Tender Document - The Ministry Of External Affairs: Fill & Download for Free

KACHCHATIVU WAS PART OF SRI LANKA EVEN BEFORE THE AGREEMENT OF 1974[1]Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchativu is not only based on the Agreements of 1974 and 1976 but also on historical documentations, by effective occupation and user, legislation for Kachchativu and publication of the acts of sovereignty over Kachchativu without protest by India.In 1921 a Conference was held in Colombo. A delegation of four officials came to Colombo from the then Government of the Presidency of Madras, headed by C.W.E. Cotton. There were also four officials from Sri Lanka, headed by B. Horsburgh. The Conference went on from March to October 1921. The sovereignty over Kachchativu was claimed by both the countries, placing several documents in support of each one’s claim.Many Portuguese and Dutch records and maps showing Kachchativu as part of the kingdom of Jaffna Patnam and cartographic evidence showing Kachchativu as part of Sri Lanka were tendered at the Conference in proof of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchativu.Historical Documents:In 1615 the East India Company exercised jurisdiction over Kachchativu as belonging to the Kingdom of Jaffna.The several records maintained by the Dutch clearly demonstrate that Kachchativu was part of the Kingdom of Jaffna Patnam, an Independent State before her fall to the Portuguese in 1620.There are traces of historic evidence that the Last King of Jaffna Patnam, Sankili Kumaran had caused his men to catch green turtles which were abundant around the area of Kachchativu for his delicious plate of meal. There was no evidence of protest by India.A Treatise under the name of “Description of the Island of Ceylon” published by Francois Valentyn in 1726, showing a cartographic map of Kachchativu as part of Jaffna Patnam.There are several documents, specially maps from the Dutch and British Governments showing Kachchativu is part of the Northern Province. Both Survey General’s Departments of India and Sri Lanka acknowledge this title.In 1876 the Survey Department of India accepted Kachchativu as part of Ceylon. In a Letter dated 23rd April 1876 sent by Major General B.R. Brainhill, an official of Madras Survey Department to the Superintendent of the Trignometrical Survey, stated that “I enclose a description of the four stations built by me on the islands belonging to Ceylon. Two Stations were in Delft and two in Kachchativu”.In a reply to Ceylon’s letter dated 10th September 1910, India accepted Ceylon’s Claim to the island of Kachchativu.The Triangulation in India and Adjacent Countries Report of 1915 stated that Kachchativu island belonged to the Jaffna Taluk in the Northern Province of Ceylon.During the period of World War II, the Government of India sought permission from Sri Lanka to use Kachchativu for her naval exercises. Consequently, the Governor Sir Andrew Caldecott issued on 1st June 1944 Defence Regulations allowing the Government Agent of Jaffna to grant permits with conditions.When the then Indian High Commissioner for India in Sri Lanka, V.V. Giri sent a letter dated 11th August 1949 to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs of Ceylon informing that India intended to use Kachchativu for naval exercises, the then Permanent Secretary to the Defence and External Affairs, Sir Kandiah Vythianathan sent a reply. He asserted by his letter dated 3rd January 1950 that “Should the Royal Indian Navy desire to conduct fleet exercises as proposed it will be necessary to obtain the permission of Ceylon Government to do so”. In receipt of this letter India abandoned her claim to Kachchativu and never attempted to have naval exercises without the permission of Sri Lanka.In 1956 Kachchativu was used by Sri Lanka for aerial bombarding practice. There was no official protest from India. The Ceylon Tamil Maha Sabai had only protested by its letter dated 29th March 1956 stating that Kachchativu possessed a medicinal herb, called ‘Mukily’ and that ‘Panner leaves’ were abundantly found therein which were used in Hindu Temples and these wonderful herbs and sacred trees would be destroyed.Atlas of Mutual Heritage (Maps of ceylon)The 1974 and 1976 agreements between Sri Lanka and IndiaThe Katchatheevu islet is a sovereign property of Sri Lanka ceded to SL by the 1974 and 1976 agreements between the two countries and the agreements do not confer any fishing rights on fishermen from India.[2]Under the agreements of 1974 and 1976, Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to Katchatheevu and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visas for these purposes. fishermen could rest, dry their nets and attend the annual St Antony’s festival in Katchatheevu.Under the treaty agreement of 1974, Indian fishermen have lost the rights to fishing around the island as it is within the territorial waters of Sri Lanka and the 1976 agreement has established the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL), which the fishermen in the two countries are not allowed to cross into each other’s territory.India should charge TN leaders who encourage fishermen to commit criminal acts and risk their lives, rather than pushing SriLankan authorities to abrogate their duty by their nation, just to please the Tamilnadu trouble makers.Download PDFAgreement between SL and India on the Boundary in Historic Waters 26_28 June 1974Agreement between SL and India on the Boundary in GoM and BoB 23 March 1976Agreement between SL India and Maldives on T Point 23_24_and 31 Jul 1976Supplementary Agreement between SL and India on the extension of Boundary to T Point 22 Nov 1976UNCLOS(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea )BOOK - “Kachchathivu and the Maritime Boundary of Sri Lanka” by W.T Jayasinghe A Stamford Lake Publication. ISBN -955–8733–57–1[3]The book describes how Sri tanka’s maritime boundary was negotiated between Sri Lanka and India.Footnotes[1] Kachchativu was part of Sri Lanka even before the Agreement of 1974.[2] India–Sri Lanka maritime boundary agreements[3] 'Kachchativu: and the Maritime Boundary of Sri Lanka' by Mr. W.T. Jayasinghe former Secretary of MEA, Sri Lanka

The Great Purges were caused by a great fear that overcame the Soviet Union during the 1930’s. Why? There were sabotages at important industrial centers. Undercover operations like Operation Trust uncovered the existence of right wing, Trotsskyist, and others opposed to the Soviet government. The NKVD created a fake anti-Bolshevik organization that was dedicated to overthrowing the government. It uncovered volumes and volumes of real conspiracies.Soviet workers vote for the Great PurgesMeanwhile, some members of the military were planning a coup d’etat against the government. Despite the fraud of the Dewey Commission (one of the leading officials resigned due to the sham nature of it), there were Trotskyist plans to cede land to Germany, engage in a palace coup against Stalin and the Communist Party.In fact, the workers voted for the Great Purges because they feared a German invasion. They voted for the Great Purges. The archives show that while there were real conspiracies, there was also great fear that permeated the entire society. James Harris, a historian, in his book “The Great Fear” looks at the Soviet archives. He was surprised to discover that Stalin and the other members of the government were not cynically engaged in the purges to eliminate Stalin’s political enemies. Not at all. In private Stalin was very serious about socialism and finding the enemies. Part of the reason was the methods used by the NKVD itself. Using Operation Trust materials the head of the NKVD estimated a certain number of traitors in the ranks. So the NKVD would go arrest someone and ask them questions, often using torture and not relenting until they “named names.” But people will say anything under torture, so they would name anyone. So then the NKVD would go arrest this person, and on and on. The first head of the NKVD, Iagoda, was fired because he didn’t arrest enough people. So then Yezhov was hired. Yezhov estimated there was a grand conspiracy that he believed was out there. This was partly from bad intelligence from his agents. So then he went out and started having hundreds of thousands arrested. They were summarily tried and executed. Somehow the Germans influenced Yezhov. Some believe they had information about him being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual acts. Others believe he was part of a very real conspiracy with the right wing opposition, wanting to bring mayhem to turn public opinion against the government to support a coup. Later the full range of his behavior was discovered and opposed, and he was fired, tried, and executed. The killings by the NKVD under Beria then fell down to 1%. About 680,000 people were tried and executed in total. 28,000 were sent to prison.Professor Harris discusses the Great Fear, the intelligence and collection of it during the Great PurgesOperation Trust:Operation Trust (операция "Трест"[1]) was a counterintelligence operation of the State Political Directorate (GPU) of the Soviet Union. The operation, which ran from 1921 to 1926, set up a fake anti-Bolshevik resistance organization, "Monarchist Union of Central Russia", MUCR (Монархическое объединение Центральной России, МОЦР), in order to help the OGPU identify real monarchists and anti-Bolsheviks.The cover story used for discussion was to call the organization the Moscow Municipal Credit Association.The head of the MUCR was Alexander Yakushev (Александр Александрович Якушев), a former bureaucrat of the Ministry of Communications of Imperial Russia, who after the Russian Revolution joined the Narkomat of External Trade (Наркомат внешней торговли), when the Soviets began to allow the former specialists (called "spetsy", Russian: спецы) to resume the positions of their expertise. This position allowed him to travel abroad and contact Russian emigrants.MUCR kept the monarchist general Alexander Kutepov (Александр Кутепов) from active actions, as he was convinced to wait for the development of internal anti-Bolshevik forces. Kutepov had previously believed in militant action as a solution to the Soviet occupation, and had formed the "combat organization", a militant splinter from the Russian All-Military Union (Russian: Русский Обще-Воинский Союз, Russkiy ObshcheVoinskiy Soyuz) led by General Baron Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel.[2]Kutepov also created the Inner Line as a counter-intelligence organization to prevent Bolshevik penetrations. It caused the Cheka some problems but was not overly successful.Among the successes of Trust was the luring of Boris Savinkov and Sidney Reilly into the Soviet Union, where they were captured.Some modern researchers say that there are reasons to believe that both persons had doubts in MUCR, and they went into the Soviet Union for their own reasons, using MUCR as a pretext[citation needed].The Soviets did not organize Trust from scratch. The White Army had left sleeper agents, and there were also Royalist Russians who did not leave after the Civil War. These people cooperated to the point of having a loose organizational structure. When the OGPU discovered them, they did not liquidate them, but expanded the organization for their own use.Still another episode of the operation was an "illegal" trip (in fact, monitored by OGPU) of a notable émigré, Vasily Shulgin, into the Soviet Union. After his return he published a book "Three Capitals" with his impressions. In the book he wrote, in part, that contrary to his expectations, Russia was reviving, and the Bolsheviks would probably be removed from power.The one Western historian who had limited access to the Trust files, John Costello, reported that they comprised thirty-seven volumes and were such a bewildering welter of double-agents, changed code names, and interlocking deception operations with "the complexity of a symphonic score", that Russian historians from the Intelligence Service had difficulty separating fact from fantasy.Defector Vasili Mitrokhin reported that the Trust files were not housed at the SVR offices in Yasenevo, but were kept in the special archival collections (spetsfondi) of the FSB at the Lubyanka.[1]Hersh Bortman translates:John Berger’s answer reads:The Great Purge took place from 1936 through 1938. It had “merit” for Stalin in that it eliminated any remaining opposition or resistance <emphasis added> to his rule. Estimates of the total number of people killed to achieve this range from 680,000 to 1,200,000. Here are the details: Great Purge - WikipediaLet’s use the link and have a look at the contingent of those remaining opposition and resistance to Stalin’s rule.<By NKVD of USSR - Nicolas Werth: L’Ivrogne et la Marchande de fleurs. Autopsie d’un meurtre de masse, 1937–1938, Tallandier, Paris 2009, ISBN 978-2-8473-4573-5., Public Domain, File: NKVD Order No. 00447.jpg>Do you know who this Nicolas Werth is? Please meet: Nicolas Werth is a French historian, and a scholar of communist studies, particularly the history of the Soviet Union. He is the son of Alexander Werth, a Russian-born British journalist, and writer. He wrote the chapters dedicated to the USSR in The Black Book of Communism.Aha! That Black Book! Allow me to quote from MIM: Review of the “Black Book of Communism”The Black Book sold 70,000 copies in four weeks in France.(13) Of course, the Wall Street Journal endorsed it as well as most of the rest of the bourgeois press. There are 175 entries in an Internet search using the “Google” search engine. Many of the book reviews can be seen by visiting MIM’s bookstore under reviewed books and going to the Amazon bookstore link for the Black Book. The positive reviews can be taken as an indication of the lack of historical knowledge of some, the weak quantitative skills of others and the overall conscious distortion of the bourgeoisie. In the end, MIM agrees that Courtois has recognized the truth about the media: it will buy anything anti-communist.This matter cleared, I want to represent to the curious reader who was the majority of those remaining opposition and resistance to Stalin’s rule. I apologize for any discrepancies in my translation of the scanned document above.PEOPLE'S COMMISSARY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE USSROPERATIVE ORDERJuly 30, 1937 No. 00447REPRESSING FORMER KULAKS, CRIMINALS AND OTHER ANTI-SOVIET ELEMENTS.July 30, 1937.Moscow.The materials of the investigation into the cases of anti-Soviet formations establish that a significant number of former kulaks, other previously repressed, fled the camps, exiles and labor camps. Also among them, there are many, repressed in the past churchmen and sectarians, former active participants of anti-Soviet armed protests. Significant cadres of anti-Soviet political parties (Esers, Grusmeks, Dashnaks, Mussavatists, Ittihadists, etc) - remained almost untouched in the villages, as well as cadres of former active participants in the gangs of uprisings, whites, punishers, returnees, etc.Some of the above elements, having left the village to the cities, penetrated into the industrial enterprises, transport, and construction.In addition, the village and the city still nest a significant number of criminals – cattle-and-horse thieves, recidivists, robbers, etc. who had served their sentences, had escaped from prison and were fleeing repression. The inadequacy of the fight against these criminal forces has created conditions of impunity for them to facilitate their criminal activities.As it is established, all these anti-Soviet elements are the main instigators of all kinds of anti-Soviet and sabotage crimes, both in collective farms and state farms and on transport and in some areas of industry.The state security authorities have a task - in the most merciless way to defeat this whole gang of anti-Soviet elements, to protect the working Soviet people from them counter-revolutionary machinations and, finally, once and for all, to put an end to their vile subversive work against the foundations of the Soviet state.IAW THAT REPORT I ORDER TO START THE OPERATION AGAINST THE FORMER KULAKS AND ACTIVE ANTI-SOVIET ELEMENTS AND CRIMINALS BEGINNING FROM 5 AUGUST 1937 IN ALL REPUBLICS, KRAIS, and OBLASTS.Follows 10–15 pages with detailed instructions concerning the operation. Приказ НКВД от 30.07.1937 № 00447Now my turn to ask a question, can anyone explain to the public which way the above-mentioned cattle-and-horse thieves presented opposition to Stalin’s rule as John Berger suggests in his answer? Rhetoric question.We should stop to mark the whole contingent of the punitive facilities of GULag as innocent victims by definition. Our sympathy should go only with the TRULY INNOCENT, who represent a mere tiny fraction of the total number of the repressed.|So my answer to the title question is Yes, the purges of the 1930s have had the merit of removing the gangrenous matter from the newbie USSR.[2]Chuck Garen:Tukachevsky’s execution had little to no personal background to it.“The Moscow press announced that they [the primary Generals on trial] had been in the pay of Hitler and had agreed to help him get the Ukraine. This charge was fairly widely believed in foreign military circles, and was later substantiated by revelations made abroad. Czech military circles seemed to be especially well informed. Czech officials in Prague bragged to me later that their military men had been the first to discover and to complain to Moscow that Czech military secrets, known to the Russians through the mutual aid alliance, were being revealed by Tukhachevsky to the German high command.”Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 134“Bolstering Khrushchev’s version of this affair, that Stalin swallowed German disinformation designed to destroy Tukhachevsky, is a legend that Stalin was warned of a conspiracy with the Germans. In 1939 the Soviet defector Krivitsky, who had worked for the NKVD and GRU in Western Europe, published his book In Stalin’s Secret Service, in which he claimed that the NKVD received secret information about such a conspiracy from Czech President Benes and from its agent Skoblin,…. Krivitsky accused Skoblin of providing the Soviets with disinformation from the Germans about secret contacts with Tukhachevsky. Later General Schellenberg, chief of Hitler’s foreign intelligence service, in his memoirs also claimed that the Germans fabricated documents pointing to Tukhachevsky as their agent. Before the war, he said, they passed these documents to the Czechs, and Benes reported the information to Stalin. For me, this is a self-serving fairytale. The documents have never been found in the KGB or Stalin archives. The criminal case against Tukhachevsky is based entirely on his confession, and there’s no reference to any incriminating evidence received from German intelligence. If such documents existed, I, as deputy director and the man responsible for the German desk in the intelligence directorate, would have seen them or found some reference to their existence.”Sudoplatov, Pavel. Special Tasks. Boston: Little, Brown, c1993, p. 90“The case of the generals was different from that of the accused civilians. Not only was it held in camera, but the “Court” of a presiding judge and two assistants was reinforced by eight of the highest officers in the Red Army. In addition, more than 100 high-ranking officers from all over the country were summoned as spectators, in order later to give an eye-witness account of proceedings to the troops under their command. It is a matter of record that none of them ever expressed doubts about the genuineness of the charge or the justice of the verdict. In this case at least, there was no possibility that the accused had been “worked on” during a long period of preliminary examination, as they were tried within three days after their rest, confessed their guilt, were condemned by unanimous verdict, and shot without delay.…The charges against them, and the exact nature of their offense, had never been made public officially, but they can be surmised with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The night before Tukhachevsky and the others were arrested, Marshall Gamarnik, Vice Commissar of War and chief of the Political Department of the Red Army, committed suicide, which gives the key to the puzzle. The Political Department had been originally intended by Lenin as a means of civil control over the Army, but in the course of time it had gradually become a part or appanage of the General Staff, owing allegiance to the Army rather than to the Kremlin. The danger of war, and perhaps doubts provoked by the murder of Kirov and subsequent investigation, led Stalin to decide that a radical change should be made in the status of the Political Department, that it must henceforth revert to its original function as an instrument of civilian control. The Army leaders resented this “interference,” and finally decided to prevent it by violent action…. Accordingly, Tukhachevsky, Gamarnik, and their colleagues appealed to the German General Staff for support in their projected coup d’etat or “palace revolution” against Stalin. They hoped to affect the coup through the Kremlin Guard and the students of the military academy in the Kremlin, who, they believed, would obey their orders; but they had the gravest doubts about the mass of the Army and the nation as a whole, which prompted them to seek German aid in return, it is said, for an offer of territory and for economic and political advantages in the Ukraine and North Caucasus.”Duranty, Walter. Story of Soviet Russia. Philadelphia, N. Y.: JB Lippincott Co. 1944, p. 220“I gave him [Spiegelglass] the contents of a brief confidential dispatch from one of my chief agents in Germany. At a formal reception tendered by high Nazi officials, at which my informant was present, the question of the Tukhachevsky affair came up. Captain Fritz Wiedemann, personal political aide to Hitler –appointed subsequently to the post of Consul-General at San Francisco –was asked if there was any truth in Staliin’s charges of espionage against the Red Army generals. My agent’s report reproduced Wiedemann’s boastful reply:“We hadn’t nine spies in the Red Army, but many more. The 0GPU is still far from on the trail of all our men in Russia.””Krivitsky, Walter G. I was Stalin’s Agent, London: H. Hamilton, 1939, p. 242Such ideas as a General being on the payroll of the Nazis and who were attempting a coup is not far-fetched, as attempts and plans of such attempts ocurredin many countries with it being successful in Germany, Italy and most notably SPain. Attempts were ven made in the US, attempts revealed by Smedley Butler who later died mysteriously not long after.[3]Historians Getty and Harris discuss the Great PurgesFootnotes[1] Operation Trust - Wikipedia[2] Hersh Bortman's answer to Did the Great Purge brought by Stalin in 1939 have any merit?[3] Chuck Garen's answer to Why did Stalin hate Tukhachevsky?

ne of the most important questions which engaged the attention of the framers of the Constitution was the nature of the Executive and its relation with the Legislature. Dr. Ambedkar observed in introducing the Constitution:"A student of constitutional law, if a copy of a Constitution is placed in his hands, is sure to ask two questions. Firstly, what is the form of Government that is envisaged in the Constitution; and secondly what is the form of the Constitution. For these are the two crucial matters which every Constitution has to deal with."1The decision of the Constituent Assembly on the form of Government in India was considerably influenced by the political background of India and the practice and traditions evolved during the British rule2. It is, therefore, not surprising that from the initial stages of the discussions on the principles of the new Constitution, opinion appears to have been overwhelmingly in favour of adopting for India an Executive responsible to the Legislature in accordance with the British tradition. Dr. Ambedkar made an exhaustive and authoritative statement on the general character of the Executive while introducing the Draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948. He observed, inter-alia:"The Parliamentary system differs from a non-Parliamentary system in as much as the former is more responsible than the latter but they also differ as to the time and agency for assessment of their responsibility. Under the Non-Parliamentary system, such as the one that exists in the United States of America, the assessment of the responsibility of the executive is periodic. It takes place once in two years. It is done by the electorate. In England, where the Parliamentary System prevails, the assessment of responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment is done by members of Parliament, through questions, resolutions, no-confidence motions, adjournment motions and debates on Addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the electorate at the time of the election-which may take place every five years or earlier. The daily assessment of responsibility which is not available under the American system is, it is felt far more effective than the periodic assessment and far more necessary in a country like India. The Draft Constitution in recommending the Parliamentary System of executive has preferred more responsibility to more stability.".3In furtherance of this, the Constitution of India elaborately defines, the position, powers and the inter-relationships of the various organisations of State and of other institutions.The Constitution of India provides for a Parliament consisting of an elected President4and the two Houses the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).5The President appoints the Prime Minister and on his advice the other Ministers of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People.6The President summons the two Houses of Parliament to meet from time to time. He can prorogue the two Houses and can dissolve the House of the People. The interval between two sessions must not exceed six Months.7Parliament in India usually meets for about seven months in a year in three Sessions: The Budget Session (Feb.-May), the Monsoon Session (July-Aug.) and the Winter Session (Nov.-Dec.)*. The first session after the General Elections and the first session each year begins with an Address by the President.8The sweep and scope of the legislative jurisdiction and other powers of Parliament under the Constitution are vast. The constituent power also vests in Parliament and the sovereign will of the people may be said to find expression only through the collective decisions of their elected representatives in Parliament. Nevertheless, Parliament of India is neither sovereign nor supreme.9The authority and jurisdiction of Parliament are limited by the Powers of the other organs, the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States,10the incorporation of a code of justiciable fundamental rights,11the general provision for Judicial review and an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court can declare a law passed by Parliament null and void, as violative of fundamental rights, or as contravening other provisions of the Constitution.12Also, under the ruling of the Supreme Court, there are limits to the________________________________________________*Prior to the creation of Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees in 1993, the Rajya Sabha used to have four Sessions.constituent power in as much as Parliament cannot alter what have been called the basic features of the Constitution.13Conventionally, the terms 'Legislature' and 'Executive' respectively, connote a body which legislates or makes laws and a body which executes them. But law-making is not the only function of Parliament. Similarly, the term 'Executive' is often used rather loosely to connote several different things. Under the Constitution of India, the head of the Executive is the President. All executive power is vested in him and all executive actions are taken in his name.14He is, however, only a Constitutional Head of State acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and as such only the formal Executive. The real or the political Executive is the Council of' Ministers.15Then, there is the permanent administration comprising the civil services-the huge staff of administrators, experts, technocrats and others forming an administrative apparatus which really helps the Ministers in the formulation and implementation of policies. The relationship between the Parliament and the Executive may therefore, cover the relationship of Parliament with the political executive i.e. the Council of Ministers as also the relationship of Parliament with the administration i.e. civil services.The question of relationship between the Executive and the Legislature has been engaging the attention of political thinkers and constitutional theorists alike in Britain as also elsewhere. For instance, there has been much talk of the diminishing role of Parliament and the increased power of the Executive in the British Political system. Critics have sometimes examined current trends and have tried to suggest concrete remedies; they have frequently looked back to an alleged 'golden age' when the balance between Legislature and Executive was better maintained. Others have reached the pessimistic conclusion that little can be done to alter the situation.16There are two broad views about the functions of Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive. The first refers to Parliamentary sovereignty, ministerial responsibility, the parliamentary surveillance. The second refers to the responsibility of the Government, the danger of political interference with civil servants, the importance of debate rather than control.17Halsbury's Laws of England of posits the Executive Legislative relations as follows:"Parliament is not an executive authority, but either directly or indirectly it exercises a dominating control over the action of the Crown and of the executive government and the administration of the laws which it has enacted.This control is effected in various ways, namely:1. By the legal restrictions which prevent the Crown or its ministers from imposing any charge upon the people or from maintaining a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament.2. By the doctrine of the Constitution by which supply is granted annually by the House of Commons and must receive legislative sanction each year;3. By means of the rule by which supply granted to the Crown must be appropriated to the particular purposes for which it has been granted; and4. By the Doctrine of the Constitution by which a Minister of the Crown is held responsible to Parliament for any act done by him in his ministerial capacity, or by the Ministry or department of which he is the political head or for any advice tendered by the minister to the Sovereign."18To John Stuart Mill, there was a radical distinction between controlling the business of Government and actually doing it. According to him, a numerous assembly is as little fitted for the direct business of legislation as for that of administration. The only task in which a representative assembly can possibly be competent is not that of doing the work, but of causing it to be done; of determining to whom and to what sort of people it shall be confided, and giving or withholding the national sanction to it when performed. In J.S. Mill's view, therefore, the proper function of a representative assembly is "to watch and control the Government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable, and, if men who compose the Government abuse their trust, or fulfil it in a manner which conflict with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office."19According to the second view, Parliament is not a corporate entity so much as an arena or forum. In this arena, individual members air grievances and groups of members' carry on the party struggle. Minister, appear so that members can `have a go' at them: debates on large issues are staged so that the opposition may present an alternative policy for the benefit of the electors. In other words, this view assigns Parliament a subservient role even though its debates may make newspaper head-lines.20The Indian system, however, represents a real fusion of the highest executive and legislative authorities. In terms of the Constitution, as also In actual practice, the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature is one that is most intimate and ideally does not admit of any antagonism or dichotomy. The two are not visualized as competing centres of power but as Inseparable partners or copartner in the business of Government. Parliament is a large body. It does not and cannot govern, The Council of Ministers is the 'grand executive committee' of Parliament charged with the responsibility of governance on behalf of the parent body. It is drawn from, and remain a part of the Parliament and is responsible to the Lok Sabha. The relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, may be said to be that of a part to the whole and one of interdependence.While the Executive has almost unlimited right to initiate and formulate legislative and financial proposals before Parliament and to give effect to approved policies, unfettered and unhindered by Parliament, Parliament has the unlimited power to call for information, to discuss to scrutinize and to put the seal of approval on the proposals made by the Executive. The Executive (i.e. the political Executive the Council of Ministers) remains responsible and the administration accountable to Parliament. It is the function of Parliament to exercise political and financial control over the Executive and to ensure parliamentary surveillance of administration. Executive responsibility and administrative accountability, are two different functional concepts.The head of every Government Department is a Minister and Parliament exercises control over the Department through the Minister. A Ministry has practically an autonomous existence of its own and conducts its business in pursuance of statutory provisions, rules and regulations or according to a long-standing practice. The Parliamentary control over the Ministry rests in the fact that any action of the Ministry can be called in question by any Member and the Minister responsible for the administration of that Ministry has to defend the acts of his officials. It is a well-established constitutional principle that a Minister is responsible to Parliament for all the acts of the Ministry and it is he who takes the blame, should Parliament disapprove of any administrative act. There can, however, be a case where a civil servant acts either deliberately or recklessly, outside the policy of his Minister or contrary to that policy. By doing so, he relieves the Minister of the responsibility of protecting him. But the constitutional responsibility of the Minister of Parliament remains and he has to satisfy Parliament that he is dealing with the matter adequately.21Administrative accountability means the accountability of the administration to Parliament. Parliament does not interfere with day to day administration nor does it control administration. Accountability to it is technical and indirect i.e. through the Ministers, and it is ex post facto i.e. after something is done; after action has ended. Also, it has to be based on specific grounds. Under the Indian system, after a policy is laid down, a law is passed or monies are sanctioned, it is administration which is required to execute and implement, Parliament cannot itself administer nor can the Ministers. It is, therefore, the officials and not the Ministers--who have to explain if things go wrong in the process of implementation.22In a parliamentary polity, Parliament embodies the will of the people and it must, therefore be able to oversee the way in which public policy is carried out so as to ensure that it keeps in step with the objectives of socio-economic progress, efficient administration and the aspirations, of the people as a whole. This, in a nutshell, is the rasion d’etre of parliamentary surveillance of administration. Parliament has to keep a watch over the behaviour of administration. It can enquire and examine ex post facto whether the administration has acted in conformity with its obligations under the approved policies and utilized the powers conferred on it for purposes for which they were intended and whether the monies spent were in accordance with parliamentary sanction. This ensures that the officials function in the healthy awareness that they, would be ultimately subject to parliamentary scrutiny and answerable for what they do or fail to do. But in order to be able to conduct meaningful scrutiny and call the administration to account, Parliament must have the technical resources and information wherewithal.23The various procedural devices like the system of parliamentary Committees; Questions, Calling Attention, Half-an-Hour Discussion, etc. constitute very potent instruments for effecting parliamentary surveillance over administrative action. Significant occasions for review of administration are also provided by the discussions on the Motion of Thanks on the President's Address, the Budget demands and particular aspects of governmental policy or situations. These apart, specific matters may be discussed through motions on matters of urgent public importance, private members' resolutions and other substantive motions. Members are free to express themselves and to say what is good for the country and what modifications are required in the existing policies. Government is sensitive to parliamentary opinion; in most cases it anticipates that opinion; in sonic cases it bows to it and in some others it may feel that it cannot make any change consistent with its commitments, obligations arid political philosophy. Nevertheless, during discussions members have full liberty to criticize the administration for its performance and suggest how, it should behave in the future or how a particular measure should be carried out or implemented. The discussions are important for they indicate parliamentary mood and bring the impact of public-thinking on the administrative apparatus which may otherwise remain immune or impervious to public sentiments and feelings. It is as well that the parliamentary debates should serve to remind the administration of its duties and obligations. Parliamentary debates affect thinking and action of the administration in the variety of ways and the public influence which cannot be measured in terms of any visible units pervades through all the ranks of administration-high and low. Administrative accountability is thus laid down in these parliamentary discussions and after Parliament approves the policies, administration has complete freedom to implement them in the best manner possible but it is nevertheless haunted and guided by the various viewpoints expressed on the floor of the House.24Executive or Ministerial responsibility to Parliament or what is often termed parliamentary control over the Executive or the Government is based on-(i) the constitutional provision of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the popular House of Parliament;25and(ii) the Parliament's control over the Budget.26In both these matters, parliamentary control over the Executive is political in nature. The answerability of the Executive is direct, continuous, concurrent and day-to-day. When Parliament is sitting, the continuance of the Government in office depends from moment to moment on its retaining the confidence of the House of the People. The House may at any time decide to throw out the Government by a majority vote i.e. if the ruling party loses the support of the majority of the members of the House, its Government goes. No grounds, arguments, proofs or justification are necessary,27when the House clearly shows that it does not support the Government of the day, the Government must resign.28Want of parliamentary confidence in the Government may be expressed by the House of the People by-passing a substantive motion of no-confidence indefeating the Government on a major issue of policy;to consider the annual reports of the Ministries/Departments and report thereon; and________________________________________*For details, see annexure.(d) to consider national basic long term policy documents presented to the Houses, if referred to the Committee by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be and, report thereon.These Standing Committees are not to consider matters of day-to-day administration of the related Ministries/Departments.While inaugurating the Department-related Standing Committee System on 31st March, 1993, the then Vice-President of India and the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, Shri K.R. Narayanan highlighted the purpose of these Committees by saying that these Committees would -"... ensure the accountability of Government to Parliament through more detailed consideration of measures in these Committees. The intention is not to weaken or criticise the Administration but to strengthen it by investing it With more meaningful Parliamentary support."32A N N E X U R EDEPARTMENT-RELATED STANDING COMMITTEESRAJYA SABHA1. Committee on Commerce (i) Commerce andIndustry(ii) Textiles2. Committee on Home Affairs (i) Home Affairs(ii) Law, Justice &Company Affairs(iii) Personnel, PublicGrievances &Pensions3. Committee on Human (i) Human ResourceResource Development Development(ii) Culture, YouthAffairs and Sports(iii) Health and FamilyWelfare4. Committee on Industry (i) Heavy Industries &Public Enterprises(ii) Steel(iii) Mines and MineralsSmall ScaleEnvironment &Forests6. Committee on Transport & (i) Civil AviationTourism (ii) Surface Transport(iii) TourismLOK SABHA1. Committee on Agriculture (i)Agriculture (ii)Water Resources2. Committee on (i) Information &Communications Broadcasting(ii)Communications3. Committee on Defence Defence4. Committee on Energy (i) Non-conventional Energy Sources (ii)Power (iii)Atomic Energy5. Committee on External External AffairsAffairs6. Committee on Finance (i)Finance (ii)Planning (iii)Statistics and Programme Implementation7. Committee on Food, Civil Consumer Affairs &Supplies and Public Public DistributionDistribution8. Committee on Labour (i) Labour and Welfare (ii) Social Justice &Empowerment(iii) Tribal Affairs9.Committee on Petroleum & (i) Petroleum & Natural Chemicals Gas (ii) Chemicals &Fertilizers10. Committee on Railways Railways11. Committee on Urban and (i) Urban Development Rural Development (ii) Rural Development(iii)Urban Employmentand PovertyAlleviationREFERENCES1. Constituent Assembly Debates (C.A. Deb.). Vol. VII; pp, 31-32.2. B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India's Constitution, p. 334.3. C.A. Deb. Ibid, pp. 32-33.4. Constitution of India, Article 54.5. Constitution of India, Article 79.6. Constitution of India, Article 75.7. Constitution of India, Article 85.8. Constitution of India, Article 87.9. In re. Delhi Laws Act (1912), AIR 1951, SC 332.10. Articles 245-246 and the Seventh Schedule.11. Articles 12-35 and 226.12. K.G. Thomas vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1958 Ker 6.13. Kesavanand Bharti vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973, SC 1461.14. Articles 52-53 and 77.15. Articles 74 and 78, see Rai Sahib, Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. the State of Punjab, AIR 1955, SC 549.16. H.V. Wiseman, Parliament and the Executive, p. xiii.17. Ibid, p. 13.18. Halsbury, Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 28, 1959, pp. 300-301.19. J.S. Mill, Considerations of Representative Government, pp. 229-235 and 239--241.20. A.H. Birch, Representative and Responsible Govern-ment, pp. 166-67.21. Kaul and Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 3rd Edition, p. 918.22. Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, The Parliament and the Executive in India (Published in the Journal of Society of Clerks-at-the-Table, Vol. XLIX)23. S.L. Shakdher, Glimpses of the Working of Parliament. pp, 180-184.24. Ibid.25. Article 75.26. Articles 114-116 and 265.27. Parliaments of the World, IPU, 1976, pp, 801-802 and 825-827.28. Kaul and Shakdher, op. cit, p. 586.29. Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, Rule 198.30. Ibid, Rule 56.31. Articles 114-116 and 265.32. V.S. Rama Devi, Parliament of India - An Introduction, 1995