Plea to enact law preventing purchase of tribal land by others

The Tamil Nadu Tribal People's Association has urged the State government to enact a law preventing outsiders from purchasing land owned by tribal people.
In a letter to the District Collector, association president V.P. Gunasekaran highlighted that indigenous tribal communities in the hilly regions of Erode district have been engaged in agriculture and have resided there for generations. However, there is a concerning trend of these communities becoming landless, which poses a significant threat to the stability and well-being of the hill regions.
Citing the Constitution, which places the responsibility on State governments to protect the livelihood and land rights of tribal communities, the association requested that the Collector recommend to the State Government the introduction of a law—similar to those in other states—that bans the sale of tribal lands to outsiders, retrieves lands that have already been transferred, and reallocates them to tribal communities.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

22 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

Hans India

an hour ago

• Hans India

SDPI condemns Centre's denial of political clearance for Karnataka minister's US visit

Bengaluru: The Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), Karnataka unit, has strongly criticised the Union government for reportedly denying political clearance to State Minister Priyank Kharge's proposed visit to the United States. The party termed the move as politically motivated and detrimental to the interests of the state. In a statement issued on Saturday, SDPI Karnataka State President Abdul Majeed condemned what he described as a 'vindictive step' by the Centre. He alleged that despite Karnataka's leading role in the fields of technology, entrepreneurship, and economic growth at the international level, the Union government continues to display hostility towards the state's initiatives. Kharge was scheduled to travel to Boston and San Francisco to participate in global technology summits and explore collaborations for Karnataka's thriving tech ecosystem. The denial of clearance, the SDPI said, not only amounts to a 'national embarrassment' but also hampers developmental opportunities for the state. 'This is a clear case of political arrogance and central overreach that undermines the federal spirit of the Constitution,' the statement said, adding that such actions are in violation of democratic principles. The party demanded that the Union government explain the reasons behind the denial of permission and urged it to refrain from taking similar decisions in the future. 'The Union government must acknowledge that Indian states are not colonies but constitutional entities with their own rights and autonomy,' SDPI said. The party further warned that any attempt to curtail Karnataka's autonomy would be met with strong resistance from the state.

Time of India

2 hours ago

• Time of India

Fifty years of the Emergency – remembering the darkest chapter

Keshav Upadhye, a young, dynamic and prominent face, has been working with the Bharatiya Janata Party for over two decades. In 2014, the then state president Devendra Fadnavis had appointed Upadhye as the spokesperson in his team. Owing to his journalistic background and better understanding of the socio-economic issues of the state, Upadhye made a mark as a spokesperson in a short span. He articulates the views of the party and aggressively defends the party on various platforms including the Marathi and Hindi national news channels. Keshav Upadhye worked for the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and after completing his degree in Journalism from Ranade Institute, Pune, he began his career as a journalist with daily Pudhari, Loksatta and Mumbai Tarun Bharat. Knowing the pulse of the news, he writes on varied topics and on various platforms like the newspapers, blogs and other social media platforms. He was involved in two study groups formed by the Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini in 2006 to study the naxalite movement and its adverse impact on the development of Chhatisgarh. The Prabodhini later published this report. He was also a part of the Prabodhini's fact-finding committee formed to study the Solapur riots. LESS ... MORE 25th June, 1975…. A black day in the history of independent India. India became independent from the clutches of British rule in 1947. Three years later, the republic of India was formed on the basis of the Constitution. The darkest chapter called Emergency began in the same year when the republic of India was celebrating its Silver Jubilee. This chapter stifled the freedom of expression of Indian citizens, but more than that, it also became a witness to horrific abuse of power by the government. The Emergency was imposed on the country within just 13 days after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha from Raebareli constituency in 1971 was declared void by the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Jagmohanlal Sinha. All the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution to common citizens and newspapers were curtailed. The excessive suppression by the government machinery was so horrific that even the British would be ashamed. There was no social media or internet in those days. The two state-owned media platforms, Akashvani and Doordarshan, were the only source of information. Doordarshan had just started, so its reach was limited. Not even a single line of news regarding opposition meetings, demonstrations or speeches held against the Emergency was reported by these state owned platforms. The Indira Gandhi government ensured that no news against the government reached the public by censoring newspapers. Even the British, who had a pride that the Sun never sets on the British Empire, had to leave India. Destiny made even Indira Gandhi pay the price for imposing the Emergency. But by then Indian people had suffered a lot because of one individual's lust for power. That period made Indians understand how great the value of freedom of writing and freedom of speech is. The electricity to all newspaper offices in Delhi, the capital of the country, was cut off before the President signed the ordinance of Emergency. All important leaders of opposition including the leaders of Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Socialist party were arrested immediately. Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi, two key players of the Emergency, knew exactly what they wanted to do during the Emergency. Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency fearing that the court verdict would force her to give away her Prime Ministerial post. The entire nation witnessed the cruel dictator in Indira Gandhi in the form of horrific abuse of power during that period. The dictatorship was so terrible that newspapers had to show every single line to the government officials. Newspapers could not be sent for printing without approval of government officials. Government officials would only allow newspapers to be printed after ensuring that not a single word has been written against Mrs Indira Gandhi or Emergency. The censorship was imposed on the freedom of press to prevent information about the cruel acts committed during the emergency from reaching the common people. Even artists, actors were hit by this dictatorship. Songs of Kishore Kumar, who refused to sing a song praising the Emergency, were banned from broadcasting on Akashvani and Doordarshan. Notices were sent to Kishore Kumar through the Income Tax Department. But Kishore Kumar still did not succumb. Dev Anand was also harassed in many ways because of his refusal to issue a statement in support of the Emergency. Barbaric acts were committed in the form of forced sterilization while carrying out a family planning campaign aimed at controlling the country's population. Government officials were given the target of family planning surgeries. Many unmarried men were also forcibly sterilized to achieve this target. Journalists and intellectuals also remained silent against the torture during the Emergency. Opposition party workers were being imprisoned without enquiry. Even many senior leaders of Congress like Yashwantaro Chavan, Babu Jagjivan Ram, Brahmananda Reddy did not dare to utter a single word against Indira Gandhi. The proposal to impose a state of emergency was sent to the President for signature without seeking an approval of the Union Cabinet. But Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Jana Sangh ran a nationwide campaign without paying any heed to Indira Gandhi's suppression. Thousands of swayamsevaks of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh staged protests against the Emergency across the country without fearing imprisonment. Thousands of people lost their jobs, their lives were shattered due to this. More than 10 lakh people were arrested across the country. Family members of senior socialist leader George Fernandes were severely harassed as the police failed to trace him. Police force was used extensively to suppress voices against the Emergency. Even elderly leader like Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, who led the fight against Mrs Indira Gandhi, was not spared from imprisonment. Indian people experienced the Emergency for 21 months, i.e. from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977. Karnataka actress Snehalatha Reddy died due to torture during the Emergency. A law like 'MISA' was passed to arrest opposition party workers and leaders. Renowned director and writer Gulzar's film Aandhi was banned because the heroine's costume resembled that of Indira Gandhi. All the brutality was avenged by the voters in the 1977 Lok Sabha elections. By defeating Congress along with Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi, voters brought about a bloodless revolution. The new generation must know this dark history and therefore the events of that period should be reminded. Rahul Gandhi, grandson of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, keeps on whining in the name of the constitution. But while citing the Constitution, he does not remember the torture of the common man during the Emergency by his own grandmother. The public memory is very short and therefore even the common man has to be reminded again and again of what happened during the Emergency. But Indian democracy emerged victorious after whatever Indian people had endured during that period. There is no doubt that the fight waged by the Indian people to defend the Constitution will be recorded in golden letters in Indian history. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.