I read I am being unpatriotic.

Those blaming Rajiv not patriotic: Cong

Express news service: Posted: Wed Jun 16 2010, 23:39 hrs

New Delhi: With the BJP alleging that Union Carbide chief Warren Anderson could not have left the country without the knowledge of the Rajiv Gandhi-led government at the Centre, the Congress on Tuesday said such allegations were not patriotic.

“There are some who are in the business of lampooning Mr (Rajiv) Gandhi, who had lost his mother for the sake of national integration barely months ago and six years later lost his life for the country. To claim that such a person would have buckled under the pressure is not only baseless but cheap insinuation. Whosoever is doing so is out of sync with the national ethos of the Congress Party. In fact, to that extent their patriotic credentials also remain suspect,” Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari said.

what has patriotism to do with asking for the truth?
greek philosopher Socrates once said, “Patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does, and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”

a Patriot

Online Etymological Dictionary

patriot 1590s, “compatriot,”
from M.Fr. patriote (15c.),
from L.L. patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.),
from Gk. patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (gen. patros) “father,”
with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

If patriotism is love and devotion to one’s country, one’s fatherland to be precise.
I ask,

how patriotic is Ms Sonia Gandhi?

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

first it was the Foreign Secretary David Milliband’s gutless statements on Kashmir.
now it is Home Secretary Jacqui Smith

as the nations economy worsens,
and the evidence of their disastrous handling of the economy continues to surface
the more they have to rely on the muslim votebank to get themselves back into power
selling the rights and freedom of everyone else…

Dutch party chief barred from UK

Financial Times | Published: February 11 2009 00:45
By Michael Steen in Amsterdam

Britain has taken the unusual step of banning a Dutch member of parliament from entering the country due to his stridently anti-Islamic views, prompting the Dutch government to protest. Geert Wilders, who heads the anti-immigration Party for Freedom, had been due to travel to London on Thursday for a screening of his film, Fitna, organised by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a eurosceptic peer. The film criticises Islam, one of Mr Wilders’ main targets.

The Dutch foreign ministry said it “deeply regretted the decision by the British government to deny Party for Freedom leader Wilders entry to the country”. Mr Wilders told Dutch television he had received a letter from the British Embassy in The Hague informing him of a decision by Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, to bar him for public security reasons.

To be clear, his film Fitna is to be screened in the Palace of Westminster.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders deported after flying to Britain to show anti-Islamic film

Telegraph UK | Last Updated: 6:19AM GMT 13 Feb 2009
By Christopher Hope, John Bingham and Bruno Waterfield

Geert Wilders had been invited to Westminster to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a “fascist book”, by a member of the House of Lords.

But on Tuesday Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary refused Mr Wilders entry because his opinions “would threaten community security and therefore public security” in the UK. Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said Holland would press for a reversal of the travel ban.

Earlier on the flight, Mr Wilders had launched a savage attack on the Government. He said: “They (the British Government) are the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe. “I’m coming because I am invited by one of your members of parliament. I’m not provocative. I am an elected political representative. I am a democrat. I use my freedom of speech. I am using all the democratic means I have.”

Mr Wilders had been due to attend a screening of Fitna, organised by Ukip peer Lord Pearson, in the Lords. Lord Pearson said the screening would go ahead yesterday “with or without Mr Wilders”. In a joint statement, he and cross-bench peer Baroness Cox said they were “promoting freedom of speech” and accused the Government of “appeasing” militant Islam.

They added: “Geert Wilders’ Fitna film, available on the web, is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence. “They react in fury and menace to our intention to show the film and have boasted that their threats of aggressive demonstrations prevented its previous showing in the Mother of Parliaments.”

… and so the pandering for muslim votes in Britain will continue.
biggest bunch of cowards in Europe – I totally agree.

as for the non-sloppy-thinking sanctimonious readers,
the next election in britain has to be completed by 3rd June 2010

british general electionmuslim+votebank

previous articles in the british mp series:
british mp’s support for islamic terrorism

i have had the misfortune of being visited by one,
who has tried his/her pathetic best to use a play of words to divert from the point I make

as is a norm on this site,
I bring my response to that comment onto the mainpage,
so that it does not get obscured within the binary…

@ duncanr

you are being fastidious about my usage of the words “election year” because you obviously do not have any other arguments against what I have written.

To make it clear, so it sinks into your “non-sloppy” sanctimonious thinking:
a British PM can call an election at anytime of his term.
Under the provisions of the Septennial Act 1715 as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, the next United Kingdom general election must be held on or before Thursday 3 June 2010 – so Gordon Brown HAS TO call that election within the next 16 months – by 3rd June 2010 to be exact.

It is of no consequence whether 2009 has yet not been declared as “the election year” to the public – David Milliband, an individual with high ambitions of his own political future, himself must know when the election will be held – and when he needs to start “pandering” to the muslim votebanks.

Even with your fastidious diversionary argument – you cannot rule out a call for an election AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE NEXT SIXTEEN MONTHS. And if an election does take place before midnight, 31st December 2009 – consider your butt well and truly kicked.

My perspectives are clear – biased? perhaps.
what you are trying is a clever way of avoiding to declare that muslim perspectives too are deeply biased.

You may call yourself an aethist, I expected you would,
that is the another clever/cheap way of avoiding to declare what religion you were born into.
Declaring yourself an aethist does not exclude any bias in your thinking
it is THE PERFECT WAY of concealing a bias based on religion.

Besides NO ONE born into Islam can ever be an aethist.
Is it not, under the Islamic law (sharia), the male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress and a female apostate must be either executed, or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam.

I stand my ground,
with an election that HAS TO be declared at ANYTIME and CONCLUDED before 3rd JUNE 2010, it is now ESSENTIAL FOR BRITISH MPs TO PANDER TO MUSLIM VOTERS.

Milliband does not dare talk of Israel giving independence to Palestine - he may be a moron, but has just enough neurones to realise that will be the end of his political career. the easy option was to score cheap points by talking Kashmir.

It is ironic,
in the name of democracy, the world has to suffer MPs pandering to a religion to get their votes
when that religion itself does not believe in democracy.

Sloppy thinking? My readers will judge that.
But it has more value than what you dish out day after day on your own website.
It takes a lot more than your diversionary attempts under the pretence of being “fastidious” to try and disprove or discredit what I write.

I do not publish cowardly diversionary arguments here.
Any further arguments that YOU may have – dish them out on your site.

this individual serves his non-sloppy thoughts at a mad tea party
please visit: a display of intelligence as you may never have perceived before

and why not,
Pakistan is far from home,
if the Pakistanis are killing Indians in India, its no problem for the Brits.

David Miliband comments on Kashmir welcomed by ‘terrorist’ group

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi – Last Updated: 12:46PM GMT 18 Jan 2009

The radical Muslim group linked to the Mumbai attacks has welcomed Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s call for India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute over Kashmir.

Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is said to have been behind the terror assault in which more than 170 people died, has backed comments he made last week during a trip to the region.

In an article ahead of his visit to India last week, the foreign secretary said the ‘war on terror’ had been mistaken and that individual groups like LeT should be targeted and brought to justice. But solving the Kashmir issue would deny LeT its ‘call to arms’ and free Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in its tribal areas.

“Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders,” he said.

The statement will cause further discomfort for Mr Miliband after India reacted angrily to his ‘interference’ in the issue and senior politicians branded his trip a ‘disaster’.

besides it is the election year,
and his party has to start pandering to the muslim voters in Britain.

is this individual fit to be a foreign secretary?

he has no knowledge of history
he has no knowledge of what constitutes terrorism
he has no knowledge of the cause and progress of the conflict in Kashmir

does this moron know that the Instrument of Accession
by which India came to control the princely state Jammu and Kashmir
which includes Jammu, Kashmir, Northern Areas, Ladakh and Aksai Chin was accepted
by Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, a British?

can he answer why in 1947 the Pakistani Army invaded Kashmir?
why Pakistan, in blatant disregard of UN orders continue to occupy Kashmir since 1948?

can he answer why Pakistan has waged wars on India
the latest being in Kargil 1999, masterminded by the ally of the west, criminal Musharraf?

Pakistan has no legal rights on Kashmir,
they have dug their greedy evil claws into the land that has never been their’s

Pakistan has for 60 years fought proxy wars through the “islamic militants”
by “terrorising” Kashmir and India.

what this moron has called for is to give into Pakistani terrorism,

and the reason why?

solving the Kashmir issue would deny LeT its ‘call to arms’ and free Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in its tribal areas.

exactly what Pakistan has been blackmailing the world they would do, since the mumbai killings

this is simply for his, for the British and the West’s selfish convenience

George Bush and Tony Blair has so glaringly proved they may be world leaders of the first world west, but when it comes to brains, even the goldfish packs more neuronal power in their pinhead calvaria than these ‘educated’ idiots

these cowards are too worried of keeping their muslim vote banks intact, that they will remain
in a perpetual faked denial that Pakistan the state is not involved in terrorism in India

I have come to recognise this as the “simple white christian married mother of three” syndrome

the loud mouths with little knowledge,
and scant regards for those who are being terrorised by muslims far away from home

is he going to say
the same to the jews in Israel?
tell the Americans to pull out of Saudi Arabia?
did his Britain give into the Irish call for an independent Irish State?
was it not his party and government that invaded Iraq for their own convenience?

oh, no. this is about India,
and why should a British MP give a toss for the welfare of a third world state?

this is about double standards, a familiar stench in the west.
till 9/11s and 7/7s hits their own people

foot in mouth Mr Milliband?
let me help you place it in the only appropriate spot of your anatomy

a Pakistani has been caught alive
like a rat he has been squealing his guts out,
giving his life’s details – confirmed by his father and corraborated by his villagers

yet pakistan refuses to believe, even after the truth has been made evident to them

Pak rejects proofs of 26/11 attacks shared by Britain, US

Published on Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 22:01
Islamabad: Pakistan has dismissed evidence on the Mumbai attacks shared by the US and Britain.

The evidence included information given by India and corroborated through other sources. It included Ajmal Kasab’s confession, transcripts of mobile telephone intercepts, and also the logs of recorded conversations.

The US and Britian have given to Pakistan “clinching evidence” of involvement ofelements within the country in the Mumbai terror attacks but has been dismayed over Pakistan’s pussyfooting and not doing enough. Intercepts of satellite and mobile conversations between the attackers in Mumbai and the Pakistan-based elements guiding them, were handed over to Islamabad by the two countries.

However, Islamabad says this will not stand up in court.

this is beyond what will stand up in court and what will not,
this is a clear proof of international terrorism originating from Pakistan

what do the leaders of the rich west do to show they are “fighting the causes of terror”?

Britain promises more anti-terror aid to Pakistan

Associated Press: Published on Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:23
Brown said Britain promised Pakistan counter-terrorism equipment for detecting bombs and explosives at airports. Britain also pledged $9 million to lure youths away from extremist activities by offering them educational materials and programs.

when will these oafs learn
that giving Pakistan more dollars will create more terror

one 7/7 in London
one 9/11 in New York were lesson not hard enough
every cent poured in will be used to create more terror on the non-muslim world
every cent poured into that cess-pit will come back as AK-47s, and bombs and death

GW Bush sunk $10 billion into Musharraf’s pakistan
now G Brown promises to put £9 million more into Zardari’s
there are millions of human individuals starving “peacefully” – who would benefit from it

the root cause of Islamic terror? it is NOT poverty idiots,
it is not poverty that “lures” these youths to become international criminals
for there are muslim youths of western origin who travel to pakistan to learn how to kill

the root cause of Islamic terror? it is the cause of Islam
it is the writings in Quran that is being preached in pakistan
it is the nations and its military’s obsession to possess Kashmir
it is the covert orders of their military presidents through the evil ISI that
encourages their mullahs and madrassas to preach spreading islam through terror

this frankenstein was created by Britain
and has been nurtured for their own nefarius needs by the CIA and US
the innocents of Mumbai and elsewhere on earth that are now suffering for it

the world cannot fight terror if at every opportunity countries like US and GB helps feed it

Pakistan is blackmailing the world with their N-weapons
nukes they could manufacture only by stealing, blackmarketing and illegal n-proliferation

confiscate their nukes,
stop pouring in the millions and billions -
let the “moderate” muslims really starve – only then they will stand up against their evil military

those who wants to live and kill for a stoneage religion
should also live in the stoneage

Quran directs jihad
against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them
Pakistan fits the description perfectly, it is time the long suffering world called for a
jihad against Pakistan

Pakistanislamterrorismjihad

Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States government to exceptionally close allies who have close strategic working relationships with American forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by countries not in NATO.

19th September 2001:

President General Musharraf:

Address to the People of Pakistan
Excerpts:

“Pakistan comes first, everything else comes later”.

I must tell them that I and my government are much more worried about Afghanistan and Taliban. I have done everything for Afghanistan and Taliban when the entire world is against them.

We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and Taliban. This is my earnest endeavor and with the blessings of Allah I will continue to seek such a way out.

What I would like to know is how do we save Afghanistan and Taliban. And how do we ensure that they suffer minimum losses: I am sure that you will favor that we do so and bring some improvement by working with the nations of the world. At this juncture, I am worried about Pakistan only.

I am the Supreme Commander of Pakistan and I give top priority to the defense of Pakistan, Defense of any other country comes later. We want to take decisions in the interest of Pakistan.

[Text and photograph: www.american rhetoric.com]

20th September 2001:

President GW Bush:

Address to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People
“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime“

Every nation – in every region!

17th June 2004:

Bush names Pakistan ‘major ally’

BBC News
President George W Bush has upgraded relations with Pakistan by formally naming it as a major non-Nato ally. The move is in recognition of Islamabad’s contribution in the fight against al-Qaeda, and is being seen as Washington’s way of saying thank-you.

Pakistan will now enjoy a special security relationship with the US.

An ally: (noun) :
1. a person who associates or cooperates with another; supporter.
2. a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

16th September 2008

Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids

By STEPHEN GRAHAM – Associated Press
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan’s military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday. The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tensions between Washington and a key ally against terrorism.

Pakistani officials warn that stepped-up cross-border raids will accomplish little while fueling violent religious extremism in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Some complain that the country is a scapegoat for the failure to stabilize Afghanistan.

We know Pakistan is so fuelled up with religious extremism, it cannot ‘fuel up’ any further.
We know Pakistan will again blackmail the world with the threat of nuclear arms.
We now know why Afghanistan could not be stabilised, the “enemies”
in the war of terror are being protected in, if not by, Pakistan.

Musharraf, give his due, kept his promise to save and protect the Talibans.
His followers are simply carrying out his legacy.

If in this ‘war’, Pakistan is a true ally of the US, they should open up their border
to let the NATO troops help them in the fight on terror –
that they have struggled with for SEVEN years.

Fought?! Did they, really?

17th September 2008

A friend in deed?
Or a friend in its own need?
Is Mr Bush asking “if not with us! then who are you with”?

AmericaPakistanMusharrafGWBushterrorismlittleindian

Remember the rhetorics of the 9/20 amidst applause and standing ovations to a

Joint Session of Congress and the American People

In a historic address to the nation and joint session of Congress Sept. 20,
President Bush pledges to defend America’s freedom against the fear of terrorism.
White House by Eric Draper.

“Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
(Applause.)
From this day forward,
any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism
will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime“

In Pakistan,
America created a new frontier to fight their perceived enemies of terror.
Never realising that they could ever get the support of one muslim to fight another.
It is said, Pakistan was threatened to be bombed back to stone ages if Pakistan did not comply.
Musharraf took full opportunity to overtly show support -

And he was rewarded with aid, arms, ammunitions, F-16s and missiles.

Pakistan’s $4.7 Billion ‘Blank Check’ for U.S. Military Aid

After 9/11, funding to country soars with little oversight

By Nathaniel Heller, Sarah Fort and Marina Walker Guevara
Data analysis by Ben Welsh

WASHINGTON — In the three years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. military aid to Pakistan soared to $4.7 billion, compared to $9.1 million in the three years before the attacks — a 50,000 percent increase — boosting Pakistan to the top tier of countries receiving this type of funding.

More than half of the new money was provided through a post-9/11 Defense Department program — Coalition Support Funds — not closely tracked by Congress.

CSF money has continued to flow despite growing U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s assistance in the global war on terror, and the Congressional Research Service estimates Pakistan’s total take of CSF through August 2006 at $4.75 billion.

A recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the total value of all American aid, including military, economic, and development assistance, to Pakistan since 9/11 at more than $10 billion.

In June 2004, President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally. And eligible to purchase advanced American military technology

which includes:
* purchase of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds
* priority delivery of military surplus (ranging from rations to ships)
* possession of War Reserve Stocks of DoD-owned equipment
* permission to use American financing for the purchase or lease of certain defense equipment
* reciprocal training
* expedited export processing of space technology

And went on to sell more arms and ammunitions.

US ‘agrees’ Pakistan missile sale

BBC News: Thursday, 1 June 2006, 16:59 GMT
The Bush administration says that it has agreed to sell Pakistan advanced missiles designed to be launched from ships and submarines. It says that it has also agreed to sell $375m worth of related equipment.

In a notice to Congress, which has to agree the proposal, the Pentagon said the sale would significantly upgrade Pakistan’s existing weapons systems. It said that the security of the US would be improved by aiding what a “key ally in the war against terror”.

The US lifted restrictions on arms sales to Pakistan last year, when it announced an expansion in two-way defence trade, missile-defence cooperation, technology transfers and weapons co-production. The restrictions were put in place in 1990, but lifted after The Pentagon said Pakistan had “demonstrated its willingness to fight terrorists”, especially in Waziristan.

Hold on a moment – “demonstrated its willingness to fight terrorists”?.
I don’t think they ever said that.
He had made it clear he was going to save Talibans.
What Musharraf in response to America’s call for support did say was:

Address to People of Pakistan:

September 19, 2001, (Original Text Copyrighted)

Musharraf addressed the people of Pakistan and stated he supported the Taliban, and he was trying his best to come out of the critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and Taliban. And he would looking for ways to save Afghanistan and Taliban.

It has gone all horribly wrong; today the battle lines are about to be re-drawn.
The US Forces in Afghanistan risks facing strikes by the same F-16s
the ground troops shot at by the same depleted-U tankbusters
that they had so willingly given to them.

US Congressional panel to examine supply of F-16 to Pakistan

Press Trust of India Sridhar Krishnaswami
Washington, Sept 15 (PTI)
In the backdrop of an upsurge in unilateral American strikes on militants near Pakistan’s Afghan border, a US Congressional panel is set to examine the rationale of F-16 programme with Islamabad as part of its war against terror.

Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, has convened a hearing entitled “Defeating Al Qaeda’s Air Force: Pakistan’s F-16 Programme in the Fight Against Terrorism”. Ackerman and many of his colleagues on Capitol Hill have for long questioned the rationale of giving the F-16s to Pakistan as a part of the war on terror.

The congressmen now want a comprehensive statement from senior officials about the complete scope of the F-16 programme with Pakistan that include the number of planes, updates made to existing planes, proposed armaments, schedule of delivery and source of payment.

It is a bit too late,
the party is coming to an end
the most powerful idiot on earth has realised he now has a headache…

AmericaPakistanMusharrafGWBushterrorismlittleindian

India breathes a sigh of relief. Perhaps.
The controversial Indo-US 123 Agreement is kicking again.

The victims people of Nandigram, lost their own, to give it a new life.
On the day Mr Henry Hyde passed away, his legacy, the Hyde’s Act was reborn.

Nuke deal: BJP slams Left for ‘surrendering’ to Cong.

The Hindu News Update Service: November 29, 2007 : 1515 Hrs

Kolkata (PTI): Describing the Indo-US nuclear deal as unacceptable to the party, the BJP on Thursday slammed the CPI and CPI-M for ‘surrendering’ to Congress despite making ‘noises’ over it and said if voted back to power it would re-negotiate the deal and if it was not possible, cancel it.

“Congress has surrendered to the USA on the nuke deal and the Communist parties have surrendered to the Congress although they had made so much noises over the deal. It was a trade-off between Congress and Communists over Nandigram and nuke deal,” senior BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu told reporters here.

Naidu said after Wednesday’s debate in Parliament on the nuclear deal, the ‘double standard’ of the Communist parties was exposed and now ‘they were confining themselves to giving sound bytes and not ready for a real fight’. “They (CPI-M and CPI) want the UPA government to continue even after saying that the nuke deal was a surrender to the USA. After all round condemnation of the CPI-M over its role in Nandigram and Singur, they have developed cold feet about going to the people,” he said.

“Indo-US nuclear deal is surrender to Washington, this is the considered opinion of the BJP. If returned to power, we will re-negotiate the deal and if it is not possible, we will cancel the deal,” Naidu said. The former BJP president said “Congress doesn’t know how to run the country and how to manage a coalition. Congress did not do any homework before negotiating the deal, neither it consulted its allies.

Of course.
It had to happen this way.
The Left Front, who stood up against their coalition partners now need the support of
the Indian Congress to make murder acceptable as a necessity in politics.

Sonia Gandhi comes out in support of N-deal

The Times of India: 17 Nov 2007, 1049 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: Congress President Sonia Gandhi on Saturday came out fully in support of the Indo-US nuclear deal saying it would have no impact on India’s atomic programme but enable the country acquire fuel and technology and help in getting the much-needed electricity for faster growth.

A day after the Left parties gave clearance to the government to approach the IAEA for working out India-specific safeguards agreement, she told the AICC meeting that there were differences with the outside allies but efforts were on to evolve a consensus through discussions.

Who then is Ms Sonia Gandhi?

Own Biography: Sonia Gandhi

Born into a family of modest means in an Italian village on the banks of a river 57 years ago, Sonia Maino, now Sonia Gandhi, has weaved a dramatic way to a place in history by becoming the President of India’s century-old Congress party. Being the third woman of foreign origin to hold the prestigious post after Annie Beasant and Nelli Sengupta.

Early life:

In 1964, (aged 18), she went to study English at The Bell Educational Trust‘s language school in the city of Cambridge. Being from a poor family she used to work in a restaurant as waitress for paying the tution fees. While doing this certificate course she met Rajiv Gandhi, who was enrolled at the time in Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.

Born to Stefano and Paola Maino in Lusiana, a little village 50 km from Vicenza, Italy, she spent her adolescence in Orbassano, a town near Turin being raised in a Roman Catholic family and attending a Catholic school. Her father, a building contractor, died in 1983. Her mother and two sisters still live around Orbassano.

How did she become so powerful in India?
Because it was us who gave her that power.
For in a country of 1.12 billions, we could not find one other person as capable.

In The TIME 100: By Suketu Mehta

Imagine if the U.S. were run by an Indian Hindu woman without a college degree. It’s tough: the U.S. has never elected anyone who’s not Christian, white and male—even as Vice President. But India, which is an even bigger democracy, is run in all but name by an Italian Catholic widow with a high school education. In the 16 years since the assassination of her husband Rajiv, Sonia Gandhi, née Maino, has become the face of the country’s most famous family. As leader of India’s Congress Party, she has also managed the largest political party in the country and steered it to power. And she has done all this wearing a sari.

Orbassano’s Mayor Graziano Dell’Acqua
to VAIJU NARAVANE: In Maino country

“Even so, I wonder if we in Italy would accept a foreigner, and a woman at that, to take over a party which has symbolised the country’s struggle against foreign rule and which continues to enjoy great, if diminished, support across the land.
That a certain section of Indians have trusted her with their destiny speaks volumes for the tolerance of India,” concludes Dell’Acqua.

Italy. Italian. Wasn’t there once before an Italian connection?

Wanted by Interpol: Ottavio Quattrocchi

He & his wife namely QUATTROCCHI Maria were involved in fraud & bribery committed in India between 1982-1987. A percentage of the money paid by the Indian Govt., was illegally transferred by the”AB Bofors” Company to bank accounts in Switzerland, to the benefit of certain Indian public servants and their nominees.

Just who is Ottavio Quattrocchi?

Rediff News: George Iype January 17, 2006

How is he linked to the Bofors guns scandal?

The scandal erupted in 1987 when Swedish radio revealed that Bofors facing stiff international competition had paid more than $50 million in bribes to secure a contract for the sale of field guns worth $1.4 billion to the Indian Army. Then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was named one of the suspects in the scam.

How could an Italian businessman be the middleman
between the Indian Army and Bofors, which is a Swedish company?
The answer lies in Quattrocchi’s proximity to the Gandhi family. Quattrocchi shifted to India soon after Rajiv married Sonia.

If Quattrochi was in India, why wasn’t he arrested?
When the Swiss authorities formally communicated to the Indian government in 1993 that the kickbacks in the Bofors case were deposited in Quattrocchi’s accounts, a Congress government headed by P V Narasimha Rao was in power. The Opposition immediately wanted the government to impound Quattrocchi’s passport and arrest him. But that was not done, and he was allowed to leave the country. He left India for Malaysia on July 29, 1993. The CBI’s efforts to get Quattrocchi extradited to India have not yet succeeded.

Does the Manmhohan Singh government’s ‘clean chit’ to Quattrocchi absolve him of all charges?

Yes, in a way. Prime Minister Singh said the action of defreezing Quattrocchi’s London bank accounts was taken by the CBI in consultation with law officers.

What does the man himself have to say?
In a statement issued from Milan in Italy this week, Quattrocchi said:
‘I believe it would be in interest of justice and India’s reputation if this case against me is brought to an end.’

So when I read,

Sonia Gandhi raises disarmament issue at UN meet
2 Oct 2007, 2107 hrs IST, PTI

UNITED NATIONS: As the UN marked Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday as the first International Day of Non-violence, Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Tuesday spoke of the international community’s collective failure to move towards comprehensive universal disarmament.

it makes my hair stand on end.

Why her?
There must be many Indians still alive today, who had been with the Mahatma,
shared his vision of non-violence
shared his struggle for freedom,
who should have been representing his country at the UN. Not Ms Sonia Gandhi.
Are we selling off our country, only to perpetuate the Gandhi name?

IndiaAmericaSonia GandhiMarxistsNandigram

]]> http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/30/india-us-123-another-italian-job/feed/ 7 http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/27/should-we-be-scared-of-the-islamic-bomb/ http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/27/should-we-be-scared-of-the-islamic-bomb/#comments Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:35:50 +0000 littleindian http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/11/27/should-we-be-scared-of-the-islamic-bomb/ Reading Nukes on the loose, I am.
And these are my reasons.

The Islamic Bomb

By: Tashbih Sayyed in Pakistan Today: Friday, December 26, 2003

Pakistan’s admission that her scientists may have spread the nuclear technology to Iran, has rekindled the fears that nuclear technology in the hands of an unstable state will remain a threat to the world peace. The serious observers are reluctant to accept that the government of Pakistan has not authorized or initiated any transfers of sensitive nuclear technology or information to other countries. There have been strong indications that Islamabad has sold nuclear secrets to some countries including Iran and North Korea over the years. And the latest development has only reinforced the suspicions.

The fact that the admission was not a voluntary act but a result of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities that showed conclusively that “Pakistani-linked individuals” had acted as “intermediaries and black marketeers,” makes the situation more scary. Experts point out that Tehran’s acknowledgment that it had used centrifuge designs that appeared identical to ones used in Islamabad’s quest for the Islamic bomb did not leave any room for Pakistan but to admit.

Even Bush administration’s statement that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had assured Washington that his government had not—at least “in the present time”—provided any nuclear secrets to countries like Iran and North Korea did not help in alleviating the anxiety of the international community. The experience of the international community with Pakistan has taught it to be cautious before accepting any assurances. The world still remembers that Pakistani plane was caught picking up North Korean missile parts thought to be part of a swap for Pakistani nuclear technology, long after General Musharraf told the world that he stopped such sales after coming into power.

And the world believed him!
Too many skeletons in the cupboard, for Musharraf, B Bhutto and N Sharif.

NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA: NERVOUSNESS IN PAKISTAN

South Asia Analysis group: Paper no. 2004 dated 26. 10. 2006

8. The nervousness in Islamabad after the North Korean nuclear test is due to,
firstly, fears that fresh enquiries by the US might bring out hitherto unadmitted (by Pakistan) aspects of its co-operation with North Korea;
secondly, fears that the pressure on it to hand over A. Q. Khan for interrogation by US investigators might increase; and,
thirdly, that Mrs. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, who were considerably in the picture about this c-operation, might reveal the details to the US because of their anger over Musharraf’s refusal to let them return to Pakistan and contest next year’s elections to the National Assembly. If rightly approached by the US, Mrs. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif might be inclined to speak about the role of the Army—particularly Musharraf–in this co-operation, but not about their own role. According to these sources, Musharraf is particularly nervous that Mrs. Bhutto, who is more knowledgeable than Mr. Sharif, might start talking about this co-operation with the Americans. It is to pre-empt her doing so that he has reportedly been trying to make some political overtures to her.

Experts insist that unless Pakistan allows international agencies to install some kind of monitoring devices in its nuclear facilities to make the whole process really transparent, there is no guarantee that radical Islamists vying for power in the Islamic state will not share the secrets with their counterparts in other Muslim countries. In my opinion even if General Musharraf is sincere in his pledge to fight against radical Islamists, he is only one man against a national ethos. And as there is no alternate leadership that shares his enlightened vision, it is only a matter of time before an improved and “wiser” version of Talibaan will seize control of the nuclear installations.

The latest attempt on the life of General Musharraf has highlighted the dangers of continuing dependence on an individual in a non-democratic setup. Pakistan is a very different kind of a Muslim country. No Muslim country in the world was founded in the name of Islam. Pakistan did. As such it claims to be the citadel of Islam. Its armed forces are the armies of Islam and it champions the cause of each and every Muslim. Religion is not just its raison d’être but the only guarantee of survival. A system that has failed to provide equal rights to all of its citizens can only depend on a religious totalitarianism.

Pakistan is not a natural country. It is composed of regions, sects, ethnic groups and linguistic factions who, in the absence of social justice, have never felt a part of the Pakistani nationhood. It is only the iron hand of the armed forces that has prevented them from seceding. Bangalis, taking advantage of their geography that placed them far away from the military and political center, did secede and established their own country, Bangladesh. This is a very volatile state. A country that is kept together by a fascist religiso-military ideology can never be a productive and positive player in the comity of nations. It will always try to seek alliances with totalitarian regimes.

Pakistan was created for the Muslims of South Asian subcontinent. It was supposed to be a secular Muslim state working for the benefit of its citizens irrespective of their religion, color, ethnicity or creed. But soon after its creation, Islamists who had opposed its creation, hijacked it and declared that the state was founded in the name of Islam and will work to defend and expand the frontiers the faith. The non-Muslims were reduced to the status of second class citizens and the armed forces of Pakistan were declared as the armies of Islam.

Radical Islamists do not believe in the true faith of Islam that preaches equality and social justice. They practice an ideology that believes in persecuting those who do not share their philosophy. The fundamentalists found a ready support in an oligarchy that lacked legitimacy. This oligarchy too was in need of a weapon to perpetuate its rule. They knew that the allegiance of all the citizens cannot be won without establishing a system of social justice, which they did not want. So they opted for a system that has always been the choice of the totalitarian minds. Religion was used to enslave different ethnic and linguistic groups in an artificial unity. Pakistan was declared an Islamic state.

Oligarchy’s dependence on religion to sustain their rule forced them to depend more and more on radical Islamic groups. It presented itself as the champion of all Islamic causes. Every issue was now cast in a religious light and the world was either green or ungreen. Although this “Islam” failed to fool the minority groups, it did succeed in winning the support of fundamentalists and religious fanatics from all over the world. From Palestine to Paris, from Indonesia to Indiana and from Kashmir to Karbala, wherever there was religious terrorism, Pakistan found herself defending it. That’s why when Pakistan decided to have a nuclear bomb of its own it touted it as an Islamic bomb.

Religion is the only effective weapon in the hands of an oligarchy that does not respect the will of the people to keep the centrifugal forces tamed. Pakistan’s armed forces representing the ruling class believe that religion can make the minorities and smaller provinces forget the absence of social justice that keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty and helplessness.

There are enough documents
to prove the Americans were aware of China’s nuclear proliferation.
It is entirely possible that Pakistan handed over tracts of Kashmir to China,
as a payment for China’s assistance with nuclear technology as far back as 1963.

In 70s when Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto launched his campaign to win funds for the nuclearization, he sold the idea to Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Iran as an Islamic project. All these Muslim countries supported the project whole heartedly. Pakistan never faced any shortage of funds as far as her nuclear ambitions were concerned. And therefore it feels obliged to share the technology with other Muslim countries.

Mr Abdul Kadeer Khan,
found reading secret documents in Almelo,
Netherlands’ top-secret gas centrifuge factory, escaped investigation
as he was hurriedly recalled to serve in Pakistan’s Economic Affairs Ministry.

But in 1976,
Dr Khan returned home to head up the nation’s nuclear programme with the support of then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.… revelations that he has passed on nuclear secrets to other countries have shocked and traumatised Pakistan. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has confessed to transferring nuclear technology to Iran and Libya, is regarded as a national hero for helping Pakistan become a nuclear state.

There has always been a tacit understanding that Pakistan’s bomb will be used to regain the glory of Islam and defend the “rights” of the Muslims wherever they are persecuted by infidel powers. This was truly an Islamic bomb. On the one hand it strengthened the autocratic hands of the oligarchy and allowed Pakistan’s armed forces to rehabilitate themselves after the humiliating defeat in 1971 and on the other hand it allowed Pakistan to gain a very profitable position within the Muslim world. It was felt that Pakistan’s nuclear capability served as a morale booster for the entire Islamic world. Foreign Minister of Iran expressed his joy and pride and said that the nuclear test by Pakistan has strengthened the confidence of the Muslim world in the face of the nuclear threat from Israel.

Other Muslim nations were equally proud of Pakistan’s achievement. “No more shall the West humiliate Muslims,” thundered the Imam of Al-Aqsa mosque who saw in the explosion of the Pakistani bomb “the beginning of the resurgence of Islamic power.” Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the leader of the Hamas thought that the Pakistan nuclear bomb was a shot in the arms of the Arabs who had failed to produce even a single tank. The Saudi King Fahd and the Crown Prince Abdullah also expressed their satisfaction over Pakistani detonation of nuclear device and thereby strengthening the defense of the Islamic world. The UAE president too described the Pakistani nuclear response fully justified in the face of serious threats to its security. The Egyptian Mufti called upon the Muslims to rally support for the nuclear blast by Pakistan.

The detonations, which, according to Christian Science Monitor “transformed the global balance of power setting the pace for remaking the world order,” were according to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Nawaz Sharif were the results of an inspiration he derived from the holy book – Quraa’n. After conducting the nuclear tests, he proclaimed to the nation on May 28 that in resolving the dilemma “to explode or not to explode” he ultimately turned to the Holy Quran (Muslim holy book) for guidance and he came upon the divine commandment “always to keep your horses ready.”

The relevant verse of the Holy Quran is as follows:
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, (steed of war will mean the latest war technologies in the present context) to strike terror into (the heart of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others beside whom you do not known but Allah doeth know, whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly” (VIII: 60)

Islamists quote another verse of Quraa’n, to define the faithful and the enemies of Allah, “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah and those who reject Faith (Kafroon) fight in the cause of Evil (Taghoot). The concept of Ummah under which all Muslims are like the parts of one body, does make it an obligation for every Muslim to fight in defense of other Muslims. That’s why the Muslims in Indonesia feel their responsibility to come to the defense of Palestinians. And that’s why it is not a surprise if the ISI and the radical Islamists in the Pakistan armed forces and other sensitive establishments do not feel it inappropriate to help Iran, Libya or Saudi Arabia to attain the nuclear power or other weapons of mass destruction. A prominent political analyst in Pakistan wrote, “. . . the Ummah as a whole must keep itself ready with the state-of-the-art weapons and the latest war technologies and never to relent. And whatever spent on it would be recompensed by Allah.”

They have had recompensation hundred times over from America, in US $$.

Islamists want Muslims to conclude from the verses of the Holy Quran that the nuclear capability acquired by Pakistan should not be deployed only for the defense of Pakistan but also for the defense of the entire Islamic world. It should be used against the Judeo-Christian powers to re-establish the Khilafah. Muslim street is made to understand that the world of Islam has common enemies and they have common ideological frontier to defend. Therefore it will always be justified for Pakistan to share its nuclear secrets with the those who are willing to fight the Judeo-Christian powers.

The fall of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democratic and true Muslim government in Iraq will change all this. The radical Islamism will have a hard time to find governments ready to share their technologies with them to defeat freedoms.

(The writer is editor-in-chief of Pakistan Today, a California-based weekly newspaper, president of Council for Democracy and Tolerance and adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute.)

Read the original text in full here: http://www.paktoday.com/islamic.htm

Can we really rely on the “promises” of Musharraf or whoever succeeds him next,
that the Islamic bombs will never reach the hands of the fundamentalists?
I cannot.

The threat now faces us all, the whole non-islamic world.
Surely the time has come for the world to
dismantle and remove Pakistan’s Nuclear arsenal and all related technology.
There can be no more blind eyes turned, no more wink and a nudge
to get the promise that these nukes will be only used against the Indians.

MusharrafPakistanKashmirIndiahistorynews

… once too often; and has proved his
Pakistan cannot be trusted with human rights, democracy or world peace.

I had written in:

United Suckers of America
You may forget everything else written here or on the referred webpages.
But do remember this, Pakistan is only looking after its own interest.
They can be “with you today, and against you tomorrow”,
call them friends at your own ignorant peril.
Mr Musharraf, called Mr Bush’s bluff,
and has outsmarted him.

Time did come, for Musharraf to balance his books,
and his numbers do not add up.

I hope he has laughed his last laugh.

To hold on to absolute power, he enforced “emergency rule” read Martial Law,
removed his judiciary and thought he was safe.

He thought wrong. He is no longer the darling of the gullible west.
He could not fool all the people any longer. So now,

Musharraf now also referred as a ‘‘terrorist’’!

Pervez Musharraf is a democrat, a visionary, and a loyal ally in the war on terror for the president George Bush but to an ever-widening phalanx of critics, he is a ’’thug, ’’ a ‘ power hungry dictator’’ and now, a ’’terrorist.’’ A California daily has referred to him as a ’’terrorist,’’ attributing the epithet to critics. Many analysts have been pointing his dark side of siding with extremists and fundamentalists at the expense of moderate forces, even as the administration certifies his indispensability in the war on terror.

While US’ penchant for backing despots, have been criticized in the past, seldom has the language descended to this level. In fact, there are almost no takers now for the Bush policy of backing Pakistan’s military ruler. Even those believing that Pakistan’s military is a stabilising force are now concluding that Musharraf has outlived his promises and utility.

Pakistan is today suspended from the Commonwealth.
I hope, that all other world bodies too wakes up to realises the truth.

Blackmailing the West once to often, of their nukes falling into the terroists’ hands.
If at all, he would have handed over the bomb to them himself, gift wrapped
just how the technology was transferred to Iran and Syria.

Hopefully the Islamic Bomb is probably safely out of his reach.
Pakistan can no longer be trusted, their nukes should be taken away,
for the safety of every other world’s nations.

Pak nukes already under US control: Report
20 Nov 2007, 2028 hrs IST,Chidanand Rajghatta ,TNN
WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are already under American control even as analysts are working themselves into a lather on the subject, a well-regarded intelligence journal has said.

In a stunning disclosure certain to stir up things in Washington’s (and in Islamabad and New Delhi’s) strategic community, the journal Stratfor reported on Monday that the “United States delivered a very clear ultimatum to Musharraf in the wake of 9/11: Unless Pakistan allowed US forces to take control of Pakistani nuclear facilities, the United States would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India’s help.”

“This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover up and pretend never happened, and Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet,” the journal, which is widely read among the intelligence community, said.

A desperate general is now threatening a different wolf:

Pak-based militants planning worldwide attacks: Musharraf

ISLAMABAD: 24 Nov 2007, 0000 hrs IST, ANI
President Pervez Musharraf has once again justified his Emergency rule, saying that foreign militants based in Pakistan were planning terrorist attacks around the world.
He said Pakistan had to “get their own house in order” and then show its efforts to the West. “Foreigners are sitting here and are planning terrorism all over the world,” he said in an interactive programme.
“We have caught people who had maps of European countries and targets there. They (the West) are asking us to eliminate these people,” said Musharraf.

Tell us something we do not know, Mr Musharraf.
Pakistan has been the training ground for terrorists for years.

Musharraf was Chief of Army Staff at the time of Mujahideen incursions into India
from Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the summer of 1999.

From May to July 1999,
Indian soldiers fought and died in the Kargil Conflict.
It was planned and executed by Musharraf, then the Army Chief of Staff.
PM Sharif has claimed that Musharraf was solely responsible for the Kargil attacks.
He boasted he would hoist the flag of Pakistan atop the Srinagar Assembly.
Instead his Army was given such a hiding that

Victory in reverse: the great climbdown
So Pakistan’s war leadership did what flowed naturally from its basic instincts: go cap-in-hand to Washington and agree to an extraordinary statement which commits us to undo our Kargil folly

I hold this man responsible, directly or indirectly,
for every single Indian life that has been lost in Kashmir since 1999.

Take away the nukes, stop pouring in $$$ and let Musharraf take his country
back to the stone ages.

MusharrafPakistanKashmirIndiahistorynews

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

It was exactly 60 years ago,
on the 26th October, the princely State of Kashmir was invaded.
On the 27th, the ruler Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession.
By the 28th, Indian troops had landed to stop the invadors and the indiscriminate
looting, rape and plunder.

As is obvious that some Indians are STILL under ILLUSION
that Kashmir may indeed become independent one day.
And lend their “weak voice” in support.
There are some Kashmiris,
who may believe that Pakistan will help them become independent.
The world has been led to believe, Pakistan “morally” supports the Kashmiri
violence in the name of a fight for freedom.

The reality, unfortunately for Kashmiris, is very different,
For there is only ONE reality set out in the UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949.

India, at the time of accession had promised that the future of Kashmir,
as set out in the UNCIP Resolution of August 13, 1948,
would be determined by the will of the Kashmiris.
Even if that meant complete independence.

But by January next year,
Pakistan had that amended to UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949
By which, there never was a third option; no choice for complete independence.

There was only ONE choice for the Kashmiris.
To exercise their “democratic” rights to,
EITHER lose those right in an ISLAMIC and MILITARY DICTATORSHIP
OR retain those rights in a SECULAR and DEMOCRATIC republic
for it was always a myth there would ever be an INDEPENDANT Kashmir

For the Kashmiri HINDUS and BUDDHISTS the choice was even more chilling,
EITHER spend THE rest of their lives
in an ISLAMIC STATE under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.
OR be ETHNICALLY CLEANSED out of their homeland Kashmir.

It has been sixty long years.
And nothing has changed. There is no third option.

KashmirIndiaPakistanpropagandademocracydictatorship

To be continued

]]> http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/10/28/kashmir-myths-therell-be-an-independant-kashmir/feed/ 5 http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/10/21/only-if/ http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/10/21/only-if/#comments Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:26:31 +0000 littleindian http://littleindian.awmyth.net/2007/10/21/only-if/  

[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/only_ifh/blog]

Ms Benazir Bhutto returns to her homeland to meet the powers of destruction.
In an interview with the BBC,

Ms Bhutto said she was lucky to be alive.
“I don’t believe the state or the government was involved in the attack on me at this stage,” she said. “But I do believe that the sympathisers of the militants had managed to infiltrate some of our agencies… to give covert support to the militants.” Ms Bhutto says she has sent President Musharraf the names of three former military officials she accuses of involvement in the attack.

Photo: Washington Post

The truck of Pakistan former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is parked after an explosion in Karachi, Pakistan on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007. Two explosions went off near the vehicle carrying former Pakistan premier Benazir Bhutto, killing or wounding dozens of people. Party workers and police said Bhutto was unhurt. (AP Photo/B.K.Bangash)

It must be painful to see one’s own homeland being destroyed from within.
To have to blame one’s own country’s people for the murder of one’s motherland.

Pakistan was “born” 60 years ago. It didn’t exist before then.
The founding fathers of Pakistan had a clean slate to write on.
The story of Pakistan shapes from that moment.
But somewhere it has all gone wrong.

I only see a series of wrong decisions.
I cannot call it mistakes,
for I am sure they were made convinced they had the best of Pakistan at heart.
But in 1947, no one could have envisaged what the world would be like 60 years on.
If in 1947 the world was in black and white, in the ensuing sixty years it has got all swirled up in shades of greys.
Today there are too many grey areas.

Just the division of the British India itself, was a tragedy.
It led to mass migration of millions, leaving them homeless and penniless.
Death estimated to be around more than half a million.

Both countries came to existence with million paupers born overnight
who needed to be accomodated and looked after.

1956: Pakistan decided to ditch secularity to become Islamic.
The very reason it was formed, to protect “a minority” was lost.
Instead of protecting “any minority”, it chose to make other religions feel alienated.
Every other religion in Pakistan perceived themselves as an unwanted community.
It only weakens the country if their own citizens feel they do not belong.

The letter K in paKistan represent Kashmir.
As early as 1933, the Muslim League created the name Pakistan on an acronym.

Mr Jinnah and his fellow founders, I believe, became obsessed with Kashmir.
They could not accept their new found country without having Kashmir.
The Kashmir conflict led to three wars, and two major confrontations with India.
No other issues. Just Kashmir. And that war never died out. It still goes on.

Whenever the Pakistani military has felt threatened in an internal power struggle,
Kashmir was an issue that could be relied on to stoke up public passion, public support.

Pakistan lost a bigger area of land in the East, but did it stop the country functioning.
It did not cause the country to disintegrate or collapse.
Yet Pakistan could not give up on a smaller piece of land, Kashmir.

Instead of building the infrastructure of their new homeland, improve law and order, health and education, she spent time efforts and more of all a fortune
to fight wars and to strengthen her Military.

This inevitably led to:
Shift of disproportionate power to the Military and not the State.
And in doing so, she lost her democracy.
Yes, some of their politicians were corrupt, and lined their own pockets, but the country had her voice. But they have also had military dictators, has one now, who may or maynot be honest we will never know, but the people of Pakistan have lost their voice.

The race for a nuclear bomb.
Pakistan’s military successfully convinced the government, that to counter India’s “aggression”, Pakistan needed a N-bomb to survive.
India has never showed any aggression towards Pakistan.
India’s N-programme was aimed against China’s N-arsenal against who we had fought a war over disputed territories.
India didn’t need N-deterrent against non-nuclear Pakistan, she needed against China.
No country develops N-bomb, to invade another country for occupation.
No life is known to survive in a radio-active wasteland.

What did it cost Pakistan. To become an ally of China.
1963, Pakistan signed over a tract of Kashmir to China “as a gesture of goodwill”.

A tract of land that did not belong to Pakistan to handover.
No plebiscite was held in that piece of land to determine what its people wanted.
Soon after, Pakistan had a N-programme with China’s help. And America’s knowledge.

Aligning themselves with any state that were India’s enemy, ie China and America.
Once aligned to dishonest superpowers, they were left at the mercy of these States.

If America wanted to fight “commies” in Afghanistan, they had Pakistan’s soil to form its base for a proxy war. Arms were flown in. The country became a military training ground; was flooded with foreign fighters and firearms.

Dollars and support to the Pakistan Military and America had everything they wanted.
The Pakistan military wanted money and weapons, they got what they needed.
Their Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was entrusted to train mujahedins,
and support the Talibans to fight and kill the Soviets…only for being communists.
In turn, the ISI became intensely powerful, the islamic fanatics got arms and weapons.

The Americans turned a blind eye when Pakistan diverted some of that money and weapons to create training camps for militants, to fight their own proxy war in Kashmir.

America invaded a sovereign state to remove a “dictator” and introduce “democracy”. Two countries away, their “biggest ally” has a military dictator.
America has done nothing to bring democracy to Pakistan.

In 1933, when the concept of Pakistan was floated,
had the intelligent men behind it realised 60 years on she would be a military State.
Deeply indebted to China on one hand and America on the other.
Playing the dangerous game of playing one against the other.
Two superpowers, that has traditionally been enemies.

I try to imagine a situation where Kashmir had been allowed to choose for themselves.
No invasion by Pakistani army assisted tribals, no loots or rapes or plunders.
No need for signing an Accession, no need to ask India for military help.
I am certain, Kashmir would have gone for a secular democracy.
The third sibling of our independence.
And a painless birth.

I try and imagine Pakistan and India, instead of fighting wars over Kashmir, spending their resources to build; to give their citizens better life, better living.

I even try to imagine an undivided India.

The mind boggles with the hindsight, with only the ifs without any of the buts.

PakistanKashmirIndiahistorynewsdemocracy

earthPal writes
On fasting and starvation

It reminds me again,
we all live on the same planet, but it could well be different realities.

The worlds needn’t be classified as third or n-th or whatever
The realities doesn’t have to be oceans apart.
It can be next door.

Earthie, today
you bring me back a lot of memories.

I will say one thing, poverty doesn’t make anyone inferior.
Been through it, know how it feels, but we valued life, valued humanity no less.

We held onto our pride and dignity, we helped each other
not having was never an excuse for avoiding sacrifices
never relied on charities or on handouts,
we worked, we survived, we still do.

We live to better ourselves.

MemoriesChildhoodlifepovertydignity

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

THE LAHORE RESOLUTION:

March 1940, Nawab Sir Shah Nawaz Mamdot

The Resolution declared:

“No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.

Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Deshmukh

We pick up the threads from the events after the Quit India movement, i.e. after August 1942.

By 1944, the Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah faced considerable opposition even within the Muslim League. The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to Jinnah, for whose public speeches only a few hundred would turn up now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second time, and this was just three years before August 15, 1947!

On February 19, 1946, when the Labor party was in power in Britain, Prime Minister Atlee sent a delegation comprising of
Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India,
Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade, and
A.V.Alexander, the first Lord of Admiralty.

On May 16, 1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan that had for its parts, a long-term plan toward India’s independence, and a short-term plan for governance of the region till the British completely surrendered power.

Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the long- term plan, but had differences over the short-term plan.

The long-term plan rejected the division of India into two separate sovereign states. Further, it did not provide for the princely states to secede from the union of India.

Statement by the Cabinet Delegation and His Excellency the Viceroy
(as issued in New Delhi on 16 May 1946).
[L/P&J/10/42: ff 53-5]

(Para) 4. It is not intended in this statement to review the voluminous evidence that has been submitted to the Mission; but it is right that we should state that it has shown an almost universal desire, outside the supporters of the Muslim League, for the unity of India.

(Para) 15. We now indicate the nature of a solution which in our view would be just to the essential claims of all parties, and would at the same time be most likely to bring about a stable and practicable form of constitution for All-India.

We recommend that the constitution should take the following basic firm:

(1) There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States, which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications: and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.

(2) The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all the members present and voting.

(3) All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.

(4) The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.

(5) Provinces should be free to form Groups with executives and legislatures, and each Group could determine the Provincial subjects to be taken in common.

(6) The constitutions of the Union and of the Groups should contain a provision whereby any Province could, by a majority vote of its Legislative Assembly, call for a reconsideration of the terms of the constitution after an initial period of 10 years and at 10 yearly intervals thereafter.

Professor Deshmukh contd:

The cabinet mission returned to England on June 29, 1946, happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had accepted the long-term plan.

We now narrate one of the most tragic instances in Indian history and see how ostensibly very minor events can change course of history. In May 1946, the Congress held elections for its next president, at the end of Moulana Azan’s term and Jawaharlal Nehru became the new President. Nehru addressed a press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai, following a meeting of the Congress.

Right until that day, the amputation of India was not on the cards.
The unity of India was not threatened.

To satisfy some congressmen over some of their concerns regarding the cabinet mission’s long term plan, Nehru announced at the press conference that certain aspects of the long-term plan were not resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim that the Congress was pettifogging and haggling and could not be trusted.

Jinnah called upon the Muslim League to demand for Pakistan, rejected the cabinet mission plan, and called for a civil war against the British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946, which he declared as the Direct Action Day. A large number of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were killed in the! violence following Jinnah’s call for direct action.

A copy of a secret report written on 22 August 1946 to the Viceroy Lord Wavell,
from Sir Frederick John Burrows, concerning the Calcutta riots.
[IOR: L/P&J/8/655 f.f. 95, 96-107]

After the Muslim League had retracted its acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s Plan and called for a ‘Direct Action Day’, communal violence broke out.
16-18 August saw the first wave with the ‘Great Calcutta Killing’. Around 4,000 people were killed in Calcutta and many more injured, with around 100,000 made homeless.

This report was written after the event, from the viewpoint of the British Governor of Bengal. There was criticism of Suhrawardy, Chief Minister in charge of the Home Portfolio in Calcutta, for being partisan and of Burrows for not having taken control of the situation.

The troubles then spread to the Noakhali district in East Bengal and to Bihar where approximately 7,000 Muslims were killed. There were also troubles in Bombay and the United Provinces, but little elsewhere. The original report by sir John Burrow was lengthy and laborious containing 10 pages of narratives. The following is an extract…

(Para) 2. The setting. Omitting the more remote causes of the riots – the long struggle for power between Hindus and Muslims, in which Calcutta is a focal point, the weakening of our authority which is an inevitable consequence of our impending departure, the dislocation of the normal life of Calcutta by war and famine, and the presence of a Muslim Ministry in a predominantly Hindu city – the proximate cause was the resolution of the Council of the All-India Muslim League passed at Bombay on July 29th, calling on ‘the Muslim nation to resort to direct action to achieve Pakistan’, and the consequent fixing of August 15th as ‘Direct Action Day’.

Professor Deshmukh contd:<

Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, with the Muslim League having declared defiance, but to invite the Congress alone to form the interim government that would govern till the already approved long-term plan of India’s independence could be implemented. Realizing however that an interim Government without the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and some other Muslim League members to join the short-term interim Government.

The Muslim League members would not cooperate with the Congress on the simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru helplessly out of frustration reconciled with the eventual formation of Pakistan.

 

TERMS OF DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA

Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947, that Britain would transfer power by June 1948, by which time the Congress and the Muslim League were supposed to resolve their differences and accept some plan.

Atlee declared that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then power would be transferred to one or more governments in different regions (as per their divide and quit policy).

Churchill, who had always remained contemptuous of India and Indian people, and had never agreed to surrender power to India, condemned the Atlee government for its resolution to transfer power to India’s politicians who were men of straw, of whom in a few years no trace would remain. The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell, since he was committed to surrendering power to a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as India’s last Viceroy.

Viceroy Wavell (center)

Viceroy Wavell was indeed reluctant to dividing India.
Wavell is generally considered the best Viceroy and Governor General of India, for not only he had done all his homework before he became viceroy, but he is also considered one of those British personalities who touched Indian souls and understood them.

His understanding of the Indian situation and the ignoring of his requests and proposals by Winston Churchill had made him quite frustrated. He was relieved to see Clement Attlee replace Churchill as Prime Minister in July 1945; however, he was unhappy with Attlee’s slowness to make decisions.

He had himself requested several times to be removed from his post, but his requests were turned down by London. However, had Wavell not been there, the communal tension and civic strife could have been prolonged and more bloody. Wavell was against the Partition of India, as he knew this would lead to bloodshed which neither Indians nor the British would be able to control.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

Wavell has reported in his diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan; hence Churchill’s brief to Mountbatten: If the British could not hold India, it was best to divide her.

Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional Advisor to the last three viceroys (Linlithgow, Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission plan would not work and that it would therefore be better to concede to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan.

 

THE MENON MOUNTBATTEN PLAN:

It had now become clear that India would be disintegrated and that the British would withdraw soon. Several small regions sought sovereignty.

It was decided that Atlee’s deadline of June 1948 be advanced to August 15, 1947. V.P. Menon proposed the TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and PAKISTAN plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by Nehru on May 11, 1947.

On June 2, 1947, the Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru, Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by Baldeo Singh on behalf of the Sikhs, and by Jinnah (with a nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League.

Indian Empire 1901: 565 Princely States

Professor Deshmukh contd.

The STATUS OF THE PRINCELY STATES

The British had divided what makes up for the present Bangladesh, India and Pakistan into several segments.
About 40% of this territory came under ‘British India’ over which alone the British Parliament could legislate.
The British Parliament did NOT legislate for the remaining 60% of the territory that was ruled by the princes, the maharajas, and the nizams, and they reported to the Viceroy.
There were nearly six hundred of these princely states. The Indian princely states were left free to decide if they would stay independent or join one of the two countries.

The British Government’s ruling, contained in His Majesty’s Government’s statement of June 3, 1947 was clear: the decision announced about the partition relates only to British India (seven provinces) and that their policy towards the Indian (princely) states remains unchanged .

There was no provision to influence the destiny of the princely states with regard to any communal factor, which was the governing factor for the partition only of British India over which alone did the British Parliament legislate. The future of the nearly six hundred princely states was thus completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be determined by their monarchs.

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.

This is more especially ture when there is just and reasonable alternative to the proposed settlement, which will lay the foundations of a peaceful future for this great continent; and should certainly allow of the highest development of each of these two peoples without one being subject to another. This alternative is a separate Federation of these five predominantly (sic) Muslim units – Punjab, North-West Frontier (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan.

The States of Kalat (Balochistan) and Kashmir, were princely states and never under the legislate of the British Parliament. Their future was not going to be decided by the Partitioning of India. Yet the future rulers of Pakistan, by proclaiming the name “Pakistan” proves that as early as in 1933, they had decided on the future of these states.

Professor Deshmukh contd.

PAKISTAN WAS CONCEIVED AND FORMED AS A MUSLIM STATE
INDIA WAS NOT, BY DEFAULT, FORMED AS A HINDU STATE.

Sardar Patel led a marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared perhaps only with the unification of India by the Mouryas or the Guptas and got most of the princely states to take suitable decisions.

These princely states were encouraged to accede to either Pakistan or to India as per the wishes of their rulers. It was expected, naturally, that the rulers would keep in mind the interests of their subjects. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from India who went to Pakistan, any Government of Jammu and Kashmir, it was obvious, would opt only for accession with India.

Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state. India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state. 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…

Viceroy Wavell’s had concluded his presentation with:

(Para) 24. To the leaders and people of India who now have the opportunity of complete independence we would finally say this. We and our Government and countrymen hoped that it would be possible for the Indian people themselves to agree upon the method of framing the new constitution under which they will live.

Despite the labours which we have shared with the Indian Parties, and the exercise of much patience and goodwill by all, this has not been possible. therefore now lay before you proposals which, after listening to all sides and after much earliest thought, we trust will enable you to attain your independence in the shortest time and with the least danger of internal disturbance and conflict.

These proposals may not, of course, completely satisfy all parties, but you will recognise with us that at this supreme moment in Indian history statesmanship demands mutual accommodation. We ask you to consider the alternative to acceptance of these proposals. After all the efforts which we and the Indian Parties have made together for agreement, we must state that in our view there is small hope of peaceful settlement by agreement of the Indian Parties alone.

The alternative would therefore be a grave danger of violence, chaos, and even civil war. The result and duration of such a disturbance cannot be foreseen; but it is certain that it would be a terrible disaster for many millions of men, women and children. This is a possibility which must be regarded with equal abhorrence by the Indian people, our own countrymen, and the world as a whole.

We therefore lay these proposals before you in the profound hope that they will be accepted and operated by you in the spirit of accommodation and goodwill in which they are offered. We appeal to all who have the future good of India at heart to extend their vision beyond their own community or interest to the interests of the whole four hundred millions of the Indian people.

We certainly got that one historically wrong.

KashmirhistoryIndiaPakistanpropagandahuman rights

To be continued

An update: 08.09.2007
If you have linked here from mutiny.in
to read my views on 123 Agreement, to get my full perspective
you may need to read a few more, if you have the patience…
@ http://wordpress.com/tag/123-agreement/
…and I have not finished with it yet.

when apparently intelligent and educated communities
makes us believe they are experts on
matters as wide ranging as

Nuclear energy and weapons technology
International Nuclear Non-proliferation policy
United States Federal Law- Atomic Energy Act of 1954
United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’.
Every point discussed between the two countries in the last two years.
(123) Agreement for cooperation…concerning peaceful use of Nuclear Energy
America’s foreign policy in the middle east, Iraq war and now war with Iran
America’s dollar hegemony and Iran’s threat to petrodollar

and more qualified than the nuclear scientists and political analysts
in declaring to the nation that there is NOTHING TO FEAR in this Indo-US deal,

India is in deep deep trouble.

India’s “Left” had raised concerns regarding the discrepancies
between the discussions and the final version of the Hyde’s Act and
the lack of clarity or explanation in the final document of the agreement.

These intelligent people, as their main argument in response to the “Left’s” concerns,
convincingly says

How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international deal between US and India?! The 123 agreement is between the US and India. It does not, and cannot, contain any clauses regarding what the US President needs to do for the US Congress. The 123 agreement has no such requirements.

They publish links to the 123 Agreement, but strangely not to the Hyde’s Act,

Even though the full title of the act states:
‘‘Henry J. Hyde United States- India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006’’
In my reckoning, the Act defines US’s expectations of India’s future “coopoeration”.

Click HERE to read the Hyde’s Act in full

They can also say

It is clear from these nine objections of the CPI(M), that either they’re misinformed about the 123 agreement (a fault of the Congress government) or they’re immune to the sensitivities involved in negotiating an international agreement.
Their scholarly stand of nitpicking over clauses of the 123 agreement, picking words and phrases out of context, and misrepresenting them towards irrational conclusions is just a political gimmick.

Should we then, accept that Hyde’s Law is irrelevant in this Indo-US nuclear agreement?

I can only presume the writers are experts in all matters of international agreements.
I make no such claims, so I will rely on documented statements and opinions
of those who I consider are the real experts and/or directly involved.

Let us look at what someone from US State department has to say.

Burns on Bringing India in from the Cold, and Isolating Iran

The Capital Interview: August 2, 2007

Interviewee: R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Interviewer: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor

Does the deal address U.S. concerns that India would support efforts to press Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program?

This is a technical agreement of the type that we’ve done with Japan, Russia, China, and the European Union in the past, so it doesn’t speak to political issues in the text of the agreement.

But apart from that, we have been very actively involved in counseling the Indian government that they should remain with the rest of the international community in arguing to the Iranians that they should not become a nuclear weapons power, number one.

And number two, we hope very much that India will not conclude any long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran.

The Indians, as you know, have voted with us at the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors against Iran on two occasions.

And so I trust the Indians will maintain this policy of not in any way, shape, or form assisting the Iranian government in its nuclear plans, and in giving the right advice to the Iranian government that we would expect any democratic country to give.

And what the Indian nuclear scientists themselves say?

Why Hyde Act of America denies Indian nuclear sovereignty?

Indian Nuclear Scientists and Experts: Aug. 19, 2007

An in depth analysis of
Henry J. Hyde U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006
by Indian nuclear scientists and experts.

1) Full co-operation in civilian nuclear energy has been denied to India:

a) U.S. unwillingness to co-operate in the areas of spent-fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment related to the full nuclear fuel cycle.
b) Denial of the nuclear fuel supply assurances and alternate supply arrangements mutually agreed upon earlier.
c) Limits co-operation in the GNEP programme. India will not be permitted to join as a technology developer but as a recipient state.

 

2) India asked to participate in the international effort on nuclear non-proliferation, with a policy congruent to that of United States.

The Hyde Act envisages (Section-109) India to jointly participate with the U.S. in a programme involving the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to further nuclear non-proliferation goals.
This goes much beyond the IAEA norms and has been unilaterally introduced apparently without the knowledge of the Indian government. In addition, the U.S. President is required to annually report to the congress whether India is fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran for its pursuit of indigenous efforts to develop nuclear capabilities.
These stipulations in the Act and others pertaining to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Australia Group etc. are totally outside the scope of the July 18th Agreement and they constitute intrusion into India’s independent decision making and policy matters. India’s adherence to MTCR is also unnecessarily brought in.

 

3) Impact on our Strategic Defense Programme

In responding to the concerns earlier expressed by us, the Prime Minister stated in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 “we are fully conscious of the changing complexity of the international political system. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of our national security and will remain so, pending the elimination of all nuclear weapons and universal non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament. Our freedom of action with regard to our strategic programmes remains unrestricted. The nuclear agreement will not be allowed to be used as a backdoor method of introducing NPT type restrictions on India.” And yet, this Act totally negates the above assurance of the PM.

In view of the uncertain strategic situation around the globe, we are of the view that India must not directly or indirectly concede our right to conduct future nuclear weapon tests, if these are found necessary to strengthen our minimum deterrence.

In this regard, the Act makes it explicit that if India conducts such tests, the nuclear cooperation will be terminated and we will be required to return all equipment and materials we might have received under this deal.

To avoid any abrupt stoppage of nuclear fuel for reactors, which we may import, India and the U.S. had mutually agreed to certain alternative fuel supply options, which this Act has totally eliminated out of consideration. Thus, any future nuclear test will automatically result in a heavy economic loss to the country because of the inability to continue the operation of all such imported reactors.

Furthermore, the PM had assured the nation that “India is willing to join any non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament.”

But, the Act requires the U.S. to “encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty.”

In his Rajya Sabha address, the PM had said, “Our commitment towards non-discriminatory global nuclear disarmament remains unwavering, in line with the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan. There is no dilution on this count.”

Unfortunately, the Act is totally silent on the U.S. working with India to move towards universal nuclear disarmament, but it eloquently covers all aspects of non-proliferation controls of U.S. priority, into which they want to draw India into committing.

 

In summary, it is obvious that the Hyde Act still retains many of the objectionable clauses in the earlier House and Senate bills on which the Prime Minister had clearly put forth his objections and clarified the Indian position in both Houses of Parliament.

Once this Act is signed into law, all further bilateral agreements with the U.S. will be required to be consistent with this law.

As such, the Government of India may convey these views formally to the U.S. Administration and they should be reflected in the 123 Agreement.

Signatories:
Dr. A.N.Prasad, former Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Dr. H.N. Sethna, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. M.R. Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Placid Rodriguez, former Director, Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, former Chairman & Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited

Fellow Indians, do not trust anyone, please read the documents for yourselves, for
if you do not act now, you are as much to blame, when our sovereignty is sold away.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreementfearmongering

If you can’t get what you want
use exaggerated fear on a constant basis, as a leverage till
you get the opinions and actions of others towards your desired end.
The American’s championed it during the Cold War against the “commies”.

We are suddenly witnessing the same in India,
the “Left” has dared to question the dream charity that America is giving us
and the pro-US Indians, probably with motives purely selfish, are out fear-mongering.

Before our government signs away 40 years of our future, everyone of us
have a right to know what and why, I do not care who asks and for what motives.

These are the queries (as quoted below) that has been raised, by the ridiculed “Left” .
Each of these are legitimate and relevant concerns that every intelligent Indian,
who cares about our country and our sovereign rights, should be now asking.

Let us do away with the hearsay about hearsays and interpretations of biased minds.

N-deal: Left has 9 queries

From Asian Age Archives: By Seema Mustafa : New Delhi, Aug. 6 2007

The nine objections raised by the CPI(M) against the India-US civilian nuclear energy agreement have not been addressed in the 123 agreement.

The Left leaders have been consulting scientists and strategic experts to reach a final position on the 123 agreement at a meeting scheduled to be held here on Tuesday.
Not a single objection raised by the Left has been met, according to strategic experts consulted by this newspaper.

The CPI(M) had issued a statement listing the “explicit departures in the Senate and Congress drafts from the original agreement” signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.

1. The CPI(M) was concerned that the deal required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US; and to secure India’s full and active participation in US efforts to sanction and contain Iran.

Nothing has changed with the 123 agreement. This codifies technical rules of nuclear commerce. It does not supersede the Hyde Act but is a subsidiary arrangement under the Hyde Act read with the US Atomic Energy Act.

The Hyde Act is clear that Indian foreign policy has to remain congruent with the US, on Iran and all other vital issues.

US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns said as much when asked about Iran by the American media. He said the 123 agreement was a technical document, and that the US expected India to follow its policy on Iran.

He even said that he was hopeful that India would not enter into any long-term gas and energy cooperation with Iran, a reference to the gas pipeline.

Despite the 123 agreement, the US President has to annually certify to Congress that India is in full compliance with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

The controversial provision for instituting a “cooperative threat reduction programme” remains.
It has just been re-named by the Hyde Act as “United States-India scientific cooperative nuclear non-proliferation programme”.

2. The deal would not allow full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology, denying India a complete fuel cycle.

India will continued to face an embargo on importing equipment and components related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, even when such activities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and for peaceful purposes. Article 5(2) in the 123 agreement makes this very clear.

3. Steps to be taken by India would be conditional upon and contingent on action taken by the US.

It is clear from the 123 agreement itself that all restrictions are not being lifted. Embargoes are still in place, and the US President is still required to annually certify to the Congress that India is in “full compliance” with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

4. The US will not take the necessary steps to change its laws or align the NSG rules to fulfil the terms of the India-US nuclear deal.

The 123 agreement does not change the requirement of the Hyde Act that the NSG exemption for India be “made by consensus” and be consistent with the rules being framed by the US. The legislation requires the administration to ensure that the NSG exemption for India is no less stringent than the US exemption.

5. The additional protocol referred to in the original agreement would be intrusive and not India-specific.

New Delhi’s agreement with the IAEA will be “India-specific” only in name and would contain only a cosmetic reference to India’s right to take undefined and unenforceable “corrective measures” in all other respects.

The 123 agreement, in its “definitions”, defines well understood terms but not corrective measures. The Hyde Act prescribes for India the highly invasive Model Additional Protocol applicable to non-nuclear weapons states.

One prerequisite to bring the deal into force is that India and the IAEA should have “concluded all legal steps required prior to signature” to enforce inspections “in perpetuity”.

A second prerequisite mentioned in the 123 agreement is for India to make “substantial progress” on concluding an additional protocol with the IAEA.

The Hyde Act defines additional protocol as the one set for non-nuclear states in the 1997 IAEA information circular.

At the press conference announcing the 123 agreement, national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar, did not answer a question on the additional protocol, saying that this would be taken up later.

6. India is placing its facilities in perpetuity while the US President can prevent the transfer to India of equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG, or from any other source.

The 123 agreement offers assured fuel supply only so long as India adheres to the US-prescribed non-proliferation conditions.

The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supply cover only disruption due to market failure, or technical, or logistical, difficulties, but not sanctions arising from India’s non-compliance with non-proliferation conditions.

Both the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act have explicitly stopped New Delhi from lifting safeguards even if the US were to deliberately terminate all supplies.

7. India’s fissile material stockpile will be restricted.

The 123 agreement has not changed this.

The Hyde Act lays emphasis on getting India to cease all fissile material production even before negotiations on an FMCT have begun in Geneva.

The act requires the US President to periodically inform Congress about “steps that the US has taken and will take to encourage India to identify and declare a date by which India would be willing to stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons unilaterally or pursuant to a multilateral moratorium or treaty”.

8. The deal includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors, and not just IAEA safeguards.

US end-use monitoring is reflected in the 123 agreement’s Article 12 (3).

Also, the provision for US fallback safeguards in Article 10 (4) states, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.”

9. The military programme will also be subject to monitoring by the IAEA and the US.

The 123 agreement does not change that requirement in the Hyde Act.

The Hyde Act stipulates, “The President shall keep the appropriate congressional committees fully and currently informed of the fact and implications of any significant nuclear activities of India”, which includes the fissile material produced and the production of nuclear weapons by India.

It also demands annual estimates from the administration about the amount of uranium mined and milled in India, the amount of uranium used or allocated for the production of nuclear explosive devices, and the rate of production in India of both fissile material and nuclear explosive devices.

The legislation seeks to cap, roll back and eliminate India’s nuclear deterrent with the phrase “halt the increase of nuclear weapons arsenals in South Asia, and to promote their reduction and eventual elimination”.

And those of you, who wants us to believe US will protect us from the Chinese, dream on.

AmericaIndiaHyde’s Act123 Agreementfearmongering