Author: admin@thefirm

An unsettled law is as dangerous as bad law.

A recent order by the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) has reiterated the inherent problems surrounding the Electoral Bond Scheme 2018. This order passed in an appeal against the State Bank of India has effectively shut the door to seek any details about donors and donees relating to electoral bonds under the Right to Information Act 2005 (“RTI Act”). With no other recourse available, the Supreme Court of India finds itself as the only surviving arbiter on adjudicating the vires of electoral bonds and settling the legal questions once and for all.  

An Illegal Scheme

The Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 (“Scheme”), which came into effect on 2 January 2018, creates banking instruments for donation of funds to political parties facilitated by the State Bank of India. (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-what-is-an-electoral-bond-and-how-do-we-get-one/article22367124.ece) The Scheme has been criticized for being intrinsically flawed as it conceals the identity of the donors and donees as well as the amount of donation. In effect, the Scheme defeats transparency, promotes arbitrariness and, is therefore, per se illegal.

By its very nature, the Scheme facilitates undisclosed quid pro quo arrangements between donors, who are more likely to be corporates, and political parties. Such an arrangement goes against best practices of electoral democracy and is repugnant to the freedom of speech and expression. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Another 2002, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression also contained the fundamental right of a voter to secure information about the candidates who are contesting the election. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15059075/)

When the voter is permitted to know if an electoral candidate is facing any cases, even if those have not ended in conviction or even proceeded to a trial, should she not be equally entitled to know who is financing the expenses of the political party and its candidate? There can be no justification for election financing to be shrouded in secrecy through such a law. 

Closing the RTI Doors

The order passed by CIC in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/167835 has upheld the contention of the State Bank of India that they are not required to furnish the details of donors, donees and donations under the RTI Act.  In doing so, they have relied on two grounds provided under Section 8 of RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information. Firstly, on the ground that the information sought has been held in fiduciary capacity and secondly, that there was not public interest involved in the application. 

The incredulity of the order aside, there is a tremendous legal infirmity that pervades the interpretation of law. Both grounds of reasoning do not stand a bare scrutiny of law. It is also trite that any exemption provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act is not absolute and should be read only in a very narrow and limited sense. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act directs that when public interest outweighs any harm to protected interests, the information sought for may be accessed. This section begins with a non obstante clause and therefore overrides the grounds relied upon by the CIC. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758550/)  

The public interest in the present matter is undisputable. The CIC, in an earlier order, has deemed political parties to be public authorities under the RTI Act. (https://thewire.in/government/national-parties-public-authorities-rti-election-commission ) The funds received by political parties from donors would naturally be of interest to voters of the country in order to understand their financing and functioning. Donations by corporate entities, especially public limited companies, would also be of interest to their shareholders and potential shareholders. Therefore, the failure of the CIC in appreciating the present issue as one of the highest public importance and resorting to hyper-technical objections is, indeed, shocking and defeats the objects of the RTI Act itself.

The Final Arbiter

The CIC order effectively shuts the door on any RTI requests with regard to electoral bonds and any concomitant information. As the current controversy stands, there is no other recourse but for the Supreme Court of India to determine the law with regard to the Scheme and the interpretation of the CIC. A batch of petitions filed by Association of Democratic Reforms and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) are subjudice. Therefore, the present decision of the CIC, if carried to the Supreme Court on appeal, may also be tagged and heard altogether. 

It is worth remembering that the writ petitions pending adjudication have been filed over three years ago and that the respondents have also entered appearance and filed their pleadings. In its counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in WP (C) 880 fo 2017 , the Election Commission of India has argued the case for “declaration of donation received by the political parties and also about the manner in which those funds are expended by them, for better transparency and accountability in the election process”.  (https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/electoral-bonds) 

The public scrutiny of political parties and political candidates is an essential and inalienable part of a free and fair democratic process. By suppressing knowledge of political financing, we are ultimately breaking the very basic bonds of democracy that is holding the country together. It is regrettable that the matter has not yet attained judicial finality. An unsettled law is as dangerous as bad law. In larger interest, therefore, the Supreme Court must find its urgency and conclusively settle the questions around the constitutionality of electoral bonds. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram 

Advocate and Spokesperson, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-broken-bonds-of-democracy/article33447535.ece

Many conservatives and Right-wing Indians were outraged that the Twitter CEO, in his visit to India, held a poster against brahmanical patriarchy. He had every right to.

In the midst of COVID-19 and lockdown measures, a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan went unnoticed on 7 April 2020. The judgment had effectively quashed the criminal case filed against journalist Anna MM Vetticad and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in the matter relating to Dorsey holding up a poster captioned ‘Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy’. The controversies surrounding the photograph of Dorsey holding up the poster may have finally been given quietus, but larger and more uncomfortable questions remain unresolved. Questions which cannot be answered judicially and will determine the moral direction of the country.

Soon after the photograph of Dorsey holding up the poster, originally designed by social activist Thenmozhi Soundarajan, was posted on Twitter by Vetticad on 18 November 2018, it created quite a stir. While some saw it as a photograph of a man holding a poster, privileged Twitterati hyperventilated at Dorsey for “demonology of Brahmins” and compared this with “what the Nazis did to the Jews”. Those who are now familiar as right wing debaters on television medium, unhappy with Twitter as a medium, wondered if Government is “serious about replacement” and why Dorsey “would align with any group”. 

The Twitteratis’ case against the CEO of Twitter and the poster was that the slogan “Brahmanical Patriarchy” offended religious sentiments, targeted Brahmins – who are a minority in India – and constituted hate speech against this community. Almost immediately, 44-year old resident of Jodhpur, Rajkumar Sharma approached the Police Station Basni on 19 November 2018 to register a First Information Report (F.I.R). In his complaint, Sharma alleged that Dorsey and Vetticad had “maligned the Brahmin society at large” and induced “religious hatred towards the Brahmin community”. The police initially refused to register the F.I.R and Sharma approached the Commissioner of Police and then the local Magistrate. Finally, the F.I.R was registered under the Indian Penal Code for offences including defamation, conspiracy and acts intended to outrage religious feelings. 

Quashing the F.I.R, the High Court of Rajasthan has held that the term “Brahmanical Patriarchy” refers to a sociological concept which has no direct link with the “religious sentiments of any section of society” and cannot be construed as ‘hurting the religious sentiments” or as creating “a religion based rift” in society It goes on to say that the poster conveys the feeling of “being strongly opposed to the Brahmanical Patriarchical system”. Though the judgment does not quote socio-political authorities, the logic it conveys is derived from the discourse laid out by Babasaheb Ambedkar and more recently, interpreted by feminist scholars such as Uma Chakravarti and Sharmila Rege. Ambedkar has explained his position in 1938 as such:

“By Brahmanism, I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of Brahmins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Brahmanism, I mean the negation of the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” 

Chakravarti defines Brahmanical Patriarchy as “the need for effective sexual control over women to maintain not only patrilineal succession but also caste purity, the institution unique to Hindu society”. Through her work, Chakravarti has sought to develop a feminist analysis of caste inequaities. In her book ‘Against the Madness of Manu’, Rege speaks about the surge of Dalit feminist scholarship in unravelling Brahmanical Patriarchy which builds on Chakravarti’s academic work. In no sense, can this seen as anything but an evidence-based and academically established sociological discourse. Though, it is unsurprising that the entire controversy was manufactured by the Indian right wing forward caste elites, it was shocking to see Twitter, as an organization, unravel under the weight of these events. Twitter’s Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety Lead, Vijaya Gadde, issued an apology and said that the poster was not “reflective” of the company’s views. 

Twitter, like many other businesses in recent times, has largely remained silent in expressing their social or political views. But, Dorsey has been known to have taken political positions before. He has spoken on Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter. In India, it is rare for business leaders to speak out on political issues. We have not heard Indian business leaders articulate against the establishment position on Article 370 or Citizenship Amendment Act. On issues involving the intersection of caste and gender, we have not heard anyone speak out. What prevents our business icons from taking positions in favour of gender equality and social justice is not known. 

Do they a fear of a backlash from the conservative sections, as witnessed in the present controversy? Have they been tutored to stay out politically sensitive issues? Can we expect corporate and cultural icons to take a position on issues which affect the social fabric of the country?  

What irked right wing Indian Twitter was that a young and woke global business icon had taken a stand on a deeply divisive issue inherent to our country. What riled them further is that diverse, feminist and subaltern voices rose across Indian Twitter supporting and trending the hashtag #SmashBrahmanicalPatriarchy. The High Court judgment validates and empowers such voices. Now is the time to move the needle on addressing caste and gender issues across India; and for woke leaders, media bosses, corporate trailblazers and feminist influencers to confront Brahmanical Patriarchy within their organizations and society at large. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, DMK and Advocate practicing at the Madras High Court 

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/charges-quashed-against-twitters-jack-dorsey-for-holding-poster-more-ceos-must-speak-up-now/404919/

The Madras High Court’s recent judgment is truly path-breaking for the LGBTQ community

A judgment of the Madras High Court, sitting in the Madurai Bench, has extended enjoyment of civil rights, especially those pertaining to marriage, by trans persons. While this is pathbreaking for Tamil Nadu, and much of the rest of the country, the judgment also opens doors to LGBTQ community for availing civil rights including marriage, succession and inheritance. 

In the judgment delivered in the case of Arunkumar and Sreeja vs Inspector General of Registration and Others 2019 (WP(MD) 4125 of 2019), the Madras High Court has held that a valid marriage solemnized between a male and trans woman is valid under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is bound to be registered by the authorities.  The judgments quotes NALSA vs Union of India (2014), which famously held that the transgender person has the right to decide their “self identified gender”.  This position has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court through subsequent judgments in Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union (2018) and Navtej Singh Johar vs Union (2018).

The present judgment breaks new ground when it comes to the interpretation of the statutory terms found in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, especially that of bride and groom. The judgment states that “the expression “bride” occurring in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot have a static or immutable meaning. As noted in Justice G.P.Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, the court is free to apply the current meaning of a statute to present day conditions.”  

The nine-judge bench in Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union (2018) made a telling reference to the landmark judgment Obergefell vs Hodges 576 US  – (2015) wherein the Supreme Court of the United States of America held that the “fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.“

Taken together, the present judgment of the Madras High Court read along with the Supreme Court’s explicit reference to the guarantee of right to marry to homosexual couples, there cannot be a legal bar to extending civil rights such as marriage, succession or inheritance to LGBTQ couples, who have decided to get married consensually, married in accordance with the existing laws and are not in violation of any other laws. 

It is of particular interest to note that at the preliminary hearings before the Supreme Court in the Navtej Singh Johar vs Union (2018 case, the Solicitor General, representing the Government of India, sought the curtailing of the scope of the case to that of the decriminalization aspect or the constitutional validity of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code 1860 alone.  The Supreme Court did not have an opportunity to examine the bundle of rights that were to naturally arise from the striking down of Section 377. Therefore, in this context, the present judgment is truly pathbreaking for the LGBTQ community who have been unfairly denied of equal protection of laws with regard to civil rights. By implementing this judgment in letter and spirit, India would finally honour Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads:

“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Advocate and Spokesperson, DMK  

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/breaking-new-ground/article26946299.ece

References:

While there are a number of compelling legal arguments against the Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill, no party in the Lok Sabha has come out with a strong political counter. Some speakers did raise the issue about the timing of the Bill but its social justice credentials were left largely unquestioned. When the Bill is introduced in the Rajya Sabha, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam may be the only party which will rise to oppose the enactment of quotas for forward castes and expose the move for why it is a failure as policy and politics. 

In a nutshell, the Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill (Bill, hereinafter) is to social policy what demonetisation was to economic policy. The entire edifice of social justice built on the basis of proportional representation, inclusion and equal opportunities will be in danger of imminent collapse, if this Bill passes judicial scrutiny.

The reason that reservations are seen as an integral social policy solution is because it addresses the historical wrongs in the form of caste-based discriminatory practices. The differential treatment and structural discrimination within society, especially in the realms of education and employment, was on the basis of caste. It is this social problem that needed to be addressed; and have been done so in the past, through various Constitutional measures to provide reservations on the basis of social and educational backwardness. However, the present Bill aims to provide equal opportunity for economically weaker sections among forward castes. It is akin to using chemotherapy for the common cold. Not only is that a wrong diagnosis, it could prove fatal to the overall health itself. 

The Bill has two major components. Firstly, it says that the State shall provide “for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation” and secondly that the extent of reservation would be “subject to a maximum of 10% of the posts in each category”. The Bill, unfortunately, fails the common sense test on both counts. There is no history of any structural discrimination against economically weaker sections amongst the forward castes. There have always been, obvious, impediments to equal opportunity for persons who are from economically weaker sections but this is true across castes and religion. As such, the problems faced by the poor are not limited to any one caste or group identity. 

The Government has also provided no ostensible reasoning on how they arrived at the magic figure of 10%. We have seen, in the past, that Governments have appointed Expert Committees to study, assess and recommend backwardness and social disabilities amongst groups and that has been the scientific and rational basis for extending reservations. The Government of Tamil Nadu expanded the scope of reservations on the back of recommendations by the A.N. Sattnanathan Commission and Ambasankar Commission while at the national level, the Mandal Commission played a similar role. By not taking a scientific approach, the Government has revealed that the present Bill is devoid of any substantive thinking. 

Another problematic area of the Bill is the definition of what constitutes economic weakness. The Bill, in the Explanation provided under Section 2, says that “”economically weaker sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time.”  It is patently unclear whether the State Governments will be allowed to issue notifications or this power has also been wrested by the Centre. Nevertheless, any notification issued is liable to be scrutinised by the judiciary and subject of further contentious deliberations. 

In all, the Government has shown itself to be politically desperate and crying out for a way out of the governance mess they find themselves in. Perhaps, the Modi even expected a face-off on the floor of Parliament but with the majority of political parties on board, he has been denied any chance to claim victory. The Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill, therefore, has turned out to be not be not just a dud in terms of policy but also poor politics. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

DMK Spokesperson and Advocate – Madras High Court. 

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-reservation-bill-bad-as-note-ban-only-dmk-has-courage-to-expose-it/175219/

The mother of all scams was that you were fooled in to thinking there was a scam where none existed. 

There were 17 persons accused in the 2G case instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and 19 persons in the case instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement. The Special Court which held day-to-day trial of all the cases held everyone to have been acquitted of all charges, explained in the judgments running into 1552 pages and 105 pages, respectively. 

For the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the 2G case has been another in the list of unproven allegations. When MG Ramachandran walked out of the DMK in 1972, he levelled allegations of corruption and mishandling of party funds. Yet, nothing was proved on these allegations. In 2001, Jayalalitha, soon after being sworn in as Chief Minister, ordered the midnight arrest of M Karunanidhi on the charges of allegations in the construction of flyovers. So weak was the case, it was not even filed before the court. 

In 2011, the 2G case was filed before the Special Court in Patiala House Courts and members of the DMK stood accused. In 2017, all of them have been acquitted. Along with this, the DMK party stands exonerated; exonerated of insinuations, innuendo, allegations and accusations. Can the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK) – chief architects of the scam – speak with similar moral authority? Have not Bangaru Laxman and J Jayalalithaa been convicted by courts of law on charges of corruption? 

The truth is that politics is the battle of perception. A perception of pervasive corruption was created by our political rivals. With that, there was a tendency to exaggerate, scandalise and sensationalise. When the Comptroller and Auditor General report was leaked in November 2010, then Minister A Raja came forward to step down from the Council of Ministers, in order to facilitate a fair probe. The entire case was monitored by the Supreme Court, including the chargesheet filed and the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. Regular updates and progress reports were periodically filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Directorate of Enforcement and Income Tax Department before the Supreme Court. There has been more media interest and coverage of this case than any other. To understand the significance of the acquittal, the judgment must be seen against the backdrop of the most stringent media, executive and judicial scrutiny. 

Political discourse needs to change. It needs to evolve. BJP, ADMK kept calling this a scam when the case was still in trial. Today, the shoe is on the other foot. We, as responsible opposition parties, need to set a higher standard than the BJP or ADMK. Politicians need to realize that they are hurling allegations and maligning reputations of people with families and lives. Take Kanimozhi: her son was 11 years old when she the case started, she had to be in Delhi for day-to-day trial over the last 7 years. Who will give back her the time she lost in the process? What about the imprisonment she, and others, had to undergo? 

When DMK President Karunanidhi was arrested on a fateful night in 2001, he was taken before the Magistrate at the early hours of the morning. A journalist from Tamil magazine Nakeeran, who was present at the residence of the Magistrate, passed him a piece of white paper and asked if there was something he wanted to tell the people of the state. Karunanidhi scribbled the following words: “Aneethi veezhum, Aram vellum.” translated as “Injustice will fall. Dharma shall prevail”. The words have rung true, time and again. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, DMK

Advocate, Madras High Court 

Link to the Article : https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/2g-bjp-admk-kanimozhi-a-raja-4995301/

To paraphrase Mark Twain, a sensational allegation can travel half way around the world while facts is putting on its shoes. More outrageous the claims like say, lakhs of crores in presumptive loss), the news travels faster, wider and deeper. There was a deep prejudice manufactured in to the minds of public on the basis of some back-of-the-envelope calculations done by a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). I don’t want to say much further about this CAG, who has smugly titled his autobiography as ‘Not Just an Accountant’. Clearly, not. In any case, I wish him a good tenure as the Honorary Advisor to the Ministry of Railways and as Chairman of the Banks Board Bureau and any other positions that may come his way as gratitude for being more than an accountant. 

However, some ink needs to be spilled about the manufacturers of the 2G “scam”. Leading the pack is the self-proclaimed brain behind the 2G case and erstwhile Janata Party leader: Subramanian Swamy. In his interview yesterday (21.12.2017), he said that he would ask the Prime Minister to constitute an “War-like Council” and purge the Finance Ministry (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/finance-ministry-needs-a-purge-says-swamy/article9999454.ece). Swamy merged his Janata Party with the Bharatiya Janata Party in August 2013 and was subsequently nominated as a member of Rajya Sabha in 2016.

Another character who emerged out of the shadows during the early stages of the 2G case was Aseervatham Achary – a many who had spent a decade or so working in A Raja’s ministerial office. Achary quit the office of Raja around 2008 and was deputed back to his parent governmental office. Achary presented himself as a ‘star witness’ and deposed against his former boss and provided some of the most entertaining courtroom moments. Today, Achary is a part of the BJP’s “Strategic Action Committee”. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aseervatham-achary-b44a1478/) 

There are others like Kiran Bedi who positioned themselves are anti-corruption crusaders in 2011. Only to be rewarded by BJP with tickets for Assembly election and candidate-ship for Chief Minister; and after failing to win the seat, was sent as Lieutenant Governor to Pondicherry. The common thread that connects all these people – other than the fact that they’ve all become BJP office-bearers – is that they had played crucial roles in building a perception that there was a massive “scam”. 

The real scam in all this is that the allocation of spectrum in 2007 was projected as a scam. The entire issue was prejudged based on bare hunches, incomplete information and corridor rumours. It was declared a scam on national media, in Parliament and people were led to believe that there was one. To quote the judgment of Special Judge OP Saini, in paragraph 1814: “Thus, some people created a scam by artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things beyond recognition to astronomical levels”.

Emboldened, the politicians siting in the opposition benches took the liberty of plunging to new depths in political discourse. The Minister was referred to as “Spectrum Raja” and the entire issue was called the “2G scam”. Was the issue not prejudged by various institutions of this country, including the media? How could Raja get a free and fair trial after being branded as “Spectrum Raja” in television tickers? Would all those who used the term “2G scam” today reflect on the 1552 page judgment in the CBI case and say whether they have not prejudged the issue? 

It is a sad state of affairs that the spokespersons of BJP, including eminent lawyers, have reacted to the verdict by saying it is not a “certificate” and quoted a Supreme Court order from 2012 on the issue of allocation of licenses (https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/943756049454190592). There is simply no legal basis to these arguments. In a writ petition under Article 32 such as the case which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2012, corruption or criminality cannot be determined. In fact, a writ petition is barred from adjudicating on ‘disputed facts’. It is another aspect that A Raja was never given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit or become a party to the proceedings in 2012 when his decisions were the subject matter of the writ. 

May I also remind the BJP that everyday, hundreds of government tenders and policy decisions are called into question before the courts of law and subsequently, held to the capricious, arbitrary and ultra vires? Does this mean all such cases, including those that have been decided in the last three years lead to the inference of widespread corruption or scams? Does the BJP now say, by the same logic, that if a constitutional court is to hold demonetization policy to be procedurally irregular, having caused a loss of 2% to the Indian Gross Domestic Product and benefitted some private digital payment companies, then Narendra Modi would be declared corrupt? 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Advocate, Madras High Court

Link to the Article: https://theprint.in/opinion/manufactured-deep-prejudice-public-mind-2g-scam-rewarded-bjp/24236/

C.N.Annadurai (Anna), regarded by Jawaharlal Nehru as one of the country’s finest Parliamentarians, was a stalwart of the Dravidian Movement. He was known to his supporters as“Arignar Anna”for his outstanding intellect and razor- sharp wit. During his political career, which saw him rise to become the first non-Congress Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, his oratory and erudition was unparalleled. Anna’s oratorical abilities greatly helped to explain his party’s policies and navigate through tough political opposition. Even today, Anna’s speeches on the concepts of majoritarianism and federalism are elegant and enlightening. 

Soon after Independence, the Central Government had started phasing out English and instituting Hindi has the official language. Protesting against this, the leaders of the DMK including Anna held numerous meetings and demonstrations against the Centre. During one such meeting, Anna was told of the argument that Hindi should be made the official language due to it’s “numerical superiority”, as it was spoken by the majority of Indians. To this, Anna countered: “If we had to accept the principle of numerical superiority while selecting our national bird, the choice would have fallen not on the peacock but on the common crow. Why should we then claim the tiger as our national animal instead of the rat which is so much more numerous?”

Between 1962 and 1967, Anna served as Member of the Rajya Sabha. During a discussion on changing the name of Madras State to Tamil Nadu, a fellow Parliamentarian asked “what one would gain by changing the name from Madras State to Tamil Nadu”. Quick to his feet, Anna responded, reflecting the emotional affliction of millions of Tamils: “What do I gain? What have you gained by renaming Parliament as Lok Sabha? What have you gained by renaming Council of States as Rajya Sabha? What have you gained by renaming President as Rastrapathi? Therefore I say, what do you lose? This is important because if you were to lose something precious, we would not press for it. If you do not lose something fundamental, we will press for it. The other point was raised, what do you gain? We gain satisfaction sentimentally; we gain satisfaction that an ancient name is inculcated in the hearts of millions and scores of millions of people. Is that not enough compensation for the small trouble of changing the name?”

In 1967, DMK was voted into power and Anna was elected as Chief Minister. Anna’s government introduced a two language policy for students to study Tamil and English. The Centre had endorsed and urged States to follow the three language formula – Hindi, regional language and English. Notwithstanding pressures from the Centre, Anna articulated the two-language policy thus: “The Government of Tamil Nadu has stated in unmistakable terms that Tamil and English can serve all our purposes, the former as the Official Language of this State and the latter as the link language. If it is accepted that English can serve admirably as a link between our State and the outside world, why plead for Hindi to be the link language here? What serves to link us with the outside world is certainly capable of rendering the same service inside India as well. To plead for two link languages is like boring a smaller hole in a wall for the kitten while there is a bigger one for the cat. What suits the cat will suit the kitten as well.”

Today, almost fifty years later, Anna’s speeches are relevant for their clarity of vision and depth of thought. By merging tough ideological concepts with uncomplicated analogies, Anna laid the foundation for a vibrant and informed political discourse in Tamil Nadu. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

(Author is a policy advisor to elected representatives)

Link to the Article: https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/explained-the-row-behind-kerala-appointing-officer-for-external-cooperation