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.

Unwarranted fears on Mullaiperiyar

A view of Mullaperiyar Dam on Kerala-Tamil Nadu border at Kumily, near Idukki. File Photo: H. Vibhu
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2761320.ece


There can be no question of Tamil Nadu giving up its rights over Mullaiperiyar. Its waters are not exclusively Kerala's, but an inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers


BY DURAI MURUGAN

In the latest intensification of the Mullaiperiyar controversy, I see the media discourse not only tilted in favour of Kerala but also seeking to paint Tamil Nadu in a bad light — as an adamant State not concerned about the safety of the people in the neighbouring State. 

The propaganda by Kerala, which was started way back in 1979 with an article in a Malayalam newspaper, has become so institutionalised now that I see independent experts and activists voicing opinions that fail to take into account Tamil Nadu's considered standpoint.

One of the reasons for the national media overlooking Tamil Nadu's views could be lack of ‘experts', ‘intellectuals', ‘activists', ‘policy-makers' and the like — those who normally contribute erudite articles to the edit and op-ed pages of English newspapers and also appear on television debates — to articulate the State's perspective. But the most important reason is that Mullaiperiyar per se is not an emotive or political issue in Tamil Nadu, which has been treating it as a rights issue that it can solve legally. After all, justice is on the side of the right.

That does not mean that Tamil Nadu has not been responsive to the ‘concerns' that were manufactured with the sole intention of nullifying the State's right over 8000 acres of land that Tamil Nadu holds inside Kerala by virtue of an agreement between the erstwhile Maharaja of Travancore and the British Government in India in 1886. Tamil Nadu has taken several steps over the past three decades to allay the fears of the people in Kerala despite knowing very well that politicians were causing panic by propagating falsehoods.

In this context, I found it amusing when Ramaswamy R. Iyer, in two articles, one in The Hindu and another in its sister publication Frontline, stated: “Let Tamil Nadu and Kerala set up a joint committee and reach a mutual agreement. This is essentially a matter for settlement by amicable agreement, not judicial determination.” When I read his statements that neither the view of the Central Water Commission nor the judgment of the Supreme Court was acceptable, I wondered what locus standi he had to make such a suggestion.

With due respect to his views, let me provide key irrefutable facts to reject his thesis. Mr. Iyer himself should be aware of the fact that several rounds of talks have been held between the two States during the past three decades and all of them failed. 

The talks were held at different levels. Chief Ministers of the States have discussed the issue; Irrigation Ministers have tried to sort out the differences; Chief Secretaries have attempted to arrive at a solution; and other officials have sat across the table several times, even in the presence of the Union Water Resources Ministry. Does Mr. Iyer think that a mutual agreement is possible even now?

But what is galling is Mr. Iyer's contention that it is not a matter for judicial determination. It is the right of every citizen of this country to seek legal recourse on contentious issues and his or her duty to abide by the ruling of the courts. The fact that the Kerala government has failed to abide by the directions of the Supreme Court of India is something no one is bringing to light in the media discourse.

One example relates to the strengthening of the Mullaiperiyar dam, which needs to be done in three phases — emergency, medium-term, and long-term, as advised by the Central Water Commission. Though the medium level strengthening has been completed, Kerala did not allow Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 feet as per the Supreme Court's directive. But overcoming the obstacles that Kerala threw in the way of carrying out the work was more agonising. When Tamil Nadu wanted to use small explosives to break stones, Kerala objected saying that the noise would disturb wildlife. When Tamil Nadu tried to transport the gravel in lorries, they stopped the vehicles saying the sound would scare the animals. At last, we used donkeys to transport building material.

Now Kerala is refusing to give permission for strengthening the baby dam, which is part of the irrigation system in Mullaiperiyar, and the building of the parapet walls on the main dam, which is essential if Tamil Nadu is to complete the long-term strengthening process. If Kerala's concern is the dam's safety alone, why is it preventing us physically from carrying out the strengthening work? I hope the people of Kerala, if they are really fearful of the dam bursting, would ask this of their rulers. Once the long-term strengthening is done, Tamil Nadu would be legally entitled to store water up to 152 feet. It is pertinent here to record the fact that the Kerala government has steadfastly refused to give a power connection to the small PWD maintenance office located at the dam site.

Another issue raised by Mr. Iyer and some other ‘experts' is that the 1886 agreement is seen as ‘unfair' to Kerala. But has its government ever made an issue of it openly? In the various talks I have participated in, the alleged unfairness of the agreement never cropped up. The land clearly belongs to Tamil Nadu as the agreement of 1886 is legally sound.

There can be no question of Tamil Nadu giving up its rights over Mullaiperiyar. The latest slogan, ‘Water for Tamil Nadu, Safety for Kerala,' is just a deception. The proposal for a new dam downstream, which has caught the fancy of many well-meaning people with no real knowledge of ground realities, is only a ploy to deprive Tamil Nadu of water. The most important element that is missing in this narrative is that Mullaiperiyar waters are not exclusively Kerala's, but an inter-State resource governed by the principles of inter-State rivers.

Let me explain why. First, if a new dam is constructed away — that too, downstream — from the Mullaiperiyar, Tamil Nadu will not be able to draw water and supply it to the rain-shadow districts of Theni, Dindigul, Madurai, Sivagangai, and Ramanathapuram. Secondly, environmental clearance could be an uphill task for the construction of a new structure now, given the latest laws, which might be used as a pretext by Kerala to throw up its hands after knocking off the present dam and thus achieving its goal of diverting the water to Idukki dam for power generation.

Kerala's politicians have never told their people for more than two decades that if the Mullaiperiyar is removed, then only about eight tmcft of water would flow into the Idukki dam, which can hold 73 tmcft water. When the people, who have never had an opportunity to see the dam in the thick reserve forest area, were enlightened that the Idukki dam, which is normally filled only up to half its capacity, would hold the water, the Kerala government machinery floated a theory that Idukki would not be able to withstand the sudden inflow. But even the Kerala Advocate General recently told the court that the water would easily collect in the three dams downstream, including Idukki.

Coming to the bogey of ‘tremors' becoming a common occurrence in the region, I wonder why Kerala is so cavalier about it, if its claims were true. Will not a strong earthquake pull down the Idukki dam, which is also in the same seismic region, and cause more devastation?

Another suggestion by Mr. Iyer that hurt me immensely is that Tamil Nadu should “minimise…[its] dependence on the waters of the Mullaiperiyar dam.” 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, the British humanist who was moved by the plight of the people after a series of famines that led to starvation deaths and large-scale migration from the rain-shadow region. The dam is an example of an educated man's compassion for the marginalised sections of society that eke out a living tilling the ground.

Let me conclude by stating another truth. Kerala politicians mounted the proverbial tiger on the Mullaiperiyar issue. They cannot dismount now. But we believe in justice and that explains why we never played any obstructionist role in bringing out the truth that the dam would stand firm for many more years to give livelihood to the people in Tamil Nadu.

(The author is a senior DMK leader and has been a Tamil Nadu Minister holding portfolios of the PWD and Water Resources and Law.)

CHENNAI: Detained South Korean-flagged ship drifts to shore

By G Saravanan

Published in The New Indian Express, Chennai on Dec 31, 2011:

Source:http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/detained-korean-ship-drifts-to-shore/348486.html

CHENNAI: Detained South Korean flag cargo vessel ‘OSM Arena’, anchored off the Chennai Port with a 14-member crew, drifted towards shore near INS Adyar in the wee hours of Friday due to gusty wind and rough seas. The vessel has been anchored off the port for the past 22 months following a Kolkata High Court order.

According to Chennai Port Trust sources, Coast Guard was informed immediately after the vessel began dragging its anchor due to rough seas.

Due to gusty winds, the vessel drifted eastwards and reached around 600 metres from the shore between mouth of Cooum River and the Port’s coal yard near INS Adyar.

The vessel was afloat in 12 to 13 metres of depth and action was being taken to shift it with the assistance of port tugs into deeper waters, sources told Express.

There was no danger to the vessel or the environment at present, a statement by the Port Trust said.It is learnt that one of the anchors of the vessel was not functioning and, due the water current coupled with strong winds, the ship began drifting towards the shore.

The Korean-flagged vessel is about 190 metres long and have 14 Myanmarese crew onboard.

The Chennai Port had also impleaded itself in the dispute as the anchored ship posed danger to the port and the environment since it had bunker fuel of about 400 tonnes on board. The Kolkata HC’s order in the case is expected by the first week of January 2012, the sources added.