THE AFGHAN SITUATION

The Afghan situation is getting murkier by the day. Now it is said that Karzai’s share of the votes fallen below the required 50%. Karzai’s victory in the general election will force the Americans to adapt their policies and strategies in Afghanistan in such a way as to accommodate Karzai’s concerns.
Americans are not that comfortable working with Karzai ever since he began to assert himself in 2007. Earlier he had no say in the number of NATO forces deployed in his country. As the civilian causalities in the war against the Taliban, mounted and the Afghan people became hostile towards his government he demanded a say in the number and manner of troop deployment. He later insisted on a Status of Force Agreement similar to that of Iraq. Karzai also wanted the international aid agencies not to by pass his government in deciding the quantum of assistance and various developmental activities. Above all, he initiated an intra-Afghan peace process involving the tribal council.
That was unacceptable to the West. For if he succeeded in his attempt then the NATO forces would have to leave the country and the Americans would not be able to herald its own kind of democracy in the region.
The Americans seems to have a two pronged strategy in Afghanistan. According to the US National Security Advisor Mr. James Jones, the ultimate aim of America is “to disrupt, dismantle and prevent the al-Quaeda from being able to operate in its safe havens.” Claiming that additional forces are required to stop the Taliban Obama administration increased the number forces deployed in Afghanistan by fifty percent.
Americans are also aware of the civilian causalities and the hatred it creates in the minds of the Afghan people towards the American presence. General Stanley a MacChrystal, the NATO commander in Afghanistan is reported to have stated, “This is s struggle for the support of the Afghan people. Our willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage, even when doing so makes our task more difficult, is essential to our credibility”.
Although the intentions are commendable it would call for further deployment of large number of troops in Afghanistan. To dismantle the Taliban fighters from Afghanistan the troops would have to carry out house to house searches. It would take years to complete the process. And it could land Karzai in trouble.
Mr. Richard Hollbrooke, the US President Obama’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan and his team has been preparing a civilian strategy to be introduced in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai’s victory would make it difficult for the US to implement its plan. Mr. Karzai has allowed Mr. Dostum, who has been in Turkey and built a formidable coalition comprising mujahideen leaders such as Mohammed Mohaqiq, Mohammed Fahim,and Ismail Khan. Ismail Khan is a friend of Mr. Burhamuddin Rabbani, a former Presidnet of Iran, enemy of the US. Karzai also enjoys the supports of the war lords in the country. In such a context if Karzai wins the election America will find it extremely difficult to control the government in Kabul.

PRAKASH KARAT ON CUBA

The CPI (M) in India still smarting after the drubbing it received in the national elections has been looking around for a ray of hope.
And Prakash Karat, the party’s General Secretary at the national level, has had a revelation. Behold Cuba and emulate her. Cuba is the Socialist Paradise that shines bright amid the Capitalist Wolves.
Cuban Solidarity Committee had organized a Cuba Festival recently in Bangalore to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Glorious Cuban Revolution.
Karat tried his best to cheer up his depressed comrades and the rank and file of the party. One should not lose heart by the electoral reversals, he said. Socialism is marching ahead at the international level in spite of all the capitalist, imperialist conspiracies. You want evidence? Well, look at Cuba, he said.
Cuba! You say in utter disbelief.
According to Comrade Karat, “Cuba has fought the mightiest imperial power and overcome all the difficulties in its way.” (Emphasis added). What an incredible achievement!
Another surprise “Cuba wiped out illiteracy in a year!” In which year was it Comrade Karat? (Emphasis added). Ashamed that I was not aware of such a great feat by Cuba I asked my colleagues and friends. They and I realized how ignorant we have been all these years. None of us had heard about Cuba wiping out illiteracy in a year. The ratio between doctor and patient is 1:1000000, which is also superior to that of developed countries. What about development? Cuba has scaled great heights in development also. It is far ahead of other countries.
Comrade Karat went on to say that “It is not only a symbol of internationalism and resistance to imperialism, but also a source of inspiration for all countries which were under colonialism and imperialistic exploitation”.
All this nonsense in 2009. Twenty years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and reunification of Germany. And the break up of the USSR, said to have been created by one of their oracles, Lenin after the Glorious October Revolution in 1917.
Do not think that you can talk with the Marxists and try to convince them that all talk about the paradise on earth is meaningless. They just cannot get rid of their ideological blinkers and take a look at the course of history. They still firmly believe that they have a Grand Scientific Theory with which they can read the past and predict the future. And it has not failed them at any point in time.
Listen to what Karat said “Many of our friends and critics told us to give up the fight against imperialism because it has become irrelevant in the 21st century. If we do that, we cease to be what we are; we cease to be a force for progressive change and that lesson we must learn from Cuba”.
(In a conversation Mr. Anil Tandon of Doordarsan had with Mr. Sitaram Yechoori, Rajya Sabha member and a theoretician of the CPI (M) on Doordarsan channel, Tandon asked Yechoori to comment on an old joke that the CPI (M) is confined to just four places, West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura and Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Yechoori seemed to admit it gracefully while saying that it is to be looked into.)

MUHAMMD ALI JINNAH

Retrospection and introspection are expected to yield come concrete results. They often bring to light what was hidden or unknown to light. Reassessment of individuals and movements helps us to learn from our past mistakes and move ahead.
An assessment of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, widely known as the Father of Pakistan is worth ones while. However, unlike any other political figure Jinnah is one of the most complicated both as an individual and a political leader. Both Jinnah and Gandhiji came from Gujarat. While Jinnah spoke little Gujarati, Gandhiji spoke and wrote in Gujarati. Both of them were also trained lawyers. They studied law in England. While Gandhiji claimed to represent millions of ordinary people Jinnah said time and again that Gandhiji represented the Hindus alone. And he wanted to be the ‘Sole Spokesman of the Muslims’.
The Sole Spokesman of the Muslims spoke little Urdu. He did not take the trouble to learn it. But he claimed that there was a concerted effort to wipe out the language. He was a chain smoker. He enjoyed his pork, something a devout Muslim considers to be the abode of the devil. He did not say his prayers five times a day as a devout Muslim is supposed to do. He is reported to have touched the Holy Quran the sacred text of the Muslims only once. But he wanted to be recognized as the sole representative of the Muslim community.
It is also reported that his driver was a Sikh from the Punjab, his stenographer a Brahmin from Kerala, his cook a Hindu from Goa. He fell in love with a Parsi woman and married her. However, he objected when his daughter, his only child, fell in love with a Parsi and married him. He went to Pakistan alone. His daughter stayed back in India.
He never kept a diary or authored any book.
When Bal Gangadhar Tilak was accused of being anti national by the British, Jinnah tried his best to save him. Gopal Krishna Goghale thought that Jinnah was free from all sectarian prejudice and had all the qualities that would make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. Sarojini Naidu, the nightingale of India said, Jinnah,“whose fair ambition it is to become the Muslim Goghale may in some glorious and terrible crisis of our national struggle pass into immortality as the Mazzini of the Indian Liberation”.
The same Jinnah also said, “The Mussalmans are not a minority, as it is commonly known and understood…. Mussalmans are a nation by any definition of a nation, and the must have their homelands, their territory and their state.” (Pirzada II, Pa337)
As neither Gandhiji nor the Congress regarded Jinnah as the sole spokesman of the Muslims, he said, “Why does not Mr. Gandhi agree-and I have suggested this to him more than once, and I repeat it again from this platform-why does not Mr. Gandhi honestly now acknowledge that the Congress is a Hindu Congress, that he does not represent anybody except the solid body of a Hindu people? Why should not Mr. Gandhi be proud to say, ‘I am a Hindu, the Congress had solid Hindu bcking?’ I am not ashamed of saying that I am a Mussalman. I am right I hope, and I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now,that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Mussalmans of India. Why then all this camouflage? Why all these machinisations? Why not come as a Hindu leader proudly representing your people and let me meet you proudly representing the Mussalmas…” (Pirzada 2, pa 333)
The fact that Mahatma Gandhi alone was the person who always opposed partition is also known widely. Pyarelal, his secretary and biographer has noted Gandhiji as having said , “The purity of my striving will be put to test only now. Today I find myself all alone. Even the Sardar and Jawaharlal think that my reading of the situation is wrong and peace is sure to return if partition is agreed upon…..They do not like my telling the Viceroy that even if there is to be partition, it should not be through the British intervention or under the British Rule…. They wonder if I have not deteriorated with age….Nevertheless I must speak as I feel I am to be a true and loyal friend to the Congress and to the British people, as I claim to be…regardless of whether my advice is heeded or not. I see clearly that we are setting about this business the wrong way. We may not feel the full effect immediately, but I can see clearly that the future of Independence gained at this price is going to be dark. I pray that god may not keep me alive to witness it...” (Pyarelal, The Last Phase, vol II 200) Mahatma’s words are plain enough.
Nehru himself has admitted as much later.
Ayesha Jalal Pakistani scholar and historian in her The Sole Spokesman, says that actually Jinnah did not want the partition. And the demand for Pakistan was just a bargaining chip. Although many have hailed it as a scholarly work it did not find her arguments convincing.
What has Jaswant got to say about Jinnah? He says that Jinnah has been demonized in India. In an interview with Karan Thapar broadcast by CNN-IBN, Jaswant commented that, “a distinction has to be made between Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s personal attributes as a human being and his politics. The personal attributes are admirable. His equations with human beings of all communities were a real example. His politics were abhorable. Particularly after 1940”. What is one to make of it?
Karan: - you said India has demonized him and yet you completely overlooked and ignored the fat that he launched against India the first threat to Indian sovereignty and the first war that India faced. And he did it within three months of partition. That is not mentioned.
Jaswant: - That would have required altogether a different and a separate book. Already it was running to 900 pages. The book had to be cut down. There are limits to it.
Karan: - What happens if people turn around and say that by overlooking and ignoring this, you have not only written a one-sided account but you have exculpated Jinnah of the charge of launching war against India?
Jaswant: - I have not exculpated because among the first of the sentences that I used in this interview is that a distinction has to be made between his personal attributes and his public conduct. These are two very different things”.
Is he going to write a sequel to his biography of Jinnah that runs to 669 pages?
Are we to wait and watch?

PAKISTAN'S PREVARICATIONS

The fact that Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorist activities in the region is an open secret. It is also known to everyone that Pakistan and its ISI were behind the attack on the Taj hotel in Mumbai. Indian and American investigators have gathered ample evidence to prove their involvement. American government also pressed Pakistan to bring the perpetrators and the organizations to book.
And Pakistan has on its part assured India and America to punish them the moment they are found out. India has handed over the details of many of the terrorists involved in the attack. One of the persons, Kasab who took part in the dastardly attack has been taken into custody. He has agreed that he and his associates came from Pakistan. His father in Pakistan recognized his son and admitted that Kasab was his son. For long authorities in Pakistan refused to admit the obvious and kept saying that Kasb or the killed terrorists were not Pakistani nationals. It refused to accept the dead bodies of those killed in the commando operation by India saying that there was no evidence to show that they were Pakistan citizens.
Under severe pressure from the US Pakistan later admitted that Kasb and all the killed terrorists were Pakistani citizens. Pakistan requested India to hand over the list of persons India claimed it had with it and all the evidences India had gathered to trace the terrorists hiding in Pakistan and bring them to justice.
Though Pakistan arrested Hafiz Saeed, chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, when the UN proscribed the outfit for alleged involvement in the Mumbai attack, the Lahore High Court set him free saying that there was no evidence to link him to the Mumbai attacks. On 1 August 2009, India handed over a seven page document with annexure to Pakistan which, Mr. Chidambaram India’s Home Minister claimed contained some more evidence showing the involvement of Saeed. Pakistan could find answers to its questions in the documents if they took the trouble to read it, the minister added.
When Mr. Manmohan Singh met Zardari, Pakistan’s president immediately after Singh’s re-election as the Prime Minister of India, he told bluntly in front of the international media that the renewed mandate just allowed him to tell the president that he was supposed to take concrete action against the terrorists operating from the Pakistani soil.
On 15 April 2009, while talking to the Editor’s Guild Mr. Singh said “There won’t be any resumption of bilateral talks till Islamabad stops allowing terrorists to use its territory against India”.
But on 16 July 2009, Singh signed a joint declaration with his Pakistani counterpart Mr. Gilani that read, “India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. Not only had that Sing also expressed India’s concerns about the situations in Balochistan. It was a grave error on the part of the Indian Prime Minister. It gave the Pakistani Prime Minister a chance to state “the joined statement signed by me and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Balochistan and other areas”.
As it led to uproar in India and the opposition accused Singh of de linking bilateral talks and terrorism Singh said in the parliament that India would not talk to Pakistan until it took concrete actions against the terrorists.
On 29 August Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mr. Shah Mohammed Qureshi said at a news conference in Islamabad that “India hesitates on meaningful dialogue but they want cooperation in probing the Mumbai attacks. They want progress and then they shy away from talks. Both things cannot go together”. He further said that if the bilateral talks were not resumed soon the terrorists would determine the future course of events”.
India has responded saying that there was no point in talking now. Now that we have made it clear that we would not talk with Pakistan we must stick to it. There is no point in handing over any more evidence to Pakistan. It will keep asking for more evidence. It knows and every one around the world knows that the terrorists came from Pakistan and that they had been trained in Pakistan. But it is certain that Pakistan is not going to take any action as it is obvious that India would not take any military action against it.

KATI PATANG

It seems that the BJP has learned nothing from the drubbing it received in the recent national elections. The party was very confident of getting enough seats, in fact to win more seats than it did last time, and form the government at the centre. It had stated about a year back that Mr. L .K. Advani would be the Prime Minister if the NDA won the election.
Dashing all its hopes the people rejected it and voted the UPA to power for a second time. The Congress won 206 seats where as the BJP could win only 116 seats. The difference was significant and the BJP admitted defeat gracefully and congratulated Mr. Manmohan Singh whom it had dubbed as the weakest Prime Minister India ever had. Although the BJP performed well in Karnataka and Gujarat, the Congress made it bite dust in Rajasthan and Delhi. In Delhi Congress won all the 11 seats. In Madhya Pradesh the BJP lost many seats it had won earlier.
The BJP leaders were at a loss to explain their loss. Later the success of Congress was attributed mainly to its National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the wavier of bank loans before the elections.
Soon it became clear that the BJP leadership could not explain away the defeat so easily. The party seemed united behind Advani before the election. No body had openly challenged Advani. Arun Shourie, a senior leader and former Disinvestment Minister in the Vajpayee government, spoke and wrote articles supporting Advani. Even Shekhavat a senior BJP leader and former Vice President who seemed to do so became silent soon. It cannot be said with any degree of certainty that there were any differences on its Prime Ministerial candidate.
Advani said that, as soon as the verdict was out, he was resigning as the leader of opposition owning responsibility for the poll debacle. However many others in party prevailed upon him not to resign. Slowly and gradually murmurs were heard from within the party about the way the election campaign was conducted. Yashwant Sinha, a senor leader and Finance Minister in the Vajpayee government, came out openly against the party leadership for its mishandling the campaign. He resigned all the party posts he had held. The party accepted his resignation, though it did not dare to expel him from the party.
Now it has become clear the Arun Shourie also had expressed his displeasure at the manner in which the campaign was run from Delhi. He said the campaign managers decided even the places where the hoardings were to be put up, sitting in Delhi without consulting the local leaders. Neither Advani nor Rajnath Singh paid attention to what Sinha and he had to say. The party did not invite nether of them to attend what was called ‘Chinthan Baitak’, a session of introspection.
Meanwhile Jaswant Singh, another senior leader and a member of the party since its inception published a biography of Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. He claimed that Jinnah was not that communal as he was made out to be. He also said both Nehru and Patel were as much responsible for the partition as Jinnah was. This was not acceptable neither to Rajnath or Advani. So Jaswant was expelled from the party for defying the party discipline. However, it is interesting to recall that it was Jaswant Singh who stood behind Advani when he stated Jinnah was not communal leader but a secular leader. The Gujarat government has also banned the book in the state.
It was then Arun Shourie came in the open and called the BJP a ‘kati patang’ (A kite with broken chord). In an interview given to the NDTV on 24 August, Shourie dubbed Rajnath Sing the party president, “Alice in Blunderland” and “Humpty Dumpty”. He said, “In my view, the BJP is a kati patang. And unless it is gotten hold by….not by the people in the BJP; they are simply incapable of doing it. The RSS should get hold of it….My question is the BJP a private property belonging to some individuals?”
Although many expected the party to expel Shourie from the party immediately, it has not happened yet. Rajnath Singh discussed the interview with the vice-president of the party M.A.Naqvi, and general secretaries such as Thawarchand Gehlot, Ramlal and Vinay Katyar and asked Shourie to ‘clarify’ his comments in the interview. Perhaps the party is afraid to expel him lest he reveal many other things.

PAKISTAN'S TACTICS

Finally the Americans seem to have realized it is high time it told the Pakistanis not to meddle with the arms it supplied to Pakistan to wage war against the terrorists nestled in that country. India has been saying for quite some time that Pakistan is using the planes and missiles the American gave it to fight the Taliban and other terrorist groups against India. But the American administration seemed not to care.
Now The New York Times has reported that Pakistan has also altered the structure of the planes and missiles America gave it, in such a way that they can be used against India. The paper reports that Obama administration has accused Pakistan of altering the structures of the Harpoon anti-ship missile and aircraft P-3C.
Harpoon is a barbed spear used for hunting large fishes. The Harpoon missile is an all-weather anti ship missile developed by the US. It can be launched from air crafts and ships. It flies at a wave-skimming altitude till it reaches the target ship. The missile as it is constructed cannot be used against any target on land. However, Pakistan has changed the structure of the missile so as to make it capable of attacking a target on land. And the target is obviously India.
The P-3C is a maritime surveillance aircraft. The air craft has advanced anti-submarine warfare avionics including the IBM Proteus and an advanced acoustic processor
The daily reports that the Obama administration has lodged a protest with the Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in June 2009.
Indian External Affairs Minister Mr. S. M. Krishna had told the Americans that giving arms to Pakistan without verifying how Pakistan was using them would be counter productive. India knows that Pakistani’s are using the American weapons meant to use against the terrorist groups inside that country, are being used against India for some time. India had also conveyed its concerns to the American administration. But the American administration obsessed as it is with the war on terror is yet to address the Indian concerns.
According to The New York Times, Pakistan has denied the American charge and claimed that it developed the missiles on its own.
Meanwhile Mr. Hans M. Kristensena, top American scientist, has said, citing the Nuclear Notebook, that Pakistan has been developing nuclear arms at a fast pace. According to his report the number of nuclear war heads Pakistan has at present is somewhere around 70-90. According to Kristensen, Shaheen-II medium range ballistic missile would be operational quite soon. In addition to this Pakistan is also developing two types of cruise missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear devices. One of them, Babur is launched from the ground and the other named Ra-ad, is launched from air.
A chemical separation facility and two plutonium production reactors are also nearing completion. According to Kristensen Pakistan’s ability to make cruise missiles that can carry nuclear devices point to the fact that Pakistani designers and engineers have succeeded in making small and light plutonium warheads.
India should take note of all these developments and take precautionary measure so as not to be caught unawares. Instead of asking the Americans to keep an eye on the activities of Pakistan, and asking them to declare Pakistan as a rouge country or a failed state we must prepare ourselves to meet all eventualities. We have fought Pakistan three times and beaten them. Now they know well that it is not that easy to beat India in a war. The recent Kargil war must have driven this point again. All the same we cannot be complacent about the threats from Pakistan as long as it sees India as its enemy.

ANOTHER FRAUDULENT ELECTION ?

Afghanistan went to the polls on 20 Aug 2009, to elect its president and 420 councilors in 34 provinces. The incumbent President Hamid Karzai and the former Foreign Minister Abdulllah Abdullah are the main contestants. Ramazan Bashardost, a Kabul law maker and Ashraf Ghani are the other prominent contestants. Ashraf Ghani was once with the World Bank.
Hell bent on sabotaging the elections the Taliban carried out attacks as it had said. In the western province of Heart, militants stormed three polling booths and set the building on fire. They also destroyed the votes cast in the boxes. In the Northern Province Kunduz, the army repelled the militants. Reports say there were four explosions in Kandahar before the poll began.
The government, well aware of the militants plans to interrupt the election, had deployed 300,000 Afghan and foreign forces to ensure that the people came out to vote. However, compared with the turn out in 2004, the turn out in 2009 was not promising. President Hamid Karzai thanked the people of Afghanistan and said it had been a good day for the country.
Mr. Anders Fough Rasmussen, the Chief of the NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the voter turn out was ‘encouraging’ though it was low compared with the figures of 2004 elections. He reportedly said, “it was a clear demonstration that the Afghan people want democracy, they want freedom and reject terrorism”.
The Taliban had earlier distributed leaflets in the south of the country that read, “This is to inform respected residents that you must not participate in the elections so as not to become a victim of our operations, because we will use new tactics”. Qari Yousuf, a Talinan spokesman said that they were using new methods to attack election centers.
The government also warned the journalists in the country not to report threats or attacks of the Taliban as they are ‘forbidden’. However, they are free to report the polling. At the same time the Taliban is compelling the journalists to report the threats and dangers involved in voting.
Both Karzai and Abdullah have claimed victory in the election though the results are not out. It was reported that Abdullah was so confident the he declared “I am in the lead, no doubt. The incumbent should think for a single second that he could be out of that office and he should prepare himself mentally and physically”. When the counting began they were neck and neck. However, as the counting progressed Karzai began to establish clear lead.
None in the West expected the elections to be free of rigging. The American does not want Karzai to win. They know well that Karzai who desperately wants to win the election would buy votes using money and muscle powers. But at the same time they do not seem to have any other person in mind who could take charge in Afghanistan and deal with the Taliban firmly as they like.
There were allegations of fraud such as stuffing votes in the ballot boxes in favour of Karzai, and intimidation of the voters from the beginning. There were complaints about the indelible ink also. The Electoral Complaints Commission, which has the authority to declare the votes as invalid and order re-election, has received about 2500 complaints so far.
Mr. Kai Eide, the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, said that there were many irregularities in the poll. He also requested the political parties to trust the Complaints Commission and let it find out the details of the reported irregularities.
Even if Hamid Karzai is declared elected he will not enjoy the confidence either of his own people or the international observers. And a government without legitimacy cannot be expected to fight a determined militant force such as the Taliban and bring peace to the region.

JASWANT'S JINNAH

Mr. Jaswant Singh, a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party has brought out a biography of Mohammad Ali Jinnnah, the Father of Pakistan. In India he is looked upon as the person mainly responsible for the Partition of India into Hindustan and Pakistan.
However, Mr. Singh thinks otherwise. He thinks Jinnah a secular man to the core, was not responsible for the partition. Acceding to him, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India and one of the most prominent leaders of the Congress party, and Mr. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who integrated about five hundred small states into India as we know it today, immediately after independence, and the first Home Minister of independent India were responsible for the partition.
In his Jinnah:India-Partition-Independanc, Jaswant Singh has sought to dispel, so he claims, many misconceptions about Jinnah and the partition. He says, “We have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon. We needed a demon because in the 20th century the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country”.
Indeed partition of India is one of the telling events in the 20th century. And it also goes without saying that the events and circumstances that led to the portioning are to be carefully looked into and documented. The British have told their version of the story in detail in their “Transfer of Power in India”. Unfortunately we Indians are yet to record our version of the story for our own sake. The attempt by the Historical Council of India to prepare a detailed account of our freedom struggle has not got anywhere.
As Jaswant sees it, Jinnah was “a great Indian” who has been “demonized” to absolve Nehru and Patel of their complicity in the partition of the country. According to Jaswant, Nehru had a streak of authoritarianism. He wanted to concentrate all authority at the centre. Jaswant Says, “Nehru believed in a highly centralized polity. That is what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted, but Nehru didn’t”. Nehru “stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a portioned India”.
Apart from the exception, the widely held view all over the world is that Jinnah was responsible for the partition of India. The very tile of Rafiq Sakaria’s book on Jinnah “The Man who broke up India” speaks volume. M.J.Akbar in his well known work “India Siege Within” refers to Jinnah at one place as “the man who eventually destroyed Gandhi’s dream of a free and united India”. At another place he describes Jinnah as “Modern Aurangzeb”.
Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy in India had this to say “I had never realized that an intelligent man, well- educated, trained in England was capable of closing his mind-it wasn’t that he didn’t see it-he closed his mind. A kind of Sutter came down. The others could be persuaded, but not Jinnah. He was a one man band, and the one man did I like that”.
“Mind you, Jinnah is now forgotten. He was the man who did it……..All this misery and trouble was caused by Jinnah and no one else. And he hasn’t had one word said against him. He was the evil genius in this whole thing”. (Page: 44;(emphasis original)Mountbatten and the Partition of India, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.)
Was Jinnah a secularist?
It is widely known that Jinnah used to enjoy his whisky and pork quite well. Something a devout Muslim counts as untouchable. The Jews and the Muslims consider the pork as the abode of Devil.
It is also recorded that he touched the Quran only once when he joined the bar.
Was Jinnah a religious fanatic?
Arun Shourie writes in his “The Pistol Jinnah Forged”, “Once he returned to India he devoted his time and energy to ‘unify’ the Muslims, ‘under one Allah and behind one flag, one slogan, one leader”, to ‘organize’ the League so that it would become their sole spokesman, and finally to centralize authority within the League entirely in himself”.
Jaswant Singh’s book does not reveal anything new, something unknown till now. He has not dug up anything new that warrants a reappraisal of Jinnah and his place in history. And it does not display scholarship of any kind.

AHMADINEJAD'S COUNIL OF MINISTERS

Mr.Ahmadinejad, the new president of the Islamic Republic of Iran has named his council of ministers. Out of the 21 persons nominated 11 are new to their job. They do not have any previous experience in the government. He has also named three women to be inducted as ministers. If he succeeds they will be the first women cabinet ministers in Iran since the Revolution.
According to the Iranian constitution the president is to nominate his ministers within two weeks of assumption of office. Ahmadinejad began his second term in the office of the President on 5 August 2009, ignoring allegations by the opposition, of malpractices in the national election.
However, some of his party men have come out in the open against many of the candidates. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament has warned him that the law makers may object to many of his nominees. The Deputy speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar has also warned the president that he cannot get the law makers to support some of his nominees as they are wet behind the ears. Ahmadinejad had faced difficulties in choosing his cabinet ministers 2005 also.
The three women nominated would hold, if the law makers supported them, the ministries of Health, Education and Welfare.
Marzieh Vahid-Dastjerdi, the woman he wants to be the Health minister is a Gynecologist. At present she is a member of the Medical Ethical Boards Committee at the Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Fatemeh Ajorlou, is the president’s nominee for the Welfare ministry. She is a member of the Parliament.
The president has not changed his Foreign Minister. He wants the incumbent Manouchehr Mottaki to continue. He is a strong supporter of Ahmadinejad. He is likely to continue his anti American policy, something that made the president popular among the people.
All the same one has to wait and watch how many of his nominees are going make it. The pro government Principlists has criticized the president for not consulting the Parliament before nominating the persons he wants to be in his cabinet.
Ahmadinejad had been criticized for keeping inexperienced ministers during his first reign also.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardian Council, said that the opposition leaders and their followers should be arrested for conspiring to overthrow the elected government of Ahmadinejad. He is reported to have said, “Everyone knows that they are the origin of the plot and corruption, but they are linked with some powerful people”.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: INDIA'S CRIMINAL SILENCE

The military junta in Myanmar has sentenced Aung San Suu kyi to 18 months imprisonment, dashing the hopes of millions all over the world. In fact the military court sentenced her to three years of hard labour. Than Shwe, the leader of the junta commuted it to eighteen month’s house arrest. With this she stands disqualified to contest the election in 2010. Suu Kyi, who has been under detention since 1989, is accused of meeting and accommodating John Yettaw, an American national at her house. Yettaw has been sentenced to seven years of hard labour and imprisonment. However, the security personnel who had been guarding her house have not been punished for dereliction of duty.
Southeast Asian Nations, the US and the United Nations have expressed their disappointment over the sentence. The Dalai Lama extended his support to Suu Kyi and said the verdict ‘deeply saddened’ him.
US secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was visiting the Democratic Republic of Congo said “We continue to call for a release from her continuing house arrest”. Clinton opined that, “She should not have been tried and should not have been convicted”.
Indeed no one had expected the Junta to act otherwise. That she would be kept under house arrest was a forgone conclusion.
All the same none of her neighbours such as India and China have raised their voice against the Junta. China said it respected Myanmar’s sovereignty. One can understand the silence of China a country that has silenced many a dissenting voice. Dalai Lama and Rubiya Kadeer are lucky enough in that they are able to air their views. They are also lucky to have a large audience who share their concerns and strain themselves to see to it that these leasers are not silenced by the mighty Chinese State.
What appalls me is the silence of India that never tires of thumping the chest claiming to be the largest democratic county in the world. Moreover Suu Kyi belongs to the rarest of a rare species. She is a living example of truthfulness and non-violence, of the spirit of Gandhiji, the father of our nation. Hence, India’s silence can be described only as criminal.
We do not dare to speak for the Dalai Lama and his people. True Nehru let him stay in India and operate as a government in exile. But he dared not speak for the Lama. He knew the Chinese intentions very well. He new well that China had no right over Tibet. In fact it is one of the few countries that had a language and culture of its own. It has almost all attributes of a ‘nation’. I dare say neither Benedict Anderson nor Eric Hobsbawm, the modern scholars on nation and nationalism, would challenge Tibet’s right to call it a ‘nation’.
However, Nehru fascinated as he was by the communist, socialist ideals failed to recognize the socialistic pretensions of China. He was also obsessed with his concept of the ‘brotherhood of India and China’. Even when mountain of evidences showed that China was crushing the Tibetans and trying to annex it Nehru kept looking the other way. Finally when the Chinese descended the Himalayas and marched into India he was shattered.
Of course Myanmar does not pose any such threat to India. However, the possibility of China joining hands with it and threatening India is to be kept in mind, though such a possibility is very remote at present. Besides, as stated earlier as a country that is proud of its legacy of non violent struggle for freedom India must speak loudly and clearly against the kind of treatment meted out to Aung San Suu Kyi and her people. We must exert all the pressure we can on the Junta and see to it that Suu Kyi is freed from her house arrest soon.

SECOND REIGN OF AHMADINEJAD IN IRAN

Brushing the allegations of rigging the election and the concerns expressed by the western nations aside, Mr. Ahmadinejad assumed the office of the President of Iran on 5th August 2009, with the blessings of his mentor Khomeni. Ahmadinejad said later that he would resist the “oppressive powers”. He also claimed that his election is a sign of change in Iranian politics.
Even as Ahmadinejad assumed office, protestors gathered in front of the parliament chanting “Death to the dictator”.
The opposition leaders did not attend the function. Rafsanjani, former President and supporter of Mousavi, was also conspicuous by his absence. However the envoys of Britain, Sweden and France attended the official function.
Outside the parliament riot police and Islamic militiamen had a tough time controlling the protestors. They used pepper spray to disperse the agitated demonstrators who continued to protest despite warnings of stern action by the government. Police later arrested Mir Hamid Hassanzadeh, the former director of Mousavi’s website and Reza Noor Bakhash, the chief editor of Farhikhetegan, a paper that supported Mousavi.
Mousavi said “I have noticed the birth of a strong national feeling during the course of the election”. He expressed confidence when he said that the protests have united people from different groups in the society.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was on an African tour said, “We appreciate and we admire the continuing resistance and the ongoing efforts by the reformers to make the changes that the Iranian people deserve”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran had on 3rd August, 2009, endorsed Ahmadinejad as the new president of the country. Khamenei who stood solidly behind Ahmadinejad all along the present crisis described him as ‘courageous, astute and hardworking”. Khamenei also cautioned Ahmadinejad to listen to his critics and be prepared to face the challenges ahead.
However, Khamenei did not allow the new president to kiss his hand as he did in 2005. Ahmadinejad had to satisfy himself with a kiss on the leader’s shoulder.
Although the government has released 140 of the people rounded up during the protests after the re-election of Ahmadinejad many still languish in prison. Former president Mohammad Khatami said that the ones who were arrested should be compensated adequately. Khatami a pro reform leader and supporter of Mousavi said, “Blood has been spilled and several families are damaged psychologically. Illegal and un-Islamic acts have been committed against the people”.
Let us wait and watch the course events take in Iran.

CLIMB DOWN BY INDIA

The other day India made retreat from its earlier position. Since the attack on the Taj hotel last November, in which hundreds lost their lives, India has been saying that until Pakistan takes concrete action against the perpetrators India would not talk to it. None dared to disagree with India. Even the Americans did not make any overt adverse comment.
However, Mr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, who was recently hailed as being strong when he told Pakistan President Zardari, that his mandate only allowed him to tell Pakistan that it take action against the terrorists operating from its soil against India, held a bilateral talk with Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani and issued a joint statement on 16/07/2009, in Egypt. Not only that, besides agreeing to share ‘credible and actionable information’, they decided to create ‘an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence”. As if India did not already have actionable information. As if India had not already given Pakistan ‘actionable information. No one in the world has questioned the information India handed over to Pakistan immediately after the attacks on the Taj hotel in Mumbai. Does Mr. Singh feel any lack of confidence? Or is he trying to show the world that he is a great statesman by extending the olive branch to a country that has become the breeding ground of terrorism in the world?
The worst part of it is Singh’s agreement to de-link talks with Pakistan and concrete action on its part against the terrorists operating from its soil. Where and when did he get the mandate to do so? In spite of the mass of evidence or ‘actionable information’ to use the new phrase, Pakistan has not taken any concrete action to convince any one in the world that it is doing everything to bring the culprits to book.
When Singh was accused of “capitulation” in the Parliament by the BJP which staged a walk out, Singh did a u-turn and said he had not done anything of the sort. He said that “meaningful dialogue” with Pakistan was conditional. He said Pakistan must fulfill its pledge against terrorism “in letter and spirit”. He claimed to have said, in a written statement in the Lok Sabha, “I also conveyed to Gilani that sustained, effective and credible action has to be taken against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, and the operations of terrorist groups shut down to prevent future attakcks”. If that was the case why did he talk about de-linking the dialogue? Was he playing for the gallery?
Another grave blunder was the mentioning of Baluchistan in the joint statement. Baluchistan has been a serious head ache for Pakistan for some time. And it has been holding India responsible for the unrest in Bluchistan without any evidence to indicate Indian hands in them. Neither America nor Britain or any other country in the world has ever expressed any doubt about India. And India has consistently denied any role in the unrest in Baluchistan.
The Prime Minister should have told his Pakistani counterpart to take concrete action to catch the terrorists who attacked the Taj and stop all the terrorist activities emanating from Pakistan especially against India and show that Pakistan means business. Unless Pakistan does so there is no point in taking to it.

UNREST IN IRAN

Friday witnessed mass demonstrations and protest marches in Iran. Many observers had said that the opposition to the reelection of Ahamdinejad had died down. Even the American voice against the election, which Mousavi claimed to have been rigged by Ahmadinejad , had begun to fade.. Some had, from the beginning itself, dismissed the allegations of rigging as a ploy by the defeated leaders. They claimed that only the supporters of the defeated candidates, Mehdi Kharoubbi and Mir Housein Mousavi were convinced of the rigging. However, belying all such predictions supporters of the main opposition leader Mousavi held demonstrations on Friday defying government orders. The police had a tough time dispersing the angry protestors. They dispersed the demonstrators, who were chanting “Down with the dictator” with tear gas.
Former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who spoke to the people, gathered for the Friday prayers at the Tehran University, said that “Iran was in a state of crisis”. He urged the government to release all those who were arrested for demonstrating against the authorities after the Council of Elders declared that though there were some irregularities during the election it did not affect the outcome.
When Ahmadinejad was declared elected the opposition leaders such as Mir Mousein Mousavi and Mehdi Kharoubbi and their supporters refused to accept the results and they alleged that there were large scale rigging by Ahmadinejad and demanded repelling. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme spiritual leader who wields immense power in the affairs of the country declared that there was no rigging in the elections. When the protestors refused to back down he asked the Council of Elders to look into the allegations, and offered to recount the votes. Mousavi stuck to his guns and demanded re-polling. After looking into the allegations the Guardian Council opined that, “In the recent presidential election we witnessed no major fraud or breech. Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place”.
The opposition leaders were not the only ones who questioned the results. Two of the prominent former Presidents of Iran also expressed their dissatisfaction over the results. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President and the present Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, was very much disturbed at the election results. Rafsanjani spoke against, in a speech delivered on 17 July 2009, the restriction of media, and the police actions against the protestors. He said “We should open the doors to debates. We should not keep so many people in prison”. His daughter participated in the protest march and got arrested. Of course every one knows that there is no love lost between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad had, during the election campaign, charged Rafsanjani with corruption. Rafsanjani never used harsh words against his opponents. He did not hide his dislike of Ahmadinejad though.
Rafsanjani is known as ‘pragmatic conservative’. During his presidency (1989-1997), Rafsanjani pursued a conciliatory approach to the US. He tried to avoid open confrontation with the US. He lost to Ahmadinejad in 2005.Aanother former President, Mohammad Khatami has also questioned the election results.
Shirin Ebadi, lawyer and human right activists and the winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace said on 18 July 2009, in an interview given to the GW-TV that “Iran is moving away from democracy”. She said that the lawyers in Iran dared not to question the prevailing conditions in the country. To the question what would happen if Israel attacked Tehran, she replied that then the people of Iran would forget the differences and join hands to fight Israel. She said that Germany should become more active and address the human right issues in Iran.
Although there have been many protests against the authorities in Iran and many in the West have expressed concern over the prevailing situation the authorities seem not to bother much.

ZARDARI'S REVELATIONS

Asif Ali Zardari, the President of Pakistan has been making, I don’t know how to put it, ‘admissions’, or ‘confessions’, or ‘revelations’ from time to time for quite some time. And the media everywhere, especially in India has been greeting him as somebody honest and sincere desirous of finding solutions for the innumerable problems his country face. However, the admissions are invariably followed by ‘clarifications’ by Gilani the Prime Minister of Pakistan or some other Pak Official.
Zardari made an admission on 7/07/2009 while interacting with former senior civil servants. He said, “Let us be truthful to ourselves and make candid admission of the realities”. He went on to say that Pakistan “deliberately created and nurtured” terrorists groups as a state policy to realize its short term objectives. Of course there is nothing new in that as everyone who has been watching the developments in Pakistan already knew it all. However, let us welcome his statement, ‘the candid admission’ as many media put it and hope that he will do what he can to stop such activities. He has said that he will fight the menace of terrorism in his own country and help bring peace to the region and the world as well. He said, “We are fighting the war against extremism and terrorism”.
As I am used to such admissions from Zardari, I expected a clarification on what he had said. It arrived soon. Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said on 9/07/2009 that Zardari’s admission was to be viewed in the context of the situation in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets! But Zardari had said, “The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesterday until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well”.
No one in Pakistan (perhaps except Zardari himself, Gilani, the Prime Minister and the Army) or in any other part of the world knows for sure how much authority does Zardari enjoy though he had, a couple of months ago said that the army had authority in its hemisphere and he had the authority over the whole of the country and the army is under civilian control. We cannot trust the words of the Pakistani authorities as they keep denying what was stated earlier. Immediately after the attack on Taj in Mumbay on 26 November 2008, Pakistan denied its hands in the incident.
However, the The New York Times had reported on 28 November 2008 that “The mounting evidence indicate that Pakistani militant group based in Kashmir, most likely Lashkar-e-Toiba or possibly another terror group I Kashmir , Jaish-e-Mohammed, was responsible for the dastardly attack”. The paper was quoting the American intelligence and official not Indian. India prepared a list of the terrorists it believed to be in Pakistan and handed over the list to the Pakistani authorities requesting them to extradite them to India for trial. Pakistan refused to comply with the request saying that there was no concrete evidence to the involvement of the Pakistani terrorists in the incident.
There are evidences, say Indian and American investigators, which point to the involvement of Pakistan in the attack. Kasab the lone survivor captured after the attack has said as much. Yet nothing concrete has happened.
Unless something concrete happens we need not to take the ‘admissions’ or ‘confessions’ or ‘revelations’ seriously.

UNREST IN CHINA

What touched off the riot in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjian in China, is not yet clear. The killing of two Uighrs by Han Chinese workers may have been the immediate provocation. However, that alone cannot explain the scale of violence in which more than 150 persons were killed and thousands injured.
The official Chinese reaction was that the riot was caused by the “terrorist, separatist and extremist forces”. The people and their leaders are accused of being terrorists by the Chinese government. However, the people have not indulged in any activities that are generally associated with terrorists, separatists and extremist forces. What the televisions has been showing is ordinary people with sticks and rods running along the streets beating others and settings things and buildings on fire.
No one of consequence in the region or outside has endorsed the violence. Rabiya Kadeer the exiled leader wrote in The Wall Street Journal “I unequivocally condemn the use of violence by Uighurs during the demonstrations as much as I do China’s use of excessive force against protestors”.
China has labeled, even the Dali Lama, who has won a Nobel Prize for peace, ‘a wolf in monk’s dress’ and a terrorist. Wang Lequan, head of the Xinjiang Communist party and a politburo member, said that “The terrorist, separatist and extremist forces cheated the people to participate in the so-called Jihad”. But the fact is that no one has described the rioting as ‘Jihad’. He is just trying to take advantage of what is known as the ‘Islamic terrorism’ in the West.
The People’s Daily, China’s official newspaper compared Rabiya Kabeer with the Dalai Lama and said “…she did as much or more than, as the Dalai Lama and his clique to sow resentment among the ethnic Uighur people”. The comparison with the Dalai Lama, who has been fighting the Chinese aggression of Tibet, for decades, speaks volumes. Tibetan’s are a group of people who have a distinct language, and culture of their own and deserve to be treated as a separate nation. Not only that they have been a separate nation historically. Yet the Chinese has annexed Tibet claiming it to be a part of China.
However, the paper’s comment may be said to reveal an ethnic issue. The issue of the ethnic Uighur people. The Uighur is a nomadic, pastoral people of Turkic origin.
Urumqui is the homeland of the Uighur’s. But the endless migration of the Hans into the region has reduced the natives Urighurs to a group of second class citizens. They have no voice in the government. No one takes care of their concerns. This negligence by the Chinese government made the Uighurs feel bitter about the Han settlements.
The attitude of the Chinese authorities towards the non Han people in China is well known to the world.
Annihilation of all the non Han peoples has been one of the major objectives of what is called the Cultural Revolution. One may recall the Chinese claim that Arunachl Pradesh of India is in fact Chinese territory. A couple of weeks back the Asian Development Bank (ADB) had excluded Arunachal Pradesh while reckoning the amount to give to India for developmental activities. The ADB excluded Arunachal Pradesh from the plan on the objections by China.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI IN FRESH TROUBLE

It is highly deplorable that Ban kimoon the Secretary General of the United Nations was not allowed on Sunday, to meet the Burmese dissident leader, committed to non-violence, and peaceful protests, Aung San Suu Kyi by the ruling Burmese military junta. Of course many had warned the secretary not to visit Myanmar at this stage, without any positive signals from the military.
It is obvious that the military is not going to release Suu kyi from her house arrest or allow her to contest the general election to be held in 2010. The military junta got a law approved in a hurry in a referendum even as the country was reeling from the devastation by the cyclone Nargis. As per the new provisions of the constitution Suu Kyi cannot contest the election as her husband was a foreign national. Whether her party the National League for Democracy would be allowed to contest the election is to be seen. Even if it is allowed to contest to satisfy the western media the junta would manipulate the election and declare that it has received the mandate to rule the country.
Ban Kimoon said as he left Myanmar that he was “deeply disappointed”. Though he tried his best to meet Suu Kyi, he was not allowed to meet her who is kept under ‘house arrest’. Kimoon opined that the military ruler Than Shwe missed a chance to show the world that he is committed to democratic reforms and to holding a free and fair election in 2010. Than Shwe, the military ruler expressing his unhappiness, said he “would like’ to have arranged a meeting between Kimoon and Su Kyi. However, he had to refuse a request from Kimoon as Su Kyi was under trail.
The 64 year old Aung San Suu Kyi , who has been under house arrest since July 1989, with brief spells of freedom, is at present charged with accommodating an intruder from America who is said to have swum across the lake near the house where she is kept. It is obvious that the military is trying to hold Suu Kyi under captivity indefinitely under some pretext. However, it is not explained how a person could swim across the lake which is under surveillance round the clock by the intelligence agencies. It is hard to believe that the person was not detected while he was swimming the lake which must have taken some time.
Than Shwe is shrewd enough to show the world that he is in fact very liberal. He allowed Suu Kyi to celebrate her 64th birthday at the detention house. She was allowed to pray in the Buddhist style and ‘celebrate’ her birthday with others. She was allowed to distribute Indiaan biriyani, a delicious food served in India, to, the security personnel who surround her in the house. None of her followers were allowed to meet her; they were allowed to send her birthday cakes though.
The Junta knows very well that Suu Kyi and her party, National League for democracy which won the general election are still popular in the country. It fears that if she is released from detention and allowed to take part in political activities, the people would gather round her and push the junta out of power.

OBAMA IN CAIRO

The Speech Obama delivered at the Grand Hall of Cairo University in Cairo, was on 4th June was noted all over the world by almost all sections of the people. Of course there were some skeptics. Apart from the professional skeptics it was welcomed by all. It can be said without doubt that it would help America to regain its lost position among the Arab world to some extent. Obama successfully conveyed the message that this regime is very different from the Bush regime. And he looked at things in a totally different light. Not only that, he also left enough hints that he was ready to do a lot more to improve the Middle East situation.
Obamaa’s speech was simple and elegant and seemed to come from the bottom of his heart. There was no trace of malice and hated or big-brotherly attitude. He did not employ any rhetoric or flowery language either. He touched upon almost all the serious issues such as the Middle East crisis, the Iranian bomb, terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was calm and quite and a tone of reconciliation permeated his whole speech. Evidently, he knew what he was talking about and made his points clearly but firmly. Never did he sound aggressive or arrogant. But obviously he was self-confident. He did not sound self righteous even when he differed with others. He did not point an accusing finger at his predecessor, Bush either. No wonder the daily Al-Masry Al-Youm greeted him as the “Obama the Awaited”.
Many, who are genuinely concerned about the issues that tear apart the people all over the world, welcomed the speech. Obama’s predecessor Bush had alienated a large section of people, not only Muslims but also others with his talks about ‘crusades’, ‘axis of evils’, ‘war on terror’, ‘evil regimes’ so on and so forth. The kind of inhuman treatment meted out to the prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay brought to light by intrepid journalists had ignited hatred against America as never before. He did not use the word ‘terrorism’ even once. Instead he used “violent extremism”. It could be mere neologism, but it did touch the right cords. They were relieved to hear Obama’s words of reconciliation. No one thinks that Obama is going to translate his words into deeds immediately. It could take decades of hard work. The task of reconstruction is difficult and requires large amount of perseverance and patience on the part of the players. As Obama himself said one has to learn from what had happened in the past and move ahead forgetting and forgiving the earlier players.
Obama said that it was high time both the Muslims and the US changed their perceptions about each other. If the Muslims keep looking at the US with suspicion ad mistrust and the US keep looking at the Muslims with suspicion there cannot be an end to the conflicts in the world. He admitted that the US had committed many mistakes in the past. He said, “In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government”.
Obama said he did not know what everyone wanted or what is good for everyone. However, America believes in certain values shared by the people all over the world. He said, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, but I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments- provided they govern with respect for their people”.
He made it clear in few words that it was the September 11 attack in 2001, on the twin towers in the US that made many Americans dislike Muslims. However, he is determined to change the attitude of his people towards the Muslims. He said he had come to Cairo seeking a fresh start to everything. “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect”.
Obama said that Islam had made important contributions to the world in general sand especially to America. He said “They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel prizes, built out tallest buildings, and lit the Olympic Torch”. According to him the relationship between America and Islam “must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t”. He went on to say that, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against the negative stereotypes of Islam”.
The most serious threat to the world peace today is that of terrorism. If it is not addressed soon many more precious lives would be lost all over the world. He did not use the word ‘terrorism’; he used the expression “violent extremism” instead. As he sees it, it is the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda that pose the greatest of the threats to the world today. He said one should not forget the fact that 3000 precious, innocent lives were lost in the attacks on the twin towers. So America is at present engaged in a war with the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said, “Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths rejects: the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people”. He went on to say, “None of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths- me than any other they have killed Muslims. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism-it is an important part of promoting peace.” Referring to Iraq, he said that the military intervention was a serious mistake, without saying that explicitly. He said it was a war of choice. However, he also said that the people of Iraq were better off today without Saddam Hussein. He said, “I also believe events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve problems whenever possible”.
Obama also referred to the Arab Israeli conflict. He said Israelis had the right to exist. He requested the Arabs to admit it. He added that the Palestinians also had the same right. The only solution to the Arab-Palestinian issue is to create two countries, homelands as Obama put it. “That is in Israel’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest”. He said that the construction of settlements in the west Bank by Israel was wrong. The Arabs should take the trouble to “help Palestinians to develop institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past”. Stating that the Hamas enjoyed support of the Palestinian people, he said that they had an important role to play to unify the Palestinian people. He urged them to renounce violence and to recognize Israel’s right to exist. During the election campaign he had said that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. And it had angered many at that time. But in Cairo he said “When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as inn the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer”
Expressing his serious concerns over the proliferation of nuclear weapons, Obama said that the world had to do everything to prevent a catastrophe of gigantic proportion. He described Iran as a country which defines itself as the only one who opposes the US the only super power left after the collapse of the USSR. He admitted that it was wrong on the part of the US to topple a democratically elected government in Iran. But he does not look at Iran in the same light. He wants Iran also to forget about what happened years back and assess the present world situation. According to him “The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build”. Saying that nuclear proliferation is a serious issue he urged everyone to do everything possible to stop the spread of the nuclear technology to irresponsible countries. He made it clear that he is not against the peaceful applications of the nuclear technologies.
Obama also talked about the religious freedom. Everyone has the right to practice the religion one likes No one can compel anyone to practice a particular religion. He said Islam always tolerated other religions. However, “Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejections of another’s”, that should not happen, he cautioned. According to him, “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together”.
One can pick holes in his speech. One can say that his words are sugar coated and hollow and that they are not to be taken seriously. One can say that he would disown his words soon.
Let us hope that he meant what he said and would strive to achieve his declared goals.

ELECTION VIOLENCE IN IRAN

Iran has said that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would assume office by the end of August. The Guardians Council had earlier declared that there would not be another election. Abbasali Kadkhodai, a spokesman of the Guardian Council said, “In the recent presidential election we witnessed no major fraud or breech. Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place”.
The post poll protests and violence in Iran has been going on unabated.. Almost all the world leaders have expressed their concerns. And Iran’s reactions have been along the lines of an authoritarian state. Not only Ahmadinejad but also others, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious leader, who wields immense power in the affairs of Iran, has been saying that all the protests are created by the “enemies of the state”, meaning the Western governments especially Britain and the US. As of now 17 people have lost their lives and hundred injured according to the state authorities. This seems to be the biggest upheaval in Tehran after the Islamic Revolution thirty years ago.
In Iran, elections are to be approved by the Guardians Council which has 12 members. All the members are clerics and supporters of the Ayatollah. One wonders how anyone can call an election democratic if the results are to be approved by a religious body that is not elected by the people. However, when the Ayathollah ordered an inquiry into the allegations of rigging everyone heaved a sigh of relief. He described the election as ‘a divine assessment’. He ordered the inquiry after Mousavi wrote a letter to the Council. Mousai also met the Ayatolah to apprise him of the situation.
Mohamud Ahmadinejad, who has been re-elected, said that “The protestors are like football fans whose favourite team has lost in a final game”. Iranian authorities accused outside forces of conspiring to overthrow the Islamic state. It asked the ambassadors of the western nations to tell their governments to behave and not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. The Police arrested hundred of protestors.
Khamenei said on 19 June 2009, during Friday prayers,that no election fraud had taken place. He added, “Some of our enemies in different parts of world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definite victory, as a doubtful victory”. He also issued a warning, saying that the leaders who indulge in violence would responsible for “blood, violence and chaos”. He was speaking at the Tehran University. The guardians Council agreed that it had received 646 complaints. It also acknowledged that something had gone wrong in the election. However, it had not affected the outcome of the elections it added.
Iran has expelled a BBC correspondent and arrested a British- Greek journalist.

INDIAN INITIATIVES IN NEPAL

IT is heartening to note that Nepal is serious about drafting a Democratic Constitution for the country. And it has asked India to help it draft it. Nepal’s Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala said, while seeking India’s help to carry on with the Peace process, that her government attaches at most priority to drafting a Constitution for the country. She said, “We need India’s cooperation and support to move the peace process forward. The Nepal Government wants to strengthen bilateral relations with neighbouring countries, especially India”. The President of Nepal Mr. Ram Baran yadav also urged the government to devote its energies to preparing a Constitution.
India’s Foreign Secretary Mr. Sivasankar Menon is visiting Kathmandu to lend a helping hand to the tottering Nepali government to stabilize and undertake the drafting of a Democratic Constitution by the end of next year. Nepal and India has agreed to find out a bilateral mechanism to resolve the border issues between the two countries. Nepal has to finish the draft by 27 May 2010, as the term of the present interim government, formed for the job, ends by that time. However, it is fraught with many problems as the Maoists have refused to join the government and is busy with protest marches and other intimidating tactics. Constitution may be said to express the spirit of a country. It is an expression of readiness of the people to accept the rule of law. It tells how the people want to be ruled and the kind of life it want to live. The Constitution lays down the structure of the legislature where the laws are made after prolonged deliberations by the members elected by the people. The constitution also defines the various organs of the State and their duties and responsibilities. It also may spell out the duties responsibilities of the citizens also. It is the Constituent Assembly that drafts the Constitution.
The nature of the present Constituent Assembly of Nepal is not that good. The former interim government of Mr. Prachanda, the Maoist leader, resigned on 4 May when its order to sack the Army Chief was stalled by the President. Though Madhav Kumar Nepal who formed a coalition government comprising 22 arties he has not been able to persuade Mr. Prachanda to join the government. Madhav Kumar has to reconcile many diverse views, which itself is a Himalayan task, before the constitution is drafted. As Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister and an important member in the Constituent Assembly put it then, “This cannot be done by the wisest f lawyers sitting together in conclave, it cannot be done by small committees trying to balance interests and calling that constitution-making; it can never be done under the shadow of an external authority. It can only be done effectively when the political and psychological conditions are present, and the urge and sanctions come from the masses”.
Writing a Constitution is not enough. It should work the way it is expected to work. And it is the duty of all sections of the people to see to it that it does work. If it remains merely as a thick dome containing the ‘laws’ of the state it is useless. The various institutions and the rules envisaged in the constitution must not remain static. They must evolve in time .Otherwise it would not be able to take care of the political system or the people. Just as a living organism grows and develops in time, a constitution should also live and develop if it is to be effective.
Speaking in the constituent assembly of India on 17 October 1949, J.B.Kripalani said, “I want this house to remember that what we have enunciated are not merely legal, constitutional, and formal principles, but moral principles; and moral principles have got to be lived in life. They have to be lived, whether it is in private life or it is in public life of an administrator. They have to be lived throughout. These things we have to remember if our Constitution is to succeed”.
These sound observations are applicable not only in the case of India but that of any country that wishes to have a constitution that can take care of the interest of a nation and her people.

ELECTION IN IRAN 2009

No one had imagined that the out come of the Presidential election in Iran would become such a huge national crisis. The election process itself passed off more or less peacefully with out much disturbance. About 85% were reported to have cast their votes. However, when the results came out on Saturday and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared elected again with 62.63% of the votes all hell broke out.
(The general election in India provides a good contrast to this. Here the UPA came back to power with a better mandate to rule. The NDA admitted defeat with grace and offered to cooperate with the new government.)
The hardliner Ahmadinejad scored 62.63% of the votes pushing the reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi who could score just 33.75% only. Mousavi refused to accept defeat denouncing the election results as ‘treason’. Claiming to be the real victor, he declared “I’m warning that I won’t surrender to this manipulation”. His supporters numbering thousands gathered in Tehran shouting “Down with the dictator” and pelting stones at the police. Mousavi said that he would expose the dangerous secretive nature of the Iranian administration.
Israel also expressed serious concern about the election results. The Israeli leader Sivan Shalon said “The US and the free world must reevaluate the policy of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions”. Israel has been trying to link the Iranian nuclear issue with the West Bank issue. This crisis has given Israel a serious bargaining position. Fawzi Barhoum, the spokesman of the Hamas said that the victory of Nejad is a sign of Iran’s ability to take of its people’s interests. He urged the international community to change their attitude to Tehran. The victory of Ahmahadinejad has disappointed not only a section of Iranians but the western nations who were looking forward to working with a person who understands the concerns of the West. Barak Obama the US President, made it clear that he would not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran while expressing his “deep concerns”. He said "I have said before that I have deep concerns about the election. And I think that the world has deep concerns about the election,"
Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the European Parliament said while expressing his concern, “The use of force is never a solution. The authorities' response to citizens' protests must be always measured and never disproportionate. Iranian citizens must be able to achieve their democratic aspirations through peaceful means. Freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate are part of the core individual rights that the European Union endorses and promotes”.
Ahmahadinejad on Saturday appeared on the state television and claimed that his victory over Mousavi was fair and true. He said “The election was completely free. And it is a great victory”. He said the election results reflected his government’s “honesty and service to the people”.
Violence spread across the country and the security personnel had to resort to firing tear gas shells to disperse the mobs who burned police vehicles and shouted “Down with the dictator”. Mousavi urged his supporters to remain calm.
Ayatollah Ali Khameini the person who holds the real authority in Iran has asked the Guardians Council, the office that handles election issues and the Interior Ministry to examine the allegations of rigging.
One has to wait and watch what the Ministry and the Council do to tackle the street violence and win the confidence of the people. Even if he is allowed to rule the country for the next five years it would not be easy for Ahmadinejad to carry conviction with the people if he does not address his rival’s concerns. He cannot act unilaterally, ignoring his opponents and claiming the majority support. India must tread cautiously and should react brazenly supporting any one of the contenders. However, we must see to it that democracy is not discredited or the genuine voice of the people goes unheeded.

STATEHOOD FOR PALESTINE?

At last the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has conceded the idea of a separate state for the Palestine people. He said the other day, “If we receive this guarantee for demilitarization and the security arrangements required by Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize the Israel as the nation of the Jewish people, we will be prepared for a true peace agreement and to reach a solution of a demilitarised Palestinian State alongside the Jewish state”.
However, the so called State of Palestine would not have military or control over the airspace, though it could have a flag and an anthem of its own.
The Israelis have consistently refused to let the Palestinian to have a state of their own. And it is obvious that Netanyahu conceded the demand for a separate state for the Palestinians under severe pressure form the Obama administration.
Netanyahu, however, refused to stop the construction of Jewish settlements that is under way in the West Bank. He has promised not to make any new construction or appropriate the Palestinian land. The present neo-conservative government of Israel does not enjoy the wide support of the western world.
Of course Obama had sympathized with the plight of the Palestinians even before he became the President. But during the election campaign Obama had surprised many people when he opined that Jerusalem should be the capital of the Jewish state. After he became the President he appointed Rahm Emanuel, who has always taken a pro Israeli stand, as the new Chief of Staff. Obama’s “Special envoy for the Middle East Peace” Mr. Dennis Ross is also a pro-Israeli person.
However, the U.S Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and the U.S Vice President Mr. Joe Biden have warned Israel to mend its ways. Both of them asked Israel to stop building new settlements in the West bank.
There have been reports of attempts of creation of a ‘demilitarised Palestinian State’. As per the new initiative those Palestinians who have left the area earlier would not be allowed to return. Instead Israel and the U.S would see to it that they are given citizenships in the third countries.
When Netanyahu visited America recently he tired his best to link the issue of the Iranian bomb with the Palestine issue. He sought to justify Israeli’s military actions citing the nuclear threat form Iran. The Americans however did not agree with this Israeli perception. Obama even sent the CIA Chief to Israel, before Netanyahu visited the US, asking the government not to make a hue ad cry about Iran’s nuclear policy. The US promised to keep the security concerns of Israel while dealing with Iran. According to Obama if the Israelis helped solve the Palestinian problems it would help Obama to deal with the potential Iranian threat.
Meanwhile the United Nations has severely criticized the Israeli Defense Forces for its attacks on the UN institutions and grave human rights violations. In fact the inquiry was ordered to look into the alleged attacks on the United Nations institutions and their staff. According to the board of inquiry 53 UN installations had been attacked by the Israeli forces. About 40 Palestinians who had taken shelter in the Jabaila School run by the UN, had been killed. The board has suggested that the UN should enquire into the allegations of human right violations.
If the Israeli administration does not act soon to solve the Palestinian issue the West Asia would bleed for many years to come.

ON CORRUPTION

Once upon a time people looked down upon somebody charged with corruption. Then it was a matter of shame. But no more. Being accused of some crime is now regarded as something of a feat that only a few can achieve. Before Mahatma Gandhi’s arrival people who had served a prison term were afraid and ashamed of being identified by the people. Gandhiji made getting arrested a mater of honour. These days almost everyone, especially the politicians, vie with each other to court arrest. The fact that Gandhiji was trying to make people bold enough to fight against corruption and injustice is now forgotten. Today what matters most seems to be not why a person was sent to jail but whether one has served a sentence or not. Today when a person comes out of prison, usually one does sooner or later, he is looked upon as a hero of sorts. Even as he serves the term he is accorded VIP treatment provided one has the right connection
Corruption has become an epidemic all over the world today. Both the print and visual media are full of reports of corruption. It seems that corruption is something that is found across the board. In spite of the spread of corruption and in spite of the media exposure there is no fall in the number of instances of corruption.
The most important reason for this is the fact that the authorities supposed to keep an eye on the perpetrators turn a Nelson’s eye when the media talks about such instances. In India we have had a prime minister who said, upon being told about the corrupt practices of some of the ministers, that corruption is no more news and that it is not an issue that worries people much.
However, the fact is that people have always been worried about corruption all over the world. Corruption has always been a basic issue all over the world both ancient and modern. And men of vision and determination have always fought the corrupt elements in society and in government tooth and nail. And they have had much success also in spite of many losses. Although no one has been able to root out the cancer of corruption, the honest officials of the sate have been able to come out with effective methods and to keep it under control. If corruption is not checked, if not wiped out completely, a society would fall apart like house of cards.
No society or country is especially prone to corruption. All countries are. Honest rulers with courage and determination take the bull of corruption by horns and make legislative measures to end it. Indeed the corrupt elements are resourceful and resilient enough to get around the laws sooner or later. Only an ever vigilant administration can keep the corrupt elements at bay.
The media has and it must play a major role in the fight against corruption. Media men must be on the alert all the time to identify the corrupt elements that are out to rip the country apart for their benefit. They must be meticulous in collecting detailed data and disseminating it. Merely getting the information across to the people is not enough, especially in a country like India. Men in the media can also suggest the means and ways to bring the corrupt elements to book as quickly and effectively as possible. Unless the men in media do not suggest the means and methods to control corruption, spreading the news of corruption can have adverse impact on the readers. Such reports would remain as the ‘gutter inspector’s report’ as Gandhiji called Mayo’s book, and make the people cynics.

CRISIS IN NEPAL

The dust, the Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal Mr. Prachanda’s resignation had raised has settled to some extent for the time being with the swearing in of a new cabinet headed by Mr. Madhav Kumar Nepal. The immediate provocation for Prahcnda to resign was the reinstatement of the Army Chief General Rukmangad Katawal by the President Ram Baran Yadav within hours of his dismissal by the government headed by Mr.Prachanda.
Trouble was brewing in Nepal since Mr. Prachanda, the Maoist leader who had given lots of trouble to the last Monarch King Gyanendra, became the Prime Minister of the country last year. There was a lot of bad blood between the president and the Minister. Being a protégé of the King Gyanendra Ram Baran always looked at Prachanda’s action with suspicion. Whenever he got a chance, the President hit out at the Maoist leader who found himself as the Prime Minister of Nepal last year.
Mr. Prachanda said that the action of the President amounted to an attack on the infant democracy in Nepal. The President had not right to interfere in the actions of the elected Prim Minister of the country, he said. Prachanda termed the actions of the President “unconstitutional and undemocratic”. However, the President said that the dismissal of the Army Chief was unjustifiable as it did not meet the constitutional requirments.
It is to be noted that the government of Mr. Prachanda had been reduced to a minority with the withdrawal of support by the CPN-UML. They were not in favour of Mr. Katawal’s removal. Mr. Prachanda had not taken his partners such as CPN-UML, the Nepal Sadbhavana Party and the Madhesi Janadhikar forum into confidence before ordering the dismissal of the Army Chief.
Mr.Prachanda charged many national and international reactionary forces- he did not name any though -with hatching a conspiracy to destabilize his that government that had tooth and nail to abolish the 240-year-old monarchial administration in Nepal.
Although Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the External Affairs Minister of India said that the political discord in Nepal was an ‘internal issue’ of Nepal, Mr. Prachanda said that there was a ‘crisis of confidence’ between his party and the Indian Government. He said that India had supported Ram Baran Yadav, the Nepalese President, in ‘his extra-constitutional’ action of dismissing the democratically elected government. He also said that Nepal and India are conspiring to bring the discredited monarchy back. However, he has said that he would do all he can to salvage the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that sought to reconcile the different perceptions of the Communist Party of Nepal and the other parties.
Mr.Bhattarai, who is next only to Mr. Prachanda, minced no words when he said that the Indian government did support the President and the Army Chief in their unconstitutional move against the Maoist government.
Officials in the External Affairs Ministry of India dismissed these allegations as false. However, they expressed happiness over Mr.Prcahanda’s remarks that he remained committed to the multi party political process. It is reported that Mr.Rakesh Sood, the Indian ambassador to Nepal had met Mr. Prachanda and tried to persuade him not to dismiss the Army Chief as he had only months in office. Not only that, that he had not taken his coalition partners into confidence became clear when CPN-UML withdrew support to the Maoist government. Not only that the question of integrating the Maoist rebels into the Nepalese Army is being discussed by the parliamentary committee.
Our relationship with Nepal has always been cordial both during the period of monarchy and after. India had played an important part in heralding democracy in Nepal. India had helped Nepal during its transition from Monarchy to Democracy. It was India that brought all the political parties in Nepal to the negotiation table to bring about a consensus among them. It must have endeared us to the people of Nepal. India must see to it that a government that is ill disposed to her does not come to power in Nepal. The fact that the Nepalese Prime Minister Mr.Prachanda’s first visit was to China not to India is to be kept in mind .Of course, Mr. Prachanda clarified later that he went to China first as he had been invited by the Chinese government to attend the closing ceremony of the Olympics. He added that his first official visit was to India.