NDA ally demands caste survey in Tamil Nadu, show of strength at conference
He slammed Chief Minister MK Stalin for 'misleading the Assembly' by claiming that the state lacked the authority to conduct a caste survey. 'How are Telangana, Karnataka, Andhra and Odisha able to do it then? Is Tamil Nadu in China or Japan?' he asked, drawing loud cheers from the crowd.He also called Chief Minister Stalin's current stance a betrayal and accused him of lying in Assembly. He asked how during the earlier regimes, both MGR and Stalin's father Karunanidhi were able to undertake caste-based data collection. 'If that is so, how did your father conduct the survey? How did MGR initiate door-to-door enumeration?'Questioning the ideological stance of the ruling party, Anbumani said, 'Lies are being propagated in the Assembly and outside. Isn't your ideology to provide for the underprivileged? Of the 115 communities in most backward classes, 114 comes to 6.8% while Vanniyar community comes up to 18%. It is not just enough to talk about Social Justice alone. You are not qualified to speak about Social Justice. The Chief Minister is lying that he does not have the authority,' Anbumani lashed out at the DMK government and the chief minister.advertisementAnbumani accused successive Dravidian parties of treating the Vanniyar community — one of the largest in Tamil Nadu — as just a vote bank. 'You remember us during elections. In 1957, 14 of DMK's 15 winning seats were in Vanniyar constituencies. Even today, there are 23 Vanniyar MLAs in the Assembly. Yet we still live in hutments and work as daily wagers,' he said.Ramadoss declared that 'extensive and historic protests' would be announced if the 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniyars was not implemented, adding that the community was ready to make 'any sacrifice necessary.'RESOLUTION AND POLITICAL SIGNALSAt the conference, PMK passed 14 resolutions, most focused on reservations. One demanded a separate caste survey by the state to supplement the Union government's caste census, arguing that without it, Tamil Nadu's unique 69% reservation quota could come under legal threat.'Without data, we will never know who is actually benefiting from reservations,' said Anbumani. 'If I were Chief Minister, my first order would be to conduct a caste survey. Lies are being propagated both inside and outside the Assembly. You cannot claim to stand for social justice while denying data and fair quotas.'He also called for extending reservations to the private sector, especially in Group B and C jobs that are increasingly outsourced, and proposed revenue-sharing models for land acquisition. 'If I decide to build a ten-lane highway, I will make the landowner a stakeholder, not hand it over to Adani or Ambani. Why should only they benefit?' he asked, taking aim at big corporates.advertisementHe criticised the DMK for failing to act on the recommendations of the Janardhanan Commission, which had suggested 13.1% internal reservation for the Vanniyar community, even while accepting similar recommendations for Arunthathiyars and Muslims.SOCIAL JUSTICE, NOT JUST INFRASTRUCTURE'This is not a show of strength, this is a call for justice,' Anbumani declared, addressing the massive turnout. 'Lakhs of my brothers and sisters have gathered here because they are fed up. The Vanniyar community and other backward classes have been repeatedly sidelined by the DMK government, which has no real concern for social justice.'He criticised the state's development priorities, stating, 'Real development isn't about malls, tech parks, smart cities, or highways. It's about empowering people through education and employment—and that is the core demand of this conference.' Stressing that the demand for a caste survey has been consistent for two years, he warned that protests would only intensify until the state government acts.advertisementPMK founder S Ramadoss issued a warning of 'extensive and historic protests' unless the state government acted on Vanniyar internal reservations. 'The community is ready to make any sacrifice,' he said, while also warning party office-bearers of consequences if their performance didn't improve.Despite internal power tussles and questions over his leadership, Anbumani struck a defiant and ambitious note. 'Until now, we've been a community that gives petitions. It's time we become the community that receives them.'TAKING AIM AT ACTOR-POLITICIAN VIJAYAnbumani warned young voters against 'those who speak cinema dialogues,' in a veiled swipe at actor-turned-politician Vijay. 'Don't go behind anyone else. Come behind me. I live for you. The time has come, we should rule.'He asserted that the PMK would decide its electoral alliances closer to the 2026 Assembly polls. 'Elections are 10 months away. We will take the decision at the right time,' he said, amid speculation over PMK's stance after the BJP-AIADMK alliance took shape without them.'If we come to power,' he concluded, 'we will make Tamil Nadu like Singapore — and implement true social justice.'On alliances, with AIADMK already finalising its pact with the BJP, Anbumani remained non-committal, saying, 'Elections are ten months away. We will decide at the right time.' PMK has been allied with the National Democratic Alliance, led by the BJP.advertisementHISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, MODERN OPTICSThis was the first time in 12 years that the Chithirai conference — historically significant for the Vanniyar community — was held, and it marked PMK's biggest outreach event, which gained importance amid renewed internal tensions and electoral uncertainty.Father and son — S Ramadoss and Anbumani — shared the stage at the conference despite their recent public spat over party leadership. Last month, the elder Ramadoss announced that he was resuming control of the PMK, effectively sidelining Anbumani, who was elected by the party's general council.At the conference, Anbumani took centre stage, outlining an aggressive roadmap focused on social justice and internal reservation for Vanniyars. The 2013 edition had led to caste clashes and the arrest of senior PMK leaders, including founder S Ramadoss.Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Juveniles, age of consent and justice: Explaining the wide conviction gap
An analysis of government data in the Supreme Court reveals a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing sharp focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. According to the Union government's latest submission to the Supreme Court, between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under Pocso, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63% . The statistics form part of the Centre's written submissions opposing any move to lower the age of consent under the Pocso Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the top court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. However, the wide gap between the registration of cases and convictions suggests that while these laws aim to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, they may also be pulling large numbers of adolescents and young people (mostly men) into the criminal justice system, often in cases involving consensual relationships that turn adversarial due to family or societal pressure. Convictions and sentencing For juveniles (16-18 years), Pocso convictions rose modestly from 144 in 2018 to 213 in 2022 even as the number of detentions rose from 844 to 1,757, which implies a conviction rate of just 12.12% in 2022. The majority received prison terms of up to 10 years. Life imprisonment was awarded in only 31 cases across five years, and there was no death penalty. For the same group, rape convictions remained flat, ranging from 83 to 110 per year, with over 85% receiving sentences of up to 10 years. Only eight juveniles, tried as adults under the pertinent legal provisions, received life terms during this period. Among young adults in the 18-22 years age group, convictions under Pocso grew from 1,213 in 2018 to 1,312 in 2022. However, even this increase is modest considering the scale of bookings under the Act. While 8,740 persons were apprehended in 2018, 13,068 were arrested in 2022. That translates to conviction rates of 13.88% in 2018 and 10.04% in 2022 under Pocso. Additionally, rape convictions dropped from 620 in 2018 to 476 in 2022, reflecting a 23.23% decline despite higher arrest figures. Life imprisonment was more common in this age group. 773 individuals received life terms for Pocso offences, while 238 did so for rape. A total of 22 young adults were awarded the death penalty over the five years, compared to just one juvenile. These statistics emerge at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation examining whether the blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity below the age of 18 under the Pocso Act requires re-examination. The law, enacted in 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 and makes even consensual acts between teenagers prosecutable. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amici curiae in the 2012 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena, have argued that the mandatory reporting requirement and lack of a close-in-age exception is leading to over-criminalisation, infringing on the autonomy, privacy, and health rights of adolescents, particularly girls. But the Union government has pushed back, telling the court that 'any dilution of the age of consent, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' In a recently filed affidavit, It has urged the court to uphold the 'bright-line' age of 18 to deter abuse and exploitation. Numbers suggest a need for nuance Data suggests that many of those convicted are themselves just a few years older than the complainants. The tables submitted by the government highlight that young men aged 18–22 are the most prosecuted group under Pocso, raising concerns that the protective intent of the law is being applied to penalise consensual relationships. For example, in 2022, 213 juveniles (16-18) were convicted under Pocso whereas 1,312 young adults (18-22) were convicted under the same Act -- over six times higher. Rape convictions for 18-22-year-olds (476) were also significantly higher than for juveniles (92). The sentencing trends further bolster the case for a more differentiated approach. A vast majority of both juveniles and young adults received sentences below 10 years, suggesting courts may be exercising discretion when faced with such cases, but only after the accused have undergone lengthy trials and detention. A legal and social dilemma The Centre's firm position against creating a 'close-in-age' exception, such as exempting consensual acts between teens aged 16-18, comes amid growing calls for a calibrated rethink. Several high courts, and even Supreme Court benches in bail and quashing proceedings, have flagged the problem of criminalising teenage love. Yet, the government has maintained that 'loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse under the guise of consensual activity,' and that the law must 'act as a strong deterrent… in a society where children, especially girls, are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and abuse.' At the heart of the debate lies the challenge of balancing protection with autonomy, ensuring minors are not exploited, while also preventing a legal system from punishing consensual and developmental relationships among peers. In her written submissions countering the Centre's stance, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and that increasing it to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase,' stated her submissions, adding the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended. Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals. 'Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious or inter-caste relationships,' she said. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Jaising's submissions added. The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to read into the impugned legal provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter next month, the numbers paint a sobering picture : thousands of adolescents and young adults are caught in the legal net each year, but only a fraction are ultimately held guilty, often after years of litigation. Whether this calls for legislative reform or judicial steps may now be for the court to decide but the data offers compelling reason to confront the unintended consequences of the current regime.
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi govt tables education bill to curb ‘arbitrary' fee hikes
In a move aimed at reining in 'arbitrary' fee hikes by private schools, Delhi education minister Ashish Sood on Monday introduced the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025 in the Assembly. The legislation, he said, will provide a 'permanent solution to a long-ignored issue that affects millions of parents and children in Delhi.' Delhi chief minister Rekha Gupta at the Delhi legislative assembly on Monday. (HT Photo) The draft bill, which was approved by the Delhi Cabinet in April, covers all 1,677 private unaided schools in the Capital. It proposes sweeping reforms to the fee regulation system, including a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism, penalties of up to ₹10 lakh for violations, and a mandatory role for parents in deciding fee structures. 'Today, I bring before this House a permanent solution to a long-ignored issue… The purpose of education is not to generate profit, but to ensure learning and nation-building,' said Sood, invoking the central government's resolution of 'legacy issues' such as the Ram Mandir, Article 370, and the Chenab Bridge. 'The Delhi government is similarly resolving critical and complex issues -- one of the most pressing being the unchecked rise in private school fees,' he said. Sood said the bill takes a bottom-up approach. 'This is a true embodiment of government of the people, by the people, for the people. Parents will now have a say in the decision-making process.' A discussion on the bill is expected in the Assembly on Tuesday. Chief minister Rekha Gupta endorsed the bill, writing on X that it would 'strictly curb the commercialization of education. Action will now be taken against those who are selling education like a product.' The bill proposes the formation of three key committees: the School Level Fee Regulation Committee, the District Fee Appellate Committee, and the Revision Committee. It bars any school from collecting fees in excess of what has been approved under the act. The school-level committee – comprising parents, teachers, and management – must be set up by July 15 each year. Fee proposals must be submitted by July 31 and approved by September 15. If the committee fails to decide on the fees, the school can escalate the matter to the District Appellate Committee by September 30. Disputes must be resolved within 45 days at each appellate level, with the final authority resting with the Revision Committee, whose rulings will be binding for three years. Section 8 of the bill lists the criteria for determining fees – school location, infrastructure, teacher salaries, and revenue surplus. Section 12 details penalties: unauthorized hikes can invite fines between ₹1– ₹10 lakh, doubling every 20 days until compliance. Repeat offenders will be required to refund excess fees and may lose recognition if violations continue. Principals of several schools welcomed the move. 'This is a positive step toward ensuring that fee structures reflect the quality of education provided,' said Sudha Acharya, principal of ITL Public School, Dwarka. 'Most schools are already preparing to set up the required committees. We're waiting to see how the law will be implemented.' Minakshi Kushwaha, principal of Birla Vidya Niketan in Pushp Vihar said the bill may not be able to solve the long standing issue of fee hikes, adding that the bill needs to be revisited. 'Firstly, the clause of social inclusion where a person from backward community has to be included in the committee may not be feasible for each school. Secondly, formation of committees and how their members are selected may lead to either kickbacks from the school or standoff between parents and the school in case of disagreement. Finally, the government should not dilute the autonomy of private schools in determining their fees,' she said. However, the opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) slammed the legislation, calling it a 'sham bill' that legalises profiteering and sidelines parent voices. Leader of Opposition Atishi demanded that it be sent to a select committee. 'After letting private schools hike fees unchecked for four months, the BJP now brings a sham bill that hands control to school owners, blocks parent voices, and protects profiteers. The AAP will fight it in the Assembly, on the streets, and in court. We have demanded that the bill be sent to a Select Committee and all fee hikes frozen at 2024–25 levels,' Atishi said.
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Opposition loves anti-national forces, sees reflection in them': Delhi CM amid praise for Op Sindoor, PM Modi
Even as Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Monday lashed out at the Opposition parties and hailed Operation Sindoor and Prime Minister Narendra Modi for protecting the dignity 'of our sisters', Leader of Opposition Atishi questioned the imposition of ceasefire during the military operation. The political war of words happened on Monday in the Assembly as the Monsoon session began. 'Operation Sindoor was a response to the silent suffering of India's daughters and sisters. By acting as a courageous father, a compassionate brother, and a resolute national leader, the Prime Minister has upheld the dignity and empowered the spirit of Indian women,' the CM remarked. The operation by the tri-services was launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed 26 lives. Her remarks came as she addressed the House during a debate on Operation Sindoor and Operation Mahadev, in which the perpetrators of the terror attack were killed recently. Calling the Operation Sindoor a 'befitting reply' to Pakistan, the CM stepped up the attack on the Opposition. 'These people (Opposition) do not love Bharat, but they love anti-national forces because they see their own reflection in them. They are not inspired by India's progress — they would rather see the nation held back,' she claimed. Hitting out at the Congress-led INDIA bloc, she said, 'The Opposition parties came together to form an alliance. Only its name has INDIA in it but if you listen to them, they sound as if they are the spokesperson of Pakistan…they even raised numerous questions on Operation Sindoor in Parliament recently…They don't trust their own military and refuse to believe their own Prime Minister, and instead place their faith in foreign powers.' She stressed that the Indian armed forces continue to defend the nation with the same courage and commitment they displayed during the wars of 1965 and 1971. 'Why did our governments return captured territories under pressure after the 1965 war? Why did we accept mediation from the United Nations and the United States? And in 1971, after capturing 93,000 Pakistani soldiers, why were they released unconditionally?' she asked, attacking the previous Congress-led governments. On the other hand, former CM and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Atishi questioned the imposition of the ceasefire. 'Our army could have decisively wiped out Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, but that didn't happen because of BJP's cowardice. PM Narendra Modi got scared of US President Trump's threats. Trump has publicly said over 25 times that he threatened to shut down trade — that is why India backed out,' she alleged. AAP MLA Sanjeev Jha also questioned the declaration of ceasefire and used words that the Speaker directed to be expunged from the records after he allegedly made a derogatory statement against the PM. Meanwhile, Delhi Education Minister Ashish Sood tabled the Bill to regulate fee hike by private schools in the Capital. He also claimed that they got 'threats' from education mafias against the BIll.
