Seminar in Madikeri revives Codava demand for geo-political autonomy
Referring to the Codavas as an 'animistic, mono-ethnic group with deep-rooted ties to their ancestral lands,' Hegde noted that the community met several criteria under both domestic law and international conventions on indigenous peoples, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). He argued for a 'holistic and historically informed assessment' of the Codavas' demand for Scheduled Tribe classification. CNC President N.U. Nachappa Kodava, who presided over the seminar, reiterated the community's call for a Codava Autonomous Region (CAR) within the Indian Union—akin to the Gorkha Hill Council or the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils.
'Our aspiration is not secession but dignity—through federal accommodation of our unique identity,' Nachappa said. Citing the dilution of Codava presence in Parliament since the 1967 election of C.M. Poonacha, the seminar highlighted how Kodagu's merger with Karnataka in 1956 eroded the political representation of the community. Hegde called for serious consideration of Constitutional mechanisms such as inclusion under the Fifth or Sixth Schedule or a new provision like Article 371 tailored for Kodagu.
'Asymmetric federalism is not alien to India—it is the framework by which we have protected many identities. Codavas, with their contributions to national defence and administration, deserve similar recognition,' he said. The seminar also addressed growing concerns over the application of general laws—such as the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the SARFAESI Act—which threaten to undermine Codava religious freedom and land tenure. Senior Karnataka High Court advocate M.T. Nanaiah, supporting the CNC's legal initiatives, emphasised the community's peaceful advocacy over decades. 'Codavas have not resorted to agitation. They have used democratic and legal means. That alone deserves attention from the Centre,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
J&K nominated MLAs: Centre says ‘no bearing or co-relation with formation of govt'
THE Centre has described the power vested in the Jammu and Kashmir Lt Governor to nominate five members to its Legislative Assembly as 'discretionary', and exercisable by him without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the Union Territory. In an affidavit in the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, the Union Home Ministry has also said that this nomination has 'no bearing or co-relation with the formation of the government'. The affidavit was in response to a question framed by the court as to whether Sections 15, 15-A and 15-B of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, providing for nomination of members to the UT's Legislative Assembly over and above its sanctioned strength – which could potentially convert a minority government into a majority government, and vice-a-versa – were in violation of basic structure of the Constitution. Senior Congress leader and its chief spokesperson Ravinder Kumar Sharma had filed a PIL in the High Court, challenging the provisions. Just before results were declared for the first elections held to the J&K Assembly following the abrogation of Article 370, in October 2024, non-BJP parties had expressed apprehension over the L-G's powers to nominate members. This fear was accentuated by claims of a BJP leader that all five would be BJP leaders, and that L-G Manoj Sinha would name them in consultation with the Centre. Opposition parties had demanded that the nominations be made only on 'the aid and advice' of the government that was due to take over, and not precede it. With five nominated members, the strength of the J&K Assembly would be 95, making the majority mark 48. It was feared that the Opposition would not reach this mark, and the BJP would tilt the scales in its favour with the nominated MLAs. Eventually, however, the L-G did not make any nominations before the results, and the National Conference-Congress combine won with 47 MLAs (NC 41 and Congress 6), apart from enjoying the support of four Independents and a CPI(M) MLA. In its affidavit in the High Court, the Union Home Ministry has noted that while Section 15 was part of the original 2019 Reorganization Act, Sections 15A and 15B were added through an amendment in 2023. Section 15A empowers the Lt Governor to nominate two members, one of whom shall be a woman, from the Kashmiri migrant community, while Section 15B provides for nomination of one member from persons displaced from Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Speaking about Section 15, the Centre's affidavit says that the provision in it for nomination of two women MLAs was similar to an Article in the Constitution of the erstwhile J&K state, before its special status was scrapped. Then the Governor had the power to nominate up to two women members if women were not adequately represented in the Assembly. '(It) is an act of affirmative action, in support of promoting and ensuring female representation.' A 'plain reading' of the statute shows that 'it is a nomination which is to take place at any juncture post-elections, and has no bearing or co-relation with the formation of the government, inasmuch as the standard in the section is representation of women in the Assembly, and not in the government', says the affidavit. On Section 15A, the affidavit refers to the Supreme Court's verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370 in which Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul wrote an epilogue on the migration of Kashmiri Pandits. 'In order to move forward, the wounds need healing… The first step towards this is to achieve a collective understanding of the human rights violations perpetrated both by State and non-State actors, against peoples of the region,' Justice Kaul wrote. The Centre's affidavit says that it is a matter of record that multiple regions of Kashmir have remained disturbed for decades, leading to extensive displacement of civilians. 'Accordingly, the nomination of two members from the Kashmiri Migrant community under Section 15A serves the objective of providing them with adequate representation, ensuring their voice is heard in the legislative process, and safeguarding their rights and interests,'' it says. Similarly, the affidavit talks of Section 15B providing representation to those displaced from PoJK, in 1947 and during the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971. 'It is evident that displacement of these communities prevents them from their democratic participation… thereby necessitating the appointment of a nominated representative to ensure that their interests are not entirely excluded from governance.' Therefore, the affidavit says, the legislative intent behind these provisions is 'well-founded in law and equity', ensuring that voices of the displaced are neither ignored nor marginalised. On whether the J&K Lt Governor has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers or has discretionary powers to nominate the five members, the affidavit says that this stands conclusively settled with respect to the Assemblies of both Puducherry and the Municipal Corporation in NCT of Delhi – the other two UTs with Assemblies. Sections 15, 15A and 15B specifically recognise the authority of the Lt Governor to nominate Assembly members, the affidavit says, adding that there can be no doubt that he has to exercise this duty in his discretion as a statutory functionary and not as an extension of the government – and thus, act without aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Indian Express
4 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Citizenship is in Parliament's domain, but ECI can include citizens and exclude non-citizens as voters: SC
While holding that the Election Commission of India (ECI) can decide to include a citizen in the voter list or exclude a non-citizen from it, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed dissatisfaction with the norm of prospective voters merely having to furnish a declaration that they are citizens for inclusion in the list. 'Law regarding conferment of citizenship or taking away of citizenship will have to be enacted by the Parliament. No debate is required on that. But once that law has been made and in terms of that if somebody has been acknowledged or recognised as citizen, inclusion of that person in the voters list and a person who has not been recognised as citizen and who is not a citizen, exclusion of that person, that has to be undertaken by the commission only,' said Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench hearing petitions challenging the ECI's special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar. The top court said that self-declaration of citizenship may lead to legal complications and added that the ECI can verify their authenticity. The remarks came as senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for some petitioners, told the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi that it was not within the remit of the ECI to decide on citizenship. Singhvi questioned the ECI's reluctance to consider Aadhaar and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and said, 'very clear that ECI does not want to look at them because they say it's insufficient for determining citizenship. Otherwise, there's no reason.' Justice Kant pointed out that it's not the ECI but the Aadhaar Act which says that the unique identification number is not proof of citizenship. Singhvi said, 'This entire exercise is without jurisdiction. Because the ECI has converted itself into an agency that flags citizenship.' The senior counsel said, 'My proposition is determination of citizenship is an exercise which does not fall in domain of the ECI at all. They can't say before 2 months in a 9-10 crore (voter) election, we are doing SIR and we will remove you on the grounds of citizenship. It is true that you have to decide citizenship to be ultimately on the roll. But 5 crore people are already in the roll after 2003 (revision). Their removal on grounds of citizenship or lack of it has to follow a procedure, which is not with them…The argument is that from 2003-2025, there is 'presumptive exclusion' unless ECI on the basis of its test finds them to be citizens. Presumptively, you are held not to be a citizen till you show otherwise,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for the petitioners, said, 'They (ECI) admit that no inquiry was conducted to ascertain whether these people (who are exempted from the draft roll on the ground of death, migration to other places, etc) are indeed dead or migrated.' Sibal added that these are people who were there in the 2003 rolls drawn up after a revision. 'And since then 22 lakh have died!' he said. Justice Bagchi, however, said, 'There is a degree of intensity in a summary revision vis-à-vis an intensive revision. So inclusion in a summary revision role does not give you a carte blanche to be in an intensive revision draft roll.' On Aadhaar and ration cards, Justice Kant said, 'One is furnishing of documents. Second is verification. Today if I attach a fake Aadhar or a fake ration card, they have a right to verify…'. Sibal said prima facie, there is an assumption in favour of the person submitting them that these are valid documents. 'Yes, but if you attach a document, it requires consideration, verification,' said Justice Kant. Referring to those who have been left out of the draft roll, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), pointed out that the ECI had said in its affidavit that 'we have given some of this information to the booth-level agents (BLAs) of recognised political parties'. 'They say they are not obliged to give to anyone else,' he added. Bhushan further said, 'Today, what they have done is something mischievous. Until August 4, the draft of the roll was searchable. After August 4, the document is not searchable. They say, go and ask the BLAs of the political party. Why should I, as a citizen, not know from their document and should ask an agent of the political party?' Justice Kant agreed that 'voters and all bona fide citizens have a right' to know. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, said ADR had filed a 'speculative petition'. He added, 'They must await the completion of the exercise.' Singhvi said, 'Electoral roll is presumptively held not to be valid solely on grounds of citizenship. You cannot have a system where citizenship is doubted for 5 crore people unless…presumption is he's a valid citizen unless they follow procedure and remove…' Justice Kant said, 'Up to 2003, there's no dispute. Those who are on voter list, they are not required to submit any documents. Mr Dwivedi is saying those who were voters till 2003, their children also are not required to give documents.' Singhvi said, 'When elections are 2.5 months away, what they have done is- they have issued a presumptive negative declaration…and said that to become valid on existing roll on which you are sitting, these people…I am only on the presumption in a squeezed time frame. Look at the object of all this. You declare 5 crore people to be not valid and give them 2.5 months!' Justice Kant said, 'If they declare 5 crore people invalid, we are sitting here. We would definitely like to examine.' Praying for an interim relief, Singvi said, 'We estimate that if you ask for certificates…maybe 1, maybe 2 crore will be invalid. Now we can't wait till we come back in September and Your Lordships is told now the Model Code of Conduct is in force, elections are around the corner. They are in a scrambling mode.' Justice Kant said the process can be invalidated even in September if the court finds it is not lawful. 'So what? Can't we set it aside even in September even if we have a lurking suspicion about the procedure followed by the ECI?' Bhushan said, 'What we have shown (in the petition) is that a very large number of people who find themselves in the draft roll are dead persons, 300 people living in one house, etc. Now they are saying those who are not in the draft list, they will have to fill up a Form 6.' Bhushan said, 'Earlier, even if someone was applying as a fresh voter, they only have to give a self-declaration that they are citizens. Thereafter, if someone challenges and produces some material, they can remove. That's all. They do not have to give any document for showing that he or she is a citizen.' Justice Kant said, 'That may be legally difficult, that simply somebody says that I am writing that I am a citizen.' The judge said the litigation 'largely' seemed to be 'a case of trust deficiency'. Activist and psephologist Yogendra Yadav, who also addressed the court, said, 'This is the first revision exercise in the whole country where there is zero addition and there are only omissions.' He said Bihar has an adult population of 8.18 crore and that when there should have been more voters, 65 lakhs have been excluded. Yadav contended that mass disenfranchisement has already taken place, adding that it did not happen due to the failure of the SIR but that the process was designed for the purpose. 'With one stroke, the percentage of adults eligible to vote in Bihar has come down to 88 per cent already. There would be further deletions now,' he contended. Yadav added that the number of women voters who have been excluded is more than that of men.
News18
4 minutes ago
- News18
Washington Mayor SLAMS Trump: ‘Illegal to Use Military on Americans'
Washington Mayor SLAMS Trump: 'Illegal to Use Military on Americans' | Bowser's Bold Rebuttal | N18G Last Updated: August 12, 2025, 20:00 IST Videos Tensions escalate in Washington D.C. as Mayor Muriel Bowser openly rejects former President Donald Trump's controversial move to deploy police and military forces against American citizens. Bowser calls it 'illegal to use the military on Americans' and warns that such actions threaten democracy and civil rights. The clash comes amid growing concerns over the militarization of domestic law enforcement, raising questions about constitutional rights, federal authority, and the limits of presidential this video, we break down Bowser's fiery statement, the legal implications of Trump's plan, and what this political showdown means for the future of civil liberties in the United States. From the streets of Washington to the halls of power, this is a battle over law, order, and the Constitution. News18 Mobile App - homevideos Washington Mayor SLAMS Trump: 'Illegal to Use Military on Americans' | Bowser's Bold Rebuttal | N18G CNN name, logo and all associated elements ® and © 2024 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. CNN and the CNN logo are registered marks of Cable News Network, LP LLLP, displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them. © Copyright Network18 Media and Investments Ltd 2024. All rights reserved.
