 94, Karaikal only 5. Mahe 7 and Yenam 5.

In 22nd March 2007 when 64 women police were selected Puducherry got 53,
whereas Karaikal got 7 only and Mahe 4 and 0 to Yenam.

18th June 2007 in Education Department 28 Drawing Masters were chosen,


Karaikal got 0, Mahe 2, Yenam 1 and Puducherry 25.

When PT masters were selected Karaikal got 7, Mahe 1, Yenam 3 and


Puducherry 36.

In 2009 when 56 Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies have to be


chosen, Puducherry got 45, Karaikal 9 and Yenam2.

These are part of the story. If Union Home Ministry seeks white paper on
regional disparities shown in providing jobs, it will give clearer picture. Also
what so far had been hinted is enough to justify our demand for separate UT
status to Karaikal.

SECURITY RISKS INVITES HOME MINISTRY’s INTERVENTION.

The Private Port in Karaikal and mushrooming of captive private Ports almost
every 15 kilometer one in the neighboring coast of Nagapattinam where coal
based power plants are coming up, necessitates more than normal vigilance.
The Marine Police Station that exists in Karaikal is eyewash. We urge all the
intelligence agencies converge in Karaikal and station a permanent vigil cell to
contain criminalization and its extension towards terrorism patronized by self
styled

With Regards

Yours fraternally

N.Nandhivarman

Hon.President :Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 8


Annexure: 1: UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP


52, Church Street, KARAIKAL 609602

[Founded in 2005]

Hon’ble Thiru.P.Chidambaram
16.02.2010

Union Home Minister

Respected Thiru.Chidambaram

Subject: Report on Unlawful Terrorist activities in the Karaikal region as


reported in media and the inefficiency of the incumbent Home Minister
of Puduchery and Collector of Karaikal regarding...

We read in papers that Hon’ble Prime Minister is going to fine tune Union
Cabinet weeding out incompetent and inefficient from the seats of power and
is planning to induct new faces, or redistribute portfolios. We were aghast at
the one constituency development agenda pursued by ousted Chief Minister
N.Rangasamy, and we wanted to liberate Puducherry UT from that rule. But
we never in our dreams thought that instead of ONE CONSTITUENCY
AGENDA TWO CONSTITUENCY agenda will sneak in robbing all
development that is meant for main enclaves of Puducherry and population
wise second enclave of Karaikal. We were demanding Statehood for
Puducherry, and following the precedent laid when Goa was elevated to
Statehood other enclaves were made into UT, we sought Union Territory
status for Karaikal.

Now we are adding two more demands. Merge Mahe enclave with UT of
Lakshadeep, let Yenam either join Telengana or Rayalaseema, when
Andra Pradesh is bi-furcated or trifurcated. Or it can be with Andaman
Nicobar UT .Though we can present you statistics to substantiate the step
motherly treatment meted out to Puducherry and Karaikal with so much
portfolios in hands of two representatives of Mahe and Yenam hijacking all
development to win their seats but to make all others loose whenever
elections are held, we are specifically placing Terrorist related incidents
necessitating Union Government granting UT status to Karaikal and directly
rule Karaikal through a Lt.Governer directed by Union Home Ministry.
Karaikal UT can yield one more Loksabha member, thereby increasing
the strength of Lok sabha where Karaikal could be heard.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 9


KARAIKAL to KARACHI: Terrorist links.

We are enclosing the Junior Vikatan dated February 12 of 2010 which reports
about seizure of explosives in Karachi by the Karachi CID Superintendent of
Police Fiyaz Khan in last October 2009. The news, Junior Vikatan states had
been reported in DAWN, PAKISTHAN DAILY, with photographic evidence of
showing the NAME of the SUPPLYING FACTORY situated in Karaikal.

ASIAN TRIBUNE had also reported this, the story also tells that for entire
South East Asia, explosives had been supplied from Karaikal. The news
report states that in the bomb blast that took place in Bali Island too
explosives had come from Karaikal. Not only the Karaikal Collector Vasantha
Kumar had failed to prevent this, nor did he have the moral courage to own
his faux pas and resign on his own, the moment Pakistan dailies reported this
smuggling from the region of his control. Because of neglect by main enclave
of Puducherry we started demanding UT status for Karaikal. As a result then
Chief Minister Rangasamy, without clearance from Home Ministry had
declared Karaikal as District. Few months back Union Minister of State
Mr.V.Narayanasamy publicly stated as reported in media that he will hasten
the process to get official stamp of Union Home Ministry for the declaration of
Karaikal as District. Hence we are not sure whether our Collector is a
Collector or is like a Collector, which people ask whether he is like a
wife or concubine. The failure of Home Ministry to give approval for District
status can be condoned by granting UT status and relieving the so-called
Collector, against whom we nurse no personal grudge but place before you a
Fact File on Karaikal. First is Junior Vikatan Report which comes as
enclosure.

SECOND EVIDENCE: DINAMANI TAMIL DAILY REPORT.

The Tamil Daily with unblemished record in reporting news in neutrality ,


DINAMANI dated 15 th February 2010 had published a lengthy story titled
WHETHER SECURITY WILL BE BEEFED UP IN KARAIKAL. We are not
translating entire version, leaving it to your office to translate in Hindi or
English, but you can easily grasp the issues highlighted, hence to avoid our
letter becoming too lengthy we refrained from translating line by line.

ACTIONS SOUGHT WITH REASONS

Not only to contain but also to weed out terrorism from Karaikal Union
Home Ministry must take over Karaikal under its direct control. Pending
decision on UT demand, immediately UNION GOVERNMENT must post
IAS and IPS officers with clean records , post Intelligence officials, and
completely end the nexus between local politicians and bureaucracy
which shields all anti social, why anti national activities in this region.

• During 1994-1995 The Coimbatore blast fame Imam Ali practiced and
perfected his terrorist activities by carrying out rehearsals living in Ammayar
Nagar of Karaikal.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 10


• During 1993-1998 the J.S.Rifawee, SIMI activist stayed in Jamia
Pushra Women’s College of Karaikal as Principal.

• In the first week of August 2004 revolver with rounds were found under
a culvert near Karuthakudi Road opposite to SPIC in Tirunallar.

• In 2003 November end long sickle, butcher’s knife and nail enabled
concrete box was found in a house of PFI activist at Dharmapuram area of
Karaikal.

• All email or mail threats are emanating from Karaikal. These mails
purported to be sent by terrorist organizations like Lakshari Taiba, Indian
Muhajudeen, JamawoodDawa, Huji etc are rooted and routed from Karaikal.
The threat of 29.3.2008 is known to Karaikal Police Town P.S which seized
the matter. On 5 th January 2009 Air India of Chennai received a threat from
Karaikal. On 9.3.2009 when a mail claimed the seizure of bag with lethal
weapons and explosives, this frequency of threats emanating from Karaikal
came to light. Identical mails reached both Karaikal and Nagapattinam
Superintendents of Police.

• Suspicious murders of Karaikal Region: MARG Port DGM Saravanan,


Personal Assistant of Opposition Leader A.M.H.Nazim, Thiru Saravanan etc is
tip of the iceberg, of suspicious unresolved murders which Union Home
Ministry must unravel. The murderer of Poondi Selvam, a leader from
neighbouring Tamil nadu sought shelter in Karaikal.The politician-mafia nexus
here warrants direct Union Home Ministry’s intervention.

• Lack of Immigration unit in Karaikal is resulting in illegal entry of even


crew members of foreign members as verification is not done. Free port to
smuggle explosives, free port with wide open gates for foreigners is what
Puducherry Government had given us in the name of development. Even after
the Special Audit by CAG on directions of Home Ministry, it is learnt the RBI
and SEBI blacklisted contractors who bagged the contracts are enjoying
patronage of local Port Minister, who continues to hold most portfolios making
the Chief Minister a dummy Chief Minister. The allocation of land to
Puducherry and Karaikal Ports made without the clearance of the Union
Home Ministry necessitates a review by a high level committee of Union
Home Ministry to completely trace down all decisions taken in violation of
rules and regulations floating all norms of governance, thereby openly
challenging Government of India.

This had made us to appeal to Union Government to come to our rescue and
to immediately bail us out by taking Karaikal under direct Home Ministry’s
control.

With Regards Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman A.S.T.Ansari Babu

Honorary President General Secretary

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 11


Annexure 2

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP


52 Church Street, Karaikal 609602, India
Tel: 04368-224599 Cell: 09042498977
Hon. President N.Nandhivarman Chairman K.Subramanian Vice-Chairman:
V.S.Nallusamy General Secretary: A.S.T.Ansari Babu Treasuer:S.Kaliaperumal
Deputy Secretaries; R.Sundarraj, O.S.Udhuman,C.Raja, Public Relations
Secretary: AA.Rahman Propaganda Secretary : K.Krishna Kumar , Youth Wing
Secretary: N.P.Kumanan, Youth Wing Deputy Secretaries: R.Ayyamperumal,
T.Dharpareeswaran, Minority Wing Secretary: S.George, Joint Secretary Ahamad
Maraicar Organizers: Karaikal North S.M.Faried, Karaikal South:
M.I.Shamsudeen, Kottucherry: Subha.Sureshrajan, Nedungadu: M.Singaravelou,
T.R.Pattinam: Karai Jinnah, Neravy: TKSM
Kanagasundaram
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Her Excellency The Speaker of Loksabha Date:30.04.2010


Ms.Meira Kumar
New Delhi

Respected Speaker

Subject: The order of Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry and its impact of


People’s freedom of Speech: Next 75 th Presiding Officers Conference urged
to evolve guidelines to uphold people’s right to protest and speech regarding

Introduction about us: We have been demanding separate UT status for


Karaikal enclave of current UT of Puducherry since 2005. The economic
backwardness of our region since independence drove us to demand
separate UT status for our Karaikal, at the time when Puducherry is elevated
to Statehood. We have cited the Goa precedent when Goa was made state,
other enclaves were made UT, and stressed that same principle should be
applied to us. Our call to defeat all 6 MLA’s of our region who had not fought
or sought for our regions rights, resulted in people heeding and defeating all 4
Congress MLA’s of this region in last held assembly elections, while 2 DMK
MLA’s scrapped through in double digit vote difference. Ever since we
demanded separate UT status, Congress Government of Puducherry had
hiked budgetary allocations to our region, which till then was mere paltry
pittance. Our region got District status, and these indicate the eagerness to
resolve our grievances of 5 decades. In 2006 the Parents Students
Association and our Group joined hands and organized massive student’s
processions, hunger strikes etc demanding regional allocation for our students
in medical and engineering colleges. We demanded seats should be given in
proportion to the population of the enclaves so that equitable chances are
given to all 4 enclaves of current UT of Puducherry. Since then every year 18

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 12


percent of total seats i.e. 69 seats are given to students from Karaikal. Now
we are demanding that budgetary allocations should be made in proportion to
the population of the 4 enclaves instead to tiny enclaves garnering more than
it is their due.

MLA’s Speech in Assembly and our Protest: Recently AIADMK MLA


A.Anbazhagan, DMK MLA’s S.P.Sivakumar, R.Siva and PMK MLA
KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP page 2

R.Anandharaman spoke in assembly that our hard won regional quota should
be abolished. They as legislators have immunity to speak in assembly. The
DMK legislator from Karaikal Region Mr.V.M.C.Sivakumar, who was a former
Speaker and Minister in Puducherry in the floor itself had refuted and said the
opinions of 2 DMK MLA’s is personal and not official line of DMK. Since our
right is going to be snatched away, Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group
organized a Protest Demonstration in Karaikal before Collector’s office which
is 160 kilometers away from where all these MLA’s live. We put up posters
condemning the demand of these 4 MLA’s.

Our protest demonstration, with due police permission was conducted in


peaceful manner and reported in SUN News apart from all English and Tamil
dailies in Trichy and Chennai editions. Next day to our agitation, AIADMK
legislator A.Anbazhagan raised the issue after zero hour on 23rd April Friday
of 2010, and sought action against our posters and protest meetings.

Speaker’s order sets bad precedent:

Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry Assembly in the floor of the assembly


ordered the Police to take appropriate action against us and on this
issue we are writing to you and all Speakers of Legislative Assemblies
in India.

The AIADMK Member of the Assembly Mr.A.Anbazhgan did not follow the
procedure for dealing the question of privilege as laid down in rules. [Rules
222 to 228 and 313 to 316] It is needless to say that member’s freedom of
speech in embedded in clauses 1 and 2 of Article 105. This privilege was
granted to the members of Indian legislatures for first time under the
Montague-Chelmsford Reforms. Section 67 of the Government of India Act as
set out in the Ninth schedule to the Government of India Act 1935. Thereafter
a member of the legislature had immunity from any proceedings in any court
in respect of his speech or vote. Section 28[1] of the Government of India Act
1935. On attainment of independence section 28[1] of the Government of
India Act 1935 was adapted and remained in operation from August 15 1947
till the Constitution came into force. In the Government of India Act 1935 and
in Constitution of India the position was stated beyond doubt by using the
words “anything said or any vote given”.

In Tej Kira Jain versus N.Sanjiva Reddy: AIR.1970 SC 1573, Supreme Court
had stated “the immunity is only subject to the discipline of the rules of
Parliament, and good sense of the members and the control of proceedings
by the Speaker. The Courts have no say in the matter and should really have

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 13


one.” Thus it is clear a member enjoys immunity but it should be within the
good sense of members and control of the Speaker. In this case, an enclave
of the UT neglected for 5 decades since independence had won a concession
of a regional quota of 18 percent in medical/engineering colleges pool and
enjoys since 2006. The member, who does not represent any of the
constituencies in the enclave of Karaikal, wanted the quota to be done away
with.
KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP page 3

For his speech he has immunity. But the question here is whether the people
of the region who are enjoying this right have the freedom of speech to
condemn the MLA for his move to snatch their quota or not. Nowhere is it said
that a speech made in assembly or Parliament if it infringes people’s right,
people have no right to protest. Even in dictatorships or martial law people will
take to streets. Thus the MLA who has immunity claiming people have no
right to assembly or no right to freedom of speech had put both into
loggerheads. Yes Peoples Right to Freedom of Speech versus MLA’s
Right to Freedom of Speech.

In a democracy citizen is supreme. Aringnar Anna used to say “Makkal


Kurale Magesan Kural” which means people’s voice is god’s voice in
democracy. Former Vice President of India Late B.D.Jatti will receive at
midnight a visitor, then Blitz Reporter and then Editor of Voice and Ebony Mr.
Vincent Rao, and that too when Mr.Rao tells, go and tell the Governor that a
citizen had come. Great people knew in democracy citizen is supreme. As a
representative of citizens members are chosen to assemblies and Parliament,
and they are not Lords of the People but Servants of the People. In India
unfortunately the right to recall does not exist, but in democracies such right is
justifiable and not a draconian measure. Having said this, we assert that the
MLA who had expressed his view can only claim immunity from Court cases.
He cannot deny people the right to protest what he had said particularly when
it robs a regional quota and an enclave and its population get affected if his
view is endorsed. By protest we only drew the attention of the Government to
stall such initiatives.

Freedom of Assembly: Freedom of Speech

Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of


association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express,
promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of
association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil
liberty. Hence to assert this freedom a non-political forum came into existence
in 2005 wherein all party-men and public spirited men, women, students,
parents, traders, laborers joined Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group, to
win the rights of our region.

Freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish


between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom of joining
an association. Freedom of assembly, as guaranteed in the Canadian
Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, is interpreted to mean
both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 14


The freedom of assembly is enshrined in the following human rights
instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 20,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Article 21,
European Convention on Human Rights - Article 11 ,American
Convention on Human Rights - Article 15

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP page 4

Examples of the national constitutions recognizing the freedom of assembly


are: United States - First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
Germany - Art. 8 GG ,Canada - S. 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which forms part of the Constitution Act, 1982 ,France - article 431-
1 of the Nouveau Code Pénal ,Hong Kong - Basic Law Section 27 ,India-
Fundamental Rights in India ,Republic of Ireland - Guaranteed by Article
40.6.1 of the Constitution of Ireland ,Turkey - article 33 and 34 of the
Constitution of Turkey guarantee the freedom of association and assembly. ,
Taiwan (Republic of China) - Article 14 guarantees freedom of assembly and
association.

It is needless to go global but we are forced to cite these examples to our


Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry R.Radhakrishnan, who without applying his
mind on just hearing an MLA orders Police to take appropriate action against
us, the Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group for exercising our right to
assemble with due police permission, for protesting peacefully 160 kilometers
away from the Legislative Assembly thereby in no way posing a threat to the
MLA or to his peace and right to participate in the assembly. The Right given
to citizens in all these constitutions keeps people at the helm of Constitutions.
Democracies are for people, by people and Governance is for the people.
Legislative assemblies and representatives chosen at people’s will don’t have
power to break the freedom of speech conferred to us under the Constitution
of India. We are sorry, only one Speaker of a Legislative Assembly of UT of
Puducherry had ignited a debate over People’s Right versus MLA’s might.

Speaker’s Procedural Failure.

In the book Practice and Procedure of Parliament by G.C. Malhotra, Secretary


General of Loksabha in 2000, it is said: “Speech and action in Parliament may
be unquestioned and free. However this freedom from external influence or
interferences does not involve any unrestrained license of speech within the
walls of the house. The right of freedom of speech in the House is
circumscribed by the constitutional provisions’ [art 121] Quoting from same
book page 294: “A question of privilege may be raised in the house only after
obtaining consent of the Speaker. This has been made obligatory so that the
time of the house is not taken up by raising a matter, which on the face of it is
not admissible” Mr.A.Anbazhagan AIADMK MLA after zero hour suddenly
raised the issue, and you can apply the above quote to evaluate what he had
done is correct procedure or not.

Quoting from above mentioned book page 295: “The question whether a
matter complained of actually is a breach or privilege or contempt of house is

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 15


entirely for the House to decide, as the House alone is the master of its
privileges. The Speaker, in giving consent to raising of a matter in the House
as a question of privilege, considers only whether the matter is fit for further
enquiry and whether it should be brought before the house.”

The House was not left to decide, a legislator suddenly raises, instantly
Speaker orders the Police to take appropriate action. And this action of the
Speaker of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly needs to be debated in the
next Conference of All India Presiding Officers, to lay guidelines, as to
whether a mere protest performed with due police permission over an issue
raised by an MLA depriving a regions right, could fall under breach of
privilege, hence this Memorandum to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Vice
President of the Rajyasabha and to Speakers of all Legislative assemblies.

Quote page 295: “The Speaker before deciding whether the matter proposed
to be raised as a question of privilege requires the intervention of the House
and whether he should give his consent to the raising of the matter in the
House may give an opportunity to the person incriminated to explain his case
to the Speaker”

[Loksabha Debates: 4.4.1961, cc 9034-38 , 2.5.1961 cc 14904-08, 5.8.1966


cc 2980-81 and cc 2983-95, 3.3.1969 cc 225-26, 18.3.1969 cc 200-01,
9.4.1969 cc. 171-72 , 10.8.1971 cc 219, 8.5.1973 cc 186-87, 5.9.1973 cc 49,
23.4.1974 c 233, 22.12.1978 cc 314-25,]

We were not given an opportunity to place our views. “The usual practice is to
refer the matter of complaint to the Committee of Privileges, and the House
defers its judgment until the report of the committee has been presented”
page 298.

[Namboodiripad’s Case: Loksabha Debates: 27.11.1958 cc 1669-1756,


Mathai’s case L.S.Debate: 10.2.1959 cc 140-72, Bhowmick’s case
L.S.Debates: 30.8.1960 cc 5652-54, Blitz case: L.S.Debates: 20.4.1961 cc
12659-70]

Instant raising of matter and instant order of the Speaker to Police to initiate
appropriate action against a protest meeting conducted with due police
permission, that too not even calling for police reports about that meeting or
neither giving the organizers a chance to place their reply, jeopardizes the
peoples freedom of speech granted by Indian Constitution. The term House of
The People, indicates House is custodian of People and their rights. House
where people’s representatives get elected should not be made to take
cudgels against people themselves, making representatives immunity a shield
to deprive people of their right to expression. Without application of mind
Hon’ble Speaker had spelt out an order directing the Police against Karaikal
Union Territory Struggle Group for putting posters informing public about a
Protest Meeting on 22.4.2010 to condemn 4 MLA’s of Puducherry main
enclave demanding scrapping of the regional quota of 18 percent, students of
Karaikal enclave were enjoying since 2006.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 16


At the very same time Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry was ordering the
Police, all over Puducherry town people saw posters put up by a Muslim
organization announcing blockade of the Chief Minister’s residence on May 3
rd of 2010 with regard to their quota issue. Hon’ble Speaker of Puducherry
belongs to the former Chief Ministers group and is not keen to come to the
rescue of current Chief Minister of Puducherry Mr.V.Vaithialingam and that is
why he has no orders to the Police.

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP page 5

If an MLA is criticized Hon’ble Speaker rushes to rescue, but if Hon’ble Chief


Minister faces blockade of his residence, he watches it as if it is not his
concern. This is for Congress Party Chief Madam Sonia Gandhi to look into,
we here are appealing to all the Speakers of India to lay guidelines to prevent
such actions.

People’s Right versus MLA’s right:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek and
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers" proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

The people of India declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, which they
gave unto themselves their resolve to secure to all the citizens liberty of
thought and expression. This resolve is reflected in Article 19(1) (a) which is
one of the Articles found in Part III of the Constitution, which enumerates the
Fundamental Rights. The right to freedom of speech and expression is
subject to limitations imposed under Article 19(2).Public order as a ground of
imposing restrictions was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act,
1951. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and
order. Public order in the present context is synonymous with public peace,
safety and tranquility. Our protest was peaceful, done with due permission
and in no way public peace was affected.

Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution says that all citizens have the right to
freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of Speech and expression
means the right to express one's own convictions and opinions freely by
words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes
the expression of one's idea through any communicable medium or visible
representation, such as gesture, signs, and the like. This expression connotes
also publication and thus the freedom of press is included in this category.
Free propagation of ideas is the necessary objective and this may be done on
the platform or through the press. This propagation of ideas is secured by
freedom of circulation. Liberty of circulation is essential to that freedom as the
liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be of
little value. The freedom of speech and expression includes liberty to
propagate not one's views only. It also includes the right to propagate or
publish the views of other people; otherwise this freedom would not include
the freedom of press.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 17


Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court
has said that the words "freedom of speech and expression" must be broadly
constructed to include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth
or in writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities. It therefore includes the
right to propagate one's views through the print media or through any other
communication channel e.g. the radio and the television.

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE GROUP page 6

Every citizen of this country therefore has the right to air his or their views
through the printing and or the electronic media subject of course to
permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Freedom to air one's view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any
attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to
democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. Unfortunately
the Speaker of Puducherry Assembly had established a wrong precedent by
directing the Police to take action against a Protest carried out with due police
permission and without hindrance to public in peaceful manner.

Clause (2) of Article 19 contains the grounds on which restrictions on the


freedom of speech and expression can be imposed:-

Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed


on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The
term "security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public
order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection and not
ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly,
riot, affray.

OURS IS NOT UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY. OUR PROTEST IS TO PROTECT


OUR EXISTING REGIONAL QUOTA and in no way it threatened the Security
of the State. Since it was 160 kilometers away from where the MLA who
raised the issue resides, it no way threatened his security. In fact Puducherry
people need protection from kangaroo courts that are run by land and liquor
mafia.

Hence in the 75 All India Conference of Presiding Officers, we urge all the
Speakers to evolve guidelines to protect the rights of people from the arbitrary
actions of some rarest or rare Speaker who had now put individual
legislator’s freedom of expression against the People’s right to free
expression.

It is necessary to clearly define that mere expunging the uncivilized words of


legislators who seek the protective umbrella of immunity to split abuses on
Ministers, yet get away with Speaker expunging remarks is not sufficient
punishment. The total occasions and regularity of using un-parliamentary
words which any ordinary human being will never use in his lifetime must be
compiled and extraordinary punishment meted out to such errant legislators,
for which we urge necessary guidelines be framed.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 18


With Regards
Yours fraternally

N.Nandhivarman A.S.T.Ansari Babu


Hon.President General Secretary
Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group
Identical Letters sent to Vice President and All Speakers of Indian
Legislative Assemblies:

His Excellency The Vice President


Thiru.Mohammad Hamid Ansari
Vice President’s House
6 Maulana Azad Road
New Delhi 110011
Hon’ble K.RADHAKRISHNAN Speaker: KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, Hon’ble PRADEEP KUMAR AMAT Speaker : ORISSA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE ASOK CHANDULAL BHATT
SPEAKER : GUJARAT LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE DEEPENDRA
SINGH SHEKAWAT, SPEAKER : RAJASTHAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

HON’BLE TANKU BAHADUR RAI, SPEAKER : ASSAM LEGISLATIVE


ASSEMBLY, Hon’ble CHANDRESWAR PRASAD SINGH,SPEAKER:
JHARKAND VIDHAN SABHA, HON’BLE NIRMAL SINGH
KAHLON,SPEAKER : PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE
PRATAPSINGH RAOJI RANE SPEAKERGOA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
HON’BLE THIRU.R.AVUDAIAPPAN SPEAKER : TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ,HON’BLE HARMOHINDER SINGH CHATTHA,SPEAKER :
HARYANA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE TULSI RAM, SPEAKER :
HIMACHAL PRADESH ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE DR. SAPAM
BUDHICHANDRA SINGH, SPEAKER : MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE R.ROMAWIA SPEAKER : MIZORAM LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY

HON’BLE DHARAM LAL KAUSKIK SPEAKER : CHATTISGARH


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE SPEAKER N.KIRAN KUMAR REDDY,
SPEAKER : ANDHRA PRADESH ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE DILIPRAO
DATTATRAY WALSE-PATIL, SPEAKER : MAHARASTRA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE ISWARDAS ROHANI ,SPEAKER : MADYA PRADESH
ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE K.G.BOPIAH, SPEAKER : KARNATAKA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE KIYANILIE PESEYIE SPEAKER :
NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HON’BLE RAMENDRA CHANDRA
DEBNATH, SPEAKER : TRIPURA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE
K.T.GYALTSEN, SPEAKER : SIKKIM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE
HARBANS KAPOOR, SPEAKER :UTTARKAND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ,HON’BLE HASIM ABDUL HALIM SPEAKER : WEST BENGAL
ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE CHARLES PYNGROPE SPEAKER :MEGHALAYA

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 19


LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, HON’BLE UDAYA NARAYAN CHOUDRY,
SPEAKER : BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,HON’BLE SUKHADEO
RAJBHAR, SPEAKER UTTAR PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

KARAIKAL UNION TERRITORY STRUGGLE


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

Hon. President N.Nandhivarman Chairman .K.Subramanian Vice-Chairman


V.S.Nallusamy, General Secretary A.S.T.Ansari Babu Treasurer :
S.Radhakrishnan ,Deputy Secretaries : R.Sundarraj, O.S.Uduman, C.Raja , Public
Relations Officer: A.A.Rahman, Propaganda Secretary.K.Krishnakumar ,Youth
Wing Secretary N.P.Kumanan, Deputy secretaries R.Ayyamperumal, A.Raja
Mohammed, T.Dharpareswaran ,Agricultural Wing Secretary M.Sheikh
Mohammed. Joint Secretary M.Singaravelu, Minority Wing Secretary S.George,
Joint Secretary A.Ahamed Maraicar, Organizers: Karaikal North: S.M.Faried,
Karaikal South M.I.Samsudeen, Kottucherry: Subha.Sureshrajan Nedungadu:
M.Singaravelu, T.R.Pattinam; Karai Jinna, Neravy: T.K.S.M.Kanagasundaram
Date :
4.11.2009

APPEAL TO ALL LEADERS, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Respected Leader

Subject: Karaikal people reiterate their demand for Union Territory


status to Karaikal, in case of Statehood is granted to Puducherry on
lines of precedent laid out in Goa, Daman, Diu and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli regarding

Media reports suggest that in this winter session a bill to make the
Union Territory of Puducherry into a full-fledged State is likely to be
introduced. You may be aware that Union Territory of Puducherry
was never a contiguous area. During French rule it was knit together
in spite of being enclaves separated by miles and miles. In Bengal
too French had an enclave, which too would have remained with us,
but fortunately Chandranagore merged with Bengal.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 20


The Union Territory of Puducherry comprises of four coastal regions
viz- Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. Puducherry and
Karaikal are situated on the East Coast in Tamil Nadu, Yanam in
Andra Pradesh.

Mahe is in the West Coast in Kerala. Mahe which is 647 kms


away from Puducherry covers an area of 9 Sq. kms with
36,000 inhabitants. Mahe is situated on the West Coast of the
Indian Peninsula between 11 Degrees 42' and 11 Degrees 43'
Northern Latitude, and between 75 Degrees 31' and 75 Degrees 33'
Eastern Longitude, just between Badagara and Thalassery, 58
kilometers from Kozhikode, 24 kilometers from Kannur in Kerela
State, Mahe with just 9 square kilometers and speaks Malayalam is
ruled by main enclave Puducherry. It should be noted that closer to
Mahe, the Union Territory of Lakshadeep with a population 60595 of
Malayalam speaking people exists. In the case of Puducherry main
enclave becoming state Mahe has three options: 1]. To remain with
Puducherry or 2] to have separate Union Territory Status for Mahe
or 3] to join with Union Territory of Lakshadeep. It has to be decided
by a referendum as per the wishes of people of Mahe.

Yanam is one of the regions in the Union Territory of


Puducherry. which is 870 Kms away from headquarters. It is
situated on the East Coast of the Indian Peninsula at 16
degrees 42' northern latitude, and between 82 degree 11’ Eastern
longitudes bounded on all sides by the East Godavari District of
Andhra Pradesh State. The town of Yanam lies on the spot where
the River Coringa (Atreya) branches off from Gauthami into two
parts. The entire region, consisting of Yanam town and six villages is
treated as Municipality for purposes of local administration. Yenam
covers an area of 30.0 Square kilometers has a population of
31,362 according to the 2001 census. The demand for
statehood to UT of Puducherry is vehemently opposed by Yenam’s
sole legislator who is in Cabinet of the Union Territory. Telugu media
reports that this Minister who had taken oath under Constitution of
India is so much upset with Puducherry becoming statehood
collected 50000 signatures including children and went to France to
submit a memorandum to French government unmindful of protocol
or constitutional responsibility. This appeal to erstwhile colonial
rulers exhibits his and Yenam people’s anger against Statehood for
Puducherry. Whatever future status Yenam wants can be
determined by a referendum.

Whatever valid reasons the main enclave Puducherry advances to


obtain statehood, is in no way endorsed by Karaikal enclave.

Karaikal region is far away from main enclave by 150 kms. It


has an area of 161 sq. km. and population of 1, 70,640 as
per the 2001 census.Karaikal region is made up of the Communes

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 21


of Karaikal, Kottuchcheri, Nedungadu, Tirunallar, Niravi and
Tirumalarajanpattinam.

This region since its merger with Indian Union and since it became a
constituent of the Union Territory of Puducherry had received only
step motherly treatment from the main enclave of Puducherry.
Regional imbalances and continued neglect for five decades led to
the birth of separate Union Territory status for Karaikal. Such
grievances had even broken the State of Bihar into two states of
Bihar and Jharkand. Hence it is needless to tell enlightened and
eminent personality like you that to address the issue of regional
resentment territories could be granted separate status.
Now that Union Territory of Puducherry in the craze to have more
powers for political masters has advanced a demand for elevating
the UT into a State.

To seek your support to de-link the enclave of Karaikal from the


Statehood status, and to get the Union Governments nod for
conferring Union Territory status to Karaikal enclave, a contiguous
region, we are mailing this appeal to you. Let us all look at Goa
precedent.

Goa, a tiny emerald land on the west coast of India, the 25th State
in the Union of States of India, was liberated from Portuguese rule
in 1961. It was part of Union territory of Goa, Daman & Diu
till 30 May 1987 when it was carved out to form a separate
State.

At that time Daman, Diu and Dadra Nagarhaveli which has


now a population of 1, 58,204 in 112 square kilometers were
left to remain as separate Union Territory. Like that we
demand that Karaikal be declared as Separate Union
Territory while Statehood is conferred on Puducherry in this
winter session of Parliament or later. Precedent exists. Other
enclaves too can be made separate Union Territories if they seek or
wish. But we from Karaikal region are clear in our goal. Yes we want
Separate Union Territory Status for Karaikal. Enough with 5 decades
of neglect and backwardness thrust on us.

The number of union territories is dwindling with former union


territories becoming states; hence there is historical necessity to
create more number of Union Territories to keep the purpose of the
Act alive. It is needless to state that if major state rebels against
Union and civil war erupt, Union Territories were security
sanctuaries and spring board for security forces to regain and
restore the integrity of India. With this forethought in mind, Union
Territories Act was envisaged. To give life to this Act, we urge
Karaikal be de-linked from Puducherry State and kept as separate
Union Territory directly ruled by our President.

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 22


With Regards
Yours sincerely

N.Nandhivarman K.Subramanian A.S.T.Ansari


Babu
Hon.President Chairman Gen.Secretary

V.S.Nallusamy S.Radhakrishnan R.Sundarraj


Vice Chairman Treasurer Deputy
Secretary

NEWS CLIPPINGS CONTINUE

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group Memorandum 23

Оценить