சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!

சமரன்: 2017 - நக்சல்பாரி தியாகிகள் நினைவு நீடுழி வாழ்க!: செப்டம்பர்-12-தியாகிகள் நினைவு நாள்! தோழர் பாலன் நினைவு நீடூழி வாழ்க!  * பன்னாட்டு, உள்நாட்டுக் கார்ப்பரேட்டுகளுக்கு சேவைசெய்யும் புத...

Trump's Afghanistan policy a chance to India increase influence in South Asia



ENB Editorial Poster

***************************************************************************

Sreemoy Talukdar

Donald Trump's Afghanistan policy presents India a chance to increase sphere of influence in South AsiaSreemoy Talukdar
Senior Editor at Firstpost.com



 

At one level, Donald Trump's policy on Afghanistan and South Asia isn't really that different from Barack Obama's. As a candidate, Trump promised to pull out American troops at the earliest and end its longest and "unwinnable" war. But as he said from Fort Myer, Virginia, on Monday, things look very different from behind the Oval Office desk. So instead of a pullout, which he admitted was his original instinct, he has decided that more US soldiers will descend on Afghan soil.

But the similarity doesn't end here. Trump's grand strategy is to stabilise Afghanistan so as to prevent it from becoming another Iraq — which sounds awfully like what Obama and George W Bush before him intended to do, and he plans to do so by eventually bringing Taliban to the negotiation table.

"Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country. But strategically-applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace," said Trump.

He wants to achieve a goal that is political through a route that is military, by "killing all terrorists". And has decided that threatening Pakistan against nurturing a bread basket of jihadists and urging India to increase its capacity-building role in Kabul would be the key tenets of this strategy.
Again, not much different from what administrations before him had tried to do. American's clear tilt towards India as a strategic hedge in a troubled South Asia started with Bush and it was taken forward by Obama. Wariness about Pakistan's duplicity had permeated successive US administrations, even if they had been unable to stop Islamabad's various rent-seeking practices.

For instance, during a joint news conference in 2011 with Pakistan's then foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton had said that Pakistan can't expect to rear snakes in its backyard and hope that it only bites its neighbours.

The broad strokes indicate that Trump's Afghanistan strategy is not nearly as "dramatically different" as he touted it to be.

And yet at the macro level, Trump's approach is indeed radically different than Obama or Bush's before him. And it is here that India has been presented with an unprecedented opportunity to increase its sphere of influence in South Asia.

Before we get to that, let's look at the point of departures. Trump's address clearly brought out the essential difference between him and Obama. Whereas Obama — a politician, statesman and an intellectual — subscribed to America's role as a global security provider and 'democracy evangelist', Trump — a tycoon who runs an intercontinental business empire through laser focus on balance sheets — sees efforts to "use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands or try to rebuild other countries in our own image" as a complete waste of time, energy, money and "American lives".

What this means is that despite his grand strategy of strengthening Afghanistan, Trump has redefined 'victory' and set for himself much smaller goals, and consequently has more chance of achieving those goals than Obama or Bush administrations before him. He has also shifted some of the responsibilities that the US had traditionally set or itself, to others.

Trump is clear that Afghanistan people will have to "take ownership of their future", "govern their society" and "carry their share of military, political and economic burden" to "achieve an everlasting peace" because the US is "not nation building again" and will limit its role only to "killing terrorists."
The dissonance that arises is that what constitutes a "strong Afghanistan" that won't fall prey to forces of instability? And if that happens, will America's greater purpose of not letting Afghanistan become another Iraq, be served? Trump claimed to have an answer.

For him, "victory will have a clear definition — attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will."

So the key point that emerges is that while Trump wants a stable Afghanistan, he won't (at least doesn't plan to) go beyond the self-set parameters. At the heart of this 'new' policy is Trumpian realism, which manifests itself in his comments that "we must address the reality of the world as it exists right now". By accepting the reality and eschewing grand notions of American exceptionalism, Trump hopes to live up to his billing as a "problem solver."

Why is this an opportunity for India?

Trump's policy is guided by a nativist impulse that wants to cut losses in a 'bad deal'. This tunnel vision forces Washington to seek greater help from "NATO allies and global partners". This is not a bad approach. But there is a problem. India, a key player in South Asia and a force for stability, is not a treaty ally of the US. It's not a coincidence that Trump heaps oodles of praise on India, calling it the linchpin of US South Asia strategy.

"Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States."

This is classic Trumpian transactionalism. By elevating India's bilateral status to a non-declared ally (at least a strategic partner), Trump hopes to bind India with a moral responsibility for sharing its burden in Afghanistan. Just to press the point — in comments that once again reflect his barter approach — he reminds India that it makes "billions of dollars in trade with the US" while urging it to "do more" in the "area of economic assistance and development."

Trump is at fault here. India's relationship with Afghanistan goes deep and is not incumbent on what the US president wants it to do. New Delhi's relationship with Afghanistan (long before Pakistan became a buffer state) is underwritten by social, cultural, economic and security ties.

As Afghanistan’s Ambassador to India Shaida Abdali pointed out during a recent Brookings India lecture on India-Afghanistan Strategic Relations, India "is the biggest regional donor to Afghanistan and fifth largest donor globally with over $3 billion in assistance". And these cover a wide network of infrastructure development areas. New Delhi has built "over 200 public and private schools", sponsors "over a 1000 scholarships", hosts over "16,000 Afghan students", and has assisted in the construction of critical infrastructure including roadways, highways, dams, electricity lines and even the Afghan Parliament building. It also trains Afghan military officers.

Even so, allowing for Trump's limited understanding of the traditional and dynamic imports of India-Afghanistan relationship, New Delhi can still make a virtue out of necessity.

India can increase its foreign aid and commit more in capacity-building efforts. A transactional US president can sell it to his electoral base by claiming that he has "forced India to do so". This may make Trump amenable for a greater Indian role in South Asia and limit Pakistan's subversive influence. This quid-pro-quo also carries a lot of intangible benefits.

Already, New Delhi is being seen for all purposes as a strategic US partner. True, this is likely to increase Pakistan's anxiety, but little that India does will not induce Pakistan's 'strategic anxiety' — a chronic condition that its generals have sold well to the world so far.

Trump's policy on terror carries no equivocation on Pakistan and is a clear reinforcement of India's argument. His focus on more action and less diplomacy is also good news for India because it reduces the chance of Indo-Pakistan hyphenation.

Pakistan has been firmly cubbyhole into a problematic corner. Trump has not only put Islamabad on notice for running with the hare and hunting with the hound, a senior official has indicated to US media that sanctions may be imposed on Pakistani officials with ties to terrorists. Clearly, this US president is willing to walk the talk, unlike earlier ones.

India is now being recognised as a clear force for the good, a sponsor of democratic values and stability. This isn't a tacit endorsement, but a loud one that has huge implications for India in South Asia where it jostles for influence with a mercantile China. The Narendra Modi government must play its cards well.

Published Date: Aug 23, 2017 Source: First Post.com
The views are of the author

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

World reacts to Trump's new strategy on Afghan war

India, UK and NATO express support for US president's policy, but Pakistan, China and Russia offer little enthusiasm.

Politicians from across the world have reacted to US President Donald Trump's new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Trump vows to keep US troops in Afghanistan

A Pakistani army spokesman dismissed Trump's remarks, saying Pakistan had taken action against armed groups on its soil.

"There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khwaja Muhammad Asif met US ambassador David Hale and reiterated the country's "desire for peace and stability in Afghanistan", a statement by the foreign ministry said.
He "underlined Pakistan's continued desire to work with the International Community to eliminate the menace of terrorism," the statement said.

NATO

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed Trump's "conditions-based approach" and said the US-led alliance was committed to increasing its presence in Afghanistan.

He said: "Our aim remains to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists who would attack our own countries."

More than 12,000 troops from NATO and partner countries have been helping to "train, advise and assist" Afghan security forces since January 2015, after the alliance wound down combat operations there.infographic number of us troops Afghanistan

India

India has welcomed Trump's demand that Pakistan stops offering safe havens to armed groups and reaffirmed its policy of extending reconstruction aid to Afghanistan.

India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump's "determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists".

Without naming its rival Pakistan, the ministry said: "India shares these concerns and objectives."
India has provided a total of $2bn to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.

United Kingdom

The UK welcomed Trump's commitment to step up the military campaign against the Taliban, saying the US and its allies must "stay the course in Afghanistan" to reduce threats to the West.
"The US commitment is very welcome," British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in a statement.

"It's in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer: that's why we ‎announced our own troop increase back in June," he said.

China

China defended its ally Pakistan after Trump's sharp rebuke, saying the country was on the front line in the struggle against "terrorism" and had made "great sacrifices" and "important contributions" in the fight.

"We believe that the international community should fully recognise Pakistan's anti-terrorism," Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China's foreign ministry, told a daily news briefing.

China hoped "the relevant US policies can help promote the security, stability and development of Afghanistan and the region," she said.

Russia

Russia does not believe Trump's new strategy will lead to any significant positive changes in Afghanistan, the Interfax news agency cited an unnamed Russian foreign ministry source as saying on Tuesday.

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies

US President Trump's Speech on Afghanistan - Full

 

https://youtu.be/wAOEkTEuFKo

 

 

Full Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Afghanistan Policy

“No place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms.”

 

President Trump speaking from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia    

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

 

In primetime remarks Monday night, President Trump unveiled the broad strokes of a new U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan without offering details about changes to troop levels.

 

The announcement marks a turnabout for Trump, who as a private citizen once advocated for full U.S. withdrawal. Since launching his campaign in 2015, Trump has been far less vocal publicly about how the United States can best approach the now-16-year-old conflict. As my colleague Krishnadev Calamur has reported, even Afghanistan experts have been conflicted about what to do in the country, “where the conflict between the Afghan government and the Taliban is at a stalemate, where corruption continues to hamstring governance, and where regional and ethnic loyalties often trump loyalties to the central government.”

 

After months of deliberation, the administration finalized its Afghanistan plan on Friday at a meeting between the president and national-security officials at Camp David in Maryland. An announcement about increased troop levels had been expected, but Trump said in his remarks Monday that the administration would no longer reveal such information. Earlier this year, Trump had authorized Defense Secretary James Mattis to send nearly 4,000 additional troops to the area, but they have not yet been deployed.

 

 Here, a full transcript of the president’s remarks.

 

Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson, members of the Cabinet, General Dunford, Deputy Secretary Shanahan, and Colonel Duggin. Most especially, thank you to the men and women of Fort Myer, and every member of the United States military at home and abroad. We send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea, as well as to those conducting the search-and-recovery efforts.

 

I am here tonight to lay out our path forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. But before I provide the details of our new strategy, I want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all Americans listening at home.

 

Since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage, and resolve is unmatched in human history. American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation, under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose. They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion.

 

That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They’re all part of the same family. It’s called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law. They’re bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget: that a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

 

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas—and we will always win—let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name: that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

 

Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the American military, and of our many allies throughout the world, horrors on the scale of September 11th—nobody can ever forget that—have not been repeated on our shores. But we must acknowledge the reality I’m here to talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after the September 11th attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, 17 years. I share the American people's frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly lives, trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

 

That is why shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis, and my national-security team, to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia. My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my Cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America's core interests in Afghanistan.

 

First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and win.

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan, because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, would instantly fill just as happened before September 11th. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.

 

We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq. Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan, and the broader region, are immense. Today 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen. No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan, and South Asia. But we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became president, I was given a bad and very complex hand. But I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But one way or another, these problems will be solved. I'm a problem solver, and in the end, we will win.

 

We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now, the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal. We need look no further than last week's vile, vicious attack in Barcelona to understand that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children. You saw it for yourself, horrible. As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia, three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology. Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and that's right—losers. Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them, and we will defeat them handily. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America's interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America. And we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists, and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter. But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history.

 

As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways. A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America's enemies must never know our plans, or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

 

“We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.”

 

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power—diplomatic, economic, and military—toward a successful outcome. Some day, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever-lasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.

 

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe-havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

 

Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked to together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices. But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. Another critical part of the South-Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India; the world’s largest democracy, and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States—and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.

We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly.

 

I’ve already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromangement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles. They’re won in the field, drawing upon the judgment and expertise of war-time commanders and front-line soldiers acting in real time with real authority and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy. That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos through Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful as we lift restrictions and expand authorities.

 

We’re already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq. Since my inauguration we have achieved record-breaking success in that regard. We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law-enforcement actions against these networks to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force. Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on victory will have a clear definition: Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terrorist attacks against America before they emerge.

 

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will. Since taking office I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense. And they have done so. In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us. Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us. The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do.

 

Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed, but we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over. Instead we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interest. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward. Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country, but strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace. America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited. We will keep our eyes wide open in abiding by the oath I took on January 20. I will remain steadfast in protecting American lives and American interests. In this effort, we will make common cause with any nation that chooses to stand and fight alongside us against this global threat. Terrorists, take heed: America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat. Under my administration, many billions of dollars more is being spent on our military and this includes vast amounts being spent on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense. In every generation, we have faced down evil and we have always prevailed. We have prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

 

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay in eternal rest at Arlington National Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice, and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot on the face of the Earth. Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan enlisted in the months after Sept. 11, 2001. They volunteered for a simple reason: They loved America and they were determined to protect her. Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives.

 

We must unite to defend America from its enemies abroad. We must restore the bonds of loyalty among our citizens at home. And we must achieve an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid. Our actions, and in months to come, all of them will honor the sacrifice of every fallen hero, every family who lost a loved one, and every wounded warrior who shed their blood in defense of our great nation. With our resolve, we will ensure that your service, and that your families, will bring about the defeat of our enemies, and the arrival of peace. We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you. Thank you. May God bless our military, and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.


Kashmir Article 35A

Controversy over State Subject laws: Not just 1, 3 petitions challenge Article 35A

Right-wing leaning NGO, West Pakistan Refugees, 2 individuals filed cases in 2014, 2015, 2017 in Supreme Court challenging J&K state subject laws on different grounds

As Jammu and Kashmir is in a bit of uncertainty over the challenge to Article 35A of Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, it has come to fore that not just one but three petitions challenging the validity of the law have been filed in the apex court.

From questioning the President’s powers to claims that Article 35A violates basic structure of the Constitution of India and promotes gender bias, the petitioners have taken different grounds to challenge the Constitutional provision that grants special rights to residents of Jammu and Kashmir.

J&K’s advocate general Jahangir Iqbal Ganie confirmed to Greater Kashmir that three petitions have challenged the Article.

He said the Court has tagged these petitions but added that “no notice has been issued in two of these petitions.”

The petitioners - We the Citizens, West Pakistan Refugees Action Committee and Charu Wali Khanna/ Dr Seema Razdan - have respectively challenged the Constitutional provision in 2014, 2015 and 2017.

The Article 35A was incorporated in the Constitution of India by the President through the Constitution (application to J&K) Order 1954. Under Article 35A, the J&K legislature is empowered to define permanent residents of the State and grant special rights and privileges to them.

It protects all the state laws and rules that prohibit non-state subjects from acquiring land in the state, apply for government jobs and scholarships or participate in state and panchayat elections.

WRIT PETITION 722/2014:

This petition has been filed by Delhi-based little known NGO “We the Citizens” in the year 2014. Those associated with the non- governmental organization have close links with the right-wing Hindu groups.

In this petition, the NGO has prayed that Article 35A should be struck down, claiming that President has no powers to insert new Article in the Constitution of India.

“The  Constitution (application to J&K order 1954) has been issued by the  President of India by exercising power conferred under clause 1 of Article 370 of Constitution of India. A perusal of Article 370 would clearly show that there is no power conferred on the President of India to amend Constitution by incorporating any new Article in the Constitution. Therefore, inclusion of Article 35A within Part-III of the Constitution of India is absolutely unconstitutional. Therefore, the provisions contained in Presidential Order 1954 may be declared to be unconstitutional,” the petition reads.

According to the petition, “The Constitution can be amended only by the Parliament. No process of amendment can alter it. Any action taken contrary to Article 368 shall be void and void ab-initio. In the present case the impugned action is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

WRIT PETITION 871/2015:

The West Pakistan refugees have filed a petition to challenge Article

35A along with Section 6 of the J&K Constitution.

It has been questioned on the grounds that basic structure of the Constitution of India cannot be amended.

“Article 35A  is ex facie unconstitutional as it seeks to sanctify deprivation of fundamental rights of a class of citizens of India residing in the State of J&K…….. By a series of judgments including Keshavananda Bharati, fundamental rights have been reckoned as core aspect of the basic structure. Article 35 A has been positioned by an executive fiat of the President exercising powers under Article 370. It is emphasized that under no circumstances can the president under Article 370 do what by the Parliament is disentitled by the judgment of this Court Keshavananda Bharati versus state of Kerala,” the petition reads.

According to the petition, “The cumulative effect of Article 35A and section 6 is that a privileged class of permanent residents is created and only they are entitled for various rights.”

The Section 6 of J&K Constitution defines permanent residents of the state on the basis of two notifications issued by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1927 and 1932.

The West Pakistan refugees are seeking state subject rights like right to acquire property and apply for government jobs in the State, the petition reveals.

 WRIT PETITION 396/2017:

One more petition challenging the constitutional provision has been filed by Charu Wali Khanna and Dr. Seema Razdan. The petitioners have claimed that Article 35A promotes gender bias and discrimination.

“Under the guise of Article 370 and Article 35A, the men and women are subjected to different treatments and discriminated on the basis of gender,” reads the petition.

Charu Wali Khanna, according to the petition, claims that her family had migrated from Kashmir during Afghan rule (1753-1819).

The petitioners have also challenged section 6 of the J&K Constitution and the notification issued by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1927. The 1927 notification, which laid foundation of state subject law, defines different classes of state subjects.

PFLP salutes anti-racist struggle in Charlottesville

PFLP salutes anti-racist struggle in Charlottesville, calls for struggle against racism, fascism, Zionism and imperialism 
Aug15 2017

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine mourns the martyr Heather Heyer and wishes speedy healing to the wounded anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia in the United States as they confronted a racist, fascist rally on Saturday, August 12. The martyr and the wounded are part of the global list of those who have fallen in the struggles of all peoples to confront racist powers and they will always be remembered as such.

Contrary to the assertions of some corporate media in the United States, the fascist rally in Virginia in “defense” of a Confederate statue is not a divergence from U.S. ruling politics but a reflection of them. The United States has always been built on the genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of Indigenous land, the genocidal confiscation of Black lives and Black labor and the globally murderous power of capitalism and imperialism.

The rise of these kinds of demonstrations of racism are also an expression of the crisis of U.S. capitalism and imperialism in the Trump era, as well as the “debate” of the two imperialist political parties. The actions of anti-racists in Charlottesville and elsewhere disrupt this “debate” and highlight the true history and reality of the United States.

The bombastic framework of Trump’s threats against peoples and nations around the world and the officially-sanctioned scapegoating of oppressed communities comes hand in hand with the attempt by Trump to label racist attacks as “violence on many sides.” Indeed, it is reminiscent of attempts to label the resistance of the Palestinian people to occupation, oppression and colonialism as a “cycle of violence” or “hatred” rather than a just fight for liberation against a brutal colonizer.

The protesters who confronted the racist forces are, by and large, Left and revolutionary forces, including Black movements who have been on the front lines confronting U.S. state violence and repression, Communists, anarchists and radical socialists who are committed to fighting and stopping racism and oppression. The denunciation of racist terror on the streets of Charlottesville must also be combined with the denunciation of U.S. racist terror in police uniform on the streets of cities across the country as well as that in advanced armored vehicles and warplanes on peoples around the world. Trump’s current threats are nothing more than an ongoing continuation of U.S. imperialism’s bloody wars on the peoples of the world, especially of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, which have continued in an uninterrupted imperial march for well over a century.

Whether in Palestine or in Virginia, it is right to resist racist terror, including and especially that of the state. The far right in Europe, the United States and the Zionist movement share information, resources and propaganda against Black, Arab and other movements, peoples and communities (even while the far-right spouts anti-Jewish slogans alongside its anti-Black and anti-Arab hatred on American and European streets) – and the racist state powers and police authorities in the United States and the Israeli occupation are linked together with aid, resources and the common goals of Zionism and imperialism. We must also be united to fight racism, Zionism, capitalism and imperialism in all of our diverse, connected struggles for justice and liberation.

Zionist organizations and movements within the United States have been engaged in long-lasting alliances with fellow right-wing and racist forces around the world. While some are attempting to position themselves after Charlottesville as opponents of racism, these organizations are in fact defenders and proponents of racist oppression, not only in Palestine but in the United States and elsewhere where they have pushed for profiling and repression of Arab, Muslim, Black and other community organizing and even engaged in direct spying and surveillance on a range of anti-racist forces. Just as Israel traded arms and support with apartheid South Africa, the Zionist movement today is deeply engaged with other racist forces as has been vividly displayed on the streets in the U.S., Canada, the UK, Germany and elsewhere.

These racist and fascist mobilizations in the United States have taken a specific interest in targeting Arab and Muslim communities, immigrants and refugees and framing them as a “danger” or a “threat.” The targeting of Arabs and Muslims by these groups comes hand in hand with intense police surveillance and so-called “anti-terror” legislation that seeks to criminalize the Palestinian liberation movement and drive the community into fear.

Palestinians in the United States are deeply involved in the fight against racism and oppression of all forms, confronting the forces inflicting that violence on the world, and the Palestinian flag is a worldwide symbol of resistance to racist terror.

We stand with the movements in the United States fighting back against racism and fascism as part of our global struggle.

Long live international solidarity!

Economic War with China Is Everything, North Korea a 'Slideshow'

‘Economic War with China Is Everything,’ North Korea a ‘Sideshow’: White House Chief Strategist and that China is winning.

By Telesur
Global Research, August 18, 2017
teleSUR 17 August 2017

The United States is currently engaged in an “economic war” with China to maintain its position as the world’s top hegemon, and appears to be losing it, White House Strategist and former editor of the right-wing publication Breitbart News, Steve Bannon said in an unexpected interview published Wednesday.

“We’re at economic war with China. It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and its gonna be them if we go down this path,” Bannon said to author and professor Robert Kuttner.

“The economic war with China is everything. And we have have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we’re five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we’ll never be able to recover,” he continued.

Bannon indicated that the current tensions and threats surrounding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), also known as North Korea, are just a “sideshow” for the battle for global hegemony with China. He said he is pressuring within the Trump administration to use the tensions in Korea as a way to impose economic pressure on China.

“We’re going to run the tables on these guys [China]. We’ve come to the conclusion that they’re in an economic war and they’re crushing us,” he said.

Although Trump has repeatedly engaged in beligerant rhetoric toward the DPRK, saying that the U.S.’s arsenal is “locked and loaded” and that the North Korean people will face “fire and fury,” Bannon directly rejected the potential for a military confrontation on the peninsula.

“There’s no military solution [to the DPRK’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us,” Bannon said.

The DPRK has continued its program to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in spite of pressure and threats demanding that they halt the efforts. They claim that the weapons act as a deterrent to a potential U.S. invasion or regime change attempt.

Bannon went on to explain how he was acting withing the Trump administration to push anti-China economic policies, such as the recently announced Section 301 complaint from the 1974 Trade Act targeting China’s alleged “unfair” trade practices. His struggle is within the administration also, where he said he fights “every day” against the “apparatus” to pressure those within the administration to follow his line and sideline those who don’t.

China has been pushing for a “double freeze” plan, which would involve the U.S. halting its military exercises on the Korean Peninsula, which is a key demand of the DPRK, in exchange for Pyongyang stopping its missile tests. On Tuesday, U.S. Department of State spokesperson Heather Nauert scoffed at the idea that such a deal would take place. Bannon however, indicated he might consider such a deal, but that such prospects were remote.

Trump is currently embroiled in criticism domestically and internationally for placing the blame for violence on “both sides” of the recent neo-Nazi and white-nationalist rally that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, that resulted in a death and numerous injuries when a white-nationalist drove a car into a group of counter-protesters.

Bannon however, dismissed white nationalists as “a collection of clowns.”

“Ethno-nationalism – it’s losers. It’s a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much,” he said.

While he rejected “ethno-nationalism” in the interview, he made clear that he was embracing economic nationalism, as embodied in his anti-China crusades. “If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats,” he said. “I want them to talk about racism every day.”

As a former editor of the far-right wing publication Breitbart News, Bannon is considered to be a major figure within the U.S. far-right, and a major ideological force within the Trump administration as the White House Chief Strategist.

The original source of this article is teleSUR
Copyright © Telesur, teleSUR, 2017

புதினப்பலகைச் செய்திக்கு ENB கண்டனம்!

PTI வெளியிட்ட செய்தி

Lanka appoints first Tamil Navy chief after four decades

Colombo, Aug 18 (PTI) Rear Admiral Travis Sinniah was today appointed as the chief of Sri Lanka's naval forces, making him the first from the minority Tamil community to head the Navy since the brutal civil war erupted in the country 45 years ago.

Sinniah, who played a decisive role in the destruction of the LTTE warships in deep sea during the height of the civil war, was appointed as the Navy chief by President Maithripala Sirisena.
"Rear Admiral Travis Sinniah, who has served Sri Lanka Navy with immense loyalty for many decades, took office as the Navy Commander today," President Sirisena tweeted.
His services will be effective from August 22.

Sinniah succeeds Vice Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne who has retired.

He is the second Tamil to head the Lankan Navy after Rajan Kadirgamar, who was the commander in the late 1960s.

Sinniah is the first from the Tamil community to head the Navy since the outbreak of the civil war in the north and east of the island in 1972.

He successfully commanded a mission in 2007 to destroy the LTTE's weapons smuggling ships in international waters off Indonesia and Australia, that is considered as Sri Lankan Navy's biggest achievement, media reports said.

Sinniah, who joined the Navy in 1982, was the senior most Naval officer to be in active combat operations at sea during the conflict with the LTTE separatists.

It was also announced that Wijegunaratne would be appointed as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).
The LTTE waged a war with the government to carve out a separate Tamil homeland in the regions with the conflict ending in 2009. Tamils in the country claim discrimination at the hands of the Sinhala majority.

According to UN figures, up to 40,000 civilians were killed by security forces during Rajapaksa's regime that brought an end to the brutal civil war with with the defeat of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009.

http://ptinews.com/news/8992734_Lanka-appoints-first-Tamil-Navy-chief-after-four-decades.html

புதினப் பலகை வெளியிட்ட செய்தி:

அரை நூற்றாண்டுக்குப் பின் சிறிலங்கா கடற்படைத் தளபதியாக தமிழருக்கு வாய்ப்பு

Aug 19, 2017 | 2:22 by சிறப்புச் செய்தியாளர் in செய்திகள் 
சிறிலங்காவில் கிட்டத்தட்ட அரை நூற்றாண்டுகளுக்குப் பின்னர் தமிழர் ஒருவரை படைத்தளபதிகளில் ஒருவராக, சிறிலங்கா அதிபர் மைத்திரிபால சிறிசேன நியமித்திருப்பதாக அனைத்துலக ஊடகங்கள் செய்தி வெளியிட்டுள்ளன.

சிறிலங்கா கடற்படையின் 21 ஆவது தளபதியாக, றியர் அட்மிரல் ட்ராவிஸ் சின்னையா நேற்று சிறிலங்கா அதிபரால் நியமிக்கப்பட்டார். இவர் ஒரு தமிழரராவார்.

1970ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குப் பின்னர், சிறிலங்காவின் தனிநாடு கோரிய தமிழ் மக்களின் ஆயுதப் போராட்டம் உருவான பின்னர், தமிழர்கள் எவரும், முப்படைகளின் தளபதியாக சிறிலங்கா அரசாங்கத்தினால் நியமிக்கப்படவில்லை.

சிறிலங்கா ஆயுதப்படைகளில் சிங்களவர்களே பெரும்பாலும் அங்கம் வகித்திருந்த போதிலும், உயர் அதிகாரிகளாக இருந்த தமிழர்கள் சிலர், முப்படைகளுக்கும் தலைமை தாங்கும் தளபதியாக நியமிக்கப்படக் கூடிய வாய்ப்புகளைப் பெற்றிருந்தாலும், அந்த வாய்ப்புகள் அவர்களுக்கு மறுக்கப்பட்டிருந்தன.

இந்த நிலையில், 1970 களுக்குப் பின்னர் முதல் முறையாக தமிழரான றியர் அட்மிரல் ட்ராவிஸ் சின்னையாவை, சிறிலங்கா கடற்படைத் தளபதியாக நியமித்துள்ளார் சிறிலங்கா அதிபர் மைத்திரிபால சிறிசேன.

இவர் சிறிலங்கா கடற்படையின் தளபதியாக பொறுப்பேற்கும் இரண்டாவது தமிழர் ஆவார்.
இதற்கு முன்னர், அட்மிரல் ராஜநாதன் கதிர்காமர் சிறிலங்கா கடற்படைத் தளபதியாக பதவி வகித்திருந்தார்.1960 நொவம்பர் 16ஆம் நாள் தொடக்கம், 1970 ஜூலை 30ஆம் நாள் வரை, சுமார் 10 ஆண்டுகள் அவர் சிறிலங்கா கடற்படைத் தளபதியாக பதவியில் இருந்தார்.

சிறிலங்கா கடற்படையின் தளபதியாக நீண்டகாலம் பதவியில் இருந்தவர் இவரேயாவார்.
அதேவேளை, சிறிலங்கா இராணுவத்தின் முதலாவது தளபதியாக, மேஜர் ஜெனரல் அன்ரன் முத்துக்குமாரு,  1955 பிப்ரவரி 09 தொடக்கம், 1959 டிசம்பர் 31 வரை பணியாற்றியிருந்தார்.
போர் முடிவுக்கு வந்து 8 ஆண்டுகளுக்குப் பின்னர், சிறிலங்கா கடற்படைத் தளபதியாக, தமிழரான, றியர் அட்மிரல் ட்ராவிஸ் சின்னையா நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளமை தொடர்பான செய்திக்கு, அனைத்துலக ஊடகங்கள் முக்கியத்துவம் அளித்துள்ளன.

றியர் அட்மிரல் ட்ராவிஸ் சின்னையா, முன்னைய ஆட்சிக்காலத்தில் கோத்தாபய ராஜபக்சவினால், அமெரிக்காவின் முகவர் என்று குற்றம்சாட்டப்பட்டவராவார்.

அரசியல் பழிவாங்கல் அச்சுறுத்தலால் சிறிலங்காவில் இருந்து வெளியேறி, அவுஸ்ரேலியாவில் தஞ்சமடைந்திருந்தார். ஆட்சி மாற்றத்துக்குப் பின்னரே அவர் நாடு திரும்பினார் என்பதுது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

http://www.puthinappalakai.net/2017/08/19/news/25351

ENB இனத்துக்குள்ளும், சாதிக்குள்ளும் வர்க்கம் உண்டு!

Mr.A. Amirthalingam Leader FP

 A. Amirthalingam in 1977, a Tamil has been chosen Leader of the Opposition.

SAID

``இந்திய அமைதி காப்பு படையின் துப்பாக்கிகள் சட்டபூர்வமானவை``

=============================

Lanka appoints first Tamil Navy chief after four decades

Colombo, Aug 18 (PTI) Rear Admiral Travis Sinniah was today appointed as the chief of Sri Lanka's naval forces, making him the first from the minority Tamil community to head the Navy since the brutal civil war erupted in the country 45 years ago,

Sinniah, who played a decisive role in the destruction of the LTTE warships in deep sea during the height of the civil war,

was appointed as the Navy chief by President Maithripala Sirisena.

"Rear Admiral Travis Sinniah, who has served Sri Lanka Navy with immense loyalty for many decades, took office as the Navy Commander today," President Sirisena tweeted.
His services will be effective from August 22.

Sinniah succeeds Vice Admiral Ravi Wijegunaratne who has retired.

He is the second Tamil to head the Lankan Navy after Rajan Kadirgamar, who was the commander in the late 1960s.

Sinniah is the first from the Tamil community to head the Navy since the outbreak of the civil war in the north and east of the island in 1972.

He successfully commanded a mission in 2007 to destroy the LTTE's weapons smuggling ships in international waters off Indonesia and Australia, that is considered as Sri Lankan Navy's biggest achievement, media reports said.

Sinniah, who joined the Navy in 1982, was the senior most Naval officer to be in active combat operations at sea during the conflict with the LTTE separatists.

It was also announced that Wijegunaratne would be appointed as the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).
The LTTE waged a war with the government to carve out a separate Tamil homeland in the regions with the conflict ending in 2009. Tamils in the country claim discrimination at the hands of the Sinhala majority.

According to UN figures, up to 40,000 civilians were killed by security forces during Rajapaksa's regime that brought an end to the brutal civil war with with the defeat of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009.

By  Ayshwarya Yapa
 ===============
Eastern Naval Commander Vice Admiral Travis Sinniah has been appointed as the new Commander of Sri Lanka Navy.

He will accordingly be taking over the reigns from his predecessor Vice Admiral Ravindra Wijegunaratne, who formally assumed his duties as Navy Commander on July 11, 2015.

His tenure is scheduled to end on August 22, 2017, and the new Commander will accordingly assume his duties on the same day.

Vice Admiral Travis Sinniah will become the 21st Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy.
He received his letter of appointment from President Maithripala Sirisena at the President’s Official Residence, today (18), the President’s Media Division reported.

Secretary to the President Austin Fernando and Defense Secretary Kapila Waidyaratne had also been present on this momentous occasion.

Travis Sinniah joined the Sri Lanka Navy in 1982, and has been awarded a number of medals, including the Weera Wickrama Vibhushanaya, Rana Wickrama, Ranashura (three times) and Uttama Seva.
============
India Elects ‘Untouchable’ President From Lowest ‘Dalit’ Caste
by Alastair Jamieson

Ram Nath Kovind, India's 14th president. Amit Dave / Reuters

"I respect the Indian constitution and no political interest can be above the rule enshrined in the rule book,"

LONDON — India chose an “untouchable” as its next president Thursday after the first contest in which both candidates were from the lowest tier of the country's caste system.

Ram Nath Kovind, nominated by the ruling BJP party, had been clear favorite for the largely ceremonial post, which is decided by 4,800 lawmakers across the country.

Under India’s constitution, the prime minister and his ministers wield executive power but the president sometimes plays a role such as deciding which party should form a government if a general election is inconclusive.

Kovind, 72, is not the first president to be “Dalit,” a term that means “oppressed” in Sanskrit and refers to members of the lowest caste. Kocheril Raman Narayanan took office in 1997 more than half a century after Gandhi pledged to end the country’s ancient system of discrimination.

 Image: Ram Nath Kovind, India's new president, is presented with a garland as part of a nation-wide tour in Ahmedabad

It is, however, the first time since India gained independence from Britain in 1947 that both the final candidates were Dalit — former diplomat Meira Kumar was also low-caste — and it is also the first time that the upper-caste dominated BJP has nominated a Dalit for the job.

One-fifth of all parliamentary candidates must be Dalit under decades-long affirmative-action laws introduced to improve representation and outlaw discrimination. Dalits are also guaranteed a proportion of college places and government jobs.

But while social mobility has improved, particularly in India’s fast-growing cities, rural areas still often witness members of lower castes forced to live in separate areas or prevented from using communal facilities such as water fountains.

Caste campaigner Behan Mayawati called Thursday’s result “a huge victory.”

James Chiriyankandath, a senior research fellow at the University of London’s Institute of Commonwealth Studies, said the real significance was not about caste but rather the expanding influence of the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and its brand of Hindu nationalism.
Related: Why Cow Urine Can Be as Valuable as Milk in India

“Caste still plays an important role in electoral mobilization but the religious divide between Hindus and non-Hindus, particularly Muslims, has become one of the main fissures in Indian politics,” he told NBC News.

“It is the most explosive division in India today. Tensions could be built up with the pursuit of policies such as bans on the slaughter of cows.”

He said BJP lawmakers in northern areas of India has “ratcheted up the tension on these religious lines.”

One-sixth of India’s population — about 200 million out of a total 1.35 billion — is Muslim, Chiriyankandath said. Much smaller minorities include Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists.

India will next month elect a vice-president. Another victory for the BJP would give it unprecedented influence in parliament — and potentially a role in deciding the outcome of the 2019 general election if the result is inconclusive.

“These elections are important in terms of consolidation of BJP’s grip on power,” Chiriyankandath said.

Since the rise of the BJP, India has seen a rise in Hindu nationalism, including the emergence of “cow vigilante” attacks on people accused of eating beef or slaughtering cows, which are sacred to Hindus.

Modi last month called on India’s states to quell the attacks, following the follow the stabbing to death in June of a 16-year-old boy accused of possessing beef on a train.

India's Supreme Court on July 11 overturned a government decree on the trade of cattle for slaughter, an order that threatened the country's multi-billion dollar meat and leather industry dominated by Muslims, Reuters reported.

Kovind previously said he was committed to India's status as a secular democratic republic.
"I respect the Indian constitution and no political interest can be above the rule enshrined in the rule book," he told Reuters earlier this month.
===============


After A. Amirthalingam in 1977, this is the second time a Tamil has been chosen Leader of the Opposition.

 

 “we are loyal to this country and people of this country”. It was his party’s “primary duty” to ensure that there was a “fair and acceptable” settlement of the Tamil issue.

After a gap of over three decades, a Tamil lawmaker has become the Leader of the Opposition in the Sri Lankan parliament.

As soon as the House met on Thursday morning, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya announced that Tamil National Alliance leader R. Sampanthan had been made the Leader of the Opposition and said no other name had been proposed.

A. Amirthalingam of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) was the first Tamil to hold the post between 1977 and 1983.

Mr. Sampanthan, who, in 1956, joined the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (also known as Federal Party), was first elected to Parliament from Trincomalee in 1977 on the ticket of the TULF when the general elections were held under the 1972 Constitution.

After resigning as MP along with other members of the TULF in 1983, Mr. Sampanthan returned to the Parliament in July 1997. Since 2001, he has been heading the TNA, which now comprises the ITAK, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and the People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). According to records of the Parliament, Mr. Sampanthan has served as MP for more than 22 years.

Later, speaking on a motion to increase the number of Cabinet Ministers to 48 and that of State Ministers and Deputy Ministers to 45, Mr. Sampanthan told the Parliament that his party would work closely with everyone to resolve the Tamil question while “we are loyal to this country and people of this country”. It was his party’s “primary duty” to ensure that there was a “fair and acceptable” settlement of the Tamil issue.

Tabled by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, the motion was adopted by the House with 143 voting in favour of and 16 against the resolution. Sixty-three members including the that of the TNA were absent at the time of division. While the Speaker did not take part in the voting, S.C. Mayadunne, who was made MP through the national list of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), resigned his membership earlier in the day and the third person had not yet taken oath as MP.
The approval of the Parliament was required as the 19th Constitutional Amendment fixed the ceiling of the Cabinet Ministers at 30 and other categories of Ministers at 40.

 

சமரன்: நக்சல்பாரி புரட்சியாளர் தோழர் பச்சியப்பன் நினைவேந்...

சமரன்: நக்சல்பாரி புரட்சியாளர் தோழர் பச்சியப்பன் நினைவேந்...:   நக்சல்பாரி புரட்சியாளர் தோழர் பச்சியப்பன் அவர்களின் நினைவேந்தல் கூட்டம்   20-08-2017 திங்கள் - மாலை 5:00 மணி  பாலக்கோடு பேருந...