my previous article was based on facts
none of my points are fiction
the events of Mumbai is no tolkein fantasy
the chain of events has no definition other than terrorism

the one terrorist caught alive and has confirmed his nationality,
he has given details of his training, the orders he was given and the way he executed it

The hard facts are,
173 people were killed and 308 injured by 10 Pakistani muslims

these are no extras in a film set, they are very real,
killers doped with cocaine and sent to kill innocent indians, british and jews.

regardless of the rights and wrongs it is cannot be disputed that no other religion is in anyway linked to THIS meaningless act of violence but Islam.

I am yet to come across a “moderate muslim” who has accepted these facts of this attack.
not one will hold up their hand and have the honesty to accept the truth.
or admit that it was committed in the name of Islam.

it has been finger pointings elswheres
excuses, after excuses and theories and anecdotes.
this is the primary reason why there will never be an end to terrorist killings by muslims.

This is a response to the comment left on my last post.

A comment by Naj,

While i am fully aware of how fanatics may interpret Quran to promote violence, I disagree with you that Islam IS the root cause of violence. Jihad is the political umbrella which is abused by the war mongers … war mongers, irrespective of religion, capitalize on IDIOCY of those whom they can brainwash …

A few years ago, Indians of one cult brought down an Air India flight carrying Indians of another cult … a few years ago, I saw a documentary by Anand Patwardhan, I don’t remember the film but it was footage from an Indian Nationalist rally, where the speaker was preaching Indian Supremacy, and how they couldn’t wait to take revenge in the “white” men who had subjugated them for so long … he was praising the nuclear achievements and technological advancements of India, professing “revenge” …

Such idiocracy is NOT particular to Muslims … it is universal and it is motivated by shadowy figures who stand to gain in a very material and tangible way from the intangible faith of the idiots …

My article is based on the global concept that Islamic terrorism is a reality.

I first clarify that
1.I did not say Islam is the root cause of all violence, I have said that if it is Islamic terrorism then the root cause of it can only be Islam, NOT poverty.
2. the idiots I refer to in my article are the GW Bushes and G Browns of this world who have created a frankenstein next door to us.

I do not judge the rights and wrongs of any religious extremism, what disgusts me is the lack of honesty to take responsibility. When the Khalistanis brought down the Air India flight, they did not give any fairytale excuses, they honestly admitted their separatist ideology to create Khalistan. If an Indian nationalist is preaching Indian Supremacy – at least he is honest in admitting his supremacist beliefs.

When a muslim or a muslim organisation carries out killings and themselves admits it to be in the name of Islam, I do not see how the rest of the muslim world say it wasn’t? It is this denial from the so called “moderate muslims” that perpetuates these terrorist beliefs and activities.

sorry Naj, i disagree,
the easily identifiable “fanatics” are never the problem,
the real problem is the dishonesty, hypocrisy and gutless cowardice of the “moderates” who persistently deny the existence of verses in Quran that does direct the killing of non-believers.

I do not agree that any muslim can be brainwashed to believe something that is not written in the pages of the Quran. It is a fact that there is the directive for jihad, to kill non-believers in the Quran; I do not see why muslims the world over does not admit it.

and to claim that poverty is the cause of Islamic terrorism, is an absolute myth.

Mr Osama bin Laden

Let us discuss one person whose name has become synonymous with Islamic terrorist movements. Mr Osama bin Laden.

I challenge anyone to convince me that

1. it was poverty that led Mr bin Laden to form a terrorist organisation. on the contrary it is his own $$$ billions he has used to create terror.

2. Mr bin Laden is of subnormal intelligence or literacy to have been brainwashed.
What ever he has achieved, he has achieved because of his firm convictions of the teachings of the Quran.

3. Mr Bin Laden has any need for war mongering.
He has been honest about his ideology, building an islamic caliphate, the ultimate aim of al Qaeda. and his proposed form of struggle for this ultimate aim the global jihad.

I have no problems with anyone initiating his global jihad as long it is honestly admitted that it is in the cause of Islam for the objectives of the movement is clear and others who do not believe in it can take appropriate steps to protect their own rights.

I have written many times, I would trust the words of the extremists, of the Talibans – for they are not scared to say what their aims are and which passages of Quran they follow in their holy fight. I do not trust the “moderate” muslims who will only find excuses.

So please discuss in specific reference to events of 26/11,
Mumbai was not just words – it has led to 173 deaths of civilians.

Can you explain why Pakistan, even after being shown clear proof of terror arising within her boundaries, is so hostile towards accepting the evidence?
If this attack was indeed war mongering by selfish individuals / organisation – why do they not accept the evidence and prove it was the motive of “shadowy figures” for material gain?

The extreme reluctance to accept the evidence and act on it, it signifies only one possibility,
the Pakistani military or its intelligence is/was involved as alleged –
that is state sponsered terrorism on an international scale.

to fight Mr Bin Laden’s mujahideen is not the problem,
the problem was to have the backstabbing pakistani military of Musharraf as an ally in the war.

if “moderate muslims” accepts that islamic terrorism exist,
then please do not cloud the issues with excuses and misleading rhetorics.

if “moderate muslims” believes in and says they too are in the global “war against terror”
then please do not mislead as to who the real enemies are or what their ideals are.

if “moderate muslims” across the globe expects the world to condemn
the invasion of muslim sovereign soil by US or any other nation, then at least be prepared to acknowledge the atrocity of muslims on another sovereign state, you cannot have it both ways.

if “moderate muslims”
deny the very existence of verses of Islamic Laws of Jihad in the Quran,
deny the very existence of Islam based terrorism, then that is a very different discussion,
please do not waste my time debating it here.

but for how long the king,
always the animal deep inside. . . . . hyaenas

and you delude you have won
but for how long
forever?

Who wants to live forever – Queen

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/pC4ZOxpu2rs&rel=1]

There’s no time for us
There’s no place for us
What is this thing that builds our dreams, yet slips away from us

Who wants to live forever . . . . . Who wants to live forever . . . . . ?
Oh

There’s no chance for us
It’s all decided for us
This world has only one sweet moment set aside for us

Who wants to live forever . . . . . Who wants to live forever. . . . . ?
Oh

Who dares to love forever . . . . . Oh, when love must die
But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips

And we can have forever . . . . . And we can love forever. . . . .
Forever is our today

Who wants to live forever. . . . . Who wants to live forever. . . . . ?
Forever is our today. . . . . Who waits forever anyway?

in universal time
the lie which is your life is just a blink
pride, dishonesty and you will soon be rotting to dust for eternity

I was just having a nose around on the beach, like a dog has to.
Picking up smells only a dog can.

And bravely fighting the large pebbles till they rolled off exhausted.

Sniffing sniffing.

A doggie smell there, a puppy smell here.
A fishy smell here, a crabby smell there.

A clump of seaweed.
Fish, I smelt fish. I put my nose in, into the clump, and
it hurt, it hurt. I yelped and yelped, the weed was stuck to my mouth.

I ran to my mummy, and she found something on my lip that was tied to the weed.
She bit the string off with her teeth, just like a dog would do,
and tried to take the thing off my lip, but it hurt.

I ran home with her.
And she took me to the dog doctors.
They tried to give me an jinsecktion on my lip but it hurt and hurt.

So the doctor took me to another room and made me breathe some funny air.
It made me giggly, but I was too much in hurt, and I think I fell asleep.

When I woke up, the thing on my lip was gone.
I felt a lot better and I came home and sat on my chair.

I couldn’t have my afterwalk crunchie munchies, I had antiboytics.
Littleindian didn’t help me today, I don’t know where he went.
He left when night was becoming day, before my food time.
So mummy looked after me, she was upset and crying.

I heard it is called a barbie hoook to catch fish, that someone had left behind.
So I beg all fish catching people, please, please, please
don’t leave hoooky things on the beach,

dogs hurt too.

Marcus – said in Babylon 5

“I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair.
Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?
So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.”

he never had any shoes, yet happily runs around in his bare feet,
walking on dirt and dust and mud, never hurt by the cold pavements

he never can lift a cup or a bowl, he struggles to grasp, to hold,
he gives up to grip with his teeth; he eats on the floor for
he is unable to sit at a table

he never learnt to get his own food,
he never complains of hunger or thirst
he will eat only if I give him food, if I forget, he will suffer the pain in silence,

if I give him a little food, he will pick it up and take it away
to hide somewhere to eat the tiny morsel,
so little yet so precious that he is scared to lose
perhaps a distant memory of losing out to someone bigger or stronger or less generous

he sits beside me, looking at my laptop screen,
I can see his head move, following the movement of the cursor,
that is all he can see, the words and the pictures means
nothing
he will never know
the wonders of electronics, the computer, the internet,

the world around us will perhaps never mean the same to him,
the vastness of the universe
the stars at night, the sky, the sun and the moon,
the wind and the rain, the seasons, the falling leaves
just an existence of living by the minute, no past no future

so many times,
he will look at me, about to say something, wanting to say something,
perhaps a few words forming in his tiny mind, trying so desperately to articulate,
he speaks with his eyes, his words remain unspoken, maybe soon forgotten
only if I knew what goes on in that little mind,

I have everything I want, and certainly more than I need
and so I will take it all for granted, my little companion
will never be able to share with me
my world, my reality

Sorry Ruffyboy. Life is unfair.

Rufflifethoughtshumanity

But we all have learn’t what each and one of us wants.
We have learn’t how to get those wants, at all costs, at any cost.
And only a single lifetime to chase after it, and still never have enough.

So give me a reason why we should worry about our planet?
Why should we make time to care for our environment?
What is it worth anyway?

It has always been there,
we didn’t ask for it, we didn’t have to pay for it,
we didn’t have to fight for it, we didn’t have to suffer not having it.
Yet.

How long will I be here, what is a lifespan compared to the eternity?
So why should I bother? The environment is melting down,
I will be gone before it turns too hostile to support life.

Someday, oneday, we will all have to die, won’t we?
The dreams we had, most will stay unfulfilled
the ambitions we had may stay unachieved
desires we had, not all fulfilled,
promises broken, perhaps
or unkept.

Just like those
unfulfilled dreams and desires, and unachieved ambitions
we will leave behind a half scorched planet, dying in an environment
so evil with the poisons that we have generously filled it over the years.

I know, for every one of us who will today promise to save our planet
there will be hundreds if not thousands who will not, or
many whose promise will be empty and worthless.

So why should I join a battle, that has already been lost?

There are very good teachers,
then there are the brilliant teachers, but are there ever the perfect teachers?

I consider this man was my perfect teacher.

Prof P K Mukherji, or Piklu as he was known (outside earshot) affectionately.
Then the Professor Director of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Calcutta

A god fearing man, never did an honest days’ private practice
instead devoted his life to the State Health Service.

I bucked the trend and opted to do my residency under him.
He was hard to please, less than complete was never good enough.
My colleagues went on to have easier lives under conventional teachers.
I ‘suffered’ his supervision for nearly five years but have never regretted it.

A true “general” surgeon in the traditions of old, fearless,
would operate on anything outside the skull and the chest.
He was an exceptionally intelligent man, if I had a problem case,
I could almost hear the cogwheels clicking inside his brain.

For that many years, between us, it was a battle of wits,
he never asked a direct question, just set me little challenges to solve.
And then like in a game of chess I had to find out what he would set me next.

On a ward round once,
he stopped in front of a patient,
she was sitting on the bed, feet peeping out from under her sari.
His eagle eyes had spotted her slightly short 4th toes on both her feet,
he asked the lady to show us her hands, she had shortened ring fingers;
he remarked on the deformities, we, the ignorants, agreed it was funny.
She wasn’t our patient, so it wasn’t our problem;
we carried on with the round.
Carried on with our lives.

Few years later, I was studying for my exit exams, and I read of a syndrome,
an anomaly that gave the patient shortened 4th toes and ring fingers.

I sat numbed.
It was late afternoon. All consultants would have left by then.
I went looking for him and found him in his office in an empty operating theatre.
He was reading some surgical textbook.

I told him what I had read, and reminded him of that patient.
He looked into my eyes, as if for the first time, he really noticed me,
he said he had been waiting to see how long it would take me to find it out.
He said, he was there to teach me, but it was my responsibility to learn from him.

In his own way, he had set me a task and for months had not forgotten,
everyday he had waited for me to find out the answer by myself.
It was a strange way, but the only way he could teach.
And above all, he taught me how to think.

Sometimes a teacher and a student interact to bring out the best in each other.
That makes the teacher perfect for that student.

Maybe, just for me he was the perfect teacher.

Today, I have been invited to teach at a local university.
I do not want to be just another teacher,
I want be a teacher from who
students can really learn.

TeachingLearningLifeCalcutta Medical CollegeCalcutta

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

10 Downing Street

HistoryMahatma GandhiHuman rightslife

so that others may get their basic human rights?
and can speak without fear?

Monday, October 1, 2007
By LEELA JACINTO and JULIEN PAIN

PARIS, Oct. 1 — Floating face down in a filthy pool of water, a tangled strip of saffron cloth – the distinctive garb a Buddhist monk – still clinging to his neck, the images are a gruesome reminder of the brutality of last week’s military crackdown on Burmese protesters.

The graphic video of what appears to be a dead monk was filmed Sunday in the Pazondaung area of the Burmese city of Rangoon, according to the Democratic Voice of Burma, an Oslo-based opposition group. It is not known when the monk died.

born into a democratic society, the freedoms of thoughts and expression as birthrights
we take our rights for granted, we will never know what life is like without…

there are some people on earth who can only dream of that freedom,
and are prepared to give up their lives to get their basic rights,
to have the voice; to have a say about life and nation.

We are born with our human rights,
and no one, nobody should be allowed to take it away from us.

[Photograph from: France24.com]

NewslifeHuman rightsBurma

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

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

In my daydreams I have been freddie mercury.
If ever, in some other plane of existence my freed soul is asked,
what I would like to return as, to live another life, I would say without hesitation -
Freddie Mercury.
this is why.

the show must go on – Queen

[digg=http://digg.com/music/on_with_the_show_2/blog]

[audio=http://awmyth.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/16-the-show-must-go-on.mp3]

Empty spaces – what are we living for
Abandoned places – I guess we know the score
On and on, does anybody know what we are looking for…

Another hero, another mindless crime
Behind the curtain, in the pantomime
Hold the line, does anybody want to take it anymore

The show must go on, the show must go on
Inside my heart is breaking, my make-up may be flaking
But my smile still stays on.

Whatever happens, I’ll leave it all to chance
Another heartache, another failed romance
On and on, does anybody know what we are living for?

I guess I’m learning, I must be warmer now
I’ll soon be turning, round the corner now
Outside the dawn is breaking, but inside in the dark

I’m aching to be free

My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies
Fairytales of yesterday will grow but never die
I can fly – my friends

The show must go on, the show must go on
I’ll face it with a grin, I’m never giving in
On – with the show -

I’ll top the bill, I’ll overkill, I have to find the will to carry on
On with the – On with the show – The show must go on…
on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go

The Album: The Show Must Go On was released six weeks before Freddies death.

lyricsQueenfreddie mercurylifedreams

It hasn’t been easy travelling alone
looking for the right way at
every crossroads and every bend, I had learn’t
the easy road was only for the fortunates, not for me.
Did I drift from my intended course? Oh so many times,
to pick it up again further on, lost it to pick it up again.

Never was an option to stop, or turn back.
So now I find I have reached a field
where battle lines have been drawn.
I have been advised to cut and run,
how can I? I have never done it before. So I win or I lose,
I will have no regrets. I have been pushed down, but I refused to bow or kneel.

So today, as I listen to Mr Frank Sinatra, I am glad, I could do it all in my own way.

My Way

And now, the end is near; And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I’ll say it clear, I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain.

I’ve lived a life that’s full. I’ve traveled each and ev’ry highway;
But more, much more than this, I did it my way.

Regrets, I’ve had a few; But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do And saw it through without exemption.

I planned each charted course; Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this, I did it my way.

Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt, I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall; And did it my way.

I’ve loved, I’ve laughed and cried. I’ve had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing.

To think I did all that; And may I say – not in a shy way,
“No, oh no not me, I did it my way”.

For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels; And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows – And did it my way!

Writers: Revaux/Francois/Anka

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

After 60 years of independance
and one border war with China (1962),
and after three wars (1947, 1965, 1971) with Pakistan
and two major incursion battles (Siachen 1984, Kargil 1991) later,

suddenly America is now India’s friend.

For America is bending rules to supply N-fuel to India.

Reading many articles and commenting on three blogs later,
Ambassador Ronnen Sen….
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: criticism addressed
123 Nuclear Deal, the Left and yet another mess, I feel uneasy.

I accept, India needs “energy” and lots of it, to develop, but so does every nation.
I also accept Nuclear Energy is “green” leaving zero carbon footprints.

To decide if N-Energy is the best option for India’s future is for the experts.
But as citizens of a democratic country, we all have a say in how India proceeds.

India has two nuclear states as neighbours, with unresolved border issues and threats.
India, a sovereign state, has every right to defend her border in the best possible way.
Jawaharlal Nehru, is quoted to have said, in 1946,

As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal.

How can we have forgotten within forty years, that in the 1971 War,
Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan through Jordan and Iran! in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, and encouraged China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

An aware America that stayed silent when China helped Pakistan to build N-weapons.

Without our own nuclear arsenal
I stay convinced the South Asian geography today would well have been very different.

I have so far learnt, this is the nuclear world order, as it stands today:

The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

was opened for signature in 1968, and has been in force since 1970.
A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty so far, including the five nuclear-weapon States

Status: Entered into force on 5 March 1970. On 11 May 1995, it was decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely.

It is a multilateral treaty with the objective to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to try to achieve nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

The (NPT) granted non-nuclear-weapon states access to nuclear materials and technology for peaceful purposes as long as they committed not to develop nuclear weapons.

The Treaty also represents the ONLY binding commitment by the nuclear-weapon States at the multilateral level to the goal of nuclear disarmament.

To ensure the goal of non-proliferation and to build confidence between States parties, the Treaty created a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The International Atomic Energy Agency.

was set up in 1957, the Agency works with its 144 Member States (03/2007) and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.
It is an independent international organization regulated by a special agreement by the UN. The IAEA reports annually to the UN General Assembly and, when appropriate, to the Security Council regarding all matters relating to international peace and security.

India has been a member since 1957.

The Nuclear Exporters Committee

Knowing that materials and technologies used in peaceful nuclear programs could also be used to develop weapons, several NPT tried to clarify in relation to the treaty under what conditions and what specific equipment and materials and could be shared with non-nuclear-weapon states.

They formed the Zangger Committee in 1971 to require states outside the NPT to institute IAEA safeguards before being allowed imports of certain items that could be directly used to pursue nuclear weapons. These items were collectively referred to as the “Trigger List.”

It was India’s explosion of a nuclear device in 1974, that reconfirmed the fact that nuclear materials and technologies acquired for peaceful purposes could be diverted to build weapons. In response to India’s action, several Zangger Committee members joined up with France to establish the NSG to further regulate nuclear-related exports.

The NSG added technologies for control to the original Zangger Committee’s “Trigger List.” This became Part I of the NSG Guidelines.

NSG members also agreed to apply their trade restrictions to all states, not just those outside the NPT.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

The 45 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that have voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.

Members can be any state that conducts exports appearing on the Guidelines may apply for NSG membership.

They are evaluated on their proliferation record, and adherence to international nonproliferation treaties and agreements, and national export controls.

There are several countries with nuclear programs outside the NSG, most notably India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

was adopted on 10 September 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly and opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

Status: Not yet in force, it will enter into force after 44 States have ratified it.

This treaty would ban the signatory states
1. undertaking “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control” 2. to “refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”.

The US Atomic Energy Act of 1954

America’s export of nuclear material is governed by this US Federal law, of which the Section 123: Co-operation With Other Nations in its present form stops US from negotiating this trade deal with India.

The United States is now willing to provide India access to civilian nuclear technology through the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act 2006.

This is despite India not being a signatory to either the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), this prohibits the sale of any form of nuclear material or know how to India by any country of the NSG.

So why should I welcome this new found friendship with open arms?

Is it ONLY in the name of improved trade
or continuous supply of cheap and or clean energy?
Surely that would be better served by signing upto the NPT. Trade with anyone.

If YES, then I ask are we still to continue our military nuclear programme?
And if YES are we promising never to divert even a ‘grain’ of material imported to it?

If NO, is America, a member of NPT, IAEA and NSG knowingly flounting all the rules.

My priorities can only lie in the best interests of
India
the present World order,
the earth and her environment, … but it should not be with America’s.

What is the motive? Where is the catch?
I ask why is America suddenly so friendly and generous? I still feel uneasy.

AmericaIndiaNuclear BombtradeNon N-proliferation

Yesterday I was pleasantly surprised to receive a comment on my blog,
“backwhen to – Khecheopalri Lake”.

Blogger Nidhee Kekre
had been to Sikkim in May 2007, and sent me a photograph of the Lake.

I am happy to see
that the lake has shrugged off
recent constructions on its shores,
the monastery and the tourist facilities like the superficial scars of surface wounds.

I am really happy to realise that
Himalayas, beautiful in her magnitude,
will always stay untouched, unrippled and proud in her quiet tranquillity.

This photograph captures the sombre beauty of the lake, exactly as I remember it.

Click on photograph to enlarge

And just when you think you have seen all the beauty of Himalayas
reflected from within the lake…

I ask you to look to the north
for if you are as lucky as Nidhee was, you may see Kanchenjunga,
her sharp ridges etched by the sun against the blueness of her companion, the sky.

This is simply an amazing photograph, I have no choice but to share with you all.

Click on photograph to enlarge

Mount Kanchenjunga

“The five treasures of snow” which at 28,169 ft
is the tallest peak in India, second in Nepal and the third highest peak in the world.

First climbed on May 25, 1955 by George Band and Joe Brown of a British expedition
who, out of respect for Sikkimese religious beliefs did not step on the peak.
Successful summiters have followed the tradition since
the peak has stayed untrodden by human feet.

Twice, bad weather stopped me reaching its base,
to be able to sit by the Samity Lake
or just look up up up and up at the towering massif of Kanchenjunga.

Who knows maybe some day I will.

Thanks Nidhee for the photos, a joy of blogging I guess, is to be able to share.

HimalayasSikkimIndiamemoriesKhecheopalri LakeKanchenjunga

update kashmir myths – there is no objective information:

This is someone I had presumed was
an university student
well informed
educated.
How wrong was I?
Please read his blog to judge for yourself.
http://viewfrombeneath.blogspot.com/2007/08/open-letter-to-one-mr-pawan.html

Unable to draw me down to his level of intelligence
he tries to correct my grammer and in the
process showing his own ignorance.

He writes:

“…however an exception and that would be the self-righteous jackass (really hurts you when I call you that, doesn’t it?) that is little indian. There is no jesting with someone as screwy as you…”

“What does that moron have, minus pig-headed self-righteousness and atrocious grammar?”

“…but some of us like to question and dig for answers, as opposed to buying second hand views from a second hand guy wearing second hand shoes (I can only assume)…”

He then proceeds to quote my text in his attempt to mock my knowledge of English.
He writes,

” Oh yeah, so that you don’t get confused, the red annotations are mine, Pawan:”,

Instead of fouling (I believe it’s “befouling” and it would be tough to do that after you’ve done such a great job of it yourself) my blogspage, please use your ownsite with whatever you wish to say; or anything against my writing

and so obligingly highlights his own ignorance with red fonts.

Unfortunately for him,
the dictionaries do not agree.
There is such a word, and its usage has been correct.

When a writer ignores the topic of discussion
to resorts to hopeless wit and nauseating sarcasm
or starts to look for mistakes in grammer the debate is truly over.

[Fear not, if the writer changes his words and text, I have screenshots of his articles]

On a September,
way back in the when
Three college friends and I,
on an impulsively adventurous mood
decided to walk in the mighty Himalayas,
breathe in the free fresh mountain breeze,
see the breathtaking views, do all those sort of wildy things.

This was from way back,
before trekking became ‘cool’.
Were we prepared? Of course we weren’t.
And did we care, no we didn’t. We were young,
the world was waiting; to boldy go, to seek, to explore.
We borrowed kits and garb that would make any museum proud,
and one morning with our vintage rucksacks slung across our back, we were off,
secure with a hand drawn map, an interpretation of someone’s travel log from years ago.

Out of breath, sweaty, thirsty, stiff with pain,
cursing ourselves for self inflicted torture, we soon lost our way.
There was no one to ask; to backtrack would have been back breaking
We plodded on and ended up miles away from where we should have been.
We were rewarded for our ‘misguided’ efforts with an amazing circular rainbow.
Was near day’s end, we ended up beside a lake, a lake like we had never seen before.

The water was dark, serenely quiet, unrippled and clearer than crystal.
It was almost completely hidden from view by a forest of mature trees.
There were no other soul around, the silence was palpable with fingertips.
There was a tiny wooden hut, about twenty yards from the nearest bank,
with couple of tree trunks laid across the marshy edge to gingerly walk across.

We had heard about the lake from the local people at the start of the journey.

Khecheopalri Lake:

aka Khechiperi Lake (the wishing lake);
West Sikkim district of the Indian state of Sikkim.
It is situated amidst an untouched forest at an altitude of approx. 5600ft. It is a holy lake to both the Buddhists and the Hindus of the region and beyond. It was said that wish made at the monastery on the lake side, would have it come true.

The clear lake water is used for rites and rituals only, and the water is kept clean around the year by the waterbirds, that pick up any leaves that falls into the lake. A fair at Khecheopalri lake takes place during the month of March every year, when a large number of local pilgrims visit the lake and the monastery, “Butter Lamp Festival” involves floating of butter lamps on the lake.

That tiny little hut was the gumpha! a buddhist monastery.
On a tiny pedestal sat an even tinier image of Buddha, peaceful in his loneliness.
A dhoop was burning; someone had left a few dhoops with a packet of matchsticks.
We lit a dhoop and made our wishes; (I try to remember, what could I have wished for?)
We stayed there for a while, lost in our thoughts, reluctant to disturb the silence
before moving on to find a place to camp for the night.

At some point during that trip I had fallen in love with the Himalayas,
returning to her, whenever I had time (and money that could only buy shoestrings)
but I have been to some amazing beautiful places, where very few people had ever been.
I had to leave behind my beautiful Himalayas, and came away with just the memories
of the places I loved to visit for peace, to escape from the city.

I read today,

ENVIS Centre Sikkim on Eco-tourism
The influx of tourists (to the Khecheopalri Lake) is high with visible impact of disturbance on the lake and its watershed. Beside visitors, there are 72 households and 440 people are now living near it and exploit the natural resources of the lake watershed by extraction of fuel, fodder and timber and by livestock grazing.

National Geographic
You can do both (eat and stay) at the Khecheopalri Trekkers Hut, Located 656 feet (200 meters) from Khecheopalri Lake. Which has cheap dorm beds and private rooms (with communal bathrooms) that are clean and comfortable.
The owners are helpful, and meals are available. A few simple snack stalls line the lake itself.

The tiny gumpha and its rickety walkway is gone, we now have
a majestic monastery, with prayerflags and wheels and a ‘boardwalk’!
a Trekker’s hut only a stone’s throwaway, snack stalls lining the lake’s shores.

Probably that ethereal peace that we had experienced is also gone; lost forever.

It is said, time heals everything, but Time also destroys.
It is destroying the Himalayas as I once knew, scarring her forever.
Tourism has touched all my favourite places, and changed them beyond recognition.
Organised treks have made the inaccessable easy to trample upon, to dig, tear or burn.

I consider myself lucky to have seen the Himalayas beautiful in an untouched desolation.

HimalayasSikkimIndiamemoriestourismenvironment

[digg=http://digg.com/offbeat_news/where_is_home/blog]

A blogger has asked.

Where is my home?
I ask myself, is it where my heart yearns to be?

Anyone living abroad, who has friends and family in their country of origin,
is bound to be asked, “Why don’t you come back home”?

My Ma would ask me that many times,
always with a smile,
a sad sad smile,
she knew very well I couldn’t;
I am an economic migrant, now in the rich ‘West’.
I have been supporting my family with my ‘foreign’ earnings,
it would have been near impossible if I was still living and earning in India.

That didn’t stop her from calling me back, to return back to her.
It probably was an instinctive call, I will never ever know.
I prayed she would be alive if or when I eventually did.
She could not wait, she did not give me that chance.
How deep was her sorrow behind her wistful smiles?
I will never know that either.

As long as my Ma was alive, home could be nowhere other than India.
I thought with her gone and that intense tie broken, I wouldn’t feel the same.
I was so wrong, I can think of no other place to call home.

My home is not a place, it is people…writes Lois McMaster Bujold, in “Barrayar“.

I am an Indian (as if you all need to be reminded)
I do not think it is possible of becoming into something else.
Many (not all) fellow countryperson I know, have no such hang-ups.
Some even believe they have evolved into a special being on arrival to the West;
feel they are superior to the ordinary folks left back in the homeland;
they are worthy of respect just by their status of being
an “Indian abroad”.

Everything in India
is soon considered
nasty
intolerable,
unbearable
memories are allowed to fade or deliberately erased,
links with family becomes infrequent, a phone call in weeks,
a visit out of a reluctant sense of duty, maybe once in three, four or five years.

Then one day they will no longer be Indians
sooner in their minds than on pages of their passports.
Their roots could not get any further than the distant galaxies.

It not the lack of ‘milk and honey’
that will stop them from returning, that is said
to mask a fear of regression into an ordinary existence
an Indian in India, there is no special ring to it.

I agree,
the physical distance
doesn’t mean anything,
distance is purely in the psyche,
one can be close by, but still aeons away,
another maybe in a far distance, but still very near.

Regardless of how far or near I may be,
I will always know where my home is.

Even if light years away, it is the desire to be with one’s own kind, that defines home.

thoughtslifehomeIndiaKolkata

I have been awarded by Clapso.

My first thought was,
there must be a mistake.
That biceps is twice the size of my quads.
No way can I be as powerful as a schmooze.

Then I read Clapso’s description of a Schmooze, and was a bit reassured.

One of the cool things about the “power of schmooze” award is it’s definition.
It recognizes bloggers that take part in the community aspect of blogging.
Those that answer comments posted on their blog and also comment on the blogs of others as opposed to those that just post and forget.

But I decided to explore even further and read nytexan’s definition at Blueblogging:

Schmoozing is the natural ability “to converse casually, especially in order to gain an advantage or make a social connection.”
Good schmoozers effortlessly weave their way in and out of the blogosphere, leaving friendly trails and smiles, happily making new friends along the way.
They don’t limit their visits to only the rich and successful, but spend some time to say hello to new blogs as well.

And decided I can do ‘schmooze’. A bit.
I can weave my way in and out of the blogosphere,
though not always leaving friendly trails and smiles, for I have ruffled many a feathers.

So thanks Clapso, for the recognition, now I have to live up to it.

I am to choose five schmoozees.
I think back of my first few weeks as a blogger and
those who greeted me with friendly smiles and encouragements.
I realise many of them have since stopped blogging,
or become engrossed with their own missions.
1 loneranger,
Inel,
dissident,
icanplainlysee
are amongst the few.
I cannot award it to Clapso;
he would become handicapped with TWO right arms.

So I have only two bloggers to pass this award on to.

earthPal
A true friend of Mother Earth.
She had my page on her blogroll, even before I found her’s.
I found her page, by back tracking the path of a few visitors.
She had been visiting my blog well before she first left a comment.
But since has been a true pal, and I can rely on her for honest feed backs.

bendtherulz
One of my first visitors, and now a blogging friend.
A lover of mountains, and all sports wild and frightening; a rulzbender.
She is a fellow friend of the Himalayas, and is lucky to be so near to them.
She may not write much, her photographs speaks out her thoughts and words.
I re-live my memories of my exploits in the Himalayas through her blogs of her escapades.

They have encouraged me to continue when
after a few initial spats with some bloggers, I had felt like giving up.
I will be gutted if I lost feedbacks from these two bloggers.
So I have decided to award the biiiiiiig muscle award er,
the Power of Schmooze award to my two friends.