INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY DISTORTIONS
Dr. Subhash Kapila
Aug. 13, -S.A.A.G.
Introductory Observations
The Indian Republic in the first fifty years of its existence maintained a strategic autonomy in the conduct of its foreign policy despite a much more limited national power profile and economic profile than that exists today.
Today, when India is economically vibrant and strong and India has been able to amass sizeable conventional and strategic assets, India to its citizens seems strategically tied down in adding muscle to the conduct of its foreign policy.
Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy does not imply war mongering or military adventurism. Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy implies that India’s national security interests are accorded a paramountcy in the conduct of foreign policies to the exclusion of the personal predictions of the Indian Prime Minister and his proximate foreign policy advisors. It also implies the existence of political will to secure India’s national security interests.
The period 2004-2009 has witnessed a bartering away of India’s national security interests. This trend stands examined in the Author’s SAAG Paper No.3210 dated 22 May 2009 entitled “India’s Foreign Policy 2004-2009: The Wasted Years:
The major part of India’s foreign policy failures in this time span and the distortions that willingly or unwillingly have seeped into India’s foreign policy (2004 – 2009) have resulted from policies or lack of policies generated by the predominance given by India’s current Prime Minister to the “United States Factor” in our policy formulations.
Co-attendant with the primacy given to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policy formulations during 2004-2009 has been the “parallel track” of “Pakistan-appeasement policies” out of deference to United States Pak-centric strategic sensitivities.
In the process, India can be said to have abdicated its much prized “strategic autonomy” (not to be confused with non-alignment) in its foreign policy formulations. In another sense, it can also be said that India has diluted its aspirations to become a global power.
The center of gravity of the global balance of power has shifted to Asia. India along with China are the two prominent stakeholders and determinants of this shift in the balance of power.
While China has leveraged this shift to her advantage, India’s foreign policies has not leveraged this shift in India’s favor. On the contrary, India’s current foreign policy has led it to seemingly emerge as more of a United States satellite or camp follower.
Rhetorical flourishes by United States political leaders and officials will not impart global power status on India. India has to earn its global power status by standing firmly on its own legs, build its strengths and demonstrate its strategic autonomy globally and regionally, and firmly demonstrate fortified by Indian nationalism, that it has the will to use power to secure India’s national interests.
This point is contextually relevant to the examination of the impact on India’s foreign policy formulations of the “United States Factor”.
This Paper intends to examine the main theme under the following heads:
The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China.
Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from it
1) The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
The US-India Strategic Partnership much hyped in 2000-2001, including by this Author, now stands reduced to a “strategic relationship” only. That too is alive only in South Block corridors.
India’s expectant hopes attending the advent of evolving a US-India Strategic Partnership focused on multiple aims. At the core of these aims were (1) India’s rise to global power status with a US impetus (2) Strategic downsizing of Pakistan and limiting its “spoiler-state” role in South Asia (3) Joint US-India convergence in coping and managing of the growing military rise of China.
Post 9/11 and now Post Af-Pak Policy unveiling it should be clear to all right thinking Indians that the United States global and regional agenda in South Asia is not in consonance with India’s strategic expectations from the United States. The United States agenda is in contradiction to India’s national security interests and India’s national aspirations.
India’s supine foreign policies during 2004-2009 in accommodating United States strategic sensitivities “at all costs” has landed India in a position where there are “no end-gains” for India by according a primacy to the “US Factor” in India foreign policy formulation.
The above assertions stand fortified by the following manifestations:
Proximity to United States has not contributed to lessening of India’s threat perceptions emanating from Pakistan and China. United States has not contributed at all in this direction.
United States strangulating hold over Pakistan has not been exercised to prevent Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India nor has the United States diluted the Pakistan-China strategic nexus
United States till today has not supported India’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council as a Permanent Member. It indicates US reservations on the emergence of India as a global power.
United States has revived or shortly will revive pressures that indirectly aim at capping/rolling back India’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
Strategically, the United States has only conceded the vast empty expanse of the Indian Ocean to India to extend its influence. The United States has not conceded that India is the predominant regional power in South Asia and that Pakistan must adjust its delusionary strategic mindsets accordingly.
Increased Indo-US military-to-military contacts are no index of a thriving US-India Strategic Partnership. One is now constrained to term it as a US-India Strategic Relationship. The United States has held itself back from adding enhanced strategic and political contours to the US-India relationship.
The most striking deduction from the above analysis is that India’s foreign policy (2004-2009) has been strategically misconceived and ill-advised in making the “United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.”
2) Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China
One would not be far wrong to term the Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with the United States as reminiscent of Nehru’s similar romanticism with China. The results of the later were a great military setback for India.
It is not to suggest that the United States will attack India like China did. But an Indian monochromatic foreign policy focused on United States has brought distortions in India’s present foreign policies, foreclosing many of its wider options afield, particularly India foreign policy towards Pakistan.
Military setbacks can accrue to India by United States continued military build-up of Pakistan and thereby affecting the India-Pakistan Military Balance. It is strategically strange that while the United States increasingly harps on the strengths of its Strategic Partnership with India, it concurrently keeps building Pakistan’s conventional military capabilities. Even a non-commissioned officer of the Indian Army would point out that it is a puerile US argument that it’s provision of combat fighter aircraft and long range maritime surveillance aircraft fitted with anti-submarine weapons to Pakistan are intended for augmenting Pakistan’s anti-terrorism warfare capability.
The Indian Prime Minister has failed in his foreign policy approaches to the United States to demand strategic ‘quid-pro-quos’ from the United States in relation to the adjustments and compromises he has made in Indian foreign policies to accommodate US strategic interests on Pakistan.
3) Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
Peace with Pakistan is a desirable objective for India’s foreign policy. But the timing of peace and resumption of composite dialogue with Pakistan has to be decided by India’s assessments and readings of the contextual security environment and India’s national security interests.
The timings of such a process cannot be dictated by the United States to synchronize with the timings of its strategic overtures to Pakistan to serve US strategic interests. It does not require much imagination for anyone to assert that the United States and India have serious strategic divergences over Pakistan.
Additionally, has the Indian Prime Minister and his advisory team ever asked themselves the question as to why the United States constantly preaches to India on peace with Pakistan?
India despite repetitive Pakistani acts of terrorism against India has exercised restraint. Even today India stands aloof and strategically not taken advantage of the growing civil war within Pakistan. Then why does the United States resort to peace sermons to India on India-Pak peace knowing fully well that these need to be given to Pakistan only.
Further, in the past, and even now, Kashmir- mention is used as a strategic pressure point against India by US political leaders.
Sharm-al- Sheikh was a direct manifestation of the “distortions” that the “United States Factor” has induced in India’s current foreign policy formulation. The Havana Agreement 2006 was the earlier manifestation.
In both cases the “Indian foreign policy troika” of the Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser and the Foreign Secretary were the moving spirits behind these infamous appeasement concessions on terrorism to Pakistan, acting in duress under US pressures.
Does it behave a country of India’s size and potential to succumb to external pressures?
Fortunately, the force of Indian public opinion pressured the Congress President to make the Indian Prime Minister to retract from Sharm-al-Sheikh concessions to Pakistan. That does not lessen the gravity of the Indian policy establishment succumbing to external pressures especially over Pakistan.
Peace with Pakistan will continue to be an elusive myth till such time some Indian political leader emerges who can recognize that the only way to restrain Pakistan is to follow the US model against Russia in the Cold War.
Further peace with Pakistan will accrue when Indian Prime Ministers ensure that India’s war preparedness at all times is so high that coupled with Indian Prime Ministers demonstrating the will to use power, these two realities existentially deter Pakistan from provoking India and indulging in military adventurism against it..
Indian Prime Ministers down the line have not grasped the fundamentals of why peace with Pakistan will remain an elusive myth. The onus of bringing about India- Pakistan peace lies squarely on United States shoulders and not on India's shoulders.
The United States has consistently invented and re-invented Pakistan’s strategic utility for US national security interests. Pursuant to this fixation it has armed and re-armed Pakistan substantially and encouraged it to box much above its strategic weight.
Peace with Pakistan will therefore continue to be elusive till such time United States re-calibrates its South Asia policies with Pakistan removed from the centrality it occupies in US strategy.
4) China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from It
Democracy and shared values were not the bed-rock of the advent of US-India’s Strategic Partnership. The bedrock of this evolving strategic relationship was an implicit understanding and strategic convergence that China’s rising military power needed to be contained for mutual strategic benefits.
American strategic literature of the preceding decade and even in this decade is alive with discussions to this end.
The American stress on joint exercises and enter-operability with the Indian Armed Forces was surely not for disaster management purposes. The underlying intent has surely been a possible China contingency.
Recent and latest United States foreign policy trends indicate that the United States is no longer imbued with a China containment strategy. Nothing could be more blasphemous for Indian ears than the latest US proposal of a G-2 (US and China) combine to control global affairs. The underlying content is not only economic but also a strategic compromise that the United States seems to be making with China.
Further, India’s Prime Minister and his team are seemingly unaware that it is a cardinal tenet of United States strategic policies that no single Asian nation emerges as the predominant power. To that end United States would continue to play more of a role of a “balancer” rather than side with India to offset China’s military rise.
India’s Foreign Policy Options (2004-2009) Foreclosed by “United States Factor” Primacy
India will now begin to strategically pay for its foreign policies or lack of foreign policies during the period 2001-2009 arising from giving a misplaced primacy to the “United States Factor” in its foreign policy formulations.
In respect of India’s main threat adversaries, namely Pakistan and China, India’s foreign policy options stand foreclosed because of the “US Factor”.
The Indian Prime Minister with all his proximity to the United State has failed to prevail and convince the United States to restrain Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India.
Contrarily, the Indian Prime Minister is being pressurized to suffer Pakistan’s intransigence for the cause of greater American strategic good.
The United States constantly changing priorities in its foreign policy stances towards China makes it an unreliable partner of India to deal with its China threat.
In relation to Pakistan, the close relations of India with Iran were a counter weight. In relation to China, the longstanding Russia-India Strategic Partnership was an effective counter-balance and restraint.
According primacy to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policies during the period 2004-2009 led to a strategic downgrading of India’s foreign policy priorities towards Iran and Russia. Earnest hard work would be required now to resurrect these relationships.
With aspirations to emerge as a global power, India’s foreign policy cannot be converted into a US-centric mode. If the United States resorts to “balancing” India by use of Pakistan and/or China then Indian political leaders must learn to ‘balance’ the United States with an equally strong strategic partnership with Russia.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for years did not attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit meetings. It sent wrong signals to Russia.
In the same vein it needs to be pointed out that this Government should desist from making India’s military inventories totally reliant on the United States. There is a danger that this Government for political reasons may place the multi-billion dollar order for 126 combat fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force on the United States. By such a decision, in one single stroke, India would be mortgaging the cutting edge of India’s offensive capabilities to the mercy of a Pak-centric United States.
5) Concluding Observations
In earlier Papers of this Author a point that repeatedly stands made is that India cannot afford to emerge as a global player despite the United States or in opposition to it.
The opposite is also true that no global power has ever helped another aspiring power to emerge as a global power. This stands true for the United States and India too.
The United States may, and one repeats may, assist India to emerge as a “global player” but it will never assist India to emerge as a “global power” on equal terms with USA.
The years 2004-2009 have been “wasted years” in terms of India’s foreign policy formulations and its conduct. The overwhelming reason was that India’s foreign policy troika” comprising the PM, NSA and the Foreign Secretary made the United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.
The resultant effect was that India stood disconnected from its proven traditional friendly partners.
It is high time, that with no end- gains having accrued from such foreign policy fixations, India’s foreign policy is re-calibrated and strong connectivities re-established with India’s proven friends.
An aspiring global power like India needs to have multiple foreign policy connectivities to provide flexibility of options.
India’s Prime Ministers need to emulate China. If the United States today talks of a global G-2 combine of USA and China to manage global affairs, it is because China has followed the dictum of a “mailed fist in a velvet glove.” and leveraged its national strengths to propel its rise on the global stage.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com)
US Perfidy & Singh @ http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=301&page=14
Source: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers34/paper3355.html
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
** Indias Nuke Drama
Indias New Nuclear Drama
Dr. Dipak Basu
Ivarta
The recent drama in the G-8 declaration that, unless India signs the NPT( Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) it will not get any nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants meeting regarding the Indo-US nuclear treaty, has demonstrated the unrealistic approach adopted by India. The unrealistic expectation of India was that by signing the treaty India can somehow avoid the restriction imposed by the IAEA and NSG against proliferations of nuclear weapons. However, both IAEA( International Atomic Energy Agency) and NSG( Nuclear Suppliers Group) do not recognize India as a legitimate nuclear weapons state, as they made it clear to India in the treaty India has signed already as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Another unrealistic expectation was that USA wants to set up India as a bulwark against China and in future it would protect India against possible invasion from China. USA now being financially bankrupt depends on China to revive its economy and the new President Obama, guided by arch-enemies of India like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, and Madeline Albright, foreign secretary to President Clinton, has already declared the strategic partnership between USA and China.
The Reality Regarding Nuclear Drama:
Indian media or the government cannot blame USA now because India knew all along what was on the cards. The Vienna Treaty with NSG has clearly pointed out the following that would cripple India"s nuclear weapons programme. The Treaty says:
(1) "Participating Governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguarded civil nuclear facilities."
(2) "Participating Governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software, and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards."
(3) "At each Plenary, Participating Governments shall notify each other of approved transfers to India. Participating Governments are also invited to exchange information, including about their own bilateral agreements with India."
Thus, only for the facilities under the control of IAEA India can import fuel, materials and technology. It cannot import even from Russia, as Russia is a member of NSG and has to consult NSG to export any nuclear materials or technology to India particularly anything related to India"s Nuclear Weapons Programme; this was made clear in a recent Senate bill presented when the discussion on the 123 treaty with USA is in progress.. That would practically mean Fast Breeder Reactors and Reprocessing plants, being built by Russia, would be under the IAEA controls, otherwise Russia can not supply any materials or technology for these from now on. Thus, India"s nuclear weapons programme or the reactors in the military sector will be lame ducks for the foreseeable future unless and until Russia will come out of NSG.
123 Deal puts further restrictions. The Bush administration"s January 2008 letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made public recently, brings out the following.
USA has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind and there is no US consent to stockpiling of fuel reserves. India will not be allowed to build such stocks to avoid if US re-impose sanctions. US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly prohibiting further nuclear tests by India even if warranted by Indian national security concerns. All cooperation will cease immediately if India conducts a test.
The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion.
The 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India"s obligations are legally irrevocable and perpetual.
The Bush administration"s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. "US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in future, won a separate agreement.
123 Agreement Article 5(2) that, "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement." The Bush administration"s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Already the US senate has imposed a new clause in the Hyde Act that in future national security organizations of USA, which means CIA and FBI, would now collaborate with India regarding nuclear non-proliferation. This in effect would imply that US organizations would make sure India will not be able to gain any advantage to use its nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons.
Section 104(d) (2) of the Hyde Act is related to the supply of nuclear fuel to the plants in India, which would be used to produce nuclear weapons, by using end-use monitoring of spent fuel by the IAEA and the US organizations. There are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. These would end India"s nuclear weapons programme.
Alternative was available:
India was not a "Pariah" in the world of nuclear energy since 1974, as the media is suggesting, but India has become nearly self sufficient due to the help from the USSR and Russia. Russia, after India"s nuclear tests in 1974, was practically the only country for India as a source of materials for the nuclear energy industry including both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Russia along with the former Soviet Union so far has supplied India heavy water plants, reprocessing plants, Fast Breeder Reactors and two fresh nuclear power plants with the excuse that the contracts for these were signed between India and the Soviet Union in 1985, which Russia needs to oblige.
USSR has started for India the construction of the first FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor) of capacity of 40 MWt (million watts thermal) in Kalapakkan in 1985. In 2008 Russia has started the construction of a Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor( FBR) of capacity 500 MWE (million watts electrical) in Kalapakkan. Associated Reprocessing plants in Kalapakkan were first built by USSR in 1985 and then in 1998 by Russia.
Without the nuclear deal with NSG and USA India could be able to maintain its nuclear plants by using reprocessed plutonium as a fuel in the FBRs and using its own uranium in the conventional plants. India could continue to get both onshore and offshore nuclear plants from Russia, as it would honour the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1985. This is exactly what former President Putin and former Prime Minister Fradkov have suggested during their last visits to India, but India was not interested. In that case India would be at liberty to test and develop nuclear weapons any time it likes without any restrictions using plutonium from its FBRs and enriched Uranium from other nuclear plants. Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the Vienna Treaty with NSG on the other hand will increase both real and perceived restrictions on India that would in reality destroy any credible nuclear deterrent for India against possible attacks from either China or Pakistan.
Conclusion:
Section 103 of the Hyde Act suggests that the US would oppose development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. The section requires the US to work with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to further restrict transfers of equipment and technologies related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and production of heavy water to all countries, including India. The legislation also requires the US government to seek to prevent transfer of these equipment and technologies from other members of NSG or from any other source. Section 104(d) (2) stipulates that transfers to India cannot begin without the NSG guidelines. Also, there are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. The Senate Bill presented now will apply Hyde Act worldwide against India even when India will buy anything nuclear from any other countries within NSG.
International situation is rapidly changing. A new cold war has already started when USA wants to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia by including Georgia and Ukraine. USA is setting up missile launching stations in Poland and Czech Republic; in response Russia is setting up retaliatory missile stations in Kaliningrad, in the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Russia has already taken over South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. USA already has cancelled its 123 Deal with Russia, imposed sanctions against Russian scientific establishment and will not allow Russia to do any nuclear trade with USA. It is quite possible that in retaliation Russia very soon will withdraw itself from the NSG, as the current President Medvedev has ruled out Russia"s obligation towards any further reduction of its nuclear forces under the SALT treaty. Russia is already supplying sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Venezuela and Syria. India could just certainly wait for a few months rather than signing its surrender to USA in a great hurry.
By accepting the Vienna Treaty with NSG and the Indo-US 123 Deal, India is accepting a subordinate position in relation to USA and the Western countries, which is not needed for the future development of nuclear energy in India. Iran, Venezuela and Syria has not signed any 123 Deal with USA to receive nuclear plants from Russia. Pakistan is going to receive 6 nuclear plants from China without signing any 123 Deal with USA or any treaty with NSG or IAEA. India forgot the fact that NSG was created by the United States immediately after 1974 to punish India for its first atomic test. It was never directed towards Pakistan, who was allowed to accept whatever it wants from China.
China in 1985 has signed a very different 123 Treaty with USA as a recognized nuclear weapons state, whereas India in practice has given up its nuclear weapons by signing 123 Treaty with USA and IAEA as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The result will make Pakistan, which receives every nuclear weapons and missiles from China, much stronger than India in very near future.
Pakistan"s M-11 missiles obtained from China are mobile missiles although these have short ranges of 300km. "No-Dong" missiles obtained from North Korea with the approval of China has 1500km range. This can cover most important parts of India. Pakistan has no need, unlike that of India, to conduct any tests to maintain its nuclear weapons, as it can obtain these ready-made whenever it requires from China.
China has a formidable nuclear force located in Tibet directed against India. It has deployed some 125 long range (1700km or more) nuclear armed ballistic missiles, It has developed DF-31 ballistic missiles with a range of 8000 km, which can hit any parts of India from anywhere in China. Other missiles in the armory of China include CSS-2, CSS-3, and CSS-5 of 1700km range, which also can hit India from Tibet. China has decided to use Pakistan against India, by supplying whatever China has. Thus, Pakistan is now more powerful in nuclear weapons delivery system than India can be in near future.
That serves the geo-political interest of the United States with Pakistan as the bridge to the Islamic world. Gradual acceptance of Taliban by USA as recommended by Pakistan is already happening. The unfolding scenario will ruin India in the process when India will be forced to surrender also to the demands of Pakistan, a NATO ally of USA, and China, the most important business partner of the U.S corporations and on whom the fate of the US Dollar and the world economy depends. The possible appointment of the Richrd Holbrooke, the destroyer of Yugoslavia, a staunch anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani, as the negotiator between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan by the newly elected President Obama is the clear danger signal, which Indian political establishment is ignoring.
Due to the objections raised by USA, Russia is disinterested to continue to supply nuclear materials or power plants to India anymore. The sudden shift of Russia"s position is the result of India"s decision to ignore Russia since the days of Jaswant Singh first when he was the Foreign Minister of India and to buy weapons systems, aircrafts, submarines from Israel, Britain and France and India"s growing interest to purchase aircrafts from USA.
The nuclear offer of the US was never a friendly gesture to India as the Indian media had tried to to portray but a process of surrender for India regarding its nuclear energy and weapons programme. That process was indicated by President Clinton in 1998 when he declared openly that he loathed to even think that India-Pakistan can have nuclear weapons and the objective of the United States will be to roll back, curtail and eliminate India"s nuclear weapons programme. George Bush has followed that up using his charm and sweet talks, but the purpose was the same.
The media in India is giving the impression that USA is trying to make India as a bulwark against China. It was not true during the presidency of george Bush. It is absurd to even think about during the pro-Chinese presidency of Obama.
In fact, USA since 1972 has made China as a bulwark against the Soviet Union by supplying indirectly every type of weapons technology via Israel, France, Pakistan, and Turkey. USA also made China as the permanent member of the UN Security Council as a counterweight against the Soviet Union.
If USA wants to destroy China as a power, it can do so without firing a single bullet, but by just not importing from China and asking its allies not to import from China. USA had followed that policy in 1934 against Japan, but it has no intension to follow it against China, because that would undermine investments of large number of American companies and their profit.
China can also retaliate against USA just by selling its Dollar reserve, which would mean a massive devaluation of the US Dollar and destruction of the special status of the US Dollar as the international reserve currency - a fiat money by which USA can buy anything from the rest of the world just by printing its own currency. There is no need for the US to earn foreign exchange to pay for its imports or to pay for the American military bases all over the world in any other currency but in US Dollar.
This unique position would be diminished if China suddenly exchanges its Dollar holdings into Euro. That can destroy the American economy, as USA would not be able to use Dollar to get its imports. USA would be unable to pay for the expenses of the American military bases as well thus, reducing the US to a regional power, not a world power. Close bilateral relationship through trade and investments has made USA and China indispensable to each other.
Because of these threats to the American Dollar and the America"s special status as a super-power, USA is reluctant even to recognize Taiwan as a separate country, but still insisting upon the "one-China" policy which, basically approves Chinese colonialism over Taiwan. USA also has no policy towards Tibet or East Turkistan, which were colonized by China in 1949.
President Clinton has declared China as the strategic partner of USA. President Bush recently joined hands with China to oppose India"s possible membership of the UN Security Council. However, in 1972, President Nixon had no objection against China"s membership of the UN Security Council. USA even had forced the expulsion of Taiwan from the U.N to make room for China. President Obama just like President Clinton before him went to China and declared China, India"s enemy No 1, as the strategic partner of USA.
When India has declared after the nuclear tests in 1998 President Clinton has imposed sanctions against India and India was isolated in the world temporarily. President Bush has forced India to start the peace-process with Pakistan, who has already killed more than 50,000 people in the Jammu & Kashmir and has managed to spread terrorism throughout India, as the recent attack on Mumbai demonstrated. USA also forced India to abandon its development of long-range missiles and any further nuclear testing. As a result, India has no credible nuclear forces and is in no match for China. This situation will not change in future in favour of India, as USA does not want India to have either nuclear weapons or missiles.
USA is not offering India any advanced weapons system or aircrafts. The F-16 or F-18 aircraft, which USA has offered India is equivalent to Russian Mig-29, which India already got about ten years ago and is under production in HAL factories in India. USA is delivering same aircrafts to Pakistan for free as its aid programme against terrorism although Pakistan is the source of international terrorism.
A pure business deal from which USA not India will gain substantially is repackaged by the media as the friendly gesture of the United States to India.
The reality is that by accepting American pseudo-friendship India has become weaker than even Pakistan, who has long-range missiles fitted with nuclear weapons imported from China and can be used against India at any time.
As Pakistan has the policy of "first strike" with nuclear weapons, as obvious from the preparations of General Musharaf during the Kargil invasion of 1999, it is doubtful whether India, without the support of the Soviet Union as it had during both 1965 and 1971 wars, can withstand the first nuclear strike by Pakistan. The most likely scenario is that India will collapse, which would open the door for invasions by Pakistan, China, and Nepal.
India"s policy makers mainly diplomats from the Indian Foreign Service are excellent to surrender easily as they did in Simla Conference in 1972 and subsequently in every international gatherings. They, particularly the India"s ambassador to USA Mr.Ronen Sen and the national security adviser Narayanan, had advised the government to surrender to the American demand and to accept the control of the IAEA on the nuclear facilities in India.
They have failed to understand and still do not understand, as obvious from the statement made by Pranab Mukherjee that G-8 Declaration against India does not matter. The nuclear co-operation with USA would start the second phase of surrender to abolish nuclear weapons in India, but Pakistan, as an ally of both NATO and China, would still have nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that the India"s so-called experts of foreign policy cannot see the reality but have decided to live in a fool"s paradise.
Warnings About China @
http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/07/warning-about-china.html
Dr. Dipak Basu
Ivarta
The recent drama in the G-8 declaration that, unless India signs the NPT( Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) it will not get any nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants meeting regarding the Indo-US nuclear treaty, has demonstrated the unrealistic approach adopted by India. The unrealistic expectation of India was that by signing the treaty India can somehow avoid the restriction imposed by the IAEA and NSG against proliferations of nuclear weapons. However, both IAEA( International Atomic Energy Agency) and NSG( Nuclear Suppliers Group) do not recognize India as a legitimate nuclear weapons state, as they made it clear to India in the treaty India has signed already as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Another unrealistic expectation was that USA wants to set up India as a bulwark against China and in future it would protect India against possible invasion from China. USA now being financially bankrupt depends on China to revive its economy and the new President Obama, guided by arch-enemies of India like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, and Madeline Albright, foreign secretary to President Clinton, has already declared the strategic partnership between USA and China.
The Reality Regarding Nuclear Drama:
Indian media or the government cannot blame USA now because India knew all along what was on the cards. The Vienna Treaty with NSG has clearly pointed out the following that would cripple India"s nuclear weapons programme. The Treaty says:
(1) "Participating Governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguarded civil nuclear facilities."
(2) "Participating Governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software, and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards."
(3) "At each Plenary, Participating Governments shall notify each other of approved transfers to India. Participating Governments are also invited to exchange information, including about their own bilateral agreements with India."
Thus, only for the facilities under the control of IAEA India can import fuel, materials and technology. It cannot import even from Russia, as Russia is a member of NSG and has to consult NSG to export any nuclear materials or technology to India particularly anything related to India"s Nuclear Weapons Programme; this was made clear in a recent Senate bill presented when the discussion on the 123 treaty with USA is in progress.. That would practically mean Fast Breeder Reactors and Reprocessing plants, being built by Russia, would be under the IAEA controls, otherwise Russia can not supply any materials or technology for these from now on. Thus, India"s nuclear weapons programme or the reactors in the military sector will be lame ducks for the foreseeable future unless and until Russia will come out of NSG.
123 Deal puts further restrictions. The Bush administration"s January 2008 letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made public recently, brings out the following.
USA has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind and there is no US consent to stockpiling of fuel reserves. India will not be allowed to build such stocks to avoid if US re-impose sanctions. US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly prohibiting further nuclear tests by India even if warranted by Indian national security concerns. All cooperation will cease immediately if India conducts a test.
The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion.
The 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India"s obligations are legally irrevocable and perpetual.
The Bush administration"s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. "US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in future, won a separate agreement.
123 Agreement Article 5(2) that, "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement." The Bush administration"s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Already the US senate has imposed a new clause in the Hyde Act that in future national security organizations of USA, which means CIA and FBI, would now collaborate with India regarding nuclear non-proliferation. This in effect would imply that US organizations would make sure India will not be able to gain any advantage to use its nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons.
Section 104(d) (2) of the Hyde Act is related to the supply of nuclear fuel to the plants in India, which would be used to produce nuclear weapons, by using end-use monitoring of spent fuel by the IAEA and the US organizations. There are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. These would end India"s nuclear weapons programme.
Alternative was available:
India was not a "Pariah" in the world of nuclear energy since 1974, as the media is suggesting, but India has become nearly self sufficient due to the help from the USSR and Russia. Russia, after India"s nuclear tests in 1974, was practically the only country for India as a source of materials for the nuclear energy industry including both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Russia along with the former Soviet Union so far has supplied India heavy water plants, reprocessing plants, Fast Breeder Reactors and two fresh nuclear power plants with the excuse that the contracts for these were signed between India and the Soviet Union in 1985, which Russia needs to oblige.
USSR has started for India the construction of the first FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor) of capacity of 40 MWt (million watts thermal) in Kalapakkan in 1985. In 2008 Russia has started the construction of a Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor( FBR) of capacity 500 MWE (million watts electrical) in Kalapakkan. Associated Reprocessing plants in Kalapakkan were first built by USSR in 1985 and then in 1998 by Russia.
Without the nuclear deal with NSG and USA India could be able to maintain its nuclear plants by using reprocessed plutonium as a fuel in the FBRs and using its own uranium in the conventional plants. India could continue to get both onshore and offshore nuclear plants from Russia, as it would honour the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1985. This is exactly what former President Putin and former Prime Minister Fradkov have suggested during their last visits to India, but India was not interested. In that case India would be at liberty to test and develop nuclear weapons any time it likes without any restrictions using plutonium from its FBRs and enriched Uranium from other nuclear plants. Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the Vienna Treaty with NSG on the other hand will increase both real and perceived restrictions on India that would in reality destroy any credible nuclear deterrent for India against possible attacks from either China or Pakistan.
Conclusion:
Section 103 of the Hyde Act suggests that the US would oppose development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. The section requires the US to work with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to further restrict transfers of equipment and technologies related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and production of heavy water to all countries, including India. The legislation also requires the US government to seek to prevent transfer of these equipment and technologies from other members of NSG or from any other source. Section 104(d) (2) stipulates that transfers to India cannot begin without the NSG guidelines. Also, there are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. The Senate Bill presented now will apply Hyde Act worldwide against India even when India will buy anything nuclear from any other countries within NSG.
International situation is rapidly changing. A new cold war has already started when USA wants to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia by including Georgia and Ukraine. USA is setting up missile launching stations in Poland and Czech Republic; in response Russia is setting up retaliatory missile stations in Kaliningrad, in the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Russia has already taken over South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. USA already has cancelled its 123 Deal with Russia, imposed sanctions against Russian scientific establishment and will not allow Russia to do any nuclear trade with USA. It is quite possible that in retaliation Russia very soon will withdraw itself from the NSG, as the current President Medvedev has ruled out Russia"s obligation towards any further reduction of its nuclear forces under the SALT treaty. Russia is already supplying sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Venezuela and Syria. India could just certainly wait for a few months rather than signing its surrender to USA in a great hurry.
By accepting the Vienna Treaty with NSG and the Indo-US 123 Deal, India is accepting a subordinate position in relation to USA and the Western countries, which is not needed for the future development of nuclear energy in India. Iran, Venezuela and Syria has not signed any 123 Deal with USA to receive nuclear plants from Russia. Pakistan is going to receive 6 nuclear plants from China without signing any 123 Deal with USA or any treaty with NSG or IAEA. India forgot the fact that NSG was created by the United States immediately after 1974 to punish India for its first atomic test. It was never directed towards Pakistan, who was allowed to accept whatever it wants from China.
China in 1985 has signed a very different 123 Treaty with USA as a recognized nuclear weapons state, whereas India in practice has given up its nuclear weapons by signing 123 Treaty with USA and IAEA as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The result will make Pakistan, which receives every nuclear weapons and missiles from China, much stronger than India in very near future.
Pakistan"s M-11 missiles obtained from China are mobile missiles although these have short ranges of 300km. "No-Dong" missiles obtained from North Korea with the approval of China has 1500km range. This can cover most important parts of India. Pakistan has no need, unlike that of India, to conduct any tests to maintain its nuclear weapons, as it can obtain these ready-made whenever it requires from China.
China has a formidable nuclear force located in Tibet directed against India. It has deployed some 125 long range (1700km or more) nuclear armed ballistic missiles, It has developed DF-31 ballistic missiles with a range of 8000 km, which can hit any parts of India from anywhere in China. Other missiles in the armory of China include CSS-2, CSS-3, and CSS-5 of 1700km range, which also can hit India from Tibet. China has decided to use Pakistan against India, by supplying whatever China has. Thus, Pakistan is now more powerful in nuclear weapons delivery system than India can be in near future.
That serves the geo-political interest of the United States with Pakistan as the bridge to the Islamic world. Gradual acceptance of Taliban by USA as recommended by Pakistan is already happening. The unfolding scenario will ruin India in the process when India will be forced to surrender also to the demands of Pakistan, a NATO ally of USA, and China, the most important business partner of the U.S corporations and on whom the fate of the US Dollar and the world economy depends. The possible appointment of the Richrd Holbrooke, the destroyer of Yugoslavia, a staunch anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani, as the negotiator between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan by the newly elected President Obama is the clear danger signal, which Indian political establishment is ignoring.
Due to the objections raised by USA, Russia is disinterested to continue to supply nuclear materials or power plants to India anymore. The sudden shift of Russia"s position is the result of India"s decision to ignore Russia since the days of Jaswant Singh first when he was the Foreign Minister of India and to buy weapons systems, aircrafts, submarines from Israel, Britain and France and India"s growing interest to purchase aircrafts from USA.
The nuclear offer of the US was never a friendly gesture to India as the Indian media had tried to to portray but a process of surrender for India regarding its nuclear energy and weapons programme. That process was indicated by President Clinton in 1998 when he declared openly that he loathed to even think that India-Pakistan can have nuclear weapons and the objective of the United States will be to roll back, curtail and eliminate India"s nuclear weapons programme. George Bush has followed that up using his charm and sweet talks, but the purpose was the same.
The media in India is giving the impression that USA is trying to make India as a bulwark against China. It was not true during the presidency of george Bush. It is absurd to even think about during the pro-Chinese presidency of Obama.
In fact, USA since 1972 has made China as a bulwark against the Soviet Union by supplying indirectly every type of weapons technology via Israel, France, Pakistan, and Turkey. USA also made China as the permanent member of the UN Security Council as a counterweight against the Soviet Union.
If USA wants to destroy China as a power, it can do so without firing a single bullet, but by just not importing from China and asking its allies not to import from China. USA had followed that policy in 1934 against Japan, but it has no intension to follow it against China, because that would undermine investments of large number of American companies and their profit.
China can also retaliate against USA just by selling its Dollar reserve, which would mean a massive devaluation of the US Dollar and destruction of the special status of the US Dollar as the international reserve currency - a fiat money by which USA can buy anything from the rest of the world just by printing its own currency. There is no need for the US to earn foreign exchange to pay for its imports or to pay for the American military bases all over the world in any other currency but in US Dollar.
This unique position would be diminished if China suddenly exchanges its Dollar holdings into Euro. That can destroy the American economy, as USA would not be able to use Dollar to get its imports. USA would be unable to pay for the expenses of the American military bases as well thus, reducing the US to a regional power, not a world power. Close bilateral relationship through trade and investments has made USA and China indispensable to each other.
Because of these threats to the American Dollar and the America"s special status as a super-power, USA is reluctant even to recognize Taiwan as a separate country, but still insisting upon the "one-China" policy which, basically approves Chinese colonialism over Taiwan. USA also has no policy towards Tibet or East Turkistan, which were colonized by China in 1949.
President Clinton has declared China as the strategic partner of USA. President Bush recently joined hands with China to oppose India"s possible membership of the UN Security Council. However, in 1972, President Nixon had no objection against China"s membership of the UN Security Council. USA even had forced the expulsion of Taiwan from the U.N to make room for China. President Obama just like President Clinton before him went to China and declared China, India"s enemy No 1, as the strategic partner of USA.
When India has declared after the nuclear tests in 1998 President Clinton has imposed sanctions against India and India was isolated in the world temporarily. President Bush has forced India to start the peace-process with Pakistan, who has already killed more than 50,000 people in the Jammu & Kashmir and has managed to spread terrorism throughout India, as the recent attack on Mumbai demonstrated. USA also forced India to abandon its development of long-range missiles and any further nuclear testing. As a result, India has no credible nuclear forces and is in no match for China. This situation will not change in future in favour of India, as USA does not want India to have either nuclear weapons or missiles.
USA is not offering India any advanced weapons system or aircrafts. The F-16 or F-18 aircraft, which USA has offered India is equivalent to Russian Mig-29, which India already got about ten years ago and is under production in HAL factories in India. USA is delivering same aircrafts to Pakistan for free as its aid programme against terrorism although Pakistan is the source of international terrorism.
A pure business deal from which USA not India will gain substantially is repackaged by the media as the friendly gesture of the United States to India.
The reality is that by accepting American pseudo-friendship India has become weaker than even Pakistan, who has long-range missiles fitted with nuclear weapons imported from China and can be used against India at any time.
As Pakistan has the policy of "first strike" with nuclear weapons, as obvious from the preparations of General Musharaf during the Kargil invasion of 1999, it is doubtful whether India, without the support of the Soviet Union as it had during both 1965 and 1971 wars, can withstand the first nuclear strike by Pakistan. The most likely scenario is that India will collapse, which would open the door for invasions by Pakistan, China, and Nepal.
India"s policy makers mainly diplomats from the Indian Foreign Service are excellent to surrender easily as they did in Simla Conference in 1972 and subsequently in every international gatherings. They, particularly the India"s ambassador to USA Mr.Ronen Sen and the national security adviser Narayanan, had advised the government to surrender to the American demand and to accept the control of the IAEA on the nuclear facilities in India.
They have failed to understand and still do not understand, as obvious from the statement made by Pranab Mukherjee that G-8 Declaration against India does not matter. The nuclear co-operation with USA would start the second phase of surrender to abolish nuclear weapons in India, but Pakistan, as an ally of both NATO and China, would still have nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that the India"s so-called experts of foreign policy cannot see the reality but have decided to live in a fool"s paradise.
Warnings About China @
http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/07/warning-about-china.html
Bartering Kashmir ??? @ http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/23/is-pm-bartering-kashmir-with-balochistan.htm
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Indias-New-Nuclear-Drama/blog-293.htm
Monday, July 20, 2009
** US perfidy & Singh
US perfidy and Manmohan
By M.V. Kamath
Organiser
If the Prime Minister who is so supportive of the US does not know it, only God and a powerful public opinion can save the country from imminent disaster. India should have its own foreign policy and it should implement it with determination.
We don’t have to be carried away by sweet talk. If the US wants any help, it must uphold India’s right to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council with veto power. It is time Britain and France are shown the door.
How much trust can we place in the United States? And who speaks authoritatively for the country? From what one notices, the Obama Government speaks in many voices. US Under Secretary of State William Burns who was in India early in June, told a press conference that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute should take into account the “wishes” of the people of the state, an impertinence that deserves to be strongly condemned.
The question of holding a plebiscite is totally irrelevant and under no circumstances will India agree to it. But there has hardly been any correction of Shri Burns’ faux pas from Washington, leaving one guessing what the Obama Government is upto.
Or consider this: Addressing a meeting of the top American and Indian Corporate Executives in Washington on June 10, US Secretary of State Clinton said that she saw India as “one of a few key partners worldwide who will help us shape the 21st Century” adding that “India is already a major player on the world stage and we look to cooperate with New Delhi as it shoulders responsibilities in its new position of global leadership”.
But will the US support India’s claim to Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council? It certainly wouldn’t, of what Acting Assistant Secretary for International Organisations, James Warlick, is to be believed.
According to him “We (the US) do not support extension of the veto in the UN Security Council”. So what kind of responsibilities can India shoulder without veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council?
And may one also ask: In what sense are England and France superior to India? They should be asked voluntarily to retire from the Security Council or debarred from membership by a majority vote in the General Assembly. And if China can have the veto, why shouldn’t India? If it is to play a role that Secretary of State Clinton assigns to it? Does Hillary Clinton want India to play second fiddle to the US, a larger replica of Pakistan?
Shri Burns was even more brash. He asked India to close down the Indian Consulate in Jalalabad in Afghanistan because of Pakistani complaint that India is “fomenting trouble” through that Consulate in the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan? Can India ask the US to tell Pakistan to shift its capital from Islamabad to Karachi because Islamabad is causing trouble in Jammu & Kashmir? Who is Shri Burns to advise us where we should set up our Consulates?
The US does not want Iran to equip itself with nuclear weapons, but it is turning a blind eye to what is happening in Pakistan which is expanding its nuclear arsenal by leaps and bounds? And yet America is pouring billions of dollars into Islamabad’s kitty. Pakistan already has 60 nuclear weapons in its arsenal and is working hard to produce more. There is not a word of protest from Washington on the subject.
According to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the United States will look to India to be “a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond”. That is nice of him to say so, but has Shri Gates given any thought to India’s internal security problem?
According to the latest findings, Pakistan is hosting 42 terror camps where over 2,000 terrorists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Taibe, Jaish-e-Mohammad and HuJi are getting training.
Has Shri Gates given the matter any thought? Washington speaks with a forked tongue. It has promised to give $ 7.5 billion to Pakistan over the course of the next five years, forgetting that Pakistan has used a substantial amount of aid given to it in the past to fight terrorism only to build up its own arms with modern weapons and equipment for conventional war against India. And who has revealed this truth? A Pentagon document, that’s who.
According to revelations by the Pentagon documents, all this was done with the full knowledge of the Bush Administration. It would seem that a major 9/11 American defence supply to Pakistan under Foreign Military Financing (FMF) had nothing to do with its fight against terrorism.
While the Taliban and Al-Qaeda gained ground in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, Islamabad bought eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and their refurbishment worth $ 474 million. It also placed orders for 5,250 TOW anti-armour missiles worth $ 186 million. Besides buying more than, 5,600 military radio sets worth $ 163 million, Pakistan bought six AN/TPS surveillance radars worth $ 76 million. It is a long list of purchases which includes 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 1,450 bombs of 2,000 lbs each, 500 JDM tail kits for gravity bombs and 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles worth $ 95 million, not to mention six Phalanx close-in naval guns worth $ 80 million. Does the Taliban or for that matter, Al-Qaeda run ships as well? Who is fooling whom?
Then we have reports that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Government of India has marked more than 200 transactions in the country as ‘terror-financed’ under circumstances of “unusual complexity and lack of bona fide purpose”.
Will Smt Hillary Clinton kindly ask her friends in Pakistan how they spend the money given to them as aid by the US? At every stage of the game the United States is proving itself to highly unreliable.
On May 20, 2009 The Times of India reported from Washington that the “US has again given what virtually amounts to a free pass to Pakistan’s India-specific nuclear weapons programme, washing its hands of reports by its own military and intelligence that Islamabad is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal while insisting it will ensure US aid is not spent on the country’s nuclear programme”. And who was supporting Pakistan’s perfidy?
Writes The Times of India: “Most of the batting for Pakistan was done by the State Department, but the Director of the CIS, Leon Panetta and America’s highest ranking military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen also stepped up during their day’s engagements to certify the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons”. The New York Times in a front page story quoted Bruce Riedel, a former White House official as saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than any place on earth and it has a nuclear weapons programme that is growing faster than any other place on earth”. India is being taken for a ride; all the smooth talk of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hogwash.
If the Prime Minister who is so supportive of the US does not know it, only God and a powerful public opinion can save the country from imminent disaster.
India should have its own foreign policy and it should implement it with determination. We don’t have to be carried away by sweet talk. If the US wants any help, it must uphold India’s right to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council with veto power.
It is time Britain and France are shown the door. They have been in Security Council for far too long and they are no longer the powers they once where with their Imperial pretensions.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=301&page=14
By M.V. Kamath
Organiser
If the Prime Minister who is so supportive of the US does not know it, only God and a powerful public opinion can save the country from imminent disaster. India should have its own foreign policy and it should implement it with determination.
We don’t have to be carried away by sweet talk. If the US wants any help, it must uphold India’s right to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council with veto power. It is time Britain and France are shown the door.
How much trust can we place in the United States? And who speaks authoritatively for the country? From what one notices, the Obama Government speaks in many voices. US Under Secretary of State William Burns who was in India early in June, told a press conference that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute should take into account the “wishes” of the people of the state, an impertinence that deserves to be strongly condemned.
The question of holding a plebiscite is totally irrelevant and under no circumstances will India agree to it. But there has hardly been any correction of Shri Burns’ faux pas from Washington, leaving one guessing what the Obama Government is upto.
Or consider this: Addressing a meeting of the top American and Indian Corporate Executives in Washington on June 10, US Secretary of State Clinton said that she saw India as “one of a few key partners worldwide who will help us shape the 21st Century” adding that “India is already a major player on the world stage and we look to cooperate with New Delhi as it shoulders responsibilities in its new position of global leadership”.
But will the US support India’s claim to Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council? It certainly wouldn’t, of what Acting Assistant Secretary for International Organisations, James Warlick, is to be believed.
According to him “We (the US) do not support extension of the veto in the UN Security Council”. So what kind of responsibilities can India shoulder without veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council?
And may one also ask: In what sense are England and France superior to India? They should be asked voluntarily to retire from the Security Council or debarred from membership by a majority vote in the General Assembly. And if China can have the veto, why shouldn’t India? If it is to play a role that Secretary of State Clinton assigns to it? Does Hillary Clinton want India to play second fiddle to the US, a larger replica of Pakistan?
Shri Burns was even more brash. He asked India to close down the Indian Consulate in Jalalabad in Afghanistan because of Pakistani complaint that India is “fomenting trouble” through that Consulate in the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan? Can India ask the US to tell Pakistan to shift its capital from Islamabad to Karachi because Islamabad is causing trouble in Jammu & Kashmir? Who is Shri Burns to advise us where we should set up our Consulates?
The US does not want Iran to equip itself with nuclear weapons, but it is turning a blind eye to what is happening in Pakistan which is expanding its nuclear arsenal by leaps and bounds? And yet America is pouring billions of dollars into Islamabad’s kitty. Pakistan already has 60 nuclear weapons in its arsenal and is working hard to produce more. There is not a word of protest from Washington on the subject.
According to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the United States will look to India to be “a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond”. That is nice of him to say so, but has Shri Gates given any thought to India’s internal security problem?
According to the latest findings, Pakistan is hosting 42 terror camps where over 2,000 terrorists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Taibe, Jaish-e-Mohammad and HuJi are getting training.
Has Shri Gates given the matter any thought? Washington speaks with a forked tongue. It has promised to give $ 7.5 billion to Pakistan over the course of the next five years, forgetting that Pakistan has used a substantial amount of aid given to it in the past to fight terrorism only to build up its own arms with modern weapons and equipment for conventional war against India. And who has revealed this truth? A Pentagon document, that’s who.
According to revelations by the Pentagon documents, all this was done with the full knowledge of the Bush Administration. It would seem that a major 9/11 American defence supply to Pakistan under Foreign Military Financing (FMF) had nothing to do with its fight against terrorism.
While the Taliban and Al-Qaeda gained ground in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, Islamabad bought eight P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and their refurbishment worth $ 474 million. It also placed orders for 5,250 TOW anti-armour missiles worth $ 186 million. Besides buying more than, 5,600 military radio sets worth $ 163 million, Pakistan bought six AN/TPS surveillance radars worth $ 76 million. It is a long list of purchases which includes 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, 1,450 bombs of 2,000 lbs each, 500 JDM tail kits for gravity bombs and 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles worth $ 95 million, not to mention six Phalanx close-in naval guns worth $ 80 million. Does the Taliban or for that matter, Al-Qaeda run ships as well? Who is fooling whom?
Then we have reports that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Government of India has marked more than 200 transactions in the country as ‘terror-financed’ under circumstances of “unusual complexity and lack of bona fide purpose”.
Will Smt Hillary Clinton kindly ask her friends in Pakistan how they spend the money given to them as aid by the US? At every stage of the game the United States is proving itself to highly unreliable.
On May 20, 2009 The Times of India reported from Washington that the “US has again given what virtually amounts to a free pass to Pakistan’s India-specific nuclear weapons programme, washing its hands of reports by its own military and intelligence that Islamabad is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal while insisting it will ensure US aid is not spent on the country’s nuclear programme”. And who was supporting Pakistan’s perfidy?
Writes The Times of India: “Most of the batting for Pakistan was done by the State Department, but the Director of the CIS, Leon Panetta and America’s highest ranking military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen also stepped up during their day’s engagements to certify the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons”. The New York Times in a front page story quoted Bruce Riedel, a former White House official as saying that Pakistan “has more terrorists per square mile than any place on earth and it has a nuclear weapons programme that is growing faster than any other place on earth”. India is being taken for a ride; all the smooth talk of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hogwash.
If the Prime Minister who is so supportive of the US does not know it, only God and a powerful public opinion can save the country from imminent disaster.
India should have its own foreign policy and it should implement it with determination. We don’t have to be carried away by sweet talk. If the US wants any help, it must uphold India’s right to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council with veto power.
It is time Britain and France are shown the door. They have been in Security Council for far too long and they are no longer the powers they once where with their Imperial pretensions.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=301&page=14
Monday, July 13, 2009
** Warning about China
'Nervous' China may attack India by 2012?
July 12, 2009 - Rediff.com
A leading defence expert has projected that China will attack India by 2012 to divert the attention of its own people from "unprecedented" internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems that are threatening the hold of Communists in that country.
"China will launch an attack on India before 2012. There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century," Bharat Verma, Editor of the Indian Defence Review, has said.
Verma said the recession has "shut the Chinese exports shop", creating an "unprecedented internal social unrest" which in turn, was severely threatening the grip of the Communists over the society. Among other reasons for this assessment were rising unemployment, flight of capital worth billions of dollars, depletion of its foreign exchange reserves and growing internal dissent, Verma said in an editorial in the forthcoming issue of the premier defence journal.
In addition to this, "The growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness," he said, adding that US President Barak Obama's Af-Pak policy was primarily Pak-Af policy that has "intelligently set the thief to catch the thief".
Verma said Beijing was "already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India." "Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the US and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise. "All these three concerns of Chinese Communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives," he said.
While China "covertly allowed" North Korea to test underground nuclear explosion and carry out missile trials, it was also "increasing its naval presence in South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands," the defence expert said. He said it would be "unwise" at this point of time for a recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. "Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast," Verma said.
But India is "least prepared" on ground to face the Chinese threat, he says and asks a series of questions on how will India respond to repulse the Chinese game plan or whether Indian leadership would be able to "take the heat of war".
"Is Indian military equipped to face the two-front wars by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian civil administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare? "The answers are an unequivocal 'no'.
Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front," the defence journal editor says.
In view of the "imminent threat" posed by China, "the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the civil administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground -- from Lalgarh to Tawang," he says.
http://www.rediff.com///news/2009/jul/12nervous-china-may-attack-india-in-2012-defence-expert.htm
July 12, 2009 - Rediff.com
A leading defence expert has projected that China will attack India by 2012 to divert the attention of its own people from "unprecedented" internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems that are threatening the hold of Communists in that country.
"China will launch an attack on India before 2012. There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century," Bharat Verma, Editor of the Indian Defence Review, has said.
Verma said the recession has "shut the Chinese exports shop", creating an "unprecedented internal social unrest" which in turn, was severely threatening the grip of the Communists over the society. Among other reasons for this assessment were rising unemployment, flight of capital worth billions of dollars, depletion of its foreign exchange reserves and growing internal dissent, Verma said in an editorial in the forthcoming issue of the premier defence journal.
In addition to this, "The growing irrelevance of Pakistan, their right hand that operates against India on their behest, is increasing the Chinese nervousness," he said, adding that US President Barak Obama's Af-Pak policy was primarily Pak-Af policy that has "intelligently set the thief to catch the thief".
Verma said Beijing was "already rattled, with its proxy Pakistan now literally embroiled in a civil war, losing its sheen against India." "Above all, it is worried over the growing alliance of India with the US and the West, because the alliance has the potential to create a technologically superior counterpoise. "All these three concerns of Chinese Communists are best addressed by waging a war against pacifist India to achieve multiple strategic objectives," he said.
While China "covertly allowed" North Korea to test underground nuclear explosion and carry out missile trials, it was also "increasing its naval presence in South China Sea to coerce into submission those opposing its claim on the Sprately Islands," the defence expert said. He said it would be "unwise" at this point of time for a recession-hit China to move against the Western interests, including Japan. "Therefore, the most attractive option is to attack a soft target like India and forcibly occupy its territory in the Northeast," Verma said.
But India is "least prepared" on ground to face the Chinese threat, he says and asks a series of questions on how will India respond to repulse the Chinese game plan or whether Indian leadership would be able to "take the heat of war".
"Is Indian military equipped to face the two-front wars by Beijing and Islamabad? Is the Indian civil administration geared to meet the internal security challenges that the external actors will sponsor simultaneously through their doctrine of unrestricted warfare? "The answers are an unequivocal 'no'.
Pacifist India is not ready by a long shot either on the internal or the external front," the defence journal editor says.
In view of the "imminent threat" posed by China, "the quickest way to swing out of pacifism to a state of assertion is by injecting military thinking in the civil administration to build the sinews. That will enormously increase the deliverables on ground -- from Lalgarh to Tawang," he says.
http://www.rediff.com///news/2009/jul/12nervous-china-may-attack-india-in-2012-defence-expert.htm
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
** Punjab Burnt for a day
Punjab Burnt for a Day
May 26, Sulekha Blog
Manmohan Singh
Every citizen including those belonged to Sikh faith at first instance surprised that how attack inside Gurdwara in Vienna ( Austria) is related to the instantaneous unrest in Punjab. People irrespective whether Sikh or Hindu came on the streets and expressed their anger.
First of all, the incidence of Gurdwara in which a saint belonging to Ravidasia faith lost his life and few others were wounded.
Here in Punjab. Agitating people were hailing from Ravidasia faith. Saint Ravidas hailing from south has got following amongst the backward class people of Punjab. Saint Ravidas holy work has got respectable place in holy book of Sikh faith Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Thus he stands amongst the others saints and gurus whose work is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
This was not Sikhs versus Hindus. As it was not even when Punjab was burning in post Blue Star era ( 1984-1992 ) . Though at that time it was tried to divide the two main communities. They remained united. The reason being both communities believe in the teachings of Sikh gurus and bow against Sri Guru Granth Sahib , as this holy book contains the works of all Sikh , Hindu and Muslim saints. Not only that the common language bind them. Inter caste marriages are common in Punjab.
Ravidasis are backward, not accepted socially by high cast Sikhs (Jats agrarian class). These Ravidasis are landless laborers and workers though some of them have non agricultural industries like leather processing units.
These so called backward class people as generally feel rejected and dejected and whenever they find some reason to revolt they do it. Once their Saint is killed in Vienna they have valid reason to revolt.
Punjab government allowed the situation to worsen to be en cashed for the coming bye-election. Punjab policemen , who are otherwise considered very hard and public generally avoid and afraid of them , were found silently watching. Even not acting when they could easily in some pockets. May be not willing to invite the wrath of public against them also obeying their masters.
Properties worth of crores was destroyed not looted. To whom they are showing their anger. Destroying their own properties which are created by the government by using the contributed income of public in the form of taxes. Badly destroyed was the Maruti showroom at one place. All the high end models were damaged.
Whenever depressed class people get the chance to revolt, first they target the village Bania and his grain shop and loot it. They settle the score over Banias who they think loot the public silently since ages. Here the most damaged was the Maruti Showroom (definitely owned by some high caste businessman).
Agitators were from the section of youth, with no work, from the group of unemployed numbering 18 lacs in Punjab.
It is time to rethink, Gudwaras are meant for all, and in the same spirit Gurus include all the then religious saints irrespective of cast and creeds. Better upper class Jats they show equality to all as their gurus showed.
Some social orientation is needed. On the government part youth of the Punjab need work and employment. This is to be started now unless the things take ugly turn and politicians utilize the situation for their ends, with fresh wounds to be healed for the decades to come.
Caste Dividing Sikhs @ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/caste-cutting-clash-of-identities-dividing-sikhs/93465-3.html
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/blogs/post/2009/05/punjab-burnt-for-a-day.htm
May 26, Sulekha Blog
Manmohan Singh
Every citizen including those belonged to Sikh faith at first instance surprised that how attack inside Gurdwara in Vienna ( Austria) is related to the instantaneous unrest in Punjab. People irrespective whether Sikh or Hindu came on the streets and expressed their anger.
First of all, the incidence of Gurdwara in which a saint belonging to Ravidasia faith lost his life and few others were wounded.
Here in Punjab. Agitating people were hailing from Ravidasia faith. Saint Ravidas hailing from south has got following amongst the backward class people of Punjab. Saint Ravidas holy work has got respectable place in holy book of Sikh faith Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Thus he stands amongst the others saints and gurus whose work is included in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
This was not Sikhs versus Hindus. As it was not even when Punjab was burning in post Blue Star era ( 1984-1992 ) . Though at that time it was tried to divide the two main communities. They remained united. The reason being both communities believe in the teachings of Sikh gurus and bow against Sri Guru Granth Sahib , as this holy book contains the works of all Sikh , Hindu and Muslim saints. Not only that the common language bind them. Inter caste marriages are common in Punjab.
Ravidasis are backward, not accepted socially by high cast Sikhs (Jats agrarian class). These Ravidasis are landless laborers and workers though some of them have non agricultural industries like leather processing units.
These so called backward class people as generally feel rejected and dejected and whenever they find some reason to revolt they do it. Once their Saint is killed in Vienna they have valid reason to revolt.
Punjab government allowed the situation to worsen to be en cashed for the coming bye-election. Punjab policemen , who are otherwise considered very hard and public generally avoid and afraid of them , were found silently watching. Even not acting when they could easily in some pockets. May be not willing to invite the wrath of public against them also obeying their masters.
Properties worth of crores was destroyed not looted. To whom they are showing their anger. Destroying their own properties which are created by the government by using the contributed income of public in the form of taxes. Badly destroyed was the Maruti showroom at one place. All the high end models were damaged.
Whenever depressed class people get the chance to revolt, first they target the village Bania and his grain shop and loot it. They settle the score over Banias who they think loot the public silently since ages. Here the most damaged was the Maruti Showroom (definitely owned by some high caste businessman).
Agitators were from the section of youth, with no work, from the group of unemployed numbering 18 lacs in Punjab.
It is time to rethink, Gudwaras are meant for all, and in the same spirit Gurus include all the then religious saints irrespective of cast and creeds. Better upper class Jats they show equality to all as their gurus showed.
Some social orientation is needed. On the government part youth of the Punjab need work and employment. This is to be started now unless the things take ugly turn and politicians utilize the situation for their ends, with fresh wounds to be healed for the decades to come.
Caste Dividing Sikhs @ http://ibnlive.in.com/news/caste-cutting-clash-of-identities-dividing-sikhs/93465-3.html
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/blogs/post/2009/05/punjab-burnt-for-a-day.htm
Monday, May 18, 2009
** Verdict 2009
Verdict 2009: Happy and Unhappy
Undercurrents.ca
We are happy & also have reasons to be unhappy
Why we are happy:
The verdict was in clear numbers. The nation has been spared the trauma of horse-trading; it was agonizing to see constant bickering and jostling for power during the last regime. Now Governance however bad it could be is still possible. It must be a relief to operate the government without the black mail of the communist parties of India.
It also reflects on the maturity of the Indian voter that they have rejected regional parties overwhelmingly. It was quite scary the way they were threatening to tear the fabric apart. We are equally happy for AIIMS. They must be expecting with happiness a new health minister. We are happy for the minorities & “secularists” at the relief they are experiencing that NDA hasn’t come to power. We are happy that the temperate lady Ms.Jayalalitha hasn’t been given any grip on power. The nation has been spared another Tea party.
With this clear majority Mr.Man Mohan Singh may wean himself away from the title of weak prime minister. We are happy for him and congratulations on his “style”. He has made the Sikh community proud by negotiating himself to the position of the prime minister of India again.
Reasons why we are not happy:
Our primary grouse against congress government & its friends is that they have demonstrated on more then multiple occasion that it has an Anti-Hindu agenda.
Some examples: The free run it has given to evangelical forces who operate with such scant respect to Hindu religious sentiments, the persecution of people who defend Hinduism, the act of embossing national currency with a deceptive cross, the act of tampering with the “Ram Sethu”, the act of inviting Mr. Benny Hinn to Bangalore, the act of appointing Christian heads to Hindu institutions like the Kalashektra dance school & The Venkateswara university in Tirupati, the act of silently enabling the break down of Hindu rule in Nepal, the act of replacing the census chief just because he gave the right numbers on Muslim population explosion.
Their acts point to one direction, that the sentiments, aspirations of the Majority Hindus can be brushed under the carpet while at the same time excessive importance is given even to the mildest whim of the minorities.
That mindset gives us reason for apprehension. The re-election of congress government would mean a renewal of attacks on Hindu religious practices & institutions by a combination of forces. This would also mean opening the doors fully for evangelists to operate with government patron.
The Indian voter has seen the election purely from an Indian stability point of view, which is quite mature. The Indian voter either due to or in spite of his illiteracy and poverty has done which no voter in any other part of the world would do. The Indian voter has “voted” for an outsider to rule them. That is a characteristic so peculiar to the Indian sub-continent. They seem to have an affinity to things foreign. The Indian cricket team has a foreign coach; the Indian congress has a foreigner as its chief.
The congress chief is not a Hindu. Her daughter and son in law is not a Hindu. Her son may not marry a Hindu. Will any European or American nation ever vote a Non Christian and most importantly a Hindu as their party chief? Mr. Bobby Jindal had to convert to Christianity to be where he is now. It is a cause of worry that power in India is now in the hands of a person who professes a faith that is surely not Hindu friendly. We now worry that our religious instititutions would be wearied and torn down systematically. Any act of defending against such government action would be dealt as a law and order issue.
Why are we pro BJP? Is it because they have great governance? No because they fare equally good or bad as the congress in governance and administration. (With the exception of Gujarat) With BJP in power we are ensured that Hinduism is safe.
If the congress government can demonstrate that it can be a truly secular party, then we would support it totally. But they have a strong Christian agenda which is threatening to a Hindu. They would do anti-Hindu things in India what right wing Christians can only dream to do in the west.
Because unlike India there is a strong commitment to public civility in the west.
For centuries Hindus were ruled by sword and deceit. They had a brief respite from foreign rule when the great Mahatma under exceptional circumstances produced exceptional leadership qualities and won freedom from the British. Now the same Hindus are giving away their freedom by democratic means.
In spite of their rhetoric, and numbers the BJP isn’t yet a party that has a passion and hunger for power the way the congress does. Elections are not just about ideologies, but most importantly the art of gaining and retaining power. BJP seems to be on a learning curve in the art of holding and retaining power. That was also the principal point of difference between Mr. Paul Martin & Jean Chrétien of the Liberal party of Canada.
We hope that the BJP would come out with a good plan to open accounts in states they haven’t so far. However BJP is a young party. The majority of India are Hindus, and a young new Vajpayee is waiting to emerge from the millions of Hindus to take the country in the right direction.
With this verdict we don’t foresee any big changes in the day to day life of the Indian voter. Corruption shall flourish, infrastructure shall remain what it is, defense will languish, the appeasement of minorities will continue, terrorism shall be tolerated, and the poor man shall be kept in waiting…the way things were for the past 50 years.
We congratulate the majority Hindu population of India who were more open hearted then their western counterparts and welcomed Ms.Sonia, an Italian, as their party chief. It now remains to be seen how she reciprocates.
source: http://theundercurrent.ca/ind_pol_11.htm?id=8522
Undercurrents.ca
We are happy & also have reasons to be unhappy
Why we are happy:
The verdict was in clear numbers. The nation has been spared the trauma of horse-trading; it was agonizing to see constant bickering and jostling for power during the last regime. Now Governance however bad it could be is still possible. It must be a relief to operate the government without the black mail of the communist parties of India.
It also reflects on the maturity of the Indian voter that they have rejected regional parties overwhelmingly. It was quite scary the way they were threatening to tear the fabric apart. We are equally happy for AIIMS. They must be expecting with happiness a new health minister. We are happy for the minorities & “secularists” at the relief they are experiencing that NDA hasn’t come to power. We are happy that the temperate lady Ms.Jayalalitha hasn’t been given any grip on power. The nation has been spared another Tea party.
With this clear majority Mr.Man Mohan Singh may wean himself away from the title of weak prime minister. We are happy for him and congratulations on his “style”. He has made the Sikh community proud by negotiating himself to the position of the prime minister of India again.
Reasons why we are not happy:
Our primary grouse against congress government & its friends is that they have demonstrated on more then multiple occasion that it has an Anti-Hindu agenda.
Some examples: The free run it has given to evangelical forces who operate with such scant respect to Hindu religious sentiments, the persecution of people who defend Hinduism, the act of embossing national currency with a deceptive cross, the act of tampering with the “Ram Sethu”, the act of inviting Mr. Benny Hinn to Bangalore, the act of appointing Christian heads to Hindu institutions like the Kalashektra dance school & The Venkateswara university in Tirupati, the act of silently enabling the break down of Hindu rule in Nepal, the act of replacing the census chief just because he gave the right numbers on Muslim population explosion.
Their acts point to one direction, that the sentiments, aspirations of the Majority Hindus can be brushed under the carpet while at the same time excessive importance is given even to the mildest whim of the minorities.
That mindset gives us reason for apprehension. The re-election of congress government would mean a renewal of attacks on Hindu religious practices & institutions by a combination of forces. This would also mean opening the doors fully for evangelists to operate with government patron.
The Indian voter has seen the election purely from an Indian stability point of view, which is quite mature. The Indian voter either due to or in spite of his illiteracy and poverty has done which no voter in any other part of the world would do. The Indian voter has “voted” for an outsider to rule them. That is a characteristic so peculiar to the Indian sub-continent. They seem to have an affinity to things foreign. The Indian cricket team has a foreign coach; the Indian congress has a foreigner as its chief.
The congress chief is not a Hindu. Her daughter and son in law is not a Hindu. Her son may not marry a Hindu. Will any European or American nation ever vote a Non Christian and most importantly a Hindu as their party chief? Mr. Bobby Jindal had to convert to Christianity to be where he is now. It is a cause of worry that power in India is now in the hands of a person who professes a faith that is surely not Hindu friendly. We now worry that our religious instititutions would be wearied and torn down systematically. Any act of defending against such government action would be dealt as a law and order issue.
Why are we pro BJP? Is it because they have great governance? No because they fare equally good or bad as the congress in governance and administration. (With the exception of Gujarat) With BJP in power we are ensured that Hinduism is safe.
If the congress government can demonstrate that it can be a truly secular party, then we would support it totally. But they have a strong Christian agenda which is threatening to a Hindu. They would do anti-Hindu things in India what right wing Christians can only dream to do in the west.
Because unlike India there is a strong commitment to public civility in the west.
For centuries Hindus were ruled by sword and deceit. They had a brief respite from foreign rule when the great Mahatma under exceptional circumstances produced exceptional leadership qualities and won freedom from the British. Now the same Hindus are giving away their freedom by democratic means.
In spite of their rhetoric, and numbers the BJP isn’t yet a party that has a passion and hunger for power the way the congress does. Elections are not just about ideologies, but most importantly the art of gaining and retaining power. BJP seems to be on a learning curve in the art of holding and retaining power. That was also the principal point of difference between Mr. Paul Martin & Jean Chrétien of the Liberal party of Canada.
We hope that the BJP would come out with a good plan to open accounts in states they haven’t so far. However BJP is a young party. The majority of India are Hindus, and a young new Vajpayee is waiting to emerge from the millions of Hindus to take the country in the right direction.
With this verdict we don’t foresee any big changes in the day to day life of the Indian voter. Corruption shall flourish, infrastructure shall remain what it is, defense will languish, the appeasement of minorities will continue, terrorism shall be tolerated, and the poor man shall be kept in waiting…the way things were for the past 50 years.
We congratulate the majority Hindu population of India who were more open hearted then their western counterparts and welcomed Ms.Sonia, an Italian, as their party chief. It now remains to be seen how she reciprocates.
source: http://theundercurrent.ca/ind_pol_11.htm?id=8522
Thursday, April 23, 2009
** India's 'Red Corridor'
Maoists rule India's 'Red Corridor'
By Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times - April 24
BANGALORE - Indian Maoists hijacked a train with 800 passengers in the eastern state of Jharkhand on Wednesday morning. Although the crisis was defused within five hours, when the Maoists released the train and its passengers, the incident has sparked grave concern throughout the security establishment.
The ease with which the Maoists were able to stage an operation of this magnitude - and at a time when security has been tightened for general elections - has laid bare yet again that it is the Maoists' writ, not that of the government that runs through this part of the country. The train was on its way from Barkakana in Jharkhand to Mugalsarai in the neighboring state of Uttar Pradesh when it was hijacked near Hehegarha railway station in Latehar district.
Around 200 Maoists are said to have carried out the operation. A railway station in Palamu was bombed as well. In March 2006, a train was hijacked in the same district. Passengers were set free after 12 hours. The Indian Railways have been targeted repeatedly by the Maoists.
Besides holding-up trains, they have blasted railway tracks, burned railway stations, looted weapons from railway police and abducted personnel. No passengers were hurt in Wednesday's hijacking and hostage drama. The operation, which took place on the eve of the second part of India's month-long five-phase general election, was aimed at scaring voters into staying away from polling booths.
Maoists have called for a boycott of the polls in the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Bihar. In a bid to disrupt polling during the first phase of voting last week, they detonated landmines, raided polling booths and torched electronic voting machines.
Around 20 people were killed and scores injured on polling day alone. Analysts have sought to downplay the impact of the Maoist's poll violence. Bibhu Prasad Routray, research fellow at the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management has written that "Maoist violence on April 16 affected a meager 0.09% (71) of the 76,000 polling stations that were identified as vulnerable in the first phase."
He argues that Maoists suffered damage in the violence they sought to inflict on the security forces in the run-up to voting. While the Maoists have carried out spectacular attacks and did disrupt polls to some extent, they were not fully successful in effecting a boycott.
Voter turnout in the constituencies worst hit by Maoist violence was a respectable 50%.
Maoist influence runs through a stretch of territory referred to as the "Red Corridor". This extends from the Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh through Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand up to Bihar. Areas in western Orissa and eastern Uttar Pradesh are also under Maoist influence. And they have some presence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka as well.
The area where the Maoists operate has grown dramatically in recent years. In the early 1990s the number of districts affected by varying degrees of Maoist violence stood at just 15 in four states. This rose to 55 districts in nine states by the end of 2003 and to 156 districts in 13 states in 2004. Maoists are believed to be operating now in around 200 districts (of a total of 602 districts in the country) in 17 states.
Government officials point out that these statistics and the name Red Corridor have conjured up images of Maoists being in control of a large swathe of land and posing a threat to the Indian state. An official in Chhattisgarh's Bastar region told Asia Times Online that while the Maoists do control "some area" in Dantewada district and are able to carry out big attacks in several states, in most areas of the Red Corridor they operate as a hit-and-run force. "They do not threaten the government, either at the state or the federal level and they are nowhere near sparking off a general uprising," he said, drawing attention to the diminishing public support for the Maoists and increasing resistance to their diktats.
Human-rights activists argue that while the Maoist threat might "not have Delhi on its knees, it is a fact that the problem has laid bare India's failure to deliver good governance, to respond to the plight of the poorest and most marginalized sections of its population".
Unlike jihadi violence that comes from across the border in Pakistan, Maoist violence has its roots firmly in India. Indeed, the Maoist problem has left India red-faced. Districts that fall in the Red Corridor are rich in minerals like iron ore and bauxite. But the people living there, who are largely Adivasi or tribal are desperately poor.
Exploited by forest officials, contractors, mining companies and middlemen and neglected by the state, villagers in the Red Corridor are among the worst off in the country. And it is to liberate them from their oppressors and the Indian state that the Maoists claim to be waging their armed struggle. It is true the Maoists have improved life for the Adivasis by forcing local officials to dig wells or pay better wages to the villagers. But over time, the liberators have turned oppressors themselves.
Villagers who don't obey the Maoists have been killed and Maoist violence stands in the way of development projects. The scale of Maoist operations has grown dramatically over the years.
In November 2005, more than 1,000 Maoists stormed a jail in Jehanabad in Bihar and freed about 350 of their jailed comrades. Armories and camps of the police and paramilitary forces have been raided. A week ago, they signaled capacity to stand and fight the security forces.
Around 200 Maoists stormed a state-owned bauxite mining company in the eastern state of Orissa, taking around 100 employees hostage. They battled for more than nine hours with members of India's Special Operations Group and its Central Industrial Security Force before they finally retreated. Analysts have drawn attention to increasing Maoist attacks on infrastructure.
P Ramana, research fellow at the Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, has pointed out that 62 telecommunication towers were damaged by the Maoists in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Orissa in from 2005 to 2008, with 43 of these occurring in 2008.
These attacks are aimed at disrupting "communication amongst the security forces, as well as between 'police informants' - who have been provided cellular telephones - and the security forces, in order that operations against the rebels get impaired," he writes.
The Maoists have also been blowing up power lines and service towers. In May 2007, they blew up three 132 KVA high-tension towers in the Bastar region, plunging six districts into darkness for a week and disrupting normal power distribution for a fortnight. "Functioning of hospitals, communication systems and rail traffic, besides iron ore mines was badly affected," Ramana points out. In June of last year, two 220 KVA towers were blasted depriving 15,000 villages of electricity.
Maoists have displayed their military capability through their high-profile attacks on railways and other infrastructure. They have been able to inflict losses running into millions of dollars on the state they are seeking to overthrow. But simultaneously they are inflicting heavy losses on the people they claim they are going to liberate. They have worsened the daily lives of some of India's most exploited people.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KD24Df05.html
By Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times - April 24
BANGALORE - Indian Maoists hijacked a train with 800 passengers in the eastern state of Jharkhand on Wednesday morning. Although the crisis was defused within five hours, when the Maoists released the train and its passengers, the incident has sparked grave concern throughout the security establishment.
The ease with which the Maoists were able to stage an operation of this magnitude - and at a time when security has been tightened for general elections - has laid bare yet again that it is the Maoists' writ, not that of the government that runs through this part of the country. The train was on its way from Barkakana in Jharkhand to Mugalsarai in the neighboring state of Uttar Pradesh when it was hijacked near Hehegarha railway station in Latehar district.
Around 200 Maoists are said to have carried out the operation. A railway station in Palamu was bombed as well. In March 2006, a train was hijacked in the same district. Passengers were set free after 12 hours. The Indian Railways have been targeted repeatedly by the Maoists.
Besides holding-up trains, they have blasted railway tracks, burned railway stations, looted weapons from railway police and abducted personnel. No passengers were hurt in Wednesday's hijacking and hostage drama. The operation, which took place on the eve of the second part of India's month-long five-phase general election, was aimed at scaring voters into staying away from polling booths.
Maoists have called for a boycott of the polls in the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Bihar. In a bid to disrupt polling during the first phase of voting last week, they detonated landmines, raided polling booths and torched electronic voting machines.
Around 20 people were killed and scores injured on polling day alone. Analysts have sought to downplay the impact of the Maoist's poll violence. Bibhu Prasad Routray, research fellow at the Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management has written that "Maoist violence on April 16 affected a meager 0.09% (71) of the 76,000 polling stations that were identified as vulnerable in the first phase."
He argues that Maoists suffered damage in the violence they sought to inflict on the security forces in the run-up to voting. While the Maoists have carried out spectacular attacks and did disrupt polls to some extent, they were not fully successful in effecting a boycott.
Voter turnout in the constituencies worst hit by Maoist violence was a respectable 50%.
Maoist influence runs through a stretch of territory referred to as the "Red Corridor". This extends from the Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh through Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand up to Bihar. Areas in western Orissa and eastern Uttar Pradesh are also under Maoist influence. And they have some presence in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka as well.
The area where the Maoists operate has grown dramatically in recent years. In the early 1990s the number of districts affected by varying degrees of Maoist violence stood at just 15 in four states. This rose to 55 districts in nine states by the end of 2003 and to 156 districts in 13 states in 2004. Maoists are believed to be operating now in around 200 districts (of a total of 602 districts in the country) in 17 states.
Government officials point out that these statistics and the name Red Corridor have conjured up images of Maoists being in control of a large swathe of land and posing a threat to the Indian state. An official in Chhattisgarh's Bastar region told Asia Times Online that while the Maoists do control "some area" in Dantewada district and are able to carry out big attacks in several states, in most areas of the Red Corridor they operate as a hit-and-run force. "They do not threaten the government, either at the state or the federal level and they are nowhere near sparking off a general uprising," he said, drawing attention to the diminishing public support for the Maoists and increasing resistance to their diktats.
Human-rights activists argue that while the Maoist threat might "not have Delhi on its knees, it is a fact that the problem has laid bare India's failure to deliver good governance, to respond to the plight of the poorest and most marginalized sections of its population".
Unlike jihadi violence that comes from across the border in Pakistan, Maoist violence has its roots firmly in India. Indeed, the Maoist problem has left India red-faced. Districts that fall in the Red Corridor are rich in minerals like iron ore and bauxite. But the people living there, who are largely Adivasi or tribal are desperately poor.
Exploited by forest officials, contractors, mining companies and middlemen and neglected by the state, villagers in the Red Corridor are among the worst off in the country. And it is to liberate them from their oppressors and the Indian state that the Maoists claim to be waging their armed struggle. It is true the Maoists have improved life for the Adivasis by forcing local officials to dig wells or pay better wages to the villagers. But over time, the liberators have turned oppressors themselves.
Villagers who don't obey the Maoists have been killed and Maoist violence stands in the way of development projects. The scale of Maoist operations has grown dramatically over the years.
In November 2005, more than 1,000 Maoists stormed a jail in Jehanabad in Bihar and freed about 350 of their jailed comrades. Armories and camps of the police and paramilitary forces have been raided. A week ago, they signaled capacity to stand and fight the security forces.
Around 200 Maoists stormed a state-owned bauxite mining company in the eastern state of Orissa, taking around 100 employees hostage. They battled for more than nine hours with members of India's Special Operations Group and its Central Industrial Security Force before they finally retreated. Analysts have drawn attention to increasing Maoist attacks on infrastructure.
P Ramana, research fellow at the Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, has pointed out that 62 telecommunication towers were damaged by the Maoists in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Orissa in from 2005 to 2008, with 43 of these occurring in 2008.
These attacks are aimed at disrupting "communication amongst the security forces, as well as between 'police informants' - who have been provided cellular telephones - and the security forces, in order that operations against the rebels get impaired," he writes.
The Maoists have also been blowing up power lines and service towers. In May 2007, they blew up three 132 KVA high-tension towers in the Bastar region, plunging six districts into darkness for a week and disrupting normal power distribution for a fortnight. "Functioning of hospitals, communication systems and rail traffic, besides iron ore mines was badly affected," Ramana points out. In June of last year, two 220 KVA towers were blasted depriving 15,000 villages of electricity.
Maoists have displayed their military capability through their high-profile attacks on railways and other infrastructure. They have been able to inflict losses running into millions of dollars on the state they are seeking to overthrow. But simultaneously they are inflicting heavy losses on the people they claim they are going to liberate. They have worsened the daily lives of some of India's most exploited people.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KD24Df05.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
