Codava National Council to Host Seminar on Geo-Political Autonomy and Tribal Rights in Kodagu
Speaking to Hand India President of the CNC NU Nachappa, the seminar will address CNC's core demands, including the creation of a Codava Autonomous Region (CAR) under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution — akin to the autonomous councils in the Northeast and the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. The organisation is also seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the Codavas, whom it identifies as a distinct animistic, mono-ethnic indigenous community.
The keynote speaker for the event is Vikram Hegde, a constitutional lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, who has previously represented the CNC in the landmark Codava Gun Rights case. His lecture will delve into constitutional provisions for regional autonomy, linguistic rights, and the protection of customary practices — subjects he also teaches as a visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru.
Among the other issues to be discussed at the seminar are:
Restoration of hereditary land rights lost during the rule of the Keladhi dynasty and British colonial administration.
Inclusion of Codava Thakk in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution to preserve the community's language.
Continuation of exemptions under the Indian Arms Act, which currently allow Codavas to carry traditional firearms as part of their religious and cultural identity — similar to the Kirpan exemption for Sikhs.
Protection of Codava cultural and historical sites, customary laws, and their ecological lifelines, particularly the Cauvery river basin.
Political representation, including demands for reserved seats in legislative bodies, modelled after the unique 'Sangha' constituency for Buddhist monks in Sikkim.
'The CNC's movement has always been peaceful, rooted in constitutional advocacy,' said CNC founder and president N.U. Nachappa Codava. 'Our goal is to secure the rightful identity, autonomy, and dignity of the Codava people — not only within India's democratic framework but also under international conventions on indigenous rights.'
The CNC is currently pursuing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks legal recognition of Codavaland's claim for geo-political autonomy, arguing that their demands are both constitutionally viable and historically justified.
Joining Hegde at the seminar will be his wife, Hima Lawrance also a Supreme Court lawyer, qualified to practice in both India and New York.
The event is expected to draw academics, legal experts, regional leaders, and community stakeholders from across Karnataka, as discussions around regional autonomy and tribal classification continue to gain traction in India's federal structure
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Can a Secular State Build Temples? Bihar Poses the Test
Published : Aug 12, 2025 17:59 IST - 8 MINS READ Can the Indian state build a temple or a mosque? Perhaps the question needs to be reframed. In the present context, imagining the state building a mosque appears absurd. On and after December 6, 1992, it was made amply clear that the Indian state can indeed assist in the destruction of a mosque. It was once declared in an act of bravado that the state would rebuild the mosque, which was demolished in a criminal act, as clarified by the Supreme Court nearly 25 years after the crime was committed. That obviously was never to happen. What was done instead was to usurp the land of the mosque legally for the construction of a temple. By 2025, we have come to realise that the state has consistently taken many leaps. It uses different excuses to make mosques controversial, as we see it doing in the cases of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah of Mathura. It is even agreeable to participate in their removal directly or indirectly. The Uttarakhand government has not taken any steps to prevent the demolition of hundreds of mazars in the State. It has instead come out with justification of the crime by claiming that the mazars are part of the land grab conspiracy (land jihad, as they love to call it), and it is fair to free the pious land. Therefore, we must instead ask: 'Can the Indian state build a temple? Does it have the constitutional authority or sanction to do so?' The powers and rights of the state and the government are derived from the Constitution. To the question, 'Can the state construct a religious site?', the constitutional answer is unambiguous: 'NO'. India is a secular republic. It cannot promote or patronise any one religion. It cannot engage directly in religious activity. However, the state does have a role in maintaining public order when religion enters the public sphere. Its involvement in facilitating the Amarnath Yatra or ensuring the peaceful conduct of Ram Navami processions stems from this duty. Providing logistical support such as transportation, temporary shelter, or repairing roads to pilgrimage sites falls within this ambit. But the state is not to go beyond this. Also Read | Kanwar Yatra's transformation into political weapon And yet, we know that Prime Ministers shoot arrows at Ravana during Ramlilas, and Chief Ministers participate in the Jagannath Rath Yatra. Now governments shower flowers on Kanwariyas! Or police officers are seen massaging the feet of the Kanwariyas. That is obviously going too far. But if we leave aside these egregious acts, we know that Indian secularism is not puritanical; it acknowledges and respects religiosity. Therefore, a Chief Minister participating in a Rath Yatra or attending Eid prayers ought not to raise eyebrows. It is often believed that such gestures nurture communal harmony. After all, when Diwali is celebrated at the White House or 10 Downing Street, Hindus in India too feel a sense of joy and inclusion. But this does not answer the core question: 'Can the state go further and build a religious site?' The Ayodhya verdict This question first emerged when the Supreme Court, in its Ayodhya verdict, awarded the site of the demolished Babri Masjid for the construction of a Ram temple. Even then, a certain fig leaf of propriety was maintained: the construction was handed over to a trust, not undertaken directly by the government. The state was asked to form the trust. But it was not directly made responsible for the construction of the temple. Also, apparently, state funds were not used. Still, the credit for the temple was claimed by the BJP. The Prime Minister was thanked for the court's verdict. At the inauguration, he played the role of the principal yajman. The temple's consecration was converted into a state event, rightly criticised as not only the inauguration of a temple, but the symbolic inauguration of a Hindu Rashtra. Since we did not pause long enough to reckon with that moment, we are now forced to confront the same question again. Just days ago, in Sitamarhi, Bihar, the State government initiated the construction of a grand Sita temple. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Union Home Minister Amit Shah participated in the bhoomi pujan at 'Punaura Dham', believed to be Sita's birthplace. Both acted as chief yajmans in this religious ceremony. Before the event, the Bihar government ran full-page advertisements in nearly every newspaper for at least three days, announcing its plans for the comprehensive development of the temple and its precincts. It has acquired 50 acres of land for Rs.165.57 crore, and has earmarked Rs.882.87 crore for the project. This number will undoubtedly increase. Periodic advertisements—each costing lakhs, if not crores—will accompany the progress of this project. Can the Bihar government do this? Can a secular state extend such unambiguous patronage to one particular religion? This is a question that the media ought to have asked, and political parties in Bihar, too, should have done that. But the media, silenced by advertisement revenue and its growing alignment with the BJP and the State government, has abdicated its responsibility. Otherwise, it could have posed a simple question: 'Why are taxpayers' funds being used to build a site belonging to a particular religion?' Hindutva and public indifference No one objected to Amit Shah or Nitish Kumar attending the event in a personal capacity. But how can they act as chief yajmans while holding public office? How can the state itself build a temple? India's political landscape is now so deeply suffused with Hindutva that even self-professed secular parties lack the courage to ask these questions. More troubling still is the public indifference. As a society, we no longer find these questions necessary. No one now reminds us that, in the early years of Independence, Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the use of public funds for the renovation of the Somnath temple. Prime Minister Nehru had even objected to President Rajendra Prasad attending the temple inauguration. At the temple's groundbreaking in Sitamarhi, hundreds of sadhus were in attendance. Was their travel and accommodation arranged by the state too? The media ought to have shown interest in such questions. But to do so, it must reacquaint itself with the basic principle that India is a secular republic. That Nitish Kumar has occasionally donned a Muslim skullcap offers no defence of his current actions. Nor is this the only instance. The Bihar Transport Department has announced that it will subsidise fares for people travelling to and from the State during the 'festive season lasting three months'—specifically for Durga Puja, Diwali, Chhath, and Holi. Its calculation is wrong. From Durga Puja to Holi is not three months, but nearly six months of the calendar year. 'If the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years?' Why is public money being used exclusively to support Hindu festivals? Again, this policy was advertised in full-page newspaper ads, the cost of which must also be counted. Governments often justify such expenditures under the guise of 'religious tourism'. They argue that these initiatives generate revenue for the state and also provide employment to local people residing in those religiously significant places. Thus, the state's participation in religious activity is repackaged as secular—a convenient fabrication. The devotee earns spiritual merit, and the state earns money: a win-win, apparently. But would the state demonstrate the same generosity during Eid or Bakrid? Does it do so? Shortly after Nitish Kumar returned to power, one saw advertisements inviting people to perform pind-daan in Gaya. The Bihar government was essentially claiming that performing these Hindu rituals in Gaya would liberate the souls of ancestors. Clearly, it was peddling spiritual inducements, positioning Gaya as a rival to Kashi—as though salvation were a matter of competitive marketing. That it can do this is a reflection of how deeply eroded public consciousness has become around the idea of a secular state. In the past eleven years, governments have participated so often and so directly in Hindu religious events that it now appears normal. Sita temple: Spiritual or political endeavour? The announcement of the Ram temple in Ayodhya had triggered protests from opposition parties in Bihar, who claimed that Sita was being ignored—that she was not being given an equal place alongside Ram. Thus began the groundwork for a Sita temple in Sitamarhi. Now, that project is under way. At its inauguration, the Union Home Minister declared that this was not merely the beginning of a temple but the beginning of Bihar and Mithila's fortune. But if the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years? Also Read | Mohan Bhagwat's call for religious harmony reflects the duplicity of RSS Is the Sita temple a spiritual endeavour, or a political one? The Home Minister made it clear. Its purpose or objective is entirely worldly. Instead of speaking about why Sita is significant to the Hindu mind, he used the occasion to attack the opposition and criticise their objections to the Special Intensive Revision, the recent drive by the Election Commission to update the election lists. He vowed to keep out 'infiltrators'. This was not a religious speech; it was a political campaign speech. It confirmed what many had suspected—this temple is a part of a Hindutva political project, akin to the Ram temple in Ayodhya. It has nothing to do with devotion to Ram or Sita. The only discernible development is this: Nitish Kumar has now enthusiastically joined the BJP's Hindutva project. Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court's stray dog order: Amicus report flagged ‘fundamental right' to move freely without fear of dog bite or assault
Underlining the fundamental right of a human being to move freely without the fear of a dog bite or assault, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended relocating stray dogs to shelters and not releasing them back on the streets. In his recommendations to the court before Monday's order, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus in the case, said: 'Putting the dog back on the street, where there is grave harm to us, is a direct violation of our fundamental rights to move freely without the fear of a dog bite/ assault.' On Monday, the court directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate all stray dogs to dedicated dog shelters, underlining that they should not be released back on the streets. 'The 2023 Rules somehow seems to suggest that the fundamental rights of stray dogs to roam around in the street(s), attack human beings and create public nuisance is at a higher pedestal than the fundamental rights of human beings,' the amicus report said. The 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules deal with the management of stray dog and cat population. The Rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. While the ABC Rules mandate that stray dogs be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation, the amicus report said there is 'absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilisation would eliminate the chance of the dog biting.' 'In almost all developed countries, there are no stray dogs on the streets,' the report said. 'There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs,' it added. Citing rising dog bite data, the report said: 'The presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 (right to move freely and the right to life respectively) of the Constitution of India.' Citing government data, it said that in 2024, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites across the country and 25,201 dog bites in Delhi. According to the report, Delhi had 3,196 cases of dog bites in January alone. 'If figures of January 2025 are any indication, the cases of dog bites have increased by 50%,' the report said. The report suggested that the Court could issue directives to municipal authorities in Delhi to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next 6-8 weeks.' It also recommended that stray dogs captured would be detained in shelters and 'would not be released on the streets/ public spaces under any circumstance.' The amicus also recommended that stray dogs captured may be put up for adoption to individuals through animal welfare organisations.
