Monday, May 27, 2013
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY IN KASHMIR -SOME PICTURES AND PRESS CUTTINGSDIVERSITY-USA(A NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK ON MINORITY ISSUES)3143 Gilbert Ave., Roseburg, OR (USA)Phone & Fax 1-541-957-8414J&K AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIANO DIALOGUE WITH PAKISTAN ON KASHMIRPLEBISCITE NEHRU'S PERSONAL IDEA NOT INDIA'S PROMISEWE ARE READY TO WAGE WAR AGAINST PAK. TO LIBERATE PoKDr. Subramanian Swamy in KashmirFor the first time after Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was killed in a Kashmir jail during Sheikh Abdullah's reign an Indian stalwart confronted the nation particularly the people of Kashmir last week in a straight talk with the reality of the Kashmir situation. Thus boldly advised Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party, the people of Kashmir that they should forget about Pakistan and live like true Indians. Disregarding the presence of terrorist, separatist, Islamist and militants and trouble makers Dr. Swamy declared that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that reality will never change.Kashmir problem is Jawaharlal Nehru's special gift to India but it won't be allowed to change the ever lasting relationship between Srinagar and New Delhi declared Dr. Subramanian Swamy, addressing a crowded press conference in Srinagar.NO COMPROMISE ON KASHMIR:Dr. Sway advised Kashmiris to forget about Pakistan and live like true Indians. India will stay here for ever since historically Kashmir is an integral part of India. Even during the modern times the accession of the state with the rest of the country ratified this irrefutable fact. Under no circumstances will India compromise on Kashmir he assured his audience.WE ARE READY TO WAGE WAR TO LIBERATE POK:Without mincing words he told the nation that Kashmir is India and we have every intention of taking back the Pakistan occupied part of Kashmir as that occupation has been illegal from day one. To achieve that goal we are ready to wage a war against Pakistan the Janata Party chief said.Dr. Swamy declared that NDA will form the next government in the country and the Janata Party will be an ally of that Govt. " We will ask the NDA Govt. to reconsider its policy on Kashmir".NO TALKS WITH PAK. ON KASHMIR:What Nehru and Vajpayee did about Kashmir is history. From now on there will be no talks on Kashmir with Pakistan.Kashmir is not a dispute so there should be no talks on it. It is only a question of removing the illegal occupation by a neighboring state which does not know how to maintain good neighborly relations with us.Kashmir is a part of India and of all the people Kashmiris should understand it well without any misgivings. Those who tell you otherwise are misleading you.NEHRU TOOK KASHMIR TO UN WITHOUT AUTHORITY:PLEBISCITE NEHRU'S IDEA NOT INDIA'S PROMISE:Acting unilaterally, even without taking the Indian Cabinet in to confidence, Jawaharlal Nehru took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations where plebiscite was born. So those people seeking plebiscite should contact Nehru not India for this purpose.Swamy however, favored dialogue with China saying that talks between India and China involved border dispute and not Kashmir issue.He told Pakistan to take care of its own provinces such as Baluchistan and stop interfering in the internal affairs of India.He asked the people of Kashmir to compare the progress made in J&K as against the PoK which was forcibly occupied by Islamabad. That should open your eyes and expose the reality of Pakistan.Some of the headlines in the coverage of Dr. Swamy's straight talk in the English and vernacular media of Kashmir included:KASHMIR IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INDIAACCESSION OF J&K WITH INDIA IS FULL AND FINALNEHRU NEVER DISCUSSED THE PLEBISCITE ISSUE IN THE INDIAN CABINET. IT SIMPLY WAS HIS PERSONAL IDEA AND NOT A PROMISE BY INDIAJ&K AND PoK ARE INTEGRAL PART OF INDIAINDIA SHOULD NOT HAVE NAY DIALOGUE WITH PAKISTAN ON KASHMIRIN TIMES OF PEACE JANATA PARTY THREATENS ALL OUT WAR WITH PAKISTANNO DIALOGUE WITH PAKISTAN BUT WARSome of the cuttings of Dr. Swamy's coverage in Kashmir are forwarded with this item for your perusal.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
A very popular TV news media is funded by Gospels of Charity in Spain Supports Communism. Recently it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistan because Pakistan President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan. Indian CEO Prannoy Roy is co-brother of Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist party of India. His wife and Brinda Karat are sisters.
Which used to be the only national weekly which supported BJP is now bought by NDTV!! Since then the tone has changed drastically and turned into Hindu bashing.
This is 100 percent funded by Southern Baptist Church with its branches in all over the world with HQ in US.. The Church annually allocates $800 million for promotion of its channel. Its Indian head is Rajdeep Sardesai and his wife Sagarika Ghosh.
Times Of India, Mid-Day, Nav-Bharth Times, Femina, Filmfare, Vijaya Karnataka, Times now (24- hour news channel) and many more...
Times Group is owned by Bennett & Coleman. 'World Christian Council does 80 percent of the Funding, and an Englishman and an Italian equally share balance 20 percent. The Italian Robertio Mindo is a close relative of Sonia Gandhi.
It is run by an Australian, who is supported by St. Peters Pontifical Church Melbourne.
Owned by Birla Group, but hands have changed since Shobana Bhartiya took over. Presently it is working in Collaboration with Times Group.
English daily, started over 125 years has been recently taken over by Joshua Society, Berne, Switzerland. N. Ram's wife is a Swiss national.
Divided into two groups. The Indian Express and the New Indian Express (southern edition) ACTS Christian Ministries have major stake in the Indian Express and latter is still with the Indian counterpart.
It is controlled by Communist Party of India.
Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle
Is owned by a Saudi Arabian Company with its chief Editor M.J. Akbar. Gujarat riots which took place in 2002 where Hindus were burnt alive. Rajdeep Sardesai and Bharkha Dutt working for NDTV at that time got around 5 Million Dollars from Saudi Arabia to cover only Muslim victims, which they did very faithfully... Not a single Hindu family was interviewed or shown on TV whose near and dear ones had been burnt alive, it is reported.
Tarun Tejpal of Tehelka.com
Gets regular blank cheques from Arab countries to target BJP and Hindus only, it is said. The ownership explains the control of media in India by foreigners. The result is obvious.
Friday, May 17, 2013
You are receiving this email because a friend has sent you a message from Roxwel.com.
If for some reason, you no longer would like to receive emails from Roxwel.com, send a blank email to:
Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal's op-ed on how the Indian foreign minister is lending China a helping hand-
While diplomacy is important it is vital that India does not bow to the dragon
"Why this reluctance to address the root of the problem and easy satisfaction that the immediate problem has gone away?"
"All these statements imply that India can live with Chinese border intrusions, that they convey no political message to India, that the public anguish at home can be disregarded as exaggerated, and that such incursions will not be allowed to disrupt the growing relationship with China so long as they get resolved through established mechanisms in time for high level visits."
"India is being constrained to adjust itself to the realities on the ground that are to its disadvantage.
The talk of a new "defence cooperation agreement" on the border serves this Chinese objective that it has apparently sought to advance by the Ladakh intrusion."
By Kanwal Sibal
PUBLISHED: 23:04 GMT, 13 May 2013 | UPDATED: 23:04 GMT, 13 May 2013
Our statements on the recent India-China face-off in Ladakh continue to confound.
One would have thought that we would have analysed the incident in depth, tried to figure out China's motivations in staging it just before external affairs minister Salman Khurshid's visit to China and that of Chinese Premier Le Keqiang's to India, and examined if it was another instance of Beijing's increased assertiveness on territorial issues rather than a reaction to any specific activity by India.
The several flag meetings with the Chinese military, the diplomatic demarches made at the foreign secretary/ambassadorial level, and the close consultations between diplomats in charge of the new joint border management mechanism would normally have given us some clues.
On his recent visit to China external affairs minister Salman Khurshid (left) met with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (right) in Beijing and insisted he was not looking to 'apportion blame' over the Ladakh border dispute
The preparatory work for our minister's Beijing visit should have involved a comprehensive internal analysis of why the Ladakh face-off occurred and produced a brief for frank discussions with the Chinese leadership on the subject.
But the government's handling of the issue has been curiously different.
On arrival at Beijing Khurshid, astonishingly, told the Indian journalists that it was not clear why the incident happened and that the Chinese "were not offering us that background and we were not looking for (it)",
adding gratuitously that "actually, we are not even ready with our own analysis", suggesting he came unprepared on this vital agenda point.
In talking to Chinese journalists he implied that the need was not to end such incidents altogether but resolve them "much quicker".
Oddly, he thought it was "not very helpful at this stage to apportion blame between them and us (as) it will only take away from the sense of relief and satisfaction that it was resolved in time".
According to him, the apple cart of what is going on with China is far more important and should not be upset, which suggests China had not done any upsetting with the Ladakh incident.
On return, Khurshid has reaffirmed that "we did not do any post-mortem or apportion blame" on the Chinese intrusion and that he was satisfied that the mechanisms worked well to resolve the stand-off.
This timidity towards China, to the point of fearing to raise a contentious issue and implicitly accepting part of the blame for the incident, seems more a pathology than an exercise in diplomacy.
An aerial view of five tents erected by Chinese troops inside Indian territory in Ladakh
Holding ground: Chinese troops hold a banner reading, "You've crossed the border, please go back" in Ladakh during the three-week stand off over the disputed border
For the government, the Chinese action in Ladakh seems to be of secondary importance; what is "more important is that the issue got resolved in a timely manner and within the laid down mechanism".
Why this reluctance to address the root of the problem and easy satisfaction that the immediate problem has gone away? In the context of premier Le Keqiang's visit the minister has added that "there are no prickly issues, issues of major differences which can be seen as obstacles".
Is the border issue no longer a "prickly issue" or a "major difference" between the two countries? All these statements imply that India can live with Chinese border intrusions, that they convey no political message to India, that the public anguish at home can be disregarded as exaggerated, and that such incursions will not be allowed to disrupt the growing relationship with China so long as they get resolved through established mechanisms in time for high level visits.
Strategy: Army Chief General Bikram Singh and defence secretary Shashikant Sharma discuss diplomatic solutions outside the Prime Minister's residence during the security meetings in the run up to the border settlement
Why we must bend so much before China is quite incomprehensible. We forget that ever since it became our direct neighbour by militarily occupying Tibet, China poses an enormous strategic challenge to us. It already occupies large tracts of our territory.
The issue is not any attempt by us to evict China from such territory, it is the legitimacy of our defensive measures to prevent China from advancing further south, either through additional territorial claims as in Arunachal Pradesh or by claiming control of terrain beyond its existing military positions over which India too claims control.
There is no actual agreed line of actual control (LAC) on the ground; each side has its own perception of where it lies.
Such a situation is inherently unstable. China prefers agreements to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border without formally settling it because such agreements allow it to maintain its territorial demands on India and improve the military infrastructure on its side, even as they impose restraints on India to actively challenge China and open it to accusations of a provocative "forward policy" if it seeks to belatedly improve its defensive positions on the ground.
India is being constrained to adjust itself to the realities on the ground that are to its disadvantage.
The talk of a new "defence cooperation agreement" on the border serves this Chinese objective that it has apparently sought to advance by the Ladakh intrusion.
While diplomatic niceties are part of political visits, one has to be careful about the import of statements and how they will be construed by our other partners.
Khurshid would have us believe that, "Both in historical terms and in terms of potential that there is for collaboration between us, we cannot think of more important country at this point of time and we are pleased that this is recognised mutually".
Really? It seems China is no longer a strategic adversary. Even as China is raising the temperature of its relations with several of its other neighbours in the east, we seem to believe that China has altogether higher stakes in its relationship with us.
This would explain why we believe that "China is willing to make concerted efforts with India... and promote the strategic cooperative partnership to a new level".
While we cannot ignore China as a powerful reality that has to be engaged, we certainly can ignore such self-serving, empty Chinese rhetoric.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Is the nation in a coma?
Europeans believe that Indian leaders are too blinded by new wealth and deceit to comprehend that the day will come when the have-nots will hit the streets.
A few days ago I was in a panel discussion on mergers and acquisitions in Frankfurt, Germany, organised by Euroforum and The Handelsblatt, one of the most prestigious newspapers in German-speaking Europe.
The other panelists were senior officials of two of the largest carmakers and two top insurance companies — all German multinationals operating in India.
The panel discussion was moderated by a professor from the esteemed European Business School. The hall had an audience that exceeded a hundred well-known European CEOs. I was the only Indian.
After the panel discussion, the floor was open for questions. That was when my "moment of truth" turned into an hour of shame & embarrassment — when the participants fired questions and made remarks on their experiences with the evil of corruption in India.
The awkwardness and humiliation I went through reminded of The Moment of Truth, the popular Anglo-American game. The more questions I answered truthfully, the more the questions got tougher. Tougher, here means more embarrassing.
Questions ranged from "Is your nation in a coma?", the corruption in administration, even in judiciary, the possible impeachment of a judge, the 2G,telecom scam and to the money in billions, parked illegally in tax havens.
It is a fact that the problem of corruption in India has assumed enormous and embarrassing proportions in recent years, although it has been with us for decades. The questions and the debate that followed in the panel discussion was indicative of the European disquiet. At the end of the Q&A session, I surmised Europeans perceive India to be at one of those junctures where tripping over the precipice cannot be ruled out.
Let me substantiate this further with what the European media has to say in recent days.
In a popular prime-time television discussion in Germany, the panelist, a member of the German Parliament quoting a blog said: "If all the scams of the last five years are added up, they are likely to rival and exceed the British colonial loot of India of about a trillion dollars."
One German business daily which wrote an editorial on India said: "India is becoming a Banana Republic instead of being an economic superpower. To get the cut motion designated out, assurances are made to political allays. Special treatment is promised at the expense of the people. So, Ms Mayawati who is Chief Minister of the most densely inhabited state, is calmed when an intelligence agency probe is scrapped. The multi-million dollars fodder scam by another former chief minister wielding enormous power is put in cold storage. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chairs over this kind of unparalleled loot."
An article in a French newspaper titled "Playing the Game, Indian Style" wrote: "Investigations into the shadowy financial deals of the Indian cricket league have revealed a web of transactions across tax havens like Switzerland, the Virgin Islands, Mauritius and Cyprus." In the same article, the name of one Hassan Ali of Pune is mentioned as operating with his wife a one-billion-dollar illegal Swiss account with "sanction of the Indian regime".
A third story narrated in the damaging article is that of the former chief minister of Jharkhand, Madhu Koda, who was reported to have funds in various tax havens that were partly used to buy mines in Liberia. "Unfortunately, the Indian public do not know the status of that enquiry," the article concluded.
"In the nastiest business scam in Indian records (Satyam) the government adroitly covered up the political aspects of the swindle — predominantly involving real estate," wrote an Austrian newspaper. "If the Indian Prime Minister knows nothing about these scandals, he is ignorant of ground realities and does not deserve to be Prime Minister. If he does, is he a collaborator in crime?"
The Telegraph of the UK reported the 2G scam saying: "Naturally, India's elephantine legal system will ensure culpability, is delayed."
Blinded by wealth
This seems true. In the European mind, caricature of a typical Indian encompasses qualities of falsification, telling lies, being fraudulent, dishonest, corrupt, arrogant, boastful, speaking loudly and bothering others in public places or, while travelling, swindling when the slightest of opportunity arises and spreading rumours about others. The list is truly incessant.
My(MOHAN'S) father, who is 81 years old, is utterly frustrated, shocked and disgruntled with whatever is happening and said in a recent discussion that our country's motto should truly be CHANGED TO Asatyameva Jayete.
Europeans believe that Indian leaders in politics and business are so blissfully blinded by the new, sometimes ill-gotten, wealth and deceit that they are living in defiance, insolence and denial to comprehend that the day will come, sooner than later, when the have-nots would hit the streets.
In a way, it seems to have already started with the monstrous and grotesque acts of the Maoists. And, when that rot occurs, not one political turncoat will escape being lynched.
The drumbeats for these rebellions are going to get louder and louder as our leaders refuse to listen to the voices of the people. Eventually, it will lead to a revolution that will spill to streets across the whole of India, I fear.
Perhaps we are the architects of our own misfortune. It is our sab chalta hai (everything goes) attitude that has allowed people to mislead us with impunity.
No wonder Aesop said. "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office."
(The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.)
Friday, May 10, 2013
You may know Kareena, Katrina, Madhuri and Sridevi, but I can confidently say that 95% of Indians would not know this brave lady.
Neerja Bhanot was the senior flight purser on the ill-fated Pan Am Flight 73, hijacked by four heavily armed terrorists after it landed at Karachi at 5 am from Mumbai. PA 73 was en route to Frankfurt and onward to New York City. Neerja alerted the cockpit crew about the hijack and, as the plane was on the tarmac, the three-member cockpit crew of pilot, co-pilot and the flight engineer were able to flee from the aircraft. Neerja, being the most senior cabin crew member on board, took charge.
The hijackers were part of the Palestinian Abu Nidal terrorist organization and were backed by Libya. They immediately shot dead a passenger who identified himself to the terrorists as being an American. The terrorists then instructed Neerja to get the passports collected of all the passengers, so that they could identify the Americans. Neerja, and the other attendants under her charge, hid the passports of the 40 Americans on board.
After 17 hours, the hijackers opened fire and set off explosives. Neerja opened the emergency door and helped a number of passengers escape. She did not herself escape, and became a martyr while shielding 3 children from a hail of bullets. Neerja was recognized internationally as "the heroine of the hijack" and is the youngest recipient of the Ashoka Chakra, India's highest civilian award for bravery.
A square called Neerja Bhanot Chowk is named after her in Mumbai's Ghatkopar (East) suburb by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which was inaugurated by Amitabh Bachchan in the early 90's.
Flight Safety Foundation Heroism Award, U.S.A.
Ashoka Chakra Award, India
Tamgha-e-Insaaniyat (Awarded for showing incredibly human kindness), Pakistan
Justice for Crimes Award, United States Attorney's office for the District of Columbia
Special Courage award, US Govt.
Indian Civil Aviation Ministry's Award
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Sardar Patel saw through ChinaPioneer Daily
One month before he passed away in December 1950 and a good 12 years before the Chinese attacked India in 1962, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had drawn Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's attention to Beijing's shenanigans and warned him against trusting the neighbour.
In a letter to Nehru, which finds place in JN Dixit's book, Makers of India's Foreign Policy: From Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Yashwant Sinha, Sardar Patel noted that the "Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intent". Nehru did not heed his Home Minister's advice, and the nation paid the price. Now, we have yet another Congress regime which is showing a similar disastrous tendency in the wake of many recent Chinese incursions into Indian territory, including the very latest at Daulat Beg Oldi in Ladakh sector, where China's Army personnel have pitched their tents for more than a fortnight now. The question is not if, but when will India pay another price for its meekness?
The context of Sardar Patel's letter may have been different from the crisis that we have today. He had concentrated his concerns over Beijing's designs in the North-East and along the Tibet border. But the larger narrative then, as it is now, remains the same: That New Delhi must stop appeasing China and taking the latter at face value. Instead, it should be assertive and aggressively mindful of its sovereignty and security needs.
Contrast our virtual state policy today to bend over backwards to please China with that of Sardar Patel's strong disapproval of our then Ambassador to China's supine overtures to Beijing. On the issue of settling its dispute with Tibet, China had apparently so softened up the Indian Ambassador that the latter had turned almost apologetic about having sought a clarification from Beijing on its intentions regarding Tibet. Patel wrote, "Our Ambassador has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions". Does a similarly pathetic attempt to be an apologist for China not resonate today? Various senior Ministers of the UPA regime too have taken great pains to explain away the latest incursion. Union Minister for Home Affairs Sushil Kumar Shinde justified the intrusion on the ground that it was in a "no man's land", while Union Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid trivialised the incident as an "acne" that will go away with the application of an "ointment". Would these worthies have dared to make such foolish remarks if they were answerable to a man of Sardar Patel's stature?
In his letter, Patel dealt in detail on why we should have been proactive on the Tibet issue. The Tibet matter is now considered settled, with New Delhi accepting the region as a legitimate part of China. But, while we have been so accommodating to Beijing even in the face of protests by the Tibetan people, China has showed no such consideration to our sensitivities on the border issue. Back in 1950 even, as the then Home Minister pointed out, Beijing had been treating India with disdain. He drew Nehru's attention to the fact that "even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends… this is a significant pointer which we have to take due note". Nehru did not take due note then, and Manmohan Singh is not taking due note now.
Patel did not stop at that. He pointed to the language the Chinese had used in their correspondence with New Delhi on a range of issues including India's so-called proximity with the West and its stand on Tibet. Referring to one such correspondence, he said, "Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences. It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy". How prescient Sardar Patel had been to call China a "potential enemy"! In recent times, leaders such as George Fernandes and Mulayam Singh Yadav, besides those of the BJP, have taken a similarly realistic line.
Sardar Patel was scathing in his observation over the manner we had been appeasing China, and said the nonsense had to end. In the November letter, he bluntly told Nehru, "I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill". But here Patel was wrong; in subsequent years, particularly during the last decade, India has gone further than he would have imagined. Indeed, we were to go 'further' soon after Patel's demise, when Nehru, now free from constraint, revelled in his ill-conceived Hindi-Chini bhai bhai campaign.
Patel had understood the Chinese better than not just many of his peers but also those who followed him in politics and other public space. He wrote in the letter to Nehru, "Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or the imperialism of the Western powers. The former has a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous". This should serve as a corrective lesson to those who today believe that the regular Chinese intrusions are 'localised' developments and are unrelated to larger ideological or military goals which Beijing is pursuing in its neighbourhood — on land and in water.
The frustrations of the Iron Man must be placed in the context of recent developments in one other aspect: India's consistent attempt to boost China's image before the world even as Beijing does everything to ridicule New Delhi in the international community. For instance, China made fun of India when the latter successfully tested the inter-continental ballistic missile, Agni V. Is this how one friend behaves with another? In Patel's time, the Prime Minister had spoken about China's 'goodness' to all and sundry abroad and even gone to the extent of seeking a permanent place for Beijing in the US Security Council. Patel had referred to that rather sarcastically in his letter, "During the last several months, outside the Russian camp, we have been practically alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings…"
One of the suggestions with which Sardar Patel rounded off his letter to the Prime Minister was this: "An examination (must be done) of military position and such redisposition of our forces as might be necessary, particularly with the idea of guarding important routes which are likely to be the subject of dispute".
Had Sardar Patel been alive, how would he have dealt with the recent Chinese misdemeanour? Perhaps the Chinese wouldn't have dared to intrude in the first place.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Ram Madhav writes: 'Chinese Machinations – India's Response'By Ram Madhav, RSS Akhil Bharatiya Sah Sampark Pramukh
The Chinese had come in, pitched their tents for almost three weeks well inside the Indian territory - initially it was said that they had come in some 10 KMs inside and later announced that it was 19 KMs - and after three futile flag meetings they themselves have withdrawn, as per the latest media reports. These three weeks have seen a flurry of activity in India. The Government, the Opposition, the Army, the media and the intellectuals everybody was seen reacting to the blatant violation of Indian sovereignty by the Chinese Army.
As usual, the Government response has been lacklustre and devoid of any commitment or vision about India's territorial integrity. It appeared clueless as to how to handle this blatant and belligerent aggression of China and waiting with fingers crossed for the miracle of the Chinese' withdrawal. Rather than reassuring the nation about their commitment and ability to protect Bharat's territorial integrity their response betrayed only their confusion, rhetoric and a very political attitude of trying to underplay things with a view to misleading the nation.
The Prime Minister called it a 'localised issue' while the Foreign Minister repeated the same old myth that the boundary between the two countries has not been demarcated so far. It is a myth because the Chinese side has not deliberately supplied the border maps for last twenty years in spite of the understanding for exchange of the same. That we have clearly demarcated LAC and that has been violated by the Chinese, and this violation is not a lone incident and it has happened more than a thousand times in last three years ...... all these facts have been suppressed from the countrymen. In stead our Foreign Minister is repeating the same argument that the Chinese Foreign Minister had made a couple of days ago, that there was a 'perceptional difference over the boundary line'.
This kind of self-deception would be suicidal for the nation. The Government's attitude amply demonstrates that after 50 years of the 1962 Chinese Invasion we have not learnt any lessons about our preparedness nor have we understood the Chinese machinations. We are committing the same follies that Pt. Nehru had committed, of trying to appease the aggressors, downplaying the possible consequences and betraying the laughable innocence that everything can be settled through talks.
We are in the 50th year of the disastrous Sino-Indian War. There is nothing to celebrate. But it certainly is a time for the Government to revisit the 1962 experience, learn lessons and show maturity and courage in handling the impending situation. As part of his obsession with Panchsheel Prime Minister Nehru used to often talk about the principle of 'Peaceful Coexistence' between neighbours India and China. In a tactical and timely response to that, Chairman Mao had famously observed in 1961 that what India and China should learn is 'Armed Coexistence'. It was too late for India to understand the import of Mao's observation and the '62 War resulted in a humiliating defeat because of our unpreparedness. In fact that was a war that India had never fought. Time has come for Bharat to understand the rules of engagement with China.
It is pertinent here to refer to a Resolution that was passed by the RSS at its Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha (ABPS) in March 2011.
"The Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha expresses serious concern over the growing multi-dimensional threat from China and the lackluster response of the Government of Bharat to its aggressive and intimidator tactics. Casual attitude and perpetual denial of our Government in describing gross border violations by the Chinese People's Liberation Army as a case of 'lack of common perception on the LAC', attempts to underplay the severe strategic dissonance between the two countries and failure to expose the expansionist and imperialist manouvers of China can prove fatal to our national interests", the resolution warned.
It made the following recommendations to the Government with regard to India's relations with China.
"1. Reiterate the Parliament's unanimous resolution of 1962 to get back the territory acquired by China to the last inch.
2.Take effective measures for rapid modernization and upgradation of our military infrastructure. Special focus should be on building infrastructure in the border areas. Towards that, constitution of a Border Region Development Agency should be considered which would help prevent the migration of the people from the border villages.
3.Use aggressive diplomacy to expose the Chinese' designs globally. Use all fora including ASEAN, UN etc for mobilizing global opinion.
4.Disallow Chinese manufacturing industry free run in our markets. Prohibit Chinese products like toys, mobiles, electronic and electrical goods etc. Illegal trade being carried out through the border passes must be curbed with iron hand.
5.Follow strict Visa norms and maintain strict vigil on the Chinese nationals working in Bharat.
6.Restrict the entry of Chinese companies in strategic sectors and sensitive locations.
7.Mobilize the lower riparian states like Myanmar, Bangladesh etc to tell China to stop their illegal diversion of river waters."
All these suggestions are very important. But how far the Government can show the determination to take on the aggressive neighbour is a big question. China has cancelled the meeting of the Finance Ministers of Japan, S Korea and China as a mark of protest to the visit of some Japanese Parliamentarians visiting the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo where the graves of the World War 2 Generals of Japanese Army are situated. That is how swiftly China reacts to any insult to its sovereignty even if it happens in some other territory. The unwillingness of the Government to not announce the cancellation of the visit of our Foreign Minister to China later this month is baffling. In fact we should also unilaterally call off the forthcoming visit of the Chinese Premier Li Keqing towards the end of May.
Bilateral economic relations also must be reviewed from the national security angle. Our Government underplays the fact that we share a huge trade deficit in bilateral trade with China with $60 billion imports and $10 billion exports. We must drastically curtail this trade to protect our economy from being sucked in by China, even if that meant tightening our belts and spending some extra dollars for imports from other countries.
Lastly, and most importantly we must not repeat the mistake of 1962 by thinking that it was a 'localised problem' borne out of 'perceptional differences' over 'un-demarcated' boundary. It is unfortunate that some intellectuals were seen trying to minimise the import of the Chinese aggression by claiming that the internal politics in China and troubles in leadership transition were responsible for the Chinese' actions. Some of them even tried to indirectly blame Bharat claiming that our border infrastructure building activity must have been the provocation for the Chinese actions. Our Government should not be influenced by such misleading 'expert opinion'. Any complacency in addressing the challenge thrown by China through this open aggression will prove very costly.
Our Government must pursue the policy of strengthening border infrastructure on Indo-Tibetan border with much more vigour and perseverance. Special attention should be paid to the borders in Arunachal Pradesh like the Tawang region anticipating surprise aggression by China.
Bharat has historically practiced the principle of world peace. However, it should not forget the dictum that 'to be prepared for war is the best way of ensuring peace'.Vishwa Samvad KendraGujarat
Friday, May 3, 2013
વાણી અને પાણી સંભાળીને વા૫રવાં જોઇએ.શબ્દો વૃદ્ધિ ૫ણ કરે અને વિનાશ ૫ણ કરે.શબ્દો જ મારે અને શબ્દો જ તારે છે.શબ્દો ઉ૫રનો સંયમ ઉત્તમ તપ અને ઉપાસના છે.
વાણી ઐસી બોલીએ મનકા આપા ખોઇ,
ઔરન કો શિતલ કરે આપકી શિતલ હોઇ..!
શબ્દ સંભાળી બોલીયે,
શબ્દકે હાથ ન પાંવ,
એક શબ્દ ઔષધિ કરે એક શબ્દ કરે ઘાવ..!
માણસ જ્યારે રૂપિયાની નોટો ગણતો હોય છે ત્યારે કોઇ જગ્યાએ ધ્યાન આપતો નથી ૫ણ જ્યારે સત્સંગ ભજનમાં બેઠો હોય છે ત્યારે બધે જ ધ્યાન આપે છે.
ઇશ્વર એકવારની ભૂલ માફ કરી શકે,પરંતુ એકની એક ભૂલ ફરી માફ ન કરી શકે.
એકની એક ભૂલ વારંવાર કરવી તે બેદરકારી છે.ઇશ્વર પાસે આપણે ભૂલો સુધારવા ભેજું અને તે સ્વીકારવા કલેજું માંગીએ..
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Congress back with Communal Violence Bill
By Sandhya Jain on April 27, 2013
The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011, shelved nearly two years after an unexpected multi-party resistance in Parliament, seems likely to resurface as part of Congress president Sonia Gandhi's desperate bid to sew up minority support in the event of an unexpected election.
Should the Bill be passed, its major consequences, whether intentional or otherwise, will be a dangerous intensification of communal identities and mutual communal suspicions, besides a discriminatory application of separate laws for separate communities, which militates against the Constitutional prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion. Indeed, it surpasses the communal electorates of the British Raj and virtually creates a separate criminal law by which designated minority groups can prosecute and target a chosen majority in a State or the nation at large.
Further, the Bill clashes with the doctrine of Basic Features of the Constitution as laid down by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973. If enacted, it is liable to be struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution as it drastically amends the Constitutional provision of Right to Equality before the law as granted under Article 14.
The Bill is the offspring of a partisan State hell-bent on sowing disharmony and shattering the largely peaceful coexistence among communities. As per its provisions, in the event of a communal situation in which there is death and/or injury on both sides (or three sides if we count the police as a separate party present on the spot), the individual victims will not receive succour on the basis of a uniform law in which each incident within the larger riot is investigated and prosecuted separately.
For instance, if five streets of a colony are involved in rioting, the rioters and the victims will be different on each street. Justice involves identifying the culprits and dealing with them as per the extent of their crimes. Yet, under the proposed Bill, separate laws will apply to separate community victims when the cases come to trial, though all crimes are committed as part of the same riot!
If this is not enough of a mockery of the law as we have so far known it, there is no mention of what is to be done if policemen (paramilitary, Army men) doing their duty are deliberately targetted by mobs, or fall in the line of duty. One has only to recall the public manhandling of outnumbered policemen in Mumbai in August 2012, when the Raza Academy and several Sunni Muslim groups took out a march to protest against attacks on their co-religionists in Myanmar.
The Academy later issued a public apology and blamed anti-social elements for infiltrating its rally. But the moot point is whether, had an untoward incident occurred, justice to Government servants on duty will also be meted out on the basis of religious affiliation. This is a serious issue that cannot be neglected by our law makers; it has the potential to split the nation apart.
The Bill rests on the faulty and divisive premise that India's religious and linguistic minorities and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who together constitute a formidable 40 per cent of the population, are a focus of targetted violence at the hands of the remaining 60 per cent which has been clubbed together as the majority community despite its diversity.
Some apologists of the Bill realised that this is a staggering allegation, and offered the sop that the miniscule Hindu community in Jammu & Kashmir could benefit from its provisions. Perhaps they did not realise that the Bill does not apply to Jammu & Kashmir unless the State Assembly passes an enabling legislation. They also added that Hindus are a religious minority in Punjab, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Andaman-Nicobar, and a linguistic minority in many States – meaning States where the majority Hindu community has a regional mother tongue! Can anything be more perverse?
The Bill defines victims to mean, "3(k) any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or her property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate".
Without seeking to raise communal temperatures, it is surely pertinent that one of the most serious law and order threats the nation has been facing for many years is from Jihad, the invocation of a particular religion and its alleged goals and grievances by terrorist groups affiliated to one faith. The victims were mainly from the so-called majority community, though there have also been incidents in which victims belonged to multiple communities.
Under this Bill, will the minority victims of acts of terror by aggressors affiliated to the same minority group get privileged or equal or lesser justice as opposed to the victims of the majority community? The larger questions are: Should there be any difference and where are we headed as a nation if this is the way we are being provoked to think by this Bill?
There is no reason why the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes have been clubbed with religious minorities under this Bill except to dilute its communal taint. The statute already contains the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.
The Bill provides for a separate Authority, which is likely to overlap with the functions of the National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Minorities, and National Commission for Women. Perhaps these bodies could be merged into a single entity dealing with social crimes.
The Bill lays special emphasis upon crimes of sexual assault linked to a person's membership of a particular religion or group. In the Gujarat 2002 riot cases transferred to Mumbai, several female victims told the court that they had not been raped during the riots and had no idea this was written in English in the affidavits they were asked to sign by a famous NGO. Yet the Bill makes no provision for punishing and penalising practitioners of such motivated, calculated, and false communal slander.