Friday, November 17, 2006

a disastrous november

nov 17th, 2006

this is turning out to be an especially bad november.

1. maoist prachanda is welcomed with state honors in delhi on the 16th. this, one has to remember, is the chief missionary for the chinese in the region, including for india's maoists

2. the us senate approves the bill that turns india into a nuclear slave on the 16th which means it will be defenseless against the chinese and its proxies

3. the imperialist power that is the latest to take over india sends its dictator on a ceremonial imperial visit on the 20th. this must be like oh, victoria's coronation or something in their minds. as far as the chinese are concerned, india is a minor nuisance, just like tibet and nepal. easy meat for their infiltrators and military might. and manmohan's troupe of invertebrates (latest additions -- ak antony, and shiv shankar menon the spiritual heirs of other disastrous malayalis like vk krishna menon and k m panikkar -- once defense minister and ambassdor to china respectively) see no reason to demur

4. the chinese viceroy declares that arunachal pradesh is his, with not a peep from anyone in india. the thing to do would have been to instantly kick the blighter out, and if the chinese dictator cancelled his visit based on that, to say, up yours too. in any case, the chinese dictator's visit in india is pure formality. on the other hand, in his hyphenated visit to pakistan, he's going to announce a bunch of nuclear transfers and his undying commitment to gwadar port. so what does india lose if the butcher of tibet skips india? nothing. but the kaangress is as usual confused: must do nothing to disrupt the dictator's visit. and why is that? nobody knows.

5. the chinese declare their intent to dam the brahmaputra, with nary a peep from anyone in india

see an emerging pattern? china and its friends and vassals are now overwhelming us

6. and forgotten amongst all this: the last stand of 13th kumaon, on nov 18th, 1962, when they died to the last man fighting off the chinese

this is really bad.

there, according to legend, is a temple in central india where there is wall-painting of three figures. these are supposed to be the conquerors of india. one a mohammedan, one a christist, one a chinaman.

looks like we are making the last happen.

significantly, after the chinaman conquers there is no india left for anyone else to conquer. chinese are like locusts. they destroy everything.

the mohammedan destroyed civilization but did not destroy the economy.
the christist destroyed the economy but did not destroy the spirit and intelligence of the people.
the chinaman will destroy that too. they are absolute fascists


Ghost Writer said...

The veteran Dina Nath Mishra, a pioneer in unveiling the Communists claims on history writes about recent happenings on the fight for history

Is it strange that you do not see the TOI's and IE's give this front page space? No it is not - after all the High Court judgment is against their favored version of history!

KapiDhwaja said...

On the eve of Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai once again, a look at the First PM of India(copyright Rajeev) from the Pioneer...

He looked at India with foreign eyes
BB Kumar | Editor, Dialogue
It is Nehru who was responsible for the continuance of the colonial mindset in post-colonial India

Jawaharlal Nehru served the nation longer than his mentor, Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru was imprisoned nine times between 1921 and 1945, serving a total of nine years in jail. Later, he had the opportunity to serve the nation as Prime Minister for 17 years.

There is no doubt that Nehru was the architect of modern India. But his failures are equally glaring. The roots of many of our problems are linked to Nehruvian policies.

Nehru wanted India to remain a democracy wedded to secular ideals. He tirelessly worked for the preservation of the country as a centre of flourishing democracy and planned welfare state. He aimed at achieving a socialistic pattern through the democratic process of discussion and cooperation - not Marxist way of coercion.

Nehru appointed the Planning Commission in March 1950 and remained its chairman as long as he lived. On April 1, 1951, the first Five Year Plan was initiated. This was supposed to help the nation move faster on the path of economic development. Tragically, it only slowed down with time.

Nehru took several other positive steps. There is a provision in the Constitution for the eradication of untouchability. The Untouchability Act of 1955 provided for penalty for the violation of these provisions. Polygamy among Hindus was prohibited and widows were given the right of inheritance in 1956.

Nehru, being the first Prime Minister of India, had to face many challenges. About nine million Hindu refugees migrated from East and West Pakistan and more than four million Muslims left for Pakistan in the aftermath of Partition. The refugees had to be rehabilitated. The merger of some 550 princely states was another task that was ably handled by the Government, courtesy Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Deputy Prime Minster in Nehru's Cabinet.

However, it was Nehru who complicated the issue of Jammu & Kashmir, which still remains a big problem for the nation. The State is still partly occupied by Pakistan, thanks to Nehru's faith in the United Nations instead of his Army. The country paid dearly for this and the Kashmir issue became a pawn in Cold War politics.

Nehru tried to pacify secessionist elements in the Valley by giving Jammu & Kashmir a special status though Article 370 of the Constitution. This appeasement, however, failed to bring separatist Kashmiris into the mainstream. Instead, it created divisions in the country, as special status to the only Muslim-majority State signals partial acceptance of the two-nation theory.

Similarly, Nehru's treatment of Nagas left a lot to be desired. By providing special treatment to them, Nehru sent a wrong signal that violence and social distancing pays. This provoked others to follow the Naga example. And the entire North-East got gradually destabilised. Nagaland was kept in the ambit of Ministry of External Affairs by Nehru to facilitate its supervision by him.

India under Nehru followed the non-alignment policy. He was criticised for the way this policy was implemented with dual standards. He denounced the Anglo-French Suez War in 1956, but rebuked the USSR only mildly for its brutality in crushing the Hungarian revolution.

Nehru failed to achieve peaceful co-existence with China in spite of his out-of-the-way attempts of reconciliation with that country. The Chinese incursions into Indian territories started soon after the signing of the Sino-Indian treaty on Tibet in April 1954; Nehru did not reveal this fact to the nation. Naturally, he was panned by the whole country for the 1962 Chinese aggression, and the lack of support from his non-aligned friends left him heart-broken.

Nehru's ideals were highly moulded by his British-style upbringing and education. He was highly influenced by his trips to Europe in 1926 and 1938, and his sojourn in the Soviet Union. His economic and political thinking was highly influenced by the Socialist theories of the British Labour Party, Soviet Communism and Western colonialism.

A unique case of arrested economic and political thinking, Nehru remained unchanged forever as we find him in his autobiography published 34 years before his death. He was the architect of the licence-permit raj in India, causing immense suffering to Indian entrepreneurship. In 1929, delivering his presidential address to the Congress, Nehru declared: "I must frankly confess that I am a socialist and a republican and am no believer in kings and princes, or in the order which produces the modern kings of industry, who have greater power over the lives and fortunes of men than even kings of old, and whose methods are as predatory as those of the old feudal aristocracy."

Nehru saw India through European eyes and could hardly discern the real cause of poverty, illiteracy and suffering of the Indian masses. In a way, it is Nehru who was responsible for the continuance of the colonial mindset in post-colonial India.

Nehru could hardly visualise the malevolence of British imperialism in its totality. He could hardly foresee the emergence of democratically elected feudal lords and princes of India.

Sage said...

It won’t be paranoia on part of an Indian nationalist to assume that fascists of all hues i.e. Islamists, Christists and Communists may harbour or worse, might be carrying out range of diabolical designs to exterminate Indian/Hindu civilization. They have tried to do it before and there’s no reason for them to stop now. To think of that itself can be depressing because people who run India seem spineless (read BJP) or allied in some ways with the enemy (read CPI/CPM). What is a nationalist to do? I say, team up with like minded people, do what you can in your own little ways. Spread awareness, donate and spend your money judiciously, open a school etc. Resistance can never go waste. Challenge is daunting, no doubt, but that didn’t stop Gandhiji. JaiHind.

san said...

Rajeev wrote:

"2. the us senate approves the bill that turns india into a nuclear slave on the 16th which means it will be defenseless against the chinese and its proxies"

Rajeev, consider how many agreements North Korea has signed with the US. How binding or restrictive have they really proven to be?

Once technology is in our hands, it's there for good. Let's not pretend that the technology will always be kept at arm's-length from us, since natural commerce and trade are the vehicle by which knowledge spreads.

Let's be realistic and see that we need to get our people employed now, to allow them to feed themselves and to realize their full potential. To do this, we need factories and those factories need energy. There's no point vainly hoping that all Indians will be quickly employable as doctors, engineers, managers, programmers, and call agents. The stats show that the economic boom of the past decade has totally passed by lower sections of the population, who are still living as ever in the stone age. As a society and as a people we cannot and should not tolerate that. This scandalous situation can only be ended through factories and energy to supply them. We need to generate massive blue-collar employment over the next couple of decades. Without that, our society won't last. Then you won't have to worry about these religious proselytizers and conversion artists waving their dollar and dinars around, because they'll be drowned out by our own domestic prosperity and opportunities. Activism is no substitute for healthy choices -- let's make them.

Sage said...

Point taken, some of the solutions are such no-brainers that it's frustrating to see them not applied. A country of 100 crores only has 1 crore tax payers. How ridiculous is that? India has most number of pages of basic tax legislation (8000+ as per The Economist). There are no known consumer watchdog groups to highlight government waste of tax rupees. Simplifying tax code, increasing tax base and judicious use of tax rupees is direly needed. With that, India can invest more in primary education and public health. Caste and religion based politics to divide us is bane of modern India.
About activism, well, "Gotham has no chance if good people of Gotham do nothing."!

KapiDhwaja said...

San said..
Activism is no substitute for healthy choices -- let's make them.

Becoming Uncle Sam's satellite ain't a healthy choice.

PHAEDRUS said...

we will never learn ...thats the trade-mark indian politician's MOTTO !!!
by the way, check this out:
The way kulu and manali are being taken over by the Isrealis, looks like india will start shrinking southward!!
What next ??

KapiDhwaja said...

Brahma on the dubious Nuke deal that would forever make India an American satellite, dependent on Uncle Sam's whims & fancies for its energy needs, thanks to our 'Progressive' invertebrate PM...

From the Indian Express...

-By Brahma Chellaney

The passage of the enabling bill by the US Senate to give effect to the controversial nuclear deal can only put the Indian government in an excruciating dilemma.

Far from removing any of the objections spelled out by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Parliament, the senators have added two more grating conditions on India, including a bar on building strategic fuel reserves that knocks the bottom out of the Prime Minister’s stated rationale for wanting to import power reactors perpetually dependent on imported fuel.

But even without the new additions, India’s objections as delineated by the Prime Minister on August 17, 2006 remain above the red line he drew. And to make matters worse, a lot of what India finds disagreeable is common to the rival bills passed by the House and Senate.

Underscoring the government’s quandary is the fact that the final bill to emerge from a joint Senate-House conference is unlikely to meet India’s bottom-line as spelled out by the Prime Minister in Parliament, under pressure from the Left and the Opposition. The joint conference will be held to reconcile differences in the two bills, not to eliminate the common elements contained in them. Several of the conditionalities India finds odious, being common to both the bills, will thus survive the reconciliation process.

Yet the US legislative and executive effort seems to be to reap the benefits from the deal while putting the onus on India for its eventual failure or non-implementation. That is why the Senate paid no heed to New Delhi’s stated concerns that the proposed legislation is loaded with unacceptable conditionalities. US big-business lobbying has already commenced to use the deal’s "progress" to win billions of dollars worth of Indian arms contracts — a quid pro quo that New Delhi had promised in mid-2005.

The latest Obama Amendment to the Senate Bill stops India from accumulating fuel for imported reactors, negating the Prime Minister’s solemn commitment to secure for India an "uninterrupted supply of fuel" and the "right to build up strategic reserves of nuclear fuel over the lifetime of India’s reactors." Such a right is necessary in order to avoid a repeat of the Tarapur-like situation when Washington cut off all fuel supply in 1979 to the US-built plant near Mumbai in response to India’s 1974 nuclear test.

But the Obama Amendment — inserted in the bill’s Title I — limits fuel supply to an imported reactor’s operating needs, as opposed to prospective needs in the form of a lifespan reserve. It states: "It is the policy of the United States that any nuclear power reactor fuel reserve provided to the government of India for use in safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities should be commensurate with reasonable reactor operating requirements."

The Senate bill already carries another clause stipulating a halt to all fuel supply and nuclear cooperation in the event India tested a nuclear device. That clause remains despite the Prime Minister’s assertion that "there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature".

In justifying his decision to buy high-priced reactors dependent on low-enriched uranium fuel from outside despite the bitter Tarapur experience, the Prime Minister had touted what he called America’s "important assurance" to permit India to stockpile fuel for the imported reactors’ lifespan.

In addition to the Obama Amendment, the Senate has inserted a new precondition through the Harkin Amendment stipulating a prior presidential certification that "India is fully and actively participating in US and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran for its nuclear programme consistent with United Nations Security Council resolutions". This goes beyond the UN mandate because no resolution has been passed till date to either "sanction" or "contain" Iran.

Having made the deal the centrepiece of his foreign policy, the Prime Minister is now likely to get a final version that not only breaches the terms of the July 18, 2005 accord, but also falls short of the benchmarks he articulated in Parliament three months ago. Yet, after the vast political capital he has invested, he seems loath to give up on the deal.

In recognition of the dilemma he faces, the Prime Minister has reacted very cautiously, pointing out the simple truth: "We still have a long way to go before nuclear cooperation between India and the United States becomes a living reality." Few in his own party had been willing to support his exuberance over the deal.

The Prime Minister’s caution also flows from Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s unambiguous stance. "Nothing will be accepted which is outside the July 18 agreement between the two countries," she declared. "We seriously hope that once it’s reconciled that all elements in it that are not acceptable will be eliminated. Only then will we welcome it."

The reality, however, is that since it was unveiled 17 months ago, the deal has been mangled beyond recognition. Yet the yardstick by which the final US bill will be measured by the government is not the principles enshrined in the original July 2005 accord but India’s operational requirements.

These requirements, in the words of the Prime Minister in Parliament, include the following:

The "full" lifting of US civil nuclear export controls against India. This means the "removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel". Lest this bottomline not be understood, it was further clarified: "We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation as amplified above."

Legally, what is on offer to India, however, is restricted civil trade subject to tight congressional oversight. Also, the proposed legislation does not allow the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water technologies and items, or even allow India to reprocess, with its own technology, the spent fuel from imported reactors.

"We will accept only IAEA safeguards on the nuclear facilities, in a phased manner ... only when all nuclear restrictions on India have been lifted."

Under both the Senate and House versions of the enabling bill, however, such international inspections are to predate, not follow, the lifting of several, but not all, civil nuclear restrictions against India. But in parallel to the IAEA inspections, the US is to set up its own end-use verification system in India.

The deal should not be conditioned on India securing an annual US presidential certification that it is in full compliance with its non-proliferation and other commitments, because that would have the effect "to diminish a permanent waiver authority into an annual one." Moreover, such annual certification "would introduce an element of uncertainty regarding future cooperation" and this provision thus would be "unacceptable".

The Senate, like the House before, chose to simply to ignore that protestation.

There are also other objectionable conditionalities in both the Senate and House Bills, like getting India to formally bind itself to the rules of the Missile Technology Control Regime and participate in the controversial Proliferation Security Initiative. Both the bills decree that the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group carve out an exception for India only "by consensus", thereby arming adversarial China with leverage on the deal’s future.

On Iran, the Prime Minister had told Parliament: "We cannot accept introduction of extraneous issues on foreign policy. Any prescriptive suggestions in this regard are not acceptable to us."

It will be difficult for the Prime Minister to break free from his firm commitment that, "If in their final form the US legislation or the adapted NSG guidelines impose extraneous conditions on India, the government will draw the necessary conclusions, consistent with the commitments I have made to Parliament." Yet there will be pressure from the deal-pushers within and outside the system not to let go of what they always have touted as "a historic opportunity" to end India’s nuclear "isolation" even it entails the tolerance of some abhorrent conditionalities.

Having earlier acquiesced to the shifting of the July 18, 2005 goal posts, the government will now be under pressure to move the Prime Minister’s August 17, 2006 benchmarks to permit "compromise" on a final deal.

The overwhelming bipartisan support with which the Senate and House bills were passed clearly indicated that the deal, as it now stands, safeguards US interests vis-à-vis India, including on non-proliferation. The question now is whether similar bipartisanship will govern Indian decision-making on a deal that centres on the country’s most important strategic programme.

indianpatriot said...

Problem with San is he confuses American national interests with Indian national interests and US interests includes containing India by any means. Offering nuclear carrot at the same time constraining its weapons program is one part of the strategy. Allowing paki terrorists to attack India and looking other way around at the same time coming hard on them if they do try to attack US interests is another part of the strategy. I suspect US tried to prevent Indian attack on Pakistan after parliament attack in 2001 not in fear of a nuclear war but I suspect they feared the fallout with their client Pakistan gone with the wind and India bordering both Middle east and Central Asia. Another reason was Indian attack would have delayed Iraq invasion (and thereby plans to hold middle eastern oil hostage to US whims and fancies and denying other aspiring powers (That definitely includes India)a toehold in the strategic middle eastern region). The Iraq war has brought grief to US and it is the responsibility of Indian leadership to negotiate from a position of strength. India should have negotiated that it wants the same status as other 5 nuclear powers nothing less nothing more. Unfortunately people with San's mindset are part of Indian establishment(People like Manmohan, Chidambaram and Jaswanth Singh) and not people like Rajnath and George Fernandez.

KapiDhwaja said...

US Senate's N-Bill facilitates spy operations