J. Venkatesan
A special full bench comprising Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce its verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on September 30. The final hearing on these suits began on July 23, 1996 and verdict was reserved on July 26 this year.
On one side are a number of Hindu plaintiffs who claim the disputed site belongs to them and is the spot where a temple to Lord Rama once existed. On the other is the U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board, which maintains that the site, where the Babri Masjid stood for five centuries before being demolished by mobs on December 6, 1992, is a Muslim place of worship.
The present legal battle over title has gone on for nearly 60 years. On Thursday, the court is expected to rule on that and perhaps also answer several questions framed by itself in the course of the suit. These include whether the disputed site in Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Rama and whether the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple at the same site.
According to the Wakf Board, Muslims offered prayers at the mosque from 1528, when it was built by Babur, all the way up to 1949, when the gates were locked by the local administration after some miscreants — with the connivance of officials — surreptitiously placed idols of Lord Rama inside the mosque.
The mosque was razed by kar sevaks brought to the site by leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party who said the courts were not competent to rule on what was a “matter of faith”.
In their submissions, the Hindu plaintiffs said that their right to worship the deity of Ram Lalla, or the infant Rama, at the disputed site must be recognised by the court since “millions of Hindus” for “several centuries” have believed it to be the birth place of Lord Rama. Their lawyers also adduced historical accounts by foreign travellers suggesting that not only before 1528 but even thereafter Hindus have held the place itself under great reverence.
What is the case all about?
Idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in the middle of the floor space under the central dome on December 23, 1949. Soon thereafter, devotees assembled there to worship. On December 29, 1949, the city Magistrate exercised control over the whole area.
The first suit was filed on January 16, 1950 by one Gopal Simla Visharad in the Faizabad civil court for the exclusive rights of performing pooja for Ram Lalla. He sought a restraint order on the removal of idols and a temporary injunction was issued. This order was later confirmed by the civil judge and later by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. On December 5, 1950, Paramahansa Ramachandradas also filed a suit for continuation of the pooja and keeping the idols in the Babri structure. This was pending till August 1990, when out of sheer frustration he withdrew the case.
The third suit was filed in 1959 by the Nirmohi Akhara, seeking direction to hand over charge of the disputed site from the receiver. The fourth suit was filed in 1961 by the U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board for a declaration and possession. The fifth suit was filed on July 1, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession.
On February 1, 1986, a district judge ordered the locks on the mosque removed and the site was opened for Hindu worshippers. Two years earlier, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had begun a campaign to “liberate” the so-called birthplace of Lord Rama and the 1986 decision was widely seen at the time as an attempt by the Congress —then in power at the Centre and U.P. — to upstage the VHP and the BJP.
In 1989, the four suits pending in the Faizabad civil court were transferred to the High Court on an application moved by the Advocate General U.P.
On October 10, 1991, the then U.P. government acquired the 2.77-acre land, around the disputed structure, for the convenience of devotees who attend the Ram Lalla darshan.
On January 7, 1993 the Government of India, with the consent of Parliament, took over some 67 acres of land all around the disputed area and sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on whether there existed a Hindu place of worship before the disputed structure was built. The Supreme Court declined to answer the question.
On October 24, 1994, the Supreme Court turned the case back to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the suits were heard again from 1996.Long legal history
In fact, the first suit was filed in 1885 when the Faizabad deputy commissioner refused to let Mahant Raghubar Das build a temple on land adjoining the mosque. Das then filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the Chabutra on the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid.
His suit was dismissed on the ground that the alleged demolition of an original Ram temple in 1528 had occurred over 350 years earlier, and so it was “too late now” to remedy the grievance. “Maintain status quo. Any innovation may cause more harm than any benefit,” the court said. Thissuit was revived in 1950.
In August 2002, the High Court asked the Archaeological Survey of India to find out whether a temple existed below the mosque or not. The ASI submitted a report in 2003 following some excavations but its methodology has been disputed by historians.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article802996.ece
News review
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Singhal: Who is this litigant, a non-entity?
Singhal: Who is this litigant, a non-entity?
Ashok Singhal
NEW DELHI: Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok Singhal on Thursday cried foul at the Supreme Court's decision to stay the delivery of the Ayodhya verdict on Friday by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court based in Lucknow, but stopped short of directly alleging that the government was behind this.
The BJP spokesperson was silent on the issue that defined the party's “core ideology” for almost a decade. “We will wait for the verdict before commenting,” was the party line, but it was left entirely to Mr. Singhal to articulate the sangh parivar's position on the stay on the verdict.
Although Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat has asked all senior BJP leaders to remain in Delhi so that they can be available for consultations at short notice, for the moment it was silence from the Jhandewalan headquarters too for, the sangh has decided to let the ‘sants' lead from the front.
Seated next to the former general secretary of the VHP, Pravin Togadia, at a press conference, Mr. Singhal categorically ruled out exploring a negotiated settlement once again at this stage, adding none of the main parties to the suit was interested in this when a judicial verdict was ready to be delivered in the 60-year-old dispute.
“Who is this litigant who wants the verdict delayed? Who is this [Ramesh Chandra Tripathi] non-entity? After impleading himself in the case in 1969, nobody saw his face in the court all these years. He is a non-entity. Clearly, there is a big force behind him,” Mr. Singhal said, reiterating that the Sunni Wakf Board had said that it did not want the verdict delayed and did not want negotiations at this stage. “Who will negotiate when the main parties to the suit do not want talks?”
He went on: “Even today [Thursday] the main litigants made it clear in the court they do not want to discuss or negotiate the dispute … that has been tried unsuccessfully four times earlier ... this delay, this is all the work of the government ( yeh sab sarkar ka kaam hai).” Did he mean that the government had “prompted” the Supreme Court to stay the Ayodhya verdict, he was asked. Mr. Singhal retracted, saying he was referring to the “government's job” to give an extension to the judge (Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma) on the Special Bench in Lucknow if the verdict was to be held back for a few weeks beyond September 30, last working day of Mr. Justice Sharma before retirement.
The final word
The final word on the Ayodhya issue will be that of the high-power committee of ‘sants' who are meeting on Friday morning. They will make known their decision by evening. The Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya, Vasudevanand Saraswati, will be here as also Nritya Gopal Das from Ayodhya and Vishwadevanand from Gujarat. “They will give direction to the entire country,” Mr. Singhal said.
Nevertheless, the VHP leader gave reporters a peep into what their decision may be. “There is anger that a joke is being made of the sentiments of crores of people for whom it is a matter of deep faith,” Mr. Singhal said echoing his own words ahead of the fateful December 6, 1992 ‘kar-sewa' at Ayodhya when anger stemming from a delayed judicial verdict was the excuse given for the destruction of the 16 {+t} {+h} century mosque.
The “reason” offered in the weeks ahead of December 6, 1992 was that the “patience” of ‘Ram bhakts' had run out and that the Narasimha Rao regime was to blame for not “ensuring” an early judicial pronouncement on a petition questioning the acquisition of the disputed site by the Uttar Pradesh government of the time for “development of facilities for pilgrims.”
Mr. Singhal said: “It was the Supreme Court which had earlier asked the Allahabad High Court to expedite the Ayodhya case through daily hearings. Now they have delayed the verdict. The results of this delay will not be good. Delayed justice is justice denied. They have given a dhakka [a jolt] to the entire country… those behind this delay will suffer as did others who hatched similar conspiracies of delay in the past.”
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/24/stories/2010092462871200.htm
Ashok Singhal
NEW DELHI: Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok Singhal on Thursday cried foul at the Supreme Court's decision to stay the delivery of the Ayodhya verdict on Friday by the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court based in Lucknow, but stopped short of directly alleging that the government was behind this.
The BJP spokesperson was silent on the issue that defined the party's “core ideology” for almost a decade. “We will wait for the verdict before commenting,” was the party line, but it was left entirely to Mr. Singhal to articulate the sangh parivar's position on the stay on the verdict.
Although Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat has asked all senior BJP leaders to remain in Delhi so that they can be available for consultations at short notice, for the moment it was silence from the Jhandewalan headquarters too for, the sangh has decided to let the ‘sants' lead from the front.
Seated next to the former general secretary of the VHP, Pravin Togadia, at a press conference, Mr. Singhal categorically ruled out exploring a negotiated settlement once again at this stage, adding none of the main parties to the suit was interested in this when a judicial verdict was ready to be delivered in the 60-year-old dispute.
“Who is this litigant who wants the verdict delayed? Who is this [Ramesh Chandra Tripathi] non-entity? After impleading himself in the case in 1969, nobody saw his face in the court all these years. He is a non-entity. Clearly, there is a big force behind him,” Mr. Singhal said, reiterating that the Sunni Wakf Board had said that it did not want the verdict delayed and did not want negotiations at this stage. “Who will negotiate when the main parties to the suit do not want talks?”
He went on: “Even today [Thursday] the main litigants made it clear in the court they do not want to discuss or negotiate the dispute … that has been tried unsuccessfully four times earlier ... this delay, this is all the work of the government ( yeh sab sarkar ka kaam hai).” Did he mean that the government had “prompted” the Supreme Court to stay the Ayodhya verdict, he was asked. Mr. Singhal retracted, saying he was referring to the “government's job” to give an extension to the judge (Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma) on the Special Bench in Lucknow if the verdict was to be held back for a few weeks beyond September 30, last working day of Mr. Justice Sharma before retirement.
The final word
The final word on the Ayodhya issue will be that of the high-power committee of ‘sants' who are meeting on Friday morning. They will make known their decision by evening. The Jyotishpeeth Shankaracharya, Vasudevanand Saraswati, will be here as also Nritya Gopal Das from Ayodhya and Vishwadevanand from Gujarat. “They will give direction to the entire country,” Mr. Singhal said.
Nevertheless, the VHP leader gave reporters a peep into what their decision may be. “There is anger that a joke is being made of the sentiments of crores of people for whom it is a matter of deep faith,” Mr. Singhal said echoing his own words ahead of the fateful December 6, 1992 ‘kar-sewa' at Ayodhya when anger stemming from a delayed judicial verdict was the excuse given for the destruction of the 16 {+t} {+h} century mosque.
The “reason” offered in the weeks ahead of December 6, 1992 was that the “patience” of ‘Ram bhakts' had run out and that the Narasimha Rao regime was to blame for not “ensuring” an early judicial pronouncement on a petition questioning the acquisition of the disputed site by the Uttar Pradesh government of the time for “development of facilities for pilgrims.”
Mr. Singhal said: “It was the Supreme Court which had earlier asked the Allahabad High Court to expedite the Ayodhya case through daily hearings. Now they have delayed the verdict. The results of this delay will not be good. Delayed justice is justice denied. They have given a dhakka [a jolt] to the entire country… those behind this delay will suffer as did others who hatched similar conspiracies of delay in the past.”
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/24/stories/2010092462871200.htm
SC stays Ayodhya title suit verdict for one week
PTI
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court on Friday and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next Tuesday.
The Court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60 year old Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.
A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
However, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go by the opinion of Justice Gokhale.
In the order, Justice Raveendran said, “When one of the Judges has a difference of opinion then the tradition is to issue notice.”
Notice was also sent to the Attorney General by the Supreme Court.
A bench of the apex court comprising Justices Altmas Kabir and A K Patnaik had on Wednesday declined to hear urgently the plea to postpone the Ayodhya title suit verdict.
While refusing to hear the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Tripathi, the bench had said that it did not have the “determination” to take up the issue and added that it will be listed before another Bench.
Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing for Tripathi, said the Supreme Court may give a healing touch by attempting a last ditch effort at mediation.
He said it was possible that in the face of Supreme Court notices the rival parties may sit across to find an amicable solution.
Rohatgi said that next Tuesday his side would try to tell the court that the matter of judgement should be deferred so that religious, political and national leaders could try and work out a solution.
He also said it was not a matter of just 10 or 20 parties in the case but related to lakhs and crores of people and the mediation could result in some way out.
Tripathi had on Wednesday moved the apex court five days after the High Court’s Lucknow bench rejected his petition for deferring the verdict and to allow mediation to find a solution to the contentious dispute.
The Allahabad High Court had also imposed “exemplary costs” of Rs 50,000, terming Tripathi’s effort for an out of court settlement of the dispute as a “mischievous attempt“.
The petition filed by Tripathi sought some time to allow mediation among the parties and also challenged the costs.
Tripathi, in his plea before the apex court, claimed that the verdict might disturb communal harmony and lead to violence in the country.
In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in “public interest” in view of the apprehension of communal flare up, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal hit states.
The petition had feared that there would be inadequate security personnel in Uttar Pradesh to provide security.
Tripathi had also referred to an earlier order of the Court on July 27 last that parties concerned are at liberty to approach the Officer on Special Duty for formation of the bench if there was any possibility of disposal of the dispute or arrival at an understanding through consensus.
One of the three judges in the Lucknow bench, however, disagreed with the majority order of September 17 rejecting the plea for deferring the Ayodhya verdict to allow mediation and gave a dissenting opinion that an amicable settlement could have been explored in the protracted legal wrangle.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, while not concurring with the view of the other two judges - Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal - also said in his dissenting judgement that he wasn’t consulted when the three—judge bench gave the order while dismissing the plea for mediation.
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed for a week the Ayodhya title suit verdict that was due to be pronounced by Allahabad High Court on Friday and will hear the plea for deferment of the judgement next Tuesday.
The Court issued notices to the contesting parties on the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi challenging the order of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court order refusing to defer the verdict in the 60 year old Ram Janambhoomi Babri Masjid title suit dispute.
It posted the matter for further hearing on September 28.
A Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the High Court order.
Justice Raveendran was of the view that the special leave petition filed by Tripathi should be dismissed while Justice Gokhale, on the other hand, was of the opinion that a notice should be issued for exploring the option of settlement.
However, Justice Raveendran, who was heading the Bench, preferred to go by the opinion of Justice Gokhale.
In the order, Justice Raveendran said, “When one of the Judges has a difference of opinion then the tradition is to issue notice.”
Notice was also sent to the Attorney General by the Supreme Court.
A bench of the apex court comprising Justices Altmas Kabir and A K Patnaik had on Wednesday declined to hear urgently the plea to postpone the Ayodhya title suit verdict.
While refusing to hear the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Tripathi, the bench had said that it did not have the “determination” to take up the issue and added that it will be listed before another Bench.
Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing for Tripathi, said the Supreme Court may give a healing touch by attempting a last ditch effort at mediation.
He said it was possible that in the face of Supreme Court notices the rival parties may sit across to find an amicable solution.
Rohatgi said that next Tuesday his side would try to tell the court that the matter of judgement should be deferred so that religious, political and national leaders could try and work out a solution.
He also said it was not a matter of just 10 or 20 parties in the case but related to lakhs and crores of people and the mediation could result in some way out.
Tripathi had on Wednesday moved the apex court five days after the High Court’s Lucknow bench rejected his petition for deferring the verdict and to allow mediation to find a solution to the contentious dispute.
The Allahabad High Court had also imposed “exemplary costs” of Rs 50,000, terming Tripathi’s effort for an out of court settlement of the dispute as a “mischievous attempt“.
The petition filed by Tripathi sought some time to allow mediation among the parties and also challenged the costs.
Tripathi, in his plea before the apex court, claimed that the verdict might disturb communal harmony and lead to violence in the country.
In the petition filed through advocate Sunil Jain, he cited several reasons for deferment of the verdict, which he said would be in “public interest” in view of the apprehension of communal flare up, upcoming Commonwealth Games, elections in Bihar and violence in Kashmir Valley and Naxal hit states.
The petition had feared that there would be inadequate security personnel in Uttar Pradesh to provide security.
Tripathi had also referred to an earlier order of the Court on July 27 last that parties concerned are at liberty to approach the Officer on Special Duty for formation of the bench if there was any possibility of disposal of the dispute or arrival at an understanding through consensus.
One of the three judges in the Lucknow bench, however, disagreed with the majority order of September 17 rejecting the plea for deferring the Ayodhya verdict to allow mediation and gave a dissenting opinion that an amicable settlement could have been explored in the protracted legal wrangle.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, while not concurring with the view of the other two judges - Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal - also said in his dissenting judgement that he wasn’t consulted when the three—judge bench gave the order while dismissing the plea for mediation.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Whose man is that soldier fighting in Kashmir?
Tarun Vijay
14 September 2010,
India must be the only country in the world where being an antinational murderer means a person or organization getting invitations for talks with the government. Mir Waiz and Geelani should have been booked months ago and punished for their anti-India activities. They not only instigated Kashmiri youth to attack our patriotic people and soldiers but also vitiated the entire atmosphere in the valley bringing normal life to a halt and using Kashmiri youth as fodder for their Pakistani plots, resulting in so many killings of young boys. The fact of the matter is that the killers in Kashmir are these two pro Pakistani elements, who would have been taken to task by any government with a spine much earlier than their fangs grew more poisonous. In such a situation, instead of talking tough and straight, the government is not only giving confused signals to ‘soften’ (whatever that means) the Armed Forces Special Powers Act but making gestures to terrorist supporters to come to talk. Talks, always a welcome way to find a solution, can be held or even an indication for a discussion can be sent only when the atmosphere is ripe for it and the other side, offenders in this case, show a willingness to come to terms. I must say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sounded reasonable at the Armed Forces commanders’ meet on September 13 when he said: "The youth of Kashmir are our citizens and their grievances have to be addressed….We are willing to talk to every person or group which abjures violence, within the framework of our Constitution." But is this the time to extend an olive branch?
Have they ever thought what effect these gestures by the government have on the morale of the soldiers?
For whom is the Indian soldier fighting the battle in Kashmir?
It pains me immensely to see how our secular media sirens show their undiluted love for the separatists on TV screens and they go to the streets of Srinagar only to interview the unpatriotic people. When they invite any of the antinational separatists on their shows, they display an utter lack of sensitivity towards those who love their country and give all the space and time to those voices of insanity and violence with a soft, affectionate anchoring you seldom witness when they put on trial any leader showing patriotic leanings. There was hardly a time, except during the Kargil war, when the voices representing the soldiers were given a chance to come to the TV studios or have their say on the editorial pages of the media empires. He is despised, hated and made responsible for all the bad happenings, in a sweeping manner. No one has treid to see the hardened daily routine a soldier is subjected to from 6am to sunset, and after that the night vigil. Anything untoward happens and rogue actors like Salman Khan say meekly to the Pakistan media: Oh, it was the fault of the Indian security personnel. Salman should have been tried for treason. But we have people who lovingly go to his house and try to ‘settle the issue’. These very people and their governors make this day possible when anyone feels free to speak against the soldiers, against the national psyche of patriotism. A soldier is not a daily wage earner like the stone pelters. He is a representative of the nation’s time-honoured traditions. He is nurtured and nourished on a family's "khandaani izzat" - "Mera beta fauji hai". Ask any politician acting as an apologist for the separatist murderers, has he ever thought of sending his child to the forces? A family offers mannats at the feet of their wahe guru over devatas to ensure their son gets selected in the "fauj". He is trained by the best of the warriors at the National Defence Academy or the Indian Military Academy. Some lucky ones get selected early and go through the National Defence School route and see the pictures when they recommissioned - after a thrilling passing out parade in Dehradun. Their caps in the air and their moms and dads hugging them with moist eyes. Years of training and a life of a great Indian patriotic goes waste before the gang of rogue pro-Pakistan elements who have hardly any idea what they are demanding.
Whether he is in the Army or in CRPF, BSF or ITBP, the story is the same. He is there not because he wanted to loot and rape and maim people. He was sent by the Indian government to safeguard the interests of the nation and the Constitution. He is a uniformed gentleman. Those who blow the case of rights violation must be heard definitely. But can an individual's fault be attributed to the olive green or the khaki fraternity of the soldier? I absolutely agree with Manmohan Singh when he says "The youth of Kashmir are our citizens and their grievances have to be addressed". But this should be done through good governance and a mechanism that can win their trust and not through "Srinagar CM living in Delhi" type Omars who never find time to place a wreath on the body of a soldier martyred in Kashmir.
In fact, the killers of Kashmir are people like Mir Waiz and Geelani. The angst of Kashmir must be directed against them. The soldier would be too happy to go back to his barracks and celebrate Diwali and Eid with family.
In the secular sultanate of Delhi’s power brokers, a soldier is just another babu, another employee to be denied a justifiable demand of "one rank-one pension" by those politicians who raise their salaries 300% in a jiffy. And in the media he is a punching bag. Just read a poem an Indian soldier wrote
14 September 2010,
India must be the only country in the world where being an antinational murderer means a person or organization getting invitations for talks with the government. Mir Waiz and Geelani should have been booked months ago and punished for their anti-India activities. They not only instigated Kashmiri youth to attack our patriotic people and soldiers but also vitiated the entire atmosphere in the valley bringing normal life to a halt and using Kashmiri youth as fodder for their Pakistani plots, resulting in so many killings of young boys. The fact of the matter is that the killers in Kashmir are these two pro Pakistani elements, who would have been taken to task by any government with a spine much earlier than their fangs grew more poisonous. In such a situation, instead of talking tough and straight, the government is not only giving confused signals to ‘soften’ (whatever that means) the Armed Forces Special Powers Act but making gestures to terrorist supporters to come to talk. Talks, always a welcome way to find a solution, can be held or even an indication for a discussion can be sent only when the atmosphere is ripe for it and the other side, offenders in this case, show a willingness to come to terms. I must say Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sounded reasonable at the Armed Forces commanders’ meet on September 13 when he said: "The youth of Kashmir are our citizens and their grievances have to be addressed….We are willing to talk to every person or group which abjures violence, within the framework of our Constitution." But is this the time to extend an olive branch?
Have they ever thought what effect these gestures by the government have on the morale of the soldiers?
For whom is the Indian soldier fighting the battle in Kashmir?
It pains me immensely to see how our secular media sirens show their undiluted love for the separatists on TV screens and they go to the streets of Srinagar only to interview the unpatriotic people. When they invite any of the antinational separatists on their shows, they display an utter lack of sensitivity towards those who love their country and give all the space and time to those voices of insanity and violence with a soft, affectionate anchoring you seldom witness when they put on trial any leader showing patriotic leanings. There was hardly a time, except during the Kargil war, when the voices representing the soldiers were given a chance to come to the TV studios or have their say on the editorial pages of the media empires. He is despised, hated and made responsible for all the bad happenings, in a sweeping manner. No one has treid to see the hardened daily routine a soldier is subjected to from 6am to sunset, and after that the night vigil. Anything untoward happens and rogue actors like Salman Khan say meekly to the Pakistan media: Oh, it was the fault of the Indian security personnel. Salman should have been tried for treason. But we have people who lovingly go to his house and try to ‘settle the issue’. These very people and their governors make this day possible when anyone feels free to speak against the soldiers, against the national psyche of patriotism. A soldier is not a daily wage earner like the stone pelters. He is a representative of the nation’s time-honoured traditions. He is nurtured and nourished on a family's "khandaani izzat" - "Mera beta fauji hai". Ask any politician acting as an apologist for the separatist murderers, has he ever thought of sending his child to the forces? A family offers mannats at the feet of their wahe guru over devatas to ensure their son gets selected in the "fauj". He is trained by the best of the warriors at the National Defence Academy or the Indian Military Academy. Some lucky ones get selected early and go through the National Defence School route and see the pictures when they recommissioned - after a thrilling passing out parade in Dehradun. Their caps in the air and their moms and dads hugging them with moist eyes. Years of training and a life of a great Indian patriotic goes waste before the gang of rogue pro-Pakistan elements who have hardly any idea what they are demanding.
Whether he is in the Army or in CRPF, BSF or ITBP, the story is the same. He is there not because he wanted to loot and rape and maim people. He was sent by the Indian government to safeguard the interests of the nation and the Constitution. He is a uniformed gentleman. Those who blow the case of rights violation must be heard definitely. But can an individual's fault be attributed to the olive green or the khaki fraternity of the soldier? I absolutely agree with Manmohan Singh when he says "The youth of Kashmir are our citizens and their grievances have to be addressed". But this should be done through good governance and a mechanism that can win their trust and not through "Srinagar CM living in Delhi" type Omars who never find time to place a wreath on the body of a soldier martyred in Kashmir.
In fact, the killers of Kashmir are people like Mir Waiz and Geelani. The angst of Kashmir must be directed against them. The soldier would be too happy to go back to his barracks and celebrate Diwali and Eid with family.
In the secular sultanate of Delhi’s power brokers, a soldier is just another babu, another employee to be denied a justifiable demand of "one rank-one pension" by those politicians who raise their salaries 300% in a jiffy. And in the media he is a punching bag. Just read a poem an Indian soldier wrote
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Kashmir's new Islamist movement
Praveen Swami
Leaders of the protests see street violence as a crucible in which a new generation of jihadists is being forged.
Last week, on the Monday before Eid, Mohammad Shafi Wani opened his grocery store in Srinagar's Karan Nagar neighbourhood. Each of his gestures —rolling up the shutter, dusting off the shelves, opening the long-locked cash till — was an act of defiance, perhaps even suicidal rashness.
Kashmir's Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, the anti-India Islamist coalition spearheading the protests that have claimed more than 80 lives in clashes with police this year, had decreed that shops would remain shut until 2:00 pm; Wani had opened for business at mid-day. “Get lost,” a local resident recalls Wani saying to two young men who showed up to warn him, “I'm not having a bunch of kids telling me what I can do.” The boys left — but returned with reinforcements. Wani ended up in hospital; the police watched him being beaten but did nothing.
Early this week, the Tehreek decreed that day would henceforth be night. It ordered that businesses and factories work through the hours of darkness to make up for the time spent protesting. Many fear that September 21, when the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat has called on volunteers to march on military outposts, will see horrific violence. That is precisely what the New Islamists seek: for them, Kashmir's streets are the crucible in which a new generation of jihadists, who will wage a this-time successful war for independence, are being forged.
Islamist patriarch Syed Ali Shah Geelani's Rudad-i-Qafas, or ‘Records of Jail,' an 800-page, two-volume reflection on politics and life written while he was incarcerated at New Delhi, Jammu and Allahabad from 1990-1992, gives some insight into the ideological underpinning of the street rebellion.
In a 2004 appraisal of the Rudad-i-Qafas, scholar Yoginder Sikand pointed to Mr. Geelani's concerns that the independence movement in Jammu and Kashmir had “actually gone out of the control of the political leadership and into the hands of militant youth who, though fired by a passionate sense of zeal, have little understanding of the problem as well as the uphill task of resolving it.” He argued that “the youth ought to have entered the movement under the leadership of a truly Islamic and honest political leadership.” Instead, Kashmir's young jihadists had acted “unfettered by any authority above them as if they have ‘sworn not to accept any political leadership at all'.”
“They have,” he concluded, “apparently miscalculated the enormity of the demands of the struggle and the strength of the power they are fighting against, fondly imagining that their goal would be achieved in no time.”
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, in the years that followed the publication of the Rudad-i-Qafas, threw its resources behind the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen — led, in the main, by figures drawn from the Jamaat-e-Islami. But as the conflict dragged, the Jamaat sensed defeat — and drew back. In 1997, the then Jamaat chief G.M. Bhat called for an end to the “gun culture.” Three years later, dissident Hizb commander Abdul Majid Dar declared a unilateral ceasefire. Although the ceasefire fell apart, the Jamaat itself continued to marginalise Mr. Geelani. In May 2003, Jamaat moderates led by Bhat's successor, Syed Nasir Ahmad Kashani, retired Mr. Geelani as their political representative. In January 2004, the Jamaat's Majlis-e-Shoora, or central consultative council, went public with a commitment to a “democratic and constitutional struggle.”
Mr. Geelani, cast out from the mainstream of the Jamaat, set about building a new political movement; the kind of political movement he believed had led to the failure of the jihad.
Like others in the Jamaat-e-Islami, Mr. Geelani had long believed India posed an existential threat to Islam in Kashmir. In the Rudad-e-Qafas, he castigated India for its failure to hold a plebiscite on Jammu and Kashmir's future; its violations of the democratic process; and its use of the armed force after 1989-1990. But he underlined the growth of Hindu communalism from the mid-1980s, seeing it as an enterprise to erase Islam. Mr. Geelani even found evidence of this enterprise in prison: the ‘martyrdom' of Muslim prisoners' beards at the hands of jailers and their being refused permission to pray. “Cultural hegemony,” he concluded, “is a logical culmination of political supremacy.”
From 2003, Mr. Geelani turned to a new group of lieutenants to fight India's growing “political supremacy”: among them lawyer Mian Abdul Qayoom, activists like Mehrajuddin Kalwal and Jamaat apparatchiks like Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai. It was Massrat Alam Bhat, however, who was to become the most important figure in the new Islamic coalition.
Born in old-city Srinagar's Zaindar Mohalla in July 1971, Bhat studied in Srinagar's élite Cecil Earle Tyndale-Biscoe school before joining the Sri Pratap college. He was first arrested by the Border Security Force in October 1990, on charges of serving as a lieutenant to the then-prominent jihadist Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat. He won a protracted legal battle in 1997 and began working at a cloth store owned by his grandfather, graduating the next year. From 1999, Bhat became increasingly active in the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference. He drew much of his core cadre from one-time jihadists who had been released — only to find they had neither prestige, power nor prospects.
Bhat's Muslim League Jammu Kashmir's objective, its website explains, “besides fighting Indian aggression, is to propagate Islamic teachings to fight out socialism and secularism to remove taguti [false leaders; traitors] rule and to extirpate the western ideology.”
Just two of the Muslim League's eight-point charter of objectives are, as such, concerned with the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. It seeks the “building up of public opinion about the issue of Jammu and Kashmir on [the] international front,” and promises to “organise rallies and congregations to achieve the right to self-determination.”
But the bulk of the Muslim League's objectives centres around forging a new political culture. It promises to “inculcate [a] sense of religious duties, character building and make the youth politically conscious;” to “safeguard the youths against any anti-Islamic move;” “to make aware the Muslims about the policies and plans of the aggressors and ensure that they follow the path of the Quran and the Sunnah to become one entity; to resist “misinformation campaigns against [the] Islamic system on the part of various imperialistic forces;” and, more generally, “to work for the welfare of the people.”
Now serving a life sentence for the assassination of human rights campaigner H.N. Wanchoo, imprisoned jihadist Muhammad Qasim Faktoo was key to shaping Bhat's ideological vision. Faktoo, who acquired a doctorate in Islamic studies while in prison, founded his religious beliefs on the teachings of the neo-fundamentalist Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith — not Mr. Geelani's Jamaat-e-Islami. Long an anti-India political activist, Faktoo was led into the Hizb by Mohammad Abdullah Bangroo who, many years later, presided over the assassination of the influential Srinagar cleric Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq father of the current chairperson of the APHC, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. In 1990, Faktoo and Hilal Mir, better known by the code-name Nasir-ul-Islam, broke from the Hizb to form the Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, upset with its linkages to the Jamaat-e-Islami.
From jail, the Jammu and Kashmir Police allege, Faktoo mentored a new generation of jihadists. The police say he inspires two organisations — the al-Nasireen and the Farzandan-e-Millat — responsible for the killings of officers last August and September. The name al-Nasireen, a reference to the companions of Prophet Mohammad, is thought to draw on the nom de guerre of Faktoo's Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen co-founder. Farzandan-e-Millat, or sons of the nation, mirrors that of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, daughters of the nation, an organisation run by Faktoo's wife, Asiya Andrabi.
Ms Andrabi is the youngest child of the prominent Srinagar doctor, Sayeed Shahabuddin Andrabi. The 1962-born Ms Andrabi has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, and hoped to study further in Dalhousie. Forbidden from leaving home, she turned to religion. From 1982, she set up a network of religious schools and campaigned against obscenity in popular television programming.
Both Bhat and Andrabi played a key role in organising protests against the grant of land-use rights to the Amarnath shrine board in 2008 — a communally-charged campaign that brought tens of thousands of people to the streets. The networks used then were patiently built over years, in the course of struggles against prostitution and alcohol-use; campaigns for the enforcement of social morality targeting western cultural practices; and human rights abuses by Indian security forces.
In 1990, the Time Magazine carried an evocative account of the first uprising, the failure of which Mr. Geelani so evocatively wrote of: “‘Brave Kashmiris,' came the summons from loudspeakers in minarets throughout Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘the time has come to lay down your lives. Come out and face the occupation forces as true soldiers of Islam.' By the thousands, Muslim separatists answered the call last week. Enraged by the detention of 400 locals accused of terrorism, they surged through the narrow alleys of the decrepit city, chanting ‘Indian dogs, go home!' and pelting the police and soldiers with stones. Security forces replied first with tear gas, then with rifle fire. By the week's end, at least 133 people had been killed, nearly doubling, to 279, the death count since the latest round of trouble in Kashmir began 18 months ago.”
Those words could also be a prophecy of what lies ahead.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/17/stories/2010091753631200.htm
Leaders of the protests see street violence as a crucible in which a new generation of jihadists is being forged.
Last week, on the Monday before Eid, Mohammad Shafi Wani opened his grocery store in Srinagar's Karan Nagar neighbourhood. Each of his gestures —rolling up the shutter, dusting off the shelves, opening the long-locked cash till — was an act of defiance, perhaps even suicidal rashness.
Kashmir's Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, the anti-India Islamist coalition spearheading the protests that have claimed more than 80 lives in clashes with police this year, had decreed that shops would remain shut until 2:00 pm; Wani had opened for business at mid-day. “Get lost,” a local resident recalls Wani saying to two young men who showed up to warn him, “I'm not having a bunch of kids telling me what I can do.” The boys left — but returned with reinforcements. Wani ended up in hospital; the police watched him being beaten but did nothing.
Early this week, the Tehreek decreed that day would henceforth be night. It ordered that businesses and factories work through the hours of darkness to make up for the time spent protesting. Many fear that September 21, when the Tehreek-i-Hurriyat has called on volunteers to march on military outposts, will see horrific violence. That is precisely what the New Islamists seek: for them, Kashmir's streets are the crucible in which a new generation of jihadists, who will wage a this-time successful war for independence, are being forged.
Islamist patriarch Syed Ali Shah Geelani's Rudad-i-Qafas, or ‘Records of Jail,' an 800-page, two-volume reflection on politics and life written while he was incarcerated at New Delhi, Jammu and Allahabad from 1990-1992, gives some insight into the ideological underpinning of the street rebellion.
In a 2004 appraisal of the Rudad-i-Qafas, scholar Yoginder Sikand pointed to Mr. Geelani's concerns that the independence movement in Jammu and Kashmir had “actually gone out of the control of the political leadership and into the hands of militant youth who, though fired by a passionate sense of zeal, have little understanding of the problem as well as the uphill task of resolving it.” He argued that “the youth ought to have entered the movement under the leadership of a truly Islamic and honest political leadership.” Instead, Kashmir's young jihadists had acted “unfettered by any authority above them as if they have ‘sworn not to accept any political leadership at all'.”
“They have,” he concluded, “apparently miscalculated the enormity of the demands of the struggle and the strength of the power they are fighting against, fondly imagining that their goal would be achieved in no time.”
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, in the years that followed the publication of the Rudad-i-Qafas, threw its resources behind the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen — led, in the main, by figures drawn from the Jamaat-e-Islami. But as the conflict dragged, the Jamaat sensed defeat — and drew back. In 1997, the then Jamaat chief G.M. Bhat called for an end to the “gun culture.” Three years later, dissident Hizb commander Abdul Majid Dar declared a unilateral ceasefire. Although the ceasefire fell apart, the Jamaat itself continued to marginalise Mr. Geelani. In May 2003, Jamaat moderates led by Bhat's successor, Syed Nasir Ahmad Kashani, retired Mr. Geelani as their political representative. In January 2004, the Jamaat's Majlis-e-Shoora, or central consultative council, went public with a commitment to a “democratic and constitutional struggle.”
Mr. Geelani, cast out from the mainstream of the Jamaat, set about building a new political movement; the kind of political movement he believed had led to the failure of the jihad.
Like others in the Jamaat-e-Islami, Mr. Geelani had long believed India posed an existential threat to Islam in Kashmir. In the Rudad-e-Qafas, he castigated India for its failure to hold a plebiscite on Jammu and Kashmir's future; its violations of the democratic process; and its use of the armed force after 1989-1990. But he underlined the growth of Hindu communalism from the mid-1980s, seeing it as an enterprise to erase Islam. Mr. Geelani even found evidence of this enterprise in prison: the ‘martyrdom' of Muslim prisoners' beards at the hands of jailers and their being refused permission to pray. “Cultural hegemony,” he concluded, “is a logical culmination of political supremacy.”
From 2003, Mr. Geelani turned to a new group of lieutenants to fight India's growing “political supremacy”: among them lawyer Mian Abdul Qayoom, activists like Mehrajuddin Kalwal and Jamaat apparatchiks like Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai. It was Massrat Alam Bhat, however, who was to become the most important figure in the new Islamic coalition.
Born in old-city Srinagar's Zaindar Mohalla in July 1971, Bhat studied in Srinagar's élite Cecil Earle Tyndale-Biscoe school before joining the Sri Pratap college. He was first arrested by the Border Security Force in October 1990, on charges of serving as a lieutenant to the then-prominent jihadist Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat. He won a protracted legal battle in 1997 and began working at a cloth store owned by his grandfather, graduating the next year. From 1999, Bhat became increasingly active in the All-Parties Hurriyat Conference. He drew much of his core cadre from one-time jihadists who had been released — only to find they had neither prestige, power nor prospects.
Bhat's Muslim League Jammu Kashmir's objective, its website explains, “besides fighting Indian aggression, is to propagate Islamic teachings to fight out socialism and secularism to remove taguti [false leaders; traitors] rule and to extirpate the western ideology.”
Just two of the Muslim League's eight-point charter of objectives are, as such, concerned with the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir. It seeks the “building up of public opinion about the issue of Jammu and Kashmir on [the] international front,” and promises to “organise rallies and congregations to achieve the right to self-determination.”
But the bulk of the Muslim League's objectives centres around forging a new political culture. It promises to “inculcate [a] sense of religious duties, character building and make the youth politically conscious;” to “safeguard the youths against any anti-Islamic move;” “to make aware the Muslims about the policies and plans of the aggressors and ensure that they follow the path of the Quran and the Sunnah to become one entity; to resist “misinformation campaigns against [the] Islamic system on the part of various imperialistic forces;” and, more generally, “to work for the welfare of the people.”
Now serving a life sentence for the assassination of human rights campaigner H.N. Wanchoo, imprisoned jihadist Muhammad Qasim Faktoo was key to shaping Bhat's ideological vision. Faktoo, who acquired a doctorate in Islamic studies while in prison, founded his religious beliefs on the teachings of the neo-fundamentalist Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith — not Mr. Geelani's Jamaat-e-Islami. Long an anti-India political activist, Faktoo was led into the Hizb by Mohammad Abdullah Bangroo who, many years later, presided over the assassination of the influential Srinagar cleric Mirwaiz Mohammad Farooq father of the current chairperson of the APHC, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. In 1990, Faktoo and Hilal Mir, better known by the code-name Nasir-ul-Islam, broke from the Hizb to form the Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, upset with its linkages to the Jamaat-e-Islami.
From jail, the Jammu and Kashmir Police allege, Faktoo mentored a new generation of jihadists. The police say he inspires two organisations — the al-Nasireen and the Farzandan-e-Millat — responsible for the killings of officers last August and September. The name al-Nasireen, a reference to the companions of Prophet Mohammad, is thought to draw on the nom de guerre of Faktoo's Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen co-founder. Farzandan-e-Millat, or sons of the nation, mirrors that of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, daughters of the nation, an organisation run by Faktoo's wife, Asiya Andrabi.
Ms Andrabi is the youngest child of the prominent Srinagar doctor, Sayeed Shahabuddin Andrabi. The 1962-born Ms Andrabi has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, and hoped to study further in Dalhousie. Forbidden from leaving home, she turned to religion. From 1982, she set up a network of religious schools and campaigned against obscenity in popular television programming.
Both Bhat and Andrabi played a key role in organising protests against the grant of land-use rights to the Amarnath shrine board in 2008 — a communally-charged campaign that brought tens of thousands of people to the streets. The networks used then were patiently built over years, in the course of struggles against prostitution and alcohol-use; campaigns for the enforcement of social morality targeting western cultural practices; and human rights abuses by Indian security forces.
In 1990, the Time Magazine carried an evocative account of the first uprising, the failure of which Mr. Geelani so evocatively wrote of: “‘Brave Kashmiris,' came the summons from loudspeakers in minarets throughout Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, ‘the time has come to lay down your lives. Come out and face the occupation forces as true soldiers of Islam.' By the thousands, Muslim separatists answered the call last week. Enraged by the detention of 400 locals accused of terrorism, they surged through the narrow alleys of the decrepit city, chanting ‘Indian dogs, go home!' and pelting the police and soldiers with stones. Security forces replied first with tear gas, then with rifle fire. By the week's end, at least 133 people had been killed, nearly doubling, to 279, the death count since the latest round of trouble in Kashmir began 18 months ago.”
Those words could also be a prophecy of what lies ahead.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/17/stories/2010091753631200.htm
A state level seminar organized on Bangladeshi infiltrates.
A staterganized on Bangladeshi infiltrates. level seminar on ‘Bangladeshi Infiltrates Threats to India’s Security’ organized by Bharati Rakhya Mancha, Orissa Branch at Bharatiya Vidya Bhaban on Sunday. This seminar was represented by many lawyers, retired Indian Army personals and many intellectuals. Bharati Rakhya Mancha Organized this function in three different sessions
The first opening session of this function was presided by senior lawyer of Orissa High Court Prasanna kumar Padhi. Patron of Bharat Rakhya Mancha Suryakantaji Kelekar shared the dies as chief speaker and retired Cornel Sharat kumar Mohapatra invited as chief guest with retired Professor Mahendra Prasad Panda as honourable guest.
On the second session a audio visual presentation showed on the topic and
this part was presided by retired additional secretary of Orissa Government Dr. Charubala Mohanty.
The ending session of the seminar presided by retired Professor Dr. Promod Kumar Sahoo. On this session retired Army Cornel Devendra Kishor Dash invited as chief guest and director of Orissa Bikash Parishad Dayanidhi Sahoo shared the dies as honorable guest. Patron of Bharati Surakhya Mancha Suryakantaji Kelekar executed
the duty of chief speaker in all three sessions.
Posted by visakeo.com at 9:53 PM
The first opening session of this function was presided by senior lawyer of Orissa High Court Prasanna kumar Padhi. Patron of Bharat Rakhya Mancha Suryakantaji Kelekar shared the dies as chief speaker and retired Cornel Sharat kumar Mohapatra invited as chief guest with retired Professor Mahendra Prasad Panda as honourable guest.
On the second session a audio visual presentation showed on the topic and
this part was presided by retired additional secretary of Orissa Government Dr. Charubala Mohanty.
The ending session of the seminar presided by retired Professor Dr. Promod Kumar Sahoo. On this session retired Army Cornel Devendra Kishor Dash invited as chief guest and director of Orissa Bikash Parishad Dayanidhi Sahoo shared the dies as honorable guest. Patron of Bharati Surakhya Mancha Suryakantaji Kelekar executed
the duty of chief speaker in all three sessions.
Posted by visakeo.com at 9:53 PM
ORIYA TRANSLATION OF GITAGOVINDA PUBLISHED
BHUBANESWAR- A book containing the Odiya translation and detailed commentary on Jayadeva’s original Sanskrit work Gita Govinda was released at the IDCOL Auditorium on Thursday.
The book is authored by the late Susil Kumar Das of Srimad Bhagabata fame and has been brought out by a city-based publishing firm Avahana Communications.
Member of Parliament Pyari Mohan Mahapatra, and eminent poet and litterateur Hara Prasad Das graced the ceremony as the chief guest and the chief speaker respectively, while Member of Parliament Prasanna Patshani and the State Election Commissioner Ajit Kumar Tripathy, a well known scholar on Jayadeva, were present as the guests of honour.
Earlier, in eighties, the State Sahitya Academy had published the late author’s similar work on Vyasadeva’s Srimad Bhagatabatam in sixteen volumes. Besides this, the late author is credited with several published works in Odiya religious literature like, Bishnusahasranama, Atmaramaschamunayah, Satasloki Ramayana, Gopi Gita among others. Some of his other works like the complete Odiya translation and commentary on Valmiki Ramayana, Rudra Gita, Rasa Panchadhyayee, etc are awaiting publication.
Among others, directors of the publishing firm, Avahana Communications, Kishore Chandra Das and Rita Mishra were present in the ceremony.
The book is authored by the late Susil Kumar Das of Srimad Bhagabata fame and has been brought out by a city-based publishing firm Avahana Communications.
Member of Parliament Pyari Mohan Mahapatra, and eminent poet and litterateur Hara Prasad Das graced the ceremony as the chief guest and the chief speaker respectively, while Member of Parliament Prasanna Patshani and the State Election Commissioner Ajit Kumar Tripathy, a well known scholar on Jayadeva, were present as the guests of honour.
Earlier, in eighties, the State Sahitya Academy had published the late author’s similar work on Vyasadeva’s Srimad Bhagatabatam in sixteen volumes. Besides this, the late author is credited with several published works in Odiya religious literature like, Bishnusahasranama, Atmaramaschamunayah, Satasloki Ramayana, Gopi Gita among others. Some of his other works like the complete Odiya translation and commentary on Valmiki Ramayana, Rudra Gita, Rasa Panchadhyayee, etc are awaiting publication.
Among others, directors of the publishing firm, Avahana Communications, Kishore Chandra Das and Rita Mishra were present in the ceremony.
China raises ante in J&K
Jayadeva Ranade
Kashmir, increasingly regarded internationally in recent years as a potential hotspot of future conflict in South Asia, has been brought into sharp focus by China’s recent actions. Reinforcing its policy of trying to keep India under pressure and contained within the subcontinent, Beijing has apparently decided to henceforth follow a definitively assertive policy regarding its territorial claims in both, the eastern and western, sectors. This could well be reflected in official talks, including on the border issue.
Beijing had equally deliberately re-stated its claim on Arunachal Pradesh, through a statement by its ambassador on the eve of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s arrival in Delhi in 2006.
Events centering on Kashmir have gained in momentum over the past couple of years. US and Chinese interests converge in Pakistan. While the US continues to exert pressure from behind the scenes on Islamabad and New Delhi to work towards a compromise arrangement on Kashmir and has nudged India into taking conciliatory steps, China has lately opted for more assertive and direct action. China departed from usual practice and raised the ante by publicising its hardened stance on Kashmir. Significantly, Beijing timed its decision to coincide with the volatile situation that began developing in Kashmir in June.
Beijing’s reluctance to accept a routinely proposed visit of the Northern Army Commander, on the pretext that his operational jurisdiction includes the ‘disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir’, reflected its hardened stance. With this action, Beijing has expanded its objections to the inclusion of residents of Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh in official or quasi-official delegations, while reiterating the ‘disputed’ status of both these states of India.
In another action reported to have occurred in Shanghai last month, personnel of China’s Public Security Bureau strode into the India Pavilion in Shanghai Expo-2010 and seized printed material depicting India’s territorial boundaries.
China’s latest actions regarding Kashmir follow a predetermined pattern. Since early last year, Beijing commenced issuing loose-leaf visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, thus signalling that it considered the entire state as ‘disputed’. Beijing has not rescinded this decision despite protests by India. Such a major decision impacting on Sino-India ties can only have been taken at the highest echelons of the Chinese Communist Party and government.
Maps and brochures depicting Kashmir as a separate entity also began being distributed to visitors to Tibet since last October. For many years, China’s defence attaché in Delhi has declined to participate in visits to Jammu and Kashmir organised by the ministry of defence on the plea that it was a ‘disputed area’. In stark contrast, visits are regularly exchanged between officials from China and Pak-occupied Kashmir (PoK), Chinese military delegations visit PoK and Chinese state-owned companies are engaged in an estimated over 60 projects in PoK in addition to regularly repairing the Karakoram Highway.
By neglecting Indian sensitivities, Beijing has de facto narrowed the dispute only to the portion of Kashmir within India. Beijing can now be expected to emphasise Kashmir’s ‘disputed’ status including by objecting to financial assistance from international organisations.
Beijing’s overtly assertive actions follow two summit meetings between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao. China’s official news agency Xinhua reported that during their September meeting Hu Jintao urged Obama that “the two countries should push for a proper resolution to the regional issues relating to the Korean Peninsula, Iran and South Asia”. Just before the summit, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Zhengyue announced China’s willingness to mediate between India and Pakistan if requested and repeated the offer twice soon after.
Hurriyat ‘leader’ Mirwaiz Umar Farooq asserted that China has a role in the settlement of the Kashmir issue. His disclosure that he will be travelling to Beijing soon after Eid reinforces suspicion that Washington and Beijing have discussed Kashmir, possibly keeping Islamabad in the loop.
While US and China share short-term interests in Afghanistan, China has long-term plans that include a railway from western China through Tajikstan into Afghanistan and on to Pakistan, with its attendant strategic implications. China already has massive investments in Pakistan. Upgradation and extension of the Karakoram highway, a China-Pakistan railway over the Karakoram and gas pipeline running along the same alignment, are planned.
Current developments in Pakistan are, however, a source of concern and China would be preparing to safeguard its investments. A well informed Chinese paper observed: “The question of how to overcome political instability in some areas of Pakistan will be the key to success of the construction of the (proposed) railway. The constant struggles among domestic political factions and unresolved religious and secular conflicts in Pakistan will create a huge test for the normal operation of the China-Pakistan railway. If the China-Pakistan railway, which will cost billions of Yuans to build, cannot be used effectively because of domestic chaos in Pakistan, it will no doubt have a negative effect on China’s strategic intentions.”
The recent warmth in US-India relations has caused Beijing some apprehension and generated numerous critical references in China’s authoritative official media and by its military and strategic analysts. Critical references were noticed in recent weeks when tensions were high because of the US-South Korea military exercises in the Yellow Sea. During this period the Chengdu Military Region conducted at least three military exercises inside Tibet across India’s borders.
China’s strategy of confining India within the subcontinent and keeping it under pressure by bolstering Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal remains unchanged. China has added military muscle to diplomatic and political pressure and is asserting itself regarding Arunachal Pradesh. Kashmir will henceforth be an additional source of pressure. India has limited time to respond, especially if it wants to prevent a coalescing of Sino-Pakistan collusion on Kashmir.
A good beginning was made in demonstrating resolve when the prime minister visited Tawang and the Dalai Lama travelled to Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang. This was again evidenced when the prime minister met the Dalai Lama.
India must send an unequivocal signal that its territorial sovereignty will not be compromised and it will not tolerate outside interference. It also will have to assert its ‘core national interests’
About the author:
Jayadeva Ranade is a former additional secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/china-raises-ante-in-jk/207106.html
Kashmir, increasingly regarded internationally in recent years as a potential hotspot of future conflict in South Asia, has been brought into sharp focus by China’s recent actions. Reinforcing its policy of trying to keep India under pressure and contained within the subcontinent, Beijing has apparently decided to henceforth follow a definitively assertive policy regarding its territorial claims in both, the eastern and western, sectors. This could well be reflected in official talks, including on the border issue.
Beijing had equally deliberately re-stated its claim on Arunachal Pradesh, through a statement by its ambassador on the eve of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s arrival in Delhi in 2006.
Events centering on Kashmir have gained in momentum over the past couple of years. US and Chinese interests converge in Pakistan. While the US continues to exert pressure from behind the scenes on Islamabad and New Delhi to work towards a compromise arrangement on Kashmir and has nudged India into taking conciliatory steps, China has lately opted for more assertive and direct action. China departed from usual practice and raised the ante by publicising its hardened stance on Kashmir. Significantly, Beijing timed its decision to coincide with the volatile situation that began developing in Kashmir in June.
Beijing’s reluctance to accept a routinely proposed visit of the Northern Army Commander, on the pretext that his operational jurisdiction includes the ‘disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir’, reflected its hardened stance. With this action, Beijing has expanded its objections to the inclusion of residents of Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh in official or quasi-official delegations, while reiterating the ‘disputed’ status of both these states of India.
In another action reported to have occurred in Shanghai last month, personnel of China’s Public Security Bureau strode into the India Pavilion in Shanghai Expo-2010 and seized printed material depicting India’s territorial boundaries.
China’s latest actions regarding Kashmir follow a predetermined pattern. Since early last year, Beijing commenced issuing loose-leaf visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, thus signalling that it considered the entire state as ‘disputed’. Beijing has not rescinded this decision despite protests by India. Such a major decision impacting on Sino-India ties can only have been taken at the highest echelons of the Chinese Communist Party and government.
Maps and brochures depicting Kashmir as a separate entity also began being distributed to visitors to Tibet since last October. For many years, China’s defence attaché in Delhi has declined to participate in visits to Jammu and Kashmir organised by the ministry of defence on the plea that it was a ‘disputed area’. In stark contrast, visits are regularly exchanged between officials from China and Pak-occupied Kashmir (PoK), Chinese military delegations visit PoK and Chinese state-owned companies are engaged in an estimated over 60 projects in PoK in addition to regularly repairing the Karakoram Highway.
By neglecting Indian sensitivities, Beijing has de facto narrowed the dispute only to the portion of Kashmir within India. Beijing can now be expected to emphasise Kashmir’s ‘disputed’ status including by objecting to financial assistance from international organisations.
Beijing’s overtly assertive actions follow two summit meetings between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao. China’s official news agency Xinhua reported that during their September meeting Hu Jintao urged Obama that “the two countries should push for a proper resolution to the regional issues relating to the Korean Peninsula, Iran and South Asia”. Just before the summit, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Zhengyue announced China’s willingness to mediate between India and Pakistan if requested and repeated the offer twice soon after.
Hurriyat ‘leader’ Mirwaiz Umar Farooq asserted that China has a role in the settlement of the Kashmir issue. His disclosure that he will be travelling to Beijing soon after Eid reinforces suspicion that Washington and Beijing have discussed Kashmir, possibly keeping Islamabad in the loop.
While US and China share short-term interests in Afghanistan, China has long-term plans that include a railway from western China through Tajikstan into Afghanistan and on to Pakistan, with its attendant strategic implications. China already has massive investments in Pakistan. Upgradation and extension of the Karakoram highway, a China-Pakistan railway over the Karakoram and gas pipeline running along the same alignment, are planned.
Current developments in Pakistan are, however, a source of concern and China would be preparing to safeguard its investments. A well informed Chinese paper observed: “The question of how to overcome political instability in some areas of Pakistan will be the key to success of the construction of the (proposed) railway. The constant struggles among domestic political factions and unresolved religious and secular conflicts in Pakistan will create a huge test for the normal operation of the China-Pakistan railway. If the China-Pakistan railway, which will cost billions of Yuans to build, cannot be used effectively because of domestic chaos in Pakistan, it will no doubt have a negative effect on China’s strategic intentions.”
The recent warmth in US-India relations has caused Beijing some apprehension and generated numerous critical references in China’s authoritative official media and by its military and strategic analysts. Critical references were noticed in recent weeks when tensions were high because of the US-South Korea military exercises in the Yellow Sea. During this period the Chengdu Military Region conducted at least three military exercises inside Tibet across India’s borders.
China’s strategy of confining India within the subcontinent and keeping it under pressure by bolstering Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal remains unchanged. China has added military muscle to diplomatic and political pressure and is asserting itself regarding Arunachal Pradesh. Kashmir will henceforth be an additional source of pressure. India has limited time to respond, especially if it wants to prevent a coalescing of Sino-Pakistan collusion on Kashmir.
A good beginning was made in demonstrating resolve when the prime minister visited Tawang and the Dalai Lama travelled to Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang. This was again evidenced when the prime minister met the Dalai Lama.
India must send an unequivocal signal that its territorial sovereignty will not be compromised and it will not tolerate outside interference. It also will have to assert its ‘core national interests’
About the author:
Jayadeva Ranade is a former additional secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/china-raises-ante-in-jk/207106.html
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Don’t turn back the clock in J&K
Jagmohan
Sep 08 2010
One of the tragic pointers of Indian history is that more often than not Indians have themselves proved to be their worst enemies. This stands reinforced by what the negative forces in our country did in early 1990.
It should be clear from the analysis of major events connected with Kashmir’s post-1947 history that there is an overwhelming need to learn from each and every lapse and evolve a new framework of thought and action. Unfortunately, no one is attending to this need. With regard to the stone-throwing mobs that are now daily appearing on the streets of most urban centres of the Valley, old attitudes rooted in superficiality and “short-termism” are once again at display. So far, about 69 persons have died. But there is no sign of a sustained crackdown on the ringleaders, financers and those who are spraying the virus of militant fanaticism in the Valley.
What is worse, another “appeasement card” is being put forward in the form of a political package and additional autonomy, without bothering to consider that in the long run such a package and such an autonomy could provide stronger muscle to the forces of subversion and separatism in the Valley. Further, no one is showing any inclination to raise certain basic and pertinent questions in this regard.
Are the Kashmiris, like the citizens of the rest of India, not already free under the Constitution of India? Do they not have all the fundamental rights which individuals in modern liberal democracies enjoy? Has their identity, culture, religion or language been undermined in any way by the constitutional arrangements that have been in operation for the last several decades? How would a common Kashmiri be benefited by changing the nomenclature of chief minister to Prime Minister or of governor to Sadar-e-Riyasat, or by ousting the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India? What would happen if the so-called pre-1952 position is restored and only defence, foreign affairs and communications are kept within the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament/government and all the remaining items are assigned exclusively to the state legislature/government? How would the state government then meet its requirements of finances which at present are provided by the Union government to the tune of 74 per cent of its needs? Could the “nuts and bolts” of objective reality and the need to have smooth and workable relationship between the state and the Union be dispensed with?
To these and allied questions, no satisfactory answers can be provided by the proponents of autonomy and the “political package”. They merely harp on the promises supposed to have been made to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, forgetting that what matters is not the individual but the state government without whose concurrence nothing was done. They take advantage of the widespread ignorance that prevails in the country about the rather complex manner in which constitutional relations between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union have evolved. They hide the fact that Jammu and Kashmir already enjoys, albeit unjustifiably, far more powers than are available to other states of the Union. They also forget that at the time of the 1975 Kashmir Accord, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had made it clear that “the clock could not be put back”, and that the “provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to the state of Jammu and Kashmir ‘without adaptation or modification’ were unalterable”.
The only concession made in 1975, in the spirit of bonhomie, by the Government of India was to consider changes in the “adapted and modified” provisions, if a specific proposal in this regard was received from the state government. But neither the government of Sheikh Abdullah nor that of Dr Farooq Abdullah could send any proposal, primarily because the changes earlier made were all necessitated by practical consideration.
The State Autonomy Committee Report (1999), sent to the Union government 24 years after the Kashmir Accord, is nothing but a broad repetition of what was said on behalf of the National Conference in 1975. It ignores the huge volume of water that has since flowed under the bridges of Yamuna and Jhelum, and does not indicate how the changes that are being advocated now would improve the lot of the common man and how the expenditure on the state Five-Year Plans would be met. Nor does it care to explain how certain security and other contingencies would be dealt with? What, for instance, would happen if Article 356 is not applicable and if the state refuses or fails to comply with any requirement of the Union in respect of defence, foreign affairs or communication? Would this not cause an intractable constitutional deadlokck?
The acceptance by the Union government of any of the phoney ideas contained in the aforesaid report would add another blunder to the series of blunders committed in the past, which have so far cost the nation over 50,000 lives, besides several thousand-crores of hard-earned taxpayers’ money.
While it is not likely to make even a slight dent in the criticality of the present situation, it could strengthen the forces of disarray in the Valley, give rise to fresh agitations in other regions of the state and become a precedent for separatists in other part of the country to quote and demand. Even otherwise, the unfortunate history of Jammu and Kashmir in the post-1947 period warns us in no uncertain terms that the decision taken under momentary pressures and on short-term considerations have proved disastrous in the long run. Too many infections have already accumulated in the body politics of Jammu and Kashmir. If we do not have the skill or will to drain them out, let us at least not add more to them.
The need of the hour is that we should make a new beginning, educate our brothers and sisters in Kashmir about the true position in respect of their political, social and cultural freedoms and tell them that we as fellow countrymen have already helped them to the tune of `95,000 crores from 1989-90 to 2009-10, and would continue to discharge our obligations in this respect in future to make them a happy and prosperous community of the Union.
Jagmohan is a former governor of J&K and a former Union minister
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/don%E2%80%99t-turn-back-clock-jk-802
Sep 08 2010
One of the tragic pointers of Indian history is that more often than not Indians have themselves proved to be their worst enemies. This stands reinforced by what the negative forces in our country did in early 1990.
It should be clear from the analysis of major events connected with Kashmir’s post-1947 history that there is an overwhelming need to learn from each and every lapse and evolve a new framework of thought and action. Unfortunately, no one is attending to this need. With regard to the stone-throwing mobs that are now daily appearing on the streets of most urban centres of the Valley, old attitudes rooted in superficiality and “short-termism” are once again at display. So far, about 69 persons have died. But there is no sign of a sustained crackdown on the ringleaders, financers and those who are spraying the virus of militant fanaticism in the Valley.
What is worse, another “appeasement card” is being put forward in the form of a political package and additional autonomy, without bothering to consider that in the long run such a package and such an autonomy could provide stronger muscle to the forces of subversion and separatism in the Valley. Further, no one is showing any inclination to raise certain basic and pertinent questions in this regard.
Are the Kashmiris, like the citizens of the rest of India, not already free under the Constitution of India? Do they not have all the fundamental rights which individuals in modern liberal democracies enjoy? Has their identity, culture, religion or language been undermined in any way by the constitutional arrangements that have been in operation for the last several decades? How would a common Kashmiri be benefited by changing the nomenclature of chief minister to Prime Minister or of governor to Sadar-e-Riyasat, or by ousting the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India? What would happen if the so-called pre-1952 position is restored and only defence, foreign affairs and communications are kept within the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament/government and all the remaining items are assigned exclusively to the state legislature/government? How would the state government then meet its requirements of finances which at present are provided by the Union government to the tune of 74 per cent of its needs? Could the “nuts and bolts” of objective reality and the need to have smooth and workable relationship between the state and the Union be dispensed with?
To these and allied questions, no satisfactory answers can be provided by the proponents of autonomy and the “political package”. They merely harp on the promises supposed to have been made to Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, forgetting that what matters is not the individual but the state government without whose concurrence nothing was done. They take advantage of the widespread ignorance that prevails in the country about the rather complex manner in which constitutional relations between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union have evolved. They hide the fact that Jammu and Kashmir already enjoys, albeit unjustifiably, far more powers than are available to other states of the Union. They also forget that at the time of the 1975 Kashmir Accord, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had made it clear that “the clock could not be put back”, and that the “provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to the state of Jammu and Kashmir ‘without adaptation or modification’ were unalterable”.
The only concession made in 1975, in the spirit of bonhomie, by the Government of India was to consider changes in the “adapted and modified” provisions, if a specific proposal in this regard was received from the state government. But neither the government of Sheikh Abdullah nor that of Dr Farooq Abdullah could send any proposal, primarily because the changes earlier made were all necessitated by practical consideration.
The State Autonomy Committee Report (1999), sent to the Union government 24 years after the Kashmir Accord, is nothing but a broad repetition of what was said on behalf of the National Conference in 1975. It ignores the huge volume of water that has since flowed under the bridges of Yamuna and Jhelum, and does not indicate how the changes that are being advocated now would improve the lot of the common man and how the expenditure on the state Five-Year Plans would be met. Nor does it care to explain how certain security and other contingencies would be dealt with? What, for instance, would happen if Article 356 is not applicable and if the state refuses or fails to comply with any requirement of the Union in respect of defence, foreign affairs or communication? Would this not cause an intractable constitutional deadlokck?
The acceptance by the Union government of any of the phoney ideas contained in the aforesaid report would add another blunder to the series of blunders committed in the past, which have so far cost the nation over 50,000 lives, besides several thousand-crores of hard-earned taxpayers’ money.
While it is not likely to make even a slight dent in the criticality of the present situation, it could strengthen the forces of disarray in the Valley, give rise to fresh agitations in other regions of the state and become a precedent for separatists in other part of the country to quote and demand. Even otherwise, the unfortunate history of Jammu and Kashmir in the post-1947 period warns us in no uncertain terms that the decision taken under momentary pressures and on short-term considerations have proved disastrous in the long run. Too many infections have already accumulated in the body politics of Jammu and Kashmir. If we do not have the skill or will to drain them out, let us at least not add more to them.
The need of the hour is that we should make a new beginning, educate our brothers and sisters in Kashmir about the true position in respect of their political, social and cultural freedoms and tell them that we as fellow countrymen have already helped them to the tune of `95,000 crores from 1989-90 to 2009-10, and would continue to discharge our obligations in this respect in future to make them a happy and prosperous community of the Union.
Jagmohan is a former governor of J&K and a former Union minister
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/don%E2%80%99t-turn-back-clock-jk-802
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
No violence, but Ram temple will be built: RSS chief
September 14, 2010 21:07 IST
Sheela Bhatt meets RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at a media interaction in New Delhi. She says that while he was rigid on his stand on the Ayodhya issue, he impressed with his simplicity and clarity of thought.
"Hindu society in India wants to see a Ram temple in Ayodhya. I can give you my response to the court's judgement only after September 24. There is legal option available too. It will all depend on the judgement. But, our response will be within the limits of law and constitution. It will be in a democratic way. We will be striving to see that there will be a grand Ram temple on that site," said Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh speaking on the much awaited Ayodhya verdict.
In an interaction with journalists of the Indian Women's Press Corps in New Delhi,he not only explained why he wants the Ram temple in Ayodhya but also conceded that they demolished the Babri mosque and explained why did they that.
He said, "The Ayodhya issue is not a Hindu Muslim issue. Ram is worshipped in millions of Hindu houses. But, that's why we are not running the movement for a Ram temple."
He explained further that there is centuries old life style, which has certain codes, which appreciates Ram as an ideal entity. Bharat's emotion (bandhu bhav) for his brother Ram is appreciated and understood by Hindus, as well as, even, common Muslims. These values are national in character. Our country is surviving on those national values.
He said, "To uproot (free) those values we demolished the mosque. (Un mulyo ko udhwast karne ke liye hum masjid ko toda hai). Now, we are freed so we should re establish something like a national museum in the form of a Ram temple."
He even said that if a temple is built in Ayodhya, it would reduce the distance that has been created between Hindus and Muslims over other issues. "We want the temple on the birthplace (of Ram). There was a temple there. That temple was demolished to break the will of the people. While disrespecting values, they demolished the temple."
He thinks that re establishing a temple will reset those values that were hurt at the time of rule of Babar. "The opposition to the temple is not justified."
There is not an iota of change in RSS's stand on building of Ram temple at the site in Ayodhya where the Babri mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992. But, Bhagwat, the all powerful leader of the 85 year old outfit, is promising that there will be no violence whichever way the Ayodhya verdict goes.
Bhagwat is the sixth sarsanghachalak of the RSS. His father was a prant pracharak (branch leader) and he himself had been pracharak for more than 25 years. No doubt, he breathes and lives on philosophy of the RSS. In spite of prodding by women reporters, he gave no concession to the liberal view over the Babri mosque. Ram temple issue which will suit 21st century India, which wants development first and doesn't want to remain mired and divided over religion, caste or class.
When the journalists argued with Bhagwat that if the RSS wants to unite India and wants to see it on path of progress then the solution to have joint structure at the site in Ayodhya could serve both purposes of unity and development, he stuck to his views.
When asked specifically what is his precise problem to have some kind of joint structure or all religion structure on that site to solve the issue forever, Bhagwat said, "Ayodhya is not about the religion, it's about the re-establishing national values. Why should anybody object to it?"
He insisted that construction of the Ram temple would integrate India in a big way. He said, "The basic problem is that people are opposing the Ram temple."
In the comment that can offend the secular people he argued further that, "If tomorrow, Muslims say that let the temple be built then nobody will be able to say in India that Indian Muslims are 'foreign bound'. (Bharat main koi nahin kahe sakega ke yahan ka Muslman videsh-parsat hai)!"
He said from the side of RSS there should be no apprehension of violence. Peace should be maintained because Ayodhya is not the issue of conflict, he said.
More than an hour's engagement with media proved that RSS don't change its stand even a century passes by or a new one arrives. He said, "Why should one change views with the change of time? Roots of a tree remain same and firm even with the changing of time."
When asked about his view about the divisive character of the Ayodhya issue that has created distance between Hindus and Muslims in the country, he said, "We don't want any division in Indian society. If some issues create distance it's our duty to fill the gap." He said that till some time back RSS was not into dialogue with the Muslims. But, since the last seven years RSS is having regular dialogue with Muslim leaders.
When asked repeatedly about the dialogue to maintain peace with the Muslim community after the Ayodhya verdict he said that the Saints Committee, which is leading the Ram Janambhoomi movement, has dialogue with the Babri Masjid Action Committee and he doesn't have any clue about it.
He thinks that when the Bharatiya Janata Party joined the temple movement it helped it but he said the RSS is not dependent on anybody over the issue. It stands firm on the demand that a grand temple should be built there, whether the BJP is with it or not.
While he refused to budge from his rigid stand on Ayodhya, he did impress by his simplicity, dignity of language and clarity of thought.
On the issue of radical Hindutva outfits like Abhinav Bharat and the Shriram Sene, he completely distanced himself from them. He said that he doesn't have much information on those organisations. And, then he said, "The RSS doesn't believe in violence and it's written in its constitution."
Bhagwat said he doesn't believe that there is anything called Hindu or saffron terrorism in the country. There is politics behind it to defame the RSS.
When asked how he can object to words like saffron terror when they have been using words like jihadi terrorism, he said "Jihadi terrorism is a phrase used all over the world. Jihadi terrorism has got sanction by a 'particular philosophy' which supports violence. Hindu society doesn't sanction violence. So, saffron or Hindu words can't go together with terrorism."
He reminded that whoever believes in violence and whosoever is motivated by external forces cannot join the RSS.
He was in a denial mode when asked about the RSS's grip over the BJP.
While smiling he said that he did not handpick Nitin Gadkari as president of the BJP. He said three four names came forward that included Gadkari's name.
Showing his maturity, he was very restrained in his criticism of the Manmohan Singh led government in handling the Kashmir crisis. He said it's not RSS's job to criticise the government, "We are not an opposition party."
However, he repeated RSS stand of 'integrating' Kashmir with rest of India and reiterated its opposition to Article 370, which gives special status to J&K. He said he doesn't like words like 'autonomy' and 'azadi'.
He repeated the RSS views that Kashmir must be integrated with the rest of India.The policy of the government should be aiming for it. "How is it possible that by mere stone throwing they want to dismiss the government?" He said that government should work towards making Kashmir an inseparable part of India in all senses.
Earlier, while opening the dialogue he said that, "I have come here to spread the understanding of the RSS."
Then, in the typical RSS way he explained that what the organisation stands for. He said that a country becomes great and contributes to the world when its ordinary society is united and virtuous.
He said Dr B K Hedgewar founded the RSS in 1925 because he saw that awareness has spread in Indian society so independence will follow but after independence to run the country and to retain freedom, one requires a society that is united.
He aid , "The RSS's work is of uniting Hindu society. It is not the reactionary work nor is it in opposition to any community."
He said, "Whoever wants to see 'Bharat mata ki jai' in this world can join any branch of the RSS." He claimed that the RSS doesn't believe in castes and nobody is asked about it when they come to join. He said the RSS has emerged as the strength of nation in the last 85 years. He was defensive about lack of women in the top leadership of the RSS.He said they have many programmes conducted jointly. The RSS wanted that caste census should not be conducted along with the census. He hoped that the caste census remains for planning purposes and not for politics.
He said that the Brahimin leadership of the RSS is changing slowly. The dominance of Brahmin has to do with its origin in Nagpur. In Nagpur, now the so called scheduled castes are more than Brahmins. At the zonal level, the caste combination is changing and it will change at the national level too. He said, "We don't force the change."
http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/sep/14/rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-on-the-ayodhya-issue.htm
Sheela Bhatt meets RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat at a media interaction in New Delhi. She says that while he was rigid on his stand on the Ayodhya issue, he impressed with his simplicity and clarity of thought.
"Hindu society in India wants to see a Ram temple in Ayodhya. I can give you my response to the court's judgement only after September 24. There is legal option available too. It will all depend on the judgement. But, our response will be within the limits of law and constitution. It will be in a democratic way. We will be striving to see that there will be a grand Ram temple on that site," said Mohan Bhagwat, chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh speaking on the much awaited Ayodhya verdict.
In an interaction with journalists of the Indian Women's Press Corps in New Delhi,he not only explained why he wants the Ram temple in Ayodhya but also conceded that they demolished the Babri mosque and explained why did they that.
He said, "The Ayodhya issue is not a Hindu Muslim issue. Ram is worshipped in millions of Hindu houses. But, that's why we are not running the movement for a Ram temple."
He explained further that there is centuries old life style, which has certain codes, which appreciates Ram as an ideal entity. Bharat's emotion (bandhu bhav) for his brother Ram is appreciated and understood by Hindus, as well as, even, common Muslims. These values are national in character. Our country is surviving on those national values.
He said, "To uproot (free) those values we demolished the mosque. (Un mulyo ko udhwast karne ke liye hum masjid ko toda hai). Now, we are freed so we should re establish something like a national museum in the form of a Ram temple."
He even said that if a temple is built in Ayodhya, it would reduce the distance that has been created between Hindus and Muslims over other issues. "We want the temple on the birthplace (of Ram). There was a temple there. That temple was demolished to break the will of the people. While disrespecting values, they demolished the temple."
He thinks that re establishing a temple will reset those values that were hurt at the time of rule of Babar. "The opposition to the temple is not justified."
There is not an iota of change in RSS's stand on building of Ram temple at the site in Ayodhya where the Babri mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992. But, Bhagwat, the all powerful leader of the 85 year old outfit, is promising that there will be no violence whichever way the Ayodhya verdict goes.
Bhagwat is the sixth sarsanghachalak of the RSS. His father was a prant pracharak (branch leader) and he himself had been pracharak for more than 25 years. No doubt, he breathes and lives on philosophy of the RSS. In spite of prodding by women reporters, he gave no concession to the liberal view over the Babri mosque. Ram temple issue which will suit 21st century India, which wants development first and doesn't want to remain mired and divided over religion, caste or class.
When the journalists argued with Bhagwat that if the RSS wants to unite India and wants to see it on path of progress then the solution to have joint structure at the site in Ayodhya could serve both purposes of unity and development, he stuck to his views.
When asked specifically what is his precise problem to have some kind of joint structure or all religion structure on that site to solve the issue forever, Bhagwat said, "Ayodhya is not about the religion, it's about the re-establishing national values. Why should anybody object to it?"
He insisted that construction of the Ram temple would integrate India in a big way. He said, "The basic problem is that people are opposing the Ram temple."
In the comment that can offend the secular people he argued further that, "If tomorrow, Muslims say that let the temple be built then nobody will be able to say in India that Indian Muslims are 'foreign bound'. (Bharat main koi nahin kahe sakega ke yahan ka Muslman videsh-parsat hai)!"
He said from the side of RSS there should be no apprehension of violence. Peace should be maintained because Ayodhya is not the issue of conflict, he said.
More than an hour's engagement with media proved that RSS don't change its stand even a century passes by or a new one arrives. He said, "Why should one change views with the change of time? Roots of a tree remain same and firm even with the changing of time."
When asked about his view about the divisive character of the Ayodhya issue that has created distance between Hindus and Muslims in the country, he said, "We don't want any division in Indian society. If some issues create distance it's our duty to fill the gap." He said that till some time back RSS was not into dialogue with the Muslims. But, since the last seven years RSS is having regular dialogue with Muslim leaders.
When asked repeatedly about the dialogue to maintain peace with the Muslim community after the Ayodhya verdict he said that the Saints Committee, which is leading the Ram Janambhoomi movement, has dialogue with the Babri Masjid Action Committee and he doesn't have any clue about it.
He thinks that when the Bharatiya Janata Party joined the temple movement it helped it but he said the RSS is not dependent on anybody over the issue. It stands firm on the demand that a grand temple should be built there, whether the BJP is with it or not.
While he refused to budge from his rigid stand on Ayodhya, he did impress by his simplicity, dignity of language and clarity of thought.
On the issue of radical Hindutva outfits like Abhinav Bharat and the Shriram Sene, he completely distanced himself from them. He said that he doesn't have much information on those organisations. And, then he said, "The RSS doesn't believe in violence and it's written in its constitution."
Bhagwat said he doesn't believe that there is anything called Hindu or saffron terrorism in the country. There is politics behind it to defame the RSS.
When asked how he can object to words like saffron terror when they have been using words like jihadi terrorism, he said "Jihadi terrorism is a phrase used all over the world. Jihadi terrorism has got sanction by a 'particular philosophy' which supports violence. Hindu society doesn't sanction violence. So, saffron or Hindu words can't go together with terrorism."
He reminded that whoever believes in violence and whosoever is motivated by external forces cannot join the RSS.
He was in a denial mode when asked about the RSS's grip over the BJP.
While smiling he said that he did not handpick Nitin Gadkari as president of the BJP. He said three four names came forward that included Gadkari's name.
Showing his maturity, he was very restrained in his criticism of the Manmohan Singh led government in handling the Kashmir crisis. He said it's not RSS's job to criticise the government, "We are not an opposition party."
However, he repeated RSS stand of 'integrating' Kashmir with rest of India and reiterated its opposition to Article 370, which gives special status to J&K. He said he doesn't like words like 'autonomy' and 'azadi'.
He repeated the RSS views that Kashmir must be integrated with the rest of India.The policy of the government should be aiming for it. "How is it possible that by mere stone throwing they want to dismiss the government?" He said that government should work towards making Kashmir an inseparable part of India in all senses.
Earlier, while opening the dialogue he said that, "I have come here to spread the understanding of the RSS."
Then, in the typical RSS way he explained that what the organisation stands for. He said that a country becomes great and contributes to the world when its ordinary society is united and virtuous.
He said Dr B K Hedgewar founded the RSS in 1925 because he saw that awareness has spread in Indian society so independence will follow but after independence to run the country and to retain freedom, one requires a society that is united.
He aid , "The RSS's work is of uniting Hindu society. It is not the reactionary work nor is it in opposition to any community."
He said, "Whoever wants to see 'Bharat mata ki jai' in this world can join any branch of the RSS." He claimed that the RSS doesn't believe in castes and nobody is asked about it when they come to join. He said the RSS has emerged as the strength of nation in the last 85 years. He was defensive about lack of women in the top leadership of the RSS.He said they have many programmes conducted jointly. The RSS wanted that caste census should not be conducted along with the census. He hoped that the caste census remains for planning purposes and not for politics.
He said that the Brahimin leadership of the RSS is changing slowly. The dominance of Brahmin has to do with its origin in Nagpur. In Nagpur, now the so called scheduled castes are more than Brahmins. At the zonal level, the caste combination is changing and it will change at the national level too. He said, "We don't force the change."
http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/sep/14/rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-on-the-ayodhya-issue.htm
Muslims run rampage in Deganga, WB during Ramadan
http://www.drishtikone.com/blog/muslims-run-rampage-deganga-wb-during-ramadan
Deganga in North 24 Paraganas is in a mess with looting, killing and destruction of many temples. Information from that area is being sent out in emails to people looking for help. While the national press completely blacks it out and then shows it in a way that no one can figure out the gravity of the situation.
On September 6th, in the evening after Iftar, a mob of Muslim fanatics assembled in the Deganga Mosque (Basirhat SD, North 24 Parganas) and marched to several Hindu areas. There they started widecsale looting and ransacking of Hindu shops and Hindu temples. They targeted Hindus and severely beat up many residents in the area as well as torched 4 public buses. Shani Temple of Kartickpur and Kali Temple of Deganga Biplabi Colony have been desecrated and ransacked by the rioting Muslims.
The life from Berachapa to Kadamgachi has been frozen.
The issue started because Muslims, in an attempt to stop the Durga Puja during the Ramadan period, started digging up the passage of Durba bari temple, right besides Deganga Police Station in Chattal Pally village. Chattal Pally and Deganga P.S. come under the district of North 24 Parganas, and its Parliamentary constituency is Basirhat. Hazi Nurul Islam of T.M.C. is the MP.
When Hindus objected to the digging of the passage to Durga Bari temple, Muslim mob gathered and started rioting. In the evening, after Iftaar, the Muslim mob targeted the Hindus in the markets of markets of Beliaghata, Deganga and Kartickpur.
The Rapid Action force and Army has been called in, but so far they have been ineffective in doing much. The Muslim fanatic mobs had guns and swords openly being used.
__._,_.___
Deganga in North 24 Paraganas is in a mess with looting, killing and destruction of many temples. Information from that area is being sent out in emails to people looking for help. While the national press completely blacks it out and then shows it in a way that no one can figure out the gravity of the situation.
On September 6th, in the evening after Iftar, a mob of Muslim fanatics assembled in the Deganga Mosque (Basirhat SD, North 24 Parganas) and marched to several Hindu areas. There they started widecsale looting and ransacking of Hindu shops and Hindu temples. They targeted Hindus and severely beat up many residents in the area as well as torched 4 public buses. Shani Temple of Kartickpur and Kali Temple of Deganga Biplabi Colony have been desecrated and ransacked by the rioting Muslims.
The life from Berachapa to Kadamgachi has been frozen.
The issue started because Muslims, in an attempt to stop the Durga Puja during the Ramadan period, started digging up the passage of Durba bari temple, right besides Deganga Police Station in Chattal Pally village. Chattal Pally and Deganga P.S. come under the district of North 24 Parganas, and its Parliamentary constituency is Basirhat. Hazi Nurul Islam of T.M.C. is the MP.
When Hindus objected to the digging of the passage to Durga Bari temple, Muslim mob gathered and started rioting. In the evening, after Iftaar, the Muslim mob targeted the Hindus in the markets of markets of Beliaghata, Deganga and Kartickpur.
The Rapid Action force and Army has been called in, but so far they have been ineffective in doing much. The Muslim fanatic mobs had guns and swords openly being used.
__._,_.___
orissakhabara: Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja
orissakhabara: Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja: "http://orissakhabara.blogspot.com Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja PNS | Kolkata Rapid Action Force was called out as members of two com..."
Response to Ayodhya verdict will be within law'
New Delhi, Sep 14 (PTI) The RSS today said its response to the Ayodhya title suit verdict will be within "law and Constitution" and indicated that further legal options can be availed of if the ruling is not upto its expectation.
"Of course, the aspirations of the Hindu society is that there should be a temple at Ram Janmabhoomi. Our response to the verdict will be according to that wishes. We will try to ensure that Ram temple is constructed there," RSS chief Mohan Bahgwat said at an interaction with women scribes here.
"We can react to the verdict only after it comes...further legal options will also be available," the RSS Sarsanghachalak said, hinting that any party involved in the case can move the Supreme Court if the Allahabad High Court verdict does not come in its favour.
"Of course, the aspirations of the Hindu society is that there should be a temple at Ram Janmabhoomi. Our response to the verdict will be according to that wishes. We will try to ensure that Ram temple is constructed there," RSS chief Mohan Bahgwat said at an interaction with women scribes here.
"We can react to the verdict only after it comes...further legal options will also be available," the RSS Sarsanghachalak said, hinting that any party involved in the case can move the Supreme Court if the Allahabad High Court verdict does not come in its favour.
Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja
http://orissakhabara.blogspot.com
Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja
PNS | Kolkata
Rapid Action Force was called out as members of two communities clashed in the Basirhat sub-division of North 24 Parganas, about 150 km from Kolkata, leaving at least 24 persons, including the officer-in-charge of a police station, injured.
Reportedly, clashes started around 11 pm on Monday and continued intermittently till Tuesday morning when members of one community started digging the pathway leading to a Durga temple at Chattal Pally village in Deganga police station, sources said.
“When repeated requests to stop the digging failed, we called the police,” said one of the victims, adding that the clashes started only when the police intervened.
Some people reportedly led by local ruffians — Maqbur Rehman and Mintu Sahji — attacked shops selectively and ransacked a couple of religious places, sources said, adding that a mob of about 500 persons resorted to massive stone-pelting, injuring three policemen. Officer-in-charge of Deganga, Arup Ghosh, received head injuries and suffered fracture in his hand.
District Magistrate V Kumar said precautions had been taken and curfew had been clamped in the area. Paramilitary forces had been called out to assist the RAF, sources said, refusing to give further details.
Two temples of Kartickpur and Deganga Biplabi colony were desecrated by the mob, sources said. “When we protested, they chased us with swords and hurled bombs. The police intervened but were hopelessly outnumbered,” Anil, a local who was also injured in the clashes, said.
A particular community wanted to stop the 25-year Durga Puja in the area but failed in the face of resistance from the other community, sources said, but added that in recent times the administration in its bid to woo the minorities after the 2009 General Elections “simply looked the other way leaving us at their mercy”.
The clashes spread to Kartickpur, Kadambagachi area as four stationary buses were torched. Traffic on the Deganga-Kadambagachi-Basirhat route came to a standstill even as the police resorted to lathicharge to control the crowd. The mob attacked shops at Beliaghata market as well, police sources said, adding, the situation was tense but under control.
“The situation could have been even worse had it not been a bandh day on Tuesday,” police said and added that the area, a busy market place on a normal day, could have witnessed major violence.
Basirhat, a parliamentary constituency bordering Bangladesh held till 2009 by the CPI, was wrested by Trinamool Congress’ Nurul Islam. Deganga-Berachapa, which has a Muslim population of more than 69 per cent, had been otherwise a peaceful area which made news only in 2008 following reports of land-acquisition. The local population united against the reported Government move to acquire land leading the administration to shelve the projects.
Eight out of 29 blocks have a ‘minority-dominated’ population, thanks to unchecked infiltration from Bangladesh, locals complained, adding, the protest against infiltration continued to be an irritant between the two communities.
“TC leader Ratna Chowdhury was pressuring the police not to take any action against the erring mob which selectively looted and ransacked shops of a particular community,” said Anil.
There was no communication from administration. Locals complained both the Left and the TC leaders, including Islam, were backing the attackers. “We are under continuous threat in our own country and if this trend continues, we will have to migrate to some other district,” Subhashis Tarafdar, a local, said.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/281645/24-hurt-in-Bengal-clashes-RAF-called-out.html
Muslims wanted to stop Durga Pooja
PNS | Kolkata
Rapid Action Force was called out as members of two communities clashed in the Basirhat sub-division of North 24 Parganas, about 150 km from Kolkata, leaving at least 24 persons, including the officer-in-charge of a police station, injured.
Reportedly, clashes started around 11 pm on Monday and continued intermittently till Tuesday morning when members of one community started digging the pathway leading to a Durga temple at Chattal Pally village in Deganga police station, sources said.
“When repeated requests to stop the digging failed, we called the police,” said one of the victims, adding that the clashes started only when the police intervened.
Some people reportedly led by local ruffians — Maqbur Rehman and Mintu Sahji — attacked shops selectively and ransacked a couple of religious places, sources said, adding that a mob of about 500 persons resorted to massive stone-pelting, injuring three policemen. Officer-in-charge of Deganga, Arup Ghosh, received head injuries and suffered fracture in his hand.
District Magistrate V Kumar said precautions had been taken and curfew had been clamped in the area. Paramilitary forces had been called out to assist the RAF, sources said, refusing to give further details.
Two temples of Kartickpur and Deganga Biplabi colony were desecrated by the mob, sources said. “When we protested, they chased us with swords and hurled bombs. The police intervened but were hopelessly outnumbered,” Anil, a local who was also injured in the clashes, said.
A particular community wanted to stop the 25-year Durga Puja in the area but failed in the face of resistance from the other community, sources said, but added that in recent times the administration in its bid to woo the minorities after the 2009 General Elections “simply looked the other way leaving us at their mercy”.
The clashes spread to Kartickpur, Kadambagachi area as four stationary buses were torched. Traffic on the Deganga-Kadambagachi-Basirhat route came to a standstill even as the police resorted to lathicharge to control the crowd. The mob attacked shops at Beliaghata market as well, police sources said, adding, the situation was tense but under control.
“The situation could have been even worse had it not been a bandh day on Tuesday,” police said and added that the area, a busy market place on a normal day, could have witnessed major violence.
Basirhat, a parliamentary constituency bordering Bangladesh held till 2009 by the CPI, was wrested by Trinamool Congress’ Nurul Islam. Deganga-Berachapa, which has a Muslim population of more than 69 per cent, had been otherwise a peaceful area which made news only in 2008 following reports of land-acquisition. The local population united against the reported Government move to acquire land leading the administration to shelve the projects.
Eight out of 29 blocks have a ‘minority-dominated’ population, thanks to unchecked infiltration from Bangladesh, locals complained, adding, the protest against infiltration continued to be an irritant between the two communities.
“TC leader Ratna Chowdhury was pressuring the police not to take any action against the erring mob which selectively looted and ransacked shops of a particular community,” said Anil.
There was no communication from administration. Locals complained both the Left and the TC leaders, including Islam, were backing the attackers. “We are under continuous threat in our own country and if this trend continues, we will have to migrate to some other district,” Subhashis Tarafdar, a local, said.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/281645/24-hurt-in-Bengal-clashes-RAF-called-out.html
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Air Marshal RK Nehra’s book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos
Fwd: Fw: [USBrahmins] Air Marshal RK Nehra’s book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos
Awaken the warrior
Claude Arpi
A bogus preoccupation with the ideals of ahimsa, shanti and satya is at the root of the culture of unreasoning acquiescence that characterises Indian diplomacy. Air Marshal RK Nehra’s book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos, mourns the erosion of Hinduism’s lost ‘warrior mindset’.
"Que sera sera — whatever will be, will be.” Thus ends a fascinating book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos written by Air Marshal RK Nehra. According to the retired Indian Air Force officer, it could be the motto of India: The future is already written, we can’t do anything about it!
At the level of an individual or a nation, the blind acceptance of the present, as it is, and the future, as it will be, can have critical consequences. Air Marshal Nehra relates one by one the battles that the Indian nation has gone through for the past 2,300 years and shows that the loss of the ‘warrior’ mindset by the country’s leadership has often resulted in slavery.
He explains: “It is equally baffling to see the ease with which Hindus accepted their slavery. They adjusted to it with remarkable alacrity, almost as a duck takes to water. There was no great national upsurge, no fightback, even no major signs of resentment.”
According to him, the problem is that India is “stuck in the bhool-bhulayas (labyrinths) of ahimsa (non-violence) , shanti (peace) and satya(truth)”.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with these great Indian virtues which have been the ideals of every Indian for millennia, but the problem seems to be rather that instead of being the final goal, the ultimate objective of a civilisation, they have become the means to achieve this end. Mixing up the goals and the means is the tragedy of India.
Chanting shanti, shanti or speaking of ahimsa on a battlefield (or on the parleys table) does not help to achieve shanti or remove the violent instincts in the opponent, especially when one faces a rogue one. Though Air Marshal Nehra restricts himself to military matters, the mindset described by him also exists in other fields, particularly in diplomacy.
Take the example of the recent ‘Islamabad talks’. I was shocked to read the comment of an ‘eminent’ analyst who said that ‘India shone’ in Islamabad. Why? Because India did not respond to the insults received.
One can understand that the Indian Prime Minister wants to leave some trace of his passage at Race Course Road and is ready to take some risk for that, but why silently accept insults? When Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi compared Home Secretary GK Pillai to Jamaat-ud-Dawa’ h chief Hafiz Saeed and complained that his Indian counterpart Mr SM Krishna took telephonic instructions from Delhi, the Indian side only feebly protested. The next day, the Indian Foreign Secretary even said that the talks were on. Que sera sera!
The worst is that Mr Pillai was punished for standing by ‘satya’, he had just confirmed that the ISI had been involved “from beginning to end” in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks: The Ministry of Home Affairs has now appointed a new spokesperson. Indian diplomatic blunders would take pages and pages just to list. One of the biggest, according to me, was the Panchsheel Agreement through which India unilaterally surrendered its rights in Tibet, without getting even a proper demarcation of its frontier in return. The Machiavellian Chinese Premier, Mr Zhou Enlai, enigmatically declared that all the issues “ripe for settlement” had been solved. Nobody reacted till several years later when it was too late (the Chinese had already built a road through Indian territory in the Aksai Chin area of Ladakh).
Air Marshal Nehra’s theory is that there is something wrong with the ‘Hindu’ mindset. He writes: “Out of the recorded Hindu history of around 2,300 years, Bharat was under jackboots of slavery for some 1,300 years — a dubious record.” He tries to analyse: “It is baffling to see the great Hindu civilisation going under with such extraordinary ease. It would appear that reasons for Hindu slavery lay in their mind, rather than in their muscle. The ancient Hindus were a set of martial people who lived by the sword. Somewhere along the line, Hindus lost their way and their martial spirit.”
One of his conclusions is that “Hindus developed a deluded sense of dharma under influence of Buddhism; that was the main reason for their downfall.”
Here, I differ with his view. There are many examples of Buddhist ‘warriors’, defending the highest Indian values. Even in modern India, without the Nubra Guards of Colonel Chhewang Rinchen, who received twice the Mahavir Chakra, Ladakh would today be under Pakistani occupation. One could also cite the role of the Ladakh Scouts during the Kargil conflict or on the Siachen glacier and the Tibetan Special Frontier Forces who participated in the Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 and several other battles.
For Buddhism (as well as for Hinduism), a tradition of defending the highest dharma has existed; Air Marshal Nehra himself quotes theBhagvad Gita: Hatova prapsyasi swargam jitva bhoksyase mahim (Slain in battle, you attain heaven, gaining victory, you enjoy the earth).
But Air Marshal Nehra is probably right when he says: “Hindus suffer from bouts of phony morality and bogus sense of self-righteousness… All these are un-military- like attributes, which must be shunned.”
He speaks at length of India’s military campaigns and India’s lost chances to send back the invading forces to their Penates. One of the first ‘blunders’ of Independent India occurred in January 1948; suddenly the Indian forces stopped their advances in Kashmir and the raiders were not pushed back to Pakistan. If one studies history, one discovers that Indian defeats have always been the result of wrong interpretation of the Indic spiritual tradition.
However, some Indian leaders did see things differently. When Hindus were butchered in East Pakistan during the first months of 1950, the Government first contemplated strong steps, then the Prime Minister of Pakistan came to India and Nehru melted; he signed a pact with Pakistan; at that time, Sri Aurobindo argued: “The massacres in East Bengal still seemed to make war inevitable and the Indian Government had just before Nehru’s attempt to patch up a compromise made ready to march its Army over the East Bengal borders once a few preliminaries had been arranged and war in Kashmir would have inevitably followed. America and Britain would not have been able to support Pakistan and (they) had already intimated their inability to prevent the Indian Government from taking the only possible course open to it in face of the massacre. In the circumstances the end of Pakistan would have been the certain consequence of war… Now all this has changed. After the conclusion of the pact… no outbreak of war can take place at least for some time to come, and, unless the pact fails, it may not take place. That may mean in certain contingencies the indefinite perpetuation of the existence of Pakistan and the indefinite postponement of the prospect of any unification of India.”
Sixty years later, India is perhaps ‘shining’, but losing battles. At the end of the day, is it not a problem of leadership? India has unfortunately only had leaders who sing: “The future’s not ours to see! Que sera sera!”
__._,_.___
Awaken the warrior
Claude Arpi
A bogus preoccupation with the ideals of ahimsa, shanti and satya is at the root of the culture of unreasoning acquiescence that characterises Indian diplomacy. Air Marshal RK Nehra’s book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos, mourns the erosion of Hinduism’s lost ‘warrior mindset’.
"Que sera sera — whatever will be, will be.” Thus ends a fascinating book, Hinduism and its Military Ethos written by Air Marshal RK Nehra. According to the retired Indian Air Force officer, it could be the motto of India: The future is already written, we can’t do anything about it!
At the level of an individual or a nation, the blind acceptance of the present, as it is, and the future, as it will be, can have critical consequences. Air Marshal Nehra relates one by one the battles that the Indian nation has gone through for the past 2,300 years and shows that the loss of the ‘warrior’ mindset by the country’s leadership has often resulted in slavery.
He explains: “It is equally baffling to see the ease with which Hindus accepted their slavery. They adjusted to it with remarkable alacrity, almost as a duck takes to water. There was no great national upsurge, no fightback, even no major signs of resentment.”
According to him, the problem is that India is “stuck in the bhool-bhulayas (labyrinths) of ahimsa (non-violence) , shanti (peace) and satya(truth)”.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with these great Indian virtues which have been the ideals of every Indian for millennia, but the problem seems to be rather that instead of being the final goal, the ultimate objective of a civilisation, they have become the means to achieve this end. Mixing up the goals and the means is the tragedy of India.
Chanting shanti, shanti or speaking of ahimsa on a battlefield (or on the parleys table) does not help to achieve shanti or remove the violent instincts in the opponent, especially when one faces a rogue one. Though Air Marshal Nehra restricts himself to military matters, the mindset described by him also exists in other fields, particularly in diplomacy.
Take the example of the recent ‘Islamabad talks’. I was shocked to read the comment of an ‘eminent’ analyst who said that ‘India shone’ in Islamabad. Why? Because India did not respond to the insults received.
One can understand that the Indian Prime Minister wants to leave some trace of his passage at Race Course Road and is ready to take some risk for that, but why silently accept insults? When Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi compared Home Secretary GK Pillai to Jamaat-ud-Dawa’ h chief Hafiz Saeed and complained that his Indian counterpart Mr SM Krishna took telephonic instructions from Delhi, the Indian side only feebly protested. The next day, the Indian Foreign Secretary even said that the talks were on. Que sera sera!
The worst is that Mr Pillai was punished for standing by ‘satya’, he had just confirmed that the ISI had been involved “from beginning to end” in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks: The Ministry of Home Affairs has now appointed a new spokesperson. Indian diplomatic blunders would take pages and pages just to list. One of the biggest, according to me, was the Panchsheel Agreement through which India unilaterally surrendered its rights in Tibet, without getting even a proper demarcation of its frontier in return. The Machiavellian Chinese Premier, Mr Zhou Enlai, enigmatically declared that all the issues “ripe for settlement” had been solved. Nobody reacted till several years later when it was too late (the Chinese had already built a road through Indian territory in the Aksai Chin area of Ladakh).
Air Marshal Nehra’s theory is that there is something wrong with the ‘Hindu’ mindset. He writes: “Out of the recorded Hindu history of around 2,300 years, Bharat was under jackboots of slavery for some 1,300 years — a dubious record.” He tries to analyse: “It is baffling to see the great Hindu civilisation going under with such extraordinary ease. It would appear that reasons for Hindu slavery lay in their mind, rather than in their muscle. The ancient Hindus were a set of martial people who lived by the sword. Somewhere along the line, Hindus lost their way and their martial spirit.”
One of his conclusions is that “Hindus developed a deluded sense of dharma under influence of Buddhism; that was the main reason for their downfall.”
Here, I differ with his view. There are many examples of Buddhist ‘warriors’, defending the highest Indian values. Even in modern India, without the Nubra Guards of Colonel Chhewang Rinchen, who received twice the Mahavir Chakra, Ladakh would today be under Pakistani occupation. One could also cite the role of the Ladakh Scouts during the Kargil conflict or on the Siachen glacier and the Tibetan Special Frontier Forces who participated in the Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 and several other battles.
For Buddhism (as well as for Hinduism), a tradition of defending the highest dharma has existed; Air Marshal Nehra himself quotes theBhagvad Gita: Hatova prapsyasi swargam jitva bhoksyase mahim (Slain in battle, you attain heaven, gaining victory, you enjoy the earth).
But Air Marshal Nehra is probably right when he says: “Hindus suffer from bouts of phony morality and bogus sense of self-righteousness… All these are un-military- like attributes, which must be shunned.”
He speaks at length of India’s military campaigns and India’s lost chances to send back the invading forces to their Penates. One of the first ‘blunders’ of Independent India occurred in January 1948; suddenly the Indian forces stopped their advances in Kashmir and the raiders were not pushed back to Pakistan. If one studies history, one discovers that Indian defeats have always been the result of wrong interpretation of the Indic spiritual tradition.
However, some Indian leaders did see things differently. When Hindus were butchered in East Pakistan during the first months of 1950, the Government first contemplated strong steps, then the Prime Minister of Pakistan came to India and Nehru melted; he signed a pact with Pakistan; at that time, Sri Aurobindo argued: “The massacres in East Bengal still seemed to make war inevitable and the Indian Government had just before Nehru’s attempt to patch up a compromise made ready to march its Army over the East Bengal borders once a few preliminaries had been arranged and war in Kashmir would have inevitably followed. America and Britain would not have been able to support Pakistan and (they) had already intimated their inability to prevent the Indian Government from taking the only possible course open to it in face of the massacre. In the circumstances the end of Pakistan would have been the certain consequence of war… Now all this has changed. After the conclusion of the pact… no outbreak of war can take place at least for some time to come, and, unless the pact fails, it may not take place. That may mean in certain contingencies the indefinite perpetuation of the existence of Pakistan and the indefinite postponement of the prospect of any unification of India.”
Sixty years later, India is perhaps ‘shining’, but losing battles. At the end of the day, is it not a problem of leadership? India has unfortunately only had leaders who sing: “The future’s not ours to see! Que sera sera!”
__._,_.___
Complicated encounters
Complicated encounters - Ajit Kumar Doval, former director of the CBI
Beware of half truths — because you may be holding the wrong half. After having seen and read so much about the Sohrabuddin episode in the last five years, one might believe one knows it all. Sohrabuddin is now cast as an innocent victim of police excess.
However, it would be worthwhile to explore the real facts about Sohrabuddin, the nature of police encounters, and the real issues at stake. Sohrabuddin was an underworld gangster who was involved in nearly two dozen serious criminal offences in states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. He maintained transnational links with anti-India forces from the early ‘90s onwards, until his death in 2005. Working with mafia dons like Dawood Ibrahim and Abdul Latif, he procured weapons and explosives from Pakistan and supplied them to various terrorist and anti-national groups (had it not been for his activity, at least some terrorist acts could have been averted). Sohrabuddin was solidly entrenched in the criminal world for a decade-and-a-half. Around the time he was killed, the Rajasthan government had announced a reward on his head. In 1999, he had been detained under the National Security Act by the Madhya Pradesh government.
In a 1994 case investigated by the Ahmedabad crime branch, he was co-accused along with Dawood Ibrahim and convicted for five years, for waging war against the Government of India, planning an attack on the Jagannath rath yatra in Orissa, and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, etc. During the investigation, 24 AK-56 rifles, 27 hand grenades, 5250 cartridges, 81 magazines and more were seized from his family home in Madhya Pradesh. In 2004, a fourth crime was registered against him by Chandgad police station of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra under sections 302, 120 (b), and 25 (1) (3) of the Arms Act, for the killing of Gopal Tukaram Badivadekar. As fear of him often silenced people from reporting his whereabouts, let alone deposing against him, the Rajasthan government had to announce a reward on his head after he killed Hamid Lata in broad daylight in the heart of Udaipur, on December 31, 2004. So much for Sohrabuddin’s innocence.
However, irrespective of who Sohrabuddin was and what he did, the use of unaccountable force against him is indefensible is the public view of many (often at variance with their private view). There are many who feel that there is a higher rationale for such actions in compelling circumstances, as the law of the land has repeatedly found itself helpless in dealing with individuals bent on bleeding the country. Their argument, that the rule of law is a means to an end and not an end in itself, often finds support in the jurisprudential principles of salus populi est suprema lex (the people’s welfare is the supreme law) and salus res publica est suprema lex (the safety of the nation is supreme law). Even the Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [1997 (1) SCC 416] accepted the validity of these two principles and characterised them as “not only important and relevant, but lying at the heart of the doctrine that welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.” The validity of the principles of salus populi est suprema lex and salus res publica est suprema lex could have been part of an enlightened national discourse, and what could be the governing instrumentalities, empowerments, legal checks and stringent processes if these principles were to be invoked. It is better to accept reality as it is and then strive to change it for the better, rather than what we wish it to be. Feigned ignorance is the worst type of hypocrisy.
But there is another vital question that needs to be addressed. While pursuing the Sohrabuddin case, was the government really serious about stopping the menace of fake encounters, or was it pursuing a different agenda? Encounters have been taking place all over the country under all regimes, at times degenerating into what are called fake encounters. Between 2000 and 2007 there have been 712 cases of police encounters in the country with UP topping the list at 324, and Gujarat figuring almost at the bottom with 17.
In some of the cases there was not much on record, even to establish the criminal past of those killed. Settling political scores through security and investigative agencies like the CBI is not only bad politics, but also destructive for the nation’s security. To convey the impression (explicitly or implicitly) that Sohrabuddin was targeted for belonging to a particular community, thereby creating a sense of insecurity in a section of society, is detrimental to national interests. It is little known that a large number of Sohrabuddin’s victims were Muslims while a good number of his closest associates (including Tulsiram Prajapati, who was also killed in a similar encounter), were Hindu. William Blake could not have been more right when he said that “a truth that is pursued with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent”.
The other negative impact of the Sohrabuddin case is the impression it is creating that all encounters in which police and security forces are involved, are fake. Society needs to be reassured that the majority of encounters are genuine and mostly in response to murderous attacks on security personnel. The fact that, on average, over 1,200 policemen get killed every year grappling with terrorists, insurgents, underworld mafia and other anti-social elements, bears ample testimony to this fact. Playing up a few aberrations and blowing them out of proportion and presenting them as the only truth is not in the national interest.
The other downside of the publicity around such cases is that it erodes the people’s trust in governance. Administrations begin to be seen as instruments of repression and self-aggrandisement and politicians as perceived as manipulating their power for political and personal gains. This erosion can lead to a dangerous delegitimisation of the polity. Democratic politics is an exercise in regime-legitimisation, and to lose the confidence of the governed would set the government on a self-destructive path.
The writer is former director of the Intelligence Bureau
Beware of half truths — because you may be holding the wrong half. After having seen and read so much about the Sohrabuddin episode in the last five years, one might believe one knows it all. Sohrabuddin is now cast as an innocent victim of police excess.
However, it would be worthwhile to explore the real facts about Sohrabuddin, the nature of police encounters, and the real issues at stake. Sohrabuddin was an underworld gangster who was involved in nearly two dozen serious criminal offences in states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. He maintained transnational links with anti-India forces from the early ‘90s onwards, until his death in 2005. Working with mafia dons like Dawood Ibrahim and Abdul Latif, he procured weapons and explosives from Pakistan and supplied them to various terrorist and anti-national groups (had it not been for his activity, at least some terrorist acts could have been averted). Sohrabuddin was solidly entrenched in the criminal world for a decade-and-a-half. Around the time he was killed, the Rajasthan government had announced a reward on his head. In 1999, he had been detained under the National Security Act by the Madhya Pradesh government.
In a 1994 case investigated by the Ahmedabad crime branch, he was co-accused along with Dawood Ibrahim and convicted for five years, for waging war against the Government of India, planning an attack on the Jagannath rath yatra in Orissa, and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, etc. During the investigation, 24 AK-56 rifles, 27 hand grenades, 5250 cartridges, 81 magazines and more were seized from his family home in Madhya Pradesh. In 2004, a fourth crime was registered against him by Chandgad police station of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra under sections 302, 120 (b), and 25 (1) (3) of the Arms Act, for the killing of Gopal Tukaram Badivadekar. As fear of him often silenced people from reporting his whereabouts, let alone deposing against him, the Rajasthan government had to announce a reward on his head after he killed Hamid Lata in broad daylight in the heart of Udaipur, on December 31, 2004. So much for Sohrabuddin’s innocence.
However, irrespective of who Sohrabuddin was and what he did, the use of unaccountable force against him is indefensible is the public view of many (often at variance with their private view). There are many who feel that there is a higher rationale for such actions in compelling circumstances, as the law of the land has repeatedly found itself helpless in dealing with individuals bent on bleeding the country. Their argument, that the rule of law is a means to an end and not an end in itself, often finds support in the jurisprudential principles of salus populi est suprema lex (the people’s welfare is the supreme law) and salus res publica est suprema lex (the safety of the nation is supreme law). Even the Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [1997 (1) SCC 416] accepted the validity of these two principles and characterised them as “not only important and relevant, but lying at the heart of the doctrine that welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.” The validity of the principles of salus populi est suprema lex and salus res publica est suprema lex could have been part of an enlightened national discourse, and what could be the governing instrumentalities, empowerments, legal checks and stringent processes if these principles were to be invoked. It is better to accept reality as it is and then strive to change it for the better, rather than what we wish it to be. Feigned ignorance is the worst type of hypocrisy.
But there is another vital question that needs to be addressed. While pursuing the Sohrabuddin case, was the government really serious about stopping the menace of fake encounters, or was it pursuing a different agenda? Encounters have been taking place all over the country under all regimes, at times degenerating into what are called fake encounters. Between 2000 and 2007 there have been 712 cases of police encounters in the country with UP topping the list at 324, and Gujarat figuring almost at the bottom with 17.
In some of the cases there was not much on record, even to establish the criminal past of those killed. Settling political scores through security and investigative agencies like the CBI is not only bad politics, but also destructive for the nation’s security. To convey the impression (explicitly or implicitly) that Sohrabuddin was targeted for belonging to a particular community, thereby creating a sense of insecurity in a section of society, is detrimental to national interests. It is little known that a large number of Sohrabuddin’s victims were Muslims while a good number of his closest associates (including Tulsiram Prajapati, who was also killed in a similar encounter), were Hindu. William Blake could not have been more right when he said that “a truth that is pursued with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent”.
The other negative impact of the Sohrabuddin case is the impression it is creating that all encounters in which police and security forces are involved, are fake. Society needs to be reassured that the majority of encounters are genuine and mostly in response to murderous attacks on security personnel. The fact that, on average, over 1,200 policemen get killed every year grappling with terrorists, insurgents, underworld mafia and other anti-social elements, bears ample testimony to this fact. Playing up a few aberrations and blowing them out of proportion and presenting them as the only truth is not in the national interest.
The other downside of the publicity around such cases is that it erodes the people’s trust in governance. Administrations begin to be seen as instruments of repression and self-aggrandisement and politicians as perceived as manipulating their power for political and personal gains. This erosion can lead to a dangerous delegitimisation of the polity. Democratic politics is an exercise in regime-legitimisation, and to lose the confidence of the governed would set the government on a self-destructive path.
The writer is former director of the Intelligence Bureau
Monday, September 6, 2010
Chinese chequers in PoK
Vikram Sood
In the context of China’s protestations on Arunachal Pradesh, its hardening attitude on Jammu & Kashmir is reflected in the continuing visa row. This is to remind us that both the western and eastern portions of the India-China border remain disputed. Also, China is making its presence felt in the sub-continent as the next power to reckon with
Farooq Abdullah spoke with the usual fervour and passion when Parliament discussed Jammu & Kashmir on August 26. He pointed out that most Kashmiris wanted to solve their problems within India and not in Pakistan, China or America. This should not surprise anyone because Pakistan today looks a hopeless proposition to many Pakistanis too.
The former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir made another very valid and important observation when he referred to parts of Kashmir under Pakistan’s occupation. He reminded the House of the Resolution passed several years ago saying that the entire State including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan were an integral part of India. He demanded that India should seek the return of these territories, including that which Pakistan had illegally handed over to China.
It was, however, disturbing to find that the Treasury benches and even other stalwarts from the Opposition were eloquent in their silence, something that has become part of an ominous trend in the last few years. In February 2007, the US Congressional Research Service put out a thoroughly incongruous map of India which showed Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as parts of Pakistan and Aksai Chin as merely an Indian claim, but we did not protest. When Baroness Emma Nicholson, the EU Rapporteur to Jammu & Kashmir in her report to the EU confirmed from historical evidence dating from 1909 that Gilgit-Baltistan were parts of the Riyasat of Maharaja Hari Singh, we only murmured modestly. It was perhaps awkward for us to assert our right lest Gen Pervez Musharraf, with whom we were working out some unknown deal, got upset. Clearly, we had put aside long term geostrategic interests or simply not read them.
Since the 1970s Pakistan has been nibbling away at Gilgit-Baltistan in an effort to detach it from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to make the region an integral part of the rest of Pakistan. The Karakoram highway is a strategic life line for both China and Pakistan. Ruthless suppression of the Shia Ismaili minority and demographic changes by sending in Sunni Pushtoon was the favoured tactic of the various dictators to tame this remote region that borders Afghanistan and China. Not satisfied with access to Xinjiang through the Khunjerab Pass on the Karakoram Highway, Gen Zia-ul Haq tried to enhance Pakistani and Chinese positions when he moved towards the Karakoram Pass across the Siachen glacier. Had this move succeeded, China would have had an alternative access to Pakistan through Tibet with immense permanent consequences for our security and geostrategic interests.
China has always been interested that Pakistan retains control over Gilgit-Baltistan. This not only ensured its own vital interests in Gwadar overlooking the Persian Gulf and its vital resources but also was another brick in the wall against India’s access to Central Asia. About three years ago, there were reports that China was incorporating the Gilgit-Baltistan area into Xinjiang’s logistic grid by widening the highway and exploring the possibilities of a Pakistan-China rail link, with the ultimate aim of securing a land route for its energy supplies.
Recent reports of the presence of 7,000 to 11,000 PLA troops in the region and a simmering revolt there would suggest that Pakistan has sought Chinese assistance to tackle this crisis. This is an addition to other no-go areas for the Pakistani administration, which include Balochistan and FATA. Besides we must not overlook that there are US bases west of Indus and more than 1,000 US Marines have landed in Pakistan, ostensibly for flood relief.
In the context of Chinese protestations on Arunachal Pradesh, their hardening attitude on Jammu & Kashmir is reflected in the continuing visa issue now that a serving Lt General of the Indian Army has been denied this. China has chosen this period in time to remind us that both the western and eastern portions of the India-China border remain disputed. This is as much a reflection of its unease about growing India-US relations as India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan nuclear deal. China has raised its profile in the Jammu & Kashmir region even though its relations with the US are tense in the South China Sea. All things considered, China is making its presence felt in the sub-continent as the next power to reckon with.
Now, more than any other time, and given the evolving situation to our disadvantage, it is necessary that we address our own problem in the Valley and get out of this endless cycle of protests, sops and promises. Winning hearts and minds does not begin or end with elections. Jammu & Kashmir has far better socio-economic indicators than many other parts of India. Its literacy rate is on par with the rest of the country; the State Government employs more than 35,0000 people while Rajasthan, which is five times the size of Jammu & Kashmir, employs only 60,0000 people; for the Tenth Five-Year-Plan, Jammu & Kashmir got a per capita allocation of Rs 14,399 compared to States like Bihar (Rs 2,536) and Odisha (Rs 5,177); the State’s per capita income of Rs 12,399 a few years ago was lower than the national average but considerably higher than States like Bihar (Rs 5,108) or Odisha (Rs 8,547).
Appeasement is not the answer nor does the route lie via Pakistan. Additional economic or financial sops are not required; what is needed is a sense of fair play and justice seen to be delivered. If we need the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to remain then we must also ensure that the perpetrators of the Machhil monstrosity are brought to public trial soon. Leaders in Jammu & Kashmir, across the political spectrum, must learn to accept that the practice of incessant political mismanagement and then blaming New Delhi, when the streets erupt, has to cease.
Jammu & Kashmir has a population of a little more than 10 million; only a section of the population in the Valley talks of self-determination. Surely this cannot hold a billion of us to ransom. As for this constant refrain of political problems, Jammu & Kashmir has its own Constitution, Article 370 and bounty for being troublesome. There is no ‘good boy bonus’ for the other States. When the US floods Pakistan with money and goodies, we complain that this is aiding terrorism. Are we not doing the same thing in Kashmir then?
A state has to be just, not soft; it has to be sympathetic, not indulgent. Jammu & Kashmir needs good governance in all its manifestations; so do we all. For those who talk of azadi, let it be said that we attained our independence in 1947. There is no greater independence than that.
(The writer, a strategic affairs expert, is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing.)
http://www.dailypioneer.com/279792/Chinese-chequers-in-PoK.html
In the context of China’s protestations on Arunachal Pradesh, its hardening attitude on Jammu & Kashmir is reflected in the continuing visa row. This is to remind us that both the western and eastern portions of the India-China border remain disputed. Also, China is making its presence felt in the sub-continent as the next power to reckon with
Farooq Abdullah spoke with the usual fervour and passion when Parliament discussed Jammu & Kashmir on August 26. He pointed out that most Kashmiris wanted to solve their problems within India and not in Pakistan, China or America. This should not surprise anyone because Pakistan today looks a hopeless proposition to many Pakistanis too.
The former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir made another very valid and important observation when he referred to parts of Kashmir under Pakistan’s occupation. He reminded the House of the Resolution passed several years ago saying that the entire State including Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan were an integral part of India. He demanded that India should seek the return of these territories, including that which Pakistan had illegally handed over to China.
It was, however, disturbing to find that the Treasury benches and even other stalwarts from the Opposition were eloquent in their silence, something that has become part of an ominous trend in the last few years. In February 2007, the US Congressional Research Service put out a thoroughly incongruous map of India which showed Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as parts of Pakistan and Aksai Chin as merely an Indian claim, but we did not protest. When Baroness Emma Nicholson, the EU Rapporteur to Jammu & Kashmir in her report to the EU confirmed from historical evidence dating from 1909 that Gilgit-Baltistan were parts of the Riyasat of Maharaja Hari Singh, we only murmured modestly. It was perhaps awkward for us to assert our right lest Gen Pervez Musharraf, with whom we were working out some unknown deal, got upset. Clearly, we had put aside long term geostrategic interests or simply not read them.
Since the 1970s Pakistan has been nibbling away at Gilgit-Baltistan in an effort to detach it from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to make the region an integral part of the rest of Pakistan. The Karakoram highway is a strategic life line for both China and Pakistan. Ruthless suppression of the Shia Ismaili minority and demographic changes by sending in Sunni Pushtoon was the favoured tactic of the various dictators to tame this remote region that borders Afghanistan and China. Not satisfied with access to Xinjiang through the Khunjerab Pass on the Karakoram Highway, Gen Zia-ul Haq tried to enhance Pakistani and Chinese positions when he moved towards the Karakoram Pass across the Siachen glacier. Had this move succeeded, China would have had an alternative access to Pakistan through Tibet with immense permanent consequences for our security and geostrategic interests.
China has always been interested that Pakistan retains control over Gilgit-Baltistan. This not only ensured its own vital interests in Gwadar overlooking the Persian Gulf and its vital resources but also was another brick in the wall against India’s access to Central Asia. About three years ago, there were reports that China was incorporating the Gilgit-Baltistan area into Xinjiang’s logistic grid by widening the highway and exploring the possibilities of a Pakistan-China rail link, with the ultimate aim of securing a land route for its energy supplies.
Recent reports of the presence of 7,000 to 11,000 PLA troops in the region and a simmering revolt there would suggest that Pakistan has sought Chinese assistance to tackle this crisis. This is an addition to other no-go areas for the Pakistani administration, which include Balochistan and FATA. Besides we must not overlook that there are US bases west of Indus and more than 1,000 US Marines have landed in Pakistan, ostensibly for flood relief.
In the context of Chinese protestations on Arunachal Pradesh, their hardening attitude on Jammu & Kashmir is reflected in the continuing visa issue now that a serving Lt General of the Indian Army has been denied this. China has chosen this period in time to remind us that both the western and eastern portions of the India-China border remain disputed. This is as much a reflection of its unease about growing India-US relations as India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan nuclear deal. China has raised its profile in the Jammu & Kashmir region even though its relations with the US are tense in the South China Sea. All things considered, China is making its presence felt in the sub-continent as the next power to reckon with.
Now, more than any other time, and given the evolving situation to our disadvantage, it is necessary that we address our own problem in the Valley and get out of this endless cycle of protests, sops and promises. Winning hearts and minds does not begin or end with elections. Jammu & Kashmir has far better socio-economic indicators than many other parts of India. Its literacy rate is on par with the rest of the country; the State Government employs more than 35,0000 people while Rajasthan, which is five times the size of Jammu & Kashmir, employs only 60,0000 people; for the Tenth Five-Year-Plan, Jammu & Kashmir got a per capita allocation of Rs 14,399 compared to States like Bihar (Rs 2,536) and Odisha (Rs 5,177); the State’s per capita income of Rs 12,399 a few years ago was lower than the national average but considerably higher than States like Bihar (Rs 5,108) or Odisha (Rs 8,547).
Appeasement is not the answer nor does the route lie via Pakistan. Additional economic or financial sops are not required; what is needed is a sense of fair play and justice seen to be delivered. If we need the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to remain then we must also ensure that the perpetrators of the Machhil monstrosity are brought to public trial soon. Leaders in Jammu & Kashmir, across the political spectrum, must learn to accept that the practice of incessant political mismanagement and then blaming New Delhi, when the streets erupt, has to cease.
Jammu & Kashmir has a population of a little more than 10 million; only a section of the population in the Valley talks of self-determination. Surely this cannot hold a billion of us to ransom. As for this constant refrain of political problems, Jammu & Kashmir has its own Constitution, Article 370 and bounty for being troublesome. There is no ‘good boy bonus’ for the other States. When the US floods Pakistan with money and goodies, we complain that this is aiding terrorism. Are we not doing the same thing in Kashmir then?
A state has to be just, not soft; it has to be sympathetic, not indulgent. Jammu & Kashmir needs good governance in all its manifestations; so do we all. For those who talk of azadi, let it be said that we attained our independence in 1947. There is no greater independence than that.
(The writer, a strategic affairs expert, is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing.)
http://www.dailypioneer.com/279792/Chinese-chequers-in-PoK.html
The problem with EVMs
The problem with EVMs
Subramanian Swamy
There is worldwide acceptance of the need for a paper trail in conjunction with the use of EVMs. Why is the Election Commission of India refusing to adopt it?
http://www.thehindu.com/2010/09/02/images/2010090251281101.jpg UNDER THE SCANNER:Can EVMs be tampered with?
Electronic voting machines (EVMs) were supposed to be the cure for the malady of booth-capturing in elections in India, but in the present form of use they have only worsened the problems. Moreover, EVMs also do not meet the legal requirements set out in the Information Technology Act, 2000.
EVMs, as they are being used by the Election Commission of India (ECI), create worries about the very legitimacy of the choice of governments through elections based on them, and raise questions about whether the ECI has become partisan in its defence of EVMs.
The duties of the ECI as set out in Article 324 of the Constitution include ensuring that elections conducted by it are free and fair, and reflect the will of the voters.
To be considered free and fair, the international standards an election has to meet are:
individuals have to be accurately identified as eligible voters who have not already voted;
voters are allowed only one anonymous ballot each, which they can mark in privacy;
the ballot box is secure, observed and, during the election, only able to have votes added to it by voters: votes cannot be removed;
when the election ends, the ballot box is opened and counted in the presence of observers from all competing parties. The counting process cannot reveal how individual voters cast their ballots;
if the results are in doubt, the ballots can be checked and counted again by different people;
as far as the individual voter is concerned, he must be assured that the candidate he casts his vote for, actually gets that vote.
Over the last few centuries, the system of paper ballots was developed that could meet all these six requirements. But the pattern of use of EVMs in the last few general elections in India does not meet the fifth and sixth requirements set out here.
In correspondence with the ECI, I suggested that it incorporate in EVMs the safeguard of a “paper backup” or “paper trail” as is done in some countries. This will easily and in an inexpensive manner meet the last two requirements mentioned above.
As suggested and developed by many experts, this “paper trail” procedure is meant to supplement the procedure of voting, as follows:
“Once approved, the voter views the ballot and makes the desired selections … If the voter confirms that the choices displayed are correct, the machine records the vote on some storage medium.
“The EVM then prints out a readable receipt, much like in automated teller machines (ATM), which is confirmed by the voter, who then deposits it in a ballot box on the way out of the booth, and which poll workers are monitoring.
“If the election is later disputed, officials can optically scan these paper ballots or hand-count them.”
If the EVM is linked to the Unique Identity system being developed, and the EVM can check voters' biometric details before allowing them to vote, that will eliminate bogus voting as well.
But the ECI reacted as if I had violated its electoral chastity. It demanded that I go to the Commission's premises and demonstrate that EVMs can be rigged — although I had not made such an accusation but had only wanted the machine to be safeguarded.
The demonstration
On September 3, 2009, I went to Nirvachan Bhavan along with Vemuru Hari Prasad, a software specialist from Hyderabad, to demonstrate that EVMs can indeed be tampered with. (Dr. Prasad has since been arrested.)
The proceedings at Nirvachan Bhavan were videotaped by the ECI, in the presence of officials of the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), which manufacture EVMs. But the ECI has refused to provide me a copy of the recording made.
Dr. Hari Prasad was given an EVM and asked to give a demonstration. He efficiently went about seeking to prove that it could be tampered with. When he was in the final stage of his work, suddenly the ECIL and BEL representatives began to protest, and claimed that he was violating the companies' ‘intellectual property rights'.
I have obtained documents from the World Intellectual Property Organisation, with its headquarters in Paris, to show that ECIL and BEL had applied for a patent for the EVM in 2002. But in 2006 they withdrew their applications when it became clear that the applications would be rejected. The two outfits do not hold an international patent.
The ECI aborted the meeting despite our protests — all recorded on tape. Now, much like Richard Nixon, it does not want to part with the tapes. No further meetings have been scheduled; only Dr. Hari Prasad was called to the Commission to wear him down. His recent arrest in Mumbai was a desperate act motivated by the ECI to terrorise him, on the charge of theft of an EVM. It was much like the Manipur government issuing an arrest warrant in 1978 against Indira Gandhi for stealing chickens from the State.
It thus became necessary for me to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. When such an obvious safeguard as the paper trail is easily and relatively cheaply available, the ECI refuses to even consider it. Hence it is unreasonable and smacks of mala fide. The next hearing of my writ petition is scheduled for November 24. The ECI will then have to explain the patent fiasco and why it lied about it in public.
Doubts about e-elections
There is worldwide acceptance of the need for a paper trail in conjunction with EVMs. Electronic voting was introduced in many countries. But serious doubts were soon raised about the security, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of electronic elections. In October 2006, the Netherlands banned the use of EVMs. In 2009, the Republic of Ireland declared a moratorium on their use. Italy has followed suit. In March 2009, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that voting through EVMs was unconstitutional, holding that transparency is a constitutional right but efficiency is not a constitutionally protected value.
The official stand of the ECI is that EVMs are 100 per cent reliable and tamper-proof, that the functioning chips have their instructions indelibly burnt into them at the time of manufacture; that these chips are then “mother-sealed” into the EVM; and that this can never be altered. This claim is presented as an immaculate premise, a mantra requiring no proof thereof.
The field of hacking is continually developing, and ECIL's and BEL's advisers belong to an era of soldering two wires together (the “diode and triode era”). They are in no position to counter the averment of international scholars that no electronic machine has been devised that cannot be rigged or hacked.
The ECI must cut its losses and agree to a paper receipt. If it cannot arrange that, we should return to ballot papers. Ballot papers are riggable at a ‘retail' level; but with EVMs, an entire election can be stolen with a chip.
( Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a former Union Minister for Law and Justice.)
Date:02/09/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/09/02/stories/2010090251281100.htm
Subramanian Swamy
There is worldwide acceptance of the need for a paper trail in conjunction with the use of EVMs. Why is the Election Commission of India refusing to adopt it?
http://www.thehindu.com/2010/09/02/images/2010090251281101.jpg UNDER THE SCANNER:Can EVMs be tampered with?
Electronic voting machines (EVMs) were supposed to be the cure for the malady of booth-capturing in elections in India, but in the present form of use they have only worsened the problems. Moreover, EVMs also do not meet the legal requirements set out in the Information Technology Act, 2000.
EVMs, as they are being used by the Election Commission of India (ECI), create worries about the very legitimacy of the choice of governments through elections based on them, and raise questions about whether the ECI has become partisan in its defence of EVMs.
The duties of the ECI as set out in Article 324 of the Constitution include ensuring that elections conducted by it are free and fair, and reflect the will of the voters.
To be considered free and fair, the international standards an election has to meet are:
individuals have to be accurately identified as eligible voters who have not already voted;
voters are allowed only one anonymous ballot each, which they can mark in privacy;
the ballot box is secure, observed and, during the election, only able to have votes added to it by voters: votes cannot be removed;
when the election ends, the ballot box is opened and counted in the presence of observers from all competing parties. The counting process cannot reveal how individual voters cast their ballots;
if the results are in doubt, the ballots can be checked and counted again by different people;
as far as the individual voter is concerned, he must be assured that the candidate he casts his vote for, actually gets that vote.
Over the last few centuries, the system of paper ballots was developed that could meet all these six requirements. But the pattern of use of EVMs in the last few general elections in India does not meet the fifth and sixth requirements set out here.
In correspondence with the ECI, I suggested that it incorporate in EVMs the safeguard of a “paper backup” or “paper trail” as is done in some countries. This will easily and in an inexpensive manner meet the last two requirements mentioned above.
As suggested and developed by many experts, this “paper trail” procedure is meant to supplement the procedure of voting, as follows:
“Once approved, the voter views the ballot and makes the desired selections … If the voter confirms that the choices displayed are correct, the machine records the vote on some storage medium.
“The EVM then prints out a readable receipt, much like in automated teller machines (ATM), which is confirmed by the voter, who then deposits it in a ballot box on the way out of the booth, and which poll workers are monitoring.
“If the election is later disputed, officials can optically scan these paper ballots or hand-count them.”
If the EVM is linked to the Unique Identity system being developed, and the EVM can check voters' biometric details before allowing them to vote, that will eliminate bogus voting as well.
But the ECI reacted as if I had violated its electoral chastity. It demanded that I go to the Commission's premises and demonstrate that EVMs can be rigged — although I had not made such an accusation but had only wanted the machine to be safeguarded.
The demonstration
On September 3, 2009, I went to Nirvachan Bhavan along with Vemuru Hari Prasad, a software specialist from Hyderabad, to demonstrate that EVMs can indeed be tampered with. (Dr. Prasad has since been arrested.)
The proceedings at Nirvachan Bhavan were videotaped by the ECI, in the presence of officials of the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), which manufacture EVMs. But the ECI has refused to provide me a copy of the recording made.
Dr. Hari Prasad was given an EVM and asked to give a demonstration. He efficiently went about seeking to prove that it could be tampered with. When he was in the final stage of his work, suddenly the ECIL and BEL representatives began to protest, and claimed that he was violating the companies' ‘intellectual property rights'.
I have obtained documents from the World Intellectual Property Organisation, with its headquarters in Paris, to show that ECIL and BEL had applied for a patent for the EVM in 2002. But in 2006 they withdrew their applications when it became clear that the applications would be rejected. The two outfits do not hold an international patent.
The ECI aborted the meeting despite our protests — all recorded on tape. Now, much like Richard Nixon, it does not want to part with the tapes. No further meetings have been scheduled; only Dr. Hari Prasad was called to the Commission to wear him down. His recent arrest in Mumbai was a desperate act motivated by the ECI to terrorise him, on the charge of theft of an EVM. It was much like the Manipur government issuing an arrest warrant in 1978 against Indira Gandhi for stealing chickens from the State.
It thus became necessary for me to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. When such an obvious safeguard as the paper trail is easily and relatively cheaply available, the ECI refuses to even consider it. Hence it is unreasonable and smacks of mala fide. The next hearing of my writ petition is scheduled for November 24. The ECI will then have to explain the patent fiasco and why it lied about it in public.
Doubts about e-elections
There is worldwide acceptance of the need for a paper trail in conjunction with EVMs. Electronic voting was introduced in many countries. But serious doubts were soon raised about the security, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of electronic elections. In October 2006, the Netherlands banned the use of EVMs. In 2009, the Republic of Ireland declared a moratorium on their use. Italy has followed suit. In March 2009, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that voting through EVMs was unconstitutional, holding that transparency is a constitutional right but efficiency is not a constitutionally protected value.
The official stand of the ECI is that EVMs are 100 per cent reliable and tamper-proof, that the functioning chips have their instructions indelibly burnt into them at the time of manufacture; that these chips are then “mother-sealed” into the EVM; and that this can never be altered. This claim is presented as an immaculate premise, a mantra requiring no proof thereof.
The field of hacking is continually developing, and ECIL's and BEL's advisers belong to an era of soldering two wires together (the “diode and triode era”). They are in no position to counter the averment of international scholars that no electronic machine has been devised that cannot be rigged or hacked.
The ECI must cut its losses and agree to a paper receipt. If it cannot arrange that, we should return to ballot papers. Ballot papers are riggable at a ‘retail' level; but with EVMs, an entire election can be stolen with a chip.
( Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a former Union Minister for Law and Justice.)
Date:02/09/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/09/02/stories/2010090251281100.htm
BJP PAYS TRIBUTE TO SWAMI LAXMANANDA
BHUBANESWAR(visakeo)- The BJP on Wednesday paid tributes to Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati on his second death anniversary here.
The seer, a prominent member of the VHP, was gunned down by unidentified assailants.
A memorial meeting was organised at the State BJP office here under the chairmanship of Ratikanta Dash, member of the State executive committee.
Addressing the meeting, State BJP president Jual Oram lambasted the State government for its failure to solve the murder mystery of the seer even after two years.
Alleging that the Chief Minister is playing into the hands of missionaries, suspected to be behind the murder of the seer, Oram said the government was deliberately protecting the killers of Lakshmanananda.
“While killers of the VHP leader were moving freely, hundreds of innocent tribals are subjected to police harassment. The Chief Minister has miserably failed to protect the interests of the tribals of Kandhamal under pressure from the missionaries," he alleged.
Former ministers BB Harichandan, Surama Padhi, senior leaders Ramachandra Kar, former MP Archana Nayak, Samir Mohanty, Surama Satpathy, Jayanti Padhiari and Sukeshi Oram recalled the services of seer.
The seer, a prominent member of the VHP, was gunned down by unidentified assailants.
A memorial meeting was organised at the State BJP office here under the chairmanship of Ratikanta Dash, member of the State executive committee.
Addressing the meeting, State BJP president Jual Oram lambasted the State government for its failure to solve the murder mystery of the seer even after two years.
Alleging that the Chief Minister is playing into the hands of missionaries, suspected to be behind the murder of the seer, Oram said the government was deliberately protecting the killers of Lakshmanananda.
“While killers of the VHP leader were moving freely, hundreds of innocent tribals are subjected to police harassment. The Chief Minister has miserably failed to protect the interests of the tribals of Kandhamal under pressure from the missionaries," he alleged.
Former ministers BB Harichandan, Surama Padhi, senior leaders Ramachandra Kar, former MP Archana Nayak, Samir Mohanty, Surama Satpathy, Jayanti Padhiari and Sukeshi Oram recalled the services of seer.
sacrifice day of Swami Laxmanananda celebrate as ‘Dharmarakshya Divas
S’
Bhubaneswar:((visakeo)- Dharma Jagarana Samiti celebrated ‘Srikrushna Janmastami’ the slain day of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati as ‘Dharmarakshya divas’ through out the state. In every district and block headquarter ‘Dharmarakshya divas’ was celebrated in the memory of slain Swamiji in same day. Swamiji was brutally murdered at their Jalespata ashram in the night of 2008 Janmastami. In Bhadrak district also this function organized in Palhat,Tihidi,Chandabali,Manjuri road,khaera,Bankasahi of Bhadrak town,kuansa,baliarda,Sankarpur and Kadambeda by Samiti. District head of Dharma Jagarana Samiti Sri Sankar Das and state level member of Samiti speak about the work of slain Swamiji at Dharmarakshya function in Bankasahi Radhakrushna temple. They said that Swamiji sacrifice his life to protect the Hindu dharma and culture. Jharana Lenka,Bharati Barik, Sarojini Das, Agani Das, Gouri Adhikari, Namitarani Swain of Darmarakshya bahini were presented in this function. Harapriya Senapti, Rajlaxmi Swain, Kabitarani Swain, Santilata Barik, Santilata Swain of Dharmarakshy bahini were presented in Baliarada Radhakrushna temple. Bidydhar Muduli, Arjun Senapati of Samti and Subrat nayak of RSS also presented there.
Bhubaneswar:((visakeo)- Dharma Jagarana Samiti celebrated ‘Srikrushna Janmastami’ the slain day of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati as ‘Dharmarakshya divas’ through out the state. In every district and block headquarter ‘Dharmarakshya divas’ was celebrated in the memory of slain Swamiji in same day. Swamiji was brutally murdered at their Jalespata ashram in the night of 2008 Janmastami. In Bhadrak district also this function organized in Palhat,Tihidi,Chandabali,Manjuri road,khaera,Bankasahi of Bhadrak town,kuansa,baliarda,Sankarpur and Kadambeda by Samiti. District head of Dharma Jagarana Samiti Sri Sankar Das and state level member of Samiti speak about the work of slain Swamiji at Dharmarakshya function in Bankasahi Radhakrushna temple. They said that Swamiji sacrifice his life to protect the Hindu dharma and culture. Jharana Lenka,Bharati Barik, Sarojini Das, Agani Das, Gouri Adhikari, Namitarani Swain of Darmarakshya bahini were presented in this function. Harapriya Senapti, Rajlaxmi Swain, Kabitarani Swain, Santilata Barik, Santilata Swain of Dharmarakshy bahini were presented in Baliarada Radhakrushna temple. Bidydhar Muduli, Arjun Senapati of Samti and Subrat nayak of RSS also presented there.
VHP protests Govt inaction on Swamiji’s killing
VHP protests Govt inaction on Swamiji’s killing
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)-In protest against incapability of State Government to arrest the culprits involved in murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati on Janmastami on August 23 2008, Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) observed silent dharna infront of Raj Bhawan on Wednesday. A memorandum to this effect was also submitted to the Governor.
Media cell visakeo in a release rued that though two years have already passed the State Government has not taken any action against the murderers and conspirators involved in Swamiji’s brutal murder at Jaleshpeta Ashram in 2008. He said killing of Swamiji, who did a lot for the benefit of tribal people on the auspicious occasion of Hindu festival Janmastami was not at all acceptable to the Hindus.
“Protesting the killing, while Viswa Hindu Parishad decided to go for a strike Statewide on August 25 of the same year, Chief Minister had requested not to go for the strike assuring culprits soon be arrested and punished,” he informed, adding that the Government has not taken any drastic steps to nab the culprits.
Among others, general secretary of State unit of Viswa Hindu Parishad Gouri Prasad Rath, Swami Jiban Chaitanya Maharaj, Swamin Pranarupa Nandaji, Durga Prasad Kar, Nagen Kumar Devta, Praffulla Mishra, Prahallad Rout, Pratap Sarangi, Raghunath Pati, Laxmikanta Das and Pramod Dash were present
Bhubaneswar(visakeo)-In protest against incapability of State Government to arrest the culprits involved in murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati on Janmastami on August 23 2008, Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) observed silent dharna infront of Raj Bhawan on Wednesday. A memorandum to this effect was also submitted to the Governor.
Media cell visakeo in a release rued that though two years have already passed the State Government has not taken any action against the murderers and conspirators involved in Swamiji’s brutal murder at Jaleshpeta Ashram in 2008. He said killing of Swamiji, who did a lot for the benefit of tribal people on the auspicious occasion of Hindu festival Janmastami was not at all acceptable to the Hindus.
“Protesting the killing, while Viswa Hindu Parishad decided to go for a strike Statewide on August 25 of the same year, Chief Minister had requested not to go for the strike assuring culprits soon be arrested and punished,” he informed, adding that the Government has not taken any drastic steps to nab the culprits.
Among others, general secretary of State unit of Viswa Hindu Parishad Gouri Prasad Rath, Swami Jiban Chaitanya Maharaj, Swamin Pranarupa Nandaji, Durga Prasad Kar, Nagen Kumar Devta, Praffulla Mishra, Prahallad Rout, Pratap Sarangi, Raghunath Pati, Laxmikanta Das and Pramod Dash were present
VHP celebrated second death anniversary of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati
VHP celebrated second death anniversary of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati
Phulbani:(visakeo)- VHP celebrated second death anniversary of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati in Sanskruti bhaban here. In this ceremony district VHP president Sri Priyanath Sharma, district and town BJP secretary Sri Bhagaban mohanty and Sri Naresh mohanty respectively, K Venkat Subuddhi and Dutikrushna Sahu pay tribute to Swamiji with memorizing his dedicated life.
Sri Priyanath Sharma told in a press meet that “Government has been failed to nab the murderer and conspirator of the murder of Swami Laxmananda till now. Where as Government has been giving more importance to nun rape case.” He also added that “Vigilance DSP Sri A.K Ray at that time disclosed that there are three parties in murder and riot to the media by inspecting the riot situation, out of them one party was giving money, one party was conspiring and another party was murdering. For this statement he was also ransacked from his post.”
BJP district secretary Sri Bhagaban Mohanty claimed that “after arrested nine people in Swamiji murder case Government has been sitting silently. There is no justice for Hindus in the district. In Gadapur, Brahmanigaon and Barkhama riot affected Hindu people have not been given relief also.” He further added “a Hindu man was murdered in Brahmanigaon two months ago but police could not arrest any one. After publishing this in media police simply lodge an FIR. If police enhancing this type communal conflict than it is not impossible that riot will come back.”
Phulbani:(visakeo)- VHP celebrated second death anniversary of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati in Sanskruti bhaban here. In this ceremony district VHP president Sri Priyanath Sharma, district and town BJP secretary Sri Bhagaban mohanty and Sri Naresh mohanty respectively, K Venkat Subuddhi and Dutikrushna Sahu pay tribute to Swamiji with memorizing his dedicated life.
Sri Priyanath Sharma told in a press meet that “Government has been failed to nab the murderer and conspirator of the murder of Swami Laxmananda till now. Where as Government has been giving more importance to nun rape case.” He also added that “Vigilance DSP Sri A.K Ray at that time disclosed that there are three parties in murder and riot to the media by inspecting the riot situation, out of them one party was giving money, one party was conspiring and another party was murdering. For this statement he was also ransacked from his post.”
BJP district secretary Sri Bhagaban Mohanty claimed that “after arrested nine people in Swamiji murder case Government has been sitting silently. There is no justice for Hindus in the district. In Gadapur, Brahmanigaon and Barkhama riot affected Hindu people have not been given relief also.” He further added “a Hindu man was murdered in Brahmanigaon two months ago but police could not arrest any one. After publishing this in media police simply lodge an FIR. If police enhancing this type communal conflict than it is not impossible that riot will come back.”
Once again, a time to fuss
Once again, a time to fuss
Prafull Goradia
The Babri-Janmabhoomi dispute is no longer a national obsession and so when the verdict on the title suit is delivered this month, Gen Next may wonder what the big deal is about
God is entirely a matter of faith and not subject to proof or reason. The early pages of the Old Testament clearly state the premise of the Semetic religions: that there is only one God and there is no other than the One they respectively believe in. The Jews insist on Jehovah, the Christians on the Trinity comprising the Father, Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit, while Muslims swear by the monopoly of Allah. To quote from the Bible, “You shall have no other gods before My face. I, the LORD your God, am a God who brooks no rival.” The first sentence of every Muslim prayer is la ilaha illa Alaha (there is no God but Allah).
Muslims believe that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem marks the spot from which Prophet Muhammad began his night journey or his Ascension to heaven. It is therefore considered to be the third holiest site in Islam. (Oxford History of Islam, New York, 1999) All this might be true but there is no proof; it is purely a matter of faith. Similarly, the Hindus believe that Ramchandraji was born on the particular site at Ayodhya. It is fortunate that archaeologists have found definite evidence of there having been a temple on the same site.
That Bethlehem was the site of the nativity of Lord Jesus is a matter of faith for St. Mathew after whom virtually all Christians also believe the same. We respect the faith of Christians that Virgin Mary was the mother of Christ but there can be no proof to support the faith. Just as Christians and Muslims cherish their belief, so have the Hindus right to nurse their faith. Across the country, they believe Ayodhya to be the Ram Janmabhoomi. That should be good enough.
Where was the need to saddle the judiciary with an essentially executive duty? Is the function of the Supreme Court to order the government to distribute foodgrains free of charge to the poor and starving people? Or for the Ministry to not allow foodgrains to rot, but use them to relieve starvation? Evidently, over Ayodhya, the government ducked to keep away from a possibly sensitive decision and referred the matter to the Supreme Court. Although in the past, the government has shown scant respect for the judiciary. For example, it did justice to Shah Bano on the basis of the Indian Penal Code. But the Government overturned the verdict with the Muslim Women’s Bill.
Coming to the demolition of the Babri structure, a mosque is a prayer hall and, unlike a temple, not a residence of God. Hence its transfer to another spot should not be objectionable. Any number of masjids have been so transferred in Saudi Arabia or other West Asian countries. True, the transfers were by governmental orders and not by private individuals. But then turn to medieval Indian history which is a long tale of religious vandalism. Some 3,000 mandirs were desecrated and taken over by Muslim invaders. Many were brought down to above plinth level and rebuilt as masjids like the Jama Masjid at Ahmedabad. While others were converted by replacing the murtis with mehrabs and mimbars constructed for the imams to stand and read the Khutbas on Fridays.
Quwwatul Islam (Might of Islam) next to the Qutub Minar was a conversion of 27 Hindu and Jain temples into a mosque. The mandaps and carvings are Hindu/Jain; above all an outer wall has a carved murti of Ganesh. The Adhai Din Ka Jhopada at Ajmer, a furlong away from the popular dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti is a combination of three Hindu temple complexes built by an ancestor of Prithviraj Chauhan around 1158. Alexander Cunningham, the founder of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), has recorded the entire episode of desecration in his survey report for 1864-65. The structure was converted in the course of only two-and-a-half days on the orders of Muhammad Ghauri in 1192 AD to Qutub-ud-din Aibak soon after he had killed Prithviraj at the second Battle of Tarain.
In 1403, Ibrahim Naib Barbak ordered the destruction of the dewal or mandir of Atala Devi at Jaunpur and restructured into a mosque which is still called Atala Devi Masjid. The Gazetteer of Jaunpur district dated 1908, written by HR Nevill, records this episode. The Adina masjid, situated on National Highway 34 about 18 km north of Malda, was a Shiva Parvati temple until it was converted by Sultan Sikandar Shah between 1366 and 1374 AD. On its original exterior stone wall are the statues of Ganesh and his consort, both dancing. On the crests of several doors are images of Ganesh. The Adina mosque has been commented upon by several senior officers of the ASI, including Cunningham, Creighton, Ravenshaw, Beglar and Ilahi Baksh et al.
Desecration of mandirs resumed after Independence. In Pakistan, 61 temples have been destroyed. There is a long enough list of similar destruction in Bangladesh described at length by Taslima Nasreen, numbering 62 in 1990 alone. In the Kashmir Valley on the Indian side of the LoC, 46 temples were destroyed in 1986 alone. Since 1990, 70 others were desecrated with no intervention by New Delhi. Why then so much furore over the Babri Masjid?
Sir Arnold Toynbee was surprised when he saw two tall mosques built by Aurangzeb overshadowing everything else on the (ghats) of the Ganga at Benaras. In his words: Hinduism’s holiest of holy cities. While delivering the Azad Memorial lecture after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam, Sir Arnold compared these horrors to the Eastern Orthodox cathedral built by the Russians in the centre of Warsaw after destroying the Roman Catholic Church standing there. This was to demonstrate their conquest of Poland in 1814. On driving out the Russians in 1915, the Poles demolished the cathedral and replaced it with their Catholic church. He thereby wondered why the Hindus had not done the same with the horrors of Aurangzeb?
Coming back to the furor over the demolition on December 6, 1992, it is not widely known that the PV Narsimha Rao government had the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act passed by Parliament unanimously in July 1991. This law provided for the maintenance of the religious character of such places of worship as existed on August 15, 1947. No change whatsoever was permissible after July 11, 1991. The only exception was “Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid”. Was not this exceptional exemption uncanny? Moreover, until 6 pm on the fateful day, only the three domes of the edifice had fallen. Immediately thereafter, the Kalyan Singh ministry had been dismissed and central rule imposed. The rest of the ten 30 inch walls, 30 feet tall were still standing. At 10 pm in a national broadcast, Rao assured the listeners that the masjid will be rebuilt. Instead, the structure was demolished and all the debris removed out of sight in the course of a mere 60 hours. On December 9, Ram Lalla’s idol had been installed in a new tent temple at the same site as the Babri edifice.
The writer is a columnist and author
http://www.dailypioneer.com/280737/Once-again-a-time-to-fuss.html
Prafull Goradia
The Babri-Janmabhoomi dispute is no longer a national obsession and so when the verdict on the title suit is delivered this month, Gen Next may wonder what the big deal is about
God is entirely a matter of faith and not subject to proof or reason. The early pages of the Old Testament clearly state the premise of the Semetic religions: that there is only one God and there is no other than the One they respectively believe in. The Jews insist on Jehovah, the Christians on the Trinity comprising the Father, Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit, while Muslims swear by the monopoly of Allah. To quote from the Bible, “You shall have no other gods before My face. I, the LORD your God, am a God who brooks no rival.” The first sentence of every Muslim prayer is la ilaha illa Alaha (there is no God but Allah).
Muslims believe that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem marks the spot from which Prophet Muhammad began his night journey or his Ascension to heaven. It is therefore considered to be the third holiest site in Islam. (Oxford History of Islam, New York, 1999) All this might be true but there is no proof; it is purely a matter of faith. Similarly, the Hindus believe that Ramchandraji was born on the particular site at Ayodhya. It is fortunate that archaeologists have found definite evidence of there having been a temple on the same site.
That Bethlehem was the site of the nativity of Lord Jesus is a matter of faith for St. Mathew after whom virtually all Christians also believe the same. We respect the faith of Christians that Virgin Mary was the mother of Christ but there can be no proof to support the faith. Just as Christians and Muslims cherish their belief, so have the Hindus right to nurse their faith. Across the country, they believe Ayodhya to be the Ram Janmabhoomi. That should be good enough.
Where was the need to saddle the judiciary with an essentially executive duty? Is the function of the Supreme Court to order the government to distribute foodgrains free of charge to the poor and starving people? Or for the Ministry to not allow foodgrains to rot, but use them to relieve starvation? Evidently, over Ayodhya, the government ducked to keep away from a possibly sensitive decision and referred the matter to the Supreme Court. Although in the past, the government has shown scant respect for the judiciary. For example, it did justice to Shah Bano on the basis of the Indian Penal Code. But the Government overturned the verdict with the Muslim Women’s Bill.
Coming to the demolition of the Babri structure, a mosque is a prayer hall and, unlike a temple, not a residence of God. Hence its transfer to another spot should not be objectionable. Any number of masjids have been so transferred in Saudi Arabia or other West Asian countries. True, the transfers were by governmental orders and not by private individuals. But then turn to medieval Indian history which is a long tale of religious vandalism. Some 3,000 mandirs were desecrated and taken over by Muslim invaders. Many were brought down to above plinth level and rebuilt as masjids like the Jama Masjid at Ahmedabad. While others were converted by replacing the murtis with mehrabs and mimbars constructed for the imams to stand and read the Khutbas on Fridays.
Quwwatul Islam (Might of Islam) next to the Qutub Minar was a conversion of 27 Hindu and Jain temples into a mosque. The mandaps and carvings are Hindu/Jain; above all an outer wall has a carved murti of Ganesh. The Adhai Din Ka Jhopada at Ajmer, a furlong away from the popular dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti is a combination of three Hindu temple complexes built by an ancestor of Prithviraj Chauhan around 1158. Alexander Cunningham, the founder of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), has recorded the entire episode of desecration in his survey report for 1864-65. The structure was converted in the course of only two-and-a-half days on the orders of Muhammad Ghauri in 1192 AD to Qutub-ud-din Aibak soon after he had killed Prithviraj at the second Battle of Tarain.
In 1403, Ibrahim Naib Barbak ordered the destruction of the dewal or mandir of Atala Devi at Jaunpur and restructured into a mosque which is still called Atala Devi Masjid. The Gazetteer of Jaunpur district dated 1908, written by HR Nevill, records this episode. The Adina masjid, situated on National Highway 34 about 18 km north of Malda, was a Shiva Parvati temple until it was converted by Sultan Sikandar Shah between 1366 and 1374 AD. On its original exterior stone wall are the statues of Ganesh and his consort, both dancing. On the crests of several doors are images of Ganesh. The Adina mosque has been commented upon by several senior officers of the ASI, including Cunningham, Creighton, Ravenshaw, Beglar and Ilahi Baksh et al.
Desecration of mandirs resumed after Independence. In Pakistan, 61 temples have been destroyed. There is a long enough list of similar destruction in Bangladesh described at length by Taslima Nasreen, numbering 62 in 1990 alone. In the Kashmir Valley on the Indian side of the LoC, 46 temples were destroyed in 1986 alone. Since 1990, 70 others were desecrated with no intervention by New Delhi. Why then so much furore over the Babri Masjid?
Sir Arnold Toynbee was surprised when he saw two tall mosques built by Aurangzeb overshadowing everything else on the (ghats) of the Ganga at Benaras. In his words: Hinduism’s holiest of holy cities. While delivering the Azad Memorial lecture after the death of Maulana Abul Kalam, Sir Arnold compared these horrors to the Eastern Orthodox cathedral built by the Russians in the centre of Warsaw after destroying the Roman Catholic Church standing there. This was to demonstrate their conquest of Poland in 1814. On driving out the Russians in 1915, the Poles demolished the cathedral and replaced it with their Catholic church. He thereby wondered why the Hindus had not done the same with the horrors of Aurangzeb?
Coming back to the furor over the demolition on December 6, 1992, it is not widely known that the PV Narsimha Rao government had the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act passed by Parliament unanimously in July 1991. This law provided for the maintenance of the religious character of such places of worship as existed on August 15, 1947. No change whatsoever was permissible after July 11, 1991. The only exception was “Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid”. Was not this exceptional exemption uncanny? Moreover, until 6 pm on the fateful day, only the three domes of the edifice had fallen. Immediately thereafter, the Kalyan Singh ministry had been dismissed and central rule imposed. The rest of the ten 30 inch walls, 30 feet tall were still standing. At 10 pm in a national broadcast, Rao assured the listeners that the masjid will be rebuilt. Instead, the structure was demolished and all the debris removed out of sight in the course of a mere 60 hours. On December 9, Ram Lalla’s idol had been installed in a new tent temple at the same site as the Babri edifice.
The writer is a columnist and author
http://www.dailypioneer.com/280737/Once-again-a-time-to-fuss.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)