This Lease Agreement, Made And Entered Into Between Successful: Fill & Download for Free

I’m as reluctant to accept information from “The Electronic Intifada” or “The Angry Arab” as I am to accept information from “Arutz Sheva” (settler news media) without examining it with a microscope and checking other less biased sources.From my own experience, the questioner here suffers from the same mistake that Western diplomats have suffered from over the past 200 years when dealing with Arab culture: expecting the Arab culture, morals, mindset and aspirations to be the same as their own. IMO, the last Western diplomat who understood that it doesn’t work like that was Thomas Jefferson, as the US Ambassador to France back in 1785–89 and as Secretary of State from 1790–93.Ever since, no Western diplomat has understood the deep penetration of the concepts of “Arab honor” and “Arab pride” in Arab culture.Imagine a population that’s lived in a region where they made a bare subsistence living in a disease-ridden, infertile and barren land for centuries. Suddenly, along comes a group of strangers (even though designated the owners of that land by the local residents’ own holy book) and over a few short decades turn the land into productive land with a thriving agriculture, new towns and cities, hospitals, health clinics, schools, universities, commerce, industry, infrastructure (electricity, running water, sewers, etc.).That they should be:a) Jealous at the success of those strangers, and;b) Ashamed that they could not do what these strangers did, sows the seeds of enmity.Add the fact that the strangers are non-Muslims, who should not be considered as equals, but as inferiors, then you have a ripe ground for conflict.Anti-anyone not Muslim is built into the religion. The concepts of “kaffir”, “dhimmi”, “jizya” and more show this. Inequality before the law for non-Muslims is a law of nature created by God, not an opinion.Now take even the smallest part of the former Ottoman land designated by the League of Nations as “Palestine” and see the reaction when these same Arabs are told that it would become the Jewish homeland.Even though the British Mandatory Authority cut off 77% of the Mandate land to create Jordan and another 1% to the French Mandate for Syria, the remaining 22% was STILL too much for the Arabs to accept.Enter UNGAR 181, after multiple failed attempts at compromise (Peel Commission (1937), Woodhead Commission (1939), Anglo-American Commission (1946), the UN sat and voted on a resolution to partion the remaining 22% of the Mandate for Palestine into two separate entities, an “Arab state” (appearing 20 times in the text) and a “Jewish state” (appearing 29 times in the text) UN General Assembly Resolution 181 - English Text and Maps despite the fact that this was a THIRD violation of Article 5 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine that specifically stated: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”The Palestine MandateThe UN, in its Charter, accepted the responsibility to discharge all outstanding League of Nations Mandates (Article 80 of the UN Charter):Article 80Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements for placing mandated and other territories under the trusteeship system as provided for in Article 77.UN Charter (full text)(For “trusteeship”, read “Mandate”)UNGAR 181 partitioned the remaining 22% of the Mandate for Palestine into six sections, creating two countries that were jigsaw puzzles with bottlenecks between each two pieces of each of the states, with “the Arab state” receiving 10.5% of the land and “the Jewish state” receiving 11.5% of the land, almost half of which was the Negev desert. Even that wasn’t enough for the Arab… 88.5% of the entirety of the Mandate for Palestine was insufficient for the claims of the Arab League and the Arabs of Palestine (who had insisted up to this point that “there is no such thing as Palestine” and that “We have been Southern Syrians for generations”.So, the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab League did what any culture based on the concepts of “honor” and “pride” would do: they embarked on a declared war of annihilation… the only problem is that despite all the initial advantages and belief that conquering the infant Jewish state would be as simple as a morning stroll, the combined Arab armies were defeated and Israel survived.Enter “Arab pride” and “Arab honor” once again. The shame of having made such bombastic boasts of annihilation and failing made the Arab world believe the rest of the world was laughing at them. This embarrassment had to be wiped out by nothing less than the destruction of Israel.Forward to 1967: the Soviet Union, patron state of Egypt and Syria, provided false information to President Nasser that Israel’s summer military exercise in the Galilee was camouflage for a plan to attack Syria, which wasn’t true.Underestimating the depth of the Arab hatred for the defeat of 1948 and the lack of effect of the ongoing terrorist attacks against Israel, President Nasser decided it was time to do away with “the Zionist entity” and made plans to do so, Matti Peled’s hindsight opinion notwithstanding.Various Arab leaders made threats that any government would have to take seriously or be VERY derelict in their responsibility. Here’s just a small selection:Egypt:"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, May 27, 1967"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ... Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel .... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." – Nasser, May 28, 1967"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . . to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations." – Nasser, May, 30, 1967 after signing a defense pact with Jordan's King Hussein.Jordan"All of the Arab armies now surround Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait. ... There is no difference between one Arab people and another, no difference between one Arab army and another." – King Hussein of Jordan, after signing the pact with Egypt May 30, 1967.Syria:“Syria's forces are ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united.... I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967Palestinians:"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Ahmed Shukairy (PLO Chairman), June 1, 1967.Even Arab/Muslim countries with no reason to be involved made threats:"The freedom of the homeland will be completed by the destruction of the Zionist entity and the expulsion of the Americans and the British from the region." – Algerian Prime Minister Houari Boumedienne, May, 1967."We want war. War is the only way to settle the problem of Israel. The Arabs are ready." – Yemeni Foreign Minister Salam, May, 1967.How can any normal person insist that the Israeli government of the day should have avoided these threats?With all due respect to some of the posters here, there are too many who rely on questionable sources of information to be taken seriously.On June 5, 1967, Israel pre-emptively attacked the Egyptian air force. At the same time, UN envoys from Jerusalem took messages to the Jordanian ans Syrian governments, asking them not to interfere with the conflict between Egypt and Israel. These were ignored, and Syrian guns shelled Israeli towns and settlements in the Galilee Basin from the Golan Heights in the late afternoon of June 5. An attack against a water pumping station in Tel Dan was launched by Syria on June 6, but was repelled. It wasn’t until June 8, when Syrian artillery targeting Israeli civilians became insufferable that the IDF was ordered to take the Golan Heights.At around 10 AM of June 5 Jordanian artillery began shelling Ramat David air base and Tel Aviv with 155 mm “Long Tom” cannon. Shortly before noon on June 5, Jordanian artillery began shelling western Jerusalem in what became a 6,000 shell artillery barrage after King Hussein rejected the Israeli request not to participate. Air attacks were also made on Kfar Saba, Netanya, Kfar Sirkin and settlements in the Jezreel Valley. The Israeli cabinet decided to move against Jordan only in the late afternoon, after these attacks haagainst Israel had been made.Six-Day War - WikipediaNow we come to the issue of Hamas: “Arab pride” and “Arab honor” still take their place paramount in Palestinians aspirations: neither the Hamas Covenant nor the Palestinian National Charter make any pretense of accepting any kind of two-state solution. “Arab pride” and “Arab honor” will not allow it, no matter how much their own people suffer for their rejectionism.READ the Palestinian National Charter (actually, read BOTH versions—the original 1964 Charter, paying special attention to Article 24, and the 1968 version, where this article is conspicuously missing) and the Hamas Covenant of 1988, without the arguments that there is a new, modified Covenant written in 2017. It was never ratified and the 1988 version is still in effect.Here are links:1964 Palestinian National Charter:http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/12363;jsessionid=293C499750EF77F0019ADF7A3D04A9C8“Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”(Apparently, these areas weren’t “Palestinian territories” until Jordan and Egypt lost control of them to Israel. Then they suddenly became “Palestinian territories.)1968 Palestinian National Charter:http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/12362;jsessionid=293C499750EF77F0019ADF7A3D04A9C81988 Hamas Covenant: Hamas Covenant 1988It would be difficult to find more despicable documents that reject the existence of a people while demanding recognition for their own existence.Realizing that it has no ability to defeat Israel militarily, Hamas’ leadership has mounted spurious “Marches of Return” designed solely to create Palestinian casualties to distort world opinion in the hopes of that some nebulous “international community” will force the State of Israel to agree to commit national suicide.That’s the problem with following an “all or nothing” policy. You’re just as likely to end up with nothing. Sadly, this is the road that Ismael Haniyeh, Yahyah Silwar and Mahmoud Abbas are dragging the Palestinians down.

How did the temples of Kerala come under the state government of the Devaswom board administration?Thanks to Suhas Nair for the question;Short Answer:On basis of Royal proclamation annexing all temples under the Crown. The crown (monarchy) simply got transferred to the state (people) along with all assets that the former held, on Jun 1st, 1949 when the Travancore-Cochin Kingdoms became a state of India.Long answer:The 5 State Devaswom Boards of Kerala, namely Travancore, Cochin, Guruvayur, Malabar and KoodalmanikyamUnlike many do think, Devaswom is relatively a new concept in Kerala. It started gaining popularity only in the 18th century and became a standard only by mid 19th century.The word Devaswom originates from 2 words- Deva (deity/god) and Swom (Property). So in short devaswom means Properties of the deity.Essentially the whole concept of Devaswom is managing the properties, assets, and resources of a temple; not its rites or rituals or mode of worship.Prior to Devaswom, Kerala had two forms of managing temple resources.The most common method was Brahmaswom (Property of Brahmins). In this case, the entire temple belongs to a Brahmin family (Nampoothiri family) or a group of families who enjoys hereditary rights over the temple and its properties. The Malayalam word for such owners is called YOGAKAR meaning members of a council or company. They have ownership of all properties of a temple as its trustee. Note, they are not owners, rather hereditary trustees who can enjoy the benefits from the land.Another model was Rajaswom (Property of Nobles/Royals). In this case, temple and all its associated property would be under the trusteeship of a Nair/Royal family.Under the feudal system, the ownership of land belongs to the Crown (not the individual King, rather the state). The King who holds the crown grants an irrevocable grant of privilege/lease etc to a Brahmin family to hold Brahmaswom or to Nair/clans of smaller royal families to hold Rajaswom, in return of military support to the Crown as there was no concept of Centralized Army in Kerala. Though it's an irrevocable right, the crown does reserve a right to withdraw the privilege, if the latter commits a breach of the agreement or violates the traditional code of conduct for which this grant is made. And Kings alone cannot take a decision, due to collective decision-making system followed in Kerala where these Brahmins and Nairs were part of such crucial councils. In this way, the King’s right is called Melkoiyma (Paramount rights).Effectively, the Crown itself was a prisoner to those people to whom it gave authority. This system almost made various Kings across Kerala less powerful as they were under pressure or dominance of these Brahmins and Nair lords till the 17th century.The 8 feudal lords- Ettuveetil Pillars who were trustees of Sree Padmanabha temple amassed much of its wealth and used to build up their own army that challenged the sovereignty of Venad (Travancore) Kings.An Ettuveetil Pilla making a challenge right in front of the King as the latter was effectively reduced to a puppetBy the 18th century, things came a flash point. The authority of Nairs and Brahmins rose to greater levels that effectively converted Kings to mere rubber stamp authority. They even started intervening succession rights of the royal family as well as decisions of the state. As the Kings were over-dependent on them for military and share of income from the resources they hold, they became more silent. However, things came to a radical change when in Travancore, Young crown prince Marthanda Varma questioned the authority of these councils. The questioning attitude of the young prince led the Brahmin council (Ettara Yogam) where the King had an only half vote questioning the succession of Crown Prince Marthanda Varma to the throne. With the 8 nobles (Ettuveetil Pillamar ) who were the supervising trustees of Sree Padmanabha temple joining with the Brahmins of Ettara Yogam, they wanted the block Marthanda Varma from succeeding the throne and place the King’s son as new King (contrary to Kerala’s matrilineal traditions) who was their puppet. This lead to the succession crisis in Venad and a civil war broke out.The armies of Ettuveetil were much powerful as they were funded by resources and money of Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple. Still, with tactics including deceit, Marthanda Varma succeeded and crushed the nobles with an iron hand in most brutal ways. He realized the nobles got the ability to question the sovereignty of the crown only because of the richness and resources of the temple they had. It's from here, the concept of Devaswom rose prominently. Marthanda Varma Maharaja abolished Brahmaswom as well as Rajaswom concept and ordered all temples to follow Devaswom concept by transferring the properties in name of the deity.Devaswom means, the properties of the temple will now be under name of the deity and the crown will decide the trustees to manage on behalf of the deity. This means, traditionally there was no separation of family accounts and temple accounts. Now it got separated. Similar incidents in Kochi in a similar time period was troubling the reign of Sakthan Thampuran Rama Varma Maharaja of Kochi. Rama Varma over a period of time realized Thrissur Vadakumnathan temple and almost the entire land around it came under a Nampoothiri confederacy under the leadership of Yogathiri (head of a Yogam or council). Accordingly, Cochin Army invaded Thrissur and unleashed a wave of brutality against opposing Nampoothiris and their helpers which lead to the nationalization of Vadakkumnathan temple and banishment of Yogathiri and others from the Cochin Kingdom. With this, the concept of Devaswom took roots in Kochi.However, this system had problems. As trustees were decided by the State who were either leading political figures/nobles etc of the royal court or bureaucrats or council of village leaders of a village as duly authorized by the state, they had no personal attachment with the temple or its properties. This lead to a massive corruption of temple resources by the individual trustees and the system didn’t have much accountability. In addition, families who were associated with a temple had all traditional rights intact. In short, it was falling back into the same trap as it was under the previous system.One of the key areas of the issue was temple lands. In those days, temples had huge land banks in form of farmlands, residential properties and other estates which all earn huge revenue. One typical form of corruption was an appropriation of temple lands into private hands of trustees. They used their influence in politics, to get such lands into private leases for their own benamis or relatives as well as other means to claim income from these estates. After all, these properties were in name of the deity and the deity won’t come out of the shrine to complain. So it was a free run for all these officials.So corruption was at its peak and much of finances of Travancore were at doldrums. The reign of Avittom Thirunal Balarama Varma was the dark age of Travancore with extensive corruption, the rise of Velu Thampi as Prime minister and subsequent revolt against British etc. Soon after the suppression of revolt, Travancore almost came under extreme subordination of British who don’t want similar revolts to happen again.As a means, the British Resident Col.Munro also became the new Diwan/Prime Minister of Travancore as well as neighboring Kochi who too joined in the previous revolt.Col. Munro was a well-known statesman, a visionary and a strong leader. And luckily the King died and his niece- Gowri Lakshmi Bai became the new queen who was bold and progressive. Similarly, in this period Veera Kerala Varma became the new King of Kochi who shared similar views. This helped Col Munro to bring massive changes in Kerala society that has its effects even today.One key approach was to curb the authority of these lords and barons who gained more power in society using temple resources. The corruption was at its peak and it needs to be curbed. For that, the revenue source of these lords has to be curbed which happened to the land resources which were all owned by the deity.It wasn’t possible to nationalize the land of the deity alone, as it would be stripping the deity from its properties. So instead of that, the entire Devaswom itself got Nationalized.Queen Rani Gowri Lakshmi Bai Maharani who nationalized all the temples in TravancoreOn 3rd Kanni 987 Malayalam Era (Sept 1811), H.H Queen Gowri Lakshmi Bayi issued a proclamation nationalizing 348 major devaswoms and 1123 minor devaswoms under the crown. All temples, barring those operating inside a family residential unit (Tharavad temples/ Family temple inside a house) and shrines belonging to Dalits/lower castes (as it wasn’t defined as temples then), were nationalized. A new department was formed called Pandaravakkuppu (Revenue Department) to handle revenue and control of these devaswoms.The managers (Adikaris) who managed the temple were dismissed and a new government position came up called Tahsildar (manager) at local level to manage the resource, then a Pradesha Peshkar (Divisional Secretary) to supervise Tahsildar at the regional level and Diwan Peshkar (undersecretary to the state) at the state level were appointed. All these 3 positions were directly responsible to the crown.Every temple accounts need to be audited and presented before the royal court for the final approval. The land of devaswoms became part of Pandara department, hence the new land title- Pandara vaka Bhoomi (Revenue land) became the new term.Even after nationalization, there was essentially a division of temple activities. The state won’t interfer in the traditional rites, customs, and areas related to worship procedures which were under the control of traditional Nampoothiri families (Uralar). This includes the appointment of priests (Poojaris/Shantikar), purchasing provisions for temple rites like the sandal, flowers, rice and similar etc.Again there was corruption in these activities. These Uralar would inflate the value of sandal and make excess out of it thro’ commissions and etc as the payment was done from the royal treasury. So as they appoint their preferred people as priests who would demand additional grants from the state in their position as Poojaris.King Ayilyam Thirunal and his Diwan T. Madhava Rao made sweeping changes in the Devaswom concept.It was this time Ayilyam Thirunal became the new Maharaja of Travancore. As a strict ruler, he has taken up reports of previous diwan peshkars who reported corruption in temples etc. Accordingly in the year 1035 ME (1860), the King stripped many powers of Uralar. The appointment of Priests now became part of the state responsibility and Division Peshkars got the right to appoint them. So as purchasing rights also vested with the state. Tahsildars got the authority to purchase things and report back to the Finance department. There was a strong financial accountability brought to the system and within 3 years, Travancore was declared as India’s first Public debt free state (1863).Under revised provisions, instead of relying on land and indirect resources of the temple, the govt made everyone in the temple including the priests as salaried employees of the state. So now, a priest doesn’t need to worry about revenue earned from a harvest or sale proceeds of fruits from estate etc which all were key areas for corruption. They all have fixed salary like any government employee apart from post-retirement benefits like pension etc.Even hosting a festival or a pooja became part of the state’s responsibility and govt brought accountability by introducing a tender system for supplies or other activities instead of relying on favourites etc. This brought sweeping changes in the culture of devaswom from catering interests of few to an institution of public accountability.Sree Moolam Thirunal Maharaja who brought the concept of separation of Devaswom as an independent department and administrative service.In 1888 (Chingam 1063 ME), then-the Maharaja Sree Moolam Thirunal brought another set of change.By then, the Tahsildars were working in two roles. As administrators of temple land as well as public land (Sircar Land). This often created a confusion as sometimes, the public land got classified as temple land and vice versa in records. So Tahsildars now became administrators of Sircar Lands alone while a new cadre of public servants called Devaswom Kariakkar (Temple Managers) was developed. And it's from here, the process of division of devaswom from revenue department slowly startedAnd this lead to many commissions and survey bodies to divide the department. And by 1912, a new proclamation came that divided Pandaravakkuppu into two. One as Travancore State Revenue department handling only government/public lands and another as Travancore State Devaswom Department handling only temple land. So eventually Devaswoms became a new independent ministry under control of an independent Diwan Peshkar solely for these activities with its own independent govt cadre of employees etc.The Cochin Kingdom also had a similar story but unlike Travancore, they didn’t nationalize every single temple by giving multiple exemptions. But over a period of time, 90% of temples came under state control, but unlike Travancore, there wasn’t a single department to control every temple, rather multiple departments and multiple bodies all reporting to the King as Kochi Kings by tradition was the head of temples.The worse was Malabar. Malabar was in a political turmoil in the 18th century due to Mysore invasion and soon after that, the entire land was annexed and became part of Madras presidency. This lead to the preservation of many kinds of 17th-century institutions like Brahmaswoms, Rajaswoms, and other models. As there were no kings in Malabar eventually Rajaswoms became Devaswoms with the same model, ie under control of Nair feudal lords. And Britishers due to lack of knowledge in these concepts, over-complicated the land rights, which made it as absolute ownership (personal ownership) unlike relative ownership as the model originally meant. And due to 1858 Queen Victoria’s proclamation over preservation of rights of ancient beliefs of Indian natives, the Madras Govt never interfered actively to reform or change these structures, which resulted in several conflicts, mainly peasant conflicts as people were enforcing 17th-century concepts in the 19th and 20th century. The rising conflicts over lands of temples lead Madras Govt to bring in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE) in 1925, to regulate the administration of the temple lands which brought some concepts similar to Devaswoms as in Kochi and Travancore, not extensively.The accession of Travancore-Cochin Kingdoms into Indian Union with the signing of Covenant with Govt of India. In Picture- Travancore Maharaja- Chithira Thirunal and India Govt’s States Secretary- V. P. MenonIn 1948, Travancore and Cochin Kingdom were ready to merge with independent India. As a concept, Maharaja Chithira Thirunal had talks on terms of accession of these kingdoms into Indian Union. He was keen to protect existing temple administration upon accession into India as well as other terms. So a covenant was signed in 1949 between Kings of Kochi, Travancore, and Dominion of India, protecting the existing structure of temple administration.Accordingly, the rights of the King over the temple were given to the Government of India or it's associated government and temple administration model, ie Devaswom will be protected by the Indian constitution. Due to this, when the state of Travancore-Cochin was formed in 1949, they passed a new bill- Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950 which got Presidential assent and enlisted under 9th schedule of Indian constitution as per terms of Covenant.So as two independent devaswom boards (Travancore Devaswom Board - TDB and Cochin Devaswom Board- CDB) were formed to manage temples of Travancore area and Cochin area which now got a position of the semi-constitutional body due to its enlistment under the Constitution of India.Guruvayur DevaswomDue to intense protests of seeking rights of Lower castes to enter into Guruvayur temple in Malabar, Madras Govt immediately nationalized Guruvayur temple on 2nd June 1947 to Madras HR&CE department to remove Zamorin from its administrative head position and allowed entry of all. Zamorin was so adamant that he would never allow breaking the tradition resulting in no further scope of a consensual settlement. This was the only case of Madras HR CE nationalizing a temple in Malayalam speaking lands.So when Malabar was merged with Travancore-Cochin upon States Reorganization Act of 1956 for forming Kerala State, Madras HR&CE handed over Guruvayur temple to Kerala Govt. As Guruvayur wasn’t part of the erstwhile Cochin state, it wasn’t appropriate to enlist Guruvayur with Cochin Devaswom Board which had a constitutional mandate to administer all temples of erstwhile Cochin Kingdom. So Kerala Govt passed a new act to establish an Independent Guruvayur Devaswom, making it as the 3rd Devaswom bodyIrjnalakuda DevaswomSo as there was a legal issue on the status of Irjnalakuda Koodalmanikyam Temple. This temple was located inside the erstwhile Cochin Kingdom, but even in days of monarchy, it was jointly administered by Cochin and Travancore Kingdoms due to its unique history. The administration part was vested with Kaimals who were appointed by Travancore while temple priests appointments other rites were within rights of Cochin Kingdom. So both Cochin and Travancore Devaswom boards have equal claims over this temple. Further, in 1918, Madras Govt passed a legislation that deprived Travancore appointed Kaimals over rights of land owned by the temple which complicated its status in Independent India over ownership rights. So in 1971, Kerala Govt decided to establish an independent devaswom exclusively for Irjnalakuda on models of Guruvayur devaswom.Malabar DevaswomThe biggest issue which Kerala Govt faced regarding Devaswom was status of Malabar temples. Majority of Malabar temples where upholding independent status as private temples and majority were in doldrums due to mismanagement and poor maintenance. Due to the dismantling of joint families and partition of family properties, many individual nuclear families find hard to manage their temples. Traditionally they depended on grants from HR&CE department. When they came to Kerala, the rules don’t allow the Kerala government to directly give individual grants to families as such which ends up in allegations of corruption and favoritism. To keep status quo, Kerala Govt extended Madras HR&CE Law (it became Tamil Nadu HRCE Law in 1960) to cover all temples over Malabar region. But it made things more complicated. Whenever TN Govt makes amendments in TN HRCE law, it automatically got extended into Malabar which often made irrelevant as Malabar doesn’t follow Tamil style of worship, making Kerala govt to pass exclusions each and every time. And individual families were making many claims under TN Law in Kerala which also didn’t make much sense. Most of the families that owned temples were afraid of Devaswom concept as the basis of devaswom law is deep-rooted in Travancore model of nationalization. None of the individual families wanted to lose their private temples. So they opposed it tooth and nail.Whereas employees of the temple, priests, and others associated wanted Travancore styled Devaswom law over Malabar as TDB Employees have a similar status of Govt employees. They get fixed salaries, pension and other government benefits which none of the employees of private temples in Malabar gets. Many priests in TDB have salaries equal to Gazette rank govt employees, so as other administrative employees. So as there is a job security too which none of them had in Malabar side. So they intensely protested to form Malabar Devaswom on models of Travancore/Cochin Devaswom. This ended up in a legal battle between Temple owners and employees. Finally when all the cases were disposed of mostly in favor of employees, Kerala Govt in 2007 decided to form Malabar Devasom Board concept which covers 1600 temples spread from Kasargod to Palakkad districts of erstwhile Malabar.1,600 temples to come under Malabar Devaswom`Malabar Devaswom Board in 2007'Unlike Travancore/Cochin Devaswom which owns and manages temples, MDB donot own all temples, rather supervise and act as a regulatory authority. They nationalize a temple from its private management upon allegations of corruption or mismanagement or misconduct. However, due to this reason, the salary structure of employees wasn’t similar to TDB or CDB which is still an issue.The policy of MDB is to nationalize temples only upon proving charges of corruption which exist in the majority of private temples of the region. Upon allegation, Kerala High Court’s Devaswom Bench would appoint an ombudsman to check on the validity of allegation and once the court is convinced of allegations of corruption, High court orders taking over such temples directly to MDB. So there is no blanket nationalization unlike that happened in Travancore in the 19th century.Several leading temples got annexed by MDB on successful proving of charges of corruption and mismanagement. However many celebrated temples still stand independently in the region.Suggested reading;Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to Is it true that the Kerala Devaswom board is used by the government for other purposes?http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/168474/4/13_chapter4.pdfhttp://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27845/6/06_chapter%201.pdfhttp://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/61762/9/09_chapter%202.pdfColonel John Munro: A Catalyst for Socio-Political Change in TravancoreHistory of Cochin Royal Family

Hello Sir,France–India relations have always been very close and friendly as both countries have a 'special relationship' with each other because of their centuries-old history of trade relations since 17th century until 1954.Also during the 18th Century, the French and Indians fought together and vanquished Anwaruddin in 1749, and many French military adventurer and mercenaries worked under the Marathas to fight against British. Later French lost its pre-eminence in India with the Treaty of Paris (1763) with British, and as France was successful in supporting the American War of Independence in 1776, it wished to expel the British from India as well. During the British Raj, many Indian freedom fighters (Subramania Bharati, Lala Lajpat Rai, Sri Aurobindo) sought refuge in French establishments in India to stay out of reach of the British.France also maintained a colonial presence in the subcontinent; Puducherry, one of its former Indian territories, and for protecting the culture in Puducherry, India later accorded it with the Union Territory status.Development of Relationship after Independence;Establishment of the strategic partnership in 1998 between the two countries.With this there were growing commercial exchanges including in strategic areas such as defence, nuclear energy and space. There is also a growing and wide-ranging cooperation in areas such as trade and investment, culture, science and technology and education.France was the first country with which India entered into an agreement on nuclear energy following the waiver given by International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.France has consistently supported India’s permanent membership of the UNSC, and worked along with USA for India's membership into MTCR like control regime's.France is the only country to be invited a record-setting 5 times to the highly symbolic national ceremonial event of Indian Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26, 2016.This was all about India-France historical relation, now coming to deepening of the defence ties point, I would like to emphasise that this was taking shape since April 2015 India-France joint statement at Paris, France. Since then both countries progressively worked towards what we have today.Coming to the strategic relationship, from India's perspective, France stands number 3 behind Russia and USA, and ahead of UK, Germany and Japan. Also from the trust quotient, India considers France more stable and trustworthy during any emergency than the Russia and USA.Recently taken strategic decisions are,Reciprocal logistic support between the armed forces of both countries.France's support to India for freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, which will lead to stability in the Indian Ocean region.Deals for cooperation in electric mobility of railways, education, environment, urban development, space cooperation and intelligence sharing. A joint vision for space cooperation opens the doors for the two countries to embark on an astronaut programme.Building world's largest nuclear power plant at Jaitapur, with a total capacity of 9.6 Gigawatts.Coming to the final point of countering China, obviously these strategic relationships are to show the global support India has, as India worries about China creating a "string of pearls" that surrounds it and threatens its security, as we see China's heavily loaned infrastructure projects in the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri-lanka and Maldives, which will eventually leads to country leasing the project to China on a 99 year lease.But whats the benefit of France here,Practically not much, apart from India being a very big defence buyer, France's share in this is small.Foreign Direct Investment- France is the 9th largest foreign investor in India, India being a large market, France has a share in every Market sector in India.Finally, it seems the Belt and Road or the Silk road haunts France too, as the cheap Chinese goods would become more cheaper there in Europe, after China starts this route full-fledged, and no other country is more vocal of it than India, so supporting India, is just a risk diversified.Moreover it feels, France's legit love for India, which made its way through reciprocal logistical support, as its clear India needs France more than France needs India, at the moment. Still speculating it would be wrong, but for sure India can always rely on France for its support irrespective of the days global political situation.Just tried to present a diverse viewpoint, and in doing so it became a hell lot lengthy, hope I would learn to write it short soon.Sincerely,Shubhodeep Mukherjee