Karunanidhi fought for states' autonomy 50 years before son Stalin's resolution
While Chief Minister MK Stalin days ago announced the formation of a panel – led by former judge of the Supreme Court Kurian Joseph – to recommend measures to strengthen autonomy for the states, his father M Karunanidhi had fought for the same over 50 years ago when he helmed the state as chief minister.Batting for state autonomy, Karunanidhi had on April 16, 1974, moved a resolution in the state Assembly and it was adopted. No doubt, DMK founder CN Annadurai, who championed the cause of state autonomy, and who served as the chief minister between 1967 and 1969 was a big inspiration for Karunanidhi.advertisementPiloting the resolution, Karunanidhi, popularly known as 'Kalaignar' extensively quoted Annadurai and it includes the DMK icon's last article that appeared in 1969 in English journal 'Home Rule'. Anna, as Annaudrai was fondly addressed, was quoted as having written: 'Dear Brother, Never have I been mad after power. Nor am I happy of being the chief minister of our State under a Constitution which on paper is federal but in actual practice tends to get more and more centralised. On that account, I do not like my good friend EMS (Communist leader, Namboodiripad) declare that it is my intention to irritate the Centre or pick up quarrels with Delhi.'
On April 8, 1967, at a press conference in New Delhi, Anna had said: 'It will be sufficient if the Centre retains only such powers as are necessary for preserving the unity and integrity of the country leaving adequate powers to the states. In order to distribute the powers and to suggest the method of working out the Constitution, a high power commission should be appointed.'advertisementKarunanidhi, underscoring all these aspects, recalled that he had on August 19, 1969, announced the setting up of a three-member panel led by PV Rajamannar, with AL Mudaliar and P Chandra Reddy being its members. Accordingly, on September 22, 1969, the committee was constituted to examine the question of the relationship between the Centre and the states on the basis of autonomy for the states 'without in the least impairing the integrity of the country.'The 1971 election manifesto of the DMK demanded a constitutional amendment for optimal autonomy and the April 1967 presser of Annadurai on this subject formed the operative part of the party's manifesto.The report of the Rajamannar Committee was received in 1971 on May 27 by the state government and it was sent to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who acknowledged it on June 22. Gandhi had said the Administrative Reforms Commission also had dealt with the question and its report was under the Centre's consideration.Interestingly, HV Hande (Swatantra Party) moved an amendment to add the following: 'This House, however, calls upon the state government not to unleash divisive forces and encourage fissiparous tendencies in the name of state autonomy.'Hande also mooted action, if necessary against those who threaten division of the country if the demand of state autonomy is not conceded and also wanted the government to be vigilant of the tendency among some to show Pakistan and Bangladesh as an example to strengthen the demand for autonomy.advertisementMuslim League's VM Abdul Jabbar referring to the 'yet to be resolved Cauvery river water dispute,' wondered whether the 'all powerful' central government could not have determined the quantum of water release; which has such high powers.'Only God knows as to when the Cauvery water issue with neighbouring Karnataka will be resolved. Given the attitude of the Central government, the situation is such that it may not be resolved even after 10 years.'He also cited the example of Ukraine, a state of Russia and its exalted status as it was also a member of the United Nations. Legislator K Kandaswamy (Forward Block) quoted from an article in a daily which said, 'this pattern of settling Centre-State relations at the Congress high command level, cannot possibly be extended to conditions now prevailing when non-Congress ministries are in power in some of the states.' DMK's V Arunachalam alias Aladi Aruna underlined what he described as former Karnataka Chief Minister, Congress leader Veerendra Patil's disappointment.advertisementAccording to Aladi Aruna, Patil had observed as follows: 'It is feared, at this rate, there may be urgent demands for more autonomy by the States and a day might come when different houses and Bhavans of the States in Delhi are constrained to assume the character of embassies.' Further, Aruna said only in order to find a remedy for such things, the Rajamannar panel has made recommendations.Karunanidhi moved the resolution (State autonomy-Rajamannar Committee Report on Centre-State Relationship) which urged the Centre to accept the views of the Tamil Nadu government on state autonomy and the recommendations of the Rajamannar panel and effect immediate changes in the Constitution. Karunanidhi initiated the discussion which took place for five days from April 16 to 20, 1974. In total, 37 members took part in the discussion. The members of AIADMK (known at that time as ADMK) walked out of the House. The amendments proposed were either withdrawn or negated and the motion was adopted.Must Watch
IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Plea in Kerala HC against converting fuel bunk toilets into public facilities as per revised Swachh guidelines
Kochi: A petition has been filed in the high court challenging the action of the local self-govt institutions, which convert the private toilets on the premises of the petroleum retail outlets to public toilets as per the revised guidelines of the Swachh Bharat Mission - Urban. Justice C S Dias, on the petition filed by the Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society and four of its members who own petrol bunks, directed the govt to produce the revised guidelines of the Swachh Bharat Mission - Urban. The court further adjourned the petition to Monday. The petitioners stated in the petition that the local self-govt authorities were illegally converting/treating private toilets maintained within the premises of their retail outlets as public toilets and pasting posters on a conspicuous portion of the toilets along with certain switches that seem to indicate that the same is to be used for feedback. Similarly, posters including QR codes were also affixed in toilets for feedback, they stated. The petitioners argued that the alleged action of the local self-govt institutions is a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees protection from being deprived of the proper and independent enjoyment of private properties falling within the realm of private ownership. They further raised security concerns, contending that the decision would lead to unauthorised public access to petrol retail outlets, significantly increasing the risk of fire and other catastrophic incidents due to the influx of people in a restricted area. The petitioners further sought a directive to the state govt and the local self-govt institutions to refrain from converting/treating private toilets maintained within the premises of the petrol retail outlets within the state as public toilets and also for a general declaration against treating such private toilets as public toilets. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Congress MP sends 'reminder' to Rajya Sabha chair on pending impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav
Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha has written to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, chairman of the Upper House, to remind him about a pending motion, signed by 55 MPs, seeking the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court on the grounds 'of alleged misbehaviour unbecoming of a judge'. 'Queries were raised regarding the authenticity of some signatures, including that of my signature. I have clarified, and supposedly other MPs must have clarified to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat that the signatures are genuine and correct. MPs signed in the presence of each other on three sets of the representation in the House itself…' Mr. Tankha said in his letter, dated June 12. He said that senior Opposition MPs had been present, including P. Chidambaram and Digvijaya Singh of the Congress, Independent Kapil Sibal, John Brittas of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Rashtriya Janata Dal's Manoj Jha, and P. Wilson of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In all, 55 Opposition MPs had moved an impeachment motion against Justice Yadav on December 13, 2024, for allegedly making 'communal' remarks within the court's premises. 'We request that due consideration be given to the pendency of this motion, as it reflects the collective concern of Members of this august House,' Mr. Tankha said. Parliamentary inquiry needed The Congress MP also voiced his opposition to the Union government's plan to remove Justice Yashwant Varma, who was indicted by a three-member committee set up by the former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. In March, a large quantity of half-burnt currency notes were recovered during a fire at Justice Varma's official residence while he was serving as a Delhi High Court judge. The Supreme Court then moved him to the Allahabad High Court and took away all his judicial work after an in-house inquiry indicted Justice Varma. Now, the government has reached out to political parties to move a motion to remove Justice Varma on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report. 'The in-house Committee report is only meant for the Chief Justice of India and other judges of the Supreme Court, and cannot constitute the basis for removal,' Mr. Tankha said, arguing that Parliament must conduct a fresh inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
TN bears greater financial burden for central schemes, official data reveals
Chennai: Despite being labelled as Central schemes, the Tamil Nadu government contributes a significantly higher share of funds than the Union government in at least six major welfare and infrastructure programmes, according to official documents from the State governments. The schemes in question include three under the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) -- the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS), Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme (IGNWPS), and Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme (IGNDPS) -- as well as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY-Rural), Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), and the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM). The NSAP, launched in 1995 as a fully Central-funded initiative, was preceded by Tamil Nadu's own pension scheme, which began in January 1962. Between 1974 and 1984, the State expanded its support to include persons with disabilities, widows, agricultural labourers, and deserted women. These were eventually brought under the national scheme in 2007. Under the IGNOAPS and IGNWPS, the Centre provides a modest monthly contribution of Rs 200 or Rs 300 for beneficiaries below 80 years, and Rs 500 for those aged 80 and above. It is the Tamil Nadu government that tops up this amount, providing an additional Rs 1,000, Rs 900, or Rs 700, depending on the category, ensuring that the final payout reaches Rs 1,200 per beneficiary. Similarly, under IGNDPS, beneficiaries receive Rs 1,500, of which only Rs 300 or Rs 500 is borne by the Centre. The rest is funded by the State government. Tamil Nadu also independently supports persons with disabilities through a separate scheme, offering Rs 1,500 to each beneficiary. In the case of PMAY-Rural, the nominal cost-sharing ratio is 60:40 (Centre: State) in plain areas. However, Tamil Nadu contributes significantly more. The total unit cost of a house in the State is Rs 2,83,900, factoring in RCC roofing and components from MGNREGS and Swachh Bharat (Rural). Of this, the Centre provides Rs 1,11,100 while the State contributes Rs 1,72,800, effectively resulting in a 39:61 split. Under the PMMSY, while the prescribed cost-sharing formula allocates 60 per cent to the Centre and 40 per cent to the State, implementation figures show that Tamil Nadu ends up bearing 73 per cent of the cost, with only 27 per cent coming from the Centre. The Jal Jeevan Mission, which mandates a 50:50 cost-sharing model, also sees a higher contribution from the State in practice -- 55 per cent, compared to the Centre's 45 per cent. These figures highlight a recurring trend where Tamil Nadu takes on a disproportionately higher financial responsibility in schemes designed and advertised as centrally sponsored.
