Mr.Modi....Nothing has changed! - Page 7

Originally posted by: Dhanvin-Jayant

he split from DMK family politics ,Jaya arrested him as he support LTTE ,he known how subramaniyam swamy irritated tamilians yet he support BJP last time congress vaiko known all these ,but still unavoidable to be part those party

Originally posted by: Dhanvin-Jayant

i waiting to see the modi bhakthars reaction😉

by miracle ,if NDA support tamil fishermen (TN assembly election on the way) hopefully  another U turn😊

Originally posted by: Dhanvin-Jayant

No body can insult a CM like this but what will be the reaction of india?

hope modi break his mouna virat
or else 2 month old govt can speak such a issue???😳

Originally posted by: PV1rocks

Aache Din For Bhutan - 4500 Crore
Aache Din for Nepal - $ 1 Billion

Aache din For India - ??????
still pak army killing indian jawan
still srilanka kills indian fishermen
china intrusion  India
rape increased day by day

Originally posted by: purplepunk

Ofcourse things have changed ! I m paying bloody more for my railway pass !

Originally posted by: Naveen_star

Congress is steady and stealthy selling off our land to our neighbors ,Why the hell we keep giving Indian territory, is it a compulsion of Indian leaders to gift Indian land? when BJP told the court there were no rights to the indian in kacchhatheevu ,people took a u trun in social media's they say tamil fishermen violating the maritime boundary rules

Originally posted by: ll-Anuska-ll

past is past atleast govt should try to save the life of fishermen or let the fishermen to take mutual decision ,

Originally posted by: Naveen_star

^^^who seen this argument as blind ? u can point anything on behalf of srilanka or supporting union govt  

This argument goes both ways and there's no point going in circles on this.

.

just by pointing books, i many time told quote from the book doesnt make any sense to me ,see its based on the writer,if u come to the conclusion i couldnt help ,how many author writing the books by historical and field research,writing by secondary sources doesnt make a complete history,still there is lot primary sources is there like copper plate, document  again and again u told the same dutch write ,french write ,english write why not ceylone writer too told kachchatheevu part of SL,why not i can write a book claim srilanka as part of india with vijain historical background ,400 yrs later people should stand as SL part of india??

Thousands of books have been used as valuable sources to arrive at conclusions. Instance: Babylonian religious books suggest they were used as school textbooks back then and these schools were attached to the temple. This conclusion has largely been accepted by the international community. Apart from that, books can be a primary, secondary or tertiary source. They aren't always secondary. Copper plates often have to be studied in surrounding context as can be misconstrued otherwise. If you don't follow books, your choice. 

I said," In addition to books, there are Portuguese, Dutch and British official documents and correspondences...". I have made it clear that there are official documents and correspondences ALSO that favour Sri Lankan claim. The Ramnad claim is based on official documents (Example: Treaty of 1660 is an official document) AMONG OTHER THINGS like the Sri Lankan claim. Sri Lankan writers have claimed ownership of Kachchatheevu. Example: Book called 'Maritime boundaries and Sri Lankan dispute'. More importantly, most Sri Lankans are least interested in proving ownership because for them, the matter is settled regardless of historical claims and nothing will be done about it. There is no dispute on ownership between the Republic of India and Republic of Sri Lanka. This dispute exists between the Indian Union and State of Tamil Nadu so Indians are the ones who are interested in proving total or partial ownership. The State of Tamil Nadu is using historical background to claim ownership of Kachchatheevu so why not use the same historical background and stand to incorporate Sri Lanka, Pakistan or even Bangladesh? The reasons are bilateral agreements that have already been signed, sovereignty, right to territorial integrity, international law, no strike first policy, and lack of political will, resources and alliances to lead a war.             

The research document, issued by the geographer, "U.S. Department of State - Bureau of Intelligence and Research" dated December 12,1975, has recorded ( with a disclaimer) that " The historicity of Palk -bay was resolved by the decision of Madras High Court in 1903-1904 in Annakumaru Pillai Vs Muthupayal case.ver the islet, Kachcha- theevu,  the ruler, Raja (King) of Ramnad had exercised sovereignty and  jurisdiction continuously; that was also recognised by the then rulers of Ceylon, the Dutch Company, as could be seen from the Treaty of 1660.The Raja of Ramnad had granted leases  of chank bed and the adjacent areas in 1870-1873,1875,1880, 1889. Also the documents, the Memoirs of the Governor of Ceylon from 1757 to 1762, the treaty of 1766 by King of Kandi , the letter of Lt .Governor of Ceylon in1845, clearly show that the islet  Kachcha theevu was under the sovereignty of king of  Ramnad, which  was a vassal State' of Brtish India.
After India became independent, the islet was part of Ramanathapuram district in Tamil Nadu; its survey number was 1250; it is so recorded in the Gazetteer- Ramanathapuram'   published in 1972 by Tamil Nadu Government. sri lankan writers also the same like they write whatever

I have stated two to three time already that there's enough evidence presented by both sides to claim ownership/administration of Kachchaveethu with both sides falsifying the other's claim or accepting it as a disputed territory. Nowhere have I stated that the King of Ramnad had no evidence of ownership. You copy-pasting all this information doesn't prove anything to me because I have made it clear that India HAS evidence in its favour. I presented Sri Lankan basis for claim because you said that the 1921 event was the "ONLY" claim.      

i could not understand the if a country claim a territory of indian before independence so u can gave away to them but another country claimed after Independence so its not belong to them,...what a joke  there is nation called pakistan born only after independent so they can claim the territory only after 1950s but srilanka excited from the ancient so time factors doesn't a matter here   stands of u regarding beru bari make me to laugh Nehru-noon accord doesnt make such mockery by indira did ,Indira consider as Durga by Bangladesh ppl so   she gave Dahagram and Agarpota the same time she gave away kachchatheevu to SL ,becoz indira Gandhi, had handed over Kachchatheevu due to her personal relations with then Sri Lankan Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike.Kachhatheevu not inhabited ,kind of porambokku land,but it make a significant in fishermen life today
its all done by Indira's own political gain.

Please quote where I took the stand that Nehru-Noon Accord doesn't or does make a mockery. I typed down what happened and could have happened and never took a stand on whether the issue is a mockery or not. I said Sri Lanka's claims exist since pre-independence days unlike Pakistan. Before I typed this sentence, I made clear what Radcliffe and Pakistan had done. To understand, you need to look at the context in which I made the statement, (i.e, Radcliffe's error, Pakistan's sleeping period, abandonment of Berubari by Pakistan, no attempt to make a claim at the tribunal in contrast to (Kingdom of Jaffna and colonial/independent Ceylon's) assertion since a long time which translates as pre-independence). Pakistan didn't take birth 'after' Indian independence. Pakistan became independent on 14th August, 1947. And are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I also said Pakistan's claim on J&K are valid because India agreed to hold a plebiscite provided the former country withdraws its military and China's claim on Aksai Chin is valid if India signs it away - both after independence?

I commented on Berubari because you said 'Judicial remedy was successfully pursued by BC Roy'. The main argument was that the court said that the exchange was not constitutional unless an amendment's made and an amendment was made in favour of cession. If Pakistan hadn't lost Bangladesh, the Amendment would have been upheld and Berubari would have stayed with Pakistan. Since Bangladesh was created, the Amendment was unimplementable. Yet the Nehru-Noon accord being a bilateral treaty couldn't simply be discarded unilaterally. India agreed to exchange Dahagram and Angarpota for Berubari instead of stretching the issue. Vajpayee was the person who gave IG the title of Maa Durga. He called her as such because she helped Bangladesh gain independence against the US which was seen as a big deal. IG didn't help Bangladesh gain independence because of sympathy for the cause but for a host of political reasons (Example: Weakening Pakistan through balkanisation). It's known in International Relations that no country really helps you out without personal motivation and Bangladesh too knows this. Dahagram and Angarpot were ceded for political reasons which include bilateral agreements, countering Pakistan using various measures and strengthening of diplomatic ties. Bangladeshis a few years later tried regaining Berubari on basis of historicity and accused their government of compromise. India refused to hand over the area's sovereignty but agreed to give it on lease. 

 

S.M krishna brainless  like H.Raja,What a load of Rubbish in their speech everytime 

You were the one who first stated that S. M. Krishna called the giving away of the islet unconstitutional. I quoted S. M. Krishna to prove that he said otherwise, is that why his speech became rubbish?

may u can made statement Kachchatheevu belong to srilanka and but they could not kill the fishermen who crossing the border but the situation entilry opposite in the field ,they are not only killing rameshwaram fisherman Nagapattnam,vedharaniyam fisherman too killed by though they are not crossing the border.

Kindly tell me where I said Sri Lankans could not kill fishermen or denied such killings that you are making this argument. I said "Killing of fishermen under the Law of the Sea ISN'T ALLOWED at all regardless of whether the fishermen are in your waters or some other country's." I made this point only because you said, "According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea...uninhabited Kachchatheevu islet,lying at a distance of 11 nautical miles from Ramanathapuram, fell within Indian waters so SL navy have no right to kill the fishermen." . Here, the conjunction you used implies causation for the correlation which isn't true. I have already made it clear once that the Sri Lankans are guilty of shooting and I'm very much with you on this.