BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE 7

Published on 10 Mar 2013 ALL INDIA BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE HELD AT Dr.B. R. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,DADAR,MUMBAI ON 2ND AND 3RD MARCH 2013. Mr.PALASH BISWAS (JOURNALIST -KOLKATA) DELIVERING HER SPEECH. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL-n6MrcoM http://youtu.be/oLL-n6MrcoM

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Mayawati Sings Dalit Song to Hide her alliance with the Brahaminical hegemony as Manusmriti Avtar Reincarnated PUSHYAMITRA Shung Baba Ramdev Surfaces in New delhi to contribute to the Civil society Blitz!As India and Pakistan restored peace talks ove


Mayawati Sings Dalit Song to Hide her alliance with the Brahaminical hegemony  as Manusmriti Avtar Reincarnated PUSHYAMITRA Shung Baba Ramdev Surfaces in New delhi to contribute to the Civil society Blitz!As India and Pakistan restored peace talks over pending issues including Kashmir, veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani Sunday slammed the country's first political family of late prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose "lack of courage" led to the Kashmir issue remaining unresolved.Advani on Sunday accused Congress party of having failed to capitalise on the victory in the 1971 Indo-Pak war, saying that it resulted in Pakistan exporting "cross-border terrorism" and "religious extremism". After a not so pleasant experience of engaging with Anna Hazare's team in drafting of the Lokpal Bill, the government says that there will be no such experiment in the future.   Ambedkarites fail to understand Global Pehonmenon as they have deviated from Ambedkarite Economics and bank heavily on Caste Identity. caste Identity Politics has BLINDED the Vision of SC, ST, OBC and Muslim Leaders coopted in the Hegemony and they do support ECONOMIC Reforms, LPG Mafia Rule, EXCLUSION and Ethnic Cleansing nevertheless. Thus, Bihar to be among Eastern states to usher 2nd green revolution!As Adwani Falres up the HINDU Nationalism diverting the Popular Resistance against Anti People Policies of the India Incs Government. OBC leaders like NITISH Kumar Follow suit. Incidentenatlly, Bharat Mukti Morcha organises a Massive Rally in Patna today only against LPG Mafia Rule.OBC mobilisation and empowerment prove to be Vanity Fair as much as Mayawati`s Social engineering led by Brahamins only!No one is concerned to SAVE the Constitution and Democracy at all. Human and Civil Rights mean NOTHING for Indian Power Politics inflicted with Corporate Lobbying, Free Market Economy and Acute Corruption all round!


 

Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - SIX HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/



http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/


Mayawati Sings Dalit Song to Hide her alliance with the Brahaminical hegemony  as Manusmriti Avtar Reincarnated PUSHYAMITRA Shung Baba Ramdev Surfaces in New delhi to contribute to the Civil society Blitz!As India and Pakistan restored peace talks over pending issues including Kashmir, veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani Sunday slammed the country's first political family of late prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru whose "lack of courage" led to the Kashmir issue remaining unresolved. Advani on Sunday accused Congress party of having failed to capitalise on the victory in the 1971 Indo-Pak war, saying that it resulted in Pakistan exporting "cross-border terrorism" and "religious extremism".  Ambedkarites fail to understand Global Pehonmenon as they have deviated from Ambedkarite Economics and bank heavily on Caste Identity. caste Identity Politics has BLINDED the Vision of SC, ST, OBC and Muslim Leaders coopted in the Hegemony and they do support ECONOMIC Reforms, LPG Mafia Rule, EXCLUSION and Ethnic Cleansing nevertheless. Thus, Bihar to be among Eastern states to usher 2nd green revolution!As Adwani Falres up the HINDU Nationalism diverting the Popular Resistance against Anti People Policies of the India Incs Government. OBC leaders like NITISH Kumar Follow suit. Incidentenatlly, Bharat Mukti Morcha organises a Massive Rally in Patna today only against LPG Mafia Rule.OBC mobilisation and empowerment prove to be Vanity Fair as much as Mayawati`s Social engineering led by Brahamins only!No one is concerned to SAVE the Constitution and Democracy at all. Human and Civil Rights mean NOTHING for Indian Power Politics inflicted with Corporate Lobbying, Free Market Economy and Acute Corruption all round!

26/06/2011

Maya imposes Section 144 in Lucknow

Congress-Maya war takes new turn; UP CM orders Section 144 in Lucknow ahead of Cong march

Maya imposes Section 144 in Lucknow

Lucknow: The Mayawati government on Sunday denied permission to the Congress Party to carry out a demonstration against government apathy and inefficiency in controlling the recent spurt in crimes in the state.

District Magistrate Anil Kumar Sagar said that permission has not been given for the Congress' 'Nyaya' march as police were apprehensive of a breach of peace in Lucknow.

He said prohibitory orders under Section 144 IPC are already in force in the state capital.

The Congress slammed the move saying it reflected that "fascist" style of functioning of the Mayawati government.

"How can they deny permission for our democratic right to hold a peaceful march. It is ridiculous," UPCC chief Rita Bahuguana Joshi told Times Now.

The development came as the opposition parties mounted an attack on Mayawati over the recent rise in rape cases and the mysterious death of Dy CMO YS Sachan in Lucknow jail. Joshi said the Congress would go ahead with the march despite the order from the Chief Minister.

Source: Agencies


Southwest Monsoon made its way into the national capital three days ahead of its normal onset, bringing rains since early morning, even as heavy showers lashed most parts of north India . earlier MONSOON played havoc in West Bengal. It flared up INFLATION as essencial commodities grains and vegetables are scarce. Monsoon would not have any Respite from Agrarian Crisis despite the claims of Second Green Revolution meant the strategic Marketing of Genocide Culture and Monopolistic Corporate Aggression to kill Rural India!

Reeling under severe hot and humid conditions for the past few days, Delhiites cheered the early arrival of monsoon, which caused a sharp dip in mercury, with the maximum settling at 30 deg C, seven degrees below normal.

India and the U.S. will discuss issues such as capital flows to developing nations and financial sector reforms at the three-day meeting in Washington beginning Monday.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who will leave for the U.S. on Monday morning, will hold meetings with several key American CEOs and officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithener.
Mr. Mukherjee will lead a delegation that includes RBI Governor D. Subbarao, SEBI Chairman U. K. Sinha, Economic Affairs Secretary R. Gopalan, Chief Economic Advisor Kaushik Basu and several businessmen.
"Both sides are also likely to discuss issues relating to financial sector reforms including financial regulatory reforms..., commodity pricing, financial markets and financial inclusion among others," the Finance Ministry said in a statement.
India and the U.S. are also likely to deliberate on macro economic issues, including global rebalancing and G-20, implications of capital flows on advanced and emerging economies, currency market volatility and infrastructure financing.
Mr. Mukherjee will deliver keynote address at the conference on 'U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership,' organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry in collaboration with the Brookings Institute of U.S.
He will also participate in a Cabinet level meeting of the India-U.S. Financial and Economic Partnership. The first such meeting was held last year in New Delhi.
Mr. Mukherjee will also meet U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.


Adwani also said while Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as Home Minister was successful in securing the integration of all 561 princely states into the Indian Union, the country on the other hand paid an "incalculable price" for Jawaharlal Nehru's failure to settle the Kashmir issue in India's favour during partition.

After a not so pleasant experience of engaging with Anna Hazare's team in drafting of the Lokpal Bill, the government says that there will be no such experiment in the future.

"Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, which Pandit Nehru himself had declared to be a temporary provision, has still not been abrogated.

"As a result, secessionist forces in Kashmir, aided and instigated by the anti-India establishment in Pakistan, continue to feel emboldened to carry out their poisonous propaganda that J&K's accession to India is not final and that Kashmir, in particular, is not a part of India," he wrote in his blog.

Advani observed that neither the Nehru government in New Delhi nor the Shaikh Abdullah government in Srinagar believed that J&K needed to be fully integrated into the Indian Union.

Twenty days after he was bundled out of Delhi, yoga guru Ramdev on Sunday came back to the capital to visit a woman follower who was seriously injured in the crackdown during his protest against corruption.

Ramdev reached the capital from Haridwar via road this afternoon and straight away headed to G B Pant Hospital in central Delhi to visit Raj Bala, who was injured in the pre-dawn police action in Ramlila Maidan on June five.

The yoga guru's protest against corruption and blackmoney had to be aborted soon after police withdrew the permission given to him to conduct a yoga camp, saying he had violated the conditions.

Ramdev was detained by police from the Maidan while he was trying to flee from the spot disguised as a woman. He was taken to airport by police then to Dehradun in a special plane.

Police had erected barricades at the borders to screen those entering the capital and ensure that no untoward incident happen during Ramdev's visit to the capital. Earlier, police had said he was not allowed to enter the capital for 15 days but later retracted from it.

Four Union ministers, including Finance Minister Pranab Mukkherjee, had gone to IGI airport to meet Ramdev, before he launched his fast on June four, to convince him not to go ahead with the fast.

Later, both the sides came to an agreement that he would make an announcement on June five that he would call off the fast the next day. The government claimed he went back on his promise, forcing them to take action.

Police then cited intelligence inputs about threat to Ramdev's life and a communal flare-up to make him call off his protest but as he stood adamant, security personnel swooped on the protesters.


26 JUN, 2011, 08.00PM IST, MANMOHAN RAI,ET BUREAU
Opposition beset with anti-Dalit mentality: Mayawati

LUCKNOW: Faced with a detoriating law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh , Chief Minister Mayawati addressing a party cadre meeting in Mumbai defended her governments track record in controlling crime and said that opposition parties criticising her on the issue are beset with anti Dalit mentality.

She said that the crime rate in Congress and BJP ruled states was much higher than in UP yet the central government and opposition parties cried hoarse when incidents get highlighted in UP.

She says that it was obvious that the opposition parties had an anti Dalit mentality and they were deliberately criticizing her.

She said that her party would start a nationwide agitation on this and the fuel price rise issues. She was addressing a two-day party convention of Maharashtra and Gujarat on Sunday. Mayawati said that the central government should reduce the prices of diesel, LPG and kerosene in view of the fall in international crude prices. She said that the central government was playing a dual game of increasing prices on one hand and asking state governments to reduce taxes on fuel.

She said that the poor and middle classes were already facing the brunt of inflation and the latest increase in prices would brake their back.

She said that the central government was not reducing the import duty and cess on fuel but had asked the state governments to cut their taxes, which showed it biased attitude.

She said that some state governments allied with the Congress had either announced a cut in their local taxes on fuel or were to do so soon and the central government as part of the deal would compensate them with extra devolution of funds.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/opposition-beset-with-anti-dalit-mentality-mayawati/articleshow/9002804.cms
In two new cases of rape in U.P., a Dalit girl and a mentally challenged 14-year-old teenager were sexually assaulted in Hathras and Barabanki districts.

In Hathras, parents of a teenager lodged a complaint with the police that the girl was raped by her uncle Kishori on June 24 following which an FIR was registered on Saturday.
The police has arrested the accused.
In Barabanki, a 11-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly raped by a youth in Dewa area, police said on Sunday.
The victim was dragged by a youth to a secluded place and raped while she was returning home in Ibrahimpur Khurd village last night, they said.
The accused Shiv Kumar has been arrested, police said.
Uttar Pradesh has witnessed a spate of rape incidents this month.


Chief Minister Nitish Kumar exuded confidence that Bihar would be among the Eastern India states to usher in a second green revolution in the country and said that the state fulfilled all requirements for agriculture boom ahead.

Bihar will definitely be among the Eastern India states that will usher in a second green revolution as it has fertile land, under-ground water and industrious farmers, he said at a function on the occasion of Swami Shahajanand Saraswati's death anniversary here.

There was a need for a concerted programme to hone technical skills of the farmers and enable them to use modern farm techniques to optimise food production, Kumar said adding that the state government had launched a number of programmes in this direction.

The state government was also laying emphasis on organic farming in view of growing demand of such agriculture products in the local, national and global markets, the Chief Minister said adding that a number of incentives was being given to the farmers like finding markets for organic products so that they could fetch higher prices for their produce.

However, increased production in the agriculture sector was not the only priority of the NDA government as it also wanted the benefits of boom in the primary sector to benefit the poor and downtrodden, he said.

It was keeping in view the dependence of a majority of populace on agriculture sector for livelihood that the state government had set up a cabinet committee on agriculture, popularly called agriculture cabinet, to chart out programmes so that various requirements of farmers like irrigation, electricity, new farm technology and markets for produces could be made available to the farmers, Kumar said.

Manmohan to review performance of infrastructure ministries on July 1

SUJAY MEHDUDIA
SHARE  ·   COMMENT (2)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
Manmohan Singh

RELATED

TOPICS

economy, business and financeeconomy (general)

Amid signs of economic growth slowing down and serious concerns over the poor performance of some key economic sectors such as power and coal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has convened a 'crucial meeting' on July 1 to review the functioning of major infrastructure ministries like power, coal, steel and mines.

The meeting, postponed twice as the Prime Minister had to travel abroad for international commitments, will have a close look at the working of these ministries in the first four years of the XI Plan, which comes to an end next year. The working of the various ministries has been marred with serious differences over shortage of coal, location of power plants, cancellation of coal blocks and above all the contentious issue of environmental clearances.

The performance of the Power Ministry, which has come under fire for continued downward revision of capacity addition targets, will come up for review on that day. The Power Ministry had originally targeted 78,000 MW capacity addition, which was scaled down to 68,000 MW and further during the mid-Plan review to 62,000 MW. "It would be a big achievement even if the country is able to add 55,000 MW during the XI Plan. The Power Ministry has been one of the worst performers,'' a senior Ministry official said.

Apart from Dr. Singh, who will chair the meeting, it will be attended by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh, Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal, Steel Minister Beni Prasad Verma and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

The meeting is expected to take stock of the actual requirements of power, coal and other crucial ministries for 2011-12 of the current XI Plan and for the XII Plan (2012-17).

According to the Planning Commission, the demand-supply gap for coal in the ongoing year, which is also the terminal year of the current XI Plan, has been assessed at 142 million tonnes with domestic availability of only 554 million tonnes against the requirement of 696 million tonnes. The Coal Ministry has blamed that the Environment Ministry had not allowed mining in nearly 203 coal blocks leading to shortages. However, Mr. Jairam Ramesh had pointed out to the Prime Minister that instead of putting the blame on his Ministry, it was the Coal Ministry and the PSUs working under it which were responsible for the mess as huge quantity of coal had been lying at pitheads and not been lifted by Coal India, leading to serious shortages.

According to the Planning Commission, the coal shortage may soar to 200 million tonnes by 2017 against 142 million tones by 2012. The demand for the dry fossil fuel has been projected at 1,000 million tonnes by 2016-17 against production of 800 million tonnes.

On its part, the Power Ministry has pointed out that around 40,000 MW new power generation capacity will be left stranded due to shortage of coal in the next Plan as most of the newly planned power plants are to be run on coal. The Power Ministry has set an ambitious target of adding 100,000 MW in the XII Plan (2012-17). However, the continued struggle of the Power Ministry to meet the capacity addition targets will come under scrutiny during the meeting.

Keywords: Planning Commission, Power Ministry

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/article2129246.ece

UIDAI targets 1 m enrolments a day

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
SHARE  ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
SPEED MATTERS: (from left) Som Mittal, President, Nasscom, Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI, and Rajendra S. Pawar, Chairman and co-founder NIIT, at a conference in Bangalore on Thursday. Photo: K. Gopinathan
Developing an appropriate application ecosystem is the key to success, says Nilekani
The Chairman of Unique Identity and Development Authority of India (UIDAI), Nandan Nilekani, said on Thursday that the Aadhaar unique identity project was targeting one million enrolments a day from October.
Delivering the keynote at a conference on Aadhaar-enabled services organised jointly by the UIDAI and the National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom), Mr. Nilekani said about 9.5 million enrolments had already been completed. "Speed is of essence, and we are committed to issue 600 million unique identity numbers to citizens within the next 3-31/2 years," he said.
Mr. Nilekani said the key to the success of the programme lay in developing an appropriate application ecosystem that leads to benefits for people. The application ecosystem is the real game changer in all this, he said. The point is not to merely issue identity cards but to develop an identity management platform, he added. This would help in bringing back people who have been excluded from the India story, he said. He said Aadhar's capability of building an online identity system would enable the country to leapfrog the need for paper-based systems.
Referring to Aadhaar's potential, Mr. Nilekani said its ability to act as a storehouse of know-your-customer needs were a key requirement for financial inclusion programmes. The database could serve as a pre-requisite for services such as bank accounts, telephone and gas connections. Authentication services were to be rolled out soon, he said.
The development of standards for Aadhaar would ensure interoperability and compatibility among various devices used in the ecosystem, said Mr. Nilekani. One could even think of an app-store for Aadhaar, he said.
Nasscom President Som Mittal said even smaller companies could benefit from Aadhaar. Referring to the innovations resulting from the project, Mr. Mittal said the programme had generated interest all over the world.
Keywords: Unique Identity and Development Authority of India, Nilekani, Aadhaar unique identity project, Nasscom
http://www.thehindu.com/business/article2129400.ece

In the latest entry on his blog, http://blog.lkadvani.in
, the BJP leader also slammed late chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah whose ambition to be the leader of independent Kashmir also contributed to the issue.

Advani said neither the government of Nehru in New Delhi nor the government of Abdullah in Srinagar believed that Jammu and Kashmir needed to be fully integrated into the Indian union.

"In the case of Abdullah, the problem was his ambition to become the unquestioned leader of a virtually independent Kashmir. In the case of Nehruji, it was a matter of lack of courage, firmness and foresight," Advani said.

He said that Article 370, which gives a special status to Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian constitution, had "emboldened" secessionist forces in the state to carry out their "poisonous propaganda that (Kashmir's) accession to India is not final and that Kashmir, in particular, is not a part of India."

Advani wrote that India had lost two opportunities to settle the issue once and for all with Pakistan -- one in the 1947 war when Nehru ruled the country and the other in the 1971 Bangladesh war when Nerhu's daughter Indira Gandhi was at the helm.

"Our countrymen should know that the Kashmir problem is Nehru family's special 'gift' to the nation," he wrote in a sarcastic vein.

"Nehruji's blunder was totally avoidable. The consequences of this 'gift' are Pakistan's export of cross-border terrorism and religious extremism, thousands of lives of our security personnel and civilians and tens of thousands of crores of rupees spent on military and paramilitary defence."

The BJP leader's comments come days after India and Pakistani in foreign secretary level talks in Islamabad discussed a range of issues relating to peace and security, Jammu and Kashmir and the promotion of trade.

Advani also warned against giving any autonomy to the state because "the implications must be understood".
26/06/2011

PM's post should not become fiefdom of a family: Advani

New Delhi: Terming it "sad" that the Congress has become the "fiefdom of a single family", Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader L.K. Advani Sunday said the office of prime minister is "reserved" for a "nominee" or a member of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

PM's post should not become fiefdom of a family : Advani

"Prime ministership of a great democracy like India should not be allowed to become the jagirdari of a family," Advani said in his blog.

"Sadly, the Congress today has become the fiefdom of a single family. The office of prime minister is reserved either for the nominee or a member of the Nehru family," he added.

"India is paying a heavy price because of a prime minister nominated by the Congress president," he added.

"And now the demand has arisen from within the Congress Party that a scion of the Nehru family should take over the prime ministership," Advani, a former deputy prime minister, said.

PM's post should not become fiefdom of a family : Advani

He was referring to voices in the Congress once again saying that Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's son Rahul Gandhi fits the bill as the next prime minister of India.

"Our country cannot afford continuation of the misrule that UPA represents," he added.

Advani also said there was a time when the Congress was a broad platform that accommodated patriots of all hues.

In this regard, he said it was at the behest of Mahatma Gandhi that Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, who then belonged to the Hindu Mahasabha, and B.R. Ambedkar, who had been a bitter critic of the Congress party, were included in Jawaharlal Nehru's first cabinet after Independence in 1947.

Source: IANS

Fuel price hike to push inflation into double-digit: PMEAC

PTI
SHARE  ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
The HinduA demonstration against recent LPG and diesel price hike in Chandigarh on Saturday. Photo: Akhilesh Kumar

RELATED

NEWS

DMK flays fuel price hikeProtests erupt over price hikePolitical parties demand rollback of fuel price hike

TOPICS

economy, business and financeenergy and resource
macro economicsinflation and deflation
India

Describing the government's decision to raise prices of diesel, cooking gas and kerosene as inevitable, the Prime Minister's economic advisor today said that it would push inflation into the double-digit zone.

"Due to the hike, inflation could be close to 10 per cent by July," Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (PMEAC) Chairman C. Rangarajan said.

However, he added, the inflation numbers would subside after the initial surge. "I do expect that after initial correction, inflation will come down to 6.5 per cent by March 2012," Dr. Rangarajan said.

The decision to raise fuel prices, he said, was inevitable in view of the rising crude prices in the global market and its impact on the fiscal deficit. "Since correction was needed in order to contain fiscal deficit, the move is welcome."

On June 24, the government hiked the price of diesel by Rs 3 a litre, kerosene — Rs 2 a litre and cooking gas by a steep Rs 50 a cylinder. This followed the hike of over Rs 5 per litre on petrol announced by oil marketing companies in mid-May.

The overall inflation was 9.06 per cent in May, up from 8.66 per cent in April. The Reserve Bank had recently said that it expects inflationary pressure to remain high, at an average of 9 per cent till September on account of high global commodity prices.

The PMEAC chief's views found support from other experts and economists.

"Going ahead, the rate hike will adversely affect the inflation situation. While we expect inflation numbers in June to remain above 9 per cent, the real pinch would be felt in July when it may even touch double-digit," Deloitte, Haskin & Sells director Anis Chakravarty said.

He said that while the impact on inflation is inevitable, the government did not have any other option but to hike the prices in light of huge under-recoveries.

The price hike would help the oil companies limit their revenue loss by Rs 21,000 crore, but they would still end the fiscal with about Rs 121,704 crore of revenue loss.

"It (the hike) will increase inflation by about 50—60 basis points," Crisil chief economist D.K. Joshi said.

With volatility in oil prices in global market, where crude is ruling above $105 per barrel, the hike in petroleum product prices was widely expected, he said.

"Inflation was being artificially suppressed as the price hike was being delayed," Mr. Joshi added.

Even as global commodity prices remain high, the rate of price rise of food items have also soared in recent weeks after a period of moderation.

Food inflation touched a two-and-half months high of 9.13 per cent for the week ended June 11 and experts said rising food prices will also impact the headline inflation.

Keywords: PMEAC, inflation, fuel price hike

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/article2136634.ece

HRD minister Kapil Sibal , one of the key members of the joint committee for drafting the Lokpal Bill, also maintains that it cannot be cited as a precedent.

He says the draft of the bill will undergo changes after consultations with political parties and other members of the civil society.

"I don't say it is a precedent. In the given situation, the government was in, it is a decision that we took with open eyes and I don't consider it to be a precedent... the government was in a particular situation," Sibal said in an interview.

He was asked if in the future some activists could resort to agitation to be part of the law-making process. Asked if it was a "one-off" episode, the noted lawyer-turned-politician said, "I would imagine so."

Sibal emphasised that the draft bill prepared by the five ministers was not the "final bill" and "it will go through changes when we get inputs not just from other political parties but also other members of civil society".

The government is holding a meeting with political parties on the issue on July 3.

Sibal refused to make any comment on Hazare's decision to go on hunger strike again from August 16 but said "when that situation arises, I am sure the government will deal with it."

Noting that Hazare's associates Justice Santosh Hegde and Swami Agnivesh had publicly stated that the "fast is not the way", the minister said he was sure that the Gandhian "has the wisdom to decide what is best for him and the country".

He maintained that Hazare and his associates had wanted to create an authority outside the system which would be "accountable to nobody" and asserted that this could not be allowed to happen.

Asked why the committee could not firm up a common draft and wound up work in bitterness, Sibal said, "On certain very significant issues, there was a huge divergence of perception and opinion, and the twain could not meet."

The committee, which met nine times during two months since it was set up in April, failed to firm up a single draft of the bill and it was decided that a note including views of both the government and Hazare's team would be put up before Cabinet for consideration.

Insisting that bringing Prime Minister under Lokpal was never the "central" issue of the committee's discussions, Sibal said, "I think the basic issue was how do you set up an authority outside the system not accountable to anybody.

"How do you ensure that that authority, which is outside the system, will function in a chaste manner, uncorrupted, only because it is under the Lokpal. These are the essential issues that were of concern to us, on which, of course, there was huge divergence of opinion."

However, Sibal termed the experience of working with civil activists in law-making as "enriching" and would not "castigate" the views of Hazare team which included Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Hegde, father-son lawyer duo of Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan and RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal.

Rejecting Hazare's contention that he was not seeking to create a "parallel" structure to the government, the minister said the activist's comparison of the Jan Lokpal with institutions like CVC and CBI was "completely arduous".

On the issue regarding Ramdev, Sibal said the government was able to "expose" what the yoga teacher stood for.

"We exposed him in the sense that actually he was negotiating with us and giving promises to us and was doing just the opposite at Ramlila ground contrary to the permission granted," he said.

Sibal dismissed suggestions that the government was embarrassed over four union ministers visiting Ramdev at the airport and that there was a sense of uneasiness in the party on the issue.

"Ultimately the government was able to expose what Ramdev really stood for. Had we not met him, we would never have been able to expose him," he said.

DMK flays fuel price hike

PTI
SHARE  ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
The HinduDMK President M. Karunanidhi. File photo
DMK, a key partner of ruling UPA, today criticised the hike in fuel prices, saying it would badly hit the middle class and poor and urged the Centre to make efforts to permanently solve the issue.
"Whenever this issue arises, the Centre tries to justify the fuel price hike," DMK President M. Karunanidhi said in his first reaction to the increase in prices of diesel, kerosene and cooking gas, which has been condemned by various political parties.
The Centre should not rest by merely defending the hike "on some excuse" every time the issue arises, but treat it as its utmost duty to completely solve it as the hike affects the public, especially middle class and people living below poverty line, he said in a statement.
Mr. Karunanidhi also asked the Tamil Nadu Government to reduce sales tax on fuel prices emulating West Bengal government and also as done by his government in the past.
When DMK was in power, sales tax on petroleum products was reduced twice and subsidy for LPG was also provided.
"West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's announcement reducing LPG price by Rs. 16 could be a guiding force for other governments also. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Government should also reduce sales tax on petroleum products", he said.
The Centre on Friday increased diesel price by Rs. 3 per litre, domestic LPG by Rs. 50 per cylinder and kerosene by Rs. 2 per litre.
Keywords: fuel price hike, Congress DMK alliance, Karunanidhi
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2136709.ece

Bengal kickstarts process for Singur land return
SINGUR: The West Bengal government Sunday officially began the process of returning land here to farmers from whom it was taken allegedly against their will by the Left regime for a Tata car plant .

"Application forms for return of land are being distributed by the Block Development Office and Krisi Jami Raksha Committee," committee convener Becharam Manna told IANS.

"We will try to complete the process today itself," said Manna, a member of the 19-member committee set up by the government to look into the Singur land distribution.

Tata Motors abandoned the 997.17-acre site in October 2008 following protests by farmers led by the then opposition Trinamool Congress, which wanted the return of 400 acres taken allegedly from unwilling farmers.

West Bengal's new government passed a legislation scrapping the land lease given to the company by the former Left Front government for the Nano small car plant. The company has moved the Calcutta High Court.

Bugging row: Former CBDT chairman Chandra questioned
Former CBDT chairman Sudhir Chandra has been questioned by the Intelligence Bureau over his role in hiring private detectives in sweeping clear the rooms of Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his staff after detection of "plated adhesives" in 16 key locations.

During the questioning on Thursday, IB sleuths asked Chandra, who was then Member (Investigations) in the CBDT, why private detectives were called before informing the IB to inspect the plated "bugs" in the Ministry of Finance , official sources said.

When contacted, Chandra denied that he has been quizzed by anyone, saying at the time of reported "bugging" he was not the chairman of CBDT and he had no role in hiring private detectives.

An inquiry is also on to find out the name of the private detective agency which carried out the debugging exercise in the Ministry of Finance.

"It is not a formal inquiry but discreetly the investigators are trying to find out the name and the findings of that agency," the sources said.

After the detection of "planted adhesives" in 16 key locations in the offices of the Finance Minister, his advisor Omita Paul, his private secretary Manoj Pant and two conference rooms, Mukherjee wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asking him to order a "secret inquiry" into what he called "serious breach of security" in his office.

Before the IB was asked by the Prime Minister to look into the matter, private detectives were called to conduct an "electronic sweep" on the Ministry's chambers.

Mukherjee last week had said that during its inquiry, the IB has found "nothing".

Nepal plans to boost connectivity, economic ties with China

Nepal plans to deepen its connectivity with its giant northern neighbour China in a bid to boost bilateral economic ties and Chinese investment in the country.

Prime Minister Jhala Nath Khanal said his government was committed to strengthen and systematise Nepal-China trade.

The government will widen the Kathmandu-Lhasa road in bid to boost connectivity so that Nepal can benefit from linking up with the world's economic powerhouse, Khanal was quoted as saying by the Himalayan Times online.

Inaugurating the 11th annual general meeting of Nepal Trans Himalaya Border Commerce Association (NTHBCA) in the capital yesterday, he asked entrepreneurs to come up with a concrete framework to boost Chinese investment in the country.

Agni Sapkota, the Minister for Information and Communication, said once the Kathmandu-Kodari (Tibet border) road becomes six-lane, the relations between the two countries will reach a new height.

China has also sought to deepen its political ties with Nepal so as to have greater influence to halt anti-Beijing protests by the Tibetan exiled community in the country.

Nepal is home to around 20,000 exiled Tibetans and the capital has been the scene of several anti-China protests over the last few years.

Nepal supports 'one-China policy' that views Tibet as an integral part of China. It has repeatedly assured China that it will not allow its territory to be used for anti- Beijing activities.

The Communist-led government in Nepal has recently intensified crackdown against pro-Tibet activists amid growing pressure from its giant northern neighbour to better control the Tibetan refugees within its borders.

If I've black money, make it national property: Ramdev
Yoga guru Baba Ramdev, who fasted earlier this month against mounting corruption in the country, said here Sunday that if any black money was found with him, it could be declared national property.

"If the government finds any black money with me, they can declare it national property ," Ramdev said while addressing a press conference in the capital.

Weeks after he was forced to quit Delhi, Baba Ramdev returned here Sunday to meet Raj Bala, 51, who is at the G.B. Pant Hospital since suffering spinal injuries in a police crackdown on the yoga guru post midnight June 4.

"Behen Raj Bala is in very critical condition. Only a miracle can save her once the ventilator is removed," he said.

"This government is not only corrupt but also cruel. If I had not asked the people to stay calm, there would have been a pool of dead bodies," he added.

Delhi Police broke up his fast against corruption and black money stashed abroad at the Ramlila ground here, dispersing thousands of men and women using force and tear gas. Many suffered injuries. Raj Bala was one of them.

He was asked to leave Delhi and banned from entering the city for 15 days. Ramdev continued his fast in Haridwar and Dehradun till June 12.

Hazare seeks parallel government without accountability: Sibal

RANCHI: Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal said Gandhian leader Anna Hazare was seeking to create a 'parallel government' through a Jan Lokpal bill without accountability, flouting the basic structure of the Constitution.

"Anna asks for prosecution powers without accountability for the Lokpal, which means he wants a parallel government. Did our framers of the Constitution ever think of such a situation arising now?'' Sibal told a press conference here.

Sibal said Anna wanted the Lokpal to have the power to tap any one without permission, which again meant an authority unto itself. ''It flouts the Indian Telegraph Authority. Is it a military institution? Are we out to make a police state?''

"The government is accountable to Parliament and any MP can ask for explanation on Jan Lokpal bill. Any one can move the Supreme Court. These are the constitutional issues before the nation,'' Sibal said apparently referring to the civil society's demand for inclusion of the Prime Minister's Office and the Judiciary into its ambit.

Alleging that the BJP was not telling them about the constitutional structure and its importance to make democracy moving smoothly, Sibal accused the BJP and the RSS of deliberately creating a chaotic situation in the country by playing politics around the bill.

He claimed that the BJP was doing all this intentionally because it knew it would 'not come to power for the next ten years' after the drubbing it received during the recent Assembly elections.

"Therefore they have put (yoga guru) Ramdev upfront to create such a situation," Sibal claimed pointing out the fact that Congress had contested 356 out of 824 seats and won 171 while the BJP had contested 400 seats and won only 5 seats.

''BJP leaders are disrupting Parliament, shying away from debate, but want action. Is this democratic by not coming to the forefront and debate on national issues, and going to Haridwar to touch Ramdev's feet?" he alleged.

Sibal said the BJP and its supporters should know that corruption was not confined to any one political party.

"Corruption is a challenge before the nation and should be fought in unison. People know that corruption is there and we are committed to curb it," he said.

He said Congress's commitment to root out corruption had been proved by sitting minister (A Raja's) stint in jail and the government leaving it to the Supreme Court to deal with the corruption issues legally.

In contrast, Sibal pointed out, BJP leader L K Advani did not do anything as the deputy prime minister when 'BJP president (Bangaru Laxman) was caught on camera with cash and defence deals involving ex-defence minister George Fernandes'.

''The Congress was not in power between 1996 and 2004 when the scandals broke,'' the minister pointed out.

''Why did not Advani raise the issue then, but embraced George within four months (of his resignation)?'' What action did he take against those corruption issues? And what about Judeo cash-on-camera episode?'' asked Sibal.

Sibal sought to know from Advani why the BJP failed to bring an ombudsman during its tenure.

26 JUN, 2011, 06.34PM IST, TV MAHALINGAM,ET BUREAU
Corporate espionage on the rise; Companies spy on employees & themselves

Naman Jain believes that Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee's office was not bugged. "The technology exists and is easily available in India," says the managing director of Sleuths India Private Limited, a Delhi-based detective agency. "The problem is that each bug's battery needs to be recharged, once every few days. And somebody needs to do this on a regular basis. Given the high security nature of North Block , it is unlikely that somebody would be able to do this on a regular basis," adds Jain.


Like most private eye agencies in the country, Sleuths India offers the usual services - snooping on husbands and wives for their suspecting spouses, tracking down folks who owe other people money, investigating insurance cons. The corporate sector is Sleuth's latest cash cow. Besides pre-employment verification, which is a booming business, Jain says his company gets many requests to do what he calls as "post-employment checks".


"Companies want us to find out if some of their employees are leaking information to their competition. They give us the names of employees they suspect and we start surveillance on them," says Jain. "At times, we send an undercover agent to work with the suspect, with the company's co-operation, to monitor his activity. A few drinking sessions with the suspect often helps him open up," adds Jain, who refuses to share the name of his clients but claims that most of 75% of his clientele are large, reputed companies.


Booming Business


Welcome to the world of corporate espionage in India Inc . It's a world where companies - big and small - spy on their employees and each other. Detective agencies ET on Sunday spoke to confirmed that business from Indian companies on this front was booming. "We get a lot of requests from companies to monitor the lifestyle of some of their employees, at times, even senior employees," says Sunil Sharma, managing director, Authentic Investigation, a New Delhi-based detective firm. "At times, promoters want to know who their top executives are meeting, what their lifestyle is...are they spending beyond their means?" adds Sharma.


Agencies also add that the demand is largely coming from sectors like information technology that have large databases and where IP creation is high. "However, there is also a demand from old industries which have strong unions and where physical pilferage is possible," says Sleuths' Jain. "Companies want to know if troublesome union leaders are getting paid by competition," adds Jain.

*


Minor Jobs


All detectives that ET on Sunday spoke to said they themselves do not indulge in corporate espionage and actively plant people in other companies. But off the record, some conceded that they undertake 'minor jobs' like planting moles in rival companies of their clients and on occasion even bugging their offices. "The fact is that, in terms of technology, we don't have cutting edge bugging devices that are available in the West but often we don't need them. People are the best bugs," says a detective with a Mumbaibased agency, who did not want to be identified.

RELATED ARTICLES


Government has no will to fight graft: Ramdev

P. SUNDERARAJAN
SHARE  ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
Yoga guru Baba Ramdev waves to his followers after addressing the media in New Delhi on Sunday. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

RELATED

PHOTOS

NEWS

CBI to register PE against Ramdev aideCivil society won't be involved in future for drafting law: SibalFrom Ram to RamdevCreating Baba Ramdev'Creating Baba Ramdev': a clarificationSupreme Court seeks Ramdev-run Trust's version on police swoopA weakness born of bad intentRamdev ends fast, to continue fightDon't issue statements on wealth, BJP tells RamdevRamdev discharged, vows to carry on campaignHazare, Ramdev trying to dictate terms to Centre, says PranabRamdev turning black money into white: Digvijay

TOPICS

crime, law and justicecorruption & bribery
politics
unrest, conflicts and wardemonstration

"I will continue fight against black money"

Returning to Delhi for the first time after the June 4 crackdown on his Ramlila grounds rally, yoga guru Baba Ramdev on Sunday renewed his attack on the government and claimed that it had "no will" to create a strong Lokpal to check corruption.

Declaring that he would continue his fight against black money and corruption till the end, Ramdev said he would lend his support to anyone who fought against black money and corruption. But he declined to give a specific answer to a volley of questions whether he would once again join hands with Anna Hazare and his team.

"I will back anyone and everyone who fights against the curse of black money and corruption. That is the issue at stake… It is not [the question of] Anna or Ramdev. Let us not bring in any individual. The issue is important."

Ramdev declared that he would undertake a yatra across the length and breadth of the country to create public awareness about corruption and black money. "I had already undertaken a 1 lakh-km yatra before the Ramlila grounds rally. Now, I will undertake a 2 lakh-km yatra."

Addressing a press conference, Ramdev denied that he fled to evade arrest. "I was prepared to be arrested. But, the police force appeared to be intent on eliminating me. I had no choice. I didn't want to die at the hands of a police force that was acting as a puppet in the hands of the Central government… I was arrested outside. If I had been caught inside, I would not have been seen again."

He claimed that he had appealed to his followers to remain calm and maintain peace and said that but for the appeal many more could have been injured and there could have been "mayhem."

Terming the crackdown on the Ramlila grounds rally "murder of democracy," Ramdev alleged that there had been "attempts to molest and rape women."

"Sarkar pehle bhrashtachari hi thi, ab who atyachari bhi ho gayi [Earlier, the government was only corrupt, now it is indulging in atrocities too]."

Rejecting claims that he was acting at the behest of the Bharatiya Janata Party or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Ramdev said he was not a "mukota" (mask) of any political party. "I am only a mukota of the people… I do not belong to any party."

Referring to demands for a probe into his assets, Ramdev noted that he had already made public the accounts of the trusts and other bodies run by his organisation. He said all political parties should follow suit and make their accounts public.

"If it is proved that I have stashed away even one rupee in black money, I am prepared to have it declared as national property… I hope others will also do the same."

Asserting that he had not done anything illegal or unconstitutional to attract government action, he said: "fighting corruption and black money can't be considered a wrong thing. If that were so, I am prepared to plead guilty."

In this context, he noted that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself had written to him, and four senior Cabinet Ministers, including Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, had received him at the airport when he came to Delhi for the rally. "If I were communal, or a Naxalite or a terrorist, they would not have done that."

Keywords: Baba Ramdev fast, Ramlila crackdown, black money issue

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2136891.ece

Creating Baba Ramdev

SMITA GUPTA
SHARE  ·   COMMENT (58)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
It was not that long back that Baba Ramdev, a Yadav from Haryana, was just a superior yoga instructor with a mass following, a people's Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, whose clientele was at the upper end of the social spectrum.
Today, Baba Ramdev heads a yoga and health empire, worth hundreds of crores, with even an island off the coast of Scotland, gifted to him by grateful devotees, to run a yoga ashram and a spa. He swishes around in chartered private planes — and, significantly, has a team of advisers with impressive credentials.
First, there is Acharya Balakrishna, who is credited with marketing his yogic skills and creating an empire — government sources allege that the Acharya is the proud possessor of three passports. Then there is the Lok Ayukta of Punjab and Haryana, Justice Pritam Pal, who has shared the stage with him and who, along with journalist Devinder Sharma – an anti-GM proponent of organic agriculture -- were with him, when he met the four Cabinet Ministers at the airport earlier this week.
Then there is former Intelligence Bureau chief Ajit Doval and veteran journalist Ved Prakash Vaidik, who has close connections with the RSS family. Then there is S Gurumurthy, a chartered accountant by training and RSS person by ideology, who was once a close aide of the newspaper magnate, the late Ramnath Goenka. And the "remote control" is with K.Govindacharya, who in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a key BJP functionary and senior ideologue of the party, and played a critical behind the scenes role in the formation of the V.P. Singh government in 1989. Of late, he has been in close touch with his old mentor, L.K. Advani, and it is Mr. Govindacharya's Bharat Swabhiman Trust along with the RSS that has played a major role in mobilising people for his camp.
Keywords: Baba Ramdev, Baba Ramdev fast, Baba Ramdev arrest

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2079727.ece

From Ram to Ramdev

SHARE  ·   COMMENT (31)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
For much of the past year, the Bharatiya Janata Party gave the appearance of being in deep slumber — this even as the world all but crashed around the scam and scandal-hit United Progressive Alliance. With the principal Opposition party seemingly unable or unwilling to take on its chief adversary, the vacuum was being filled by a host of non-political actors. However, last week saw the BJP hit the political tarmac in a burst of iridescent energy. With Baba Ramdev's Ramlila maidan protest blowing up in the face of the Manmohan Singh government, Sushma Swaraj jived to celebratory music on the lawns of the Rajghat. Simultaneously, BJP spokespersons hauled the Congress over the coals and yesteryear's poster woman Uma Bharti returned with the mandate to re-ignite Uttar Pradesh. It is anybody's guess, however, if all of this adds up to a refurbished, battle-ready BJP. Indeed, there is a desperation evident in the way it has latched on to the yoga guru, hoping no doubt that when the time comes, Baba Ramdev will walk into the sunset, bequeathing his vast constituency of supporters to the BJP.
This is a serious miscalculation because what Baba Ramdev has done is to seize the oppositional space that, as matters stand in Parliament, rightfully belongs to the BJP. It was Lal Krishna Advani who first made a case for the repatriation of overseas black money. Yet in an unbeatable irony, the BJP allowed the issue to be hijacked by Ramdev. The party's national executive meeting in Lucknow did not throw up a single fresh or innovative idea; instead the party showcased Atal Bihari Vajpayee and recycled many of the old shibboleths. Surely, the BJP does not expect Ms Bharti to wrest U.P. by rabble-rousing on Ayodhya, an issue that no longer resonates with voters, young or old. Consider the BJP's electoral performance. It won only a total of five seats in the recent Assembly elections. It has had only one good showing in the two years since the UPA returned to power — in Bihar. But then, the party owed its phenomenal success there more to the political stock and charisma of Nitish Kumar than to any achievement of its own. The BJP has currently only three dependable allies — the Shiv Sena, the Shiromani Akali Dal, and the Janata Dal (United). The immediate challenge before the party is to expand its own base while striving to bring on board estranged alliance partners. None of this will be possible if it hitches its wagons to Baba Ramdev, who admittedly touched a chord when he spoke on black money. Yet he also thought nothing of inviting the infamous Sadhvi Rithambara to share the stage with him. The BJP has one of two options: either it reinvents itself to meet the aspirations of the new generation or it speaks in a bygone idiom and plods a lonely path.
Keywords: Baba Ramdev fast, BJP, RSS, Sangh parivar, Ayodhya movement, Ram temple

IN PERSPECTIVE: AYODHYA

One verdict, many questionsA verdict that legitimises the Masjid demolitionFundamental issue in Ayodhya caseThe verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspectiveHighlights of the judgmentsAyodhya: is a solution possible?No more than a breatherGist of verdict delivered by three judges in Ayodhya title suit

RBI's nuanced approach to inflation

C.R.L. NARASIMHAN
SHARE  ·   COMMENT   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
The HinduThe logo of Reserve Bank of India. File Photo
High inflation is being driven by surging global commodity prices
The Reserve Bank of India's annual monetary policy statement in May and its mid-quarter review last week, by many yardsticks, are seen as a break from the past. That only few observers have commented on the new look policy is most certainly due to the fact that the monetary policy, unlike the fiscal policy (the Union budget), hardly evokes the kind of widespread scrutiny or excitement. That remains so despite recent attempts to make the monetary policy more accessible to the common man.
There have been a number of other plus points. The policy statements of the day are substantially free of jargon. This is a stupendous achievement. By their very nature, monetary policy documents deal with subjects that do not lend themselves to easy descriptions or analysis that will be intelligible to the man on the street.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the annual policy is unveiled by the RBI Governor at a meeting of top bankers. The Governor and other senior RBI officials might address the press and face television interviews subsequently but the basic format of the policy — announced before bankers — rather than television cameras remains.
It should not be forgotten that any policy statement that tries to reach out to wider sections is more difficult to be prepared than one which has as its main constituency, bankers and finance experts.
Recent statements
The annual policy statement and the mid-quarter review that followed it fit into the recent mould of policy announcements that strive for transparency and reach out to the common man. One outstanding example is the dissemination of information on what has become one of the core topics in today's public policy discourse, namely, inflation.
It is well known that the recent policies have overwhelmingly come out in favour of containing inflation even if that has come at the expense of growth. Practically all policy statements have discussed this trade off but none could have done better than Governor D. Subbarao. In the annual policy statement he had this to say:
"Before I close I want to reiterate what I had said earlier, by making a brief comment on the growth-inflation trade off, an issue that has been widely debated in the run up to this policy. High and persistent inflation undermines growth by creating uncertainty for investors, and driving up inflation expectations.
"An environment of price stability is a pre-condition for sustaining growth in the medium-term. Reining in inflation should, therefore, take precedence, even if there are some short-term costs by way of lower growth."
The deleterious consequences of inflation are well known. It will impact adversely on the growth prospects. India's poor with already low living standards will suffer the most. The RBI in its monetary statements has devoted considerable space not just to inflation but also to inflation expectations. The connection between the two has once again been well brought out in the annual policy statement.
High inflation is being driven by global commodity prices which have surged in recent months. There is every possibility that they may increase further even in the short-term. So there is a real possibility of inflation getting even worse.
Even the most pessimistic inflation projections of recent months have been exceeded, there are serious concerns that inflation expectations may become unhinged.
What the central bank is alluding to is the simple fact that rising prices beyond a point feed themselves. For instance, households reeling under high food inflation do not see any respite in the food prices in the year ahead.
In the case of petroleum products, nobody expects their retail prices to come down. Notwithstanding last Friday's steep increase in the retail prices of diesel, kerosene and cooking gas, the betting will be on still higher prices. Not only are global petroleum prices high, but domestic prices have by and large remained cushioned by subsidies by the government and to an extent by the losses borne by the oil marketing companies.
Certain well known public policy instruments are relevant for conditioning inflation and inflation expectations.
The monetary policy should have a clear and stated inflation objective. Second, the central bank must have the appropriate instruments and have the freedom to use them. Finally, there should be an effective transmission of monetary policy.
The RBI has recently taken some bold steps: (a) a 0.75 percentage point increase in the repo rate over two policy statements (in contrast to the small 'baby' steps of previous policies; (b) making the repo rate the sole policy rate; and (c) the creation of the Marginal Standing Facility from which banks can borrow at the repo rate plus one percentage point.
Not only will the RBI be able to manage liquidity better, but it effectively assumes the traditional role as a lender of last resort. Monetary transmission should improve as a result of these changes.
The fact that the RBI and the government do not, at least publicly, differ in their assessments of growth indicators is another positive factor.
The RBI's recent action in lowering its GDP forecast sharply has probably made such estimates more realistic. Credibility of official data will certainly help in having a better idea of the price situation both at present and in the future.
Keywords: Reserve Bank of India, annual monetary policy, policy changes, repo rates, GDP forecast, high inflation, commodity prices
http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/article2137113.ece?homepage=true
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2088173.ece

By Annie Zaidi, DNA-Daily News & Analysis, 26/06/2011

The bad company India keeps

Most of us aren't too thrilled about what's happening in the neighbourhood. Things are, quite literally, a bloody mess. Blasts, land mines, sectarian violence. But the real tragedy is that those are not the biggest tragedies.

The bad company India keeps

In Afghanistan, for instance, one in eleven women risks dying in childbirth. Try and imagine this. Take the names of eleven women you know. At the eleventh name, blink. That woman just disappeared from your life. Think of what it means to live like that, knowing that a pregnancy can so easily lead to a funeral. Or think of what it's like to have your little sister killed by her in-laws. And think about how this could have happened to a nation that was created in the name of a religion that actually forbids dowry.

Now think about your proximity to them. Not geographical proximity, no. Consider how close India is to her neighbours on the list of worst places to be a woman.

On that list, India is sandwiched between Somalia and Pakistan. Along with Afghanistan and DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), we form a cosy club of Worst Five (for women), according to a recent survey compiled by Thomson Reuters foundation.

Because we're so upbeat about India, we're squirming. We would like to say: 'That's not fair!' We want to find some fault with the data. We want to shout: 'But on what basis?'

The bad company India keeps

Not on the basis on what women wear or how many boyfriends they have. We were judged on the basis of health, discrimination, sexual violence, human trafficking and conflict-related violence. And we were found grossly, cruelly lacking.

Reports suggest that DRC could stake claim as the rape capital of the world. Pakistan makes it to the list on the strength of dowry deaths and honour killings, and because 90% women confront domestic violence. India doesn't lack for killings, underage marriages (44.5% of girls are married before 18) or rapes.

In conflict zones (think of Chhattisgarh or Manipur) there's special treatment reserved for women. But it's trafficking that got us into the club. Which suggests that we don't just treat women like property, we trade in them quite freely, and it's not like outsiders are coming to steal away the ladies -- 90% of the trafficking is internal.

Another reason we are ranked high on violence is that millions are 'missing' from the population. Either they aren't allowed to be born or are killed immediately after. The Thomson Reuters survey estimates 50 million girls were lost to foeticide and infanticide. But our own census tells us the sex ratio is 914 females per 1,000 males and that it's gotten worse since 2001 (933/1,000).

The bad company India keeps

Which is depressing news, brothers and sisters. It's rotten news. There is some good news, however. Only, not from India.

In Brazil, which is like India in many ways (or so I've heard), the first woman president Dilma Rousseff promised that at least 30% of her cabinet would be female. She needs just two more ministers to make good her promise. Not only that, she's starting to give women key portfolios, the equivalent of Commerce or Home ministries, rather than the traditionally 'feminine' portfolios like social welfare. The media, I hear, are calling Planalto Palace (Brazil's seat of government) the 'Palace of the Amazons'.

Will this translate into Brazil becoming a better nation? I, for one, am hopeful. Studies suggest that wherever women hold positions of power, it improves its rank on the human development index. Better health, more equity, less gender violence. Less corruption too. So yes, I think I'll comfort myself with reading about Brazil for now.

Copyright restricted. Under license from www.3dsyndication.com


Ads

  1. 3Nights/4Days Just @ 7499 

    Srinagar - Gulmarg - Srinagar
    Call:+91-9906444456

See your ad here »


26/06/2011

Mamata `lands' in trouble

After the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2011 was passed, there have been demands from unwilling farmers for the return of their land acquired for projects across the state

Mamata `lands' in trouble

Kolkata: Land struggle -- a Pandora 'sbox the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) opened while in the Opposition -- has landed the party in a fix, with TMC now on the ruling side.

After the state assembly passed the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2011, last week, there are demands from unwilling farmers for returning their land, acquired in projects such as Burdwan health city, Siliguri satellite township and the NTPC power plant at Katwa. Kick-started by the TMC, the land agitations at these sites are taking a new turn now.

Soon after the Bill was passed in the assembly, agitators stalled work at Burdwan health city site, causing trouble for the authority. The health city is being developed in a publicprivate partnership by the Burdwan Development Authority and the Bengal Faith Health Care (BFHC), a special purpose vehicle promoted by CES Infratech and Faith Health Care, aCES group company.

"On May 14, about 300-400 people rushed to our project site and stopped work completely. Some 70-80 farmers were unwilling to give their land and, reportedly, they even rejected the cheques, but no major agitation had happened till the government 'sdecision. Now, we have been thrown out of the site. Even the outpatient unit, operational with four specialist doctors, is not being allowed to work," said a BFHC official. The company was planning to start full operations from October this year. However, the plans seem to have been derailed by "Banerjee 'sSingur Bill".

According to reports, about 84 farmers had turned down cheques issued in exchange for 23 acres of the land acquired in 2005 for the project in Goda. For the `1,200-crore project, 57 acres of land was acquired from more than 350 owners and BFHC has already invested `50 crore. The TMC, which went on adamage-control mode, sent Rabiranjan Chatterjee, technical education minister, to the site to speak to the unwilling farmers.

"He came up with some suggestions, including returning the land and demanding more compensation. In the wake of all this, only time can prove what will happen to the project," the official said.

All is also not well at the proposed satellite township in the Kawakhali-Porajhar area in Siliguri, where acquisition of 320 acres of land started in 2004. The protests were spearheaded by Congress leader and member of parliament from Raniganj, along with the TMC and the Revolutionary Socialist Party.

"We have given compensation and allotted 800-odd plots to those losing their land. There were some people who were unwilling to part with their land and are protesting to have it back. The matter is with the court now," said D K Roy, assistant town planner of Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority, which is planning the project.

Meanwhile, TMC itself was planning a Singur re-run at the Katwa power plant site, where top leaders like Saugata Ray, Purnendu Bose and Sovan Chatterjee paid a visit. The unwillingness to acquire land from those unwilling to sell seems to be a hindrance for this `9,600crore project for a 1,600-mega watt NTPC plant. The public sector undertaking had taken over the Katwa project from the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd, which had acquired 387 of the 1,035 acres required for the project last year.

According to sources, Banerjee, who heads the power ministry herself, will not allow acquiring more than 600 acres of land. "There needs to be some openeness from the government for the project to continue," complained a top NTPC official.

On the other hand, Saugata Ray, a member of parliament who once headed the campaign through the Save Farmland Committee, said, "A lot will depend on the ground situation. People in Katwa never wanted further acquisition of land." In Katwa, 1,033 acres of land belong to 4,600 farmers and not many were willing to give their land even for the first phase of the project. Matters have worsened after the Singur Bill.

However, for the TMC, it seems a ghost from the past has started to haunt them now.

Source: Business Standard

Also read

Mamata's mamata gives officials a headache

By Hemanth CS/DNA-Daily News & Analysis, 26/06/2011

Cloak and dogfight

Asia is heading into a phase of stealth aircraft vying for dominance. With China developing its mysterious stealth aircraft, India is at the centre of a dogfight — be it in the form of its collaboration with Russia or prospective tie-ups with the US.

Cloak and dogfight

The latest offer to sell F-35 fighter jets to India has only added to the raging fire that is the race for stealth aircraft in Asia. The F-35 is the latest to join the bandwagon of stealth aircraft currently being developed by China, Russia and India.

While Russia and India are involved in the development of the $6-billion Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) programme, China is developing the mysterious J-20.

Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA)

The FGFA -- being executed by the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia's Rosoboronexport and Sukhoi -- will have advanced features such as stealth, super cruise, ultra-manoeuvrability, highly integrated avionics suite, enhanced situational awareness, internal carriage of weapons and Network Centric Warfare capabilities India and Russia have already signed a contract for preliminary design of the FGFA. The aircraft that will be developed is the Perspective Multi-role Fighter (PMF). According to HAL, the PMF draws upon the basic structural and system design of the Russian FGFA Technology Demonstrator with modifications to meet IAF specifications, which are stringent.

"The broad scope of bilateral cooperation during the joint project covers the PMF's design and development, its operationalisation and marketing to the other countries. Programme options include the design and development of a twin-seater variant and integration of an advanced engine with higher thrust at a later stage," according to HAL. A total of 500 aircraft will be built with an option to produce more. Russia will procure 200 single-seater and 50 twin-seater aircraft, while India will get 200 twin-seater and 50 single-seater FGFAs.

Cloak and dogfight

J-20 -- China's fifth generation aircraft

Though the FGFA programme is in the public domain, little is known of China's fifth generation aircraft, the J-20. It made its first flight on January 11, 2011, and the world got to know after images and videos of the maiden flights were leaked on the Internet.

The J-20 is a single-seat, twin-engine aircraft, which according to military aviation experts, is said to be approximately 75feet (23m) in length with a wingspan of 45feet (14m) or more, and is expected to have a take-off weight of 75,000 to 80,000 pounds (34,000 to 36,000 kg) with internal stores.

The J-20 is the most keenly-watched defence aviation programme in the world since its first flight as many countries and analysts in the West have doubted China's ability to develop such a plane.

The J-20's stealth blueprint is said to be drawn from a US fighter downed in 1999 during the Kosovo war. Croatia's military chief of staff is quoted as saying that Chinese agents recovered parts of an F-117 Nighthawk stealth jet that was shot down over Serbia. The J-20, which is currently undergoing trails, is expected to enter service by 2017-2019.

Cloak and dogfight

F-35 Lightning II

Meanwhile, the F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), integrates advanced very low observable stealth into a supersonic, highly agile fifth-generation fighter. The capabilities built into the F-35 Lightning II provide the pilot with unprecedented situational awareness and unmatched lethality and survivability.

While each variant (F-35A, F-35B, F-35C) is designed to operate from different bases, the variants set new standards in network-enabled mission systems, sensor fusion, supportability and maintainability. The aircraft is still at the developmental stage.

Commenting on the F-35 offer to India with an eye to re-enter the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) bid, former Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, IAF Training Command, Air Marshal BK Pandey said: "The US offer has come a bit too late. It's like trying to bolt the stable after the horse has fled. If the US is serious in giving India the F-35, it should do through the foreign-military route or through government-to-government agreements, which it has done in the case of the C-17s and P-8Is."

Former Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal FH Major, also said that he saw little logic with the US offer as India is already involved in the FGFA programme with Russia.

Cloak and dogfight

'Tech transfer won't be a problem'

The Russian delegations visiting Aero India 2011 confirmed that though its contender for the MMRCA deal, the MiG-35, pulled out of the air show, the MMRCA selection committee members and defence experts witnessed extreme manoeuvres by MiG-35. Mikhail Pogosyan, general director of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), said the MiG-35 has already conducted modifications as per IAF requirements and Russia is ready for technology transfer to India. Meanwhile, PV Deshmukh, managing director, MiG division, HAL, said that as far as the FGFA programme was concerned, there would be no problems over technology transfers.

Vital Statistics

F-35 Lightning II

Crew: 1
Length: 51.4 ft
Wingspan: 35 ft
Height: 14.2 ft
Wing area: 460 ft²
Empty weight: 13,300kg
Loaded weight: 22,470 kg
Max take-off weight: 31,800 kg
Power plant: 1×Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lb
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,930 km/h); Tested to Mach 1.53

Cloak and dogfight

J-20
Crew: 1 
Length: 62 ft 
Wingspan: 41 ft Height: Unknown 
Wing area: 630 ft 
Max take-off weight: 34,000-37,000 kg 
Power plant: 2×117S and WS-10G turbofans (prototypes); WS-15 (production) turbofans 
Dry thrust: Unknown 
Thrust with afterburner: 31,900 lb 
Performance: unknown

Cloak and dogfight

FGFA

Crew: 2 (pilot)
Length: 72 ft 2 in
Wingspan: 46 ft 7 in
Height: 19 ft 10 in
Wing area: 848 ft²
Empty weight: 18,500 kg
Loaded weight: 26,000 kg
Max take-off weight: 37,000 kg
Power plant: 2 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-41F turbofan
Dry thrust: 96.1 kN (9,800 kgf, 21,605 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 34,172 lb each
Performance Maximum speed: 2,100 km/h (Mach 2) (1,305 mph)

Copyright restricted. Under license from www.3dsyndication.com

By Ali Khan Mahmudabad, 26/06/2011

Beyond the burqa and the bikini

Religious groups that curtail women's rights are similar to the advertising executives in various businesses who utilise the female form to sell products

Beyond the burqa and the bikini

France recently implemented the ban of the niqab, or face veil. A few days later Syria overturned its ban on teachers wearing the niqab because of pressure from Muslim clerics following the protests in the country.

One of the arguments that is often put forward by "feminist," or "liberal" thinkers is that women have traditionally suffered within religious societies and their rights need to be protected by constitutional safeguards. Prominent in this criticism is Islam and Muslim treatment of women.

Conveniently some Muslim commentators as well as critics forget that women, historically, were often in a position of power and in public life. The Prophet's wife Khadijah was a wealthy businesswoman. The Caliph Omar, a man famous for his strict implementation of law, chose Shifa bint Abdullah ash-Shams to be an administrator of the market in Medina. However, because of cultural traditions as well as the need to define ones identity according to the "other" rather than as a self-sufficient whole, some people often perpetuate stereotypes that in turn reflect badly on religion. Instead of focusing on debates centered on the niqab or Muslim women, it is important to explore how the "problems" these issues raise are often shared, albeit in different ways, by women in non-religious societies.

Religious groups that curtail women's rights, forcing them to adhere to certain principles are similar to the advertising executives in various businesses who utilise the female form to sell products or to magazine editors who entice male readers with pictures of scantily-clad women while also selling hair gel or shoes. If one was to switch on the television during an ad break in any country and mute the sound, it will be apparent how women's bodies and sexuality are treated as nothing more than an aid in selling anything from ice cream to mobile phones.

One recent advert for a popular cereal in England has a man ogling at what the audience thinks is a seductive and voluptuous woman only to find out that he was actually just staring at the food in her hand. In Arab countries attractive women, albeit wearing the hijab ,are used in order to increase the desirability of various products.

There are talk shows on Italian TV where pretty girls in bikinis stand smiling and giggling while serving the role of props on the show. "Ah," I hear a wise critic say, "at least these girls have the freedom to not go on these shows." One cannot deny this but the very fact that the physical female form is still a mere advertising ploy goes some way in illustrating how men, whether they are atheist, religious, liberal or conservative, do the same thing: objectify women.

Beyond the burqa and the bikini

One group does it by covering women up, making them "invisible", while the other reduces women to nothing more than sexual objects. Of course, there will always be women who will participate of their own accord. Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, said in a television interview that "we have a culture [Muslim society] that treats women as the sexual property of men...it reduces their worth." Although this may be true for some percentage of Muslim women, the problem is as endemic in most societies. Mr Harris should watch the adverts of any deodorant company that use smell as bait for sexually hungry, scantily-clad women. Interestingly, India has taken steps to counter such ads by banning "overtly sexual" deodorant ads.

The malaise, then, runs far wider. Men, irrespective of religious creed or political belief, strive to control women albeit in different ways. The difficult conversation that needs to take place is about how to move beyond the constrictive paradigms of the burqa or the bikini (as symbols not items of clothing) in order to create spaces where women can imagine, define and construct their own roles within society without the constraints of men's desires. It is wrong to assume that we have reached a point, particularly in Western countries, where women have as much agency as men. Although there are a vast number of successful women who accomplish their goals, this is despite the fact that society is largely still driven by a male-dominated culture. It is too easy to allow the debate to centre on Muslim women.

A pop song by Jessie J, Do it like a Dude, was released in November last year and illustrates the argument. The song was in the UK top 5, sold more than 300,000 copies and had 28 million hits on YouTube. The chorus goes "I can do it like a brother, do it like a dude, grab my crotch, wear my hat low like you."

The sexually angry video goes some way in showing how Jessie J is asserting herself as a woman, even empowering herself, by singing about how she can behave like any man as the title suggests. One can only guess as to whether the majority of the hits on YouTube were by men.

Conservatives would cite this video as an example of the moral degeneracy from which it is important to protect women. Others will say that freedom of expression and individual freedom to make autonomous choices validates the creation of this video. The ensuing discourse centres on both these positions whereas it is important to understand how this video is symptomatic of a wider problem: women are often forced to define their identity in relation to or in competition with men.

The law in France, which only affects a few thousand women and seems to have been passed because of anticipated political mileage rather than any serious engagement with women's rights, should not serve as an excuse to sensationalise the experience of one group and, therefore, ignore the deeper and more universal problems that women face.

(The author is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge)

Source: Business Standard

26/06/2011

Government should persuade Balakrishnan to step down: Former CJI

New Delhi: The government should "persuade" National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) head K.G. Balakrishnan to step down, said former chief justice of India J.S. Verma.

Government should persuade Balakrishnan to step down: Former CJI

"I have said it long back that he should have demitted long back and if he does not want to do it voluntarily, the government should persuade him to do that," Verma said when asked whether the NHRC chief should demit office in the wake of corruption charges against him.

Balakrishnan, who was appointed CJI in January 2007 and retired May 2010, is facing allegations of corruption after his family members reportedly amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. He took charge as NHRC chief last June.

After the home ministry received a petition last week, it asked the Revenue Department to conduct a probe into the allegations of disproportionate assets against Balakrishnan.

Verma also said the continuance of Balakrishnan as NHRC chief affects its "image internationally."

Verma had headed the NHRC 2000-2003.

26/06/2011

Government does not want to see me alive: Ramdev

New Delhi: Three weeks after he was bundled out, yoga guru Baba Ramdev Sunday returned to the capital to visit a woman who was critically injured in the crackdown on his agitation against corruption and accused police of a conspiracy to kill him. He also asserted that if any black money was found on him, it could be declared national property.

Ramdev meets injured supporter in hospital

In new allegations that are sure to spark much outrage, Ramdev said that the police not only resorted to brutality, but also tried to rape and molest women during the post-midnight crackdown on protesters June 4.

This was the first visit by Ramdev, who heads the Haridwar-based Pantanjali Yog Peeth, to Delhi since the crackdown on his followers during his fast against corruption at the Ramlila Ground.

The visit also came amid the persisting standoff between the government and civil society activists over the Lokpal bill, with Ramdev, who fasted earlier this month against mounting corruption in the country, reiterating his charges against the government for not doing much against back money stashed abroad.

Profusely thanking his supporters at a press conference, Ramdev, blazing with anger, stressed that the entire world saw the injustice done to women and children at the crackdown and charged that police did not come to arrest him June 4, but to kill him.

He said he had come to Delhi on the eve of the 36th anniversary of the imposition of emergency and asserted that the situation "was very much similar to the emergency".

"At Ramlila Maidan, the police did not come to arrest me, they wanted to kill me. I won't give any evidence right now, because the case is pending with the Supreme Court," said Ramdev.

He added that police attacked his supporters when they tried to extinguish the fire which started on the stage. "The attempt to set the stage on fire was again an attempt to kill me. They attacked my supporters who were trying to extinguish the fire."

Ramdev also lashed out at the way the government reacted to his protest, saying that if they suspected that he was doing something illegal, then why did four ministers go to the airport to meet him when he arrived and why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee write letters to him.

"Government doesn't wants to see Ramdev alive. If it's a mistake, then we'll commit such mistakes many times," he thundered.

With the government trying to expose him over his thriving yoga business, Ramdev asserted that he was innocent. "If the government finds any black money with me, they can declare it national property," he said.

He dared the government to come clean on the issue of black money. "If its not their money, then I ask, why are they afraid of declaring it as national property. I have uploaded all the details of our account in the website. Government should do the same," he said.

After reaching Delhi, Ramdev rushed to G.B. Pant Hospital where the 51-yar-old Rajbala was being treated and invoked her condition as the government's tactic of repression against those protesting corruption and black money.

Rajbala suffered spinal injuries in the June 4 police crackdown.

"Bhrastachaar and atyachar" (corruption and cruelty) was the new rallying cry of Ramdev, who said that his "fight was not illegal" and asserted that and "nobody can silence" him.

"Behen Rajbala is in very critical condition. Only a miracle can save her once the ventilator is removed," he said. If she lives, she won't be able to walk again," he said.

"This government is not only corrupt but also cruel. If I had not asked the people to stay calm, there would have been a pool of dead bodies," he added.

Ramdev also alleged that there were attempts at rape during the midnight crackdown. "There was attempt to rape the women and molestation... human rights were violated. "We will give the proof related to this when the time comes," he said.

Rejecting the charges of being the face of communal forces - an allegation made by some Congress leaders - he said it was a smear campaign. "I am not the face of any party or organisation, I am not communal, I am only the face of billions of Indians," he said.

He was asked to leave Delhi and banned from entering the city for 15 days. Ramdev continued his fast in Haridwar and Dehradun till June 12.

Delhi Police has in an FIR on the Ramlila Maidan incident, cited "provocative" speeches made by religious and political leaders, including Baba Ramdev and Sadhvi Ritambara, as the main reason for canceling permission for the yoga guru's protest at Ramlila Maidan.

Source: IANS

By T N Ninan, 26/06/2011

Manmohan Singh: Too timid a PM?

If his govt is paralysed by inaction, and tarred with the corruption brush, it is because Dr Singh has not been true to his instincts, and too timid

T N Ninan: PM-in-hiding

New Delhi: Twenty years ago, Manmohan Singh was a man with a mission. After his first Budget as finance minister, he barged into a post-Budget press conference called by his officials, to personally explain what he was doing.

He gave lengthy interviews; he spoke from virtually every available platform, to get across the need for change. Later, when Narasimha Rao announced a series of Independence Day handouts, Dr Singh gave an interview to say that the country could not spend its way to prosperity (Sonia Gandhi, please note).

And towards the end of the Rao government's tenure, when the atmosphere became thick with deal-making, he spoke out courageously against crony capitalism.

The contrast with today could not be more striking, as the country seems to have a prime minister-in-hiding. You see him seated at meetings, looking a trifle lost, or mouthing homilies at government functions (the MAFA syndrome -- mistaking articulation for action). Other than that, he is both invisible and silent. This is no way to lead.

If his government is paralysed by inaction, and tarred comprehensively with the corruption brush, it is because Dr Singh has not been true to his instincts, and too timid as the head of the government. Dayanidhi Maran as a stripling minister wrote to him in 2006, complaining that spectrum pricing should be left to him, not handed over to a group of ministers. Dr Singh meekly acquiesced.

Mani Shankar Aiyar wrote to him two years before the Commonwealth Games, ie before the bloated and wasteful spending began, to complain about Mr Kalmadi's budget-inflating habits. Yet Mr Kalmadi was allowed to go his merry way till the damage was done.

T N Ninan: PM-in-hiding

When A Raja cocked a snook at him, what was the response? Dr Singh's private secretary made the telltale request that the prime minister's office be kept at arm's length. In other words, he knew that skullduggery was going on, but wanted to turn a blind eye. On the spectrum scandal, he himself has explained that once two of his ministerial colleagues were in agreement, he did not think he could intervene!

And now it transpires that a former secretary in the finance ministry (E A S Sarma) wrote repeatedly to the prime minister, over two years, warning him of undue favours being done to private gas concessionaires like Reliance and Cairn, at the cost of the exchequer. He never got even a routine acknowledgement. Was Dr Singh too scared to ask Murli Deora?

So the prime minister cannot say that he did not know. In every case, he was informed, and he chose to do nothing. This is not because he was corrupt; even his worst critics will not say that. Perhaps he felt there was no choice in a coalition other than to turn a blind eye to some goings-on (he once said something like "I am not in the business of losing my government's majority").

But if an honest and public-spirited man allows scamsters around him to flourish, the stage comes when personal honesty is no longer a valid defence. And belated action under public and court pressure provides no absolution.

What about the government's policy paralysis? Speaking at a Business Standard awards function three months ago, Dr Singh said: "I sense a mood for renewal, as I did 20 years ago. We did not disappoint India in the summer of 1991. We will grasp the nettle once again, in the summer of 2011."

Well, the summer is ending, the rainy season has come, and this now looks like yet another case of MAFA. If this does not change very quickly, the question will be asked: is the useful life of this government over?

Source: Business Standard

25/06/2011

Puttaparthi shuts down as AP probes Sathya Sai trust

Hyderabad: Traders in the pilgrim town of Puttaparthi in Andhra Pradesh's Anantapur district Saturday observed a shutdown to protest the alleged irregularities committed by the Sathya Sai Central Trust members.

Puttaparthi observes shutdown against Sathaya Sai trust

Shops and business establishments were voluntarily closed in the town as dozens of traders took out a rally, demanding the state government take over the trust in view of the allegations against trust members.

Holding placards and raising slogans, the protestors demanded the trust members come clean in view of the allegations that they are involved in misappropriation of money and valuables belonging to the trust.

As police intensified the probe into seizure of huge cash from a car last week, anger is sweeping among the business community in the town over the alleged acts of omission and commission by the trust.

Trust member and late Sathya Sai Baba's nephew R.J. Ratnakar is to appear before police later in the day while another member, V. Srinivasan, is likely to be quizzed Monday.

The police issued notices to two of the trust members after three people arrested with Rs.35.5 lakh on July 19 revealed they were transporting the cash from Puttaparthi to Bangalore on the instruction of the trust members.

Worried over the impact the controversies may have on their business, the traders are demanding that the government take over the trust, which manages the vast empire of Sai Baba.

The devotees, including the business community in Puttaparthi, want an administrative body on the lines of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) to run the empire.

Taking a serious note of the goings on, the government June 22 sought a detailed report from the trust on its activities, its future programmes, assets and financial matters.

The government is also considering withdrawal of several exemptions enjoyed by the trust under the Endowment Act for last 35 years.

The trust, which runs educational and healthcare facilities in Puttaparthi, other parts of Anantapur, Bangalore and schools in various countries, has been facing series of allegations after the demise of Sathya Sai Baba April 24.

Puttaparthi observes shutdown against Sathaya Sai trust

Followers protest mishandling of Trust funds

Followers of Sathya Sai Baba on Saturday took out a rally here protesting the alleged mishandling of funds of the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and other controversies involving some of its members.

Traders in Puttaparthi also shut down their shops and gathered at the Hanuman Temple Circle to take part in the protests, police said.

Later, the protesters took out a rally from Hanuman Temple Circle to Mandal Revenue Office (MRO) where they submitted a memorandum demanding intervention of the government, they said.

The protesters were carrying placards and demanded abolishment of the Sathya Sai Central Trust board and appointment of a special officer on the lines of Titrumala Tirupati Devesthanam (TTD) to look after the activities of the Trust, police said. The rally was peaceful and about 100 traders and followers participated in it, they said.

A day after disclosure of assets by the Trust members, police seized Rs 35 lakh cash allegedly belonging to Sri Sathya Sai Trust while being transported in a four-wheeler at Kodikonda check-post under Chilamanthur police station limits in Anantapur district on July 18. Two trust members have been called by police for questioning in connection with the case.

Earlier on July 17, the trust members opened Yajur Mandir, private chamber of late Sathya Sai Baba, and it was disclosed that it contained 98 kg of gold, 307 kg of silver, apart from Rs 11.56 crore.

Source: IANS & PTI

26/06/2011

Government does not want to see me alive: Ramdev

New Delhi: Three weeks after he was bundled out, yoga guru Baba Ramdev Sunday returned to the capital to visit a woman who was critically injured in the crackdown on his agitation against corruption and accused police of a conspiracy to kill him. He also asserted that if any black money was found on him, it could be declared national property.

Ramdev meets injured supporter in hospital

In new allegations that are sure to spark much outrage, Ramdev said that the police not only resorted to brutality, but also tried to rape and molest women during the post-midnight crackdown on protesters June 4.

This was the first visit by Ramdev, who heads the Haridwar-based Pantanjali Yog Peeth, to Delhi since the crackdown on his followers during his fast against corruption at the Ramlila Ground.

The visit also came amid the persisting standoff between the government and civil society activists over the Lokpal bill, with Ramdev, who fasted earlier this month against mounting corruption in the country, reiterating his charges against the government for not doing much against back money stashed abroad.

Profusely thanking his supporters at a press conference, Ramdev, blazing with anger, stressed that the entire world saw the injustice done to women and children at the crackdown and charged that police did not come to arrest him June 4, but to kill him.

He said he had come to Delhi on the eve of the 36th anniversary of the imposition of emergency and asserted that the situation "was very much similar to the emergency".

"At Ramlila Maidan, the police did not come to arrest me, they wanted to kill me. I won't give any evidence right now, because the case is pending with the Supreme Court," said Ramdev.

He added that police attacked his supporters when they tried to extinguish the fire which started on the stage. "The attempt to set the stage on fire was again an attempt to kill me. They attacked my supporters who were trying to extinguish the fire."

Ramdev also lashed out at the way the government reacted to his protest, saying that if they suspected that he was doing something illegal, then why did four ministers go to the airport to meet him when he arrived and why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee write letters to him.

"Government doesn't wants to see Ramdev alive. If it's a mistake, then we'll commit such mistakes many times," he thundered.

With the government trying to expose him over his thriving yoga business, Ramdev asserted that he was innocent. "If the government finds any black money with me, they can declare it national property," he said.

He dared the government to come clean on the issue of black money. "If its not their money, then I ask, why are they afraid of declaring it as national property. I have uploaded all the details of our account in the website. Government should do the same," he said.

After reaching Delhi, Ramdev rushed to G.B. Pant Hospital where the 51-yar-old Rajbala was being treated and invoked her condition as the government's tactic of repression against those protesting corruption and black money.

Rajbala suffered spinal injuries in the June 4 police crackdown.

"Bhrastachaar and atyachar" (corruption and cruelty) was the new rallying cry of Ramdev, who said that his "fight was not illegal" and asserted that and "nobody can silence" him.

"Behen Rajbala is in very critical condition. Only a miracle can save her once the ventilator is removed," he said. If she lives, she won't be able to walk again," he said.

"This government is not only corrupt but also cruel. If I had not asked the people to stay calm, there would have been a pool of dead bodies," he added.

Ramdev also alleged that there were attempts at rape during the midnight crackdown. "There was attempt to rape the women and molestation... human rights were violated. "We will give the proof related to this when the time comes," he said.

Rejecting the charges of being the face of communal forces - an allegation made by some Congress leaders - he said it was a smear campaign. "I am not the face of any party or organisation, I am not communal, I am only the face of billions of Indians," he said.

He was asked to leave Delhi and banned from entering the city for 15 days. Ramdev continued his fast in Haridwar and Dehradun till June 12.

Delhi Police has in an FIR on the Ramlila Maidan incident, cited "provocative" speeches made by religious and political leaders, including Baba Ramdev and Sadhvi Ritambara, as the main reason for canceling permission for the yoga guru's protest at Ramlila Maidan.

Source: IANS


The Second Green Revolution: A Blue-Print to Control India's Agriculture - Indo-US Treaty, New Seed Act

August 27, 2010

Written by – Dr. Abhee Dutta Majumdar, Dr. Siddharta Gupta, Partha Sarathi Dasgupta, Mrinmoy Sengupta
Published by – Lokayata Sahitya Chakra, May 7, 2010.
Translated by – Sanhati

From the nineties, India opened herself to the world market. As prescribed by the US based IMF and World Bank, India also undertook 'structural adjustment' programme. This had a two-fold effect: on the one hand it resulted in diminishing governmental spending, reduction of subsidies in different social welfare projects, divestment and privatization, while on the other hand it eliminated all hurdles to monopolistic capital to take over the production in the country. The erstwhile regulations were lifted to engineer a new paradigm where capital and product can freely travel across boundaries of the nation state.

All the essential services of civilized life, like education, health, drinking water, transportation have been effectively transformed into commodities. Rivers, mountains have been sold, forests occupied. Coastal zones regulations have been relaxed, land ceiling laws have been flouted to commission SEZs. In effect, the entire country is being sold in pieces to private capital, resulting in widespread social inequity, hunger,poverty and starvation.

According to Forbes magazine, the number of trillionaires in India jumped from 27 to 52 just in the year 2006-07. In a recent article Forbes also informs that 56 Indian firms figure in its elite list of 2000 multinationals. Though India is behind US (502) and Japan (210) in numbers, her industrialists are placed right behind those from Canada and China. After the last Loksabha elections, the number of multi-billionaires in the parliament became 300, while only the previous one had 128! In between 1989-90 and 2001-02, only 20 percent of the urban population had an increase of commodity consumption (by 40 percent), while the same period saw a net decrease in rural commodity consumption by 80 percent.

The 2009 United Nations human development index places India at 134th spot amongst 182 countries. In 2007-08 India was 128th. India is ranked first in infant mortality. The most diminutive and disabled children are born in India. The maximum number of hungry and malnourished kids can be found in India – as per the World Bank report. The annual per capita food grain availability (not purchase power) which was 177 Kgs in 1990 has gone down to 152 Kgs in 2005. The latter number is equivalent to the food grain availability in a famine-like situation. It is in such a critical juncture that Indian agriculture policies are about to be transformed radically.

Post 2009 Loksabha elections, the main ruling party in the central government has started to widely advertize a second phase of reforms. This year, the union finance minister has given the call for a 'second green revolution' in Eastern India. The essential idea is to promote widespread contract-farming and replacing cultivation of food-crops with cash-crops. Also, there will be surge in producing fruits and flowers and a voluminous increase in horticultural products, food-processing, dairy products and processed fish-meat products. Food grains will start getting imported from the government-subsidized farms of Europe and the US. The 'first green revolution' introduced petro-technology dependent agricultural practices which led many medium, small and marginal farmers to give up agriculture as they could not afford the high cost of adapting to the new age of farming. History will cruelly repeat itself as we prepare to embrace the 'second green revolution' – we shall hear the same cry of 'farming is no longer profitable' and the new bio-tech guided, petro-power driven farming will cause even more farmers to leave the land for the Tatas, Birlas, Mittals and Ambanis to delve into corporate farming.

The 'seed act' supplements this 'revolution'. The farmers' natural right of seed preservation is taken away. Using only the seeds sold by companies will become the norm. Already the agricultural giants, through their bio-tech innovations and experimentations on seeds and farm animals are exercising considerable control in this sector. The real price will be paid by the farmers of this country and this is most essential for this 'second revolution' (SGR). We shall demonstrate later in this booklet how exactly has the multi-national fiefdom been schemed in the veil of a 'second green revolution'. The ultimate aim is to bring about a transformation of our self-sufficient agricultural system into a market-driven commercial system.

Long before this public call for the SGR that we hear now, the process has been initiated through many farming contracts where the multi-nationals tied up with Indian firms to enter the business of agro-products. The Bharti-Walmart or the Tata Kisaan-Tesco joint ventures are only couple of such instances where American or British retailers have tried to tap in this untouched sector. German Metro Cash and Carry or American PepsiCo has already invested in agricultural production in India. They want to capture the huge domestic market in India as well as re-engineer Indian agricultural production to perfectly match the needs of the west. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together control 40 percent of the seeds market and own 47 percent of the seeds. Bayer, Dow and a few more completely control the farm-chemicals market. Only 10 pesticide companies have 89 percent share of the market. Wal-Mart, Kroger, Carrefour and Tesco together control 40 percent of retail. And the unifications and mergers that these corporations frequently undergo are a product of the immense control that financial market exercises over them.

The centre has already admitted the failure of the 'first green revolution'. The need for the SGR is rationalized by citing that there is currently a technological stalemate in the farm sector so that we can no longer maintain the high yields. But the new agro-policies make even more vigorous use of petrochemical dependant agriculture. The epitome of India's green revolution, Punjab, has seen a huge reduction of soil fertility as admitted in a government report.

The rural people of Punjab are still suffering from the ill effects of the FGR. People are suffering from numerous health problems. Chemical pesticides are supposed to be the reason behind many cancer cases here. Train number 339 which passes through this region carries many cancer patients from Punjab to the government cancer hospital in Bikaner every day. It is known as the "cancer-train" there.

It is beyond any doubt that like the FGR, the SGR is also a US government approved, western multinational designed scheme. The plan for corporate domination is a much clearer aspect of this 'revolution' rather than it being 'green'. The state as always will provide the necessarily legal and administrative insurance. It will quell any fuming discontent. But all this will happen in a much wider and more aggressive scale. Thus, a comparative study of the FGR and the SGR is imperative. At the same time, it is desirable to consider SGR as continuation of the process set by FGR. It is an irony that what is claimed as a 'green' revolution is definitely going to be 'bloody' – the experiences of the farmers in Vidharva, Maharashtra with the BT cotton will tell the disastrous results of bio-tech experimentations in agriculture. The astronomical proportions of farmer suicide forced a legislation to keep the morgues open 24 hours a day. The green-revolution hot-bed of Punjab has similar such bloody stories to tell.

Let us reiterate that like the FGR, SGR is also a US driven project. As a part of the greater neo-liberal design, this scheme is to utilize all the tools that multi-nationals have invented to exercise complete control over world-wide production of food and also the agro-market. It is remarkable that our country's agricultural policy is crafted by a few agricultural universities and United States Agency for international Development (USAID). There is a concerted effort to link the food processing, seeds, fertilizer, pesticide, farm equipment, retail and have each segment controlled by a few multinationals. The entire process is driven by an even bigger profit motive. The research on genetically modified organisms (GMO) conducted by the Land Grant University in the US is funded by corporate money. The president of South Dakota State University has been hired as a member of the board of directors on Monsanto for an extremely high compensation.

What do multinationals want?

That investment is essentially directed to strategic production of certain crops and its export. This will be accompanied by setting up of agro-produce processing, food processing and spinning centers. May be some agro-chemical industries will follow. India will be the home for labor-intensive farming and the associated exportable agricultural products. The industrialised west wants to use India as their agricultural and food basket. There is also a clear intention of taking control of India's mineral deposits, forest produces and coastal resources. To be precise, India is to be the supplier of raw material for the west. And, also a large market to sell the finished products. This neo-imperial attack is the same horror as the British East India Company.

July 18, 2005 – Joint Statement:

On July 18, 2005, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a number of agreements with the US president George W. Bush in Washington DC. Of these, only the civil nuclear agreement was highlighted. The parliamentary left made a big fuss about this and cried foul as the sovereignty of the country was being jeopardized (however, the urgency to organize widespread public protests against this was sadly lacking). On the same day was also signed another treaty that would affect the lives and livelihood of at least 84 percent of India's population, though it was hardly discussed anywhere or by anybody. This is the draconian Agricultural Knowledge Initiative (AKI). Recall, about 65-70 percent of Indian population is involved in agricultural production. Add to that another 14 percent who are associated with retail trade. This treaty will essentially evict all these people from their livelihood. Exercising control over the agriculture of an agricultural country like India is like controlling its entire economy.

Already, the policies that the third world governments have adopted at the behest of the IMF or the WB have all been a bane to the agriculture and also to the people related to agriculture. Reducing the import duties on the import of food crops, reducing farm subsidies, new preservation policies, genetically engineered seeds and animal proteins have all gone to fill the coffers of these multinationals.

The single most important objective of AKI is to orchestrate the SGR in India. In his speech to the US Congress, in the context of the Indo-US joint declarations and signed treaties, Manmohan Singh remarked, "US had helped India immensely during the FGR. We hope that the AKI will usher in a SGR in India". The disastrous effect of this treaty in the entire chain from cultivation to retail has already been outlined.

AKI is no windfall. It is a recipe for disaster that has been carefully perfected and fits in a greater design. The importance of 18th July, 2005 can hardly be over-emphasised. The joint declaration is undoubtedly a landmark historical document, one that is more likely to be treated as a testimony to the unimaginable betrayal of the Indian people. In every line of this declaration is hidden such abominable clauses that illustrates how using the tools of neo-liberalism and free-trade, India's policies are tailored to suit the needs of the United States of America.

The foremost subject that is captured in this declaration is the US-India Economic Dialogue. This is essentially an attempt to revive the Indo-US economic discussion and use the private sector energy to establish a CEO-platform to cement the economic ties. Trade, Investments and technology transfers would accelerate the economic growth of both the countries through cooperation. It is in this paragraph that AKI has been mentioned. Apart from this, there is reference to Indian Space Research, Indian Democratic Framework, Legal Structure etc; the American intervention in all internal matters of the country is crystal clear.

Incidentally, the 2005 tour of Manmohan saw him in the company of Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani, Baba Kalyani, Yogi Deveswar, Deepak Parekh and such other industrialists – these are the people who design the economic policies of the country. We discuss all this in detail below.

AKI Treaty:

Although this treaty is publicized as a 'knowledge initiative', the treaty in its entirety is spelled out as – US-India Knowledge initiative on Agriculture education, Teaching, Research, service and Commercial Linkages. The complete name conveys the expanse of this treaty. This treaty is in fact an integral part of a greater treaty called US-India Strategic Economic Partnership. A deeper inspection reveals the essential purpose of this treaty, which is to put Indian education and research to the use of the American multinationals. The recommendations of the haloed 'national knowledge commission' or the topics that dominate the Indo-US Science and Technology Forums reveal how this purpose is being served through the treaty. Questions related to our national sovereignty needs to be raised at this hour which are even more grave than those asked about the 1-2-3 nuclear treaty.

We have already pointed out that US multinational corporations are eager to establish their monopoly control over the Indian agricultural system through the AKI. Not only farming, the tentacles of AKI are spread from seed production to retail and wholesale trade, food processing, education and research, distribution of agricultural produce. The US administration, USDA (US department of agriculture), USAID (US agency of international development), different US universities have launched this attack in a concerted manner. For instance, the business school of Michigan University has drafted the contract farming document of ITC. Cornell University is involved in BT crop research.

Primarily, four fields were targeted in this pact. These were:

a) The field of education, syllabus selection, research and training.

b) Food processing and the utilization of fossil fuels.

c) Biotechnology.

d) Irrigation methods.

As usual, the pact will be implemented by a private – public partnership, or by a "PPP" model, which means that while the government will pay for the infrastructure development, the profit will only go to certain individual owners of large multinationals. These private actors would like to convert the entire world into a large food production unit, and for that purpose, are replacing agricultural production with trade-based contract farming, replacing cultivation of normal crops with farming for cash crops and production of flowers. The main objective of this is to increase export. One can say that this process is bringing back the times of the indigo cultivation, though this promises to be a lot more horrifying.

In brief, lets focus on few aspects of this treaty.

a) The main thrust of the "second green revolution" is the increase of agricultural output using large quantities of geneticaly modified crops. The recent turmoil about BT Brinjal is a direct result of the this treaty. After BT-Brinjal, other BT crops like BT rice are in the pipeline. This will be discussed in detail later.

Not only produce, genetic engineering is going to be used in changing fish and poultry as well. Along with this the issue of patents is also going to be highlighted. This is how the Company Raj is going to be imposed on the farmers of India. The induction of genetically modified crops will drastically reduce seed diversity and the farming of conventional crops. Farming will become so expensive that farmers will be forced to give up their occupations. Apart from permanently taking away the control of seeds from farmers, the special "Biotechnology Regulatory Act" is being formulated so that any sort of protest will also be stifled. This is how the freedom of speech and democratic rights will be usurped.

b) US multi-multinationals will sponsor the training of different Indian agricultural researchers in their own country. This is how foreign companies will develop and control the Indian agricultural research system. Needless to say, this cost will be borne by the Indian government. The BT Brinjal scam exposed clearly how it is possible to have reports favorable to multinationals penned by a few researchers, and how government permission obtained by completely illegal means.
 
c) The syllabus of the agricultural universities of India will be restructured. The curriculum of different institutions will be made favourable for the second green revolution. As a result of this pact, US corporations and universities will be getting the permission of taking seeds from India to their own country. They can then genetically modify these seeds and re-introduce them in India, as new, patented seeds.
 
d) One main aspect of this is contract farming. There are many examples of this in Punjab, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh. These will then rapidly spread to the other parts of the country following the declaration of the second green revolution. Futures trade would be based on this, and farmers will completely lose control over crop selection in the future. All such selection will be determined by the market, which will mainly promote the growth of food crops that can be exported and processed. This will be the future of the agricultural policy.

AKI board:

The high powered joint committee created for the implementation of Indo-US pact is represented prominently by Walmart, which is the world's number one retailer, Archers Daniel Midlands which is the world's largest food trader, and biochemical, seed and biotech giant Monsanto corporation which unilaterally control the seed market. Recently, in India FICCI and CII have joined this advisory committee.

Indo US CEO forum:
      
In his US visit of the US in 2005 by Manmohan Singh, the Indo-US CEO forum was formed under the supervision of the US-India business council. The primary objective of this forum was to supervise US investment in India and create conditions which would allow unfettered access for foreign capital. In reality, this group will try to implement all economic policies and ideas of the AKI pact. RatanTata has been designated the CEO from the Indian side, and William Harrison of JP Morgan as the CEO from the American side. Besides these, US board members are drawn from Cargill, Citigroup, Pepsico, McGrawHill, Xerox, while India is represented by Pratap Reddy of Apollo Hospital, Baba Kalyani of IndianForge Ltd, Ashok Ganguly of ICICI, Mukesh Ambani of Reliance, Yogi Deveshwar of ITC LTD, Deepak Parekh of ICDFC, to name a few. It is the proposal created by this group of corporates which was finally accepted in the parliament.

It is worth mentioning that many of these committee members were directly and indirectly connected to biotech research and agricultural retail croporations like Kishan Sansar of the Tata's and Reliance Fresh of the Ambani's. Besides, US companies that are closely affiliated are taking advantage of the treaty through the export market and are also changing the laws of the country for promoting their own interests. It is notable that the traveling companions of Manmohan Singh in 2005 were Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani, Baba Kalyani, Y.C.Deveshwar, Deepak Parekh, etc. In one word, the promotion and individual growth of of particular large business and trade interests is being protrayed as the way to help in development of the nation.

Documents of the CEO forum: Tactical Economic Partnership of India and US:

In 2006, the CEO forum published an agenda, which in one word could be said to be the list of demands of the corporate houses. These demands are reflected in the many so called development projects and have different legal aspects.

Starting from infrastructure, and encompassing energy security, different sectors like trade and business intellectual property rights, direct foreign investment, insurance / banking / pension, SEZ, defense, special investment areas, agriculture, and even several aspects of the Indian legal system have been earmarked for "cooperation" within the document published by the CEO forum. In brief, let us try to look at the main points in the document.

1. Public-private partnership (PPP) needs to be encouraged. The Indian government will need to increase the transparency and efficiency of the bidding process in order to attract more US-based corporations. The legal system in India will need to be modified to protect the interests of foreign investors.

2. Large Special Economic Zones (SEZ's) will need to be set up in India, which will service both the domestic and foreign markets. These zones will have international standard infrastructure, developmental projects, energy and transporation advantages, single window of clearance, internationally competitive labour laws and administrative transparency. A task force comprising of various Indian and foreign industry representatives will coordinate with state and national governing bodies / agencies.

3. Foreign corporations are very interested in investing in electricity, petroleum, gas, etc. therefore the govt. should enact more aggressive reforms in these areas, and give special attention to investment.

4. In the way the US based firm Enron was facilitated to invest in the "Dabhol Electricity Project", similarly Dow Chemicals should be allowed into Union Carbide in Bhopal, and all obstacles for such investment should be removed. The restrictions placed on the price of medication by Dr. Pranab Sen's task force need to be reviewed. The government needs to take up the task of building infrastructure. Public-private partnerships need to be welcomed in the fields of investment, all of which could be joint Indo-US ventures.

5. Barriers in investing in the small scale retail market need to be removed. Similarly, hindrances in investment in real estate, media, satellite broadcasts should be reduced. The food processing industry should be opened up to foreign investment, and special investment zones (different from special economic zones) need to be opened up to to attract foreigh investment. These places would have lax labour laws.

6. The CEO forum has emphasized on control over higher education and research in the context of human resource development. They have advocated the establishment of ties with different Indian and American universities and have demanded complete independence in the determination of fees and syllabuses for the affiliated universities. It has been clearly mentioned that the AKI treaty will be specially used in the field of collaborative research between Indian and US universities.

7. The food processing industry will need to be completely privatised. To rejuvenate the food processing industry, a cold storage chain needs to be established. All obstacles in the transport of imported and internal agricultural produce need to be removed. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee regulation needs to be revisited as this poses an obstacle for buyers and food processors for investing and increases the costs of agricultural goods. The import and taxation policies on vegetable oil, oil producing seeds, agricultural produce, need to be relaxed and all barriers to foreign investment in food and agri-business needs to be removed.

8. An US-India agricultural research institute needs to be set up as a part of the AKI pact, and joint research will need to be encouraged. The US and India should jointly try to commercialise biotechnology and encourage in the investment of products and goods that are generated from biotechnology. The appropriate framework for this needs to be created.

9. Direct foreign investment needs to be accelerated. Barriers to retail trade will need to be loosened. Besides, real estate, media, broadcasting, cable TV, etc should have any investment limits removed. Insurance/banking regulations need to be relaxed.

Only selected parts of the document of the CEO forum are discussed here. As the main thrust of this is agriculture, many changes are coming in this sector. These are reforms according to the government, but are in reality a blueprint for corporate takeover.

Like the establishment of SEZ's, food grain export, food processing, the entrance of large capital in retail industry, changes in the APMC law, changes in policies related to education and research, were mentioned to the show the connection between the corporate interests in the two countries. On the Indian side, the signatory was Ratan Tata. In this context it should be mentioned that the golden quadrilateral that came up during the nineties, and the way the rail and land corridors and shopping malls are sprouting up, are all parts of the new agricultural policy. Needless to say this will result in increased food shortages, malnutrition, widespread poverty and starvation.

First Green Revolution versus the Second Green Revolution:

In the 60s a change had been noticed in the agricultural policy that had been termed the first green revolution. A joint venture of the Ford Foundation of Henry Ford, and the Rockefeller Foundation of Standard Oil had made the world's agricultural system more dependent on energy and mineral oil. This was an indivisible part of the strategy of making the world more dependent on petroleum. Behind this "green revolution" there were other motives than just improving the Indian agricultural output. The fulfillment of the self-interest of the US was much greater, especially the fulfillment of the plans of the oil companies who wanted to create a permanent market for themselves through this process. The aim of the first revolution was to introduce petrochemical dependency on farming and make inroads in the fields of ownership of seed distribution, take control over the sectors of pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc.

The initiative to start the first green revolution had begun in Mexico in 1943. At that time, due to the initiative taken by the US based Rockefeller foundation, a joint effort by the US agricultural ministry and the USDA established the wheat and corn research center CMMYIT. Following this, the International Rice Research Center was established in the Philippines. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation were also involved in this effort. Among their different objectives, one was to create hybrid seed varieties that would grow well on nitrogen based fertilisers. The IR-8 variety was created by hybridising PETA of Indonesia with Dee-gee Woo Gen of China. After that, several such research efforts have taken place. This was the first attempt to establish private control over the seed sector.

After the WW II, the spectre of communism chased the US all over the world. In their own country, the US established a military economy by striking a deal with labour unions for setting labour policies. If revolutionary movements were afoot in any country, the US would try to identify the roots. There was a specific economic objective to this. And in these efforts, CIA was called in if needed to implement the policies of the World Bank and the IMF.

Even in the areas of improvement of irrigation in Mexico and in the creation of high yielding varieties in Philippines, Indonesia, China, the green revolution was made a model of agricultural growth. At the initiative and due to the funding by the Ford Foundation, the Corn Development project (CDP) gave impetus to the agriculture in this country. After that, the Intensive Agricultural District Region (IADR) was started in the states of Punjab, Haryana, and in some provinces of North-Western UP from 1965.

In this context, it should be mentioned that the way the rich ruling class of this country tried to use the technology and resources of both Russia and the Western nations simultaneously. Due to this, there was some hesitation in accepting the green revolution. Hearsay said that after the US president Lyndon Johnson threatened to withdraw PL-480, the ruling class conceded to implement the required policies to facilitate the first green revolution.

The green revolution entered India by exploiting the food crisis. When a nationwide food crisis was going on in the country in the beginning of the 60's, the green revolution package entered the country through the medium of export reform. Firstly, India was told that a nationwide survey of soil fertility needed to be conducted. The sale of farming equipment in India heralded the use of expensive machinery in Indian agriculture. Also, technology related to chemical fertilizer production was made sophisticated at this time. This was followed by the induction of high yielding seed varieties. Punjab was chosen as the incubation center for the green revolution. Along with the revolution, diesel pump-sets came into India. All of this was tied to the selfish profit motives of the Rockefeller and the Ford Foundations. These technologies were not introduced to alleviate India's hunger.

In order to turn the popular tide of public opinion towards the green revolution, a large scale effort was undertaken to train the scientists who would support it. The US undertook the responsibility of establishing an agricultural university in Punjab. After that, such universities were established in different places like Hyderabad, Tamil Nadu.

Correspondingly, US universities were deputed to prepare the curriculum. It was decided that the agricultural universities in this country would be modeled after the Land Grant based university model of US. In this period, around 33 institutes came to be, including 25 state farming universities, 1 central agricultural university, 1 horticultural and forestry related university, 2 veterinary universities, to list a few. 4 national research centers were also created.

By directly becoming involved in the establishment of 5 universities of the first phase, US established roots in the Indian agricultural education and training arena. National universities had very close associations with US based universities, which often influenced their policy decisions. Examples of such collaborations were the involvements of the Ohio University in Punjab, Michigan University in Tamil Nadu, Purdue, Iowa university in Bangalore.

This is how the green revolution established itself in India. This same idea was applied in other countries.

Tales of increased yield from the green revolution were circulated. Starting from the school textbooks, people were brainwashed on the positive effects of the green revolution. But nowhere were its negative aspects mentioned. While statistics of increased yield were presented, the price for this yield increase was not mentioned. There were three main subjects of the green revolution.

1. Increase in amount of land under agriculture.
2. Fertile lands were directed to have double crops and increased irrigation.
3. Increased use of high yielding variety seeds.

It is not clear why on earth one would need the great opinions of American experts regarding the first two abovementioned steps. There was no need for the eminent experts to tell us that more grain can be produced by cultivating more land which would help in building up the farming system of the country. Second, neither is there any doubt that production would rise if two crops are grown instead of one. The third advice was for securing their hold in seed market. This raised per acre yield undoubtedly. But one also has to consider that cost of production has gone up in the same rate. There is no efficiency gain in obtaining more power by spending more power.

In newly independent countries like India where the bourgeoisie rules, the "green revolution" was accorded the status of national agricultural policy. In order to protect from the danger of second world war and world wide economic depression, the interest of the saviour of world capitalism, namely the United States, and that of the Indian bourgeoisie converged on the same point.

In the agricultural system of colonial age the government was not concerned about the food availability of common people. Without attaining any development in agriculture many exportable crops such as jute, coffee, tobacco, cotton were grown. In the interest of imperialism through permanent settlement, zamindari, mahalwari, ryotwari tenure systems capitalist production were carried on. The main aim of the British government was to collect taxes, to that end it compromised with the local feudal structure.

Immediately after independence therefore food crisis, problems of all around rural development cropped up along with problems of expansion of capitalism in agriculture. The reason why the Indian capitalist class interest started following the blue print prepared by the two American organisations, Rockfeller and Ford Foundation are as follows,

1.In the newly independent country the torch bearer of democracy, the Congress Party, followed a system of mixed economy to achieve welfare for all. But while doing so crisis on food front became the biggest issue. To reach food to industrial workers and ordinary citizens control should be exercised over supply of food and its price. Therefore, the central government adopted green revolution oriented agricultural policy to quell possibilities of imminent rebellion and insurrections.

2.Some investments were legitimately taking place in agriculture. A major part of the compensation paid to the princely states also got invested in industries and share market. But in spite of all this the capitalist structure in agriculture was not taking a robust shape because of elements of semi-feudalism, slavery, begar system (bonded labour system in agriculture). So land reform, technology oriented farming, high yielding variety seeds, expansion of irrigation and such measures were taken.

3.Western influences were leaving deep imprint on the thinking, practice, values (especially in the field of technology) in the middle and upper class for decades before independence was attained. In the newly independent country that western influence, mainly in technology, became US oriented within a decade.

On the other hand as far as the harmful effects of green revolution are concerned the first is stability. The yield per acre could not be sustained. Two, countries which had adopted this technology are importing food at present. Possibly the global food merchants had this aim in mind. Three, hunger of the poor has not gone down, it has risen on the contrary. Serious harms were done to ecology. The farmers are finding farming no longer profitable courtesy adoption of the expensive farming system. Besides the well off farmers, conditions of small and marginal peasants have deteriorated (92% of peasants in West Bengal are small and marginal). Most importantly, the government itself is admitting that the first green revolution technology has lost efficiency. The edge has worn out in ten years. On can go on over this, but let us stop here for the time being.

India Produces:

17% of world milk production, 41% of mango, 30% of cauliflower, 24% of cashewnut, 36% of green peas, 21% of sugar cane, 22% of rice, 21% of pulses, 15% of wheat, 28% of tea. Besides, there are fruits, herbs etc.

Farmer Suicide:

No matter how loud the leaders blow their trumpets over agricultural development, incidence of farmer suicide has been growing. Existence of crores of marginal and small farmers are at risk due to the attack of neoliberal economic policies. National Crime Records Bureau reports that between 1997 and 2008 1,99,132 farmers were forced to commit suicide. Five states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh contributed the most to this. Mumbai, the capital city of Maharashtra, is supposed to be the life centre of financial activities in India. The same state saw about 45000 farmer suicides. In 2008 alone Maharashtra clocked 436 and Karnataka 398 farmers suicides. In the five years 2003 to 2008 incidence of suicides has gone up by 1900 per year.

The Punjab Experience:

It is heard that Punjab has prospered a lot due to the first green revolution and the lives and livelihood of the farmers in Punjab have improved. After this propaganda the central government is preparing the grounds for the second green revolution. But what is the actual state of Punjab peasants? Of all states, the highest number of indebted farmers is in Punjab. The average level of indebtedness per agriculturist is about Rs 42000. The volume of total indebtedness is Rs 25000 crores. From 1998 to 2009, 2116 farmers have committed suicide in this state. According to non-official sources the actual number is several times more than this. About 60% of farmers are in debt. The price of the first green revolution by is being paid by small and middle peasants committing suicide. The finance minister of India Mr. Pranab Mukherjee has chosen the eastern states such as West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa for unveiling the second green revolution. In this manner, the central government has arranged for mass scale farmer suicide in these states in near future.

Due to land reforms, small and marginal farmers own most of the land in West Bengal. They have succeeded in achieving all round improvement of agriculture in the state. West Bengal is one of the major states in agricultural production. One of the sinister aims of neoliberal globalisation is to establish the dominance of capital in agricultural business. Many infamous multinational companies and capitalists of this country have entered the fray to secure their business power in agriculture. These businessmen are eager to put into practice a capital and technology intensive agricultural system. If they are successful the small and marginal farmers will either be thrown off their occupation and turn into farm labourers. Or they will choose the final option of suicide through the debt route.

It is well known that the aim of many national and international big capitalists is to grab large tracts of land, invest huge sums of money and modern technology and earn windfall profit in the agricultural business. To achieve this the first task would be to reverse whatever little land reform that has taken place. As it is, per capita land ownership is less in eastern India. After the land reform in West Bengal per family land ownership has gone down further. One of the aims of the second green revolution is to nullify the land reform system and establish the unchallenged dominance of big capitalists in place of the big landlords of yesteryears.

We must fend off this ominous future.

The Main Theme of the Second Green Revolution:

The first green revolution has failed, therefore more green revolution. We have already noted that the impact of the second wave is going to be much more lethal. The first revolution targeted capturing the market of farm implements or exporting agricultural produce after growing them domestically. The new revolution one hears is not restricted to sphere of production alone. From primary implements to the final distribution of the produce – the entire network is attempted to be swallowed up. In the first stage ordinary people could manage to benefit in a limited way through public distribution system, agriculture subsidy, internal market, procurement at remunerative price etc. There were flaws in all these. But the attack in the second stage is much more far reaching.

The main technological weapon in the second green revolution is biotechnology. Monsanto wants to exercise control over the entire seed stock of the world through this. Not only seeds the multinational corporations are keen to control over the entire animal kingdom. In cattle and fish production gene technology is already being used extensively. The multinational corporations have gained dominance over scientific research of all description. They are using scientific and technological research according to their own will and requirements. India has become part of their nefarious plan through many deals.

Genetically Modified Crop: The Main Weapon of the Second Green Revolution
BT cotton and BT brinjal: Ominous Project

If HYV seeds, chemical fertilisers, pesticides were the tools through which via the first green revolution agrarian economy of India and the third world were captured, the principal weapon of the so called second green revolution or forever green revolution is GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms. It includes cotton, potato, maize, rice, jawar, soya bean, canola, tomato, papaya and BT brinjal, the centre of the latest controversy. Gradually newer commercial crops, food grains, vegetables would be encompassed.

From the last decade of the last century a process of merger between the giant chemical companies, farm and seed monopolies started. For instance pioneer Hybreed and Dupont (1997), Novartis AG and Geneca (2002), Dow and Rohm and Has (2001) etc. These agglomerated giants started to monopolise the seed market, so that the third world farmers are not able to preserve seed, so that each year they get forced to buy seeds from Monsanto, Singenta, Dupont or Cargill at extortionary price, so that all over the world seed and crop market get monopolised by monopoly capital.

The first step in this direction is to biotechnologically modify one or two genes of crops so that the gene of a different organism gets established.

The second step, to relentlessly propagate that GM crop is more productive, pest resistant and has greater longevity. Less chemical fertilisers would needed, less harvest will get wasted – profits of the farmer would rise as a result. 90% of such propaganda is false, incomplete or based on unscientific research and lies. But agricultural scientists and researches of India would be used for the propaganda – with the help of foreign tours (in the name of training), research funding and gifts. The universities of India and the third world would be utilised for the same purpose.

In the third state, the government would be pressured to approve those untested and harmful side effects containing seeds so that they can be produced commercially for the domestic market. If need be at first the seeds would be distributed freely and they would reach the farmers through the government agricultural departments. This has happened in the case of BT cotton and attempts are being made for the same in case of BT brinjal. If things don't work out simply extremely undemocratic and anti-national laws such as 'Biotechnology Bill' would be passed through the client governments.

The fourth stage is catastrophic. Within five, ten or fifteen years natural genome of all crops will get polluted through cross-pollination of infused outside genes. For example Cry 1ac gene of soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis has been infused in BT brinjal. This gene will enter the 25 varieties of brinjal in India and also other crops. Biodiversity created over thousands of years will get destroyed. It is worthwhile to recall that 2000 varieties of paddy have vanished because of the first green revolution. After 20 years perhaps only GM potato, maize and rice will be left with us.

The main game of giant companies unfolds in the fifth stage. Local seed stock has been destroyed. Only the distorted seeds of Monsanto, Syngenta are all we are left with. Farmers will have to purchase these year after year at a premium. Otherwise farmers may go to the jail or get fined courtesy patent law or the Seed Act, which is pending parliamentary approval.

The field where BT or similar crops have been cultivated get unsuitable for crops which are not genetically modified. This way the entire seed market of the country will be usurped by multinational giants or their national agent organisations.

However these high price seeds can not guarantee high crop yield. There is no certainty that the gene injected inside another crop by biotechnology, will succeed in yielding large harvest. Cotton growing areas of Vidharbha of Maharashtra is a cataclysmic example. We have discussed this elsewhere in this booklet. In short, after buying seeds and farm implements at exorbitant price, experiencing crop failure and therefore unable to pay the bank of money lender loans, thousands of BT cotton farmers have committed suicide. The suicide count exceeded 4000 in 2005-06 alone.

After soaking their hands in the blood of peasants, after doing business of billions of rupees, Monsanto (father of BT cotton) is now saying perhaps one of their GM seeds, 'Bollgard- I', has been a failure. Pests have become immune. Use of pesticide has not come down, neither has the yield gone up they admit. Therefore the company advices that their newest invention, two gene modified 'Bollgard -II' seed should be used. Massive success follow.

The false admit of error by Monsanto is part of their global business strategy. After the profit of the first stage seed has been completely appropriated they want to push the more expensive Bollgard – II. Transforming the blood and flesh of Indian peasants into profit is the blueprint of these multinational corporations.

Thus GM crops are an indispensable part of the second green revolution and India-US agricultural knowledge initiative. It's a such sure shot ammunition to secure all-encompassing of monopoly capital over Indian agriculture.

At present the much publicised story of high productivity yielding green revolution has taken an U-turn. Fertility of soil has plummeted. Ground water level has gone down alarmingly. Many toxic and poisonous particles are being detected in water. Due to relentless and extensive application of chemical manures and inorganic pesticides rural ecology and even the forests have been damaged.

The favourite projects of the central government such as the special economic zone (SEZ), due to large scale land grab by the big capitalists in search of minerals, the supply of land available for farming has gone down significantly. Besides, in spite of many cautions the central government has refused to restore the universal rationing system. It has instead embarked on a bizarre plan to provide food grain to the poor by introducing food coupon system. All these is part of a deep treacherous behaviour pattern.

After forward trading has been given permission big capitalists have taken to hoarding of food grain and black marketing. The Vajpayee government has weakened the essential commodities act. Manmohan Singh is walking the same path. As a result, punitive actions against black marketers and hoarders have become difficult to slap. Distribution of ration cards and correctly fixing the poverty line in the states are not being executed. The poor irrespective of caste, religion or creed are unable to afford food grain. Food crisis has grown deeper and deeper.

We have already discussed that an agricultural system oriented towards open market economy is fast gaining ground. The fallout of this is that food grains would not be grown for feeding the hungry, but the main aim of the farming would be to establish commercial agriculture. Agricultural diversity is getting destroyed. Agricultural production is becoming inconsistent with the rising population growth of the country. One shudders to think what danger food crisis may portend in near future.

It has to be pointed out, all over the world food crisis is taking an increasingly dangerous dimension. As the crisis deepens, demand for food rises exponentially. Consequently, the countries which are rich in agriculture, those which grow gold from land, face the gravest dangers from ruthless land grabbing predators.

Food is for People, It is a Right, It is not for Profit:

Demands:

1.Seeds and right to preserve seeds cannot be snatched away from peasants.
2.Invasion of national or international big capital in agriculture and contract farming should not be allowed.
3.So called food coupon based distorted food security system cannot be allowed.
4.Universal rationing system should be implemented throughout the country.
5.Black marketing and hoarding should be stopped by making essential commodities act strict.
6.Forwarding trading of food grain should be banned.
7.Excessive water, high level chemical fertiliser and pesticide based agriculture system must stop.
8.Privatisation of distribution of water and irrigation should be stopped.
9.In the interest of the poor land reform should be implemented throughout the country.
10.Land cannot be taken under the dictates of big capital.
11.Not under the control of capital, the local agricultural society must be intensely involved in order to restructure procurement and distribution of crop.
12. All genetically modified seed based crops including BT cotton and brinjal should be banned.
13.Indo-US agricultural knowledge initiative must be scrapped.

The deepening crisis in agricultural production and distribution is entangling the entire nation in an unprecedented crisis. To fight against this vicious present and future all progressive people, those who are committed to the cause of humanity must come together. One cannot afford to be too discerning regarding the allies, that way no meaningful resistance against the despicable conspiracy can be forged. Consolidation of the largest number of people and a commitment towards an united struggle is the need of the hour.

At the present juncture one needs development of consciousness and propagation of the same to thwart the conspiracy of the Indian capitalist who acting as junior partners of imperialist powers. Sanskriti Parishad in involved in this task. We believe in the coming days booklets of this nature would be published on a bigger scale by ensuring participation of larger number of people.

10 Responses to "The Second Green Revolution: A Blue-Print to Control India's Agriculture - Indo-US Treaty, New Seed Act"

  1. Jyotsna Kapur Says: 
    August 29th, 2010 at 2:08 am

    Thank you. Very informative.

  2. pradip kar Says: 
    August 30th, 2010 at 6:16 am

    It is very much helpful to the readers

  3. Sayantani Says: 
    September 13th, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Thanks for making people aware of the SGR

  4. nil Says: 
    September 15th, 2010 at 2:31 am

    i need bangala version of this book.
    please organize a rally & come at street against
    SRG , 123 , nuclear liability bill.

  5. nil Says: 
    September 15th, 2010 at 2:34 am

    sorry , at above comments ,that is SGR, NOT SRG.

  6. arnab Says: 
    September 16th, 2010 at 2:43 am

    we have to combat so called evergreen revolution to save our soil,seed,knowledge and people

  7. Shilpa.S.L Says: 
    November 10th, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Nature has provided us for the needful requirement, but not for the greedy.

  8. Rati kanta naik ,ag student Says: 
    January 14th, 2011 at 1:52 am

    The sgr information has described vert effectively,thans fr giving valuable information.

  9. Rati kanta naik ,ag student Says: 
    January 14th, 2011 at 1:53 am

    thnks fr giving the valuable information.

  10. Kumaraswamy.K Says: 
    March 2nd, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    The article gives multi-directional view of Second/Sustainable/Ever Green Revolution,

    http://sanhati.com/excerpted/2698/


    Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
    Part of Indo-Pakistani Wars and Bangladesh Liberation War
    Date3–16 December 1971
    Location Eastern front:
    East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)
    Western front:
    India-West Pakistan border
    ResultIndian victory.
    Eastern front:
    Pakistani forces surrender.
    Western front:
    Ceasefire negotiated.
    Territorial
    changes    		Secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh.
    Belligerents
    India
    India
    Pakistan
    Pakistan
    Commanders and leaders
    India Sam Manekshaw
    India J.S. Arora
    India G.G. Bewoor
    India K. P. Candeth
    India J.F.R. Jacob    		 Pakistan Gul Hassan Khan
    Pakistan Abdul Hamid Khan
    Pakistan Tikka Khan
    Pakistan A. A. K. NiaziSurrendered
    Pakistan Mohammad ShariffSurrendered
    Strength
    500,000 troops365,000 troops
    Casualties and losses
    3,843 killed [1]
    9,851 wounded[1]
    1 Frigate
    1 Naval Plane    		9,000 killed[2]
    4,350 wounded
    97,368 captured[3]
    2 Destroyers[4]
    1 Minesweeper[4]
    1 Submarine[5][6]
    3 Patrol vessels
    7 Gunboats

    The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a military conflict between India and Pakistan. Indian, Bangladeshi and international sources consider the beginning of the war to beOperation Chengiz Khan, Pakistan's December 3, 1971 pre-emptive strike on 11 Indian airbases.[7][8] Lasting just 13 days it is considered one of the shortest wars in history.[9][10]

    During the course of the war, Indian and Pakistani forces clashed on the eastern and western fronts. The war effectively came to an end after the Eastern Command of thePakistani Armed Forces signed the Instrument of Surrender, the first and perhaps the only public surrender to date,[11][12] on December 16, 1971 following which East Pakistan seceded as the independent state of Bangladesh. Around 97,368 West Pakistanis who were in East Pakistan at the time of its independence, including some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel[13] and 12,500 civilians,[13] were taken as prisoners of war by India.

    Contents

     [hide]

    [edit]Background

    Main articles: Bangladesh Liberation War and 1971 Bangladesh atrocities

    The Indo-Pakistani conflict was sparked by the Bangladesh Liberation war, a conflict between the traditionally dominant West Pakistanis and the majority East Pakistanis.[4] The Bangladesh Liberation war ignited after the 1970 Pakistani election, in which the East Pakistani Awami League won 167 of 169 seats in East Pakistan and secured a simple majority in the 313-seat lower house of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament of Pakistan). Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman presented the Six Points to the President of Pakistan and claimed the right to form the government. After the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, refused to yield the premiership of Pakistan to Mujibur, President Yahya Khan called the military, dominated by West Pakistanis, to suppress dissent.[14][15]

    Mass arrests of dissidents began, and attempts were made to disarm East Pakistani soldiers and police. After several days of strikes and non-cooperation movements, the Pakistani military cracked down on Dhaka on the night of 25 March 1971. The Awami League wasbanished, and many members fled into exile in India. Mujib was arrested on the night of 25–26 March 1971 at about 1:30 a.m. (as per Radio Pakistan's news on 29 March 1971) and taken to West Pakistan.

    On 27 March 1971, Ziaur Rahman, a rebellious major in the Pakistani army, declared the independence of Bangladesh on behalf of Mujibur.[16] In April, exiled Awami League leaders formed a government-in-exile in Baidyanathtala of Meherpur. The East Pakistan Rifles, aparamilitary force, defected to the rebellion. A guerrilla troop of civilians, the Mukti Bahini, was formed to help the Bangladesh Army.

    [edit]India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War

    The Pakistan army conducted a widespread genocide against the Bengali population of East Pakistan,[17] aimed in particular at the minority Hindu population,[18][19] leading to approximately 10 million[18][20] people fleeing East Pakistan and taking refuge in the neighboring Indian states.[17][21] The East Pakistan-India border was opened to allow refugees safe shelter in India. The governments of West Bengal, Bihar,Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura established refugee camps along the border. The resulting flood of impoverished East Pakistani refugees placed an intolerable strain on India's already overburdened economy.[19]

    General Tikka Khan earned the nickname 'Butcher of Bengal' due to the widespread atrocities he committed.[7] General Niazi commenting on his actions noted 'On the night between 25/26 March 1971 General Tikka struck. Peaceful night was turned into a time of wailing, crying and burning. General Tikka let loose everything at his disposal as if raiding an enemy, not dealing with his own misguided and misled people. The military action was a display of stark cruelty more merciless than the massacres at Bukhara and Baghdad by Chengiz Khan and Halaku Khan... General Tikka... resorted to the killing of civilians and a scorched earth policy. His orders to his troops were: 'I want the land not the people...' Major General Farman had written in his table diary, "Green land of East Pakistan will be painted red". It was painted red by Bengaliblood.'[22]

    The Indian government repeatedly appealed to the international community, but failing to elicit any response,[23] Prime Minister Indira Gandhion 27 March 1971 expressed full support of her government for the independence struggle of the people of East Pakistan. The Indian leadership under Prime Minister Gandhi quickly decided that it was more effective to end the genocide by taking armed action against Pakistan than to simply give refuge to those who made it across to refugee camps.[21] Exiled East Pakistan army officers and members of the Indian Intelligence immediately started using these camps for recruitment and training of Mukti Bahini guerrillas.[24]

    [edit]India's official engagement with Pakistan

    [edit]Objective

    Illustration showing military units and troop movements during operations in the Eastern sector of the war.

    By November, war seemed inevitable; a massive buildup of Indian forces on the border with East Pakistan had begun. The Indian military waited for winter, when the drier ground would make for easier operations and Himalayan passes would be closed by snow, preventing any Chinese intervention. On 23 November, Yahya Khan declared a state of emergency in all of Pakistan and told his people to prepare for war.[25]

    On the evening of 3 December Sunday, at about 5:40 p.m.,[26] the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on eleven airfields in north-western India, including Agra which was 300 miles (480 km) from the border. During this attack the Taj Mahal was camouflaged with a forest of twigs and leaves and draped with burlap because its marble glowed like a white beacon in the moonlight.[27]

    This preemptive strike known as Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the success of Israeli Operation Focus in the Arab-Israeli Six Day War. But, unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967 which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India and failed to inflict the intended damage.[28] As a result, the Indian runways were cratered and rendered non-functional only for a few hours after the attack.[29]

    In an address to the nation on radio that same evening, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi held that the air strikes were a declaration of war against India[30][31] and the Indian Air Force responded with initial air strikes that very night. These air strikes were expanded to massive retaliatory air strikes the next morning and thereafter.[32]

    This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the immediate mobilization of troops and launched the full-scale invasion. This involved Indian forces in a massive coordinated air, sea, and land assault. Indian Air Force started flying sorties against Pakistan from midnight and quickly achieved air superiority.[4][27] The main Indian objective on the western front was to prevent Pakistan from entering Indian soil. There was no Indian intention of conducting any major offensive into West Pakistan.[26]

    [edit]Naval hostilities

    Main article: Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971
    Pakistan's PNS Ghazi was the only submarine operated by either of the warring nations in 1965. The Ghazi sank off the fairway buoy ofVisakhapatnam near the eastern coast of India under unclear circumstances during the 1971 war, making it the first submarine casualty in the waters around the Indian subcontinent.

    The naval reconnaissance submarine operations was first started by the Pakistan Navy on both eastern and western front. In the western theatre of the war, the Indian Navy, under the command of Vice Admiral Kohli, achieved success by attacking Karachi's port in the code-named Operation Trident[4] on the night of 4–5 December,[4] which resulted in the sinking of the Pakistani destroyer PNS Khyber and a minesweeper PNS Muhafiz; PNS Shajehan was badly damaged.[4] This resulted in tactical Indian success: 720 Pakistani sailors were killed or wounded, and Pakistan lost reserve fuel and many commercial ships, thus crippling the Pakistan Navy's further involvement in the conflict. Operation Python[4] followed Operation Trident which was on the night of 8–9 December,[4] in which Indian rocket-armed motortorpedo boats attacked the Karachi Roads that resulted in further destruction of reserve fuel tanks, and in the sinking of three Pakistani commercial ships in Karachi Harbour.[4]

    In the eastern theatre of the war, the Indian Eastern Naval Command, under Vice Admiral Krishnan, completely isolated East Pakistan by establishing a naval blockade in the Bay of Bengal, trapping the Eastern Pakistani Navy and eight foreign merchant ships in their ports. From 4 December onwards, the aircraft carrier INS Vikrant was deployed in which its Sea Hawk fighter-bombers attacked many coastal towns in East Pakistan including Chittagongand Cox's Bazaar. Pakistan responded by sending the submarine PNS Ghazi to negate the threat.[5] Indian Eastern Naval Command laid a trap to sink the submarine and Indian Navy destroyer INS Rajput sank Pakistani submarine PNS Ghazi through depth charges offVishakapatnam's coast[33][34] reducing Pakistan's control of Bangladeshi coastline.[6] But on 9 December, the Indian Navy suffered its biggest wartime loss when the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor sank the frigate INS Khukri in the Arabian Sea resulting in a loss of 18 officers and 176 sailors.[35]

    The damage inflicted on the Pakistani Navy stood at 7 gunboats, 1 minesweeper, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 3 patrol crafts belonging to thecoast guard, 18 cargo, supply and communication vessels, and large scale damage inflicted on the naval base and docks in the coastal town of Karachi. Three merchant navy ships – Anwar Baksh, Pasni and Madhumathi – [36] and ten smaller vessels were captured.[37] Around 1900 personnel were lost, while 1413 servicemen were captured by Indian forces in Dhaka.[38] According to one Pakistan scholar, Tariq Ali, the Pakistan Navy lost a third of its force in the war.[39]

    [edit]Air operations

    Main article: East Pakistan Air Operations, 1971
    A part of the Pakistani Air Force's strike aircraft in 1971, anF-104 Starfighter, a Shenyang F-6and a Mirage-IIIEP.

    After the initial preemptive strike, PAF adopted a defensive stance in response to the Indian retaliation. As the war progressed, the Indian Air Force continued to battle the PAF over conflict zones,[40] but the number of sorties flown by the PAF gradually decreased day-by-day.[41] The Indian Air Force flew 4,000 sorties while its counterpart, the PAF offered little in retaliation, partly because of the paucity of non-Bengali technical personnel.[4] This lack of retaliation has also been attributed to the deliberate decision of the PAF High Command to cut its losses as it had already incurred huge losses in the conflict.[42] The PAF also did not intervene during the Indian Navy's raid on Pakistani naval port city of Karachi.

    In the east, the small air contingent of Pakistan Air Force No. 14 Sqn was destroyed, putting the Dhaka airfield out of commission and resulting in Indian air superiority in the east.[4]

    [edit]Ground operations

    		 This section does not cite any references or sources.
    Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved. (November 2010)
    Indian T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka.

    Pakistan attacked at several places along India's western border with Pakistan, but the Indian army successfully held their positions.[citation needed] The Indian Army quickly responded to the Pakistan Army's movements in the west and made some initial gains, including capturing around 5,500 square miles (14,000 km2) of Pakistan territory (land gained by India in Pakistani Kashmir, Pakistani Punjab and Sindhsectors was later ceded in the Simla Agreement of 1972, as a gesture of goodwill).

    On the eastern front, the Indian Army joined forces with the Mukti Bahini to form the Mitro Bahini ("Allied Forces"); Unlike the 1965 war which had emphasized set-piece battles and slow advances, this time the strategy adopted was a swift, three-pronged assault of nine infantry divisions with attached armored units and close air support that rapidly converged on Dhaka, the capital of East Pakistan.

    Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who commanded the eighth, twenty-third, and fifty-seventh divisions, led the Indian thrust into East Pakistan. As these forces attacked Pakistani formations, the Indian Air Force rapidly destroyed the small air contingent in East Pakistan and put the Dhaka airfield out of commission. In the meantime, the Indian Navy effectively blockaded East Pakistan.

    The Indian campaign employed "blitzkrieg" techniques, exploiting weakness in the enemy's positions and bypassing opposition, and resulted in a swift victory.[43] Faced with insurmountable losses, the Pakistani military capitulated in less than a fortnight. On 16 December, the Pakistani forces stationed in East Pakistan surrendered.

    [edit]Surrender of Pakistani forces in East Pakistan

    An Indian newspaper cover (1971)
    Main article: Instrument of Surrender (1971)
    Indian Lt. Gen J.S. Aurora and Pakistani Lt. Gen A.A.K. Niazi's signatures on the Instrument of Surrender.

    The Instrument of Surrender of Pakistani forces stationed in East Pakistan was signed at Ramna Race Course in Dhaka at 16.31 IST on 16 December 1971, by Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, General Officer Commanding-in-chief of Eastern Command of the Indian Army and Lieutenant General A. A. K. Niazi, Commander of Pakistani forces in East Pakistan. As Aurora accepted the surrender, the surrounding crowds on the race course began shouting anti-Niazi and anti-Pakistan slogans.[44]

    India took approximately 90,000 prisoners of war, including Pakistani soldiers and their East Pakistani civilian supporters. 79,676 prisoners were uniformed personnel, of which 55,692 were Army, 16,354 Paramilitary, 5,296 Police, 1000 Navy and 800 PAF.[45] The remaining prisoners were civilians – either family members of the military personnel or collaborators (razakars). TheHamoodur Rahman Commission report instituted by Pakistan lists the Pakistani POWs as follows:

    Branch Number of captured Pakistani POWs
    Army 54,154
    Navy 1,381
    Air Force 833
    Paramilitary including police 22,000
    Civilian personnel 12,000
    Total: 90,368

    [edit]American and Soviet involvement

    The Blood Telegram

    The Soviet Union sympathized with the Bangladeshis, and supported the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini during the war, recognizing that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals—the United States and China. The USSR gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, it would take counter-measures. This assurance was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971.

    The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia.[46]Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and where he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan, routing them through Jordan andIran,[47] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan. The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the "genocidal" activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. This prompted widespread criticism and condemnation both by Congress and in the international press.[17][48][49]

    The then US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush—later 41st president of the United States—introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. It was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The following days witnessed a great pressure on the Soviets from the Nixon-Kissinger duo to get India to withdraw, but to no avail.[50]

    When Pakistan's defeat in the eastern sector seemed certain, Nixon ordered the USS Enterpriseinto the Bay of Bengal. The Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. It has been documented that Nixon even persuaded Iran and Jordan to send their F-86, F-104 and F-5 fighter jets in aid of Pakistan.[51] On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships and a submarine, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also had a nuclear submarine to help ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise task force in the Indian Ocean.[52] The USSR also sent a very strong message to China and backed it up with the deployment of 40 divisions along the Sino-Soviet border.[53]

    [edit]Aftermath

    [edit]India

    The war stripped Pakistan of more than half of its population and with nearly one-third of its army in captivity, clearly established India's military dominance of the subcontinent.[20] In spite of the magnitude of the victory, India was surprisingly restrained in its reaction. Mostly, Indian leaders seemed pleased by the relative ease with which they had accomplished their goals—the establishment of Bangladesh and the prospect of an early return to their homeland of the 10 million Bengali refugees who were the cause of the war.[20] In announcing the Pakistani surrender, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared in the Indian Parliament:

    "Dacca is now the free capital of a free country. We hail the people of Bangladesh in their hour of triumph. All nations who value the human spirit will recognize it as a significant milestone in man's quest for liberty."[20]

    [edit]Pakistan

    A Pakistan stamp depicting the 90,000 POWs in Indian camps. This stamp was issued with the political aim of raising global awareness of the POW issue to help secure their release. The POWs were released by India after the signing and ratification of the Simla Agreement.

    For Pakistan it was a complete and humiliating defeat,[20] a psychological setback that came from a defeat at the hands of intense rival India.[13] Pakistan lost half its population, significant portion of its economy and its geo-political role in South Asia.[13]Pakistan feared that the two-nation theory was disproved and that the Islamic ideology had proved insufficient to keep Bengalis part of Pakistan.[13] Also, the Pakistani military suffered further humiliation by having their 90,000 prisoners of war (POWs) released by India only after the negotiation and signing of the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972. In addition to repatriation of prisoners of war also, the agreement established an ongoing structure for the negotiated resolution of future conflicts between India and Pakistan (referring to the remaining western provinces that now composed the totality of Pakistan). In signing the agreement, Pakistan also, by implication, recognized the former East Pakistan as the now independent and sovereign state of Bangladesh.

    The Pakistani people were not mentally prepared to accept defeat, as the state-controlled media in West Pakistan had been projecting imaginary victories.[13] When the surrender in East Pakistan was finally announced, people could not come terms with the magnitude of defeat, spontaneous demonstrations and mass protests erupted on the streets of major cities in West Pakistan. Also, referring to the remaining rump Western Pakistan as simply "Pakistan" added to the effect of the defeat as international acceptance of the secession of the eastern half of the country and its creation as the independent state of Bangladesh developed and was given more credence.[13] The cost of the war for Pakistan in monetary and human resources was very high. Demoralized and finding himself unable to control the situation, General Yahya Khan surrendered power to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was sworn-in on 20 December 1971 as President and as the (first civilian) Chief Martial Law Administrator. A new and smaller western-based Pakistan emerged on 16 December 1971.[54]

    The loss of East Pakistan shattered the prestige of the Pakistani military.[13] Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force and a third of its army.[55] The war also exposed the shortcomings of Pakistan's declared strategic doctrine that the "defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan".[56] Hussain Haqqani, in his book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military notes,

    "Moreover, the army had failed to fulfill its promises of fighting to the last man. The eastern command had laid down arms after losing only 1,300 men in battle. In West Pakistan 1,200 military deaths had accompanied lack luster military performance." [57]

    In his book The 1971 Indo-Pak War: A Soldier's Narrative Pakistani Major General Hakeem Arshad Qureshi a veteran of this conflict noted,

    "We must accept the fact that, as a people, we had also contributed to the bifurcation of our own country. It was not a Niazi, or a Yahya, even a Mujib, or a Bhutto, or their key assistants, who alone were the cause of our break-up, but a corrupted system and a flawed social order that our own apathy had allowed to remain in place for years. At the most critical moment in our history we failed to check the limitless ambitions of individuals with dubious antecedents and to thwart their selfish and irresponsible behaviour. It was our collective 'conduct' that had provided the enemy an opportunity to dismember us."[58]

    [edit]Bangladesh

    Main article: 1971 Bangladesh atrocities

    Bangladesh became an independent nation, the world's third most populous Muslim state. Mujibur Rahman was released from a West Pakistani prison, returned to Dhaka on 10 January 1972 and to become first President of Bangladesh and later its Prime Minister.

    On the brink of defeat around 14 December, the Pakistani Army, and its local collaborators, systematically killed a large number of Bengalidoctors, teachers and intellectuals,[59][60] part of a pogrom against the Hindu minorities who constituted the majority of urban educated intellectuals.[61][62] Young men, especially students, who were seen as possible rebels were also targeted. The extent of casualties in East Pakistan is not known. R.J. Rummel cites estimates ranging from one to three million people killed.[63] Other estimates place the death toll lower, at 300,000. Bangladesh government figures state that Pakistani forces aided by collaborators killed three million people, raped 200,000 women and displaced millions of others.[64] In 2010 Bangladesh government set up a tribunal to prosecute the people involved in alleged war crimes and those who collaborated with Pakistan.[65] According to the Government, the defendants would be charged with Crimes against humanity, genocide, murder, rape and arson.[66]

    [edit]Hamoodur Rahman Commission

    In aftermath of war Pakistan Government constituted the Hamoodur Rahman Commission headed by Justice Hamoodur Rahman in 1971 to investigate the political and military causes for defeat and the Bangladesh atrocities during the war. The commission's report was classified and its publication banned by Bhutto as it put the military in poor light, until some parts of the report surfaced in Indian media in 2000.

    When it was declassified, it showed many failings from the strategic to the tactical levels. It confirmed the looting, rapes and the killings by the Pakistan Army and their local agents. It lay the blame squarely on Pakistani generals, accusing them of war crimes and neglect of duty. Though no actions were ever taken on commissions findings, the commission had recommended public trial of Pakistan Army generals.[67]

    [edit]Simla Agreement

    In 1972 the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan, the treaty ensured that Pakistan recognized the independence of Bangladesh in exchange for the return of the Pakistani POWs. India treated all the POWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention, rule 1925.[27] It released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in five months.[68] Further, as a gesture of goodwill, nearly 200 soldiers who were sought for war crimes by Bengalis were also pardoned by India.

    The accord also gave back more than 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas.[69] But some in India felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis and that he would be accused of losing Kashmir in addition to the loss of East Pakistan.[13]

    [edit]Long term consequences

    [edit]Important dates

    • 7 March 1971: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declares that, "The current struggle is a struggle for independence", in a public meeting attended by almost a million people in Dhaka.
    • 25 March 1971: Pakistani forces start Operation Searchlight, a systematic plan to eliminate any resistance. Thousands of people are killed in student dormitories and police barracks in Dhaka.
    • 26 March 1971: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration of independence and sent it through a radio message on the night of 25 March (the morning of 26 March). Later Major Ziaur Rahman and other Awami League leaders announced the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujib from Kalurghat Radio Station, Chittagong. The message is relayed to the world by Indian radio stations.
    • 17 April 1971: Exiled leaders of Awami League form a provisional government.
    • 3 December 1971: War between India and Pakistan officially begins when West Pakistan launches a series of preemptive air strikes on Indian airfields.
    • 6 December 1971: East Pakistan is recognized as Bangladesh by India.
    • 14 December 1971: Systematic elimination of Bengali intellectuals is started by Pakistani Army and local collaborators.[61]
    • 16 December 1971: Lieutenant-General A. A. K. Niazi, supreme commander of Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, surrenders to the Allied Forces (Mitro Bahini) represented by Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Arora of Indian Army at the surrender. Bangladesh gains victory
    • 12 January 1972: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman comes to power

    [edit]Military awards

    For bravery, a number of soldiers and officers on both sides were awarded the highest military award of respective countries. Following is a list of the recipients of the Indian award Param Vir Chakra, Bangladeshi award Bir Sreshtho and the Pakistani award Nishan-E-Haider:

    [edit]India

    Recipients of the Param Vir Chakra:

    [edit]Bangladesh

    Recipients of the Bir Sreshtho

    [edit]Pakistan

    Recipients of the Nishan-E-Haider:

    [edit]Dramatization

    Films

    [edit]See also

    [edit]References

    1. ^ a b Official Government of India Statement giving numbers of KIA, Parliament of India Website Archived June 24, 2007 atWebCite
    2. ^ Leonard, Thomas. Encyclopedia of the developing world, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis, 2006. ISBN 0415976626, 9780415976626.
    3. ^ Quantification of Losses Suffered Archived July 21, 2007 atWebCite
    4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Global Security. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    5. ^ a b "The Sinking of the Ghazi". Bharat Rakshak Monitor, 4(2). Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    6. ^ a b "Operations in the Bay of Bengal: The Loss of PNS/M Ghazi". PakDef. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    7. ^ a b "Gen. Tikka Khan, 87; 'Butcher of Bengal' Led Pakistani Army". Los Angeles Times. 30 March 2002. Retrieved 11 April 2010.
    8. ^ Cohen, Stephen (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press. p. 382. ISBN 978-0-8157-1502-3.
    9. ^ The World: India: Easy Victory, Uneasy Peace, Time (magazine), 1971-12-27
    10. ^ World's shortest war lasted for only 45 minutes, Pravda, 2007-03-10
    11. ^ [1],
    12. ^ 1971 War: 'I will give you 30 minutes'. Sify.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
    13. ^ a b c d e f g h i Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. United Book Press. ISBN 978-0-87003-214-1, 0-87003-223-2., Chapter 3, pp 87.
    14. ^ Sarmila Bose Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971: Military Action: Operation SearchlightEconomic and Political Weekly Special Articles, 8 October 2005
    15. ^ Salik, Siddiq, "Witness To Surrender.", ISBN 978-984-05-1373-4, pp63, p228-9.
    16. ^ Annex M (Oxford University Press, 2002 ISBN 978-0-19-579778-7).
    17. ^ a b c "The U.S.: A Policy in Shambles". Time Magazine, 20 December 1971. 20 December 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    18. ^ a b U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Sitrep: Army Terror Campaign Continues in Dacca; Evidence Military Faces Some Difficulties Elsewhere, 31 March 1971, Confidential, 3 pp.
    19. ^ a b "East Pakistan: Even the Skies Weep". Time Magazine, 25 October 1971. 25 October 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    20. ^ a b c d e "India: Easy Victory, Uneasy Peace". Time Magazine, 27 December 1971. 27 December 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    21. ^ a b "Indo-Pakistani Wars". Indo-Pakistani Wars. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    22. ^ Haqqani, Hussain (2005). Pakistan: between mosque and the military. Carnegie Endowment. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-87003-214-1. Retrieved 2010-04-11.
    23. ^ "The four Indo-Pak wars". Kashmirlive, 14 September 2006. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    24. ^ "I had to find troops for Dhaka". Rediff News, 14 December 2006. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    25. ^ "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    26. ^ a b "War is Declared". Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    27. ^ a b c "Bangladesh: Out of War, a Nation Is Born". Time Magazine, 20 December 1971. 20 December 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    28. ^ "Trying to catch the Indian Air Force napping, Yahya Khan, launched a Pakistani version of Israel's 1967 air blitz in hopes that one rapid attack would cripple India's far superior air power. But India was alert, Pakistani pilots were inept, and Yahya's strategy of scattering his thin air force over a dozen air fields was a bust!", p.34, Newsweek, December 20, 1971
    29. ^ "PAF Begins War in the West : 3 December". Institute of Defence Studies. Retrieved 2008-07-04.
    30. ^ "India and Pakistan: Over the Edge". Time Magazine, 13 December 1971. 13 December 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    31. ^ "1971: Pakistan intensifies air raids on India". BBC News. 3 December 1971. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    32. ^ "Indian Air Force. Squadron 5, Tuskers". Global Security. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    33. ^ "Remembering our war heroes". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2 December 2006.
    34. ^ 'Does the US want war with India?'. Rediff.com (2004-12-31). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
    35. ^ "Trident, Grandslam and Python: Attacks on Karachi". Bharat Rakshak. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    36. ^ Utilisation of Pakistan merchant ships seized during the 1971 war
    37. ^ "Damage Assesment – 1971 Indo-Pak Naval War" (PDF). B. Harry. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
    38. ^ "Military Losses in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War". Venik. Retrieved May 30, 2005.[dead link]
    39. ^ Tariq Ali (1983). Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State. Penguin Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-14-022401-6.
    40. ^ Jon Lake, Air Power Analysis : Indian Airpower, World Air Power Journal, Volume 12
    41. ^ Group Captain M. Kaiser Tufail, "Great Battles of the Pakistan Airforce" and "Pakistan Air Force Combat Heritage" (pafcombat) et al, Feroze sons, ISBN 9690018922
    42. ^ "Indo-Pakistani conflict". Library of Congress Country Studies. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    43. ^ Paret, Peter (1986). Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-820097-0., pp802
    44. ^ Kuldip Nayar. "Of betrayal and bungling". The Indian Express, 3 February 1998. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    45. ^ "Huge bag of prisoners in our hands". Bharat Rakshak. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    46. ^ "Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume E-7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972". US State Department. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    47. ^ Stephen R Shalom. "The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971". Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    48. ^ Hanhimäki, Jussi (2004). The flawed architect: Henry Kissinger and American foreign policy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517221-8
    49. ^ "The Nixon Administration's South Asia policy... is beyond redemption.", wrote former USAID director John Lewis. John P. Lewis (9 Dec 1971). "Mr. Nixon and South Asia". New York Times.
    50. ^ 1971 War: How the US tried to corner India. Rediff.com. Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
    51. ^ Burne, Lester H.. Chronological History of U.S. Foreign Relations: 1932–1988. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 041593916X, 9780415939164.
    52. ^ "Cold war games". Bharat Rakshak. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    53. ^ Birth of a nation. Indianexpress.com (2009-12-11). Retrieved on 2011-04-14.
    54. ^ Abdus Sattar Ghazali. "Islamic Pakistan, The Second Martial Law". Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    55. ^ Ali, Tariq (1997). Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State. Verso Books. ISBN 0860919498, 9780860919490.
    56. ^ "Prince, Soldier, Statesman – Sahabzada Yaqub Khan".Defence Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    57. ^ Dr. Ahmad Faruqui. "General Niazi's Failure in High Command". Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    58. ^ EXCERPTS: We never learn, Dawn (newspaper), 2002-12-15
    59. ^ "125 Slain in Dacca Area, Believed Elite of Bengal". New York Times (New York, NY, USA): p. 1. 19 December 1971. Retrieved 2008-01-04. "At least 125 persons, believed to be physicians, professors, writers and teachers, were found murdered today in a field outside Dacca. All the victims' hands were tied behind their backs and they had been bayoneted, garroted or shot. These victims were among an estimated 300 Bengali intellectuals who had been seized by West Pakistani soldiers and locally recruited supporters."
    60. ^ Murshid, Tazeen M. (2 December 1997). "State, nation, identity: The quest for legitimacy in Bangladesh". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, (Routledge) 20 (2): 1–34.doi:10.1080/00856409708723294. ISSN 14790270.
    61. ^ a b Khan, Muazzam Hussain (2003), "Killing of Intellectuals",Banglapedia, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh
    62. ^ Shaiduzzaman. "Martyred intellectuals: martyred history". The Daily New Age, Bangladesh. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    63. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J., "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900", ISBN 978-3-8258-4010-5, Chapter 8, table 8.1
    64. ^ Bangladesh sets up war crimes court, Al Jazeera English, 2010-03-26
    65. ^ Bangladesh sets up 1971 war crimes tribunal, BBC, 2010-03-25
    66. ^ Bangladesh to Hold Trials for 1971 War Crimes, Voice of America, 2010-03-26
    67. ^ "Bangladesh requests war report". BBC. 30 August 2000. Retrieved 24 April 2011.
    68. ^ 54 "Indian PoWs of 1971 war still in Pakistan". Daily Times. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    69. ^ "The Simla Agreement 1972". Story of Pakistan. Retrieved 2009-10-20.
    70. ^ Coll, Steve (2005). Ghost Wars. The Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-007-6. pg 221, 475.
    71. ^ Kreisler interview with Coll "Conversations with history", 2005 Mar 25, UC Berkeley Institute of International Studies

    [edit]Further reading

    [edit]External links

    Bangladesh Liberation War

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Bangladesh Liberation War
    Part of Cold War
    T-55 tanks in the Bangladesh Liberation War.jpg
    Indian Army's T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka. India's military intervention played a crucial role in turning the tide in favour of the Bangladeshi rebels.
    Date26 March – 16 December 1971
    Location East Pakistan
    Result• Indian and Mukti Bahini victory against Pakistan

    • Subsequent independence of Bangladesh

    Territorial
    changes    		East Pakistan secedes to becomeBangladesh
    Belligerents
    Bangladesh Mukti Bahini

    India India (joins the war on 3 December 1971)[1]

    		Pakistan West Pakistan

    Pakistan Defence Forces

    Commanders and leaders
    Bangladesh General. M A G Osmani
    India Lt General Jagjit Singh Aurora
    India Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw

    India Lt General Sagat Singh
    India Maj General JFR Jacob

    		Flag of the Pakistani Army.svg LTG A. A. K. Niazi
    Flag of the Pakistani Army.svg LTG Tikka Khan
    Naval Jack of Pakistan.svg RADM M. Shariff
    Pakistani Air Force Ensign.svg Air-CDREEnamul Huq
    Strength
    Bangladesh Forces: 175,000[2][3]
    India: 250,000[2]    		 Pakistan Army: ~ 365,000[2]

    Para Military: ~250,000[4]

    Casualties and losses
    Bangladesh Forces: 30,000
    India: 1,426 KIA
    3,611 Wounded (Official)
    1,525 KIA
    4,061 Wounded[5]    		 Pakistan

    ~8,000KIA[citation needed]
    ~10,000 WIA[citation needed]
    91,000 POWs
    (56,694 Armed Forces
    12,192 Paramilitary
    rest civilians)[5] [6]

    Civilian death toll: 300,000–3,000,000 (estimates)[7][8]

    The Bangladesh Liberation War(i) (Bengali: মুক্তিযুদ্ধ Muktijuddho) was an armed conflict pitting East Pakistan and India against West Pakistan. The war resulted in the secession of East Pakistan, which became the independent nation ofBangladesh.

    The war broke out on 26 March 1971 as army units directed by West Pakistan launched a military operation in East Pakistan against Bengali civilians, students, intelligentsia, and armed personnel who were demanding separation of the East from West Pakistan. Bengali military, paramilitary, and civilians formed the Mukti Bahini(Bengali: মুক্তি বাহিনী "Liberation Army") and used guerrilla warfare tactics to fight against the West Pakistan army. India provided economic, military and diplomatic support to the Mukti Bahini rebels, leading Pakistan to launch Operation Chengiz Khan, a pre-emptive attack on the western border of India which started the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

    On 16 December 1971, the allied forces of the Indian army and the Mukti Bahini defeated the West Pakistani forces deployed in the East. The resulting surrenderwas the largest in number of prisoners of war since World War II.

    Contents

     [hide]

    Background

    In August 1947, the Partition of British India gave birth to two new states; a secular state named India and an Islamic state named Pakistan. But Pakistan comprised two geographically and culturally separate areas to the east and the west of India. The western zone was popularly (and for a period of time, also officially) termed West Pakistan and the eastern zone (modern-day Bangladesh) was initially termedEast Bengal and later, East Pakistan. Although the population of the two zones was close to equal, political power was concentrated in West Pakistan and it was widely perceived that East Pakistan was being exploited economically, leading to many grievances.

    On 25 March 1971, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal[9] suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment[10] in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[11]

    The violent crackdown by West Pakistan forces[12] led to East Pakistan declaring its independence as the state of Bangladesh and to the start of civil war. The war led to a sea of refugees (estimated at the time to be about 10 million)[13][14] flooding into the eastern provinces of India.[13] Facing a mounting humanitarian and economic crisis, India started actively aiding and organising the Bangladeshi resistance army known as the Mukti Bahini.

    East Pakistani grievances

    Economic disparities

    Although East Pakistan had a larger population, West Pakistan dominated the divided country politically and received more money from the common budget.

    Year Spending on West Pakistan (in millions ofPakistani rupees) Spending on East Pakistan (in millions of Pakistani rupees) Amount spent on East as percentage of West
    1950–55 11,290 5,240 46.4
    1955–60 16,550 5,240 31.7
    1960–65 33,550 14,040 41.8
    1965–70 51,950 21,410 41.2
    Total 113,340 45,930 40.5
    Source: Reports of the Advisory Panels for the Fourth Five Year Plan 1970–75, Vol. I, published by the planning commission of Pakistan.

    Political differences

    Question book-new.svg
    		 This section needs additional citations for verification.
    Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(November 2010)

    Although East Pakistan accounted for a slight majority of the country's population,[15] political power remained firmly in the hands of West Pakistanis. Since a straightforward system of representation based on population would have concentrated political power in East Pakistan, the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province. This was solely to counterbalance the East wing's votes.

    After the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, in 1951, political power began to be devolved to the President of Pakistan, and eventually, the military. The nominal elected chief executive, the Prime Minister, was frequently sacked by the establishment, acting through the President.

    East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardywas elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, he were swiftly deposed by the largely West Pakistani establishment. The military dictatorships ofAyub Khan (27 October 1958 – 25 March 1969) and Yahya Khan (25 March 1969 – 20 December 1971), both West Pakistanis, only heightened such feelings.

    The situation reached a climax when in 1970 the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme". Bhutto also refused to accept Rahman's Six Points. On 3 March 1971, the two leaders of the two wings along with the President General Yahya Khan met in Dhaka to decide the fate of the country. Talks failed. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called for a nationwide strike.

    On 7 March 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (soon to be the prime minister) delivered a speech at the Racecourse Ground (now called theSuhrawardy Udyan). In this speech he mentioned a further four-point condition to consider the National Assembly Meeting on 25 March:

    1. The immediate lifting of martial law.
    2. Immediate withdrawal of all military personnel to their barracks.
    3. An inquiry into the loss of life.
    4. Immediate transfer of power to the elected representative of the people before the assembly meeting 25 March.

    He urged "his people" to turn every house into a fort of resistance. He closed his speech saying, "Our struggle is for our freedom. Our struggle is for our independence." This speech is considered the main event that inspired the nation to fight for its independence. GeneralTikka Khan was flown in to Dhaka to become Governor of East Bengal. East-Pakistani judges, including Justice Siddique, refused to swear him in.

    Between 10 and 13 March, Pakistan International Airlines cancelled all their international routes to urgently fly "Government Passengers" to Dhaka. These "Government Passengers" were almost all Pakistani soldiers in civilian dress. MV Swat, a ship of the Pakistani Navy, carrying ammunition and soldiers, was harboured in Chittagong Port and the Bengali workers and sailors at the port refused to unload the ship. A unit of East Pakistan Rifles refused to obey commands to fire on Bengali demonstrators, beginning a mutiny of Bengali soldiers.

    Military imbalance

    Bengalis were underrepresented in the Pakistan military. Officers of Bengali origin in the different wings of the armed forces made up just 5% of overall force by 1965; of these, only a few were in command positions, with the majority in technical or administrative posts.[16] West Pakistanis believed that Bengalis were not "martially inclined" unlike Pashtuns and Punjabis; the "martial races" notion was dismissed as ridiculous and humiliating by Bengalis.[16] Moreover, despite huge defence spending, East Pakistan received none of the benefits, such as contracts, purchasing and military support jobs. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 over Kashmir also highlighted the sense of military insecurity among Bengalis as only an under-strength infantry division and 15 combat aircraft without tank support were in East Pakistan to thwart any Indian retaliations during the conflict.[17][18]

    Language controversy

    Main article: Bengali Language Movement

    In 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's first Governor-General, declared in Dhaka (then usually spelled Dacca in English) that "Urdu, and only Urdu" would be the common language for all of Pakistan.[19] This proved highly controversial, since Urdu was a language that was only spoken in the West by Muhajirs and in the East by Biharis, although the Urdu language had been promoted as the lingua franca of Indian Muslims by political and religious leaders such as Sir Khwaja Salimullah, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk and Maulvi Abdul Haq. The language was considered a vital element of the Islamic culture for Indian Muslims; Hindi and the Devanagari script were seen as fundamentals of Hindu culture. The majority groups in West Pakistan spoke Punjabi, while the Bengali language was spoken by the vast majority of East Pakistanis.[20] The language controversy eventually reached a point where East Pakistan revolted while the other part ofPakistan remained calm even though Punjabi was spoken by the majority groups of West Pakistan. Several students and civilians lost their lives in a police crackdown on 21 February 1952.[20] The day is revered in Bangladesh and in West Bengal as the Language Martyrs' Day. Later, in memory of the 1952 killings, UNESCO declared 21 February as the International Mother Language Day in 1999.[21]

    In West Pakistan, the movement was seen as a sectional uprising against Pakistani national interests[22] and the founding ideology of Pakistan, the Two-Nation Theory.[23] West Pakistani politicians considered Urdu a product of Indian Islamic culture,[24] as Ayub Khan said, as late as 1967, "East Bengalis... still are under considerable Hindu culture and influence."[24] But, the deaths led to bitter feelings among East Pakistanis, and they were a major factor in the push for independence.[23][24]

    Response to the 1970 cyclone

    The 1970 Bhola cyclone made landfall on the East Pakistan coastline during the evening of 12 November, around the same time as a localhigh tide,[25] killing an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people. Though the exact death toll is not known, it is considered the deadliest tropical cyclone on record.[26] A week after the landfall, President Khan conceded that his government had made "slips" and "mistakes" in its handling of the relief efforts due to a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the disaster.[27]

    A statement released by eleven political leaders in East Pakistan ten days after the cyclone hit charged the government with "gross neglect, callous and utter indifference". They also accused the president of playing down the magnitude of the problem in news coverage.[28] On 19 November, students held a march in Dhaka protesting the slowness of the government response.[29] Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashaniaddressed a rally of 50,000 people on 24 November, where he accused the president of inefficiency and demanded his resignation.

    As the conflict between East and West Pakistan developed in March, the Dhaka offices of the two government organisations directly involved in relief efforts were closed for at least two weeks, first by a general strike and then by a ban on government work in East Pakistan by theAwami League. With this increase in tension, foreign personnel were evacuated over fears of violence. Relief work continued in the field, but long-term planning was curtailed.[30] This conflict widened into the Bangladesh Liberation War in December and concluded with the creation of Bangladesh. This is one of the first times that a natural event helped to trigger a civil war.[31]

    Operation Searchlight

    Main article: Operation Searchlight

    A planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army – codenamed Operation Searchlight – started on 25 March to curb theBengali nationalist movement[32] by taking control of the major cities on 26 March, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military,[33]within one month. Before the beginning of the operation, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan.[34]

    The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid-May. The operation also began the1971 Bangladesh atrocities. These systematic killings served only to enrage the Bengalis, which ultimately resulted in the secession of East Pakistan later in the same year. The international media and reference books in English have published casualty figures which vary greatly, from 5,000–35,000 in Dhaka, and 200,000–3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole,[7][35] which therefore can be termed as Genocide.

    According to the Asia Times,[36]

    At a meeting of the military top brass, Yahya Khan declared: "Kill 3 million of them and the rest will eat out of our hands." Accordingly, on the night of 25 March, the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight to "crush" Bengali resistance in which Bengali members of military services were disarmed and killed, students and the intelligentsia systematically liquidated and able-bodied Bengali males just picked up and gunned down.

    Although the violence focused on the provincial capital, Dhaka, it also affected all parts of East Pakistan. Residential halls of the University of Dhaka were particularly targeted. The only Hindu residential hall – the Jagannath Hall – was destroyed by the Pakistani armed forces, and an estimated 600 to 700 of its residents were murdered. The Pakistani army denies any cold blooded killings at the university, though theHamood-ur-Rehman commission in Pakistan concluded that overwhelming force was used at the university. This fact and the massacre at Jagannath Hall and nearby student dormitories of Dhaka University are corroborated by a videotape secretly filmed by Prof. Nurul Ullah of theEast Pakistan Engineering University, whose residence was directly opposite the student dormitories.[37]

    Hindu areas suffered particularly heavy blows. By midnight, Dhaka was burning,[citation needed] especially the Hindu dominated eastern part of the city. Time magazine reported on 2 August 1971, "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Pakistani military hatred."

    Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested by the Pakistani Army. Yahya Khan appointed Brigadier (later General) Rahimuddin Khan to preside over a special tribunal prosecuting Mujib with multiple charges. The tribunal's sentence was never made public, but Yahya caused the verdict to be held in abeyance in any case.[citation needed] Other Awami League leaders were arrested as well, while a few fled Dhaka to avoid arrest. The Awami League was banned by General Yahya Khan.[38]

    Declaration of independence

    The violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971, proved the last straw to the efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration that read:

    Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night, West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between E.P.R. and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May Allah aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.[39][40]

    Sheikh Mujib also called upon the people to resist the occupation forces through a radio message.[41] Mujib was arrested on the night of 25–26 March 1971 at about 1:30 am (as per Radio Pakistan's news on 29 March 1971).

    A telegram containing the text of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's declaration reached some students in Chittagong. The message was translated toBangla by Dr. Manjula Anwar. The students failed to secure permission from higher authorities to broadcast the message from the nearby Agrabad Station of Radio Pakistan. They crossed Kalurghat Bridge into an area controlled by an East Bengal Regiment under Major Ziaur Rahman. Bengali soldiers guarded the station as engineers prepared for transmission. At 19:45 hrs on 27 March 1971, Major Ziaur Rahman broadcast the announcement of the declaration of independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur. On 28 March Major Ziaur Rahman made another announcement,which was as follows:

    This is Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro. I, Major Ziaur Rahman, at the direction of Bangobondhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, hereby declare that the independent People's Republic of Bangladesh has been established. At his direction, I have taken command as the temporary Head of the Republic. In the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I call upon all Bengalis to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army. We shall fight to the last to free our Motherland. By the grace of Allah, victory is ours. Joy Bangla. Audio of Zia's announcement (interview – Belal Mohammed)

    The Kalurghat Radio Station's transmission capability was limited. The message was picked up by a Japanese ship in Bay of Bengal. It was then re-transmitted by Radio Australia and later by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

    M A Hannan, an Awami League leader from Chittagong, is said to have made the first announcement of the declaration of independence over the radio on 26 March 1971.[42] There is controversy now as to when Major Zia gave his speech. BNP sources maintain that it was 26 March, and there was no message regarding declaration of independence from Mujibur Rahman. Pakistani sources, like Siddiq Salik in Witness to Surrender had written that he heard about Mujibor Rahman's message on the Radio while Operation Searchlight was going on, and Maj. Gen. Hakeem A. Qureshi in his book The 1971 Indo-Pak War: A Soldier's Narrative, gives the date of Zia's speech as 27 March 1971.[43]

    26 March 1971 is considered the official Independence Day of Bangladesh, and the name Bangladesh was in effect henceforth. In July 1971, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi openly referred to the former East Pakistan as Bangladesh.[44] Some Pakistani and Indian officials continued to use the name "East Pakistan" until 16 December 1971.

    Liberation war

    Main article: Bangladesh War timeline

    March to June

    Leaflets and pamphlets played an important role in driving public opinion during the war.
    See also: Mukti Bahini

    At first resistance was spontaneous and disorganised, and was not expected to be prolonged.[45]But when the Pakistani Army cracked down upon the population, resistance grew. The Mukti Bahini became increasingly active. The Pakistani military sought to quell them, but increasing numbers of Bengali soldiers defected to the underground "Bangladesh army". These Bengali units slowly merged into the Mukti Bahini and bolstered their weaponry with supplies from India. Pakistan responded by airlifting in two infantry divisions and reorganising their forces. They also raised paramilitary forces of Razakars, Al-Badrs and Al-Shams (who were mostly members of the Muslim League, the then government party and other Islamist groups), as well as other Bengalis who opposed independence, and Bihari Muslims who had settled during the time of partition.

    On 17 April 1971, a provisional government was formed in Meherpur district in western Bangladesh bordering India with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who was in prison in Pakistan, as President, Syed Nazrul Islam as Acting President, and Tajuddin Ahmed as Prime Minister. As fighting grew between the army and the Bengali Mukti Bahini an estimated 10 million Bengalis, mainly Hindus, sought refuge in the Indian states of Assam and West Bengal.[46]

    June – September

    The eleven sectors
    See also: List of sectors in Bangladesh Liberation War

    Bangladesh forces command was set up on 11 July, with Col. M A G Osmani as commander in chief, Lt. Col. Abdur Rab as chief of Army Staff and Group Captain A K Khandker as Deputy Chief of Army Staff and Chief of Air Force. Bangladesh was divided into Eleven Sectors each with a commander chosen from defected officers of the Pakistani army who joined the Mukti Bahini to conduct guerrilla operations and train fighters. Most of their training camps were situated near the border area and were operated with assistance from India. The 10th Sector was directly placed under a Commander in Chief (C-in-C) and included the Naval Commandos and C-in-C's special force.[47] Three brigades (11 Battalions) were raised for conventional warfare; a large guerrilla force (estimated at 100,000) was trained.

    Guerrilla operations, which slackened during the training phase, picked up after August. Economic and military targets in Dhaka were attacked. The major success story was Operation Jackpot, in which naval commandos mined and blew up berthed ships in Chittagong on 16 August 1971. Pakistani reprisals claimed lives of thousands of civilians.[citation needed] The Indian army took over supplying the Mukti Bahini from the BSF. They organised six sectors for supplying the Bangladesh forces.

    October – December

    Also See: Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan, Bangladesh 1971: Opposing Plans,Pakistan Army Order of Battle December 1971 and Mitro Bahini Order of Battle December 1971
    Bangladesh conventional forces attacked border outposts. Kamalpur, Belonia and Battle of Boyra are a few examples. 90 out of 370 BOPs fell to Bengali forces. Guerrilla attacks intensified, as did Pakistani and Razakar reprisals on civilian populations. Pakistani forces were reinforced by eight battalions from West Pakistan. The Bangladeshi independence fighters even managed to temporarily capture airstrips atLalmonirhat and Shalutikar.[48] Both of these were used for flying in supplies and arms from India. Pakistan sent 5 battalions from West Pakistan as reinforcements.

    Indian involvement

    Illustration showing military units and troop movements during the war.
    See also: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

    Major battles

    Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a pre-emptive strike on India. The attack was modelled on theIsraeli Air Force's Operation Focus during the Six-Day War. However, the plan failed to achieve the desired success and was seen as an open act of unprovoked aggression against the Indians.

    Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi declared war on Pakistan and in aid of the Mukti Bahini, then ordered the immediate mobilisation of troops and launched the full-scale invasion. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War.

    Three Indian corps were involved in the invasion of East Pakistan. They were supported by nearly three brigades of Mukti Bahini fighting alongside them, and many more fighting irregularly. This was far superior to the Pakistani army of three divisions.[49] The Indians quickly overran the country, bypassing heavily defended strongholds. Pakistani forces were unable to effectively counter the Indian attack, as they had been deployed in small units around the border to counter guerrilla attacks by the Mukti Bahini.[50] Unable to defend Dhaka, the Pakistanis surrendered on 16 December 1971.

    The speed of the Indian strategy can be gauged by the fact that one of the regiments of Indian army (7 Punjab now 8 Mechanised Inf Regiment) fought the liberation war along the Jessore and Khulna axis. They were newly converted to a mechanised regiment and it took them just 1 week to reach Khulna after capturing Jessore. Their losses were limited to just 2 newly acquired APCs (SKOT) from the Russians.

    India's external intelligence agency, the RAW, played a crucial role in providing logistic support to the Mukti Bahini during the initial stages of the war. RAW's operations, in then-East Pakistan, was the largest covert operation in the history of South Asia.

    Pakistani response

    Pakistan launched a number of armoured thrusts along India's western front in attempts to force Indian troops away from East Pakistan. Pakistan tried to fight back and boost the sagging morale by incorporating the Special Services Group commandos in sabotage and rescue missions.

    The air and naval war

    The Indian Air Force carried out several sorties against Pakistan, and within a week, IAF aircraft dominated the skies of East Pakistan. Itachieved near-total air supremacy by the end of the first week as the entire Pakistani air contingent in the east, PAF No.14 Squadron, was grounded because of Indian airstrikes at Tejgaon, Kurmitolla, Lal Munir Hat and Shamsher Nagar. Sea Hawks from INS Vikrant also struckChittagong, Barisal and Cox's Bazar, destroying the eastern wing of the Pakistan Navy and effectively blockading the East Pakistan ports, thereby cutting off any escape routes for the stranded Pakistani soldiers. The nascent Bangladesh Navy (comprising officers and sailors who defected from the Pakistani Navy) aided the Indians in the marine warfare, carrying out attacks, most notably Operation Jackpot.

    Surrender and aftermath

    Indian Lt. Gen J.S. Aurora and Pakistani Lt. Gen A.A.K. Niazi's signatures on the Instrument of Surrender.

    On 16 December 1971, Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi, CO of Pakistan Army forces located in East Pakistan signed the instrument of surrender. At the time of surrender only a few countries had provided diplomatic recognition to the new nation. Over 90,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the Indian forces making it the largest surrender since World War II. Bangladesh sought admission in the UN with most voting in its favour, but China vetoed this as Pakistan was its key ally.[51] The United States, also a key ally of Pakistan, was one of the last nations to accord Bangladesh recognition.[52] To ensure a smooth transition, in 1972 the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. The treaty ensured that Pakistan recognised the independence of Bangladesh in exchange for the return of the Pakistani PoWs. India treated all the PoWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention, rule 1925.[53] It released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in five months.[54]

    Further, as a gesture of goodwill, nearly 200 soldiers who were sought for war crimes by Bengalis were also pardoned by India. The accord also gave back more than 13,000 km² of land that Indian troops had seized in West Pakistan during the war, though India retained a few strategic areas;[55]most notably Kargil (which would in turn again be the focal point for a war between the two nations in 1999). This was done as a measure of promoting "lasting peace" and was acknowledged by many observers as a sign of maturity by India. But some in India felt that the treaty had been too lenient to Bhutto, who had pleaded for leniency, arguing that the fragile democracy in Pakistan would crumble if the accord was perceived as being overly harsh by Pakistanis.

    Reaction in West Pakistan to the war

    Reaction to the defeat and dismemberment of half the nation was a shocking loss to top military and civilians alike. No one had expected that they would lose the formal war in under a fortnight and there was also anger at what was perceived as a meek surrender of the army in East Pakistan. Yahya Khan's dictatorship collapsed and gave way to Bhutto who took the opportunity to rise to power. General Niazi, who surrendered along with 93,000 troops, was viewed with suspicion and hatred upon his return to Pakistan. He was shunned and branded atraitor. The war also exposed the shortcomings of Pakistan's declared strategic doctrine that the "defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan".[56] Pakistan also failed to gather international support, and found itself fighting a lone battle with only the USA providing any external help. This further embittered the Pakistanis who had faced the worst military defeat of an army in decades.

    The debacle immediately prompted an enquiry headed by Justice Hamoodur Rahman. Called the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, it was initially suppressed by Bhutto as it put the military in a poor light. When it was declassified, it showed many failings from the strategic to the tactical levels. It also condemned the atrocities and the war crimes committed by the armed forces. It confirmed the looting, rapes and the killings by the Pakistan Army and their local agents although the figures are far lower than the ones quoted by Bangladesh. According to Bangladeshi sources, 200,000 women were raped and over 3 million people were killed, while the Rahman Commission report in Pakistan claimed 26,000 died and the rapes were in the hundreds. However, the army's role in splintering Pakistan after its greatest military debacle was largely ignored by successive Pakistani governments.[citation needed]

    Atrocities

    Rayerbazar killing field photographed immediately after the war, showing dead bodies of intellectuals (Image courtesy: Rashid Talukdar, 1971)
    Main article: 1971 Bangladesh atrocities

    During the war there were widespread killings and other atrocities – including the displacement of civilians in Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) and widespread violations of human rights – carried out by the Pakistan Army with support from political and religious militias, beginning with the start of Operation Searchlight on 25 March 1971. Bangladeshi authorities claim that three million people were killed,[7] while the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, an official Pakistan Government investigation, put the figure as low as 26,000 civilian casualties.[57] The international media and reference books in English have also published figures which vary greatly from 200,000 to 3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole.[7] A further eight to ten million people fled the country to seek safety in India.[58]

    A large section of the intellectual community of Bangladesh were murdered, mostly by the Al-Shams and Al-Badr forces,[59] at the instruction of the Pakistani Army.[60] Just 2 days before the surrender, on 14 December 1971, Pakistan Army and Razakar militia (local collaborators) picked up at least 100 physicians, professors, writers and engineers in Dhaka, and murdered them, leaving the dead bodies in a mass grave.[61] There are many mass graves in Bangladesh, and as years pass, more are being discovered (such as one in an old well near a mosque in Dhaka, located in the non-Bengali region of the city, which was discovered in August 1999).[62] The first night of war on Bengalis, which is documented in telegrams from the American Consulate in Dhaka to the United States State Department, saw indiscriminate killings of students of Dhaka University and other civilians.[63] Numerous women were tortured, raped and killed during the war; the exact numbers are not known and are a subject of debate. Bangladeshi sources cite a figure of 200,000 women raped, giving birth to thousands of war babies. The Pakistan Army also kept numerous Bengali women as sex-slaves inside the Dhaka Cantonment. Most of the girls were captured from Dhaka University and private homes.[64] There was significant sectarian violence not only perpetrated and encouraged by the Pakistani army,[65] but also by Bengali nationalists against non-Bengali minorities, especially Biharis.[66]

    On 16 December 2002, the George Washington University's National Security Archive published a collection of declassified documents, consisting mostly of communications between US embassy officials and United States Information Service centres in Dhaka and India, and officials in Washington DC.[67] These documents show that US officials working in diplomatic institutions within Bangladesh used the termsselective genocide[68] and genocide (see The Blood Telegram) to describe events they had knowledge of at the time. Genocide is the term that is still used to describe the event in almost every major publication and newspaper in Bangladesh,[69][70] although elsewhere, particularly in Pakistan, the actual death toll, motives, extent, and destructive impact of the actions of the Pakistani forces are disputed.

    Foreign reaction

    USA and USSR

    Question book-new.svg
    		 This section needs additional citations for verification.
    Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(November 2010)

    The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. U.S. President Richard Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan. But when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the aircraft carrier USS Enterpriseto the Bay of Bengal, a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat. Enterprise arrived on station on 11 December 1971. On 6 and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972.

    The Nixon administration provided support to Pakistan President Yahya Khan during the turmoil.

    Nixon and Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating arapprochement and which he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran,[71] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

    The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the genocidal activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram.

    The Soviet Union supported Bangladesh and Indian armies, as well as the Mukti Bahini during the war, recognising that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals – the United States and China. It gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, the USSR would take countermeasures. This was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean.

    China

    As a long-standing ally of Pakistan, the People's Republic of China reacted with alarm to the evolving situation in East Pakistan and the prospect of India invading West Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. Believing that just such an Indian attack was imminent, Nixon encouraged China to mobilise its armed forces along its border with India to discourage such an eventuality; the Chinese did not, however, respond in this manner, and instead threw their weight behind demands for an immediate ceasefire.

    United Nations

    Though the UN condemned the human rights violations, it failed to defuse the situation politically before the start of the war. The Security Council assembled on 4 December to discuss the volatile situation in South Asia. The USSR vetoed the resolution twice. After lengthy discussions on 7 December, the General Assembly promptly adopted by a majority resolution calling for an "immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of troops." The United States on 12 December requested that the Security Council be reconvened. However, by the time it was reconvened and proposals were finalised, the war had ended, making the measures merely academic.

    The inaction of the United Nations in face of the East Pakistan crisis was widely criticised. The conflict also exposed the delay in decision making that failed to address the underlying issues in time.[citation needed]

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ^ "Gen. Tikka Khan, 87; 'Butcher of Bengal' Led Pakistani Army".The Los Angeles Times. 30 March 2002.
    2. ^ a b c India – Pakistan War, 1971; Introduction – Tom Cooper, Khan Syed Shaiz Ali
    3. ^ Pakistan & the Karakoram Highway By Owen Bennett-Jones, Lindsay Brown, John Mock, Sarina Singh, Pg 30</
    4. ^ p442 Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 [ISBN 81-7062-014-7]
    5. ^ a b Figures from The Fall of Dacca by Jagjit Singh Aurora in The Illustrated Weekly of India dated 23 December 1973 quoted inIndian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 [ISBN 81-7062-014-7]
    6. ^ Figure from Pakistani Prisoners of War in India by Col S.P. Salunke p.10 quoted in Indian Army after Independence by KC Pravel: Lancer 1987 (ISBN 81-7062-014-7)
    7. ^ a b c d Matthew White's Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
    8. ^ "Bangladesh sets up war crimes court – Central & South Asia". Al Jazeera English. 25 March 2010. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    9. ^ "''Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971.'' Gendercide Watch". Gendercide.org. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    10. ^ "''Emerging Discontent, 1966–70.'' Country Studies Bangladesh". Countrystudies.us. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    11. ^ Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971: Military Action: Operation Searchlight Bose S Economic and Political Weekly Special Articles, 8 October 2005
    12. ^ The Pakistani Slaughter That Nixon Ignored , Syndicated Column by Sydney Schanberg, New York Times, 3 May 1994
    13. ^ a b Crisis in South Asia – A report by Senator Edward Kennedy to the Subcommittee investigating the Problem of Refugees and Their Settlement, Submitted to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1 November 1971, U.S. Govt. Press.pp6-7
    14. ^ Monday, 13 Dec. 1971 (13 December 1971). "''India and Pakistan: Over the Edge.'' TIME 13 December 1971 Vol. 98 No. 24". TIME. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    15. ^ Sayeed, Khalid B. (1967). The Political System of Pakistan. Houghton Mifflin. p. 61.
    16. ^ a b "Library of Congress studies". Memory.loc.gov. 1 July 1947. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    17. ^ "Demons of December – Road from East Pakistan to Bangladesh". Defencejournal.com. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    18. ^ Rounaq Jahan (1972). Pakistan: Failure in National Integration. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-03625-6. Pg 166–167
    19. ^ Al Helal, Bashir, Language Movement, Banglapedia
    20. ^ a b "Language Movement" (PHP). Banglapedia – The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. Retrieved 6 February 2007.
    21. ^ "International Mother Language Day – Background and Adoption of the Resolution". Government of Bangladesh. Archived fromthe original on 20 May 2007. Retrieved 21 June 2007.
    22. ^ Rahman, Tariq (September 1997). "Language and Ethnicity in Pakistan". Asian Survey 37 (9): 833–839.doi:10.1525/as.1997.37.9.01p02786. ISSN 0004-4687.JSTOR 2645700.
    23. ^ a b Rahman, Tariq (1997). "The Medium of Instruction Controversy in Pakistan" (PDF). Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18 (2): 145–154.doi:10.1080/01434639708666310. ISSN 0143-4632. Retrieved 21 June 2007.
    24. ^ a b c Oldenburg, Philip (August 1985). ""A Place Insufficiently Imagined": Language, Belief, and the Pakistan Crisis of 1971". The Journal of Asian Studies 44 (4): 711–733. doi:10.2307/2056443.ISSN 0021-9118. JSTOR 2056443.
    25. ^ India Meteorological Department (1970). "Annual Summary – Storms & Depressions" (PDF). India Weather Review 1970. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 15 April 2007.
    26. ^ Kabir, M. M.; Saha B. C.; Hye, J. M. A.. "Cyclonic Storm Surge Modelling for Design of Coastal Polder" (PDF). Institute of Water Modelling. Retrieved 15 April 2007.
    27. ^ Schanberg, Sydney (22 November 1970). "Yahya Condedes 'Slips' In Relief". New York Times.
    28. ^ Staff writer (23 November 1970). "East Pakistani Leaders Assail Yahya on Cyclone Relief". New York Times. Reuters.
    29. ^ Staff writer (18 November 1970). "Copter Shortage Balks Cyclone Aid". New York Times.
    30. ^ Durdin, Tillman (11 March 1971). "Pakistanis Crisis Virtually Halts Rehabilitation Work In Cyclone Region". New York Times.
    31. ^ Olson, Richard (21 February 2005). "A Critical Juncture Analysis, 1964–2003" (PDF). USAID. Retrieved 15 April 2007.
    32. ^ Sarmila Bose Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971: Military Action: Operation SearchlightEconomic and Political Weekly Special Articles, 8 October 2005
    33. ^ Salik, Siddiq, Witness To Surrender, p63, p228-9 id = ISBN 984-05-1373-7
    34. ^ From Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy to War – The 1971 Crisis in South Asia. Asif Siddiqui, Journal of International and Area Studies Vol.4 No.1, 1997. 12. pp 73–92.
    35. ^ Zunaid Kazi. "History : The Bangali Genocide, 1971". Virtual Bangladesh. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    36. ^ Debasish Roy Chowdhury (23 June 2005). "'Indians are bastards anyway'". Asia Times.
    37. ^ Malik, Amita (1972). The Year of the Vulture. New Delhi: Orient Longmans. pp. 79–83. ISBN 0804688176.
    38. ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica – Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan". Britannica.com. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    39. ^ "Joy" is the Bengali word that means victory, so Joy Bangla would translate to Victorious Bengal or Victory to Bengal
    40. ^ J. S. Gupta The History of the Liberation Movement in Bangladesh Page ??
    41. ^ The Daily Star, 26 March 2005 Article not specified
    42. ^ "Virtual Bangladesh". Virtual Bangladesh. 26 March 1971. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    43. ^ Annex M (Oxford University Press, 2002 ISBN 0-19-579778-7)
    44. ^ India, Pakistan, and the United States: Breaking with the Past By Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli ISBN 0-87609-199-0, 1997, Council on Foreign Relations. pp 37
    45. ^ Pakistan Defence Journal, 1977, Vol 2, p2-3
    46. ^ "Bangladesh". State.gov. 24 May 2010. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    47. ^ Bangladesh Liberation Armed Force, Liberation War Museum, Bangladesh.
    48. ^ "India – Pakistan War, 1971; Introduction By Tom Cooper, with Khan Syed Shaiz Ali". Acig.org. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    49. ^ Monday, 20 Dec. 1971 (20 December 1971). "Bangladesh: Out of War, a Nation Is Born". TIME. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    50. ^ Indian Army after Independence by Maj KC Praval 1993 Lancer p317 ISBN 1-897829-45-0
    51. ^ Section 9. Situation in the Indian Subcontinent, 2. Bangladesh's international position – Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
    52. ^ Guess who's coming to dinner Naeem Bangali
    53. ^ "Bangladesh: Unfinished Justice for the crimes of 1971 – South Asia Citizens Web". Sacw.net. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    54. ^ 54 Indian PoWs of 1971 war still in Pakistan – Daily Times – Leading News Resource of Pakistan
    55. ^ "The Simla Agreement 1972 – Story of Pakistan". Storyofpakistan.com. 1 June 2003. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
    56. ^ Defencejournal, Redefining security imperatives by M Sharif– Article in Jang newspaper, General Niazi's Failure in High Command
    57. ^ Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report, chapter 2, paragraph 33
    58. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J., "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900", ISBN 3-8258-4010-7, Chapter 8,Table 8.2 Pakistan Genocide in Bangladesh Estimates, Sources, and Calcualtions: lowest estimate two million claimed by Pakistan (reported by Aziz, Qutubuddin. Blood and tears Karachi: United Press of Pakistan, 1974. pp. 74,226), all the other sources used by Rummel suggest a figure of between 8 and 10 million with one (Johnson, B. L. C. Bangladesh. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1975. pp. 73,75) that "could have been" 12 million.
    59. ^ Many of the eyewitness accounts of relations that were picked up by "Al Badr" forces describe them as Bengali men. The only survivor of the Rayerbazar killings describes the captors and killers of Bengali professionals as fellow Bengalis. See 37 Dilawar Hossain, account reproduced in 'Ekattorer Ghatok-dalalera ke Kothay' (Muktijuddha Chetona Bikash Kendro, Dhaka, 1989)
    60. ^ Asadullah Khan The loss continues to haunt us in The Daily Star 14 December 2005
    61. ^ "125 Slain in Dacca Area, Believed Elite of Bengal". New York Times (New York, NY, USA): p. 1. 19 December 1971. Retrieved 4 January 2008. "At least 125 persons, believed to be physicians, professors, writers and teachers were found murdered today in a field outside Dacca. All the victims' hands were tied behind their backs and they had been bayoneted, garroted or shot. They were among an estimated 300 Bengali intellectuals who had been seized by West Pakistani soldiers and locally recruited supporters."
    62. ^ DPA report Mass grave found in Bangladesh in The Chandigarh Tribune 8 August 1999
    63. ^ Sajit Gandhi The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79 16 December 2002
    64. ^ East Pakistan: Even the Skies Weep, Time Magazine, 25 October 1971.
    65. ^ U.S. Consulate (Dacca) Cable, Sitrep: Army Terror Campaign Continues in Dacca; Evidence Military Faces Some Difficulties Elsewhere, 31 March 1971, Confidential, 3 pp
    66. ^ Sen, Sumit (1999). "Stateless Refugees and the Right to Return: the Bihari Refugees of South Asia, Part 1" (PDF). International Journal of Refugee Law 11 (4): 625–645.doi:10.1093/ijrl/11.4.625. Retrieved 20 October 2006.
    67. ^ Gandhi, Sajit, ed. (16 December 2002), The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971: National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79
    68. ^ U.S. Consulate in Dacca (27 March 1971), Selective genocide, Cable (PDF)
    69. ^ Editorial "The Jamaat Talks Back" in The Bangladesh Observer 30 December 2005
    70. ^ Dr. N. Rabbee "Remembering a Martyr" Star weekend Magazine, The Daily Star 16 December 2005
    71. ^ Shalom, Stephen R., The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971

    References

    Further reading

    • Ayoob, Mohammed and Subrahmanyam, K., The Liberation War, S. Chand and Co. pvt Ltd. New Delhi, 1972.
    • Bhargava, G.S., Crush India or Pakistan's Death Wish, ISSD, New Delhi, 1972.
    • Bhattacharyya, S. K., Genocide in East Pakistan/Bangladesh: A Horror Story, A. Ghosh Publishers, 1988.
    • Brownmiller, Susan: Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, Ballantine Books, 1993.
    • Choudhury, G.W., "Bangladesh: Why It Happened." International Affairs. (1973). 48(2): 242–249.
    • Choudhury, G.W., The Last Days of United Pakistan, Oxford University Press, 1994.
    • Govt. of Bangladesh, Documents of the war of Independence, Vol 01-16, Ministry of Information.
    • Kanjilal, Kalidas, The Perishing Humanity, Sahitya Loke, Calcutta, 1976
    • Johnson, Rob, 'A Region in Turmoil' (New York and London, 2005)
    • Malik, Amita, The Year of the Vulture, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1972.
    • Mascarenhas, Anthony, The Rape of Bangla Desh, Vikas Publications, 1972.
    • Matinuddin, General Kamal, Tragedy of Errors: East Pakistan Crisis, 1968–1971, Wajidalis, Lahore, Pakistan, 1994.
    • Mookherjee, Nayanika, A Lot of History: Sexual Violence, Public Memories and the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, D. Phil thesis in Social Anthropology, SOAS, University of London, 2002.
    • National Security Archive, The Tilt: the U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971
    • Quereshi, Major General Hakeem Arshad, The 1971 Indo-Pak War, A Soldiers Narrative, Oxford University Press, 2002.
    • Rummel, R.J., Death By Government, Transaction Publishers, 1997.
    • Salik, Siddiq, Witness to Surrender, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, 1977.
    • Sisson, Richard & Rose, Leo, War and secession: Pakistan, India, and the creation of Bangladesh, University of California Press (Berkeley), 1990.
    • Totten, Samuel et al., eds., Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, Garland Reference Library, 1997
    • US Department of State Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations of the United States: Nixon-Ford Administrations, vol. E-7, Documents on South Asia 1969–1972
    • Zaheer, Hasan: The separation of East Pakistan: The rise and realization of Bengali Muslim nationalism, Oxford University Press, 1994.

    External links

    by Narender Sehgal

     

    Chapter 18
    Pt. Nehru Committed Blunders

        The partition of India was the end result of the 1200-year long continuous freedom struggle for total independence for the entire country. During this long era of slavery every generation had kept the flame of the struggle flame through their matchless sacrifices and never accepted bondage even for a day. One generation kept on handing over the strings of struggle to the other and as such the struggle went on in different forms. But when the strings of this struggle came in the hands of the congress, instead of handing it ouer to the new generation it decided to end the struggle, thereby stabbing in the back of the social self-respect, and the national goal of total independence for the entire country. 
         
      The decision of the fatigued and old Congress leaders to abandon the struggle resulted in the partition of India. The incidents of massacre crossed their limits and slapped the faces of those who used to say that partition could be possible on their dead bodies. The country was divided well in front of their eyes. The century old and the world's first nation was partitioned because of the hunger for power and as a result of impatience of its leaders.

      In the intoxication of the so called independence the country's leaders cauld not visualise the plans of those anti- nationalists who'were already engaged in the conspiracies of partitioning the already divided country. Kashmir became a victim of such anti-national elements.

      Nehru's short-sightedness

      During the time of the partition of India in 1947 all the states were given the right, under the Indian Independence Act, to accede either to India or to Pakistan. Giving display of his political wisdom and capacity for taking decisions, the then Union Home Minister, Sardar Patel, succeeded in merging about 600 states with the Indian union. As a result of obstinacy and rigidity of Hyderabad and Junagarh, Sardar Patel merged them with India through military campaign.

      But the matter of Jammu and Kashmir was kept by Pt. Nehru in his hands. His national outlook and his capacity to take decisions were eclipsed by his affection for Abdullah and his animosity with Maharaja Hari Singh and his ingrained Kashmiriyat. This personal ego kept Kashmir away from the rest of the Indian states.

      Maharaja's indecisiveness

      In this hour of crisis Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was caught in confusion. By acceding to India, Nehru's obduracy would not suit the Maharaja and by joining Pakistan the future of the vast Hindu society in Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh was to remain in the ditch of darkness. He felt the danger of destruction and annihilation of thousands of temples and monasteries, built by his forefathers, reserves of Sanskrit books and scriptures and bloomed culture which are a symbol of Indianness. As a result of his farsightedness and his innate love for united India the Maharaja turned down all the allurements of Mr. M.A. Jinnah. The geographical position of Jammu and Kashmir too was a cause of his problem. The highway that linked Jammu and Kashmir with India passed through Pathankot only. The rest of the routes passed through Pakistan. The main highways of Sialkot sand Rawalpindi were with Pakistan. Therefore, even while being in favour of accession with India, the Maharaja could not take the final decision.

      Mountbatten: Behind the Scene

      Mountbatten too played his role in maintaining the Maharaja's indecision. According to Dr. Gourinath Rastogi, Mountbatten knew that if Jammu Kashmir was merged with India, then the strategic Gilgit area would come out of the influence of the Anglo-American block and the plan of carrying out a military siege of the Soviet Union could not materialise. Contrary to this, merger of Kashmir with Pakistan would facilitate this scheme. Mountbatten besides being an expert Army officer was also a skilful diplomat. He succeeded, for a long time, in preventing Maharaja Hari Singh from acceding to the Indian union by influencing the then Prime Minister, R.C Kak through his English wife, who further influenced the Maharaja.

      Jinnah's diplomacy

      Those very days Sheikh Abdullah too remained busy in playing his political tricks. He established links with Pakistan and prevailed upon Jinnah to merge Kashmir with Pakistan in the name of Islam. On the advice of the Prime Minister, R.C Kak, Maharaja Hari Singh put forth a resolution favouring a Standstill Agreemellt while keeping in view all the above mentioned compulsions. Pakistan gave its approval to the proposal after finding it a golden opportunity for keeping Kashmir away from India. But India did not agree Gopalaswami Aiyer, Minister for State Affairs, reached Srinagar to discuss the issue with the Maharaja. The Maharaja was unmoved. On the other side, Pakistan was keen to grab Kashmir.

      Jinnah formulated a comprehensive scheme for wooing and pressurising Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to Pakistan. He used all moral, illegal and militaly pressures for forcing the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. He sought permission from the Maharaja for staying in Kashmir for a few days. He wanted to prepare the Muslims in Kashmir for revolting against the Maharaja. Sh. Mehar Chand Mahajan has written that as per the plans of Jinnah he wanted Kashmir. Like the Mughal emperors, he wanted to see Kashmir as part of Pakistan so that as Governor General af Pakistan he could enjoy the salubrious climate of the valley. He would treat Kashmir in his pocket whether accession took place as per the wishes of the people or by force.

      Seditious ways of R.C. Kak

      The then Prime Minister, R.C. Kak, assured Jinnah of his support for his goal. Kak tried his best to influence the Maharaja but as an Indian nationalist the Maharaja had understood the link-up between Jinnah and Kak and he cleverly and politely prevented Jinnah from coming to Srinagar. R.C. Kak did not like all this.

      Now Pakistan used another missile. It imposed economic blockade and closed all the routes to Kashmir The postal and telecommunications services were disrupted. The supply of essential commodities was stopped. Pakistan violated the Standstill Agreement which R.C. Kak had got approved by it. The moment the veil was lifted from the pro-Pakistan feelings of R.C Kak, the Maharaja immediately sacked him and appointed Gen. Janak Singh as the interim Prime Minister.

      Pak invasion: Mehar Chand Mahajan as new Prime Minister

      When the economic blockade failed, Pakistan took recourse to the third option. Armed Pakistani tribals infiltrated into Kashmir. It was an open invasion of Pakistan on India. In this highly serlous situation the Maharaja, through the help of Sardar Patel, appointed Chief Justice of Punjab High Court, Mr. Mehar Chand Mahajan, as the Prime Minister. But Sheikh Abdullah did not want to see is farsighted and influential person installed as Prime Mlnister. In this connection he established his contact with his dear friend, Pt. Nehru. But Sardar Patel smashed all his plans.

      With the installation of Mehar Chand Mahajan as Prime Minister, Pakistan extended its invasion to the borders of the entire state. Besides the invasion, Pakistan kept on pressurising the Maharaja for acceding to Pakistan. According to Mehar Chand Mahajan, the son-in-law of a former Chief justice of Lahore High Court, Major Shah, who was one among important secretaries of Pakistan, was in Srinagar at that time. He was roaming in Srinagar with a whip and sword in one hand and accession papers in his other hand. He was pressurising Gen. Janak Singh and the deputy Prime Minister that they should prevail upon the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. But by then he had not succeeded.

      Plan to abduct the Maharaja

      Pakistan continued to indulge in pressure tactics and the Maharaja too remained steadfast with confidence. Pakistan formulated a plan for kidnapping the Maharaja. Mehar Chand Mahajan has given an account of this scheme in his book "The bitter truth of Kashmir".

      According to him, there was a plan to abduct the Maharaja and "myself" and force "us" to accede to Pakistan at gunpoint. "The news of our activities were being immediately sent to Pakistani authorities. This way our programme of touring the border had been made available to Pakistan. The police Chief of Jammu was an agent of Pakistan". His plan was that "when we are having our meals in the Bhimber Dak Bunglow we will be arrested." Bhimber is close to the Pakistani border and falls on the famous Mughal route in Kashmir. The road runs close to the border and its one side touches Pakistan. "We had decided to go to Kathua on 20th and on 21st to Bhimber and Mirpur. Pakistanis had planned to attack us with armoured cars on October 21. Their objective was to destroy the Bunglow after arresting us, occupy the city, annihilate the Hindu population and loot their property".

      They were, however, saved by unexpected incident, when on October 20 they reached near Kathua and stopped at a crossing. Here one road led to Kathua and the other to Bhimber and Akhnoor. The Maharaja ordered the jeep driver to drive to Bhimber instead of Kathua. Mehar Chand Mahajan objected to it on the plea that officers would be waiting for the Maharaja at Kathua and on the wayside and when they had not sent any programme to Bhimber, there would be no proper arrangements there. The Maharaja brushed aside my objections and said that he was not bound by any programme and he would hardly follow any". They went to Akhnoor and Bhimber and since it was late they could not reach Mirpur. The Pakistani invaders were active all along the border and it would look like a cremation ground in distant places. The Hindus were marching for safety and the Maharaja and his Prime Minister made some arrangement for their security. They had their lunch in the Bhimber Dak Bunglow and after issuing instructions for security arrangements for the city, they reached Jammu at 10 in the night. On the return journey to Jammu, houses on either side of the roads, were aflame. The Army was busy in restoring order and in providing assistance to the people. The Army Chief was present at the site and whatever was possible was being done to stop arson and massacre. And as per the earlier plan armed attack was launched from Gujarat and Bhimber Dak Bunglow was destroyed on October 21. Had they followed the initial programme fixed by the Msharaja they would have been burnt to death. But Maharaja's intuition had saved them from being killed by the Pakistanis.

      Brigadier Rajinder Singh's rebuff to the invaders

      The Maharaja's troops faced the powerful Pakistani invasion with courage. The Maharaja directed his Army Chief, Brigadier Rajinder Singh, to protect the state till his last breath. Brig. Rajinder Sirgh had, after receiving his degree from the P.W. College, Jammu, joined the State Army as Lieutenant. His rise was quick and with his qualities of discipline he became the Chief of the Army Staff on August 14, 1947.

      On the unfortunate day of October 22 he was on official duty in the cantonment in Srinagar. He received a message that Muzaffarabad was under a major attack and the invaders were marching towards Srinagar. For the time being even the reserve troops were not nearby. He succeeded in organising a small group of 150 soldiers and civilians. But it was necessary to save the city and the only way far doing this was to stop the invaders on the Baramulla road. Brigadier Rajinder Singh decided to launch an attack from Dhumel, 112 kms from Srinagar.

      But Dhumel was lost and the enemy troops marched ahead. The enemy took position at Garhi, 16 kms inside the state. The enemy troops stopped the infant company of soldiers of Rajinder Singh. Despite reverses, Rajinder Singh stood his ground for sometime but when the invaders attempted to lay a siege on the soldiers of Rajinder Singh, they came out of the siege and decided to return to Baramulla.

      Struggle till the last moment

      This retreat encouraged the enemy troops who reached Uri. Regrouping his troops the Brigadier rushed to Uri. In Uri Rajinder Singh faced the full thrust of the enemy and he performed the main task of stopping the invaders as long as he could so that their march to Srinagar was delayed. The Brigadier destroyed that bridge which cut the base of the enemies from the next place. The invaders launched a three pronged attack which caused great loss to the Brigadier. First he retreated his soldiers from Moharra and then from Rampat (Jehlum Valley road). Here the Brigadier fought a bitter battle with the enemy for 11 hours. But the Brigadier had to pay a heavy loss. In the end he ordered the remaining troops to retreat. When the troops, while fighting, were searching for defensive position, Rajinder Singh was single-handed firing continuously to provide fire cover to the rear company. There at that time two bullets hit him, one injuring his right arm and the other his right leg but this did not silence his gun. Quickly the enemy surrounded him and he was killed.

      In the "History of Kashmir" Bamzai has written that the Brigadier and his soldier colleagues, cooks, mess bearers and orderlies, under the orders of the Brigadier, had taken up arms and performed great feat in the military history of the world. These sons of their motherland of India stopped the Pakistani troops for three days and prevented them from marching ahead.

      Nehru's obstacle in accession

      The RSS activists on the basis of their intelligence had already informed the Maharaja about the Pak plan of invasion and about the mutiny of Muslim soldiers. Expectedly Muslim soldiers, in the Maharaja's Army, killed their commander, Col. Narain Singh, and joined the Pakistani troops. In order to save people from the crisis, which had gripped Jammu and Kashmir, and in the interest of the integrity of India, the Maharaja accepted to give up his ego. He immediately sent his Prime Minister, Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan, to Delhi with the accession proposal, which had been signed by him. He had also requested the Government of India for sending troops. This pertains to October 24, 1947.

      In the letter of October 26, 1947 the Maharaja had written in clear terms to Lord Mountbatten that the current situation and crisis in "my state has left me with the only option of seeking help from India". He had informed Mountbatten that so long he did not accede to India, it was natural that India could not give him the assistance he had sought for. Therefore, he has decided to do it and he had submitted the relevant accession papers for the approval of his Government.

      It is a matter of misfortune for the country and Kashmir that still Pt. Nehru's obstinacy and personal ego created hurdles. Nehru had plainly told the Maharaja "First handover power in Jammu and Kashmir to Sheikh Abdullah, quit Jammu and Kashmir and go out of the state, then accession can be accepted and then the Indian troops will reach Srinagar". The "I will not agree" note wasted two days and there in Kashmir the Pakistani troops while carrying out destruction, rape, arson and other crimes had reached Srinagar. Nehru's obduracy proved heavy on the sincere suggestions of Sardar Patel, Gopalaswami Aiyangar, Acharya Kriplani, and Mahatma Gandhi. In the end, the Maharaja agreed to handover power to Sheikh Abdullah in the interest of the nation. On October 27, 1947 the Indian troops landed on the Srinagar airport which had been made worthy of landing by thousands of RSS workers' round the clock hard work. The Indian Army exhibited such a chivalry that the Pakistani soldiers took to their heels. Sheikh Abdullah, who had fled with his family members to a friend's house in Indore, was taken back to Srinagar under the security of the Indian Army in a plane of the Indian Airforce. Like a bridegroom he reached Srinagar. The Maharaja staked all he had and reached Jammu.

      Nehru's policy: punishment for nationalist and reward for anti-national

      This way Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, treated his personal friendship with a separatist, communalist and anti-national like Sheikh Abdullah above the security and integrity of the nation. Nehru tried to insult the nationalist Maharaja by projecting the Maharaja as too insignificant in comparison to the Sheikh. When Mehar Chand Mahajan reached Delhi with the accession letter, Nehru thought that if he would accept the proposal directly the credit would go to the Maharaja. Nehru wanted that this credit too should go to the Sheikh. It is said that at that time the Sheikh was in another room of Nehru. It is not known as to how the Sheikh, who had fled at the time of the invasion on Kashmir, had come to Nehru's place. When the Sheikh, who earlier plotted with Pakistan and was a schemer, said "yes" to the accession, Nehru accepted it. Nehru had patronised a traitor.

      "It is said that the leader of the National Conference did not like the Maharaja. I wish to ask whether the people of Hyderabad liked the Nizam of Hyderabad ? It is said that whatever Maharaja Hari Singh did after the partition and prior to the accession was shocking. I would like to ask that whatever the Nizam did through Layaq Ali and Qasim Rizvi, was that against the flames of communalism and in favour of friendship with India ? I want the Government of India to read its own white paper on the Nizam and say whether Hari Singh or Nizam of Hyderabad was bad ? Despite this, the Nizam was drawing Rs. one crore as yearly salary as head of the state. Maharaja Hari Singh is spending his last days in Bombay. I want to ask why this discrimination ? Was it a fault of Maharaja Hari Singh that he announced Kashmir's accession to India ? In the absence of his accession-related announcement, we have till today no basis for treating Kashmir as part of India. The Maharaja of Kashmir could too have been made a constitutional ruler like other Indian princes. His presence would have been a guarantee for Kashmir's unity. We have finished this guarantee and he has been left in the middle of feuds and disorder." (Urdu Daily Milap, April 1952)

      The policy of appeasement of the Muslims by Pt. Nehru and his friends in the Congress left Kashmir in the hands of those who had already partitioned the country. Had the Congress leaders any love for national interest, they would have entrusted power to Maharaja Hari Singh. But this nationalist ruler, who brought about Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India, had to spent his last days in Bombay as an ousted person. He had to remain away from the soil of his land. But against this, the Muslim Nizam of Hyderabad, who, under the instructions of Pakistan, launched an attack on the Indian troops, was installed as head of the princely state and was given Rs. one crore as yearly salary.

      The insult and defeat of the Maharaja was an insult and defeat of the united nationalist forces of India. Sheikh Abdullah's political victory and welcome was a victory for those antinational elements who had set foot on the soil of India in the 7th Century for converting India into Darul Islam. It can be treated as a misfortune for the entire India and Kashmir that here the nationalist forces have been defeated by their own people.

      The cat out of its bag

      Accordingto Sh. Balraj Madhok, the mistake of entrusting the reins of the Government not only of Kashmir but of the entire state to Sheikh Abdullah was bigger than the mistake of keeping Jammu and Kashmir out of the jurisdiction of Sardar Patel. This became evident from the first speech of the Sheikh in Srinagar on the evening of October 27. Mr. Madhok had himself listened to the speech. During his one-hour long speech the Sheikh did not, even once, talked about the Government of India and the Indian Army on whose shoulders he had returned to Srinagar and received the reins of the Government. He kept on inciting people with religious sentiments and went on repeating the Kalima. Raising his voice he had said "we have picked up the crown of Kashmir from the dust and whether we accede to India or to Pakistan is a secondary question, first of all we have to complete our freedom". Just one sentence clarified his intentions. His desire was to make Kashmir an independent sultanate and not accede to India.

      The Sheikh picked up the crown from the dust and got engaged in ruining Kashmir. Which was this crown ? Which was that dust ? And what dces this total independence mean ? These questions have remained unanswered till today. This "dust" was of Hindu Dogra rulers of Kashmir from whose head he had removed the crown and put it on his head. And the "crown" was those Muslim sultans whose 500-year long activities of atrocities and inhuman cruelties had converted Kashmir to Muslim Kashmir. The meaning of total independence lay in the Sheikh's becoming a Sultan.

      Fetters of Security Council in the feet of victorious soldiers

      On assuming power, the Sheikh's treacherous and antinational feelings removed all their curtains and presented themselves shamelessly. But there was no change in the intentions of Nehru. The Muslim vote bank had opened its mouth in the entire country. Pt. Nehru adopted an ostrich type attitude. Sheikh Abdullah left no stone unturned in discouraging the Indian Army by issuing his orders. After ensuring the seucrity of Srinagar, when the Army marched to attack other areas of Kashmir, Mirpur, Kotli-Bhimber etc., to protect these places, the Sheikh stopped them. Several thousand Hindus in these areas had been mercilessly killed. When the Chief Commander of the Indian Army, Gen. Pranjaype, informed Nehru about such activities of the Sheikh, Pt. Nehru told him plainly "Do whatever Sheikh Sahib tells you?" The result of this "do the same" policy was that whatever portion of Jammu and Kashmir was with Pakistan had to remain with Pakistan. On the basis of the occupation of this part of the state, Pakistan is ridiculing the policies of the Indian rulers.

      Nehru, who was fond of wearing a rose and who remained drunk in his Kashmiriyat and pro-Muslim bias, kept on striking his feet with his axe and the strikes of this merciless and directionsless axe had kept on causing cracks in Kashmir, the crown of mother India. When the Indian troops were marching for liberating Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and the liberation was a metter of a few hours, that very moment Nehru, on the direction of the Sheikh, announced unilateral ceasefire on January 1, 1948. Feeling hurt over the attitude of Nehru, Justice Kunwar Dilip Singh, India's Agent General in Kashmir, resigned. Nehru did not stop there. He, without consulting Army commanders, took the Kashmir matter, at the behest of the Sheikh, to the United Nations' Security Council which announced that the fate of Kashmir can be decided through a plebiscite. Nehru invited trouble without asking. And today Pakistan, by swearing in the name of the Security council resolution, is backing the youths in Kashmir. An instance of such a political bankruptcy is not found anywhere in the world. It is a height of narrow vision.

      The Sheikh wanted to settle many scores by exploiting this problem. Had the Indian Army been allowed four-five days' time, Pakistan would have been mauled and the entire Kashmir would have been with India thereby establishing the supremacy ofthe Indian troops. The Sheikh did not want it. The narrow vision of Nehru fulfilled this wish of the Sheikh. The Kashmir problem has, thus, remained on the files of the United Nations and has become a termite in the international politics. By taking the matter, through Nehru, to the Security Council the Sheikh smoothened his ways.

      Maharaja's complaint to Patel

      The constitutional head of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh, was highly dismayed over the anti-Hindu activities of Sheikh Abdullah. The Sheikh had almost descended to the level of an anti-national rebel. He was simply worried over Kashmir and its Muslims. There was danger of an end of Hindus of Kashmir and Hindus and Muslims of Jammu and Ladakh. According to Gourinath Rastogi, "what to speak of India, the Sheikh was not even interested in the protection of the entire state. His sole aim was to protect the Kashmir valley. The events of Gilgit, Kotli, Baltistan, Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and Bhimber lend evidence to it. Soon after the state's accession with India on October 27, 1947 the Indian Army had reached Srinagar by air. The Indian troops had liberated the entire valley from the occupation of Pakistani invaders within 10 days upto November 7. The troops had to march ahead to liberate the remaining areas of the state. The Military Governor of Gilgit, Brigadier Ghansara Singh, people of Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli and Muzaffarabad and the Hindu leaders of the Jammu region were imploring in front of the officers of the Indian Army, requesting the troops to liberate these areas from the clutches of Pakistanis. But the Indian forces were not allowed to move forward. The Army commander of Jammu province, Brigadier Pranjaype, told Hindu leaders of Jammu the reason behind this, saying "Nehru had given the overall command of the Indian Army to Sheikh Abdullah and, therefore, the Army cannot move forward without his orders".

      While giving information about the fundamentalist and conspiratorial attitude of Sheikh Abdullah Maharaja Hari Singh wrote a long letter to Sardar Patel. The Maharaja had written that even after the elapse of two months, the Indian troops were still in Uri. The main spots of Mirpur and Kotli have been lost after a defeat and the defeat "is a major blow for us. It has wounded the image of the Indian soldiers. Till now the Indian troops have not captured even a single town... In this context my position is precarious".

      The Maharaja wrote to Patel that he had supported the Indian Union under the belief that the Indian Union "will not allow us to stoop". There was no purpose of keeping the State with India if the Indian Union is not able to restore "to us our lost territory and if it is prepared to hand us over to Pakistan under the Security Council resolution". He even told the Sardar that he was prepared to take the command of the Kashmiri and the Indian troops because the country that cannot be understood by "your generals for months and years is better known to me".

      This letter indicates Maharaja's pitiable and dishonourable condition. He was pained and troubled over the plunder, destruction and defeat of his state. He was hurt by the compulsions of the Indian Army, anti-national actions of Sheikh Abdullah, intrigue of Muslim soldiers in Kashmir Army, unstable policy of the Government af India and the procrastination of the Security Council. But he was helpless. His mind was in tears on seeing his people in difficulty.

      Mehar Chand Mahajan's communciation to Patel

      Mehar Chand Mahajan too wrote a letter to Sardar Patel informing him about the plight of the Maharaja. Describing the Sheikh as a feelingless creature, he informed Patel about his (Shiekh's) fascist misrule. He wrote in his letter that the feelingless Sheikh, who had pledged faith in the Maharaja of Kashmir, was now wishing to drag the Maharaja to the court and was demanding his resignation. His new outlook is that let the Maharaja retain Jammu, Kathua and Udhampur and handover the rest of the geographical area to Pakistan. Now he was trying to meet the leader of the Muslim Conference Party, Ch. Abbas, in Jail, in order to secure his approval to his proposal.

      Mr. Mahajan, in his letter, informed Patel that a situation had reached a stage when Sheikh Abdullah was openly insulting the Maharaja and was daily giving display to his communal bent of mind". "If you permit, I could submit comprehensive details and material which can throw light on the administrative capacity, communal bent of mind of Sheikh Abdullah and his open insults to the Maharaja through the assistance of the National Guards. He has come to realise that he can do whatever he likes. After receiving your reply I shall submit, for your perusal, important examples on the corrupt administration of the Sheikh and on his fascist misrule".

      The two letters of the Maharaja and Mehar Chand were thrown in the dustbin because of the obduracy of Nehru. In front of Nehru, Sheikh Abdullah was the only saviour of Kashmir and the nationalist and the rest of the nationalist Muslims and Hindus, including the Maharaja, Mehar Chand Mahajan, Patel, Acharya Kriplani, Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, Pandit Premnath Dogra, were all unwise.

      Article 370 gives constltutional validity to separatism

      Now Jenab Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah got engaged in the task of giving practical shape to his efforts for total Islamisation of Kashmir and its complete independence. The Sheikh was the Prime Minister and not the Chief Minister of the State. The State was governed by its own constitution and not by the Constitution of India. The National Conference flag was the State flag and not the tricolour. The Indians needed a permit for visiting Jammu and Kashmir. There were several other such separatist concessions and customs which Nehru offered, as his gift, in connection with the delight on Sheikh becoming the Sultan of the State. But the Sheikh was not satisfied with it. There was one special reason behind this dissatisfaction of Sheikh Abdullah despite having the blessings from the Prime Minister of India, support of the UN Security Council and Pakistan. He had fears that Hindus of India may come and settle in the land of Kashyap Rishi. He had fears that the Kashmiri Muslims may be swept by the national mainstream. He had fears that Kashmir may be recognised on the basis of its ancient culture, Kashmir may be amalgamated like other states in India after Pt. Nehru. Such fears would spoil his sleep. In order to realise his dream of total independence for Kashmir, it was necessary to keep Jammu and Kashmir away from India permanently. He needed such an instrument through which he could protect the seed, he had sown, of separatism in Kashmir. He again took Nehru for a ride and brought him under the clutches of his schemes. By incorporating Article 370 in the Constitution of India, Nehru offered him that instrument.

      Article 370 of the Constitution gave constitutional validity to Abdullah's separatist ideas and international intrigues and gave a special position to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It also affixed stamp on the historical fact that the Muslim majority region cannot remain with India. The details of this Article are given in the succeeding chapters.

      The Sheikh started giving practical shape to all his antinational ideas and activities. Many schemes were implemented in broad daylight which related to the recruitment of members of the National Conference and the Peoples United Front, in the Government services, full support to the activities of Jamait-e-Islami, anti-India teachings in schools, secret links with Pakistsni leaders, atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits, development of Kashmir region at the cost of Jammu and Ladakh provinces. Pt. Nehru received information about it but he adopted "I do not agree" policy. When there was no other alternative, the nationalists of Jammu and Kashmir launched a powerful agitation under the leadership of Pt. Premnath Dogra. The agitators formed Praja Parished which launched the agitation for three years. The Sheikh broke all the records in crushing this peoples' movement. People sacrificed, filled the jails, tolerated atrocities from the Kashmir police but kept alive the flame ofthe struggle. But all this did not open the eyes of Nehru.

      Sheikh exposed and Nehru slightly yielded

      Many other leades informed Nehru about the split personality of Sheikh Abdullah. Those very days a member of the Indian Constituent Assembly. Sh. M.L. Chottopdhiya, went to Kashmir for rest along with his colleague, Dr. Raghuvir. They prepared a comprehensive report about the Sheikh after holding discussions with representatives of people, social and religious leaders in the state and submitted that report before a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Congress. This report carried an account of the Sheikh's scheme of having an independent Kashmir. According to Gourinath Rastogi, the Sheikh himself had givsn a proof of his desire for carving out an independent Kashmir during hiis interview with two British Journalists, Michael Davidson and Ward Price. When reports about it were published in the newspapers, Sardar Patel summoned Sheikh Abdullah and pulled him up and the Sheikh assured him that such a mistake will not be repeated. But in reality there was no change in his intentions. And the intelligence officer who had reported the matter regarding the interview was forced to Quit Kashmir. In November 1952 the defeated Democratic Party candidate, in the Presidential elections in the United States, Steevenson, had close links with Sheikh Abdullah and the two together were preparing the scheme for Independent Kashmir.

      Prime Minister Nehru visited Srinagar in May 1953. By chance, that time the five-day convention of the National Conference was going on. The report about the Sheikh's anti-India, pro-Pakistan, and separatist speeches at the convention reached Nehru. Nehru invited top leaders of the National Conference to his place. The Sheikh too was present. Nehruji tried to bring them on the right path by talking about the history of India, heritage of Kashmir and the unity of the country. Instead of accepting the guidance of Nehru, the Sheikh tried to ridicule him. The Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Mr. G.K. Handoo, who had accompanied Nehru to Srinagar as his security chief, and the Union Home Minister, Mr. Kailashnath Katju, submitted several secret documents to Nehruji. After perusing these documents Nehru told the Sheikh "Sheikh Sahib till now I was behaving with you as Jawaharlal Nehru but henceforth I shall be behaving with you in the capacity of a Prime Minister." It means Nehru himself had admitted that till then all the decisions on Kashmir were taken by Nehru in the capacity of a friend of Sheikh Abdullah and not as Prime Minister of India.

      After this, Nehru sent Maulana Azad to Srinagar to bring the Sheikh on the right path. Even being unwell, Maulana came to Srinagar on the suggestion of Nehru. Maulana tried to make the Sheikh understand things during his long meeting with him. He had told him that the welfare of Kashmir lay in being with India. The Muslims and their religion were safe in India. The Sheikh dubbed a great leader like Maulana Azad as an enemy of the Muslims and a stooge of Hindus. On returning to Delhi, Maulana Azad conveyed his experiences to Nehru and suggested to him to dismiss the Sheikh immediately.

      A member of the UNCIP mission, Joseph Karbel, in his report "Danger in Kashmir" has given a correct and meaningful account about the Sheikh.

      "In May 1949 Sheikh Abdullah had assured Jawaharlal Nehru that 'I want you to believe that Kashmir is your's. No power in the world can separate us. Every Ksshmiri feels that he is an Indian and India is his motherland'. From time to time he made a repeated mention about the total independence of Kashmir and on other occasions he announced that the idea of independence was not practicable. In 1952 he declared that 'our state is neither under the legal domination of the Indian Parliament nor that of any Parliament from outside the state. India or Pakistan, any country cannot be a spike in our wheel of progress'. After some days he described Ksshmir as such a bridge between India and Pakistan that can unite the two in one country. Two days later he said that the relations between Pakistan and India were strong and stable and no power on the earth can separate us. Again he made an announcement that 'Kashmir's existence does not depend on India's money, trade or security forces snd he does not attach any importance to the strings of Indian assistance. He cannot be forced to stoop by threats'. The fsct is that he, while raising Kashmir, step by step, carried it far away from India. One of his political rivals has described him as communal in Ksshmir, communist in Jammu and a nationalist in India."

      In the description of Joseph, the real face of Sheikh Abdullah is magnified. He gave a display of this character while crushing the Praja Parishad movement. By then the movement had received support from India. Nehru too was apprised of the dictatorial behaviour of the Sheikh and his black laws. Nehru was caught in two minds. When Dr. Shyamaprasad Mookherjee violated these black laws and reached the Jammu barder, he was arrested and sent to Srinagar Jail where he died in mysterious circumstances. The entire country was rocked by this sacrifice. When the flames of revolt against the Sheikh and the murder of Dr. Mookherjee rose from all corners of India, it opened the eyes of Nehru. In order to assess the situation in Kashmir Nehru reached Srinagar. The result: Sheikh was imprisoned.

      National character of Nehru ?

      Here many questions arise. Why was it that a leader like Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru did not know the anti-national inclinations of the Sheikh for so many years ? If he had known it, why he kept on tolerating disservice to the nation ? Why did he deliberately adopt such a policy through which Kashmir has become a permanent problem ? Did he give more importance to personal friendship than the country ? Was he too willing to see Kashmir as an independent state ?

      The then Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Bureau, Mr. B.N. Malik, has lifted the curtain from it in his book "My days with Nehru". He writes:

      'Then suddenly to our utter surprise Pandit Nehru started talking bitterly against Sheikh Abdullah's communalism. He traced the Sheikh's history from 1930 onwards and mentioned how he had started his career with the Muslim Conference, which was an out and out communal organisation. He said that as a result of pressures from outside and also seeing the development of the People's Movement in the rest of India and for purely tactical reasons and probably under the advice of some of his more liberal followers, the Sheikh had converted the Muslim Conference into the Political Conference to give it a non-communal appearance. At this time Pandit Nehru suddenly looked at me and enquired whether I had come across some information of possible British connivance in that movement. I replied in the affirmative. He continued his talk against the Sheikh and mentioned all his communal activities throughout the period he had acted as the National Conference leader. It was the Pakistani aggression which had mellowed him a little for a short time, because the tribals had committed gruesome atrocities on the Muslim population in the valley. But, as soon as he became the Prime Minister, he came out in his true colours once again and started his anti-Hindu activities. In contrast, he praised Bakshi and Sadiq for their completely non-communal outlook and said that these two were really secular-minded persons who required all support from India. Pt. Nehru said that all trouble in Kashmir was due to the Sheikh's communal outlook and it was he who was not allowing the state to settle down to peace and stability. The Sheikh always talked about the rights of the Muslims, forgetting that the Hindus also formed nearly 35 per cent of the population of the state and he never showed any consideration for them. Pt. Nehru mentioned thal politically he and other Indian leaders had to go along with the Sheikh for a considerable period and they had also helped him and played him up hoping that by coming in contact with secular India, where Muslims and Hindus and persons of all other denominations were living together and enjoying a peaceful life. Sheikh Abdullah would be able to get rid of his communalism; but communalism was a disease with him and he could never get rid of it and his entire outlook and behaviour were based on the fact that Kashmir valley had a Muslim majority. Therefore, he was not at all surprised that the Sheikh had conspired with Pakistan to overthrow the non-communal and secular Government of Bakshi and Sadiq. What Pt. Nehru said was factually correct and was similar to what Sardar Patel had stressed to me in 1949. At the end he wished G.S. Pathak a success and concluded by saying that he himself was allergic to these protracted political trials and he suggested that every effort should be made to expedite it."

      The above revelation from Malik has tied Nehru's entire life, his mind and national character to a deep question mark.

    <<< Chapter 17
    Converted Kashmir
    Chapter 19 >>>

    © 2001 Kashmir Information Network. All Rights Reserved.

    http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/Chapter18.html

    Jawaharlal Nehru's Foreign Policy

    Celebrating the 118th birth anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru
    Jawaharlal Nehru is considered to be the architect of modern India. Apart from his careful handling of India's tumultuous domestic situation in the years immediately after the Independence, Nehru's major contribution lies in the field of foreign policies. In fact, Nehru determined India's international profile to a great degree in the post-independence years, in his capacity as the foreign minister of India. Jawaharlal Nehru's foreign policy has been made subject to much controversy and debate, like his economic policies. However, taken in the context of India's newly found status as a democratic republic, Nehru's foreign affairs policies seem to be extremely apt. 

    Socialism can be said to be one of the greatest international influences on Nehru, but Gandhi's ideals of Satyagraha also influenced him to a great degree. But he committed himself to neither point of view in framing his foreign policy. Nehru's foreign policies were characterized by two major ideological aspects. First, he wanted India to have an identity that would be independent of any form of overt commitment to either power bloc, the USA or the Soviet. Secondly, he had an unshaken faith in goodwill and honesty in matters of international affairs. The first policy led ultimately to the founding of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). His second faith was terribly shaken by the Chinese attack of 1962, openly disobeying all the clauses of the Panchsheel or five-point agreement of 1954 between New Delhi and Peking. This breach of faith was a major psychological shock for Nehru, and was partially the reason for his death. 

    The Founding Principles of Nehru's Foreign Policy: Nehru saw war and violent insurgency from very close quarters as a freedom fighter, and he believed in neither. In his foreign policies, Nehru tried to guide India in such a way, so as to steer clear from any form of violence and militarism. He rightly believed that a newly decolonized nation must invest all its economic and logistic resources towards development and not defense and armament. Just like his economic policies, which were non-committal towards any ideological position, Nehru wanted to bring in a healthy level of pragmatism in his dealings of India's foreign affairs as well. He understood that overt commitment to any of the two major power blocs to emerge in the aftermath of World War II, would not serve India's path. He therefore wanted to tread a third path, which was not necessarily the middle path. 

    It should be remembered that this dogged non-commitment of Nehru was not seen sympathetically by any of the super powers of either East or West at its initial stage. It was frequently termed as a kind of international opportunism and was accused of 'neutralism' - a stance reckoned to be not only dangerous but also equally immoral in the world of International politics. However, the increasing popularity of NAM among various Asian and African countries and Nehru's growing stature as a statesman situation changed their views. India too benefited from this position, as it managed to secure rebuilding grants from member countries of either bloc. After Nehru's successful mediation in the Korean War and the Congo problem, putting an end to a long and violent struggle, his status as a commendable and efficient statesman reached new heights. Jawaharlal Nehru's theory of ideological non-commitment in a world that was rendered dangerous by the Cold War was appreciated by one and all. 

    Nehru and the Non-Alignment Movement: The greatest success of Jawaharlal Nehru's non-committal international politics was the formation of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). Nehru found allies in Tito, Nasser, Soekarno, U Nu and Nkrumah at a later stage in his formation of this new alliance. An alliance of newly independent and long colonized nations was not taken seriously in the beginning, either by the Eastern or the Western bloc. However, the importance of the alliance was soon felt, and initially led to a great degree of international pressure from both parts of the globe. However, Nehru proceeded with his mission undaunted. It was great test for his courage and it was soon found out that the NAM was not merely a passive platform of neutral and inactive nations. It had clear objectives that included the gradual decolonization of the world, and a strong statement that the member countries were not party to the ever escalating tension of the Cold War. The favored process of decolonization as adopted by the NAM member countries was one of discussion and peaceful agreement. On many occasions, NAM met with success, often under the leadership of Nehru. Whoever supported its cause was an ally and a friend. Nehru preached a policy of issue based alliance and not one based on political and economic dogmas. He was proud of being an Asian, and wanted Asian nations to be the primary determinants of their political fate, not always guided by Western forces. 

    Nehru's unshaken belief in the force of international brotherhood was attested with his decision to continue with India's Commonwealth status. He was made subject to much criticism back home because of the support he extended towards the Commonwealth, particularly after the complication of the independence issue by the British government in the post World War II years, leading to the unwanted partition. However Nehru, always the believer in peaceful alliances and solution of international affairs based on discussions, went on with his ideals. 

    Nehru and the Kashmir Problem: Nehru's Foreign policies did not augur well when it came to deal with the neighbors. Kashmir was a perpetual problem, and he failed to reach any successful negotiation regarding Kashmir with the neighbor Pakistan. Nehru had an innate belief in honest fellow-feeling and political generosity. He tried to force a negotiation with the Pakistani government through the United Nations. But the Pakistani military rulers denied any peaceful agreement. The offer of a possible plebiscite was also taken off in 1950. After India's dogged denial of the two-nation theory, a result in favor of Kashmir in the Muslim dominated Kashmir would be a strategic disaster for India. The Kashmir problem remained unresolved, and not even Nehru's diplomatic expertise could give any positive direction to the problem. It still continues to be the one of the key international problems in South Asia. 

    Nehru and the China Crisis: Nehru's foreign policies concerning China have been made subject to much criticism. However, even in this case, it was Nehru's faith in transparency in the handling of International relations that is seen to be the root of all problems. Nehru was intent on a very warm and mutually beneficial relationship between India and China. The five-point agreement or the Panchsheel between New Delhi and Peking initiated in 1954 was a result of these negotiations. However, China started patrolling certain parts of the Indian border from 1955 onwards. Delhi started negotiations to solve the problem in a peaceful way. India, under the leadership of Nehru wanted to take one issue at a time and begin the discussions. The Chinese government, under Chou En-lai wanted to treat the border issue in its entirety at one go. It was gross violation of the five-point agreement. The Chinese denial for the arbitration from the International Court of Justice complicated the problem. 

    Amidst such tensions, the Chinese suddenly started a full-scale invasion in 1962. It was a rude shock, not only to Nehru, but to the entire international society. The Indian military was unprepared and also unequipped. Both USA and the Soviet extended token help. Soviet was quite busy with the Cuban crisis, however soon after the problem subsided, President Kruschev did extend some help. American help was minimum, compared to the massive military help that was extended to Pakistan in 1954. On top of that, the Sandys - Rusk team visited India to hold talks in order to make India concede certain areas of Kashmir to Pakistan, a claim that was squarely denied. Nehru stood firm with this faith in the five-point principle. The international community stood by him, as China withdrew under growing international pressure, fearing isolation and global antagonism. Nehru played his last masterstroke in international policy, as he turned the military defeat in a moral victory for India. 

    The Chinese invasion had far reaching effects on India's foreign policy. It forced Nehru to change his stance on international affairs. He realized that unmitigated goodwill was not necessary the way the business of foreign affairs was conducted. Nehru's dreams were more or less shattered. It was also a great eye-opener. It made India to see that it is important to strengthen one's military strength and not overtly depend on peaceful negotiations in matters of international affairs. The Chinese invasion was a shock to Nehru, almost shaking his idealistic foundation to the very base. Domestic problems also kept escalating, putting a great degree of mental and physical stress on Nehru. 

    more on Nehru 
    Education of Jawaharlal Nehru |  Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian National Congress |  Nehru's Nationalism and his role in the Freedom Movement of India |  Jawaharlal Nehru as a Social Reformer |  Economic Policies of Jawaharlal Nehru | Nehru as Prime Minister |  Foreign Policy |  Childhood and Family of Jawaharlal Nehru |  Nehru and Gandhiji |  Nehru-Last Days |  Nehru's Message to the Nation on the Independence Day
    http://www.mapsofindia.com/personalities/nehru/foreign-policy.html

Abdullah and Nehru They created the Kashmir Problem but they strongly believed that it was solvable

published 6/17/2011 8:06:00 PM by Maharaj Kaul
0COMMENTS
Share




Little would Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah know that Kashmir Problem continues to remain unsolved, in fact it has gathered the myth of one of the great unsolved political problems of the last 100 years of the human history. Nehru and Abdullah created the Kashmir Problem but they strongly believed at the time of its creation that it was solvable. Now time has imparted a hallow and mystique to it.

In the beginning was Jawaharlal Nehru, a Kashmiri Pandit, who greatly loved the land of his ancestors for its beauty, history, and the tug of roots it provided to him. By early 30's having become one of the high echelon leaders of Congress, he was in a position to impact the disposition of Kashmir, in the scheme of allocation of the 565 Princely States between the two new nations of India and Pakistan. The vested interest of Nehru was to play an important part in the development of the Kashmir Problem.


Nehru was born in an aristocratic family. After school and college education in England, he returned to India trained as a lawyer. His seven years of stay in England, at an impressionable age, had a lasting impact on him. His thought process, as well as dreaming, happened in English. Little did his countrymen know that their great leader was quite a bit an Englishman in his thinking and lifestyle. The pursuit of a legal career could not hold Nehru's imagination; so after a short flirtation with it, he jumped into the ongoing movement for the independence of India from its 200 years slavery of Great Britain, under the compelling and enigmatic leadership of Gandhi.


Nehru was a student of history and was attracted to science; he had grown up to become an intellectual. These attributes held poorly against the Indian ethos of religion and mythology; Nehru was an agnostic and never visited temples on his own, except when political situation left no choice. He would complain that his countrymen did not respect facts, that is, facts did not much influence their thinking. Also, he was an idealist. This intellectualism and idealism combination got him into a lot of problems with his fellow political leaders, who operated with conventional wisdom. But he went on to burn his life at the altar of India, first for its independence, then for laying its foundation as a democratic nation. Little do many of his countrymen now remember or know that he was the chief architect of modern India.
Sheikh Abdullah was born in a family of shawl-weavers in Kashmir, in a cultural climate of Sufi humanitarianism; his grandparents were Kashmiri Pandits. His family having discerned in him early on a personality possessed of mental keenness, spared him of the family business, and launched him into an academic pursuit. He went to Government College Lahore and Aligarh Muslim University to obtain a BA and an MSc in Chemistry respectively. These were considerable achievements for a Kashmiri those days, particularly for a Kashmiri Muslim. He returned to Kashmir in 1930 at the age of 25 and was hired as a teacher in a school. He tried to get a better job, commensurate with his education, but was thwarted in his attempts by the ongoing discrimination against Muslims under the Dogra reign. Unable to accept his and Muslims' condition as a fait accompli, he launched a civil disobedience movement for a constitutional and responsible government, which looked after all its constituents and not only after selected ones, which included generationally poor landless peasants. Only born leaders can defy circumstances and risks on their lives to confront authorities, that too which have absolute power, like Maharaja Hari Singh had.


Abdullah's party that launched the revolution against Maharaja Hari Singh came to be called Muslim Conference, which was instituted in 1932. Abdullah's towering physical personality, his mellifluous and fiery oratory, his revolutionary ideas, quickly turned him into a leader of stature, unlike anyone seen in Kashmiri history. His main fight was for the poor landless peasants, who were mostly Muslims, working on Dogra owned lands, and for uniformity of the laws of the land for all the people, and for the responsibility of the government for the welfare of its people. While Kashmir was going through its revolution against Maharaja, India was already on that path over a much longer time against Britain. Abdullah learnt a lot from the latter. He felt strongly attracted to Congress because of its secular and idealistic policies. He stated,"….people of Kashmir may attain their freedom in the larger freedom of India." He also believed his working class movement was above any communalism. He exhorted, "We must end communalism by ceasing to think in terms of Muslims and non-Muslims." With the advice of some people in Congress, but with the displeasure of Muslim League, in 1939 he changed the name of Muslim Conference to National Conference. When Congress launched Quit India movement, Abdullah launched Quit Kashmir movement.


Abdullah met Nehru in mid 1930's in Lahore and was immediately attracted to him on account of his idealism, keenness of mind and honourable demeanour.  Nehru's being a Kashmiri was another factor of his hero worship for him. Together with Gandhi, Nehru provided quite a pull for Abdullah to throw Kashmir's lot with Congress, rather than with Muslim League. Besides the pull of the great personalities, he believed that Pakistan's strongest attraction for Kashmir to join it was that it was a Muslim state but he wanted secularism, which Congress was strongly advocating for India. Also, Pakistan would be protecting feudalism and landlordism, fighting which was the raison d'être of his revolution against the Dogra rule in Kashmir.


Nehru's attraction for Abdullah lay in the kind of revolution he was spearheading in Kashmir for the benefit of the peasants and the common people, against the supreme power of a monarch. It was similar to what he was doing for India, only at a larger scale. Abdullah was only 27 when he ignored the risks to his personal life, inherent in such an undertaking. Furthermore, Nehru learnt about Abdullah's hero worship even in the remotest villages of Kashmir. He realised that his sobriquet Sher-i-Kashmir (Lion-Of-Kashmir) was apt. This was the kind of stuff that appealed to Nehru's heart and mind.  They became personal friends.


Ever since the enunciation of the Two Nation Theory by Mohammed  Jinnah, also known as Lahore Resolution, in 1940, which proclaimed that India was not a unitary nation, but consisted of two nations, one comprising Muslims and the other Hindus, Nehru had been anxiously watching Abdullah's revolution in Kashmir. This was because the heterogeneous composition of the state: Hindu king ruling a predominantly Muslim state had the huge potential of creating problems at the partition of India. He knew his friend Abdullah was secular but he also knew the Muslim League, and the future Pakistan, would not like to lose Kashmir from its fold. Nehru's mind worked ahead of many other Indian political leaders in the uncertainty that was inherent in the situation of Kashmir.


In 1946 when Abdullah was arrested by Ram Chander Kak, Kashmir's Prime Minister, Nehru went to Srinagar to give him legal as well as moral support. He stated, "There can be no peace in Kashmir unless Sheikh Abdullah is released." Since Maharaja wanted to incarcerate Abdullah no matter what, he was. But to send a message to Maharaja, Nehru appointed Abdullah President of All-India States' Peoples' Conference, a body dealing with the people's affairs of the Indian states.


On June 3, 1947, Mountbatten announced that Britain had decided to divide India into two nations, India and Pakistan. A few of the 565 Princely States, which occupied about a quarter of India, posed a problem in their being awarded to one or the other new nation, in that they had a heterogeneous composition: their kings and the majority of the people living in them were of different religious orientations. They were Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir. In Junagadh and Hyderabad the kings were Muslims but the people were Hindus. India argued strongly that it must be the people's choice that must decide which nation, India or Pakistan, they must join and based on that made a considerable effort for them to join it. But at the time of the partition of India into India and Pakistan, in August, 1947, the alignment of these states was still uncertain. Kashmir was the third largest Princely State, after Hyderabad and Mysore.

http://www.kashmirawareness.org/Article/View/6805/abdullah-and-nehru-they-created-kashmir-problem-but-they-strongly-believed-was-solvable

Kashmir conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The disputed areas of the region of Kashmir. India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmirbased on an instrument of accession signed in 1947. Pakistanclaims all areas of the erstwhile state except for those claimed by China. China claims the Shaksam Valley and Aksai Chin.

The Kashmir conflict (Hindi: कश्मीर विवाद, Urdu: مسئلہ کشمیر) is a territorial disputebetween India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region, the northwesternmost region of South Asia.

India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir and as of 2010, administers approximately 43% of the region, including most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley,Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier. India's claim is contested by Pakistan, which controls approximately 37% of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan. China controls 20% of Kashmir, including Aksai Chin, which it occupied following the brief Sino-Indian War of 1962, and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (also known as the Shaksam Valley), which was ceded by Pakistan in 1963.

India has officially stated that it believes that Kashmir is an integral part of India, though the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest that his government is willing to grant autonomy within the purview of Indian constitution to Kashmir if there is consensus on this issue.[1]Pakistan says that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. China states that Aksai Chin is a part of China and does not recognize the addition of Aksai Chin to the Kashmir region. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier.

Since 1987, a disputed State election[2] has resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly forming militant wings, creating a catalyst for insurgency.[3][4][5] The Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir has been the site of conflict between the Indian Armed Forces, militants, and separatists. India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that these militants are supported by Pakistan, leading to a ban on some terrorist organisations, which Pakistan is yet to enforce. The turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths,[6]but has become less deadly in recent years.[7][8] There have been protest movements in Indian Administered Kashmir since 1989. The movements were created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military.[7][8]Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by militants for a boycott, and led to the pro-India Jammu & Kashmir National Conference forming the government in the state.[9][10] According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the people of Kashmir have endorsed Indian rule in the state.[11]

In a 2001 report titled "Pakistan's Role in the Kashmir Insurgency" from the American RAND Corporation, the think tank noted that "the nature of the Kashmir conflict has been transformed from what was originally a secular, locally based struggle (conducted via the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front – JKLF) to one that is now largely carried out by foreign militants and rationalized in pan-Islamic religious terms." Most of the militant organizations are composed of foreign mercenaries, mostly from the Pakistani Punjab.[12] In 2010, with the support of its intelligence agencies, Pakistan has again been 'boosting' Kashmir militants, and recruitment of mujahideen in the Pakistani state of Punjab has increased.[13][14]

Contents

 [hide]

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of the Kashmir conflict

Early history

See also: History of Kashmir

According to folk etymology, the name "Kashmir" means "desiccated land" (from the Sanskrit: Ka = water and shimeera = desiccate). In theRajatarangini, a history of Kashmir written by Kalhana in the mid-12th century, it is stated that the valley of Kashmir was formerly a lake. According to Hindu mythology, the lake was drained by the great rishi or sage, Kashyapa, son of Marichi, son of Brahma, by cutting the gap in the hills at Baramulla (Varaha-mula). When Kashmir had been drained, Kashyapa asked Brahmans to settle there. This is still the local tradition, and in the existing physical condition of the country, we may see some ground for the story which has taken this form. The name of Kashyapa is by history and tradition connected with the draining of the lake, and the chief town or collection of dwellings in the valley was called Kashyapa-pura, which has been identified with Kaspapyros of Hecataeus (apud Stephanus of Byzantium) and Kaspatyros of Herodotus(3.102, 4.44).[15] Kashmir is also believed to be the country meant by Ptolemy's Kaspeiria.[16]

In the 18th century, Kashmir was ruled by the Muslim Pashtun Durrani Empire. In 1819, Kashmir was conquered by the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh. Following the First Anglo-Sikh War in 1845 and 1846, Kashmir was first ceded by the Treaty of Lahore to the East India Company, and shortly after sold by the Treaty of Amritsar to Gulab Singh, Raja of Jammu, who thereafter was given the title Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then until the Partition of India in 1947, Kashmir was ruled by the Hindu Maharajas of the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu, although the majority of the population were Muslim, except in the Jammu region.

Partition and dispute

In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of two new nations: the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, while Britishsuzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States",[17] so the states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of the princely states, had a predominantly Muslim population, while having a Hindu ruler (Maharaja Hari Singh.) On partition Pakistan expected Kashmir to be annexed to it.

In October 1947, Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir[18] and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir, intending to liberate it fromDogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 25 October 1947[19] that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.[20][21]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Main article: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

After rumours that the Maharaja supported the annexation of Kashmir by India, militant Muslim revolutionaries from western Kashmir[18] and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the Baramulla sector. Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir asked the government of India to intervene. However, India and Pakistan had signed an agreement of non-intervention. Although tribal fighters from Pakistan had entered Jammu and Kashmir, there was no iron-clad legal evidence to unequivocally prove that Pakistan was officially involved. It would have been illegal for India to unilaterally intervene in an open, official capacity unless Jammu and Kashmir officially joined the Union of India, at which point it would be possible to send in its forces and occupy the remaining parts.

The Maharaja desperately needed military assistance when the Pakistani tribals reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Before their arrival into Srinagar, India argued that the Maharaja must complete negotiations for ceding Jammu and Kashmir to India in exchange for receiving military aid. The agreement which ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India was signed by the Maharaja and Lord Mountbatten of Burma. Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...