Nalin Kumar Kateel hits out at Kharge for anti-Modi remark

Bengaluru, Jan 8: The Karnataka high court on Tuesday directed the government to submit steps taken in respect of the order of Lokyukta in relation to the Kethaganahalli landgrab case involving former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy, his relatives and former minister DC Thammanna.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka gave the direction on a PIL filed by Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (SPS), an NGO. The petitioner said despite an order from the Lokayukta on August 5, 2014, to take action within 15 days, no action has been initiated till date in respect of encroachment of a huge tract of land in Kethaganahalli along Bengaluru-Mysuru highway.

SPS says the land was purchased in 1979 contrary to norms of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It claims Kumaraswamy and others paid only Rs 5,000 per acre, although the prevailing market rate was Rs 25,000 to Rs 30,000 per acre.

Bengaluru, Feb 23: Bolstered by the Supreme Court's interim nod for the gazette notification of the Mahadayi Water Dispute Tribunal award by the Central government, Karnataka decided to allot funds for the drinking water project in the state's northwest region, an official said on Saturday.

"Funds will be allotted in the state budget for fiscal 2020-21 to complete the Kalasa-Banduri project across the Mahadayi river for supplying drinking water to the four drought-prone northern districts in the state," the official of the water resources department told media on anonymity.

As Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa also holds the finance portfolio, he has agreed to allocate funds for the project, held up for years in the legal battle with the neighbouring Goa and Maharashtra over the sharing of the river water among the three coastal states.

Yediyurappa is slated to present the state budget for the ensuing fiscal in the legislative assembly on March 2.

"We will resume the project work once the Centre notifies the award though it will be binding on the final outcome of the apex court's hearing the review petitions of Goa and Maharashtra against the Tribunal award," the official noted.

A division bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta on Thursday passed an interim order on the Tribunal award, allowing the central water resources ministry to notify it for implementation and posted the case for final hearing in July.

The Tribunal on August 14, 2018 allocated 13.42 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of the river water to the southern state for irrigation and drinking water supply to towns and villages across Bagalkot, Belagavi, Dharwad and Gadag districts, which are in the arid region of the Deccan plateau.

The four districts are about 400-550 km northwest of Bengaluru in the southern state.

Of the 13.42 tmcft water, 5.5 tmcft will be used in the river basin and for diversion into the depleted Malaprabha reservoir while the balance 7.92 tmcft will be utilized for hydel power generation instead of allowing the water to go into the Arabian Sea on the state's west coast through Goa.

Goa, which opposed Karnataka's demand for 36.66 tmcft, was allocated 24 tmcft, while Maharashtra got 1.3 tmcft.

The Tribunal assessed that 188.06 tmc feet water is available at 75 per cent dependability.

The three-member Tribunal is headed by Chairman Justice J.M. Panchal, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice P.S. Naayana.

The Union government had set up the inter-state Tribunal on November 16, 2010 for the djudication of the Mahadayi basin water allocation among the three riparian and contiguous states.

Goa and Maharashtra claimed 122.6 tmc feet and 6.35 tmc feet of the river water respectively.

The Tribunal, which commenced sittings on September 6, 2012, held 1,209 sittings for over 6 years.

Supreme Court senior counsel F.S. Nariman represented the state before the Tribunal to present its case.

The Tribunal's chairman and two members inspected the river basin area across the three coastal states from December 12-24, 2013.

The 77km-long Mahadayi or Mandovi river originates at Bhimgad in the Western Ghats in Belagavi district and flows into the neighbouring Goa through Maharashtra and joins the Arabian Sea off the west coast.

Though the river flows 29 km in Karnataka and 52 km in Goa, its catchment area is spread over 2,032 km in the southern state as against 1,580 km in the western state (Goa).

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.