Won't oppose Hindi if you don't impose it: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin
Chennai (PTI): The DMK will not oppose Hindi if it is not "imposed" on Tamil Nadu and forcing the language on Tamils amounts to playing with their self-respect, state Chief Minister and the ruling party's president M.K. Stalin said on Wednesday.
In a letter to partymen on the issue of alleged Hindi imposition, Stalin said self-respect was Tamils' 'unique' nature.
"For those asking why DMK still opposes Hindi, my humble response to them as one among you is--because you still impose it on us."
"We won't oppose if you don't impose; won't blacken Hindi words in Tamil Nadu. Self-respect is Tamils' unique charecteristic and we will not allow anyone, whoever it is, to play with it," he asserted.
Stalin's remarks come amidst an intense language row in the state, with the DMK alleging that the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre was trying to impose Hindi through the the three-language formula in the National Education Policy (NEP), a charge denied by the union government.
The issue has led to a war of words between the DMK and the state BJP unit, with the saffron party's TN chief K Annamalai leading the charge.
In his letter, Stalin recalled the anti-Hindi agitations in the state as early as between 1937-39 and said various leaders, including EV Ramasamy 'Periar' actively participating in the agitation.
Some BJP leaders were saying the blackening of Hindi names in railway stations would affect north Indian passengers arriving in the state and said "they should have had such concern for Tamil."
"They should rather pose this question to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan whether name boards in Uttar Pradesh had Tamil and other south Indian languages to benefit passengers from the region travelling there for the Kashi Sangamam and the Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj," the DMK chief said.
He also asked if announcements were made in other Indian languages.
"How would those, who had joined an organisation that is opposed to Tamil and repeatedly betraying Tamil Nadu, voice concern for Tamils and their welfare. The Dravidian movement has no enmity towards any language. Tamil has not considered any language as enemy and destroyed it. It has never allowed another language if it tried to dominate Tamil," Stalin said.
In the past, leaders associated with the Dravidian movement such as Pitti Theagarayar respected Sanskrit but never compromised Tamil.
Stalin said many leaders of Justice Party, often seen as the parent organisation of the Dravidian movement in the state, and Tamil scholars had participated in the anti-Hindi agitation between 1937-39, protesting against the then C Rajagopalachari-led government's efforts to "impose Hindi" by making it compulsory.
The CM said the state was today up and against the BJP's efforts to "impose Hindi, and then Sanskrit," in the name of the 3-language formula and that the platform for this was laid years ago by the Dravidian leaders.
Tamil Nadu's 2-language policy (Tamil and English) has resulted in the state standing tall with good strides in school education, higher education, skill development and creation of employment opportunities, Stalin said.
He also accused the Central BJP government of "betraying" the southern state and assured to take all steps for protecting Tamil.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
