IND34889 Country: India Date: 10 June 2009

Home , Dayanidhi Maran, Dravidar Kazhagam, Vaiko, Vijayakanth

Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: IND34889 Country: India Date: 10 June 2009

Keywords: India– Tamil Nadu – Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) – Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) – Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK / TNMMK) – Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) / Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – Muslims – Tamil speakers – relocation

This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein.

Questions

1. Please provide an update on the situation of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). 2. Please provide an update on the situation of the MDMK in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)/ Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). 3. Please provide an update on the situation of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the DMK. 4. Please provide an update on the situation of the TMMK in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the RSS. 5. Please provide an update on the general situation of Muslims in Tamil Nadu. 6. With regard to the possibility of relocation: are there significant numbers of Tamil speaking Muslims in other states?

RESPONSE

1. Please provide an update on the situation of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

The relationship between the DMK and MDMK has been characterized by factionalism, defections and shifting alliances. The Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK)

is the vehicle of V.Gopalsamy (Vaiko), a Tamil Nadu politician who has remained one of the staunchest supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Dravidian politics. Vaiko launched the MDMK in May 1994 to split the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party which had expelled him in November 1993. “Officially, the DMK expelled Vaiko for his continued support for Tamil militancy in Sri Lanka (a hot potato in Tamil Nadu ever since Rajiv Gandhi was killed)”. It has also been claimed that Vaiko‟s expulsion was linked to a power struggle between Vaiko and DMK leader Muthuvel Karunanidhi (Vaiko was allegedly proving disruptive of Karunanidhi‟s plans to favour his son, Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, as successor to the DMK leadership) („Will Jayalalithaa split the DMK alliance?‟ 2006, Rediff News, 17 February http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/18flip.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 38; Subramanian, T.S. 2002, „A crackdown in Tamil Nadu‟, Frontline, 20 July / 2 August, vol.19: no.15 http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1915/19150200.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 37).

The MDMK has, since its formation, entered into a range of alliances with competing political parties at both the state and the national level. Tamil Nadu politics has, in recent years, been dominated by the DMK, on the one hand, and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) on the other, and at different times the MDMK has aligned itself with both of these two parties (reconciling or splitting from the AIADMK and the DMK alternately). The two major poles of power at the national level, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) of the Indian National Congress (INC or Congress) have also enjoyed the swinging support of the MDMK at different moments. The AIADMK and the DMK have, likewise, also moved between the BJP-led NDA and the Congress-led UPA according to opportunity and circumstance (Vinoj Kumar, P.C. 2006, „Will Wit‟s Warhorse Win?‟, Tehelka, 15 April http://www.tehelka.com/story_main17.asp?filename=Ne041506up_close.asp – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 39; „The see-saw battle‟ 2004, The Hindu, 1 February http://www.hindu.com/2004/02/01/stories/2004020100491600.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 43).

In Tamil Nadu state the MDMK is currently aligned with the AIADMK-led opposition having joined with the AIADMK in March 2006 in the lead up to the 2006 Tamil Nadu state elections (prior to this the MDMK had for a time been reconciled and aligned with the DMK). The DMK, on the other hand, currently rules the Tamil Nadu state assembly governing with the Congress Party as its principal coalition partner. At the national level it appears likely that the DMK will support the Congress-led UPA government in the newly elected 15th Lok Sabha (though in May 2009 there was, for a time, talk that the DMK would break from the UPA over DMK dissatisfaction with power sharing arrangements in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh‟s second term cabinet). The MDMK is presently non-aligned at the national level having competed in the 2009 elections as part of an AIADMK combine. As is noted above the MDMK has served, at the national level, in both BJP-led NDA and Congress-led UPA coalitions (as have the DMK and the AIADMK). The MDMK contested the 2004 national election on the UPA ticket but left the Congress-led alliance in March 2007 complaining that the Singh government had failed the MDMK on a number of issues including the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The MDMK promised, nonetheless, to continue to support the Singh government on other issues from outside the UPA coalition. Recent reports, however, have rumoured that the MDMK is once again drifting back towards the BJP-led NDA (for the March 2006 split from the DMK to the AIADMK, see: „Vaiko joins Jaya ranks‟ 2006, The Statesman, 5 March – Attachment 40; and: Vaiko strikes poll alliance with AIADMK‟ 2006, The Hindu, 5 March – Attachment 41; for the DMK‟s current

relationship with the Congress-led central government, see: „Berth row solved, DMK to join UPA government‟ 2009, Express Buzz, source: Indo-Asian News Service, 24 May http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Berth+row+solved,+DMK+to+join+U PA+government&artid=Czv%7CLoEPoj4=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b 7ziAYMenjw=&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=&SEO=karunanidhi,%20cabinet – Accessed 10 June 2009 – Attachment 46; and: Bhattacharya, S. 2009, „In India, the comedy of power- sharing‟, Asia Times, 2 June http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KF02Df02.html – Accessed 5 June 2009 – Attachment 14; for the March 2007 split from the UPA, see: „MDMK withdraws support to UPA Government‟ 2007, OneIndia, source: United News of India, 16 March http://news.oneindia.in/2007/03/16/mdmk-withdraws-support-to-upa- government.html – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 42; for the AIADMK combine in the 2009 national elections, see: „AIADMK combine will sweep elections: Vaiko‟ 2009, The Hindu, 5 March http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/05/stories/2009030553640400.htm – Accessed 10 June 2009 – Attachment 45; Venkataramanan, K. 2009, „DMK-Cong proves pollsters wrong‟, Times of India, 17 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/DMK-Cong-proves-pollsters- wrong/articleshow/4541157.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 3; see also: Srinivasan, G. 2009, „DMK, MDMK lock horns for the second time‟, The Hindu, 14 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/14/stories/2009041457740700.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 5; for recent rumours of a drift towards the BJP, see: „Upset with AIADMK, MDMK mulling talks with NDA‟ 2009, Thaindian, source: Indo-Asian News Service, 2 April http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/upset-with-aiadmk-mdmk-mulling-talks-with- nda_100174673.html – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 44).

While MDMK and DMK activists have reportedly clashed in previous years no reports of any such clashes during the recent April/May 2009 national elections could be located in the brief time in which this research was completed. This said, in the aftermath of the election there have been reports of a number of MDMK activists being rounded up by Tamil Nadu police in connection with an incident which reportedly took place on 2 May 2009. According to United News of India: “On May 2, over 200 activists belonging to Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (PDK) and the MDMK blocked and damaged four military trucks and a private truck carrying military equipment” rumored to be destined for Sri Lanka (for the recent arrests, see: „6 more held in Army vehicle attack case‟ 2009, United News of India, 29 May – Attachment 11; for rumours of the supply of weapons to Sri Lanka‟s armed forces by India see: „Jaya will be the next PM: Vaiko‟ 2009, webindia123.com, 3 May http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090503/1244382.html – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 12; for clashes between DMK and MDMK activists in Tamil Nadu‟s October 2006 Chennai municipal elections, see: Subramanian, T.S. 2006, „Farce in Chennai, Frontline, 21 October – 3 November http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20061103003712900.htm&date=fl 2321/&prd=fline& – Accessed 2 November 2006 – Attachment 47; for the February 2007 disruption of an AIADMK/MDMK event by DMK activists, see: „Jayalalithaa flays arrest of AIADMK activists‟ 2007, The Hindu, 12 February http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/12/stories/2007021205730400.htm – Accessed 12 July 2007 – Attachment 48).

It may also be of interest that on 1 June 2009 The Hindu reported that: “A case was registered against MDMK general secretary Vaiko under Section 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) for a statement he had made on Friday”, 29 May 2009. The report continues:

A release issued by the police department said that, in a speech at Purasawalkam in a rally taken out by the Sri Lankan Tamils‟ Protection Movement, Mr.Vaiko had alleged that Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi had instigated the attack on the office of film director Bharathiraja on May 16. Following this, the Vepery police station had registered a case on Sunday under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code. („Case registered against Vaiko‟ 2009, The Hindu, 1 June http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/01/stories/2009060157510100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 13).

For previous research on the manner in which MDMK activists have been involved in street violence and other events of interest, see the following:

 RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32018, 13 July – Attachment 49 (Q1 Arrest of supporters in July 2002 Q2 Situation to 2007 of members and supporters Q3 Current political position of Party since May 2006 state elections)  RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response IND30817, 3 November – Attachment 50 (Q5 background – May 2006 election Tamil Nadu – Q7 arrest of Vaiko Gopalsamy under POTA – Q8 support of LTTE)

With regard to the current relationship between the MDMK and the DMK an overview of notable reports follows below.

The MDMK and the DMK – recent reports

In February 2009 India‟s Frontline magazine published an assessment of how the various Tamil Nadu parties were shaping up with, or against, each other in the lead up to the 2009 national elections, noting that the Sri Lankan government offensive against the LTTE, as well as resulting Tamil casualties, was becoming a hot political issue in Tamil Nadu politics. According to this report, a number of Tamil Nadu parties including the MDMK were becoming more vocal in their demands for the Congress-led national government to take actions to protect Tamil interests in Sri Lanka, while DMK was attempting to manage criticism of its continued alliance with the Congress party. Extracts follow:

WHEN the executive committee of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which rules Tamil Nadu, met in Chennai on February 3, the mood in the State was sombre. On that day, several newspapers had published on their front pages, reports on the bombing of the children‟s ward of a hospital in Pudukudiyiruppu in Mullaithivu district of Sri Lanka, resulting in the death of many children and adults.

Since October 2008 opposition has built up in Tamil Nadu to the bombing of Tamil areas by the Sri Lanka Air Force and the artillery barrage by the Army. Political parties organised a series of demonstrations demanding that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre put pressure on Colombo to bring about a ceasefire. Lawyers, college students and schoolchildren, too, organised agitations in January 2009. On January 29, Muthukumar, 26, set himself on fire in Chennai, accusing the Centre of “becoming blind to the Sri Lankan Tamil issue”.

The DMK, which is a constituent of the UPA, leads the Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA) in Tamil Nadu, of which the Congress is a constituent. In the end of January, the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), the Dalit Panthers of India (DPI), the Tamil Nationalist Movement and others formed an umbrella organisation called the Sri Lankan Tamil

Protection Movement to press for a ceasefire and to drum up support to protect the island‟s Tamils.

These parties were sore that New Delhi did not take up with Colombo the ceasefire issue. They alleged that Tamil Nadu‟s demand did not figure in New Delhi‟s talks with Colombo when External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon visited Colombo in January.

The DMK, led by its president and Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, had been consistently asking for a ceasefire and was hurt that the Centre had not responded to its pleas. The Sri Lankan Tamil Protection Movement called a bandh on February 4 but the DMK government termed it illegal, citing a Supreme Court order.

The call received a mixed response. While buses, trains and private vehicles operated, shops remained closed in some parts of the State. The call evoked good response in Kanchipuram, Tiruvallur, Cuddalore, Vellore and Villupuram districts where the PMK and the DPI have influence. DPI leader Thol. Tirumavalavan alleged that the Sri Lanka Air Force dropped internationally banned cluster bombs in Tamil areas.

Much to the disappointment of the Tamil Protection Movement, the DMK executive, meeting under the chairmanship of Karunanidhi, firmly signalled that it had fallen in line with the Congress-led government‟s stance on the issue. It resolved to set up a “Sri Lankan Tamils Welfare and Rights Forum” to press for a ceasefire and find a solution through democratic methods to the ethnic conflict.

…A couple of days earlier, the DMK had toyed with the idea of withdrawing its Ministers in the Union Cabinet to signal its unhappiness over New Delhi‟s failure to secure a ceasefire. When the DMK‟s representative, former Union Minister Dayanidhi Maran, met Congress president Sonia Gandhi and informed her about the DMK‟s plan to pull out its Ministers, the latter declined to accept it, informed sources said. According to these sources, she also shot down a proposal that the Ministers would resign but the party would continue to support the Manmohan Singh government. During the meeting, she was briefed about the “machinations” of the PMK to drive a wedge between the Congress and the DMK.

…The reasons for the DMK toeing the Congress line are not far to seek. The Sri Lankan Tamil problem has been a sensitive issue for the Congress since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991. (India proscribed the LTTE in 1992.) It is a sensitive issue for the DMK as well because the DMK government, led by Karunanidhi, was dismissed by the Chandra Shekhar government at the Centre in January 1991 on the allegation that it was passing on sensitive information to the LTTE.

In the past few months, the DPA has become truncated with the exit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the CPI. In a hasty move, which it later rued, the DMK had earlier shown the PMK the door. The CPI(M) and the CPI are now with the rival camp led by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), in which the MDMK is already a partner.

With Lok Sabha elections round the corner, the DMK is desperately short of allies. It has with it only the Congress, the DPI and the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) now. So there was no way the DMK would have distanced itself from the Congress however emotive the Sri Lankan Tamil issue might have become.

Besides, the DMK government is dependent on Congress support for its survival. From October 2008, the plight of Tamil civilians in northern Sri Lanka started dominating the political scene in Tamil Nadu, with the CPI, the DPI and the PMK organising agitations.

…Meanwhile, the MDMK, the PMK and the CPI started training their guns on the DMK. MDMK general secretary Vaiko‟s refrain was that it was India that was executing the war against the LTTE on behalf of Sri Lanka by providing it with military assistance and intelligence. “The Sinhala war to exterminate the Tamil race is a conspiracy plotted by the Government of India,” Vaiko alleged (Subramanian, T.S. 2009, „Political tension‟, Frontline, 14-27 February, vol.26: no.4 http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2604/stories/20090227260401900.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 1).

In March 2009 there were reports of MDMK members of parliament defecting to the DMK. On 23 March 2009 The Hindu reported

Members of Parliament and erstwhile leaders of the MDMK, L. Ganesan and Gingee N. Ramachandran, formally joined the Dravida Munentra Kazhagam in the presence of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi here on Tuesday.

Mr. Ganesan was formerly MDMK‟s presidium chairman and Mr. Ramachandran, deputy general secretary. They were among the founding members of the party and had left the DMK along with Vaiko, now the MDMK general secretary, to form the party 15 years ago.

Mr. Ganesan and Mr. Ramachandran contended that the MDMK did not tread the path it said it would. “Do you need another party to articulate your party‟s policies,” asked Mr. Ramachandran, roundly criticising the MDMK and Mr. Vaiko for using the Sri Lankan Tamils issue to further his own interests.

Both were of the view that the MDMK aligning with the AIADMK was a big mistake.

Welcoming the leaders and their followers back into the DMK, Mr. Karunanidhi said that though he was upset with the split within the DMK that created the MDMK, he had wanted the DMK and the MDMK to continue in the CPI–CPI (M) model. “LG was for the idea. Gingee liked it. Many friends in the party said they should look at the proposal. But, one leader was against it.”

He described Mr. Ganesan, Mr. Ramachandran and others who left the party as children who were kidnapped under the cover of darkness.

Former Tiruvarur district secretary of MDMK, Thiyaga Bharati, and hundreds of others also joined the DMK. DMK treasurer M.K. Stalin handed over to them the red-and-black border dhotis signifying their entry to the party. Mr. Karunanidhi announced that MDMK leader and MLA, M. Kannappan, would join the DMK on March 23. A function was being held at Anna Arivalayam for his inclusion, he said. Mr. Kannappan was kept away from the MDMK merely because he visited him in hospital, Mr. Karunanidhi said (http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/18/stories/2009031854240400.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 2).

On 17 May 2009 The Times of India reported on the result of national election voting in Tamil Nadu. The “DMK-Congress combine” reportedly “mopped up 28 of the 40 seats in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry” while “the opposition AIADMK-Left-PMK-MDMK combine could bag only 12 seats”. The report relates that: the DMK‟s success came in spite of the fact that former allies, like the MDMK, had deserted to join the AIADMK. The MDMK itself reportedly did poorly: “MDMK leader and pro-LTTE icon Vaiko and two of his other three party candidates suffered losses. MDMK‟s sole consolation victory at Erode was at the expense of Union minister of state for commerce Elangovan”. Extracts follow:

CHENNAI: In a verdict that belied pre-poll projections, the DMK-Congress combine overcame its incumbency disadvantage and mopped up 28 of the 40 seats in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. With Vijayakanth‟s DMDK splitting up the anti-establishment vote, the opposition AIADMK-Left-PMK-MDMK combine could bag only 12 seats, in tandem with the poor performance of the third front in the rest of the country.

The DMK won 18 of the 22 seats it contested, up from 16 last time; for the Congress, nine of the 16 candidates, including one in Puducherry, made it.

…AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa‟s strategy of rallying forces with the PMK, the MDMK and the Left failed to work, with just nine of the AIADMK‟s 23 candidates winning their seats. Her allies could only bag another three. Voters appeared to endorse the DMK government‟s welfare schemes and reject criticism of its ambivalent stand on Sri Lanka.

Having swept the polls in 2004 with an umbrella alliance, DMK was handicapped this time by the loss of four partners from that combination to the AIADMK front. That the PMK, MDMK, CPI and CPM could not together bring down the DMK‟s tally spoke for the ruling party‟s performance. This is the first time that the DMK front has won back-to-back victories in Tamil Nadu in a Lok Sabha election.

…In the final analysis, AIADMK-led front appeared to have also paid a heavy price for the presence of the DMDK in the fray: Vijayakanth managed to split a sizeable chunk of the anti- incumbency vote in several areas, leaving Jaya and her allies lagging behind the DMK- Congress combine by slender margins.

…MDMK leader and pro-LTTE icon Vaiko and two of his other three party candidates suffered losses. MDMK‟s sole consolation victory at Erode was at the expense of Union minister of state for commerce Elangovan.

…Vijayakanth takes home little consolation save the satisfaction of having spoiled the chances of the two main fronts, especially Vaiko in Virudhunagar, where the DMDK‟s K Pandiarajan polled nearly 1.25 lakh votes, while Vaiko‟s margin of defeat to Manik Tagore of Congress was just over 16,000 votes (Venkataramanan, K. 2009, „DMK-Cong proves pollsters wrong‟, Times of India, 17 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/DMK-Cong-proves-pollsters- wrong/articleshow/4541157.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 3; see also: Srinivasan, G. 2009, „DMK, MDMK lock horns for the second time‟, The Hindu, 14 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/14/stories/2009041457740700.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 5).

A 19 May 2009 The Times of India report provides analysis of the performances of the various parties contesting the 2009 national election in Tamil Nadu. The report relates that: “the MDMK‟s vote share fell from 5.9% to 3.7%”. Extracts follow:

How did the DMK-Congress alliance manage to dominate the elections in Tamil Nadu despite losing allies like PMK, Left and MDMK between the last elections and this one? The answer arguably lies in one man and his phenomenal rise in the state‟s politics. That man is Vijayakanth.

Between them, the PMK, Left and MDMK had polled 18.5% of the state‟s votes last time. Take that away from the 57.5% that the DMK-led alliance had polled last time and you‟re left with 39%. Add the same amount to the AIADMK‟s 29.8% vote share in 2004 and the result should have been 48.3%, giving Jayalalithaa‟s front a clear lead.

But that‟s arithmetic, not politics. The fact is that things didn‟t quite work out according to this mathematical script. One part of it more or less did – despite contesting more seats this time, DMK and Congress between them managed to raise their vote share only a tad from a combined 39% last time to 40.1% this time. Even after adding the 2.4% that the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) added to this alliance‟s tally, it should not have been enough to outdo the rival combine if the script had played out accurately.

However, the other half of the script – the adding together of votes in the AIADMK-led front – went horribly awry. The AIADMK‟s vote share dropped from 29.8% to 22.9%, while the MDMK‟s vote share fell from 5.9% to 3.7%. The PMK also saw its share drop by a percentage point and the Left parties lost another 0.8%. Thus, the alliance as a whole got 37.4% of the votes rather than the 48%-plus that the arithmetic would have suggested.

That‟s where Vijayakanth and his Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) come into the picture. Part of the fall in the AIADMK‟s votes can be explained by the fact that the party contested fewer seats this time than it did last time thanks to a plethora of allies. However, a more crucial factor was that the DMDK performed as well as it did.

None of the DMDK‟s 39 candidates got less than 35,000 votes and only three got fewer than 50,000. As many as nine candidates polled over a lakh of votes. In all, the DMDK garnered close to 31 lakh votes in the state, just a touch over 10% of the total. Look at that a little differently and what it means is that the party polled an average of over 78,000 votes per constituency.

It appears clear that much of this was the anti-DMK vote rather than those who were likely to vote for the incumbents. In the final analysis, therefore, Vijayakanth may actually have done the Congress and DMK a favour by not forging an alliance with them. For the longer term, these elections would appear to have signaled the arrival of one more serious player in Tamil Nadu‟s politics. DMDK had earlier shown it could make an impact on assembly polls, but being able to influence Lok Sabha polls is a different ball game and one that the DMDK has now shown it can play („Captain sank Amma‟s ship‟ 2009, Times of India, 19 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Captain-sank-Ammas-ship/articleshow/4549472.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 4).

On 2 June 2009 The Times of India reported from Tamil Nadu that: “Chief minister [and DMK leader] M Karunanidhi has slapped a legal notice on MDMK general secretary Vaiko, for having claimed that it was the chief minister who orchestrated the violent attack on the office premises of film director Bharathiraja”. The report follows:

Warning of criminal defamation proceedings against Vaiko unless he tendered unconditional apology for the speech, as reported by a Tamil daily on May 31, Karunanidhi‟s advocate A Saravanan said the statement was “inappropriate, made in bad taste and solely intended to harm the reputation” of the chief minister.

According to the notice, Vaiko, addressing a meeting organised to condemn the vandalism, alleged that it was Karunanidhi who arranged the attack, and that he was aware of the vandalism. “It was held after Karunanidhi gave his consent,” Vaiko had reportedly said.

Noting that the impugned defamatory statements were made with malafide intentions, Saravanan said Vaiko levelled such accusations because his party had fared poorly in the recent general elections. The statement is solely intended to lower the reputation of the chief minister and other government officials, the chief minister‟s counsel said, adding, “before issuing such statements, you should have verified the truth and veracity in making such accusations. The statement was not based on any truth, which public good requires.”

The defamatory action was punishable under section 499, 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, Saravanan said, and demanded an unconditional apology from Vaiko within 24 hours from the receipt of the notice. („MK slaps legal notice on Vaiko‟ 2009, Times of India, 2 June http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/MK-slaps-legal-notice-on- Vaiko/articleshow/4605946.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 6).

Other MDMK news of note – recent reports

On 29 May 2009 United News of India reported that a number of MDMK activists had been arrested “in connection with [a] May 2 attack on Army vehicles”. According to the report: “On May 2, over 200 activists belonging to Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (PDK) and the MDMK blocked and damaged four military trucks and a private truck carrying military equipment” rumoured to be destined for Sri Lanka. Extracts follow:

The Police today arrested six more persons in connection with the May 2 attack on Army vehicles here. Police said Kuttimani alias Veeramani (24), Prakash (31), Nehru Das (28), Somasundaram (40) all members of Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam), Simon (29) (MDMK) and Human rights Commission Member Perumal were arrested. With this, the police had so far arrested 41 persons in connection with the case. On May 2, over 200 activists belonging to Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (PDK) and the MDMK blocked and damaged four military trucks and a private truck carrying military equipment. The incident occurred following a rumour around 80 military vehicles were on way to Kochi from Bangalore with arms meant for Sri Lanka. However, police claimed the military vehicles were returning to Madhukkarai 110 Military Battalion after training for personnel at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. The agitation was led by PDK general secretary K Ramakrishnan.

On recommendation of District SP Kannan, the District Collector ordered the arrest of Ramakrishnan under the National Security Act (NSA)a few days back. The Police today arrested six more persons in connection with the May 2 attack on Army vehicles here. Police said Kuttimani alias Veeramani (24), Prakash (31), Nehru Das (28), Somasundaram (40) all members of Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam), Simon (29) (MDMK) and Human rights Commission Member Perumal were arrested. With this, the police had so far arrested 41 persons in connection with the case („6 more held in Army vehicle attack case‟ 2009, United News of India, 29 May – Attachment 11; for rumours of the supply of weapons to Sri Lanka‟s armed forces by India see: „Jaya will be the next PM: Vaiko‟ 2009, webindia123.com, 3 May http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090503/1244382.html – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 12).

On 1 June 2009 The Hindu reported that: “A case was registered against MDMK general secretary Vaiko under Section 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) for a statement he had made on Friday”, 29 May 2009. The report continues:

Other DMK news of note – recent reports

The DMK is currently seeking rewards from the Congress-led national government for having supported the Congress-led alliance in the recent national polls. On 2 June 2009 the

Asia Times reported that the huge victory won by the Congress party meant that the DMK was unlikely to wield as much influence over the Congress-led government in the current parliament. Extracts follow:

Such a composite play offers all the pleasures of a minefield. The first major explosion – actually a series of sharp ones – was reported as Muthuvel Karunanidhi, the chief of Congress‟s southern ally Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), rode into town with his entire entourage of sons, daughters, grand-nephews and other grandees, all aspiring ministers. Having scripted a win that no one would have bet their money on, the wheelchair-bound Karunanidhi expected to be handsomely rewarded with plum portfolios, no less than nine. Three cabinet berths and the rest junior ministers.

Surprising though it may seem for a group of top Tamil politicians, no one here had Sri Lanka on their minds. No talk of the Tamil refugees herded into camps in the warzone, of relief measures, or of the need to put pressure on Colombo to ensure a political package is worked out for the island‟s long-suffering Tamil population. The emotive election was past – the rhetoric had already delivered the votes. Now was the time to stake claim to your own relief package, to stock up on ammo to take care of the coming five years.

In the outgoing government, the DMK held plum infrastructure portfolios: shipping, surface transport, IT and communications, to name a few. This time, they not only wanted what they had but some more, such as railways, health and commerce. But between 2004 and now, a key equation had changed. From being a 145-member party in parliament, very much at the mercy of its coalition partners, the Congress has regained its stature with 206 seats. It would not yield so easily to “friendly” bullying. Karunanidhi left Delhi in a huff, threatening not to join the government. A few days of sulk ended with a bit of cajoling over the phone by the prime minister, and he returned meekly to accept whatever was on offer.

Finally, the DMK had to settle for textiles, chemicals and fertilizers plus IT and communications – all ministries that oversee those particular sectors. And, a few junior ministers of state, a subordinate position, to sugar-coat the deal. (Work allocation to junior ministers largely depends on the cabinet minister‟s whims. Often they are left with very little to do except answering difficult parliamentary questions.) The DMK had been cut to size. If Karunanidhi accepted the deal, it was only because it helped him control the vaulting ambitions in his own ranks (Bhattacharya, S. 2009, „In India, the comedy of power-sharing‟, Asia Times, 2 June http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KF02Df02.html – Accessed 5 June 2009 – Attachment 14).

2. Please provide an update on the situation of the MDMK in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)/ Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

As is noted above in response to Question 1 the MDMK has, at different times, shifted its allegiance at the national level from the BJP to the Congress party alternately. The MDMK is presently non-aligned at the national level and it is not yet clear how the support of its solitary seat in the national assembly will be employed in the 15th Lok Sabha. The MDMK contested the 2004 national election on the UPA ticket but left the Congress-led alliance in March 2007 complaining that the Singh government had failed the MDMK on a number of issues including the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The MDMK promised, nonetheless, to continue to support the Singh government on other issues from outside the UPA coalition. Recent reports, however, have rumoured that the MDMK is once again drifting back towards

the BJP-led NDA. BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani appeared to speak to MDMK workers in the lead up to the recent national election (for the March 2007 split from the UPA, see: „MDMK withdraws support to UPA Government‟ 2007, OneIndia, source: United News of India, 16 March http://news.oneindia.in/2007/03/16/mdmk-withdraws-support-to-upa- government.html – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 42; for the AIADMK combine in the 2009 national elections and the MDMK‟s solitary win, see: Venkataramanan, K. 2009, „DMK-Cong proves pollsters wrong‟, Times of India, 17 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/DMK-Cong-proves-pollsters- wrong/articleshow/4541157.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 3; and: Srinivasan, G. 2009, „DMK, MDMK lock horns for the second time‟, The Hindu, 14 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/14/stories/2009041457740700.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 5; for reports suggesting BJP interest in wooing MDMK support, see: „Upset with AIADMK, MDMK mulling talks with NDA‟ 2009, Thaindian, source: Indo-Asian News Service, 2 April http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/upset-with-aiadmk-mdmk- mulling-talks-with-nda_100174673.html – Accessed 9 June 2009 – Attachment 44; „Brutal use of force against Tamils in Lanka should end: Advani‟ 2009, United News of India, 14 January – Attachment 8; „BJP cautious on Vaiko‟s speech‟ 2009, The Hindu, 11 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/11/stories/2009041162171000.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 7; „Jaya hey! BJP‟s caller tune‟ 2009, Economic Times, 15 May http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Jaya-hey-BJPs-caller- tune/articleshow/4532121.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 10).

An overview of the source information follows.

On 14 January 2009 United News of India reported that BJP leader, L.K. Advani, had addressed “hundreds of MDMK cadres and activists of pro-Eelam outfits who began a day- long fast under the leadership of MDMK chief Vaiko” in support of the Tamil nationalist cause in Sri Lanka. Details follow:

New, Delhi,. Fe – BJP Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani today said the decades-old ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka cannot be resolved by brutal use of force. Addressing hundreds of MDMK cadres and activists of pro-Eelam outfits who began a day-long fast under the leadership of MDMK chief Vaiko here, Mr Advani said at this time the entire country should think about ending the sufferings of the Tamils in the island nation. He accused the Centre of being apathetic towards the issue and said the BJP wanted a political solution instead of brutal use of force to end the conflict. He said it was the first time when hospitals were being bombarded in that country, something never heard before. The former Deputy Prime Minister said his party raised the issue in Parliament and even staged a sit-in in its complex before the statue of the Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi („Brutal use of force against Tamils in Lanka should end: Advani‟ 2009, United News of India, 14 January – Attachment 8).

On 11 April 2009 The Hindu reported that “[t]he BJP was very cautious in reacting to MDMK leader Vaiko‟s speech” in which the MDMK leader “reportedly threatened a „blood bath‟ in the event of LTTE chief V. Prabakaran being harmed in any way by the Sri Lankan armed forces”. Extracts follow:

[BJP] Party general secretary Arun Jaitley said on Friday that he had not read the exact text of Mr. Vaiko‟s speech in which he reportedly threatened a “blood bath” in the event of LTTE chief V. Prabakaran being harmed in any way by the Sri Lankan armed forces. “I have not read the text of what he said. I cannot comment. But I would like to add that the people in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in the country are concerned about the plight of Tamil civilians

caught up in the military conflict. However, our comments must be restrained at all times and peace must not be disturbed,” Mr. Jaitley said.

BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said: “Mr. Vaiko has talked about a blood bath. But whose blood will be shed and where? If he was talking about shedding blood in Tamil Nadu, it makes no sense for that would add to the misery of Tamils” („BJP cautious on Vaiko‟s speech‟ 2009, The Hindu, 11 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/11/stories/2009041162171000.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 7).

On 13 April 2009 United News of India reported that the AIADMK, the MDMK‟s current electoral ally, had “dismissed as baseless reports that she was holding talks with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for a post-poll alliance”. The report follows:

Chennai, Apr 13 : AIADMK General Secretary J Jayalalithaa today dismissed as baseless reports that she was holding talks with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for a post-poll alliance.

Reacting to reports in a section of the media that she was conducting talks with the BJP on a post-poll alliance, Ms Jayalalithaa, in a statement here, said „„I wish to clarify that the reports are baseless and the AIADMK is not conducting talks with any political party for a possible post-poll alliance.

She said the AIADMK had entered into an alliance with the Communist Party of India (CPI), CPI(M), Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and Marumalarchi DMK (MDMK) for the Lok Sabha elections („Jaya dismises report of holding talks with BJP‟ 2009, New Kerala, 13 April http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-20494.html – Accessed 30 May 2009 – Attachment 9).

In the midst of the 2009 Indian national elections The Financial Times reported that in the event of the BJP led coalition‟s “emerging as the largest pre-poll coalition, but still falling short of the halfway mark, BJP‟s first preference would be to do business with the southern regional players, including the AIADMK-MDMK-PMK combine and TDP” („Jaya hey! BJP‟s caller tune‟ 2009, Economic Times, 15 May http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Jaya-hey-BJPs-caller- tune/articleshow/4532121.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 10).

3. Please provide an update on the situation of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the DMK.

At the outset of 2009 the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) lent its official support to the DMK. By the time of election, however, the TMMK had decided that its newly formed political party, the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), would not run on the DMK- led ticket and would instead stand with the Social Democratic Front as an alternative to both the DMK and AIADMK led combines. In the lead up to the April/May 2009 national elections there were some reports of clashes between TMMK/MMK supporters and supporters of both the DMK and AIADMK (for the launch of the MMK and the TMMK‟s support of the DMK at the outset of 2009, see: „TMMK-backed party to be launched on February 7‟ 2009, The Hindu, 6 January http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/06/stories/2009010656440400.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 15; „TMMK to float political party on Feb 7‟ 2009, Times of India, 27 January

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/TMMK_to_float_political_party_on_Feb_7/rssartic leshow/4034076.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 16; for the decision of the TMMK to run the MMK as an alternative to the DMK and AIADMK led combines, see: „Three parties form Social Democratic Front‟ 2009, The Hindu, 16 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/16/stories/2009041661080800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 21; for recent clashes with DMK workers, see: „Tension in Begampur‟ 2009, The Hindu, 14 May http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/14/stories/2009051457400800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 19; for recent clashes with AIADMK workers, see: „Tension at Vaniyambadi hospital as groups clash‟ 2009, The Hindu, 1 February http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/01/stories/2009020152450300.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 18).

The TMMK and the DMK – recent reports

On 6 January 2009 The Hindu reported on TMMK plans to launch its own political party, the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK). The Hindu also reported that the “TMMK would back the DMK candidate in the Thirumangalam by-election”. Later in the month, on 27 January 2009, The Times of India reported statements made by TMMK state president, Prof MH Jawahirullah: “While maintaining that there was no ill-will between the TMMK and the DMK, Jawahirullah said it would be difficult for them to support the Congress unless it tabled the Ranganth Misra committee report with its recommendations of implementation of reservation of minorities in jobs and colleges” („TMMK-backed party to be launched on February 7‟ 2009, The Hindu, 6 January http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/06/stories/2009010656440400.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 15; „TMMK to float political party on Feb 7‟ 2009, Times of India, 27 January http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/TMMK_to_float_political_party_on_Feb_7/rssartic leshow/4034076.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 16).

In February 2009 The Times of India reported that the TMMK had officially launched its Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK) party to provide Tamil Nadu‟s Muslim and Dalit voters with a choice beyond “the Muslim League and Indian National League, which often contest on DMK, Congress or AIADMK tickets”:

Thousands of Muslims, a vast majority of them youth, turned up on Saturday for the launch of the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi‟ (MMK), a political unit of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), which has been active as a social organisation for the last thirteen years.

Thirty nine-year old P Abdul Samad of Pudupattinam and Haroon Rasheed (35) of Elayankudi in Sivaganga district were named general secretary and treasurer respectively of the new outfit. A resolution was passed demanding a halt to the war in Sri Lanka at the conference at the Tambaram railway grounds, which was brimming with people from all over the state.

By floating a new political party, the TMMK hopes to mobilise the minorities and garner their votes, as the support base of the traditional Muslim party, the Muslim League and its numerous offspring, has eroded considerably. While the latest census puts the Muslim population at 5.60 % of total population, Muslim bodies claim a higher percentage.

While maintaining its Muslim identity, the party will also seek to woo Dalits, scheduled tribes and backward classes. “We will avoid the mistakes done by the Indian Union Muslim League and other Muslim outfits. They have failed to understand the feelings and expectations of the

community. We will represent the genuine aspirations of the Muslim community in legislative bodies,” said M H Jawahirullah, state TMMK president.

“We will fight against corruption and give tickets to honest candidates. We will be part of an alliance but won‟t contest on symbols of other parties, asserts Jawahirullah, in an apparent criticism of the Muslim League and Indian National League, which often contest on DMK, Congress or AIADMK tickets („TMMK floats new party, eyes minority votes‟ 2009, Times of India, 8 February http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4093571.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 17).

On 1 February 2009 it was reported that TMMK and AIADMK activists had clashed at a Tamil Nadu government hospital in Vaniyambadi. Details follow:

VANIYAMBADI: Tense movements were witnessed at Government Hospital here on Friday night as two groups clashed inside the ward. Seven of the nine accused were arrested, police said. The clash was between representatives of the AIADMK and TMMK. Hospital property was damaged as the groups clashed at 10.30 p.m.

Police said that Safiullah (31) of AIADMK and Amjith (30) of the TMMK had a difference of opinion over giving a petition to Alangayam Town Panchayat Office.

Following a verbal duel, it was alleged that Safiullah assaulted Amjith, who immediately got admitted to the hospital. On hearing the news, around 15 cadres of the TMMK went to the hospital. Safiullah also got admitted to the same hospital. Around 15 cadres of the AIADMK were present. Under these circumstances, the two groups of supporters started an argument, which ended in a clash („Tension at Vaniyambadi hospital as groups clash‟ 2009, The Hindu, 1 February http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/01/stories/2009020152450300.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 18).

On 14 May 2009 The Hindu reported that TMMK and DMK activists had clashed in the Tamil Nadu locale of Begampur. Details follow:

Tension prevailed in Begampur for some time owing to a clash between members of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam and DMK cadres as the latter picketed road condemning burning of party flag by the former.

First, TMMK members burnt DMK party flag at Begampur to protest an attack on Muslims in Chennai during the polling process.

When they left the place, a group of DMK party men led by party functionary Sadiq picketed Begampur main road condemning the burning of the party flag.

…Later, members of both groups attacked each other.

The police rushed to the spot and dispersed the crowd („Tension in Begampur‟ 2009, The Hindu, 14 May http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/14/stories/2009051457400800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 19).

On 11 April 2008 The Hindu reported on the decision of the TMMK to move its MMK vehicle away from the DMK alliance:

…The MMK, an ally of the DMK, quit the alliance when its demand for two Lok Sabha seats and a Rajya Sabha seat was turned down. The MMK is the political offshoot of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK).

The divide between the DMK and the MMK widened further on Friday with the resignation of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board chairman S. Hyder Ali. Mr Ali, the general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, was appointed to the post by the DMK government in 2007.

Asked about reports that Mr. Hyder Ali would contest from the Central Chennai constituency, TMMK president and MMK coordinator M.H. Jawahirullah said there was such a possibility („Smaller parties get together for polls‟ 2009, The Hindu, 11 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/11/stories/2009041157850100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 20).

On 16 April 2009 at the onset of the 2009 Indian national elections The Hindu reported that the TMMK‟s MMK party had “quit the DMK alliance” and would join with “Puthiya Tamizhagam (PT) and Indian National League (INL)…under the banner of the Social Democratic Front” to present an electoral alternative to the DMK and AIADMK led coalitions. According to The Hindu: “Prof. Jawahirullah said the MMK quit the DMK alliance because the party was expected to contest on the DMK‟s election symbol”.

CHENNAI: Three political parties – Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), Puthiya Tamizhagam (PT) and Indian National League (INL) – will contest the Lok Sabha polls in Tamil Nadu under the banner of the Social Democratic Front.

Addressing a press conference, MMK coordinator M.H.Jawhirullah and PT leader K.Krishnasamy said they were in touch with a few more political parties and they were likely to join the front. INL leader S.Inayathulla was present at the press conference.

“The DMK and the AIADMK ruled the State for 40 years. But the State has not progressed. We will offer an alternative path, that will put Tamil Nadu on the trajectory of growth,” they said. The leaders said the alliance would contest on a common symbol. The MMK, the political offshoot of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), has decided to contest from four constituencies. TMMK general secretary S. Hyder Ali is the candidate for the Central Chennai Constituency while Prof Jawahirullah will be entering the fray in the Mayiladuthurai constituency.

…Prof. Jawahirullah said the MMK quit the DMK alliance because the party was expected to contest on the DMK‟s election symbol. “The DMK leadership was not ready to allow the MMK to assert its independent identity. It sought to practise tokenism by offering us a single seat,” he said.

Asked about PMK leader S. Ramadoss‟ meeting with him seeking support for his party, Prof. Jawahirullah said there was no question of going back on the decision to contest alone in the elections.

Mr. Inayathulla said his party had plans to contest in 4 constituencies. In the Vellore constituency, his party would support a candidate put up by the local Jamaath („Three parties form Social Democratic Front‟ 2009, The Hindu, 16 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/16/stories/2009041661080800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 21).

4. Please provide an update on the situation of the TMMK in Tamil Nadu in terms of its relationship with the RSS.

The TMMK and the RSS / BJP – recent reports

Animosity between the TMMK and Hindu nationalists groups would appear to be ongoing.

On 10 November 2008 United News of India reported from the Tamil Nadu centre of Kancheepuram that a TMMK leader was amongst those injured in a clash with “activists of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) at Orikkai”. Details follow:

Kancheepuram, Nov 10 (UNI) Police today arrested six people and were on the lookout for ten more accused following the clash between volunteers of the Left parties, Viduthalai Chiruthai Katchi(VCK) and activists of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS) at Orikkai, near here on November 8.

Police said effors were on to trace BJP youth-wing Committee member K T Ragavan, district leader Mohan Raja and Prakash. Steps were also taken to nab Bharatidasan Matriculation School administator Arun Kumar, as the Left parties and VCK staged demonstration and questioned his decision to offer training to the RSS volunteers, when the clash broke out.

Left party leaders, Kamalanathan, Muthukumar, BJP leader Mohan Raja, K T Raghavan and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam(TMMK) leader Basha, were among others, who were injured in the incident („Six held following clash in TN on Nov 8‟ 2008, OneIndia.com, source: United News of India, 10 November http://news.oneindia.in/2008/11/10/six-held- following-clash-in-tn-on-nov-8-1226336538.html – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 22).

On 7 December 2009 Express News India reported from Tamil Nadu that “[a]bout 22,700 Muslim activists were held across the state as they demonstrated against the Babri Masjid demolition on Saturday”, 6 December 2009. Of those arrested, “14,000, including 600 women,” reportedly belonged to the TMMK. “BJP and RSS cadre” reportedly staged opposing demonstrations in Kovai “demanding construction of Ayodhya Temple”. The report continues:

Chennai:…Police said nearly 5000 Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) activists and others including women were held when they breached police barricade in the city.

The activists demanded that Babri Masjid should be rebuilt at Ayodhya and the disputed land be handed over to the Muslims.

…Tiruchy: As many as 463 TMMK members, including 70 women, and 300 volunteers of TTJ were arrested while they tried to stage a demonstration.

TMMK had announced a rail block at Fort station.

Later, they moved towards the railway station to block a train when police, led by City Police Commissioner A Alexander Mohan, arrested them.

…Thanjavur: A total of 838 TMMK members were arrested in two places in the district when they staged a rail roko condemning the demolition of the Babri Masjid on Saturday.

VELLORE : Around 450 cadre, belonging to the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), were held on Saturday when they tried to block the trains at the Katpadi Railway Station as part of agitations on the Babri Masjid demolition day. According to sources, around 100 cadre also held demonstration in Pernambut in protest against the demolition of the Masjid besides, demanding its restoration.

Kovai: Over 2,000 TMMK cadre were arrested in Coimbatore, Pollachi and Tirupur for attempting to picket railway stations demanding construction of a mosque at the place where Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. Later in the evening, about 400 BJP and RSS cadre led by Coimbatore city RSS president Ramanathan and BJP state secretary V K Selvakumar staged a demonstration in Coimbatore demanding construction of Ayodhya Temple. Similar demonstrations were held in Tirupur by 450 members of the Hindu Munnanai led by state general secretary Kadeswara Subramanian („Activists court arrest over disputed land‟ 2009, Express Buzz, source: Express News Service, 7 December http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Activists+court+arrest+over+disputed +land&artid=9AYPBOQsDao=&SectionID=vBlkz7JCFvA=&MainSectionID=vBlkz7JCFvA =&SectionName=EL7znOtxBM3qzgMyXZKtxw==&SEO=Tamil,%20Nadu,%20Thowheeth, %20Jamath,Muslim,%20Munn – Accessed 2 June 2009– Attachment 23; see also: „Thousands of protestors held‟ 2008, The Hindu, 7 December http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/07/stories/2008120757920100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009 – Attachment 24).

5. Please provide an update on the general situation of Muslims in Tamil Nadu.

While outbreaks of communal violence against Muslim communities in various parts of India have been a cause for concern at different moments in time, Tamil Nadu would not appear to have experienced any troubles of this kind in recent years. The US Department of State‟s most recent reports on religious freedom and human rights in India make no reference to Tamil Nadu as a state of concern in terms of security for Muslim communities. The most recent report on human rights abuses in India published by the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) is critical of the situation of Tamil Nadu in a number of regards (including the behaviour of police and the mistreatment of Dalits, women and indigenous communities) but no mention is made of any ongoing abuses against Muslim communities for 2008 (US Department of State 2009, 2008 Human Rights Reports: India, 25 February – Attachment 52; US Department of State 2008, International Religious Freedom Report for 2008 – India, 19 September – Attachment 53; Asian Centre for Human Rights 2008, „Tamil Nadu‟ in: India Human Rights Report 2008, December, pp.139-142 http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/AR08/AR2008.pdf – Accessed 10 June 2009 – Attachment 54).

In November 2006 the Indian national government published an extensive report, compiled by the Rajinder Sachar Committee, on the situation of Muslims across India, The Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, a Report. Known as the Sachar report this 400 page plus document provides national and state and territory information on the livelihood conditions for Muslims across India. The Sachar report finds favourably of the situation for Muslims in Tamil Nadu in a number of regards. Taking education enrolment rates as a key indicator of social development the report notes favourably of both Kerala and Tamil Nadu as follows:

Enrolment rates are above 90% in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and satisfactory (above 80%) in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Delhi. The difference in enrolment rates is also small in states like Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra. But it needs to be noted that in none of the states are current attendance rates amongst Muslims higher than that of the remaining population. On the contrary, there is a significant difference in enrolment rates in states like West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and some smaller states (Figures 4.6 and 4.7). (p.58) (Prime Minister‟s High Level Committee, Government of India 2006, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Indian Ministry of Minority Affairs

website, November – http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/reports/sachar/sachar_comm.pdf – Accessed 10 April 2008 – Attachment 25).

The Sachar report also finds that: “While there are variations in the conditions of Muslims across states, the situation of the community in urban seems to be particularly bad in relative terms in almost all states except Kerala, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab” (p.162). Muslims also do well in Tamil Nadu in terms of government employment.

Three other States which show Muslim representation in government jobs as more than 50% of their population shares are Karnataka (70%), Gujarat (59 %) and Tamil Nadu (57 %). All other States show the representation of Muslims as less than half of their population share (p.171) (Prime Minister‟s High Level Committee, Government of India 2006, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Indian Ministry of Minority Affairs website, November – http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/reports/sachar/sachar_comm.pdf – Accessed 10 April 2008 – Attachment 25).

A November 2007 article, published on the website of the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism, argues that India‟s southern states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been relatively free of the communal tension which have troubled other parts of India because both the Hindu and Muslim populace within these states are often part of the same language community. Malayalam is singled out as a language that cuts across all three states and both the Hindu and Muslim demographic.

In post-independence India too states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu were formed on the basis of language and hence Hindus and Muslims continued to speak Malayalam and Tamil Nadu respectively in both these states. In Karnataka, however, Muslims in urban areas spoke Deccani dialect of Urdu (in certain areas of Tamil Nadu too Muslims in some urban areas spoke Deccani Urdu but overwhelming Majority spoke Tamil) and there was often tension between Kannada speaking Hindus and Deccani Urdu speaking Muslims (Engineer, A,A. 2007,‟BJP Enters Portal of Power In South‟, Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism website, 16-30 November http://www.csss- isla.com/archive/archive.php?article=2007/nov16_30.htm – Accessed 1 May 2009 – Attachment 26).

Previous research on the situation of Muslims in Tamil Nadu has been completed by the Research Service as follows:

 RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33600, 30 July – Attachment 27 (see Question 3: Treatment of Tamil Muslims in Tamil Nadu; intersections with the caste system);  RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32500, 2 November – Attachment 28 (see Question 1: Muslim schools in Chennai);  RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32370, 10 October – Attachment 29 (See Question 6: security for Muslims in Tamil Nadu).

6. With regard to the possibility of relocation: are there significant numbers of Tamil speaking Muslims in other states?

Freedom of movement and relocation in India

The UK Home Office‟s April 2008 operational guidance note for India expresses the view that for adult male Muslims, and a Muslim family in the care of an adult male Muslim, “as a general rule, an internal relocation option exists from one Indian State to another”. The situation is said to be different for women not in the company of a male, who are more vulnerable to harm in such circumstances. The relevant extract follows:

3.8.17 Internal relocation. The law provides for freedom of movement and the government generally respects this in practice, however, in certain border areas the government requires special permits. Therefore, as a general rule, an internal relocation option exists from one Indian State to another. The situation as regards internal relocation for single women, divorcees with or without children, and widows may differ from the situation for men as it may be difficult for women on their own to find secure accommodation. Although rents are high and landlords are often unwilling to rent to single women, there are hostels particularly in urban areas where a large number of call centres provide employment. The situation for women with children is likely to be more difficult as children may not be accepted in hostels. Illiterate women from rural areas are likely to find it particularly difficult to obtain accommodation as a lone woman. For some women in India relocation will not be unduly harsh but this is only likely to be the case where the individual is single, without children to support and is educated enough to be able to support herself. Some single women may also be able to relocate to live with extended family or friends in other parts of the country. However, where these circumstances do not apply internal relocation is likely to be unduly harsh (UK Home Office 2008, Operational Guidance Note: India, April p.12 http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/countryspecificasyl umpolicyogns/indiaogn?view=Binary – Accessed 1 May 2009 – Attachment 30).

It should be noted, however, that while Indian citizens generally enjoy freedom of movement and the ability to relocate to whichever Indian state or territory they choose, there are restrictions on relocation to Jammu & Kashmir. Advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, dated 13 October 2003, notes as follows with regard to freedom of movement in India:

Indian citizens have the freedom to relocate from one area of India to another, with two exceptions: in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Indian citizens from other states are not allowed to buy property, but can stay in any part of the state without seeking official permission. Indian citizens who are not residents of the particular area are required to obtain a permit to visit some border areas of Jammu and Kashmir, and border areas in the north- eastern states of India. The permits are valid for six months. Indian citizens who have been arrested and released on bail are required to report regularly to local police authorities. In these instances judicial permission is required to relocate to another part of the country (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2003, DFAT Report No. 519 – India: RRT Information Request: IND16042, 13 October – Attachment 31).

Tamil speaking communities in India

The Census of India website provides extensive details, source from its 2001 census, on the number of language speakers of all the major language groups in each of India‟s states and territories. According to the table titled, „Part A: Distribution of the 22 Scheduled Languages- India/ States/ Union Territories – 2001 Census‟, there were 60,793,814 Tamil speakers in India in 2001 with the vast majority in Tamil Nadu (with 55,798,916 Tamil speakers). Nonetheless, there were also significant numbers in Kerala (596,971), Karnataka (1,874,959), Andhra Pradesh (769,685), and Maharashtra (527,995) („Part A: Distribution of the 22 Scheduled Languages- India/ States/ Union Territories – 2001 Census‟ (undated), Census of India website

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/parta.htm – Accessed 1 May 2009 – Attachment 32).

Muslim communities outside Tamil Nadu

Page 273 of the Sachar report provides a table detailing the Muslim population in India‟s various states and territories in 2001. Muslim communities are prominent in the following states and territories (the figures below give the percentage and then the total number of Muslims in the state or territory at 2001):

 West Bengal … 25.2% 20.24 million  Kerala … 24.7% 7.86 million  Uttar Pradesh incl. Uttaranchal 18.2 31.75 million  Bihar incl. Jharkhand … 15.9% 17.45 million  Assam … 30.9% 8.24 million  Karnataka … 12.2% 6.46 million  Delhi … 11.7% 1.62 million  Maharashtra ` … 10.6% 10.27 million  Andhra Pradesh … 9.2% 6.99 million  Gujarat … 9.1% 4.59 million  Rajasthan … 8.5% 4.79 million  Madhya Pradesh incl. Chhattisgarh 5.2% 4.25 million  Tamil Nadu 5.6% 3.47 million  Jammu & Kashmir* … 67.0% 6.79 million (* But it must be noted that there are restrictions on relocation to Jammu & Kashmir; see the DFAT advice above) (Prime Minister‟s High Level Committee, Government of India 2006, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Indian Ministry of Minority Affairs website, November – http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/reports/sachar/sachar_comm.pdf – Accessed 10 April 2008 – Attachment 25)

Kerala state

Given that the 2001 Census suggests that Kerala state is 24.7% Muslim (7.86 million Muslims in total) with 596,971 Tamil speakers, a selection of previous responses on the situation in Kerala for Muslims may be of interest. These include:

 RRT Research & Information 2009, Research Response IND34585, 3 April – Attachment 33 (Q1 Communal violence with Christians; Q2 and CPI-M and Congress parties);  RRT Research & Information 2009, Research Response IND34462, 26 March – Attachment 34 (Q1 & Q2: in politics in Kerala in relation to CPI-M, BJP and Congress parties as well as information on Muslim parties, communal violence and various militant groups);  RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33237, 6 May – Attachment 35 (Q1 anti-Hindu violence; Q2 relationship with CPI(M));

 RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33219, 15 April – Attachment 36 (Kerala as possible site for internal relocation for Muslims).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources:

Government & Inter-Governmental Organisations Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en UK Home Office http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk US Department of State http://www.state.gov Human Rights & Non Government Organisations Asian Centre for Human Rights http://www.achrweb.org/index.htm Asian Human Rights Commission http://www.ahrchk.net Regional News Services The Hindu http://www.hinduonnet.com Rediff News http://www.rediff.com Thaindian News http://www.thaindian.com The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com The Tribune http://www.tribuneindia.com Search Engines Exalead search engine http://www.exalead.com Google search engine http://www.google.com Staggernation Google API Proximity Search search engine http://www.staggernation.com/cgi-bin/gaps.cgi

Databases:

FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIAC Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Research & Information database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments

1. Subramanian, T.S. 2009, „Political tension‟, Frontline, 14-27 February, vol.26: no.4 http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2604/stories/20090227260401900.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

2. „Former MDMK leaders join DMK‟ 2009, The Hindu, 18 March http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/18/stories/2009031854240400.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

3. Venkataramanan, K. 2009, „DMK-Cong proves pollsters wrong‟, Times of India, 17 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Chennai/DMK-Cong-proves-pollsters- wrong/articleshow/4541157.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009.

4. „Captain sank Amma‟s ship‟ 2009, Times of India, 19 May http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Captain-sank-Ammas- ship/articleshow/4549472.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009.

5. Srinivasan, G. 2009, „DMK, MDMK lock horns for the second time‟, The Hindu, 14 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/14/stories/2009041457740700.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

6. „MK slaps legal notice on Vaiko‟ 2009, Times of India, 2 June http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/MK-slaps-legal-notice-on- Vaiko/articleshow/4605946.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009. „BJP cautious on Vaiko‟s speech‟ 2009, The Hindu, 11 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/11/stories/2009041162171000.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

7. „Brutal use of force against Tamils in Lanka should end: Advani‟ 2009, United News of India, 14 January. (FACTIVA)

8. „Jaya dismises report of holding talks with BJP‟ 2009, New Kerala, 13 April http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-20494.html – Accessed 30 May 2009.

9. „Jaya hey! BJP‟s caller tune‟ 2009, Economic Times, 15 May http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Jaya-hey-BJPs-caller- tune/articleshow/4532121.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009.

10. „6 more held in Army vehicle attack case‟ 2009, United News of India, 29 May. (FACTIVA)

11. „Jaya will be the next PM: Vaiko‟ 2009, webindia123.com, 3 May http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20090503/1244382.html – Accessed 2 June 2009.

12. „Case registered against Vaiko‟ 2009, The Hindu, 1 June http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/01/stories/2009060157510100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

13. Bhattacharya, S. 2009, „In India, the comedy of power-sharing‟, Asia Times, 2 June http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KF02Df02.html – Accessed 5 June 2009.

14. „TMMK-backed party to be launched on February 7‟ 2009, The Hindu, 6 January http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/06/stories/2009010656440400.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

15. „TMMK to float political party on Feb 7‟ 2009, Times of India, 27 January http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/TMMK_to_float_political_party_on_Feb_7/ rssarticleshow/4034076.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009.

16. „TMMK floats new party, eyes minority votes‟ 2009, Times of India, 8 February http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4093571.cms – Accessed 2 June 2009.

17. „Tension at Vaniyambadi hospital as groups clash‟ 2009, The Hindu, 1 February http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/01/stories/2009020152450300.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

18. „Tension in Begampur‟ 2009, The Hindu, 14 May http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/14/stories/2009051457400800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

19. „Smaller parties get together for polls‟ 2009, The Hindu, 11 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/11/stories/2009041157850100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

20. „Three parties form Social Democratic Front‟ 2009, The Hindu, 16 April http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/16/stories/2009041661080800.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

21. „Six held following clash in TN on Nov 8‟ 2008, OneIndia.com, source: United News of India, 10 November http://news.oneindia.in/2008/11/10/six-held-following-clash- in-tn-on-nov-8-1226336538.html – Accessed 2 June 2009.

22. „Activists court arrest over disputed land‟ 2009, Express Buzz, source: Express News Service, 7 December http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Activists+court+arrest+over+d isputed+land&artid=9AYPBOQsDao=&SectionID=vBlkz7JCFvA=&MainSectionID =vBlkz7JCFvA=&SectionName=EL7znOtxBM3qzgMyXZKtxw==&SEO=Tamil,%2 0Nadu,%20Thowheeth,%20Jamath,Muslim,%20Munn – Accessed 2 June 2009.

23. „Thousands of protestors held‟ 2008, The Hindu, 7 December http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/07/stories/2008120757920100.htm – Accessed 2 June 2009.

24. Prime Minister‟s High Level Committee, Government of India 2006, Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Indian Ministry of Minority Affairs website, November – http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/reports/sachar/sachar_comm.pdf – Accessed 10 April 2008.

25. Engineer, A,A. 2007,‟BJP Enters Portal of Power In South‟, Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism website, 16-30 November http://www.csss- isla.com/archive/archive.php?article=2007/nov16_30.htm – Accessed 1 May 2009.

26. RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33600, 30 July.

27. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32500, 2 November.

28. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32370, 10 October.

29. UK Home Office 2008, Operational Guidance Note: India, April p.12 http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/countryspec ificasylumpolicyogns/indiaogn?view=Binary – Accessed 1 May 2009.

30. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2003, DFAT Report No. 519 – India: RRT Information Request: IND16042, 13 October.

31. „Part A: Distribution of the 22 Scheduled Languages- India/ States/ Union Territories – 2001 Census‟ (undated), Census of India website http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/parta.ht m – Accessed 1 May 2009.

32. RRT Research & Information 2009, Research Response IND34585, 3 April.

33. RRT Research & Information 2009, Research Response IND34462, 26 March.

34. RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33237, 6 May.

35. RRT Research & Information 2008, Research Response IND33219, 15 April.

36. Subramanian, T.S. 2002, „A crackdown in Tamil Nadu‟, Frontline, 20 July / 2 August, vol.19: no.15 http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1915/19150200.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009.

37. „Will Jayalalithaa split the DMK alliance?‟ 2006, Rediff News, 17 February http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/18flip.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009.

38. Vinoj Kumar, P.C. 2006, „Will Wit‟s Warhorse Win?‟, Tehelka, 15 April http://www.tehelka.com/story_main17.asp?filename=Ne041506up_close.asp – Accessed 9 June 2009.

39. „Vaiko joins Jaya ranks‟ 2006, The Statesman, 5 March. (FACTIVA)

40. Vaiko strikes poll alliance with AIADMK‟ 2006, The Hindu, 5 March. (FACTIVA)

41. „MDMK withdraws support to UPA Government‟ 2007, OneIndia, source: United News of India, 16 March http://news.oneindia.in/2007/03/16/mdmk-withdraws- support-to-upa-government.html – Accessed 9 June 2009.

42. „The see-saw battle‟ 2004, The Hindu, 1 February http://www.hindu.com/2004/02/01/stories/2004020100491600.htm – Accessed 9 June 2009.

43. „Upset with AIADMK, MDMK mulling talks with NDA‟ 2009, Thaindian, source: Indo-Asian News Service, 2 April http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/upset-with-aiadmk-mdmk-mulling- talks-with-nda_100174673.html – Accessed 9 June 2009

44. „AIADMK combine will sweep elections: Vaiko‟ 2009, The Hindu, 5 March http://www.hindu.com/2009/03/05/stories/2009030553640400.htm – Accessed 10 June 2009.

45. „Berth row solved, DMK to join UPA government‟ 2009, Express Buzz, source: Indo- Asian News Service, 24 May http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Berth+row+solved,+DMK+to+ join+UPA+government&artid=Czv%7CLoEPoj4=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&Ma

inSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=&SEO=karunanidhi,% 20cabinet – Accessed 10 June 2009.

46. Subramanian, T.S. 2006, „Farce in Chennai, Frontline, 21 October – 3 November http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20061103003712900.htm &date=fl2321/&prd=fline& – Accessed 2 November 2006.

47. „Jayalalithaa flays arrest of AIADMK activists‟ 2007, The Hindu, 12 February http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/12/stories/2007021205730400.htm – Accessed 12 July 2007.

48. RRT Research & Information 2007, Research Response IND32018, 13 July.

49. RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response IND30817, 3 November.

50. US Department of State 2009, 2008 Human Rights Reports: India, 25 February.

51. US Department of State 2008, International Religious Freedom Report for 2008 – India, 19 September.

52. Asian Centre for Human Rights 2008, India Human Rights Report 2008, December 142 http://www.achrweb.org/reports/india/AR08/AR2008.pdf – Accessed 10 June 2009.