Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002
Wednesday, Sep 04, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Staff Reporter
Speaking to presspersons here, Mr. Gowda argued that "questioning a judgment is unconstitutional and hence, it is contempt of court." He said he was examining whether he could approach the court. He said he did not know whether Ms. Jayalalithaa's action to rake up the issue was arrogance or a mere political strategy. Asked whether the Government could move a court of law or could he as a Minister do it, Mr. Gowda said that as an individual he had a right to move the court against Ms. Jayalalithaa for her "unconstitutional utterances." The ministership did not take away his right to approach a court of law on an issue such as this. But he did not think filing a petition against the BJP president, M. Venkaiah Naidu, was warranted now as he had only agreed with what Ms. Jayalalithaa had said. Asked whether his action would not affect the interests of the State in the Cauvery tangle or the Nagappa kidnap, he replied in the negative. Stating that the National Democratic Alliance Government at the Centre might have a plan to hold mid-term polls to the Lok Sabha along with the Gujarat election, he said this might have forced the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to raise the citizenship issue. The merger of the Tamil Maanila Congress with the Congress in Tamil Nadu had forced her to resort to this kind of outburst. The regional parties indulged in such political games when national parties grew stronger, Mr. Gowda said. On the Cauvery imbroglio, he found fault with Ms. Jayalalithaa. The Central Water Commission had said that water should be measured at Biligondlu and not at Mettur Dam, which the Tamil Nadu Government did not agree to. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in its clarificatory order had said that the riparian States should approach it during distress. Instead, Tamil Nadu had approached the apex court. It was decided at the Cauvery River Authority meeting to have a pro-rata share of water, which, however, required a "basis." The water inflow changed in different seasons — month, week and even every hour in a particular water year. The monitoring committee had to work out the basis for the pro-rata share. But distress could be adjusted till December 31 and not immediately or as and when demanded, he added. This was because Tamil Nadu received north-east monsoon by the time the south-west monsoon ended here. He said instead of improving relations between the two States and respect the judgment on the citizenship issue, Ms. Jayalalithaa should not raise ``videshi and swadeshi issues.'' He wanted to know the provocation for such a move. It was time for her to bring the curtain down on these issues. Mr. Gowda, who returned from his tour of the Hemavathi command area, said that at least 900 cusecs of water had to be let into the river to save the crops and for drinking purposes. He said the deputy commissioners in the Cauvery basin in the State had been directed to educate farmers against sowing paddy or sugarcane. They should be encouraged to take up semi-dry crops, he added.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
