Connect with us

South Asia

India: Tamil Nadu wants to rename Madras High Court after state

Published

on

Name changes have been going allover India ever since India got independence from Great Britain, trying best to Indian towns, streets, statues; among other historically important details look pure Indian and entirely regional looking.

Many countries like now Sri Lanka (earlier Ceylon) have change their names   to more localized ones. Tamil Nadu in India has already changed the name of its capital from Madras to Chennai and but the move to change the name of Madras University and Madras high Court have remained unsuccessful so far due mainly to vehement opposition to change the   traditional names.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa is pressing to change the name of Madras High Court and pleads with the Central government to rename the Madras High Court as Tamil Nadu HC in keeping with new reality since there is no Madras today.

A resolution moved by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa in the state assembly urged the Modi Union government to make necessary amendment to the High Court’s (Altercation of Names) Bill 2016 to rename Madras High Court as Tamil Nadu High Court. While moving a resolution in this regard in the Assembly, Jayalalithaa argued this and said Tamil Nadu High Court would be more “appropriate”. She also pointed out that several other HCs in the country are named after the respective states. She also wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to change the High Court’s Bill, 2016, to rename Madras High Court as Tamil Nadu High Court, and not the Chennai High Court which was suggested earlier.

After a detailed discussion, the Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously passed a resolution to call upon the Government of India to move necessary amendments to the bill introduced in the Lok Sabha so as to rename the High Court of Madras as the High Court of Tamil Nadu for the reasons outlined in the resolution. “The text of Resolution passed unanimously in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly today is appended. I request the Government of India to take immediate further action on the basis of the Resolution,” Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa said in her letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 1 August.

The Tamil Nadu Assembly, on 1 August, unanimously passed the special privilege motion to rename the Madras High Court as Tamil Nadu High Court. The Tamil Nadu government emphasized that the name Tamil Nadu High Court must be picked over the name Chennai High Court, as naming it the latter would be inappropriate.

The Tamil Nadu government emphasized that the name Tamil Nadu High Court must be picked over the name Chennai High Court, as naming it the latter would be inappropriate. The government’s argument for renaming Madras HC after the state, instead of Chennai only, is that the court’s jurisdiction extends to the entire state.

All opposition parties, including the DMK and Congress, welcomed the special privilege motion and supported the motion.

The government position is Madras High Court may not be renamed as Chennai High Court. Instead, it may be called the Tamil Nadu High Court. The government’s argument for renaming Madras HC after the state, instead of Chennai only, is that the court’s jurisdiction extends to the entire state beyond the Chennai city. Earlier Tamil Nadu was known as Madras state and hence High Court of Madras state was called Madras High Court. Now the state Tamil Nadu and hence the Court should reflect its jurisdiction to entire state, not just Chennai city. .

The National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre has recently introduced the High Court’s (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 in the Lok Sabha to change the name of the Madras High Court to Chennai High Court.

Earlier this month, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi had approved to introduce The High Court’s (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 in the Monsoon session of the Parliament. The Bill prescribes the changing of names of Bombay High Court as Mumbai High Court, Madras High Court as Chennai High Court and Calcutta High Court as Kolkata High Court respectively. The three courts were named after the cities. After renaming of the three cities, there have been demands seeking change in names of the HCs also. However, in the absence of any law in this regard, a new law needs to be passed by the Parliament to make the prescribed changes effective.

The related Bill, 2016 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 19 July with an aim to rename the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. While the Bill suggested that Madras High Court be renamed Chennai High Court, the proposed change was debated in the state assembly in the wake of the public opposition to the move.

Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa said, “former Chief Minister C N Annadurai moved a resolution and it was passed by the assembly to change the name of Madras Presidency to Tamil Nadu. Following this, the state was renamed as Tamil Nadu from January 14, 1969.” She said the city’s name was changed from Madras to Chennai in 1996, but that hold for the city alone. “Madras high court was set up by the British, and an Act was passed in 1861 by Queen Victoria. But since then states have been divided and each high court in that state is called by the state’s name,” she said, adding that the court does not belong to the city alone, but to the entire state.

Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said the 10,000 Indian workers stranded in Saudi Arabia will be evacuated soon, reported PTI. The Union minister said Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh will leave for the Gulf country at the earliest to oversee the evacuation process. The 10,000 Indian workers stranded in Saudi Arabia will be evacuated soon, says Sushma Swaraj. The external affairs minister informed Parliament that ration for 10 days has been distributed in all the five relief camps set up in the West Asian country. “Not one worker of ours will go hungry. This is my assurance to the country through Parliament… We will bring all of them back to India,” Swaraj said, adding that the National Democratic Alliance government was coordinating with the foreign and labor offices in Saudi Arabia regarding the plan.

The minister informed the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members that the West Asian country’s laws do not have the provision for exit visas without no objection certificates from the employers. The people who had recruited the Indian workers in question have shut their factories and left the country. The Centre is in talks with its Saudi counterpart to get the visas so that the stranded workers can leave the country, she said. She also informed the Assembly that the Indian Consulate has distributed ration for 10 days in all five relief camps set up to help the stranded people. “I am personally monitoring the situation,” Swaraj said. On Twitter, she had said on Sunday that her ministry has asked the Indian embassy in Riyadh to provide free ration to the unemployed Indian workers.

Tamils expect similar approach by New Delhi with regard to Tamil fishermen who are taken to jails by Lankan navy off and on and who keep suffering in Lankan jails for fishing in their traditional zones.

Indian government is expected to come out with a statement on the tensed issue.

India needs to talk to Lankan government to sort out the issue earnestly. A credible and sustainable solution to the vexed problem is long overdue.

New Delhi cannot have two yardsticks to measure importance of Indians abroad keeping in mind the economic or political utility aspect of those working or living abroad. It is a fact that Indians working in Arab world are the source of fast growing Indian economy. But the fact remains that India has taken measures to “resettle” these 10000 Indians working from Saudi Arabia thanks to powerful NRI lobby. New Delhi considers Indians in Mideast and West Asia in terms of financial input from them and does not value the fishing of Indian Tamils in Katchatheevu being not a part of India’s growing economy.

That is an error. Though the fish Tamils bring from Katchatheevu help the fishing community in Rameswaram, it has its own part in Indian economy.

It is not enough that Sri Lankan High Commissioner is called by the foreign ministry as a mere formality and given some “counseling” but it has to act seriously by sending the foreign minister and foreign secretary to Colombo to sort out the issue so that peace prevails in Rameswaram. Unfortunately, even in Tamil Nadu the issue is being treated as that of just fishermen alone and there is not enough awareness or pretest statewide to support the cause of India. For Tamil Nadu government the problems the fishing community in Rameswaram has been facing should merit more attention than renaming of a court which is indeed an ordinary and routine matter. .

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise

Published

on

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in the form of perpetual force deployment and endless military engagements has resoundingly failed to deliver tangible benefits for the United States. Those who celebrated in the wake of the USSR’s collapse as an unqualified vindication of liberal democracy ignored the role of strategic overextension and deteriorating domestic affairs in the latter. The unipolar U.S. moment was bound to be ephemeral, and should have been used to reevaluate and refocus strategic goals in order to ensure we avoid the same fate of our ideological counterpart.

Instead, the United States dispensed with any notions of humility and allowed democratic peace theory to continue guiding its foreign policy decision-making. Even though it is true that democracies are less likely to engage in military confrontations with one another, only hubris could have led us to believe we could universally create this sufficient condition. Afghanistan is a definitive rebuke to the notion that we can simply will the circumstances for democratic peace—on our own terms and with no compromise—into existence.

Luckily, there is still time to readjust the country’s strategic calculus and begin allocating its limited resources in a less myopic manner. Following through with withdrawal could be a starting point for a new trend of U.S. restraint. The most logical region of the world to address next would be its position in Europe. Relative European weakness at the end of World War 2 threatened the balance of power on the continent as the specter of Soviet Communism crept its way West. With Russia a shell of the Marxist empire, there is no logical reason for the United States to maintain its current outsized military presence in Europe; indeed, the EU collectively holds a GDP 11 times the size of Russia’s, has 3 ½ times the population size, and spends 4 times as much on defense.

The United States should demand that European allies adopt a share of their own defense that is more commensurate with this fact. The decision of the previous U.S. administration to remove 12,000 troops due to Germany’s inability to meet NATO spending targets was a good step. The current administration could continue to capitalize on this trend and set more targets for troop withdrawals. Withdrawal will also signal to countries that use political tension with Moscow to decrease their saber rattling. This includes Eastern European NATO members, as well as countries like Ukraine and Georgia. It must be made explicit to the latter two that they cannot engage in bellicose political brinkmanship, and then hope to simply rely on U.S. led NATO to come to their defense should the situation escalate. It may seem counterintuitive, but this may very well result in a more stable European security environment, at least in regard to its posture towards Russia.

This will also reverberate back into the European political arena, as there will be less incentive for inflating the Russian threat. Moscow acts strategically in accordance with its limited national security interests, anticipating Western responses and reactions. Clear signaling that the United States and NATO do not have the goal of encircling Russia and rendering it strategically inert will only serve to increase U.S.-Russian relations, as well as European-Russian relations. This will free up U.S. resources for more pressing national security interests such as preparing for strategic and economic competition with China. It will also decrease the incentive for closer Russian-Sino cooperation.

Ideally, this would cascade into a reevaluation of U.S. strategic postures in other regions as well, such as Southeastern Asia and the broader Middle East. The former is another area in which the United States could reduce its force presence and incentivize increased defense spending by allies. A decreased U.S. presence would also message to China that the United States does not inherently oppose Beijing as a threat. It should, however, be made explicit that aggression towards a U.S. treaty ally would be met with an asymmetric response, but that does not mean that increased tensions with China need to be the status quo. In the Middle East, large scale U.S. military withdrawal in exchange for a primarily diplomatic mission to the region could also serve to decrease one of the major sources of terrorist recruitment.

An interventionist foreign policy was perpetuated as the product of learning the wrong lessons from U.S. victory in the Cold War. A communist doctrine of proselytizing to the alienated masses with axiomatic dogmas and theological certainties failed not because of the weakness of its scripture (which would require a much different, longer article), but because its millenarian quest for world revolution led the Soviet empire to overextend itself beyond its economic means. Behind the façade of military might, the domestic population grew increasingly disillusioned and dissatisfied. Unfortunately, there are alarming parallels with the current domestic situation in the United States today.

Refusing to remain mired in Afghanistan could be an important catalyst in beginning to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy. If Washington focuses its resources on limited goals that prioritize key national security interests, it can better tend to the state of its own republican government and society. It might not be as romantic as crusading for democracy, but it could be essential in preserving the Union.

Continue Reading

South Asia

What, in fact, is India’s stand on Kashmir?

Published

on

Women walking past Indian security forces in Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Nimisha Jaiswal/IRIN

At the UNGA, India’s first secretary Sneha Dubey said the entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh “were, are and will always be an integral and inalienable part of India. She added, “Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue have gained no traction from the international community and the Member States, who maintain that Kashmir is a bilateral matter between the two countries (Pakistan is ‘arsonist’ disguising itself as ‘fire-fighter’: India at UNGA, the Hindu September 25, 2021).

It is difficult to make head or tail of India’s stand on Kashmir. India considers the whole of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir as its integral part. Yet, at the same time, admits it to be a bilateral matter still to be resolved between India and Pakistan.

What bars Pakistan from agitating the Kashmir dispute at international forums?

India presumes that the Simla accord debars Pakistan from “internationalizing” the Kashmir dispute. That’s not so. Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) is of the view that though Pakistan lost the war in East Pakistan, it won at Simla.

Bhasin says, `At the end, Bhutto the “dramatist” carried the day at Simla. The Agreement signed in Simla did no more than call for `respecting the Line of Control emerging from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971. As the Foreign Secretary TN Kaul [of India] said at briefing of the heads of foreign mission in New Delhi on 4 July 1972, the recognition of the new ceasefire line ended the United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group on India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) role in Kashmir, created specifically  for the supervision of the UN sponsored ceasefire line of 1949, since that line existed no more. Having said that India once again faltered for not asking the UN to withdraw its team from Kashmir, or withdrawing its own recognition to it and its privileges (Document No. 0712 in Bhasin’s India-Pakistan Relations 1947-207).

Following Simla Accord (1972), India, in frustration, stopped reporting ceasefire skirmishes to the UN. But, Pakistan has been consistently reporting all such violations to the UN. India feigns it does not recognise the UNMOGIP. But, then it provides logistic support to the UMOGIP on its side of the LOC.

India keeps harassing the UNMOGIP vehicles occasionally. Not long ago, three members of the UNMOGIP had a close call along the LoC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir after Indian troops shot at and injured two locals who were briefing them on the situation after ceasefire violations.

India even asked UNMOGIP to vacate 1/AB, Purina Lila Road, Connaught Place, from where it has been functioning since 1949.

Bhasin says (p.257-259), `The Pakistan Radio broadcasts and…commentators took special pains to highlight …the fact: (i) That India have accepted Kashmir to be a disputed territory and Pakistan a party to the dispute. (ii) That the UNSC resolutions had not been nullified and contrarily (iii) Kashmir remained the core issue between the two countries and that there could not be permanent peace without a just solution based on the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. And Pakistan was right in its assessment. It lost the war won the peace. At the end India was left askance at its own wisdom’.

Obviously, if the UNSC resolutions are intact, then Pakistan has the right to raise the Kashmir dispute at international forums.

India’s shifting stands on Kashmir

At heart, the wily Jawaharlal Lal Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Basin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007.  It contains 3649 official documents, accessed from archives of India’s external-affairs ministry.  These papers gave new perspectives on Nehru’s vacillating state of perfidious mind concerning the Kashmir dispute. In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir in Chapter 5 titled Kashmir, India’s Constitution and Nehru’s Vacillation (pages 51-64). The book is based on Selected Works of Jawaharlal (SWJ) Nehru and author’s own compendium of documents on India-Pak relations. Let us lay bare a few of Nehru’s somersaults

Nehru disowns Kashmir assembly’s “accession”, owns Security Council resolutions

Initially, Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by `Constituent Assembly. Yet, in a volte-face he reiterated in New Delhi on November3, 1951 that `we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’(SWJ: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228). Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked `if the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir “decides in favour of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?”’ he reiterated,  `We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question , and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings’ (SWJ: Volume 15:, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He re-emphasised his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi On November 3, 1951.

Nehru does not label Pakistan an aggressor at the UN

And then labels it so in Parliament

He never labeled Pakistan an aggressor at the UN. Yet, he told parliament on March 1, 1954 `that “aggression” took place in Kashmir six and a half years ago with dire consequences. Nevertheless the United States have thus far not condemned it and we are asked not to press this point in the interest of peace (Bhasin pp. 55-56).

Nehru disowns the Security Council as just a non-binding mediator

On July 24 1952, Nehru said, `Unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SWJ, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).

Security Council re-owned

Bhasin points out (page 57 op. cit.) `At the same press conference on 24 July, 1952 when asked what the necessity of plebiscite was now that he had got the Constituent Assembly [approval], he replied “Maybe theoretically you may be right. But we have given them [UN] an assurance and we stand by it (SWJ: Volume 19, pp. 240-241. Bhasin, p. 57, Bhasin pages 256-257).

Concluding remarks

Pakistan’s recourse to the UN is India’s Achilles Heel. So it is as India’s stand on disputed Kashmir is a rigmarole of inconsistent myths.

To avoid internationalization of the Kashmir issue, India’s own former foreign secretary Jagat Singh Mehta offered proposals (rebranded by Pervez Musharraf’s) to soften the LOC in exchange for non-internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute for 10 years. Mehta presented his ideas in an article, ‘Resolving Kashmir in the International Context of the 1990s’.

India had no consistent stand on Kashmir. There was a time when Sardar Patel presented Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and Junagadh. Reportedly, the offer was declined as Pakistan’s prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan thought it could retain not only Kashmir but also Junagadh and Hyderabad. Jawaharlal Nehru approached the United Nations’ for mediation. He kept harping his commitment to the plebiscite.

It is eerie that the whole architecture of India’s stand on Kashmir is erected on the mythical `instrument of accession’ and its endorsement by the disputed state’s assembly, Accession documents are un-registered with the UN. The Simla Accord text makes crystal clear reference to the UN charter.

Let India know that a state that flouts international treaties is a rogue state: pacta sunt servanda, treaties are to be observed and are binding on parties. Self-determination is not only a political but also a legal right in disputed lands. Sans talks with Pakistan, and UN or third-party mediation, what else is India’s recipe for imprisoned Kashmiris? A nuclear Armageddon or divine intervention?

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions

Published

on

Food and blankets are handed out to people in need in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, by © WFP/Arete

Afghanistan may face a food crisis under the Taliban (outlawed in Russia) rule because this movement is under sanctions of both individual states and the United Nations, Andrei Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, told TASS on Monday.

“A food crisis and famine in Afghanistan are not ruled out. Indeed, Afghanistan is now on life support, with assistance mostly coming from international development institutes, as well as from the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States, i.e. from Western sources and institutes close to the West,” he said. “The Taliban is under international sanctions, not only unilateral US and EU sanctions, but also under UN sanctions. That is why, in formal terms, the Taliban coming to power may mean that these sanctions could be expanded to the entire country, and it will entail serious food problems. Food deliveries from the World Food Program and other international organizations may be at risk.”

According to the expert, statistics from recent years show that annual assistance to Afghanistan amounts to about five billion US dollars, but this sum is not enough to satisfy the needs of the country’s population. “It is believed that a minimal sum needed by Afghanistan to maintain basic social institutions to avoid hunger in certain regions stands at one billion US dollars a month, i.e. 12 billion a year,” Kortunov noted. “Some say that twice as much is needed, taking into account that population growth in Afghanistan is among the world’s highest and life expectancy is among the lowest. And around half of Afghan children under five are undernourished.”

He noted that despite the fact that the issue of further food supplies to Afghanistan is not settled, some countries, for instance, China, continue to help Afghanistan but a consolidated position of the international community is needed to prevent a food and humanitarian crisis. “A common position of the international community is needed and it should be committed to paper in corresponding resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, which should provide for reservations concerning food assistance in any case,” he added.

However, in his words, the key question is who will control the distribution of humanitarian and food assistance inside the country. “There were such precedents when countries and regimes under sanctions were granted reservations and received food assistance. But a logical question arises about who will control the distribution of this assistance. This has always been a stumbling block for programs of assistance to Syria, as the West claimed that if everything is left to Damascus’ discretion, assistance will be distributed in the interests of [President Bashar] Assad and his inner circle rather than in the interests of the Syrian people. It is not ruled out that the same position will be taken in respect of the Taliban,” Kortunov went on to say. “It means that the international community will be ready to provide food assistance but on condition that unimpeded access will be granted to the areas in need and everything will not be handed over to the Taliban who will decide about whom to help.”

After the US announced the end of its operation in Afghanistan and the beginning of its troop withdrawal, the Taliban launched an offensive against Afghan government forces. On August 15, Taliban militants swept into Kabul without encountering any resistance, establishing full control over the country’s capital within a few hours. Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani said he had stepped down to prevent any bloodshed and subsequently fled the country. US troops left Afghanistan on August 31.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia15 mins ago

Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in...

Middle East2 hours ago

UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions

A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question...

Americas4 hours ago

Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power

Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport...

Defense6 hours ago

North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow: A Worrisome Expansion

Abstract: The nuclear news from North Korea remains clear and threatening.  Ignoring both political warnings and legal prohibitions, Kim Jong...

Russia10 hours ago

Russia’s Blueprint For Success in the Middle East

As a tradition in the modern world the Middle East remains unstable. Continuous political turbulence in the region extinguishes all...

pakistan-terrorism pakistan-terrorism
Terrorism17 hours ago

India’s view of “terrorism: at the UNGA?

At the recent United Nations’ general Assembly session, India was furious at mention of Kashmir by Pakistan’s prime minister Imran...

New Social Compact19 hours ago

Prevent gender-based violence in humanitarian emergencies

Top UN officials met in the margins of the 76th General Assembly on Thursday,  with a strong call to action...

Trending