No option, Anderson had to be freed: Pranab

CNN-IBN – Posted on Jun 13, 2010 at 13:26

New Delhi: Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has defended senior Congress leader Arjun Singh for his decision as Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister in 1984 to release Warren Anderson, former chairman of the American parent company Union Carbide Corp responsible for the Bhopal gas tragedy.

“It is clear in Arjun Singh’s statement, which he had made then that law and order situation was deteriorating. People frenzy was on high, therefore it was thought necessary to move out Warren Anderson,” said Mukherjee on Sunday.

Mukherjee’s statement comes at a time when the Congress is under pressure to explain why Anderson was released after being arrested on 7 December 1984 when the deadly methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leak from Union Carbide’s Bhopal plant had killed thousands of people just five days ago. Arjun Singh is believed to have ordered his officials to release Anderson but the Congress party’s critics allege that he was instructed to do so by the Central government which was then led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Moti Singh, who was the District Collector of Bhopal at the time of gas leak, has said that Anderson was arrested at around 2 pm on December 7 but he was released the same day and flew out of Bhopal in a state government plane to New Delhi. Anderson was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, grievous assault and killing and poisoning human beings and animals.

A Bhopal trial court on June 7 convicted eight Indian officials of Union Carbide for their criminal negligence that triggered the world’s worst industrial disaster, but Anderson was not mentioned in the judgment.

move Anderson out of Bhopal to maintain law and order? that is debatable.
but what was the need to rush him out of the country? could he not be held in custody anywhere else in India???

what garbage.
this arse-licker has no shame,
he will say anything to protect his congress masters – at the cost of all the misery of Bhopal.

BhopalIndian National CongressPranab Mukherjee

the only thought that could have gone through the mind of,

Warren Anderson, former chairman and chief executive officer of Union Carbide as he was being saluted up the steps of a private jet and flown out by the Indian authorities to jump bail and never to return to the scene of his ‘crime’ to stand trial.

Cops saw off Warren with salutes: Pilot

RASHEED KIDWAI: The Telegraph India: Thursday , June 10 , 2010

Bhopal, June 9: Warren Anderson made his escape from Indian law in a hail of salutes from senior Bhopal police officers and fell into a peaceful slumber during his 90-minute flight to Delhi on a state aircraft.

One of the two pilots, Captain D.C. Sondhi, told The Telegraph the police officers repeatedly offered to carry the American’s hand luggage as they escorted him to the plane at Bhopal airport. “Memories of that scene still make me angry,” said Sondhi, 72. “Here was a man responsible for the death of thousands, and our government officials were saluting him!” He added: “The buzz among bureaucrats was that US President Ronald Reagan had spoken to someone important in India to get Anderson out quickly.” The Union Carbide chief was arrested at Bhopal airport when he arrived four days after the 1984 gas leak that killed at least 15,000, but was let off within hours after an unidentified top government leader in Delhi made a call to chief minister Arjun Singh.

Captain Sondhi, then director of aviation in Bhopal, received the call from Arjun Singh’s office at 2.30pm. “I was asked to get the state government plane, a B-200 Super King, ready. Soon, city superintendent Swaraj Puri arrived with Anderson,” Sondhi said. “Anderson was carrying a garment box (containing a business suit) and a briefcase. I remember police officers repeatedly requesting him to let them carry these pieces of luggage. Anderson said, ‘No, no, I will carry them myself.’ When the plane was about to take off, the officers saluted him and wished him good luck.”

The other pilot, Captain Syed Hasan Ali, remembers Anderson dozing off mid-flight. “He was calm but in a hurry to reach Delhi,” said Ali, whose father had become ill after the gas leak.

never has there been the greater arse-lickers* like us Indians.
gosh, this makes me hang my head in shame.

it is not known who Mr Ronald Reagan rang to get this individual to escape Indian Law. we can only guess;
on that day in December of 1984,
Mr Giani Zail Singh was the President of India
Mr Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India
Mr Rajiv Gandhi was also the Foreign Minister of India
Mr Ram Niwas Mirdha was Minister of State, External Affairs

Just to refresh our memories:

The Bhopal Tragedy 1984

And justice will be done? – Greenpeace Feature story – August 1, 2003

On the night of the disaster, December 3, 1984, an explosion at Union Carbide’s pesticide plant caused 40 tonnes of lethal gas to seep into Bhopal. Six safety measures designed to prevent a gas leak had either malfunctioned, were turned off or were otherwise inadequate. In addition, the safety siren, intended to alert the community should an incident occur at the plant, was turned off.

As the Union Carbide boss, Anderson knew about a 1982 safety audit of the Bhopal plant, which identified 30 major hazards. Rather than fix them in Bhopal, only the company’s identical plant in the US was fixed. Neglecting these hazards in Bhopal caused the deadly explosion. Anderson flew to India after the disaster but to the company’s surprise, police investigating the disaster immediately arrested him. He subsequently jumped bail and was flow by private jet back to the US, never to return to India.

While fleeing the law in India his company abandoned the polluted factory site allowing it to poison Bhopal residents for 18 years. He did not disclose the composition of the poisonous gas (the company still claims this is a trade secret), thus preventing doctors from properly treating the 120,000 people who are still sick. Company lawyers ensured survivors only got between US$300-500 compensation each, if they were ‘lucky’, for their ruined lives. Dow Chemical took over Union Carbide in 2001 but it claims Union Carbide has ‘settled’ the issue of Bhopal.

*arse-licker:

Longman: Dictionary of Contemporary English
arse-licker – noun [countable] British English spoken not polite
someone who is always very nice to people in authority because he or she wants to be liked by them – used to show disapproval

BhopalUnion CarbideWarren Anderson

it will be 40 years tomorrow,
two men went to the moon

and returned safely back to earth

I was a young boy in Calcutta then
Calcutta had no TVs – no stations no broadcasting
I was forbid from tuning in on the radio late at night
but it could not keep me away from
the excitement
the enthusiasm
the anticipation tinged with fear
I had to wait sleepless nights to read expedition news in the morning papers

my world could no longer be the same
my mind could only look up and beyond,
my mind had embarked on an adventure of my own
to explore the wonders of space, the universe
wonders of the unknown

I was so very young when I heard this song
I loved the tune

Written by John Stewart
I heard the version sung by the American singer Lobo
I could not find either of their versions on youTube – so I give you this

ARMSTRONG

- Words By John Stewart © Bug Music, INC. / Burgle Publishing (BMI)

Black boy in Chicago, Playing in the street
Not near enough to wear, Not near enough to eat
Don’t you know he saw it,
On a July afternoon
He saw a man named Armstrong, Walk upon the moon

Young girl in Calcutta, Barely eight years old
The flies that swarm the market place, Will see she don’t get old
Don’t you know she heard it,
On that July afternoon
She heard a man named Armstrong, Had walked upon the moon

The rivers are getting dirty, The wind is getting bad
War and hate are killing off, The only earth we have
But the world all stopped to watch it
On that July afternoon
To watch a man named Armstrong, Walk upon the moon

And I wonder if a long time ago, Somewhere in the universe
They watched a man named Adam
Walk upon the earth

tomorrow
the world will look back 40 years to that day

no longer the young boy,
now I will look all around me before I look up and beyond
on earth
we are still divided, prejudiced and intolerent
we are yet to find unity; find peace for all mankind

for 40 years we have failed to live up to the promise we left behind on the moon.

Apollo11neil+armstrongmoon landing

to question the unexplained wrongs
beliefs blinded by aeons of
superstitions
prejudices
and religions

Faith of the Heart

a song written by Diane Warren
originally performed by Rod Stewart for the soundtrack of the 1998 film Patch Adams
also the opening soundtrack for “Enterprise” – the Star Trek prequel

sung here by Russel Watson.

It’s been a long road
Getting from there to here
It’s been a long time
But my time is finally near

And I can feel the change in the wind right now
Nothing’s in my way
And they’re not gonna hold me down no more
No they’re not gonna hold me down

‘Cause I’ve got faith of the heart
I’m going where my heart will take me
I’ve got faith to believe
I can do anything
I’ve got strength of the soul
And no one’s gonna bend or break me
I can reach any star
I’ve got faith, I’ve got faith, faith of the heart

It’s been a long night
Trying to find my way
Been through the darkness
Now I’ve finally have my day

And I will see my dream come alive at last
I will touch the sky
And they’re not gonna hold me down no more
No they’re not gonna change my mind

I’ve known the wind so cold, and seen the darkest days.
But now the winds I feel, are only winds of change.
I’ve been through the fire and I’ve been through the rain.
But I’ll be fine.

It’s been a long road.

i stumbled back on this song from the

flower power days
when some had the courage to stand up and say no more to violence
when to bring change needed courage and sacrifice
not the sanctimonious voices

younger generation – john sebastian at woodstock

why must every generation think they’re folks are square
and no matter where they’re heads are, they know mom’s aint there.
cause’ I swore when I was small, that I’d remember when
i knew what’s wrong with them that I was smaller then

determined to remember all the cardinal rules
like sunshowers are legal grounds for skipping school
i know I have forgotten maybe one or two
and I hope that I recall them all before the baby’s due
and I’ll know he’ll have a question or two

like hey pop can I go ride my zoom
it goes twohundred miles an hour, suspended on balloons
and can I put a droplet of this new stuff on my tongue
and imagine frothing dragons, while you sit and wreck your lungs
and I must be permissive understanding of the younger generation

and then I know that all I’ve learned my kid assumes
and all my deepest worries must be his cartoons
and still I’ll try to tell him all the things I’ve done
relating to what he can do when he becomes a man
and still he’ll stick his fingers in the fan

and hey pop my girlfriend’s only three
she’s got her own bitty phone
and she is taking lsd
and now that we’re best friends she want’s to give a taste of me
but whats the matter daddy how come you’re looking mean
can it be that you can’t live up to your dreams

40 years and more has gone by, do we even care
what kind of a world we leave behind for the future generations
a world where they still will have to fight for their equal rights, if any at all

not one we can be proud of

[flowerpower: 1967 photograph of George Edgerly Harris III by Bernie Boston]

2008 AD

the United States of America has elected a black president – their first ever black president.
It is an event I did not expect to see in my lifetime.

I am in disbelief.
Why?

There has been many notable first blacks in the country’s sad and often unpleasant history.

On a day when history is about to be re-written,
I can only think of
one person – Elizabeth Eckford
one school – Little Rock Central High School
and the one event – Little Rock Nine
that never failed to leave me in speechless anger,
everytime I remember
and for as long as I can remember.

Little Rock Nine

1957 AD
Nine students who had been chosen to attend Central High because of their excellent grades.
They were nine black students.
Central High was a racially segregated school.

September 4:
Segregationist “citizens’ councils” threatened to hold protests and physically block the black students from entering the school. The Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists.

On that first day of school, only one of the nine students – Elizabeth Eckford
showed up because she did not receive the phone call about the danger of going to school.

Elizabeth Eckford is depicted in this photograph taken by Will Counts in 1957

She was harassed by White Americans outside the school, and the police had to take her away in a patrol car to protect her.

September 24:
President Dwight Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to escort nine students to school.

153rd Infantry, a Task Force had to hastily organized taking over the entire operation when the paratroopers left and remained on duty until the end of the school year.

October 3:
Georgia Dortch and Jane Emery,
editors of Central High’s student newspaper The Tiger, editorialize:

“Looking back on this year will probably be with regret that integration could not have been accomplished peacefully, without incident, without publicity.” The editors encourage “each individual to maintain a sensible, peaceful neutrality; to accept the situation without demonstration, no matter what personal views are entertained; and to make these, your years in Little Rock Central High School, the happiest and most fruitful of your academic education.”

How long will it take to finally erase all these memories?

How long does it take to right the wrongs?
Fifty years, it seems, hasn’t been long enough.

The Legacy of Little Rock

Juan Williams Thursday, Sep. 20, 2007

The 50th anniversary of the Little Rock school crisis is a powerful lesson in the complicated calculus of social change.

Earlier this year the U.S. Mint issued a silver dollar commemorating the event, and throughout the anniversary’s week there will be other observations marking this turning point in U.S. history. But the joy will be somewhat muted, for American schools are still nearly as segregated as they were 50 years ago.

Fifty years after U.S. troops had to escort nine black children to school in Little Rock, the issue is still how to take race out of the equation when it comes to educating every American child.

The students had written the editorial fifty years ago.
The observation in the Time US was made only a year ago – fifty years hence.

Equality is not confirmed overnight by the election of a president,
it will come only on the day every American child is truly considered as equals.

Its over to each one of you,
each american citizen …

Americaequality

Are we hindus cowards?

Oh yes we are, Mr Gautier, and proud to be so.
We are also apathetic, lazy and hypocrites.
Our so called patriotism is restricted to our living rooms and cricket stadiums.
And on the screens of Bollywood films.

We hindus do not care a fig,
if India eventually becomes a communist, islamic or christian state.
As long as we can ape the West, what happens to the Hindu India is not our concern.
Besides we maybe dead by then, who gives a toss about our future generations.

Been there, done it. I have aped the West to my hearts content.
Till I arrived in the west, and realise how stupid I was aping the first world apes.
The West in so many ways, is more empty than Mother Hubbard’s cupboards.

Will anyone believe me, when I write this? No they will not.
The Scotch always feels smoother going down than any desi liquors.

Please do not ask us to arise and fight, Mr Gautier,
it is uncool,
it is too much of an effort,
besides why should I die for my country, anyway?

We may be cowards, but no one dare call us stupid.

“ARE HINDUS COWARDS “?

- FRANCOIS GAUTIER

“Muslims are bullies and Hindus cowards”, the Mahatma Gandhi once said. He was right – at least about Hindus: there has been in the past 1400 years, since the first invasions started, very few Shivaji’s and Rajput princes to fight the bloody rule of the Moghuls, or hardly any Rani of Jhansi’s to stand against the humiliating colonial yoke of the British.

If a nation’s soul is measured by the courage of its children, then India is definitely doomed: without the Sikhs, whose bravery is unparalleled in the more recent history of India, Hindus would have even lost additional land to the Muslim invaders and there would have been infinitely more massacres of Hindus by Muslims during the first weeks of Partition.

Are Hindus more courageous since they have an independent nation (thanks – not to the non-violence of Gandhi – but to the true nationalists, such as Sri Aurobindo and Tilak, who prepared the ground for the Mahatma at the beginning of the century)?

Not at all! Because of Nehru’s absurd and naïve “hindi-chini-bhai-bhai” policy, the Indian army was shamefully routed in 1962 by the Chinese, a humiliation which rankles even today. Beijing is still able to hoodwink Indian politicians, by pretending it has good intentions, through the interviews the Chinese leaders very generously give to the Hindu newspaper (which should rightly be called the “anti-Hindu”) and Frontline (“the mouthpiece in India for the Chinese communist party”), while quietly keeping on giving nuclear know-how to Pakistan, as well as the missiles to carry their atomic warheads to Indian cities, arm separatists groups in the north-east and continuing to claim Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim.

Everywhere in the world, Hindus are hounded, humiliated, routed, be it in Fiji where, once more, an elected democratic government was deposed in an armed coup, or in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where Muslims indulge in pogroms against Hindus every time they want to vent their hunger against India (read Taslima Nasreen’s book “Lalja”).

In Kashmir, the land of yogis, where Hindu sadhus and sages have meditated for 5000 years, Hindus have been chased out of their ancestral home by death, terror and intimidation: there were 25% of Hindus at the beginning of the century in the Kashmir valley… and hardly a handful today.

And how did India start the new millennium? By surrendering as a lamb goes to the slaughterhouse to a handful of terrorists who took over flight IC 814 from Kathmandu to Delhi (Nepal is another small inconsequential country, which owes its culture to India, but keeps on indulging India’s enemies, whether Pakistan or China)! India had the opportunity to storm the plane when it landed in Amritsar, at a time when the militants had not been furnished with explosives and more guns by the Talibans, but it did nothing out of bureaucratic bungling and sheer incapability. And not only did this Hindu Government (yes, BJP/Hindu, not Congress/Secular) make an ass of itself by calling the Talibans “friendly”, whereas all along the Talibans only helped the terrorists, but also by its weak “Gandhian” attitude, it lost any credibility in a world, where Might is the only criteria, as the US proves us every day.

And what happens when there is ONE man in India – whatever his faults, quirks, or excesses – who dares to call a spade a spade, is not afraid of words and is ready to stand-up for his opinions? Not only, of course, he is attacked by Christians and Muslims, but he is also hounded by his own brothers and sisters, the “secular” Hindus, the Human Rights activists, the journalists, the judges, the police, the (Congress) politicians! Are Hindus so intent to show the world that not only they are cowards, but also idiots? This man, of course, is Bal Thakeray.

When Bal Thakeray said, already many years ago, that there was no point in playing cricket against Pakistan, as long as Islamabad was sending militants to kill and maim into Indian territory, he was ridiculed by the secular press as fanatic and un-sportive (and cricket is certainly not a gentleman’s game as the recent scandal has shown). But he was proved right, when during Kargil, India refused – for once – to play cricket with Pakistan. When he says too, that since fourteen centuries, Muslims always strike first against Hindus, he has another good point, for those who live in Indian cities which have important Muslim minorities, will tell you that every time there are Hindu-Muslims, it is the Muslims who start them, either by attacking the police, or by provoking the Hindus.

And this is exactly what happened in Bombay, after the Ayodya mosque was brought down by Hindu militants : Muslims, angry of the “terrible” affront done to Islam, started pelting the police with stones and burning shops; but unfortunately for the Muslims, who have made of riots an art (please read the passages of the Koran which deal with riots as part of jihad), they found that for once, the Hindus under the leadership of the Shiv Sena, retaliated blow for blow – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – as the Israelis, who have been so long at the receiving end of Muslim bullying, say so well. It is not for us to condone violence: but how long can the Hindus be the butt of killings and persecution, be sacrificial lambs that meekly go to slaughter ?

For in a way, Gandhi was right: Muslims are bullies, they have bullied India and they continue to bully Hindu India, as Pakistan has demonstrated by receiving a well-meaning, but naïve Vajpayee at Lahore, while its soldiers were quietly invading the heights above Kargil; or as Mushraraf shows, by giving gullible Indian journalists pep talk about how he wants peace with India, while Islamabad is still training and arming murderous jihadis for Kashmir.

And what monstrous murder is Bal Thakeray accused of ? What crime against humanity has he committed? He is guilty of having written two “inflammatory” editorials in the Shiv Sena’s mouthpiece. Editorials? Inflammatory? But did Bal Thakeray ever kill anyone ? Is the man going to be arrested for having “written” something ? Are not the leaders of the Muslim organization which spearheaded the recent bombing of churches in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, to sow disharmony between Christians and Hindus, still scot-free, by pretending that they believe in secularism ? Has Tiger Memom, who planted deadly bombs in Bombay in 1992, ever been caught and brought to court ? Are not the Muslim organizations, which organized the bomb attacks in Coimbatore a few years back, still functioning under different names ? Isn’t it true that in Kerala, every day a new mosque is built with money coming from the Gulf and that from these mosques and madrasas the mullahs preach openly violence and anti-Hinduism ?

The truth is that there are two standards in India: one for the Hindus; and one for the Muslims. Did the “fanatic” Hindus who brought down Ayodhya (and brought shame onto secular India, according to the Indian media) kill or even injure anyone in the process? No. But Muslims do not have such qualms. When Gandhi said they were bullies, he was being very nice or very polite. For forget about the millions of Hindus killed during the ten centuries of Muslim invasions, probably the worst Holocaust in world history; forget about the hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples razed to the ground, whose destruction – whatever our “secular” Hindus of today say – was carefully recorded by the Muslims themselves, because they were proud of it (see Aurangzeb’s own chronicles); forget about the millions of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam, and who sadly are now rallying under a banner, a language, a scripture which have nothing to do with their own ethos and culture (*).

Yesterday and also today, when the Muslim world feels it has been slighted, in even a small measure by Hindus, these Infidels, who submitted meekly to Muslim rule for ten centuries, it retaliates a hundred fold – this is the only way one intimidates cowards. After Ayodhya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (at least in a passive way by giving shelter for a while to Tiger Memon) with the help of Indian Muslims, planted bombs in the heart of Bombay and killed a thousand innocent human beings, most of them, once more, Hindus. Tomorrow, Pakistan might wage, with the blessing of the Muslim word, the ultimate jihad against India, which if necessary, will utilise the ultimate weapon, nuclear bombs. For has not the Koran said “’Choose not thy friends among the Infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatry. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them” (Koran 98:51-9:5-4:89) ?

Unfortunately for India, the British, when they were here, had created an intellectual elite, to act as a go-between themselves and the “natives”, which today, thanks to the Nehruvian culture of successive Congress governments, looks at its own country, not by means of its own Indian eyes, but through a western prism, as fashioned by the white colonizers and the missionaries.

These « Brown Shahibs », these true children of Macaulay, the « secular » politicians, the journalists, the top bureaucrats, in fact the whole westernised cream of India are very critical of anything Hindu. And what is even more paradoxical, is that 98% of them are Hindus !

It is they, who upon getting independence, have denied India its true identity and borrowed blindly from the British education system, without trying to adapt it to the unique Indian mentality and psychology; and it is they who are refusing to accept a change of India’s education system, which is totally western-oriented and is churning out machines, learning by heart boring statistics which are of little usefulness in life.

And what India is getting from this education is a youth which apes the West : they go to Mac Donald’s, thrive on MTV culture, wear the latest Klein jeans and Lacoste T Shirts, and in general are useless, rich parasites, in a country which has so many talented youngsters who live in poverty.

They will grow-up like millions of other western clones in the developing world, who wear a tie, read the New York Times and swear by liberalism and secularism to save their countries from doom. In time, they will reach elevated positions and write books and articles which make fun of their own country, ridicule the Bal Thakeray’s of India and put them in jail; they will preside human-right committees, be “secular” high bureaucrats who take the wrong decisions and generally do tremendous harm to India, because it has been programmed in their genes to always run down their own country.

It is said that a nation has to be proud of itself to move forward – and unless there is a big change in this intellectual elite, unless it is more conscious of its heritage and of India’s greatness, which has begun to happen in a small way, it is going to be very difficult for India to emerge as a real 21st century superpower.

One would be tempted to say in conclusion : “Arise ô Hindus, stop being cowards, remember that a nation requires Kshatriyas, warriors, to defend Knowledge, to protect one’s women and children, to guard one’s borders from the Enemy”….
And do Indians need a Bal Thakeray to remind them of that simple truth ?

FRANCOIS GAUTIER

(*) This is no to say that all Muslims are fanatics; on the contrary, many of India’s Muslims are extremely gentle and their sense of hospitality unsurpassed. The same thing can be said about Pakistan: Pakistani politicians, for instance, are much more accessible than in India and Pakistan has its own identity, which cannot be wished away.

No, the problem is not with Muslims, whether they are Indians or Pakistanis, the problem is with Islam, which teaches Indian Muslims from an early age, to look beyond their national identity to a country – the Mecca, in Saudi Arabia – which is not their country, to read a Scripture which is not written in their own language, to espouse a way of thinking, which is inimical to their own roots and indigenous culture. Indian Muslims, have to think of themselves first as Muslims and secondly only as Muslims. Muslim soldiers fighting against Pakistan in Kargil, have shown the way.

** The author will release his new book “Arise Ô India” (Har-Anand) on the 25th August at India International Centre, 1PM..

It is so fashionable to be seen as secular and to be seen to be thinking “global”,
that we feel proud to lend our voices in support of our enemies and to denounce those
who everyday risk their lives to keep our borders unbreached and our country safe.

From the comforts of our living rooms made safe by those we denounce.
We do not deny being cowards, but it is uncool to be a hindu
or to be patriotic for India.

Indiahinduismislammarxismnegationismsecularismpropaganda

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/lessons_on_how_to_kill_hindus_and_hide_it_from_history]

On the day Gujrat goes to the polls, is it surprising that indian negationism raises its ugly head again; Lessons on how to demolish a mosque

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavated the mosque site at the direction of the Allahabad Bench of the Uttar Pradesh High Court in 2003. The archaeologists reported evidence of a large 10th century structure similar to a Hindu temple having pre-existed the Babri Masjid.

It is always the Marxist and Muslim historians who are in denial, and will spread unsubstantiated propaganda.

And as usual we the common hindu are guilty
of being too lazy to find the truth.
to fight for the truth.

Hindus, wake up.
The Marxists are selling off our country in the name of secularism.
Do we have to rely on foreign journalists to fight to reveal the true history?

SUPPRESSING INDIAN HISTORY by FRANCOIS GAUTIER

The anniversary of Ayodhya has come and passed. Once more, many of India’s intelligentsia felt that the destruction of the mosque has signalled the end of a certain tolerant India, for which secularism was the unifying factor and has planted a dangerous seed of Hindu “nationalism” in India’s psyche.

Yet, one should remember that the Hindu ‘fundamentalists’ did not kill a single soul in Ayodhya, whereas the bombs planted a while later in revenge by Indian Muslims with the help of Pakistan, killed more than 350 innocent human beings.

In fact, during its long history, Hinduism has been one of the most peaceful creeds in the world, accepting the reality of different beliefs, never trying to convert -even in a non-violent manner, like the Buddhists did in Asia – and submitting itself rather meekly, except for a Shivaji, a Guru Gobind or a Rani of Jhansi, to numerous invasions.

The same thing cannot be said about Islam, whatever N. Ram says in Frontline. Many historians, amongst them Will Durant, Louis Frederick, or Alain Danielou, have remarked that the Muslim invaders were so certain that they were doing their holy duty by razing temples and killing Hindus, that they had recorded down carefully and proudly their deeds in their own archives.

Mahmud of Ghazni, for instance, who patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers.

Firuz Shah Tughlak, personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: “on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practionners of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places”.

Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a razed temple, as Romila Thapar would like us to believe, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them.

A few examples:
Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura,
the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat,
the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and
the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya.

The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures. This is a small excerpt of his own official court chronicles:

“Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices”.

Or::

“Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed… His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground“..

Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions.

As we can see Romila Thapar and Percival Spear’s statement of a benevolent Aurangzeb is a flagrant attempt at negationism (the negation of historical crimes). Even the respectable Encyclopedia Brittannica in its entry on India, does not mention in its chapter on the Sultanate period any persecutions of Hindus by Muslims, except “that Firuz Shah Tughlaq made largely unsuccessful attempts at converting his Hindu subjects and sometime persecuted them”.

Indian school books seem to have taken their cue from the Encyclopedia Brittannica , as there is hardly any mention of this dark aspect of India’s past. But why does India negate its history? We know that Nehru and Gandhi wanted to keep Pakistan within India and wished to avoid the splintering away of Muslim groups. But was it a good enough reason to suppress information about Muslim atrocities during ten centuries of bloody invasions and the massive destruction of Hindu temples ? On the contrary this has only created more terrorism.

Denying and suppressing the history cannot keep the harmony. In its place, truth and reconciliation are necessary. Hiding the truth denies sympathy to the victim, civilization and culture. A nation unless, it is ready to face its own history – the Good and the Bad, the Courageous and the Cowardly – can never bloom into its full plenitude. Hidden aspects of its own history sooner or later will surface and bring with them the guilt, anger, regret, which are the necessary ingredients to wipe-off that particular black karma.

In Germany, for instance, Germans have been reminded again and again about the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, and that has brought a sense of guilt, which has acted as a deterrent to future atrocities. The Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs. This has got nothing to do with vengeance.

Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? No. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is doing today in India : witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland, or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

To remember, is to be able to look at today with the wisdom of yesterday.

No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community. Hiding the facts and justifying past Muslim crimes has led to terrorism in the Indian sub-continent. Muslims were never held accountable. One of the first steps to curb violence is to make one aware of past mistakes. Guilt in the culprit and forgiveness in the victim can put an end to self-righteousness and the kind of terrorism we see today in Kashmir, in spite of India’s peace overtures.

This is not a call to take up arms, this is a call to find the truth,
and to reveal to the world the liars who have had it too easy for too long.

Indiahinduismislammarxismnegationismsecularismpropaganda

Reason 1. In a judgment the Indian Supreme Court ruled that “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage.” The Supreme Court also ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism”.

A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind.”

Reason 2. He claims the alleged genocide has been eternal.

I wrote a blog “unashamed hypocrisy” arguing against this misalignment.
The author of the article left this long winded comment,
which I publish here, his comments being within the blockquotes.

Dear Friend

I must be thankful that you have submitted a wonderful article, a fair and free way of expression that you posted on comments for the article in my blog. The point is not whether you are right or I am. Let us speak more openly on this issue so that if we reach at a solution, the losing side would be enlightened with knowledge from the winning side.
I always prefer to lose this debate as I would learn more from you.

You start your long comment with self contradictory statements.
One one hand you say, it is not a point of being “right or wrong”,
but you go onto the “winning or losing” of the debate.

I am a realist.
I believe in the truth, and being right is more important to me than winning a debate.
A debate won can uphold the wrong or untruth. That doesn’t right what is wrong.
That is just hypocrisy.

When you say you may learn more from the “debate”, that says it is possible you do not know enough yet; then I ask how can you publish such a strongly worded report that is bound to inflame sentiments.
Are you really a journalist, or a propagandist.

I’ve been busy a couple of days in the press meeting regarding the Nandigram issue and as it’s almost the last 10 days of the month, I’m busy with bringing out my magazine for the next month. I realized after reading your article that I must write a reply (a thanks) to you and to share my opinion on this particular article.

Let me first say, you called your article “Indian Hindutva – the eternal genocide”.
With one headline you are calling every Hindu alive or dead criminals of committing perpetual murder. I say put your money where your mouth is and prove it.

One thing must be understood very clearly.
A genocide, no matter who did it. It is always a genocide. Whether it is a Christian, a Jew, a Mozlem or a Hindu . Human values are more important than religion. Though I’m a staunch atheist, I wouldn’t comment on the Belief of God as I respect the belief people have on God. It is neither my wish to comment on Gods. But I’m obliged to make some strange remarks on Gods when the very existence of a sin is being carried out in the name of God.

And a genocide stays as heinous a crime even after 500 years.
Passage of time, does not lessen the criminality.

And no, you are not obliged to make any remarks.
You chose to do so on your own free will.
But if and when you decide to speak out to the world,
is when you become obliged to speak the truth and the whole truth.
Deliberately not doing so is hypocrisy.

I’m neither a sympathizer of any religion, nor a phobic towards any religion.
If the muslims are being killed to death in India, the same muslims also carry out murders, rapes and killings in Bangladesh and other parts of the world (as you said). My point of the article is just about what I see in India as a journalist, what I feel looking at it and what history clearly defines.

A journalist has a moral duty to portray the truth.
If what you write is the way you look at events,
then it is your opinion, and not unbiased journalism.

And you have clearly distorted the facts of history.
Unscrupulous and biased jouranalism thrives on stoking up further controversies.
Your article comes across as another example.

1. You said: This article is either a result of absolute ignorance, or disgraceful hypocrisy.Why just go back a few decades in time to find the root cause? How did the muslims come into a hinduland? Not with flowers but with swords in their hands, and killed and plundered. That was genocide. How did portions of hindu homeland become predominantly muslim? By ethnic cleansing.

I can accept my ignorance of Historical facts and my writings.
But wouldn’t felt anything guilt about being hypocritic.
If the freedom of my expression is hypocritic, then even you are hypocritic to have expressed what you think.

A human’s basic rights is not hypocrisy.
Exercising one’s Freedom of Expression is not hypocrisy.
But using that “right” to deliberately distort the truth,
and to publish that as the whole truth to the world, is hypocrisy.
And that is why I have called your article, hypocrisy.

Now how did mozlems come to India?
I agree (to some extent) the fact that many Mozlems came with the swords.
But the religion of Islam came to India as a religion, not as a war.

It doesn’t matter to what extent you agree or deny how Islam entered India,
what matters is the historical evidence.
If you want to make such sweeping statements, show me your evidence,
I will show you as many historical evidence to refute, if not many times more.

A religion couldn’t be blamed for what it’s followers do.

No? yet you have so pompously stated above “But I’m obliged to make some strange remarks on Gods when the very existence of a sin is being carried out in the name of God”.
That is hypocrisy

A religion has to accept the blame for any offense or act that has been committed in the name of that religion. Either the religion denounces every such act or accepts the full blame.

(That is why I never blamed Hinduism for what Hindu Fascists do. I just blamed Hindutva-the modern Politics of Hindu Fascism).

Who or what is a Hindu fascist?
The Hindu nationalism? Calling for a Hindu state?
Or because they have the holy hindu emblem of the swastika on their banner instead of star crescent or the sickle and hammer?

So very convenient, so very easy to fool westerners to believe
the hindu swastika only proves fascist intentions.

Is the call for an islamic caliphate, fascism at an international level?
How would you describe the call of Mr Bin Laden to Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our umma.” The call of Islamist political parties and Islamist guerrilla groups for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through peaceful political action (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir) or through force (e.g., al-Qaeda)?

Where is the difference?
If you are unable to call that fascism, that is hypocrisy.

Now… As you say, if historical evidences suggests surely that Mozlems did Genocide, then does that mean that Hindus must also do the same Genocide on Mozlems? How can Hindutva fascism could be compromised by saying that Mozlems were also fascists? You ask me how could a portion of Hindu homeland became predominantly Muslims? Now let me ask you- How the Dravidian Society of India became predominantly Hindu? So Hindus too did an ethnic cleansing against Dravidians?

2. You said: According to Professor K.S Lal, the hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni and 1525 a year before the Battle of Panipat. Add another 20 million that were killed during the muslim reign. Koenraad Elst wrote in Negationism in India – Concealing the records of Islam: destruction of about 100 million hindus (by muslims) is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.

Now, (considering that Mr.Mahmud Gazni and other mozlem rulers deliberately killed millions of Hindus)..
what link do the present Indian mozlems and Mohamed Gazni have?

You have called the Hindutva an eternal genocide. Eternity did not start in 1947.
You have written “The riots and aggressions against the muslims were routine in the Land of India from the origin of an anti-Muslim Brahminical society“.

That links the modern day muslims to their invading murdering forefathers.
You yourself have brought in history in an attempt to justify your argument.
I have taken you back to the origin of that history, the truth,
which you have conveniently failed to mention.
That history you do not like published.
That is hypocrisy.

You have resorted to deliberate misrepresentation of history.
Either you have the guts to tell the whole truth.
Or you are a cowardly hypocrite.
There is no third choice here.

If a community knows that in the name of a religion,
100 million of their fathers, and forefathers were killed by muslims,
that their places of worships had been looted, desecrated and destroyed,
can they ever forget the inhuman injustice?
Its naive to think that such acts of crime will not generate hatred or distrust for centuries.

Indian mozlems neither defend the killings of Mohamed Gazni (if there is a very authentic evidence to prove that), nor enjoyed it. If mozlems killed 100 million Hindus, sure, it is agreed that that is also a genocide!!!
I acknowledge Koenraad’s claim that Mozlems killed 100 Hindus!

Please get the facts right. He claimed Muslims killed a 100 million Hindus.

Now cleaning out all mozlems, raping them, torching and firing their home, looting their properties would bring back those 100 Hindus who were killed?
And would that bring peace to the Hindus who live today?
I’ve not seen any Mohamed Gaznis today. So the mozlems today must be punished for the crimes of Gazni?

You will never see one, because you do not want to look for one.
A train full of Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death by muslims,
is just a single example.

I am amazed at the immaturity of your arguments.
To bring peace in India, the atrocities on both sides of the religious divide has to be acknowledged. All that I read in you article is your pathetic attempts to criticise RSS, while crimes no less atrocious is still being committed by the muslims.

If the muslims kills for religious reasons, they should be tried by the same laws
that you want to be exercised on the hindus for the same crimes.
Why do they deserve cover ups or any protection.

You try to portray muslims as eternal victims, I drew my readers’ attention to the numerous genocide carried out in the name of Islam in and beyond India.

If so, then let all the Germans shall be punished for the crimes of Hitler.

The modern day neo-nazis will pay for any racial crimes they commit.
So that Hitlers crimes are never forgotten, holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 european countries: not just in germany, but also Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland.
Why is there a blatant muslim denial of the Islamic genocide?

3. You said: If a muslim majority country can have a constitution that declares it an Islamic state, the hindu majority in India also has the same right to call for a Hindu state?

I have seen Muslim constitution practiced just in Iran. Frankly, no where else (though there may be some extremists demanding the Islamic constitution in some villages in Somalia or Indonesia). And even in Iran, boys and girls kiss in parks, several teenage girls become pregnant by having pre marriage sex. If Iran really follows an Islamic constitution, all these people must be punished for it. Why Iran does not punish? Because precisely, what they follow is NOT an Islamic constitution. It could rather be called their country’s traditional law. To defend such a law, Islam’s name could be used! Right?
If country like Saudi Arabia follows Islamic constitution, then the Kings of Sauds and Nahyans must be hanged to death. Because these kings are familiar in France to sleep with one prostitute for one night, in their vacations! Where is the Islamic constitution ? Show me one country! The very claim that Islamic Consitution exists can be neglected through these arguments!

What you write here is not just irrelevant, but so laughable in this context, I am have serious doubts as to your capability to understand simple written english.
I have written ” If a muslim majority country can have a constitution that declares it an Islamic state, the hindu majority in India also has the same right to call for a Hindu state?”

It has nothing to do on the merits or demerits of being an Islamic state.
It is about one’s rights of freedom of expression to call for a Hindu state.
To have independant thoughts and be able to express those thoughts
without persecution is every human’s fundamental right.

If the leaders of the Muslim league could ask for a muslim homeland,
why cannot any Hindu ask for a Hindu state?
To accept the demand for the muslim state as justified,
but deny the simple right to ask for a hindu one, is blatant hypocrisy.

Ok… Now if Hindus need Hindu State as you say, how many of them need a Hindu state?
Without a Hindu state, they cannot worship God? Without a Hindu state will Hindustan become Islamic?
If yes, then why Turkey and Bosnia are still Islamic when there is an all-western modern culture with the absence of Islamic state?
If we consider imposing an Islamic state in a country is strange, then how could we impose a Hindu state in India which is a multi cultural, multi religious and democratic nation?

With your own logic I ask:
Why did the muslims demand a separate muslim homeland?
Could they not worship Allah in secular India?
Or without Pakistan would they have all become Hindus.
You conveniently have different arguments for different communities.
That is hypocrisy.

Now again.. If you judge that claiming a Hindu state for India is not a wrong thing, then are you an anti-democratic person? Democracy and Religion cannot go hand-in-hand. (If you need explanations for this, I’m ready to give that too). So you want India to throw the democracy out and bring Hindu rule?

Do you really understand democracy?
Are you just being funny, or are you really that idiotic.
Or are you a marxist in disguise hoping that one day india
will become a religionless communist state. Dream on, hypocrite.

Democracy and religion cannot go hand in hand!!
Tell Mr George Bush that,
he has been fighting to force democracy on muslims in the middle east.
The Communists claim that their ideology doesn’t go with religion.
Islamists claim democracy cannot go with Islam.
But to contradict your prejudiced view,
you have no evidence to say there cannot be a hindu democracy.

4. You say: To demand a separate nation and to carve up India to form Islamic states, and then to condemn the activities of RSS and VHP is a sheer hypocricy!
I agree! It is a hypocrisy. But I neither demanded a separate nation, nor encourage an Islamic state into India.
So am I allowed to condemn the activities of RSS and VHP?

Yes, you can condemn any bodies activities.
But you cannot exercise your freedom of expression to condemn other for exercising their right to freedom of religious belief, their freedom of independant thoughts and their rights to free speech. That is hypocrisy.

5. You say: There are muslims who are no less innocent than the hindu extremists. Why cry only for the rights of muslims in India?

I agree. So you have not read in any newspapers we journalists crying even for Sikhs, Hindus and Christians? I must accept that we cry more for mozlems, because for every 1 Hindu being killed, atleast 10 muslims are killed. So we are obliged to cry more for Muslims (and dalits). That does not mean that our media keeps silent in the issue of Bombay Don Dawood Ebrahim and Kovai Blasts!
Our media sometimes sprays even false accusations on Muslims which were later identified to be totally irrelevant. So we cry for Hindus, muslims, Sikhs and almost everyone in India who are victims of crimes. Even if RSS chief Sudarshan is punished by our government for what he did not, we will defend him. Don’t worry.

What is written in newspapers by “we journalists” is not being discussed here.
It is what “you the self-proclaimed journalist” who have published to the world.

And from what you write, the manner you write,
if you are the face of Indian journalism; I do worry for my country.

6. You say: Jews have been forced out of Pakistan… Hindus are being systematically cleansed and killed in Bangladesh…

What does it has with my article regarding Gujarat Riots and Hinduism? Like how hindus are sent out of Bangladesh, mozlems must also be sent out of India? If yes, I would advice you to give this suggestion to the Indian Government. Let our Government decide on that issue. Not the RSS.

You have called it an eternal genocide, remember? Not one single incident of riots.
You have generalised hindus and made this a hindu – muslim issue.
So it concerns hindus muslims conflict everywhere it happens.
Keeping it restricted to within the boundaries of Gujrat
just to strengthen your argument is hypocrisy.

You have published your article on the worldwideweb.
It will be read by people outside of India, some of who, without knowing the full history of Islam in India, may believe your unsubstantiated garbage and have a distorted view of hindus.

But that is precisely what you have aimed for, isn’t it? Either as a muslim, or a marxist.
For I cannot believe a non-marxist hindu will ever present arguments
in such a dishonest way as you have.

7. You say: Just for once… I challenge the muslims to have the courage to come out and say that they cannot tolerate any other religion.

Just count how many Hindus are anti-Muslims.. And count how many Muslims are anti-Hindus.. And take a percentage out of it. You would obviously find more anti-Muslims than anti-Hindus! You don’t believe me? Just go out in your area and take this statistics. Remember, don’t go to Pakistan! Because Indian Mozlems are different from Pakistani Mozlems. (Like how Israeli Jews are different from Jews elsewhere. Israeli Jews are more Zionists, while other Jews are less. Likewise, Pakistani Mozlems are more Islamists and Indian Mozlems are good Humanists. They are no more Mohamed Gazni’s followers)

Now remind me in which of the two religions, Hinduism or Islam is this relevent:
The shahadah: “‘ašhadu ‘al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa ‘ašhadu ‘anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh“, or “I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.

You didn’t answer the question which was: can muslims tolerate other religions?
If not why do they not have the courage to openly declare it?
This world would be a lot simpler place if they would honestly say so.

“Indian muslims are different from pakistani muslims??? In what way?
They will blast your theory and prove each and one of them are anti-Hindu?

Sixty years ago they were the same. So were the Bangladeshis.
Just a political boundary doesn’t change their genetic markup or beliefs, does it?
You are such a pathetic hypocrite.

Once again, you either do not understand what I have said,
or deliberately wants to sidestep the issue.
For what you have written
not only makes a mockery of statistical methods, but is idiotically irrelevent.

I hope I did my best to answer your questions. But still I feel that I’m obliged to explain some parts of it. As I said, I wish to lose this battle with you. So I hope you will bring good questions like these again. You may freely write on my comments blog whatever you feel. I think the discussion will continue..
So I let this reply without mentioning..Good bye..

What you have done is proved my point.

When the ideal way forwards would be to accept the truths of the past, and reconcile,
evil reporting will deliberately distort the truth in the name of journalism.
That is hypocrisy.

I have no desire to continue a discussion with someone
who cannot understand my simple written English
or be honest with the facts
or capable of looking beyond their own backyard.

Neither will I let my blog become a venue of a “win / lose” debate,
so any further points you wish to make, do so on your site.
If I disagree, I of course will write my own response here and with real evidence.

Indiahindusmuslimscommunal violencepropaganda

but we first learn to differentiate between friend and foe.

In the present day world order, it is a dangerous game.
But there is one chilling underlying truth.
America is nobody’s friend.

If America extends hand in friendship, accept it today, pay with your lives tomorrow.

To many Indians,
who are itching to sign on the dotted line of the 123 Indo-US Agreement,
and blaming the communists for disrupting our chance at becoming America’s friend,

I say think again.

America is in debt, the Chinese are the loan sharks.
America needs to buy mercenaries to wage a war with China.
And who best than their age old enemy, the nuclear capable Indians.
Give them more nuclear fuel, let them destroy China
and themselves in the process.

With one signature, America will remove the threat of two emerging superpowers.
So sign today,
be prepared to fight America’s proxy war against the Chinese tomorrow.
But there is one certainty; for us, there will be no day after tomorrow.
Forget we will ever be one of the leading nations in future.

Melodrama? Look at Afghanistan.

On a day we see President Musharraff, “America’s ally” in their “War against Terror”,
fighting for his life, let us look at this document.
Who is responsible for this so called terror?

Title/Description: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen:

Interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi
Author/Source:
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France)
Date: Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

This is a SHORT interview with Zbginiew Brzezinksi, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, in a French newspaper in 1998. Under Brzezniski and Carter, the US supported the covert funding of the mujahadeen, the Taliban’s precedessor, and also, to a lesser degree, Osama bin Laden.

Brzezinksi with Osama Bin Laden – Photograph: Geocities.com

Everyone now knows that — but what is amazing about this interview is that:

1) Brzezinski now admits that the US started funding the mujahadeen a full six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (the previous justification for funding the mujahadeen was that it was to stop the Soviets AFTER they had invaded Afghanistan);

2) The explicit purpose of funding the mujahadeen was to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan so that they would get bogged down in a long, unwinnable war — “their Vietnam”;

3) Brzezinski believes that funding the mujahadeen — even at the price of unleashing Islamic fundamentalism (“some stirred-up Moslems”) as a force throughout the Middle East and Central Asia — was well worth the price of defeating the Soviet Union. Of course, he said all this a full three years before the World Trade Center attack.

Now, as we give $100 million to the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban, we might want to think about who our new found friends are in the war against terrorism because they most assuredly will be our future enemies. All this makes George Orwell’s vision in 1984 look like a pleasant fantasy.

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France),

Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

________________________________________________________

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and
“Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
Portions of the books can be read at: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

When the nuclear dust settles be prepared to see the back of America, as
“without any regrets” they leave us to die in a radioactive India we help create.
The blood of our mutated future generations will be on our hands, so help me god.

Melodrama? Look at President Musharraff.

It has all happened before, so many have fallen for the American carrot
yet we are rushing forward, blind with our eyes wide open.

AmericaRussiaIndiaChina123AgreementHyde’s Act

“What difference does it make
to the dead,
the orphans
and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is wrought
under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

10 Downing Street

HistoryMahatma GandhiHuman rightslife

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession. The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 13 August 1948.

Relevent excerpts: (Document No.1100, Para. 75, dated the 9th November, 1948).
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:

PART I: CEASE-FIRE ORDER

[E] The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.

PART II: TRUCE AGREEMENT

A. (1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

B.(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

PART III:
The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 13-8-1948.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

India sought a series of clarifications from the UNCIP.

After the UNCIP received final communication from the Governments of India and of Pakistan dated respectively December 23 and 25, 1948, the UNCIP passed another resolution on Jan. 5th, 1949, declaring certain provisions supplementary to the UNCIP resolution of Aug. 13th, 1948.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN on 5 January, 1949.

(Relevent excerpts: Document No. 5/1196 para. 15, dated the 10th January, 1949).

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission’s Resolution of August 13, 1948;

1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;

2. A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;

3. (a) The Secretary-General of the United Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a personality of high international standing and commanding general confidence. He will be formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

4.(a) After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite.

The UNCIP unanimously adopted this Resolution on 5-1-1949.
Members of the Commission: Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechoslovakia and U.S.A.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Amongst these supplements was a provision for a Plebiscite Administrator to be nominated by the Secretary General of the UN in consultation with the UNCIP.

More importantly,
also unambiguous was the fact that the consideration of the plebiscite would come into effect ONLY AFTER the UNCIP would find that the cease fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of August 13, 1948, have been carried out.

The UN resolution further required that all persons who on or since August 15, 1947, have entered the state (of Jammu and Kashmir) for other than lawful purposes, shall be required to leave the state.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the UNCIP resolution of August 13th, 1948 provided for the future status of the State of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people, and thereby included the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir becoming independent of both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan had this provision reduced, in the UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949 to the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan, thereby excluding the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Yet, the Indian media has allowed the Pakistan to carry on the propaganda that Pakistan champions the cause of freedom of the people of J&K!

THE REALITY OF THE CHOICE for the Kashmiris is stark:

An independant Kashmir, is only a myth

The powerful proganda does find ready sympathisers in India who believe,
there will truly be an independant Kashmir and lends their voices in support,
and “do not believe there is one reality for anything”; even in these UN resolutions.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

As of today, Parts I and II of the UNCIP resolution of August 13th 1948 have never been put into operation. Instead, Pakistan consolidated its aggression.

India, instead of evicting the intruders on the spot, kept protesting to the Security Council, (who an Indian diplomat for obvious reasons refers to as an impotent international body), that Pakistan vacate its aggression.

So far as the cease-fire agreements have been concerned, as is well known, notwithstanding Part I of the said Aug.13, 1948 UNCIP resolution, Pakistan has signed some, and broken them all, subsequent to several military defeats (most notably in 1965, 1968, 1971 and the latest in 1999).

THE PLEBISCITE: HOW AND WHY PAKISTAN AVOIDED IT
TERMINATION OF UN FRAMEWORK

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Pakistan NEVER was in favor of self-determination of the Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s claim to have supported Kashmiris self- rule is manifestly refuted by the stand it has taken. All evidence is essentially to the contrary. Pakistan wanted, following the outdated tactics of the Moguls, to coerce the Kashmiris to accede to it. Every time the UN came close to organizing a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan raised difficulties and actually avoided the plebiscite.

Pakistan had to avoid the plebiscite because it realized that Kashmiris, had suffered an enormous loss of human dignity at the hands of Pakistan, and would not vote to accede to it. Pakistan hoped that it could put off the plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir till there was sufficient illegal Pakistani infiltration, which would offset the popular choice in the state.

Pakistan’s policy was manifestly simple and malicious:
First and foremost – disregard democracy.
Further, coerce people into saying what it wants to be stated as popular people’s mandate.

Pakistan employed the strategy of accepting and consolidating what they get, and go on to ask for more and more – much on the lines of Jinnah.

The instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir accepted by the Government of India was the very same as for all other princely states. The accession was thus complete in law and in fact, and made the State of Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of India.

There was simply no popular support to Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir: how could the very same people against whom Pakistan committed atrocities actually want to join it?

Philip Talbott wrote in World Politics, No.3, April 1949, of the tenacious resistance against Jinnah and Pakistan by Kashmir’s largest political party, the Kashmir National Conference, which was Muslim led (by Sheikh Abdullah) and largely Muslim supported.

Pakistan’s strategy was therefore to avoid plebiscite till it manipulated the demography of the region. This would be done over ten, twenty, thirty, fifty, years as many as it would take, till the demography of the region is maneuvered by forcing Indians out of the state, through terror and malice, and replace them by illegal infiltration.

This would be done till the result of a plebiscite would be in Pakistan’s favor.

Pakistan repeatedly raised problems regarding demilitarization of the region required as a pre-condition to the plebiscite by the UN resolution, so that it could actually stall the plebiscite even as it kept demanding it!

Pakistan is still continuing to play this very game plan,
and India and world leaders let it!

Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

In May 1951, Yuvraj Karan Singh issued a proclamation convoking a CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on the basis of free adult franchise, elections to which were held in October 1951. Correspondents and observers who came personally to witness the elections reported upon these elections across the world.

On April 30, 1951 the UN appointed Dr. Frank D. Graham as an arbitrator. Pakistan was claiming Jammu and Kashmir on the grounds that it was predominantly Muslim, but it failed to assess the strength of secularism that has been at the very heart of the Indian tradition.

MEMORANDUM TO Dr. Frank P. Graham, UN REPRESENTATIVE
on 14 August, 1951
Excerpts from the Memorandum

It is a remarkable fact that, while the Security Council and its various agencies have devoted so much time to the study of the Kashmir dispute and made various suggestions for its resolution, none of them has tried to ascertain the views of the Indian Muslims nor the possible effect of any hasty step in Kashmir, however well-intentioned, on the interests and well- being of the Indian Muslims. We are convinced that no lasting solution for the problem can be found unless the position of Muslims in Indian society is clearly understood.

If we are living honorably in India today, it is certainly not due to Pakistan which, if anything, has by her policy and action weakened our pooition. The credit goes to the broadminded leadership of India, to Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, to the traditions of tolerance in this country and to the Constitution which ensures equal rights to all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion caste, creed, colour or sex…

It is, therefore, clear that our interest and welfare do not coincide with Pakistan’s conception of the welfare and interests of Muslims in Pakistan…

This is clear from Pakistan’s attitude towards Kashmir. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority of the State’s people being Muslims and, secondly, on the ground, of the state being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective it has been threatening to launch “Jehad” against Kashmir in India.

It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the interest of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State.

In its oft-proclaimed anxiety to rescue the 3 million Muslims from what it describes as the tyranny of a handful of Hindus in the State, Pakistan evidently is prepared to sacrifice the interests of 40 million Muslims in India – a strange exhibition of concern for the welfare of fellow- Muslims. Our misguided brothers in Pakistan do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims in India.

We should, therefore, like to impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan’s policy towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims of India. If the Security Council is really interested in peace human brotherhood, and international understanding, it should heed this warning while there is still time.

Dr. Zakir Hussain (Vice Chancellor Aligarh University)
Sir Sultan Ahmed (Former Member of Governor General’s Executive Council)
Sir Mohd. Ahmed Syed Khan (Nawab of Chhatari, former acting Governor of United Provinces and Prime Minister of Hyderabad)
Sir Mohd. Usman (Former member of Governor General’s Executive council and
acting Governor of Madras)
Sir Iqbal Ahmed (Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court)
Sir Fazal Rahimtoola (Former Sheriff of Bombay)
Maulana Hafz-ur-Rehman M.P. (Col. B.H. Zaidi M.P.)
Nawab Zain Yar Jung (Minister Gcvernment of Hyderabad)
A.K. Kawaja (Former President of Muslim Majlis)
T.M. Zarif (General Secretary West Bengal Bohra Community)

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Several Muslim leaders supported Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
In a Memorandum submitted on August 14, 1951, by fourteen prominent Indian Muslim leaders to the UN, the petitioners clearly spelt out how Pakistan did not consider the well being of the Muslim community at large (as later atrocities on East Pakistan, for example, clearly proved).

This memorandum deplored Pakistan’s attitude toward the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and expressed confidence in India’s will and ability to safeguard Muslim interests. This memorandum is one of the countless expressions of solidarity of the Muslim community to the interests of India, and has been in consonance with the rich secular traditions of modern India. Sheikh Abdullah and Maulana Azad were not the only Muslims who understood the fact that India was not automatically a Hindu state in imbalance just because Jinnah declared Pakistan to be a Muslim State.

Disgusted with Pakistan’s continued evasion and non-cooperation on the plebiscite, Dr. Graham asked for extra time on Oct.15th, 1951, and then on January 17th, 1952, he admitted failure!

On August 7th, 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, declared in the parliament of India: Jammu and Kashmir’s accession was complete in law and in fact It is patent and no argument is required because the accession of every (princely) state in India was complete on these very terms. When the United Nations Commission accompanied by legal advisors and others came here, it was open to them to challenge it. But they did not.

On February 6th 1954, the constituent assembly unanimously confirmed the Instrument of Accession. The will of the people was ascertained in the highest of democratic traditions. What more is required to establish popular mandate?

Pakistan continued to take the issue to the UN and kept pressing for a plebiscite even while evading it.

Finally in 1964, at the UN Security Council meeting, India’s brilliant representative, Mahomadali Currim Chagla declared:
Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India… You cannot make more complete what is already complete… The two basic UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression and the condition has not been complied with…. The basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us… The only people who continued to suffer were the people of Kashmir for whom Pakistan felt no care…the resolutions of the UNCIP had lapsed, and under no circumstances would India agree to a plebiscite which Pakistan repeatedly avoided.

Finally, the UN Security Council debate ended, with the President of the Security Council stating, on May 18, 1964, that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside intervention. USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union asked for a bilateral settlement instead of a UN involvement.

The US representative to the UN, Adlai Stevenson said: the Kashmir question should be peacefully resolved…. We urged bilateral talks between the parties last year. An agreement cannot be imposed from the outside. This was reported by the President of the USA, while reporting to the U.S. Congress on events in 1964 on Our participation in the UN (US State Dept. Publication 7943, released Feb. 1966, pp.63-70).

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: there will be an independent kashmir

KASHMIR, a princely state, was never a subject of the Mountbatten Plan.
Yet the name PAKISTAN was based on the first letters of the regions demanded.
Since 1933

It has ALWAYS BEEN a matter of what Pakistan wants.
for them it has NEVER BEEN what the People of Kashmir wants.

And since January 5, 1949,
it is clearly documented, Pakistan has excluded a “free Kashmir” as an option.

PAKISTAN DECLARATION 1933:
NOW OR NEVER: ARE WE TO LIVE OR PERISH FOR EVER?

Rahmat Ali’s Pakistan Declaration issued on January 28, 1933 from Cambridge.

At this solemn hour in the history of India, when British and Indian statesmen are laying the foundations of a Federal Constitution for that land, we address this appeal to you, in the name of our common heritage, on behalf of our thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN – by which we mean the five Northern units of India, Viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan – for your sympathy and support in our grim and fateful struggle against political crucifixion and complete annihilation.

October 26, 1947
LETTER FROM HARI SINGH TO MOUNTBATTEN

Excerpts from the letter: written on the day of Pakistani invasion of Jammu & Kashmir

My dear Lord Mountbatten,
I have to inform Your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government…

Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes wnh modern weapons have been allowed to infiltrate into the State, at first in the Poonch area, then from Sia1kot and finally in a mass in the area adjoining-Hazara district on the Ramkote side…

The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer capital of my government, as a first step to overrunning the whole State.

An unnecessary war was sent into Kashmir in 1947

October 26, 1947
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

Excerpts from the document:

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such…

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes…

October 26, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO BRITISH PM CLEMENT ATTLEE

Excerpts from the telegram:

“I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view. It is quite clear, however, that no free expression of will of people of Kashmir is possible if external aggression succeeds in imperilling integrity of its territory.

I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of international complications.”

October 27, 1947
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF ACCESSION:

“My dear Maharaja Sahib,
Your Highness’ letter dated 26 October has been delivered to me by Mr. V. P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India…”.

Yours sincerely, October 27, 1947. Mountbatten of Burma.”

October 27, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

The day the Indian army officially intervened in Kashmir: excerpts from the telegram:

I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of people and we adhere to this view.

October 31, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Sent four days later, excerpts from the telegram:

” …. our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

November 1, 1947
A DISCUSSION BETWEEN Mr. Jinnah and Governor General Mountbatten
IN THE PRESENCE of Lord Ismay at GOVERNMENT HOUSE, LAHORE
Excerpts from Governor General Mountbatten’s own notes

Part I: India’s Policy towards States whose Accession Was in Dispute:
I pointed out the similarity between the cases of Junagadh and Kashmir and suggested that plebiscites should be held under UNO as soon as conditions permitted. I told Mr. Jinnah that I had drafted out in the aeroplane a formula which I had not yet shown to my Government but to which I thought they might agree.

This was the formula:’
“The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that, where the ruler of a State does not belong to the community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is the same as the State’s, the question of whether the State should finally accede to one or the other of the Dominions should in all cases be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people.”

Mr. Jinnah’s first observation was that it was redundant and undesirable to have a plebiscite when it was quite clear that States should go according to their majority population, and if we would give him the accession of Kashmir he would offer to urge the accession of Junagadh direct to India.

I told him that my Government would never agree to changing the accession of a State against the wishes of the ruler or the Government that made the accession unless a plebiscite showed that the particular accession was not favoured by the people.

Mr. Jinnah then went on to say that he could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad, since he pointed out that Hyderabad did not wish to accede to either Dominion and he could not be a party to coercing them to accession. I offered to put in some reference to. States whose accession was in dispute “to try and get round the Hyderabad difficulty” and he said that he would give that his careful consideration if it was put to him.

I then pointed out that he really could not expect a principle to be applied in the case of Kashmir if it was not applied in the case of Junagadh and Hyderabad, but that we naturally would not expect him to be a party to compulsory accession against the wishes of the Nizam.

I asked Mr. Jinnah why he objected so strongly to a plebiscite, and he said he did so because with the troops of the Indian Dominion in military occupation of Kashmir and with the National Conference under Sheikh Abdullah in power, such propaganda and pressure could be brought to bear that the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan.

I suggested that we might invite UNO to undertake the plebiscite and send observers and organisers in advance to ensure that the necessary atmosphere was created for a free and impartial plebiscite. I reiterated that the last thing my Government wished was to obtain a false result by a fraudulent plebiscite.

Part II. Kashmir:
I handed Mr. Jinnah a copy of the statement of events signed by the Indian Chiefs of Staff, which I had shown to Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan.

Continuing he said that the accession was not a bona fide one since it rested on “fraud and violence” and would never be accepted by Pakistan.

I asked him to explain why he used the term “fraud,” since the Maharaja was fully entitled, in accordance with Pakistan’s own official statement, which I had just read over to him, to make such accession: It was therefore perfectly legal and valid.

Mr. Jinnah said that this accession was the end of a long intrigue and that it had been brought about by violence. I countered this by saying that I entirely agreed that the accession had been brought about by violence; I knew the Maharaja was most anxious to remain independent, and nothing but the terror of violence could have made him accede to either Dominion; since the violence had come from tribes for whom Pakistan was responsible, it was clear that he would have to accede to India to obtain help against the invader.

Mr. Jinnah repeatedly made it clear that in his opinion it was India who had committed this violence by sending her troops into Srinagar; I countered as often with the above argument, thereby greatly enraging Mr. Jinnah at my apparent denseness.

Lord Ismay suggested that the main thing was to stop the fighting; and he asked Mr. Jinnah how he proposed that this should be done. Mr. Jinnah said that both sides should withdraw at once. He emphasised that the withdrawal must be simultaneous.

When I asked him how the tribesmen were to be called off, he said that all he had to do was to give them an order to come out and to warn them that if they did not comply, he would send large forces along their lines of communication. In fact, if I was prepared to fly to Srinagar with him, he would guarantee that the business would be settled within 24 hours. I expressed mild astonishment at the degree of control that he appeared to exercise over the raiders.

I asked him how he proposed that we should withdraw our forces, observing that India’s forces were on the outskirts of Srinagar in a defensive role; all the tribes had to do was to stop attacking.

November 2, 1947
Extracts from Nehru’s Broadcast

“We have decided to accept this accession and to send troops by air, but we made a ‘condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when peace and order were established. We were anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis, and without the fullest opportunity to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It was for them ultimately to decide.

“And here let me make clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a State to either Dominion, the decision must be made by the people of the State. It was in accordance with this policy that we added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.”

November 3, 1947
TELEGRAM FROM NEHRU TO PAKISTAN PM LIAQAT ALI KHAN

Nehru’s reiteration of plebiscite pledge: excerts from the telegram:

“I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which l made last evening. have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. l further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nation’, supervising any referendum.”

November 25, 1947
Mr Nehru’s address to the Constituent Assembly of India, stated:

“Further we made it clear that as soon as law and order had been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by reference to the people.”
He added: “In order to establish our bonafides we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation.“

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

On Jan. 1, 1948, India, an infant country facing armed aggression, complained to the UN Security Council under the provision of Article 35 of the UN Charter.

The UN, regarded as the guardian of world order was itself a fledgling organization, and took eight months to have the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolution tabled on August 13, 1948.

The issue before UN under Article 35 was Pakistan’s aggression against India, and not the legality of the Instrument of Accession.
The latter has never been questioned by anybody, including UN legal experts, yet the world is made to believe that it is the accession that is under dispute!

January 1, 1948
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S LETTER TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

Excerpts from the letter:

“6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it.
But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State’s immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic methods of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

“7. The Government of Indian felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because:

“(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs or its external relations;

“(2) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to the Dominion of India made India really responsible for the defence of the State.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

continued as kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 2

INDIAN INDEPENDANCE ACT 1947

The Indian Independence Act 1947 was the legislation passed by the British Parliament that officially approved the independence of India and the partition of India.
The legislation was designed by the administration of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, after Indian political parties came to an agreement on the transfer of power and the Partition of India with Viceroy Lord Mountbatten according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions.

The Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja dwelt deeply on the possibility that his monarchial control over Jammu and Kashmir would continue as it did under the British, with India instead of the British at whose mercy he would rule. He therefore sought a standstill agreement with both Pakistan and India.

The Khan of Kalat, now in Pakistan, wanted to accede to India, but India refused Kalat’s proposal. Likewise, India rejected the overtures of Bahawalpur, since they were not fully in accordance with the guidelines laid down for the principle of accession. (The Khan of Kalat later revolted against its accession to Pakistan and was arrested by the Government of Pakistan in 1958).

There is evidence that Kalat was forcibly annexed.

EASTERN OCCUPIED (PAKISTANI) BALOCHISTAN
By Dr. Wahid Baloch

Balochistan, rich in oil and Gas with a 900 miles of warm water strategically located costline was very important for the survival Pakistan. Before the Partition of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947, Balochistan was a free sovereign independent state with it own parliament, the Dar-ul Awaam (the House of Commons) and Dar-ul Umraa (House of Lords).

Soon after the creation of Pakistan, it invaded Balochistan and forcefully annexed it into Pakistan. The Baloch people didn’t have a strong big army compare to Pakistani army, but still they resisted the Pakistani Occupation of their Baloch land.

The Khan of Kalat, did not have the mandate of his parliament to sign the accessation.
Evidence also confirms the claim of a failed revolt and the arrest of the Khan of Kalat.

PAKISTAN OPPRESSION AGAINST THE BALOCH PEOPLE
Speech by: Balach Marri

…In 1958 President of Pakistan Sikandar Mirza, encouraged Khan of Kalat to demand restoration of Kalat State. When Khan of Kalat did it Sikandar Mirza declared Khan as traitor of Pakistan. On 8th of October 1958 Sikandar Mirza sent Pakistan troops to arrest Khan of Kalat with rest of family, suppressed the supporter and declared martial law in the hole of the country and Khan of Kalat was sent to Jail in Punjab.

The story of Kalat and Balochistan does not fall under this topic, but I hope to in future, write about my interesting findings of the event leading to its accession.
It certainly was not a case of “do unto Kalat what Pakistan says they have done unto Kashmir”. There has been and still is two distinctly different principles used by Pakistan in its dealing with these two princely states that were never part of the partition of India.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Sardar Patel sent a message to Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, through no less a person than Mountbatten himself, that if he were to accede to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss.

It is clear that had the Maharaja wanted to betray his subjects and accede to India, he would have done so when he had an opportunity in August 1947 itself. Similarly, if there was any reason to suspect that his subjects interests would be best served by acceding to Pakistan, this too could have been done in August 1947.

The public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time provided no reason for the latter, while the Maharaja was not interested in the former, in his fond hope being to keep power with himself.

Foreseeing that a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir would not guarantee a majority view in favor of accession to Pakistan, Pakistan resorted to the medieval ways of the Moguls, whose victims were their own ancestors.

On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched a full- scale invasion of Jammu and Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost immediately following the partition of India on August 15th.

KASHMIR CRISIS: STORY OF PAKISTAN

In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it is alleged:

“Kashmir, the last of the defiant states, was the reverse of Hyderabad. It had a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, but his subjects were mostly Muslims, accounting to 78 percent of the total population. The Maharaja was reluctant to join either India or Pakistan.

But Lord Mountbatten urged him to take a decision to join either of the states before August 15, 1947. The Maharaja asked for more time to consider his decision. In the meantime he asked the Indian and the Pakistani government to sign a “standstill agreement” with him. Pakistan consented but India refused.

The local population of Poonch began to press the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. In August 1947, they held a massive demonstration to protest against the Maharaja’s indecisiveness. The Maharaja panicked. He asked his Hindu paratroopers to open fire, and within a matter of seconds, several hundred Muslims were killed. Rising up against this brutal action, a local barrister called Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim immediately set up the Azad Kashmir government and began to wage guerrilla warfare against the Maharaja.

By October 1947, the war of Kashmir had begun in earnest. The Pathan tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province, wanting to avenge the deaths of their brothers, invaded the valley. On reaching the valley of Kashmir, they defeated the Maharaja’s troops and reached the gates of Srinagar, the capital.”

Even if this account is true, there are three important points to note:
1.) it calls the Maharaja’s soldiers hindu “paratroopers” and not indian soldiers; why they have called these soldiers “paratroopers”, I haven’t found a reason.
2.) Neither the Indian military nor any paratroopers were in Kashmir, so why Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim’s Azad Kashmir “government” resort to wage “a guerrilla warfare” against the Maharaja, is not clear.
3.) it does not deny the invasion into the kingdom of tribesmen from the NWF province. However honourable was their motive, the invasion into an independent kingdom is always illegal.

Pakistani tribal soldiers surrendering in the War of 1947

India argues this based on the content of this book written by a Pakistani General.

“RAIDERS IN KASHMIR”
Major General Akbar Khan“…We had assumed that Kashmir would naturally join Pakistan”

“… That the Maharajah, a non-Muslim, wished to avoid accession to Pakistan had been obvious, but now the fear was that his hands were likely to be strengthened also by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim Leader of Kashmir, hero of the Indian National Freedom Movement, who had previously opposed the conception of Pakistan. Our own safety and welfare also demanded that the State should not go over to India .. Pakistan’s military security would be seriously jeopardised if Indian troops came to be stationed along Kashmir’s western border.

“…The authorities needed a lot of assistance from the Army in the shape of plans, advice, weapons, ammunition, communications and volunteers. They did not ask for it, because the whole thing had to be kept secret from the Commander-in-Chief and other senior officers who were British. There were, however, also senior Pakistani officers in the Army who could have been taken into confidence – and these were in a position to help a great deal…

“…Ultimately, I wrote out a plan under the title of “Armed Revolt inside Kashmir”. As open interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously undesirable, it was proposed that our efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris themselves internally—and at the same time taking steps to prevent the arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir…

“…Lieutenant Colonel Masud (latter Brigadier Tommy Masud) of the Cavalry, offered to help with collecting and storing the condemned ammunition…

“…The Prime Minister also promised to obtain some light machine guns (Brens) from a war dump in Italy or somewhere abroad…”

If we are to believe in the truth of General Akbar’s narration, it leaves no doubt that the invasion in October 1947 was planned and executed by Pakistan military.

THE ROOTS OF THE CRISIS:
KASHMIR HUMAN RIGHTS site; Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Demobilised Muslim soldiers returned to Poonch and Mirpur in Jammu and Kashmir to find that the maharaja was refusing to accept them into his army.

In the post-war period, the maharaja increased taxes, leading to widespread poverty. This provoked massive protests, particularly in Poonch where, in October 1947, an uprising was led by demobilised soldiers, armed by tribes in the North-West Frontier Province region of Pakistan.

On 4 October this uprising gave rise to a provisional government of the Democratic Republic of Kashmir. None of the bourgeois historians mention this development but it undoubtedly represented an attempt to move towards a struggle for an independent future for the Kashmiri people. The uprising lit the fires of rebellion against Dogra rule in other areas. At the end of October, soldiers of the Gilgit Scouts – British imperialism’s fighting force in the Gilgit Agency – rose up. There were less well-developed protests in Ladakh.

The provisional government only lasted until 24 October. It was shunted aside by one of the pro-Pakistani leaders of the Muslim Conference, supported by sections of the Pakistani military and backed up by armed fighters from North-West Frontier who entered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October. Sections of Muslims in the maharaja’s army began to desert, going over to the side of armed fighters and putting his rule under increasing threat.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

All Sikhs killed. All women raped. This was the military signal transmitted by the Pakistani commander who attacked Skardu on September 6th to his headquarters.
Ample evidence based on the diaries of Pakistani army officers and political leaders, in addition to incriminating reports in a news-paper none other than Dawn, proves that the money, food, arms, petrol, ammunition, uniforms, trained personnel, soldiers and military officers of the army, were provided by Pakistan for this invasion.

The invaders were driven by a lust for loot, murder and rape, much as Pakistan did later to East Pakistan before it broke out into independent Bangladesh. The victims were Hindus, Sikhs and also Muslims, again, much like what happened later in East Pakistan.

That atrocities had been perpetrated was confirmed by an independant eye witness.

HALFWAY TO FREEDOM: A REPORT ON THE NEW INDIA.
a book written by American photo-journalist Margaret Bourke-White.

She describes the plunder by the raiders:

“Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to Kashmir.
Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims....The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even members of the St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital were brutally massacred.”

The evidence shows, the first acts of human rights atrocities were by muslims on muslims, and hindus and sikhs. And this in all probabilities was ordered by the Pakistan military.
Almost as if the fuse to a chain of explosives had been lit by a few who craved to occupy Kashmir at all costs; what we are now witnessing is the after effect of that awful incident in Kashmir’s unfortunate history.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion. In fact, since the majority of the population was Muslim, it was the Muslim community that suffered the most.

There was public outcry against Pakistan’s atrocious misconduct. Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion.

The shameful atrocities cannot, of course, be imagined in a civilized society, but can, of course be repeated by the perpetrators of the genocide, as they have done several times since.

Eminent Muslim leaders, who witnessed those unfortunate events, spoke of the aggression by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir in the following words:

“It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who want the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the name of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State”.

On October 26th 1947, vested by the authority in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his standstill policy and acceded to India. Repeated scrutiny by the UN demonstrated that the accession was legal and complete.

THE INSTRUMENT OF JAMMU and KASHMIR’S ACCESSION TO INDIA

REPLY FROM Lord Mountbatten to Maharajah Sir Hari Singh DATED 27 October 1947
My dear Maharajah Sahib,

Your Highness’s letter, dated the 26th Octobers has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India…
Meanwhile, in response to your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.
My Government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely, (Sd/-) Mountbatten of Burma

KASHMIR CRISIS: STORY OF PAKISTAN
In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it acknowledges

The Maharaja sensing his defeat took refuge in Jammu whence he appealed to India to send troops to halt the onslaught of the tribesmen. India agreed on the condition that Kashmir would accede to India. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India. Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession on behalf of India.

It is clear the “Story of Pakistan” does accept here:
1.) The Maharaja did sign the accessation, which was accepted by Viceroy Mountbatten.
2.) The Maharaja was under no duress from India to sign the Instrument of Accession.

Prof Deshmukh contd:

The Government of India sent its troops under Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on October 27, 1947 to save Kashmir from Pakistan’s invasion, and there was widespread jubilation among the citizens of Shrinagar and the inhabitants of neighboring towns and villages. Their morale was high.

They organized bands of volunteers to maintain law and orderthey collected all motor vehicles (for use by the Indian army…local drivers were at the wheels ready to risk their lives in defending their motherland.

Reacting sharply to the Pakistan’s invasion, Sheikh Abdullah said: The invasion of Kashmir is meant to coerce and compel the Kashmiris to act in a particular way, namely, to accede to Pakistan. Every Kashmiri resents this compulsion on his will (Times of India, Oct. 28th, 1947).

Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was anti-British, and also anti- Maharaja. On behalf of the National Conference, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq was deputed to explain to Pakistan the right of Kashmiris to self- determination. Sadiq made two visits to Pakistan for this purpose, but Pakistan would not support a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir unless the National Conference guaranteed that the verdict would be in favor of accession to Pakistan. In fact, Jinnah told Sadiq: Sheikh Abdullah and his party must close their shop as they have no role.

Pakistan revealed right from 1947 its bogus support to Kashmiri right to self-determination. These are telling events of history which lets loose Pakistan’s continued ill designs on Jammu and Kashmir and exposes its bogus support to Kashmiris right to self-determination.

The National Conference rejected Pakistan’s expectations (Dawn, Karachi, Nov.17, 1947). Yet, the National Conference recently suggested Pakistan’s involvement in resolving the Jammu and Kashmir situation (The Deccan Chronicle, November 12, 2000). Obviously, current politicians seem ignorant of historical developments!

ACCESSION LEGAL
The Kashmir Story

The State’s accession to India has never been challenged by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan or the Security Council.

As early as 4 February, 1948, the US Representative in the Security Council declared: “External sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India and that is how India happens to be here as a petitioner.”

Similarly, the representative of the USSR said at the 765th meeting of the Security Council: “The question of Kashmir has been settled by the people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India.”
The legal adviser to the UN Commission came to the conclusion that the State’s accession was legal and could not be questioned. This fact was further recognized by the UN Commission in its report submitted to the UN in defining its resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949. Both these resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

To be continued

I have explored the threat to regional peace and safety brought on by Pakistan.
I have been exploring myths about Kashmir that are subject of biased propaganda.
The price paid by the millions of hindus and muslims to achieve our independance.

This week, there is a call for a “one state solution” for the Indian subcontinent.
When better the time to start to bring these issues together, than this week.

This document by Professor Pranawa Deshmukh does that …

WHY ANYONE INTERESTED IN WORLD PEACE MUST STUDY
THE STORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ?

The nuclear arsenal in Pakistan’s possession today threatens to be used against India, and also against Israel and the USA through international terrorist organizations, that Pakistan colludes with.

Anybody interested in world peace must understand the Jammu and Kashmir imbroglio and assess the real motives behind Pakistan’s savage designs against humanity.

Often, the western media and their Indian clones discuss the drama and the controversies, which took place before the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, rather than the completeness and irrevocability of the accession itself.

The pre-accession confusion was fuelled more by the Maharaja’s hopes of retaining post-independence control as he did under the British, than by anything else.

When the accession took place however, it was through the same instrument through which hundreds of other princely states acceded to India - complete and irrevocable in every respect!

…so I intend to explore all aspects of the Kashmir issue through his documentation.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Abstract -
A historical tour d’horizon is presented showing that Jammu & Kashmir’s incorporation within India is buttressed by cultural, historical and legal facts.
Pakistan’s savage designs against humanity in Jammu and Kashmir are treated not just as of India’s concern but that of every lover of world peace.

The United Nations resolutions of 1948-9 are also elaborated upon and Pakistan’s deceitful scuttling of these is exposed.

Finally the status of POK and of Article 370, which Nehru himself considered a temporary arrangement which will vanish ultimately, are broached and policy options for India and the free world recommended.

The nationhood that defines BHARAT is a unique phenomenon in world affairs.

Western nations and Indians who learn about India through western authors often remain illiterate about the Indian stance on Kashmir. The soul of this issue has such exceptional dimensions peculiar to itself that it simply cannot be analyzed in any terms other than its very own.

We all recognize that the present situation in the country is a turning point in India’s evolution. This is a crucial stage as history unfolds itself by the day. As India became free on August 15, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru said:

“Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.”

Indeed, a part of India – Jammu and Kashmir – remained to be assimilated in free India on that day. We are very troubled that even today this assimilation is not in full measure even if the State of Jammu and Kashmir has wholly and irrevocably acceded to India soon after, which was on October 26, 1947.

It is important to know that the foundations of India’s claim to Jammu and Kashmir are solidly entrenched in hard facts from the history of the region going back to over five thousand years.

The history of Kashmir is well and clearly recorded.

RAJTARANGINI
Rajtarangini (River of Kings), a book written in Sanskrit by Kalhana, contains an account of the life and history of Kashmir.
Kalhana (कल्हण) (c. 12th century) is regarded to be Kashmir’s first historian. His father Champaka was the minister in the King’s court. It is believed that he wrote his book during 1147-1149.
The recorded history of Kashmir, as retold by Kalhan begins from the period of the Mauryas. Kalhan’s account also states that the city of Srinagar was founded by the Mauryan emperor, Ashoka, and that Buddhism reached the Kashmir valley during this period. From there, Buddhism spread to several other adjoining regions including Central Asia, Tibet and China.
The Rajatarangini is the first of a series of four histories that record the annals of Kashmir. Commencing with a rendition of traditional history of very early times, the Rajatarangini comes down to the reign of Sangrama Deva, (c.1006 AD).
The second work, by Jonaraja, continues the history from where Kalhana left off, and, entering the Muslim period, gives an account of the reigns down to that of Zain-ul-ab-ad-din, 1412. P. Srivara carried on the record to the accession of Fah Shah in 1486.
The fourth work, called Rajavalipataka, by Prajnia Bhatta, completes the history to the time of the incorporation of Kashmir in the dominions of the Mogul emperor Akbar, 1588.

In the 13th century, Islam first became the dominant religion in Kashmir.
Some Kashmiri rulers, such as Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, were tolerant of all religions in a manner comparable to Akbar.
However, several Muslim rulers of Kashmir were intolerant to other religions. Sultãn Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (AD 1389-1413) is often considered the worst of these. Historians have recorded many of his atrocities.
The Tarikh-i-Firishta records that Sikandar persecuted the Hindus and issued orders proscribing the residence of any other than Muslims in Kashmir. He also ordered the breaking of all “golden and silver images”.

Prof. Deshmukh contd:

In the modern context, democratic principles and international tenets of contemporary world order dictate it. The constitutional elements that dictated the vexatious partition of the sub-continent in August 1947 provide firm evidence pertaining to the integral status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the union of India.

Pakistan continues to internationalize the issue of Jammu and Kashmir through its counterfeit technique of fanning religious fundamentalism, enabled by a dormant Indian media, which has failed to expose the hypocrisy of this rogue state.

Despite assaulting fellow-Muslims in erstwhile East-Pakistan and the continual exploitations of all other regions of Pakistan by the Punjabi Muslims who wield local power through corrupt means, it is only due to sustained propaganda that Pakistan can still proclaim itself as a champion of Muslims.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

Rakhee Poornima

A day celebrated in India as Rakhsha Bandhan
the ‘bond of protection’ (rakhsha – protection; bandhan – a tie or a bond)

A sister ties a ‘rakhee’, a holy thread, on the wrist of her brother
symbolising a request for his protection, by accepting which he promises.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a brother by birth for by tying a rakhee
any male can be “adopted” as a brother regardless of race or religion.
And it doesn’t have to be anything expensive, anything ornate
just a simple string can create a bond equally strong.

The origin of the tradition is lost in mythology.
But our history records many incidents,

it is said…

Queen Karnawati of Chittor
the widow of a hindu king was losing battle
to stop an invasion of the Sultan Bahadur Shah.

She sent a rakhee to the muslim Emperor Humayun.
The Emperor was touched by the gesture, accepted the rakhee
and immediately set off with his vast army to protect the Queen.

Rakhee poornima, a day for all sisters and brothers everywhere.

I don’t have a sister, I never received a rakhee, never ever.

[Update: to say, I just realised, this was my 100th post. ]

IndianhistorymythologytraditionRakhee

…india is their enemy

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir
is geographically and politically distinct and different
from the Azad Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan has direct control of the “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir” or POK.
Pakistan has indirect but overwhelming control in “Azad (Independant) Kashmir.

Click to enlarge image

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is secular and a democracy.
The regions under Pakistan control is Islamic, and under a military dictatorship.

The Indian State of Kashmir has no restriction of freedom of expression, any new of atrocities are hence quickly highlighted to the world.
The Pakistan controlled regions have no freedom of expression
the human rights abuses and atrocities never get to reach the outside world.

Most anti-India propaganda
will ONLY speak about the sufferings of Kashmiris in the Indian state,
but cleverly avoid talking of the fate of the Kashmiris in areas under Pakistan’s control.

They will deliberately blur the distinction between the different areas of control to give
the impression that atrocities are being committed ONLY in the Indian state.

This document will break that myth.
To keep the information clear and objective,
this is has been quoted word for word from a Human Rights Watch Publication.

For those of who may question the neutrality of the source,
this is about the Human Rights Watch.

“With Friends Like These…”

Summary:

Pakistan says they are our friends and India is our enemy.
I agree India is our enemy,
but with friends like these, who needs enemies?

—Mir Afzal Suleri, Muzaffarabad resident

The massive earthquake that struck on October 8, 2005, wreaking death and destruction on Kashmir, instantly conflated Kashmir’s long-running man-made crisis with a natural one. The poor response of the Pakistani government and military to the earthquake, and the attendant further loss of life, served to highlight that even natural disasters in Kashmir have a strong human component.

Major cities and thousands of villages in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK, Azad Kashmir), including the capital Muzaffarabad, were reduced to rubble. The devastation was immense—at least eighty-eight thousand people died, more than one hundred thousand were injured, and more than two million were left homeless. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that seventeen thousand children were among the dead.

Kashmir is one of the most heavily militarized regions of the world, and those buried under the rubble and their relatives who tried frantically to dig them out with their bare hands would have been justified in thinking that help would arrive rapidly. It was fair to hope that the armies massed on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) separating Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir state, ostensibly to protect the Kashmiri population, would move quickly to save Kashmiri lives from a natural threat. But as time passed and the sound of life beneath the rubble began to grow silent, it became painfully and brutally clear that the hope was misplaced. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Indian and Pakistani militaries simply did not make the saving of Kashmiri lives a top priority. As India and Pakistan engaged in diplomatic one-upmanship—making and refusing offers of help based on political opportunism rather than humanitarian concerns—the death toll mounted.

In the first seventy-two hours after the earthquake, thousands of Pakistani troops stationed in Azad Kashmir prioritized the evacuation of their own personnel over providing relief to desperate civilians. The international media began converging on Muzaffarabad within twenty-four hours of the earthquake and fanned out to other towns in Azad Kashmir shortly thereafter. They filmed Pakistani troops standing by and refusing to help because they had “no orders” to do so as locals attempted to dig out those still alive, sending a chilling message of indifference from Islamabad. Having filmed the refusal, journalists switched off their cameras and joined the rescue effort themselves; in one instance they shamed the soldiers into helping. But unlike the death and destruction, the media were not everywhere. The death toll continued to mount.

Many Kashmiris told Human Rights Watch that prior to the earthquake, the Pakistani military kept a close watch on the population to ensure political compliance and control; this was facilitated by the placement of military installations frequently in close proximity to populated areas. In the context of a military presence that was more abuser than protector, and domineering Pakistani political control, the failure of the authorities to respond quickly and more humanely to the aftereffects of the earthquake in Azad Kashmir came as little surprise. That failure generated massive public resentment against the Pakistani state, and it highlighted the need for an examination of the conduct of Pakistani authority in Azad Kashmir. This report on the state of human rights in Azad Kashmir shows longstanding restrictions on fundamental freedoms, as well as politically motivated mistreatment of persons supporting an independent Kashmir.

The earthquake put the international spotlight on Azad Kashmir for the first time. Previously, attention had been almost wholly on Jammu and Kashmir state in India, which since 1989 has endured a brutal insurgency and counterinsurgency. Human rights abuses by the Indian security forces and separatist forces in Jammu and Kashmir have been relatively well documented and often condemned. But the world knows little about Azad Kashmir, other than that the territory has been used by Pakistan-backed militant groups as a staging ground for attacks in Jammu and Kashmir.1

Aid organizations and donors that wanted to learn about Azad Kashmir after the earthquake so that they could respond in a useful and informed manner quickly discovered that there was virtually no published information. This is because prior to the earthquake, Azad Kashmir was one of the most closed territories in the world. While Jammu and Kashmir state had known considerable tourist traffic prior to the beginning of the insurgency there, the areas of Kashmir on the other side of the LoC had seen little external interest or presence after the end of the British colonial era in 1947—a situation used by Pakistan to exercise absolute control over the territory.

Information, particularly about the human rights situation, governance, the rule of law, and the institutions that hold real power in Azad Kashmir is more important than ever as the territory rebuilds and, by necessity, opens up to the international community in the aftermath of the earthquake. In the coming years, international engagement with the territory is likely to be intense. For that engagement to be effective and beneficial to the people of Azad Kashmir, it is essential that international actors approach the territory with an awareness of its particular history and its fraught, often tense and unhappy relationship with the Pakistani state in general and the Pakistani military in particular.

Azad Kashmir is a legal anomaly.
According to United Nations (U.N.) resolutions dating back to 1948, Azad Kashmir is neither a sovereign state nor a province of Pakistan, but rather a “local authority” with responsibility over the area assigned to it under a 1949 ceasefire agreement with India. It has remained in this state of legal limbo since that time. In practice, the Pakistani government in Islamabad, the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence services (Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI) control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmir—though “Azad” means “free,” the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but. Azad Kashmir is a land of strict curbs on political pluralism, freedom of expression, and freedom of association; a muzzled press; banned books; arbitrary arrest and detention and torture at the hands of the Pakistani military and the police; and discrimination against refugees from Jammu and Kashmir state. Singled out are Kashmiri nationalists who do not support the idea of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. Anyone who wants to take part in public life has to sign a pledge of loyalty to Pakistan, while anyone who publicly supports or works for an independent Kashmir is persecuted. For those expressing independent or unpopular political views, there is a pervasive fear of Pakistani military and intelligence services—and of militant organizations acting at their behest or independently.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported that torture is routinely used in Pakistan, and that acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of “punishing” errant politicians, political activists and journalists. Azad Kashmir is no exception. Though torture is not commonplace, it is threatened often, and—when perpetrated by the military—is carried out with impunity. Human Rights Watch knows of no cases in which members of military and paramilitary security and intelligence agencies have been prosecuted or even disciplined for acts of torture or mistreatment. This report documents incidents of torture by the ISI, and by Azad Kashmir police acting at the ISI’s and the army’s behest.

Tight controls on freedom of expression have been a hallmark of the Pakistani government’s policy in Azad Kashmir and are also documented in this report. This control is highly selective. Pakistani-backed militant organizations promoting the incorporation of Jammu and Kashmir state into Pakistan have had free rein— particularly from 1989 when the insurgency began to 2001—to propagate views and disseminate literature; by contrast, groups promoting an independent Kashmir find promoting their views sharply curtailed. But frequent official repression of freedom of expression and assembly is not limited to controls and censorship specific to Kashmiri nationalists, journalists and election cycles. This repression can also be violent and very publicly so. For example, Pakistani police used lahtis (canes) and rifle butts to break up a peaceful demonstration in Muzaffarabad on November 11, 2005, by approximately two hundred earthquake survivors protesting eviction from their makeshift camp. Several protestors, including children, were injured as a result of police efforts to break up the demonstration.

Since 1994, when the ISI organized thirteen militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir state into the Muttahida [United] Jihad Council, army-backed militant organizations have shared, with the Pakistani military through the ISI, real decision-making authority and the management of the “Kashmir struggle.” Even mainstream political parties allowed representation by Pakistan in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly are largely sidelined. As the government-backed militant groups gained strength and dominance, Kashmiri nationalist militants left the movement or were sidelined and eventually began to be persecuted by the authorities and their proxies. Soon after Pakistan began supporting the U.S.-led “global war on terror” in 2001, the United Jihad Council ceased to operate publicly. Several groups simply changed their names and now operate independently or through clandestine underground networks. The Pakistani intelligence apparatus retains close associations with these groups.

Virtually all independent commentators, journalists, as well as former and serving militants, Pakistani military officers and Pakistan-backed Azad Kashmir politicians speaking off-the-record told Human Rights Watch that there was continuing militant infiltration from Azad Kashmir into Jammu and Kashmir state, but were not willing to be quoted for fear of reprisal from the ISI. Most of those interviewed were of the view that though the level of infiltration had decreased substantially since 2004 (a brief spike in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake notwithstanding), there have been no indications that the Pakistani military or militant groups had decided to abandon infiltration as policy.

It was thus no accident that militant groups were the first on the scene dispensing relief goods and other aid after the earthquake. Nor was it a sign of their great organizational prowess. As the Pakistani military prioritized the rescue of its own personnel, it probably sought the assistance of its closest allies in Azad Kashmir, the militant groups. These groups, which had undoubtedly suffered the loss of personnel and infrastructure themselves in the earthquake, won much local appreciation for their rescue and relief efforts. This public relations coup could not have been possible without logistical support from sections of the Pakistani military’s intelligence apparatus. For example, one of the first groups to set up operations was the Jamaat-ud-Dawa —the Lashkar-e-Toiba group operating under a new name. In January 2002 the Pakistani government had banned the LT as a terrorist group. However, in the aftermath of the earthquake, President Pervez Musharraf went out of his way to praise its relief work and brushed off calls to restrict its operations. The Pakistani military apparently saw the earthquake as an opportunity to craft a new image for the militant groups rather than as an opportunity to disband them.

This report also documents discrimination against Kashmiri refugees and former militants from India, most of whom are secular nationalists and culturally and linguistically distinct from the peoples of Azad Kashmir. The last major episode involving these former militants took place on April 7, 2005, when Pakistani security forces prevented them from greeting the inaugural bus service between Srinagar (the Jammu and Kashmir state capital) and Muzaffarabad and arrested, jailed and beat them. A primary motive for the discrimination would appear to be that many of these people DO NOT SHARE the vision of a UNIFIED KASHMIR under PAKISTANI CONTROL.

Successive Pakistani governments have asserted that Kashmir’s political future must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people. But the reality of Azad Kashmir prior to the earthquake was life dominated by governmental restrictions on fundamental freedoms. As the international community supports the task of reconstruction, it must insist on a new respect by Pakistan for the human rights of the people of Azad Kashmir. No viable solution to the Kashmir issue can exclude the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights for the people of Azad Kashmir in an environment free of coercion and fear.

Key recommendations:

The October 2005 earthquake brought into focus the dominant role of the Pakistani army in the governance of Azad Kashmir and the almost complete absence of any independent civil society in the territory. While Pakistani civil society’s immediate, rapid mobilization in the aftermath of the earthquake is commendable, the Pakistani military’s blundering and ineffective response to the humanitarian disaster was indicative of more than just the military’s different priorities in the region. It also highlighted its inability to assume the role of civil society that, as a matter of security policy, it has prevented from taking root. The army must greatly reduce its political role in Azad Kashmir in order to make way for genuinely civilian governmental institutions that respect basic rights.

The post-earthquake situation provides the international community with a unique opportunity to engage with Azad Kashmir’s population, government officials, civil society, and the Pakistani military to improve the state of civil and political rights in the territory. Reconstruction in Azad Kashmir, for which the international community has pledged U.S.$6.5 billion, can only be successful if central to the process is the creation of an open, empowered, rights-respecting society.
Specifically, Human Rights Watch makes the following key recommendations (a full set of recommendations is given at the end of this report):

To the Pakistani government

* Release all individuals imprisoned or detained and withdraw immediately all criminal cases against anyone, including Kashmiri nationalists, for the peaceful expression of their political views, including that Azad Kashmir should be independent.

* End the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention, other forms of harassment, and torture and other ill-treatment of persons exercising their right to freedom of expression, including those who peacefully oppose Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or demand greater autonomy for the territory.

* Repeal constitutional curbs on freedom of association, expression and assembly in Azad Kashmir so that the constitution and Azad Kashmir law are consistent with international human rights standards.

* Prosecute to the full extent of the law and in accordance with international standards those members of the armed forces, its intelligence agencies, government officials and police personnel implicated in serious violations of human rights, including arbitrary arrests and torture.

* Respect press freedom and allow full independent coverage of both past and ongoing events in Azad Kashmir. Remove formal and informal prohibitions on news gathering and reporting by the Azad Kashmir and Pakistani media, and accord all journalists full freedom of movement. End the practice of banning books and literature.

* Ensure that human rights organizations have freedom of movement throughout Azad Kashmir and allow them to carry out investigations and fact-finding missions free from intimidation and interference by military authorities.

To Azad Kashmir-based militant groups

* Cease threatening civilians who do not cooperate with or support the activities of militant groups.

* Publicly denounce abuses committed by any militant group in Jammu and Kashmir state and call for accountability for such abuses on both sides of the Line of Control.

To donors and other international actors

* Ensure greater civilian oversight of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Aid should be handled through a process that involves the Azad Kashmir government, as well as local, national and international NGOs, civil society groups (particularly those working in the field), and the affected population.

* Ensure the continuing distribution of reconstruction aid without regard to political affiliation. In particular, there should be no discrimination against Kashmiri nationalists who do not support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or refugees who have entered Azad Kashmir from Jammu and Kashmir state since 1991.

* Use every available opportunity to press for an end to impunity for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses, including members of the military, intelligence agencies, police and militant groups. Urge respect for international due process and fair trial standards and press for impartial inquiries into, and accountability for, cases of arbitrary detention and torture and other ill-treatment in detention.

Link: To read the full documant.

If the future of Kashmir is to be decided by the choice of the the Kashmiris,
people in Pakistan occupied areas have no fundamental freedom to make a free choice.

Since 1989,
the Indian security forces have been
the persistent victim of a (Pakistani masterminded) Islamic Jihad.

(Without condoning the abuses committed by the Indian forces),
is it not possible that none of these abuses would have ever taken place if
there had not been any killings and atrocities by Islamic militants in the first place?

You decide.

historyKashmirIndiainsurgencyhuman rightspropaganda

On August 15, 1947,
Two self governing countries legally came into existence.

Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons,
immediately after partition.
7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India
7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan.

Partition of India: why? and for what?

Between the 7th and the 14th centuries.
Islamic rulers invaded a non muslim northern India.

From the early 16th century
the muslim Mughal Empire ruled most of India from Delhi.
until the 19th century,
defeated by the British and becoming powerless and perhaps discontent.
The Muslims represented approximately 23% of the population of British India.

In 1885,
the Indian National Congress had been founded.
With it an Indian nationalist movement developed.
The Congress invited the Muslim community to join in in their bid for independence.
But most, not all, of the Muslims remained reluctant to join the Party,
they remained suspicious of the mainstream, secular but Hindu-majority Congress.

In 1906,
instead they founded the All India Muslim League.
Which became the driving force behind the partition of British India.

From Story of Pakistan

Many Hindu and British writers have alleged that the Muslim League was founded at official instigation. They argue that it was Lord Minto who inspired the establishment of a Muslim organization so as to divide the Congress and to minimize the strength of the Indian Freedom Movement. But these statements are not supported by evidence.
Contrary to this, the widely accepted view is that the Muslim League was basically established to protect and advance the Muslim interests and to combat the growing influence of the Indian National Congress.

In 1930,
at a convention of the Muslim League,
Muhammed Iqbal, in his presidential address on December 29
outlined a vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces.

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.”

He was the first politician to forward the Two-Nation Theory — that
Muslims were a distinct nation and deserved political independence
from other regions and communities of India.

Most of the Congress leaders were secularists.
They opposed the division of India on the lines of religion.
Mahatma Gandhi believed that Hindus and Muslims could and should live in amity.
He opposed the partition, saying,

“ My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God”.

The Muslims got what they desired.
The “Radcliffe line” had been drawn, that sealed the fate of millions.

1951 Census of displaced persons:
14.5 million people crossed the borders to
what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority.

While the Death Toll as a result of Partition of India 1947:

Taken from:
Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
14 estimates, between
200,000: World Almanac 1984
1,000,000: D.Smith, B&J (1945-48), Hartman, Wolpert – A New History of India (1993)

The median of these 14 estimates is 500,000.

How many of these were alive to reach the ‘safety’ of destinations unknown?

At that instant when the camera’s shutters clicked
on these homeless and penniless hundreds,
what were their thousand thoughts?
Just frightened emptiness?

The Two Nation Theory
had declared that Pakistan would be for all Muslims of India
but in reality it split them into three divisions across the subcontinent.

The northwest was already a muslim majority area, they didn’t need protection,
and it failed to protect the muslims elsewhere, where as minorities, they needed it.

Carving up a country for whatever reason will always extract a heavy price.
Regardless of the motives of the chief players behind the partition,
the price had to be paid by innocent millions and is still
being paid by their children and grandchildren.
By hindus and ironically also the muslims.

But do we not learn from history?
Kashmir, Kosovo, Palestine and very possibly Iraq.

If the minority predominant areas of Bradford UK seeks independance,
will the British Parliament as readily dig out their rusty old carving knives? I wonder.

[Photographs: BBC and Wikipedia]

one1indiaIndiahistoryindependancepartition of indiaPakistan

Hundreds of lives were lost in the struggle for freedom.
Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as the result of freedom,
for India had been brutally ripped apart, a price to pay for being free.

Rabindranath Tagore wrote this poem, yearning for a free India.

Originally composed in Bengali, this is his own translation and was included in his
collection of poems “Gitanjali” for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1912.

Rabindranath died 7th August 1941,
he never did see his free India, he never could be a ‘free’ Indian.
Neither did he have to witness his country being divided.

Where the mind is without fear

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
       by domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into
       the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening
       thought and action …

Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

Will we ever wake up into such a world?

historyIndiaindependancepartition of indiaRabindranath Tagore

'Little Boy' had killed mercilessly, 'Fat Man' was patiently waiting in the wings.
6th August was Hiroshima, but
there had to be more,
so on the 9th it was
Nagasaki.

Nagasaki
was deeply unfortunate,
for it wasn't the primary target, it was Kokura
and 9th was not the day planned, it was to be 11th August.
Forecasts of bad weather, made the Americans preponed their second bomb run.

Japan was still in a shock at the devastation of Hiroshima, was just three days
adequate to judge the outcome of the first bombing? Why not two weeks?
The Allied invasion was not due for another three months, till November.
Japan didn't have any WMD that they could deploy in hours or days.
So what was the Americans' desperate hurry for the second bomb?
The only logical conclusion is the Russian invasion of Japan.

After Hiroshima, the Americans dropped warning leaflets.
These leaflets never reached Nagasaki before the bomb hit the unsuspecting victims.

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/today_62_years_ago_Nagasaki]
On the morning of August 9, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress Bockscar
was given the license to kill, in their bomb bay, they carried Fat Man,
Kokura was their primary target not Nagasaki; it was the secondary target.

Fatman was even bigger and more powerful
4.6 tons in weight, packing the destruction power of 21 thousand tons of TNT.

On reaching Kokura, Bockscar found it obscured by clouds, after
three unsuccessful attempts on Kokura they conferred with weaponeer Cmdr Ashworth.
and agreed to strike the secondary target; from that moment,
Nagasaki was doomed to die.

Aiming through a brief cloud opening
the intended aiming point was missed by 3km (2 miles).
Nagasaki’s hilly terrain resulted in lower overall casualties than in flat Hiroshima.

This time the mushroom cloud reached 18km (11m).

The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile),
followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles)
40,000 people were killed outright and about 25,000 were injured.
Thousands more were to die later from related injuries, and radiation sickness.

Some survivors from Hiroshima had gone to Nagasaki and got bombed again.

The myth about the Japanese Surrender

Many who argue in favour of the slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
will say that the bombings ended the war months sooner and saved many lives.
That there would have been casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan.

The chronology of events: contradicts that argument.

July 17th: Potsdam Conference:
The mighty victors, USA, Britain and Russia met to carve the spoils.
To decide on a policy for the occupation of Germany and other countries after the war.

July 26th: Potsdam declaration:
United States, Britain and China: Set conditions on Japan for surrender.

“The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people”

“We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

July 27th: the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration…
the cabinet was persuaded not reject until (he) could get a reaction from the Soviets.

July 30th: Ambassador Sato wrote that Stalin was probably talking to the Western Allies about his dealings with Japan.

“There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia’s participation in the war. …

August 6th: Hiroshima destroyed.

(August 8th):
August 9th 0400 hrs Japan – Operation August Storm
Russia broke neutrality pact with Japan and declared war and invaded Manchuria.
1102 hrs – Nagasaki destroyed.

August 14th: Japan surrendered.

Bombings were unnecessary on military grounds:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoir The White House Years:

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Japan’s decision to surrender was made after the scale of
the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands was known.
Had the war continued, the Russians had plans to invade Hokkaidō
well before the (November) Allied invasion of Kyushu.

Kuznick and Mark Selden, from Cornell University New York, US
at a Greenpeace meeting in London on 6th August 2005:

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia,….
Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves …
account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb…”Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” …
Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used,

62 years ago,
America wanted to occupy Japan, and not let the Russians go in there first.
And if they couldn’t, they would “utterly destruct” Japan, than let Russians take it.

They dropped weapons aimed at mass destructions, at least 200,000 civilians died.
That was not collateral damage, that was deliberately planned killing. 1st degree murder.

What America wants,
they will break all international laws and kill to occupy and plunder.
But in a true cowardly manner only against the weak, non nuclear states.
It threatens to blow any country that wants to develop N-weapons,
but turned a blind eye to their allies, Pakistan and Israel.

62 years after,
America wants to invade and occupy Iran
They want complete control over middle east,
they want to plunder oil and natural gas around the Persian gulf,
and they want to prevent Iran shifting to Euro as their petro currency.

History tells us what America is capable of, let us not get fooled again.

62 years later, I sincerely hope it is not Iran..

AmericaWWIIHistoryAtomic BombNagasakiWar crime