Associated Press opens Pyongyang bureau

Source: http://www.northkoreatech.org/2012/01/17/ap-opens-pyongyang-bureau/

The Associated Press has opened a news bureau in Pyongyang making it the first western news agency to have a reporter and photographer based in the North Korean capital.

The bureau represents a coup for the AP over the competition, but its close cooperation with the state-run Korean Central News Agency, necessitated to realize the deal, brings with it questions over editorial independence.

AP President Tom Curley and KCNA President Kim Pyong Ho officially opened the bureau in Pyongyang on Monday. It came six months after the two met in New York and signed a basic agreement towards the office.

The bureau will be housed inside KCNA’s headquarters and will be permanently staffed by two North Koreans: reporter Pak Won Il and photographer Kim Kwang Hyon.

AP didn’t provide details of the background of the two and declined to say if they were on the payroll of AP or KCNA.

Regardless of their employment status, they were almost certainly trained in the North Korean media-slash-propaganda machine with books such as “The Great Teacher of Journalists” — a heavy tome filled with advice to journalists by Kim Jong Il. Their appointment would have been approved by North Korean authorities.

The two have already contributed to AP’s coverage over the last few weeks on the death of Kim Jong Il.

Pak was credited as providing details for several AP stories on the funeral, including “Thousands Gather In Snow To Mourn Kim Jong Il.” Kim Kwang Hyon is believed to be the photographer responsible for several unattributed photographs issued by AP of the funeral.

Video footage of the office released by KCNA shows pictures of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il hanging on the wall above some desks. A TV hangs on the wall and there also appears to be a refrigerator and microwave oven.

It’s this closeness with KCNA that has AP walking a delicate editorial line.

AP is based on a traditional of independent reporting, and KCNA is anything but independent. Its Japan-based website describes the agency as speaking “for the Workers’ Party of Korea and the DPRK government,” and its daily output is heavy with glorification of its leader and threats against South Korea and the U.S.

But when it comes to North Korea, KCNA is the only game in town.

North Korea has remained one of the few places in the world that has remained almost totally impenetrable to foreign journalists. Visits are strictly supervised and controlled, and information flow in and out of the country is just a trickle. This was demonstrated vividly in December when governments and media organizations were apparently unaware that anything was amiss in the days before the death of Kim Jong Il was announced.

Getting coverage from Pyongyang, albeit with assistance from the government’s news agency, is probably better than nothing.

The real payoff will come in the regular reporting trips by AP staffers that form part of the deal. Korea Bureau Chief Jean Lee and Chief Asia Photographer David Guttenfelder will oversee the bureau and are likely to continue visiting the country.

It also gives AP a leg up on competitors such as Reuters and AFP when major news breaks in Pyongyang, such as the recent death of Kim Jong Il.

Jarawa Dance Video ARMY PERSONNEL INVOLVED

Source:http://lightofandamans.blogspot.com/2012/01/cover-story-jarawa-dance-video-army.html

By Zubair Ahmed

The Jarawa dance video, which created hue and cry in the international and national media and forced the Government of India and Andaman and Nicobar Administration to order a probe, was actually shot by a group of army personnel.

In an independent investigation by LOA, it has come to the fore that police and ground staff of Andaman Aadim Janjathi Vikas Samithi (AAJVS) were not aware as the video was shot after the last convoy left Middle Strait.

Contrary to the statements released to the media by the Administration, the video was shot three years back on 6th  November 2008, in which two vehicles - a truck and a gypsy belonging to army were involved. 

In a release, S B Deol, DGP had said that the video was 10 years old and there were no cop in the video. He had also pointed out that a man with camouflaged uniform was visible in the media. 

However, he did not mention anyrole of defence personnel.

LOA has identified the Jarawa women and girls featuring in the video, which was shot at a place about 8 kms from Jirkatang, known as Chowdhary Gumai. There were six Jarawa women including a pregnant lady, who was shown fully naked. Thadul (16 years) daughter of Thadang, Ecnchobecha (14) d/o Thadang, Cheddatokula (35) wife of Whaydom and Aninja (13) d/o Whaydom featured in the video. Enepowaiele (21) w/o Mahe was 7-8 months pregnant when the video was shot. She gave birth to a baby girl Wane on 6 February 2009.

The army personnel traveling in a military truck had waited for the last convoy to pass from Middle Strait and with special permission traveled on the road. It has also come to light that Jarawas mostly belonging to Tirur sector has a Chadda (Jarawa Hut) very close to the place.

Jarawas, still a nomadic community travel from Tirur to Kadamtala and back frequently. They use the temporary chaddas on the way.

The Jarawas in Kadamtala and Middle Strait were able to identify the Jarawa women featuring in the video and the place where it took place.

Enepowaiele, the pregnant woman in the video, who is 24 years now has confirmed to a reliable source about the incident and involvement of army personnel.

However, this does not vindicate the police force present at Middle Strait who allowed the military truck to pass after the last convoy had departed from Middle Strait. The thumb rule is not to allow anybody except AAJVS, Police and Forest personnel dealing with the protection and welfare of Jarawas of specific territorial jurisdiction. This raises a serious question how army personnel, who were on a tour to Baratang could stop inside the Reserve and shoot the video exploiting the vulnerability of a tribe who are at crossroads, unaware of the dangers it poses to their life and culture.

The story about the video published by The Guardian/Observer, London was later picked by the national media and highlighted the plight of the Jarawas.

Soon after the expose by news channels, Shakti Sinha, Chief Secretary, ANI Admn had rebutted the episode saying that over the past decade, the population of the Jarawas has increased for the first time since they first came into contact with the outside world 150 years ago.  He also said that a Tribal Reserve has been increased from 847 sq kms to 1028 sq kms.

Speaking to a news channel, Prof Shekhar Singh said that the Lieutenant Governor and the Administration should be put on dock on the issue of contempt of court as the Administration has kept the Andaman Trunk Road open even after the Supreme Court's Order of May 2002.

The issue has also created a ruckus among the politicians and the settler communities who blamed foul play in the timing of the video saying that it was intentionally done to close Andaman Trunk Road, which they claim to be a lifeline.

TAMIL NADU: Eight Lankan refugees arrested

By G Saravanan

Published in The New Indian Express, Chennai, on January 7, 2012:

Source:http://expressbuzz.com/states/tamilnadu/tn-eight-lankan-refugees-arrested/350803.html

CHENNAI: Eight Lankan Tamil refugees, who landed at Jegathapattinam coast in Pudukottai district on a fishing boat, were arrested and later remanded in judicial custody by a local court.

The refugees, including three girl children — aged one, seven and nine — landed on Thursday morning.

According to sources, they were from Pungudu Island near Jaffna in Northern Sri Lanka. They had sailed into Indian territory for safety.

The refugees were Thirukumaran, his wife Rathimalar, their daug-hters Rathika and Nivetha, Nitharsan, his wife Marysusanne, their one-year-old daughter Nitharsana and Jesudasan.

While the males were sent to the Tiruchy Central Prison, Judicial Magistrate T Pannerselvam directed the police to lodge the two girl children of Thirukumaran in a juvenile camp in Tiruchy.

The magistrate allowed Nitharsana, one-year-old daughter of Nitharsan, to stay with her mother at the Tiruchy Women’s Prison until further orders.

The arrest and subsequent remand evoked sharp reactions from the pro-Tamil groups. “I strongly condemn the act as it goes against the principle of natural justice and must be termed inhuman. They should have been sent to a refugee camp instead,” said Seeman, leader of Naam Thamilar Party. Other Tamil organisations, including the Katchatheevu Retrieval Movement, echoed Seeman.

While the police produced the refugees before the Aranthangi court on Friday, charging them under the Passport Act, a group of advocates prayed for a direction to send them to a refugee camp. Ten lawyers from Naam Thamilar Party moved different bail petitions for the refugees. However, the court remanded them and postponed their bail hearing to Tuesday.

CHENNAI: Activist receives threat calls, seeks protection

By G Saravanan

Published in The New Indian Express, Chennai on Jan 5, 2012:

Source:http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/Activist-receives-threat-calls-seeks-protection/350091.html

CHENNAI: City-based social activist ‘Injambakkam’ H Sekar, who has waged a legal battle against influential politicians and land sharks for usurping the beach front in Injambakkam, is having sleepless nights over anonymous threatening calls.

With the callers threatening to “bump him off” for pursuing the beach encroachment case in the Madras High Court, Sekar, for the past few months, preferred to stay away from his native fishing hamlet during nights, fearing his safety.

With the case against the beachfront encroachments progressing in the High Court, Sekar began receiving threat calls on his mobile phone since August last, to withdraw the case immediately .

Besides calls over phone, unknown persons also began frequenting Sekar’s residence at Injambakkam to ‘advise’ him to remain silent in the case.

As the ‘threat’ from these quarters kept increasing, Sekar, in September last, sent telegrams to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court and top police officials seeking security.

When contacted, Neelangarai Inspector Devaraj admitted that Sekar had informed them about the threatening calls.

“Based on Sekar’s information, we conducted enquiries with the suspected persons who could have threatened him. We are providing him adequate security,” he added.

Sekar’s woes began after he secured successive court judgements for the removal of encroachments by the influential persons in Injambakkam. However, despite Madras High Court orders in 1997 and 2007, no action was taken by the Kanchipuram district administration following which Sekar filed a petition in 2008 and sought a fresh order.

Acting on Sekar’s plea, the High Court in November 2008 passed an interim order asking the Kanchipuram District Collector to file a detailed report after removing the encroachment from beachfront.

“Despite the order, no action had been taken by the district administration to remove encroachments,” Sekar told Express.

After Express published a report about the authorities’ inaction in June 2009, local officials visited the area. But again nothing happened, Sekar added.

Meanwhile, the Neelangarai police in October filed a case against Sekar for ‘immoral activities’ at Injambakkam fishing hamlet after a group of women registered a complaint.

When Sekar sought details of the complaint, the police declined to provide any details forcing him to obtain the copy of the complaint using the RTI Act. “I see the complaint as a ploy by influential people (against whom I waged the legal battle) to get me arrested in a false case,” Sekar said.

CHENNAI: Drifted S Korean vessel back in earlier location

By G Saravanan

Published in The New Indian Express, Chennai on January 3, 2012:

Source:http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/Drifted-S-Korean-vessel-back-in-earlier-location/349416.html

CHENNAI: The Chennai Port Trust (ChPT) management on Monday successfully moved a drifted South Korean- flagged vessel to its earlier location.

M K Sinha, Deputy Conservator of ChPT, told Express, “After a two-day operation, two tugs belonging to the Port Trust management on Monday evening restored the vessel (OSM Arena) in to its original location inside the port area.” 
It may be noted that the detained vessel OSM Arena, anchored off the Chennai Port with a 14-member crew for the past 22 months following a Kolkata High Court order, drifted towards the shore near INS Adyar in the wee hours of Friday due to gusty wind and rough seas.

According to sources, the vessel is now anchored 3.5 nautical miles from shoreline.

Union Shipping Minister G K Vasan on Sunday made a surprise visit to the port and along with top officials of the ChPT, including its chairman Atulya Misra monitored the operation from a small boat. For the last three days, the drifted vessel has become a tourist attraction for many and people were thronging Marina to get a view of the cargo vessel.

As rough sea condition improved on Saturday, the port management began an operation to restore the drifted vessel back to its original location. Sources said, 14 Burmese crew on board the vessel are in sound health and no damage has occurred to the vessel.

116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam is as good as new

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/article2764198.ece

A. MOHANAKRISHNAN

It could be said that every citizen of India, can justifiably take pride in possessing a rare structure in Mullaperiyar Dam, the very first created in the country, perhaps in the world, for trans-basin diversion of water for beneficial use, towards the end of the 19th century, still continuing to serve with its benefits undiminished, through continuous surveillance, maintenance and management by the Tamil Nadu government.

The credit for the concept, design and construction of the Mullaperiyar Dam should go mainly to two British Engineers Major Ryves, the District Engineer of Madurai District, who gave a practical form in 1862 for diversion of Periyar waters to benefit the drought-prone areas of the then Madurai and Ramanathapuram districts and Colonel J. Pennycuick, who not only made a report with detailed estimates for the Mullaperiyar Dam in 1882 but also ventured against all odds in the most inhospitable dense forest, struggling with single-minded devotion for a good cause and completed the structure in 1895.

Just to the west of the Vaigai river basin in Tamil Nadu, on the other side of the Western Ghat ridges, lies the Periyar basin in the Kerala State. The river Periyar, as the name implies, is the one which drains the largest catchment among the west-flowing rivers of the Kerala state.

The river Periyar rises in the Sivagiri peak of the Western Ghats in the Quilon district, 80 km south of Devikulam, at an elevation of about 2,400 m and traverses through the stiff cliffs and dense forests for about 186 km, where the tributary Mullaiyar joins on the right at about an elevation of 850 m. The river then turns west, cuts through the hills in a deep narrow gorge at about 11 km below Mullaiyar junction. It is this narrow gorge in sound hard rock that gave an excellent formation that was chosen by Col. Pennycuick to construct the Mullaperiyar gravity masonry dam. The river Periyar runs through 232 km traversing the taluks of Peermedu and Devikulam and parts of Ernakulam district before draining into the well-known Vembanad lake.

The Madras government entered into correspondences with the erstwhile Travancore government in possession of the territory where the dam was to be built from 1862. The Travancore government, which originally showed interest in launching the Mullaperiyar dam project as a joint project, later pulled out of the joint project suggestions and, by a letter dated October 24, 1873 to the British Resident, offered to accept a sum of Rs. 75,000/- per year from 1882 as lease rent for the site of the reservoir, which was later surveyed to extend over 8,000 acres, and agreed to demise the entire water to be stored therein in favour of the government of Madras. The Lease Deed of 1886, to take retrospective effect from January 1, 1886 between the governments of Travancore and Madras, was finally signed on October 29, 1886 for lease of land for the project works for diversion of the waters to then Madras Presidency.

The argument put forth by the present government of Kerala that the British Government got the inter-state agreement signed exercising their supremacy falls flat with the recorded evidence.

Among the materials of construction, Stone, the principal constituent of the dam, was locally available to be quarried as was the sand in the river. But lime and surki for the mortar, designed as three parts of sand, two of lime and one of surki, had to be transported through dense forests besides several construction equipment, and other materials from the temporary camp at Thekkadi, 13 km off, on the other side of the Ghat.

Five different methods of conveyance were considered, all expensive and difficult to organise including a ropeway across the valley and that which was convenient at the time was adopted.

It should be specifically mentioned that throughout this decade of construction, great effort was taken to ensure the quality of the materials used and the building of the structures through tests, checks and supervision.

As cement had not made its advent in India when the project had been designed and executed, lime surki mortar was used with the lime having been burnt to specification in kiln at site and well ground by a battery of bullock-drawn circular mills and surki being ground to the fineness required by crushers. We are now able to see the result in the dam structure retaining water up to 152 ft. above the river bed for more than a century, with minimum seepage well below the limits prescribed, in spite of the fact that no drilling and grouting was done for consolidation and no drainage gallery was formed in the body of the dam, since both these were unknown practices at that period of time.

On May 29, 1970, the government of Madras signed two supplemental agreements with the government of Kerala, as successors in interest to the original Lease Deed of 1886. By one supplemental agreement, the annual lease rent was enhanced and the fishing rights in the Periyar lake was relinquished in favour of the government of Kerala. By another agreement which came into effect from November 13, 1954, the government of Madras would generate hydro power and pay to the government of Kerala for the electrical energy generated at Rs.12/- KW (kilo watt) year up to 350 million units and at Rs.18/- KW year beyond 350 million units. This will prove that the Mullaperiyar project has been beneficial to both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

The safety of the dam is now being questioned, just because it is 116 years in age and a fear psychosis has been raised, which gives the impression it may burst any time. No gravity masonry dam will ever burst and no gravity dam has so far burst in any part of the world. 

The dam is as good as a new dam after the strengthening measures devised by the Central Water Commission, the highest technical body in the government of India, have been carried out that too with the concurrence of the engineers of the Government of Kerala at every stage.

As one closely associated with this dam and the strengthening measures undertaken, I am pained to see the controversies being raised on its safety, in spite of the wise opinion given by several experts who have inspected the dam and the Supreme Court having accepted the opinion of the experts.

(A. Mohanakrishnan, who has been handling inter-state river water issues on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, is advisor (water resources) to the government.)

Mullaiperiyar controversy: 'Safety will benefit Tamil Nadu'

RAMASWAMY R. IYER

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2766767.ece

Having read Durai Murugan's rejoinder (Dec. 31) to my article on the Mullaperiyar, or Mullaiperiyar, controversy (Dec. 29), I would have preferred to leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions. However, as Mr. Murugan has specifically referred to me several times, replies to some points become unavoidable.

(1) “The waters are not exclusively Kerala's, but an inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers.” Periyar is not an inter-State river. It is a Kerala river, partly diverted by human action to Tamil Nadu.

(2) ‘Rights': Tamil Nadu's rights in this case are not riparian rights as in the Cauvery case, but arise out of an agreement. Under the agreement, Travancore (now Kerala) had agreed to share its waters with Madras (now Tamil Nadu). This is somewhat unusual, as States are generally reluctant to share their waters with other States. One wishes that Mr. Murugan had expressed some appreciation of this fact.

(3) “Mullaiperiyar per se is not an emotive or political issue in Tamil Nadu”: It is difficult to accept that statement.

(4) If all talks so far have failed, both sides must accept responsibility. I can only say: please hold more talks. Agreement, not confrontation, is the only way to resolve the issue.

(5) I have not questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court at all. I am only asking whether dam safety is a fit subject for judicial determination. If there are divergent expert opinions, can the Supreme Court uphold one opinion as right? That is not a rhetorical question, but one on which I am bewildered and would like to be enlightened.

(6) I respect the Central Water Commission, and I respect the experts who are members of the Empowered Committee. However, if, say, a group of experts from the IITs were to express a different view, what does one do? That is why I am suggesting a joint determination by the two governments with expert assistance.

(7) Political statements may have aggravated the fears of the people in Kerala, but I cannot agree that the fears are wholly imaginary or ‘manufactured.' (Incidentally, the government of India might say that the experts have pronounced Kudankulam safe and that the local people's fears are wholly imaginary: should one accept that?)

(8) The need for strengthening the dam: there is no disagreement on this between Mr. Murugan and myself. Mr. Murugan complains of the absence of cooperation on this matter by the Kerala government. I cannot comment on this because I do not know what Kerala has to say.

(9)The alleged unfairness of the 1886 agreement: The Kerala government may or may not have raised it officially, but the sense of grievance is indeed pervasive. Are there grounds for that feeling? I don't know, but consider the following: the unusual agreement of Travancore State to divert a part of one of its rivers to Madras Presidency; the leasing of 8,000 acres of its territory to that Presidency; an extraordinary lease of 999 years; and for all these concessions, a negligible quid pro quo. One can only say that the Maharaja must have been unwise or exceptionally generous or under pressure from the British government.

(10) “The latest slogan, ‘Water for Tamil Nadu, Safety for Kerala,' is just a deception”: Far from being a deception, it seems to me the only basis for a settlement of this issue. (By the way, “safety for Kerala” will also benefit Tamil Nadu: if, hypothetically speaking, the dam were to burst, waters will cease to flow to Tamil Nadu.)

(11) “Will not a strong earthquake pull down the Idukki dam?”: Possibly. What does this prove? Both Mullaperiyar and Idukki exist and all that one can do is to take adequate safety measures.

(12) “Another suggestion by Mr. Iyer that hurt me immensely is that Tamil Nadu should minimise…[its] dependence on the waters of the Mullaiperiyar dam.” As the 116-year-old dam may not last forever, I have suggested advance contingency planning. Why should this hurt anyone?

(13) “All those who want the dam to be decommissioned or its water level brought down to 120 feet should read the life history of Major John Pennycuick…” (a) I have not said “decommission the dam now”; I have only said that as the dam is nearing the end of its useful life, it will have to be gradually phased out over a period of time. (b) I have not made specific recommendations such as a water-level of 120 feet; I have said that the two governments should agree on a safe level, whatever it may be. (c) Pennycuick may have meant well and may have been deified, but that does not mean that the project was a good one. Incidentally, should all the credit for the diversion be given to Pennycuick and none to the Maharaja who agreed to it?

(14) Finally, if Mr. Murugan were to re-read my article with an open mind, he may find that it is not so bad after all. I took enormous pains to make it fair and balanced, and am deeply disappointed at Mr. Murugan's negative reading of it.