Rohit Kumar's Views

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for August 2011

Pakistani govt wants us to delay Kishenganga project: Omar

leave a comment »

Chief minister Omar Abdullah on Monday accused Pakistan for trying to “delay” the Kishenganga Hydroelectric Power project along the Line of Control in Gurez.

“Both the parts of Kashmir are constructing power projects on Kishenganga and the project that is completed first will be benefited the more.”,said Omar.

Commenting on Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz’s criticism that the Centre is exploiting the natural resources of Kashmir; Omar said, “we know who pulls their strings and at whose behest they (separatists) are making such allegations”.

“The government of Pakistan and Pakistani Kashmir want us to delay the project,”Omar added.

Omar also assured people of gurez that their safety is taken as priority while the formulation and modification of Kishanganga hydel project.

“There is no threat to the existence of any tribe.Moreover, environment impact analysis of the project has not indicated any flood like situation in Wullar.”,Omar said.

Fed’s Hoenig says doesn’t see recession looming

leave a comment »

The U.S. economy will continue to grow at a modest pace as consumers and businesses pare back excessive amounts of debt, a top Federal Reserve official said.

“I don’t see a double-dip recession,” Thomas Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, said in an interview with Reuters Insider television.

The world’s largest economy should expand by between 2 percent and 2.5 percent over the remainder of this year, said Hoenig, whose institution is hosting an annual conference in this mountain valley that draws central bankers and leading economists from around the world.

Hoenig played down the significance of two recent gloomy regional reports on manufacturing. Surveys by the Philadelphia and Richmond Fed banks showing weak factory activity in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Central Atlantic regions were taken during a period of stock market turmoil and likely reflected the uncertainty of that period, he said.

A similar survey by the Kansas City Fed covering Kansas and surrounding states released on Thursday was soft, but not as dramatically so.

LOOKING TO BERNANKE

Hoenig has been a persistent critic of the Fed’s ultra-loose monetary policy stance, arguing it is likely to perpetuate a cycle of boom and bust and could sow the seeds of inflation.

He is at odds with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and others on the central bank’s monetary policy panel, which earlier this month bolstered its commitment to hold interest rates at rock bottom levels by saying it expected to keep them there for at least the next two years.

In late June, the Fed said it envisioned economic growth of between 2.7 percent to 2.9 percent for this year and 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent for 2012.

Private economists, however, have cut their expectations sharply since that projection was released, and many expect the U.S. central bank will ease monetary policy further.

The Fed lowered overnight interest rates to near zero in December 2008 and bought $2.3 trillion in bonds in a further effort to lift growth.

Financial markets will eye a speech here by Bernanke on Friday for any hints the Fed may renew bond buying or shift its holdings into longer maturities to try to put further downward pressure on medium- to long-term interest rates.

LOOKING FOR RESPECT

The Fed’s aggressive monetary easing has drawn fire from U.S. politicians, including recent broadsides by Republican presidential candidates. Hoenig said that despite the political rhetoric, he believes the Fed is widely respected.

“I wish there was an overnight solution but there isn’t, so they look to blame someone,” he said.

Hoenig said he does not believe Congress will decide to rein in the powers of the regional Fed banks as a result of an ongoing study of the Fed system.

The study, due in October, was commissioned in conjunction with a regulatory overhaul that followed the 2007-2009 financial crisis. One of the concerns that prompted the study was that the Fed system, in which bankers sit on the boards of regional Fed banks, allows too cozy a relationship between banks and their regulators.

The Kansas City Fed chief has long warned of the dangers of allowing banks to grow so large the government would not allow them to fail for fear of a domino effect.

He said he has serious doubts about Capital One Financial Corp’s proposed purchase of ING Groep NV’s online bank ING Direct.

“I have very grave concerns about allowing these amalgamations of institutions that by their very structure are too big to fail, too interconnected to fail and I think the burden should be very heavily against that,” Hoenig said.

Kashmir drifting in cross-currents of regional politics

leave a comment »

KashmirWatch

Kashmir is drifting in turbulent cross-currents of the regional politics in South Asia, a highly dreary situation, unfolding itself in a fast paced mode, making it imperative for anyone who indulges in journalistic pursuits of sorts, to speak out his mind and stated stand point, not with a view to pontificate, but to inform public opinion in performance of one’s conscionable public duty.

I venture to break the eleven month hiatus of silence self imposed of course for various reasons, and, draw public attention to the crises looming large on the horizon. I have never viewed the Kashmir problem as an unfinished agenda of the great divide of Indian Sub-continent in 1947. In my book [ KASHMIR ENIGMA ENTANGLE STRANDS ] I painstakingly expatiated that the provenance of the Kashmir Enigma were laid down by the British strategists in 1707 and not 1947 as is the popular perception. After taking a second hard look at the situation, I still find my adherence to this stand point.

1707 A.D was the period of revival of high caste Hindu Nationalism and British, were invited by the propertied class of High Caste Hindus to subvert Mughal Rule in India. It was agreed that when British depart from the Indian Sub-continent, the mantle of power will be passed on to the propertied High Caste Hindus, who would resurrect the Unified India of Ram Rajya era. Elimination of Pakistan as a State is compatible with the ideals of Hindu Nationalism.

The interim resolution of this conflict of ideals is the ideation of a federal SAARC on economic basis, with common market, common currency, common defense and common forums on regional basis for the resolution of interse territorial disputes. Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh’s strategic asseveration that Indian markets shall be opened to SAARC countries, translated into explicable parlance means that domination of the economies of the SAARC countries, by the pre-dominant and ascendant Indian economy that would gradually lead to the exclusion of rival China from South Asia and will corrode the pretentious sovereignty of the SAARC countries.

The only stumbling block in the pathway is Pakistan, that for its own existential reasons, willy nilly, has how to align with China. I am of the firm view, that U.S and China, shared common perception to dust U.S.S.R from Afghanistan since 1978, and, the Jihad against U.S.S.R was funded in a vast measure by China, through the conduit of Pakistan Army.

The second limb of my thesis is grounded upon the speculation that the Pakistan Army was never totally dependant on U.S military assistance. Mr. A.Q. Khan the Pakistani nuclear scientist should be in a position to corroborate my speculation that actualization of Pakistani nuclear ambitions and surrealistic dreams had the tacit financial approval of China. My own financial difficulties prevented me from visiting China and Pakistan to verify the actual facts. I honest to goodness, wanted to meet Late Mr. Z.A. Bhutto, then facing a murder trial to obtain his version of the scenario. I applied to Amnesty International Indian Chapter for permission to observe Bhuttoe’s trial. The request was disregarded and I tendered my public resignation from Amnesty International Kashmir Chapter as founder member. This explains why I can only characterize my view point as a speculation.

However, this speculation, leads, to still another illation that since 1978 itself U.S.A and India reached a tacit understanding that the radicalization of Talibans for fighting Jihad against Russians would inevitably lead to clericalisation of the Pakistan polity. That would in turn lead to distrust of U.S and Indian policies towards Af-Pak region.

The Indians had a nostrum to this menacing scenario. Down right at the birth of Pakistan in 1947 itself the Indian National Congress adopted a policy of supporting Baluchi and Pushtoon Nationalism. Khan Abdul Gauffar Khan and Dr Khan Sahib at the public request of Sardar Patel then voicing the sentiments of Indian National Congress boycotted 14th August 1947 Celebrations. Gous Bux Bizenjo and other ultra nationalist Baluchis, who had a personal rapport with Pundit Jawahar Lal Nehru, [Patron All State Peoples Conference] were totally averse to the idea of a theological State of Pakistan. The ambiguities of the Durand Live made it possible for successive Nationalist Governments in Afghanistan to support the idea of Pukhtoonistan. Russian financial support ably fuelled the fires of Afghan Nationalism. The scenario is vividly characterized by Anthony Arnold in his book Afghanistan, the Soviet Invasion in perspective in these words:-

“…..In the spring of 1955, Afghan mobs were permitted if not encouraged by the authorities to tear down the flag from Pakistan Embassy in Kabul, and from its consulates in Jalallabad and Kandhar and to loot these establishments. Pakistan promptly withdrew its ambassador, suspended Afghanistan’s transit privileges, and unleashed its own mob-violence against Afghan businesses and officials in Pakistan. The border remained closed for five months, until the United States finally prevailed on Pakistani’s to allow transit of US aid materials and equipment to Helmund Valley. The United States turned down as impracticable, however, an Afghan request to build over a thousand miles of highway through Iran to give Afghanistan an alternative route to the sea.” Unquote In my view now a reversal of situation has morphed. The killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabd did not elicit any reaction from President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia. The million dollar question is why? What about Viladmir Putin? His studied silence is eloquent. It was Bin Laden who organized Jihad against U.S.S.R in 1980. The reason is obvious. First and foremost, Russia now has been able to persuade the Islamists in Russia that they should delink themselves from Al-Qaeda. Russia in fact is turning a blind eye to the Russian Islamists getting financial support from other sources.

Now Moscow realizes that there is a present a nexus between India and U.S.A to fuel Pushtoon Nationalism, and, fund the Taliban to raise a direct insurgency in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan.

This is the only plausible explanation why USA has overtly by passed Pakistan and continued negotiations with Talibans. If Talibans delink themselves from Al-Qaeda and form a government in Afghanistan the USA will support the idea of Pushtoonistan.

In the aftermath of such a situation, the U.S will be able to withdraw from Afghanistan by the year 2014. The upshot of this discussion is that Pushtoon Nationalism is now getting direct succour from India and U.S.A. The situation is to force Pakistan to federate with India at least for defense and foreign policy matters, in the name of bringing stabilization in Afghanistan. In such a dire situation, Russian and the China now have a joint interest to collaborate with Pakistan. Sergi Rogov, the Director of Moscow based institute for [U.S and Canada studies] has cautioned that avoiding this strategy will jeopardize Russian interests in Central Asia. There is reason to believe that both Russia and China would like to delink Indian – U.S.A policies in South Asia. The best way to achieve this objective is to open an Islamic insurgency in Kashmir. This theory has to some extent the support of Russian think tank led by Ruslan Ghereyer of [North Caucasus Centre of Islamic Studies]. His comment on the killing of Osama Bin Ladin was succinct in say:-

“…..The liquidation of Bin Laden will have no impact on terrorism in the world and still less in North Caucasus: on the country, it will open a Pandora box of extremism.” He in a mood of sub-audition has in fact cautioned that the Pandora Box of extremism is to be opened in Kashmir Valley. Revival of militancy in Kashmir will be fully supported by Pakistan Army. The Russians will encourage the Chinese to take the burden of Kashmiri Islamic insurgency so that the attention of USA is diverted and it is prevented from devising further strategies in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Water scarcity in Pakistan will force army to forestall any federating strategy with India even on the economic front, not to speak of defense and Foreign affairs. However, granting MNF status to India is a smoke screen.

It is my perception that water scarcity in west Punjab and the changing Russian stance towards Afghanistan and Central Asia will open up the way for Pak-China defense pact coinciding with the rise and revival of Islamic insurgency in Kashmir. The prospects of Kashmir future are bleak and dreary indeed! The downing of a NATO Helicopter with thirty eight U.S special operation group by Taliban using Rocket fire shows direct involvement of both Russia and China in arming Talibans. In the back drop of this intense hugger-mugger, India fully well knowing, the internal situation in Pakistan, that shows, that at present Pakistan is severely caught in the coils of a ferocious turbulence, the genesis of which stems from the demands for re-organization of States in Pakistan on ethnic and linguistic considerations. India is also aware that the overwidening hiatus between Pushtoons and Mahajirs in Karachi, has become unbridgeable, as three hundred people were killed in this blighted city in the deadliest month of July 2011 still invited Hina Rabbani Khar the young Foreign Minister of Pakistan for intense parleys. Such a meeting was inevitably bound to prove a non-sequitur.

Full credit goes to Hina Rabbani Khar, the brilliant, dashing smart and stylish youngster from the jetset sybaritic family of Khars, who with a broad smile, completely flummoxed the ageing old Geezer Mr. S.M. Krishna. He in his nervousness could cobble up together some incoherent, pretentious, high flown, high sounding words, more suitable to a fawner, assuring the Foreign Minister of Pakistan about India’s sincerity towards “Pakistan Integrity.”

The parleys were full of platitudes, and a lot of words were scattered higgledy piggledy about the resolution of Kashmir dispute. The two high powered executives agreed to obvious procrastination.

Hina was able to achieve her target, as procrastination should now enable Pakistan and China to announce formally about a defense pact. They are not announcing it, as they expect Iran to join them soon within a year.

A new regional situation is emerging in South Asia. It is in the interest of Pakistan and China to push the Kashmir issue to the back burner to divert attention from the construction of a huge dam in Gilgit by the Chinese P.L.A.

Indians have no answer to these questions of new emerging regional formations in South Asia. They vainly hope Pakistan would implode, but China has already shored up Pakistan. Indo-Pak parleys have shown that true politics is after all the end game of crass crackpots. This is the lesson which history teaches us.

“Sex Pollution” Book Review: Shabnum Qayoom sheds light on Lord Cyril Radcliffe’s affair with Nehru’s sister Vijaya Lakshmi

leave a comment »

“Sex Pollution”: While the book may be salacious in nature, it does shed light on the shady side of Jawaharlal Nehru-known for his escapades. Stanley Wolpert has written extensively about his gay lifestyle as well as his affair with Ediwina Mountbatten-the subject of a new book “Indian Summer” (Written by Edwin’as daughter).

Indus Water Treaty, Kalabagh, Kashmir, & Gurdaspur. While Qayoom has been subject of much ridicule in Bharat (aka India), he makes two poignant points which are important from a historical point of view.

Lord Cyrill Radcliff had an affair with Nehru’s sister Lakhsmi
Sheikh Abdullah was involved with Indira Gandhi and other women
Both these facts, if corroborated does put sunlight on the reasons for Gurdaspur going to Bharat and Shaikh Abdullah not doing the obvious and acceding to Pakistan-it was personal not political.

Gurdaspur and Ferozepur were Muslim majority areas given to Bharat (aka) India. In the map published Ferozepur was shown as a Pakistani city–however amazingly it ended up in “India”. The final boundary report was not published ’till August 16/17 so both countries became independent without knowing their boundaries. Gurdaspur and Ferozepur residents flew Pakistani flags and celebrated as Pakistanis–but found themselves in “India”–and had to leave

Radcliff’s cheated Pakistan out of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur. The British commission in charge of Partition handed Gurdaspur district over to India, despite being a Muslim majority district of Punjab, as they thought India to be more favourable for most. The British claims were that if India did not control Gurdaspur, then Pakistan could simply cut off water supplies to Amritsar, though they could not justify just the opposite happening. The result was of many Muslims unexpectedly forced to migrate under harsh conditions, with Hindus and Sikhs killing, raping and mutilating many. However, Gurdaspur is the district in which all roads from India in Kashmir run, and thus, Pakistan alleges that the British effectively decided the fate of Kashmir by giving India a lifeline in Kashmir.

Gurdaspur Railway Supply Line to Kashmir for India’s only land link to Kashmir. Many allege that Lord Radcliffe gave Gurdaspur to Bharat (aka”India”) so that it could invade Kashmir a weeks later. The delay in announcing the award also put pressure on the Raja of Kashmir

Pakistan also alleges that the British reasoning for handing over Gurdaspur was extremely biased, corrupted, flawed and unfair because while Pakistan was denied Gurdaspur district on the grounds of Indian water security, India maintained control over Pakistani water by retaining all the districts of Punjab in which major Pakistani rivers had their headwaters. Since Pakistan has always been an agriculture based country, it was in danger. Essentially this is seen as a veto power held by India over Pakistan agriculture. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most of these disputes over the sharing of water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard. This treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the illegal construction of dams on the Indian side which limit water to the Pakistani side.

I nearly gave you [India] Lahore.” Lord Cyril Radcliffe, Chairman of the Boundary Commission, told me. “But then I realised that Pakistan would not have any large city. I had already earmarked Calcutta for India.

“The Muslims in Pakistan have a grievance that you favoured India”, I told Radcliffe. His reply was: “They should be thankful to me because I went out of the way to give them Lahore which deserved to go to India. Even otherwise, I favoured the Muslims more than the Hindus.” Lord Radcliffe to Kuldip Nayyer in 1971. Tribune India

“I had no alternative; the time at my disposal was so short that I could not do a better job. Given the same period I would do the same thing. However, if I had two to three years, I might have improved on what I did”.
– Sir Cyril Radcliffe

There is a charge that Lord Radcliff was given a bribe of 6 corore rupees by the Indian National Congress supporters to unfairly and “illegally” award Ferozepur and Gurdaspur to India. Ferozepur was the only arsenal that was supposed to be given to Pakistan. Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area and was awarded to India. The boundary line was along the river and Radcliff unnaturally digressed it away from the river to give away Gurdaspur (the only link of India to Kashmir) to India.

The implication of the loss of Ferozepur to India was not only traumatic in human terms, but it was devastating to Pakistan in military terms. The reality behind the conspiracy to award Gurdaspur became evident a year later when Indian troops arrived in Srinagar and then Mahara Sing signed over the article of accession to India. The article of accession was never presented to the UN, and according to Alister Lamb has serious discrepancies about dates. The original article of accession has since been lost, if it ever existed.

“Alastair Lamb, Incomplete Partition (OUP, 1998) comes to the conclusion that the instrument of accession was not signed on the date claimed by the Indian government to legitimise its sending of troops into Kashmir. American scholar Stanley Wolpert relates the accession story in his 1996 book, Nehru: A tryst with Destiny, basing it on the lack of concordance between versions of the accession. Wolpert writes that Menon returned from Srinagar on 26 October ‘with no Instrument of Accession’ to report on the perilous condition in Kashmir to the Defence Committee. Only after Mountbatten had allowed the airlift of Indian troops on 27 October, did Menon and Mahajan set out for Jammu ‘to get the Instrument of Accession’. The Maharaja signed the Instrument after the Indian troops had assumed control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar. If Wolpert’s version is accepted then the ‘conspiracy’ of legalising the airlift becomes acceptable. Lamb thinks that it is possible that ‘certainly Menon, perhaps Mountbatten, perhaps Nehru and perhaps Patel’ were involved in this conspiracy. Lamb also claims that the document of accession does not exist.”

The book has been banned in India is not available on Amazon. However there are reviews of the book available on merinews, and various websites in Bharat do carry the information from Qayoom’s book. If Qayoom is right, the two major players in the Gurdaspur fiasco would be Laskhsmi and Radcliffe.

Vijaya Lakshmi Nehru Pandit was an Indian diplomat and politician, sister of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

In 1921 she married Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, who died on January 14, 1944. She was the first Indian woman to hold a cabinet post. In 1937 she was elected to the provincial legislature of the United Provinces and was designated minister of local self-government and public health. She held the latter post until 1939 and again from 1946 to 1947. In 1946 she was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces.

Following India’s independence from the British in 1947 she entered the diplomatic service and became India’s ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1949, the United States and Mexico from 1949 to 1951, Ireland from 1955 to 1961 (during which time she was also the Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom), and Spain from 1958 to 1961. Between 1946 and 1968 she also headed the Indian delegation to the United Nations. In 1953, she became the first woman President of the United Nations General Assembly

In India, she served as governor of Maharashtra from 1962 to 1964, after which she was elected to the Indian Lok Sabha from Phulpur, her brother’s former constituency. She held office from 1964 to 1968. Pandit was a harsh critic of her niece, Indira Gandhi, after Gandhi became Prime Minister in 1966, and she retired from active politics after relations between them soured. On retiring she moved to Dehradun in the Doon Valley in the Himalayan foothills.

In 1979 she was appointed the Indian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission, after which she retired from public life. Her writings include The Evolution of India (1958) and The Scope of Happiness: A Personal Memoir (1979).

Her daughter Nayantara Sahgal, who later settled in her mother’s house in Dehradun, is a well-known novelist. Wiki

Lord Cyril Radcliffe gave away Gurdaspur to Bharat–thus allowing it land access to Kashmir (a natural part of Pakistan due to linguistic, religious and geographical reasons) The 1947 partition was shaped not only by decades of Indian nationalist pressure on the British Government and by the rise of civil unrest in the subcontinent after World War Two, but also by Britain’s precarious economic position in the aftermath of the war. After nearly two centuries as an economic asset, British India had become a liability at a time when Britain could least afford it. In addition, American pressure to decolonize the subcontinent influenced both international and British domestic opinion against the raj. British India became a political and symbolic liability as well as an economic problem. These factors, combined with domestic political considerations for the newly elected Labour Party, meant that ridding itself of its responsibilities in India suddenly became a priority to His Majesty’s Government (HMG). However, Indian independence had not always been such an urgent goal for the British Government. The first half of the twentieth century saw a series of small steps towards self-government in South Asia. Traditional imperialist historiography holds that these ventures marked carefully incremented progress, part of the process of training Indians to govern themselves. Other interpretations, including but not confined to South Asian nationalist schools, argue that these steps were actually sops intended to keep nationalists satisfied enough to prevent a more serious threat to British rule.5 This view holds that HMG had no intention of letting go its “jewel in the crown”-until it had no choice.

Although the British had, in 1946, considered leaving India piecemeal, transferring power to individual provences as they withdrew, they concluded that such an approach was impractical. without defining the entity or entities that would come into power, they concluded that such an approach was impractical. It would not be possible to hand over power without making it clear what international entity would take on that power; in order to define a new international entity, a new boundary was necessary. From a certain perspective, however, a rigorously and properly delineated boundary was not necessary to accomplish these political ends-any boundary line would do. Due to this fact and to a myriad of political pressures, the Radcliffe Commission failed to draw a geopolitically sound line delineated and demarcated in accordance with accepted international procedure. The Punjab’s population distribution was such that there was no line that could neatly divide Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. Radcliffe’s line was far from perfect, but it is important to note that alternative borders would not necessarily have provided a significant improvement. There is, in contrast, a great deal to be said about flaws in the boundary-making procedure-and why those flaws existed. Drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundry by Lucy Chester

Author Shabnum Qayoom tries to flaunt his knowledge of Kashmir affairs and in doing so uses his quixotic and imaginary expertise to weave a book of more than 200 pages.

There is nothing new written in this book which the general public does not know. As the author has so many tales to tell from calling the first Prime Minister of free India a pimp of Sheikh Abdullah – who asphyxiated Sheikh Abdullah on important occasion with call girls; and being not averse even to the lascivious eyes of Lord Mountbatten on his sister as long as Lady Mountbatten warmed his bed.

The author further alleges that the Sheikh Abdullah received dough to stop legendary Shabun Hajam from his mission. Then, the author digs deep into the roots of Sheikh Family. He brings their ancestors history to the fore, which, according to him, is famous for producing illegitimate wards.

He doesn’t stop there. He further points out that both Bakashi Gulum Mohammad and Sadiq had their respective mistress. He is not shy of naming them. The book alleges that in the name of finding solution of Kashmir in collaboration with foreigners, Sheikh indulged in sex and sleaze with their wives.

According to the author, Sheikh was removed from prime ministership’s position in 1953 because he tried to sexually assault the wife of Rafi Ahmad Kidwai. Shabnum Qayoom does not spare even Indira Gandhi and calls her “sexy” girl, and, even puts question mark on her and Sheikh Abdullah’s closed-door meetings. And, wait there is more – the author knows than Khuswant Singh knows!

This book was brought to our attention by Dr. Lone who teaches history at the graduate level.

Removal and Detention of Sheikh Abdullah

Meanwhile, the expectation that Kashmir as an integral part of India would work out its destiny with the rest of the country in consonance with the ideals of secularism and democracy were belied with Sheikh Abdullah trying to change his stand after 1952 and beginning to think in terms of an Independent Kashmir.

Consequently, the ‘Sadar-e-Riyasat’ removed Sheikh Abdullah from the Prime Ministership on 9 August 1953 and put him under detention. He was succeeded by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as Prime Minister. This event had been preceded by efforts of the Government of India to make Sheikh Abdullah to abide by the earlier commitments in the form of an agreement reached between him and the Government of India on 24 July 1952. This agreement, interalia, conceded elected Sadar-e-Riyasat, limited jurisdiction of Supreme Court and extension of Emergency provision of the Indian Constitution at the request of the State Government

Pakistan’s claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan also accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad’s independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu majorities (in fact, India occupied and forcibly integrated those two territories). Furthermore, as he had fled Kashmir due to Pakistani invasion, Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining Kashmir’s future. Additionally, Pakistan argues that even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions. Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir
Kashmir and Junagarh is Pakistani territory
Pakistan also claims that Indian forces were in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accession was signed with India (Kashmir: Does the article of accession exist?), thus, Indian troops were in Kashmir in violation of the Standstill Agreement which was designed to maintain the status quo in Kashmir. This view is also echoed by many Western experts on the Kashmir conflict. [10][11]. Nehru’s commitment to the people of Kashmir

US resolutions, and Nehru speeches on disputed nature of Kashmir. Further, Pakistan as well as human rights groups across the world have alleged that Indian Armed Forces, its paramilitary groups, and counter-insurgent militias have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Kashmiri civilians and gang-rapes of hundreds of women.[12][13].

Azad Kashmir

In short, Pakistan holds that

The popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that either Kashmir wants to be with Pakistan or independent.
Indian counterinsurgency tactics merit international monitoring of the Kashmir conflict, and the Indian Army has carried out human rights violations – including torture, rape and extrajudicial killings – against the Kashmiri people.Nehru’s Commitement to people of Kashmir and various un-implemented UN resolutions on Kashmir

Northern Areas are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir. According to the two-nation theory by which Pakistan was formed, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. THE GEOGRAPHIC TWO NATION THEORY: “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. IVC thrives as Pakistan today . The “K” in Pakistan stands for Kashmir. The Quaid answers 3 questions in 1940 Kashmir.India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN (by not holding a plebiscite). THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.

WHY WE CREATED PAKISTAN? The Pakistan Ideology. ONT vs TNT . The Kashmiri people have now been forced by the circumstances to rise against the alleged repression of the Indian army and uphold their right of self-determination through militancy. 100,000 Kashmiris died for “Tehrik e ilhaq e Pakistan”. Pakistan claims to give the Kashmiri insurgents moral, ethical and military support (see 1999 Kargil Conflict: Kargil facts). Kashmir: What was liberated in 1948? What remains?

The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.” Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

The Facts of the Award

The final boundary was not announced ’till August 16/17 a couple of days after independence

The final boundary, known as the Radcliffe award, allotted some sixty-two percent of the area of undivided Punjab to India, with fifty-five percent of the population.15 The boundary ran from the border of Kashmir State south along the Ujh River, leaving onetehsil16 of Gurdaspur District to Pakistan and allotting the remainder to India. Where the Ujh met the Ravi River, the boundary followed the Ravi southwest, until it met the existing administrative line dividing Amritsar District from Lahore District. Radcliffe was careful to specify that the relevant administrative boundaries, not the course of the Ujh or the Ravi, constituted the new international boundary. The boundary then ran through Lahore District, along tehsil and village boundaries, leaving the district’s easternmost corner in India. When the Radcliffe boundary met the Ferozepore District line, it turned to follow the River Sutlej along the administrative boundary between Ferozepore and Montgomery Districts. The Radcliffe line ended where it met the border of Bahawalpur, a princely state whose ruler, like the Maharajah of Kashmir, had the choice of acceding to Pakistan or India.

Allegations of Bias

Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area of Punjab but handed over to India

Throughout the difficult process of partition, accusations of official partiality towards one group or another were leveled on all sides, not only in the popular press but also by the leaders themselves. For example, Justice Munir of the Punjab Commission accused Radcliffe’s top aide, Christopher Beaumont, of pro-Hindus bias. Munir claimed that Beaumont intentionally misled Radcliffe in order to achieve a result favorable to India.17

Beaumont rejects these charges as ludicrous. The most contentious point was the Ferozepore border and the nearby headworks. On August 8, Mountbatten’s private secretary, George Abell, sent a letter with a preliminary description of the Punjab boundary to Evan Jenkins, the provincial governor. This draft showed the Ferozepore area and its headworks going to Pakistan. When the final award was released, Ferozepore was assigned to India. Infuriated Pakistanis were sure that Nehru and Mountbatten had pressured Radcliffe to change his line. After partition, each side leveled accusations in the vernacular press that their opponents had successfully bribed Radcliffe to take their part.18

Many were convinced that the Commissions were a sham and that Mountbatten himself had simply dictated the new divisions. In his final report as Viceroy, Mountbatten admitted, “I am afraid that there is still a large section of public opinion in this country which is firmly convinced that I will settle the matter finally.”19 In 1992, Christopher Beaumont added his voice to the chorus of accusations against Mountbatten.20 This circumstantial evidence indicates that Mountbatten may well have influenced the final shape of the boundary award.Drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundary. Lucy Chester http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_01-03/chester_partition/chester_partition.html#Anchor_bio

1. An early exception is Aloys Michel’s The Indus Rivers (New Haven: Yale UP, 1967): 162-194. Alastair Lamb’sIncomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute 1947-1948 (Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1997): 43-92,

Patrick French’sLiberty and Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division (London: HarperCollins, 1997): 321-338, and Tan Tai Yong’s “‘Sir Cyril Goes to India’: Partition, Boundary-Making and Disruptions in the Punjab,”Punjab Studies 4:1 (1997): 1-20 also address elements of the border question. Joya Chatterji’s “The Fashioning of a Frontier: The Radcliffe Line and Bengal’s Border Landscape, 1947-52″ (Modern Asian Studies 33:1 [1999]: 185-242), provides a Bengal-centered model for analysis of the Radcliffe Commission and its impact on local communities. Edmund Heward’s description of Radcliffe’s public service, The Great and the Good: A Life of Lord Radcliffe(Chichester: Barry Rose Publishers, 1994), touches sympathetically on Radcliffe’s work in India. The boundary issue has also attracted the attention of less careful writers, including Leonard Mosley, whose The Last Days of the British Raj (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962) includes fascinating information from interviews with participants in the transfer of power but is tainted by its strong anti-Mountbatten bias and poor documentation.2. A separate boundary commission, also headed by Radcliffe, was responsible for drawing the Indo-Pakistani boundary in Bengal. My work focuses on Punjab; for the Bengal boundary, see Chatterji.

3. Heward 45.

4. To my knowledge, there are no surviving Indian participants in the boundary commission.

5. P.J. Cain and Anthony Hopkins, British Imperialism:Innovation and Expansion, 1688-1914 and British Imperialism: Crisis and Deconstruction, 1914-1990(London: Longman, 1993).

6. Thomas Metcalf,Ideologies of the Raj(Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 223.

7. Metcalf 224-5.

8. Stanley Wolpert, ANew History of India,3rd ed. (New York; Oxford University Press, 1989): 329.

9. Wolpert 334.

10. Wolpert 335.

11. Lamb 23.

12. Wolpert 341-4.

13. Nicholas Mansergh, ed.The Transfer of Power, 1942-47 (hereafter TP) vol. XII, No. 488, Appendix 1.

14. See in particular Stephen B. Jones, Boundary-Making: A handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945).

15. Gyanesh Kudaisya, “From Displacement to ‘Development’: East Punjab Countryside after Partition, 1947-67″ in Freedom, Trauma, Continuities, ed. D.A. Low and Howard Brasted (Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press, 1998): 74.

16. A tehsil is the administrative unit below a district, somewhat analogous to a county.

17. Mian Muhammad Sadullah, ed., The Partition of the Punjab 1947: A Compilation of Official Documents, vol. 1. (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications): xvii.

18. Lord H.L. Ismay, The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay (New York: Viking Press, 1960) 442.

19. TP XII 489.

20. Simon Scott Plummer, “How Mountbatten Bent the Rules and the Indian Border,”Daily Telegraph 24 Feb. 1992: 10.

21. Alistair Lamb, cited inFrench 322.

22. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

23. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, Mountbatten and the Partition of India (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1983): 103.

24. Mountbatten insisted that later historians would vindicate all of his decisions and disprove his critics.

25. Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer delivered the insult. Philip Ziegler, Mountbatten(New York: Harper and Row: 1985): 528.

26. Mountbatten hastened to add that although the Governor of Bengal shared these economic concerns, he “had not expressed any view on this matter to Sir Cyril Radcliffe, so he could not be said to have influenced the decision.” TP XII 487.

27. A thana was a local administrative division, centered on a police station.

28. TP XII 488, Appendix I, Annexure A.

29. Collins and Lapierre 69.

30. TP XII Appendix I, No. 6.

31. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

32. TP XII 488, Appendix II.

33. TP XII 488, Appendix I, Annexure A.

34. Michel 177.

35. TP XII 488, Appendix I.

36. TP XII 389.

37. TP XII 190.

38. French 347-49.

39. Ritu Menon and Kamla Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries: Women in India’s Partition (New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1998): 70. Official estimates were 50,000 Muslim women abducted in India, 33,000 Hindu and Sikh women abducted in Pakistan.

40. Lamb 111.

41.French 337.

42. For a view of partition as an anachronistic approach to ethnic conflict that is bound to fail, see Radha Kumar,Divide and Fall? Bosnia in the Annals of Partition (London: Verso, 1997).

More information is available atwww.bn.com on the following books refrenced in this article:

Ritu Menon, Kamla Bhasin.Borders and Boundaries: How Women Experienced the Partition of India. Rutgers University Press, 1998. ISBN: 0813525527

Stanley A. Wolpert. A New History of India. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1999. ISBN 019512877X.

Stephen Barr Jones, S. Whittemore. Boundary-Making: A handbook for Statesmen, treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 2000. ISBN 1575885654.

Lord Lionel Ismay. The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. 1974. ISBN 0837162807.

Freedom, Trauma, Continuities, ed. D.A. Low and Howard Brasted (Walnut Creek, Alta Mira Press, 1998). ISBN 0761992251.

Philip Ziegler.Mountbatten. Phoenix Press, 2001. ISBN: 1842122967

Patrick French. Liberty and Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division London: HarperCollins, 1997. ISBN 0006550452

Brits Use FaceBook to Incite Riots & Looting

leave a comment »

Two British men have been sentenced to four years in prison for starting separate Facebook pages as a way to organize riots in Chesire, apparently inspired by events in London and other cities. The men were reportedly arrested early in the week of Monday, Aug. 8. The U.K. riots finally began to subside on Wednesday of that week.

The BBC reports that Jordan Blackshaw, 21, was accused of creating a Facebook event titled “Smash d[o]wn in Northwich Town.” The event’s invitees apparently included the “Mob Hill Massive Northwich Lootin’.” It set a five-hour time window – between 1 and 5 p.m. – and a starting location of “behind maccies” – believed to be a reference to a McDonald’s in Northwich.

“Blackshaw also added the first comment on his page, writing: ‘We’ll need to get this kickin off all over,'” the BBC says.

Perry “Pezz” Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, was arrested the day before his night-time riot was to begin, after concerned residents alerted police.

With the authorities warned, the Facebook pages were taken down, and the planned riots did not come to pass, reports the Warrington Guardian. But that didn’t stop prosecutors from pursuing stiff penalties against Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan.

“While the judge heard the two defendants were previously of good character,” said crown advocate Martin McRobb of the Merseyside and Cheshire Crown Prosecution Service, “they admitted committing very serious offences that carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. The consequence of their actions could have led to more disorder and this was taken into account.”

The punishments may open another avenue of discussion over free speech, protests and social media. A case in the U.S. recently made headlines, as transit officials in San Francisco order the shutdown of cellphone service to stations, with the intention of keeping protesters from organizing a demonstration.

NPR’s Carrie Johnson reported on that incident for today’s Morning Edition. Her report included a tweet from a group which said that with the shutdown, the Bay Area Rapid Transit “pulls a Mubarak in San Francisco.”

Curse of the Murdoch Phone Hacking!

leave a comment »

Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and their former editor Andy Coulson all face embarrassing new allegations of dishonesty and cover-up after the publication of an explosive letter written by the News of the World’s disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.


The News of the World’s former royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, who was jailed over phone hacking. A letter from him claims phone hacking was widely discussed at the paper.

In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was “widely discussed” at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with “the full knowledge and support” of other senior journalists, whom he named.

The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman’s allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs’ own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously “hard to credit”, “self-serving” and “inaccurate and misleading”.

Goodman’s claims also raise serious questions about Rupert Murdoch’s close friend and adviser, Les Hinton, who was sent a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police and who then led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved.

The letters from Goodman and from the London law firm Harbottle & Lewis are among a cache of paperwork published by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee. One committee member, the Labour MP Tom Watson, said Goodman’s letter was “absolutely devastating”. He said: “Clive Goodman’s letter is the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far. It completely removes News International’s defence. This is one of the largest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime.”

Goodman’s letter is dated 2 March 2007, soon after he was released from a four-month prison sentence. It is addressed to News International’s director of human resources, Daniel Cloke, and registers his appeal against the decision of Hinton, the company’s then chairman, to sack him for gross misconduct after he admitted intercepting the voicemail of three members of the royal household. Goodman lists five grounds for his appeal.

He argues that the decision is perverse because he acted “with the full knowledge and support” of named senior journalists and that payments for the private investigator who assisted him, Glenn Mulcaire, were arranged by another senior journalist. The names of the journalists have been redacted from the published letter at the request of Scotland Yard, who are investigating the affair.

Goodman then claims that other members of staff at the News of the World were also hacking phones. Crucially, he adds: “This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor.” He reveals that the paper continued to consult him on stories even though they knew he was going to plead guilty to phone hacking and that the paper’s then lawyer, Tom Crone, knew all the details of the case against him.

In a particularly embarrassing allegation, he adds: “Tom Crone and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not, and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me.” In the event, Goodman lost his appeal. But the claim that the paper induced him to mislead the court is one that may cause further problems for News International.

Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson’s editorial meetings and to Coulson’s offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.

The company also faces a new claim that it misled parliament. In earlier evidence to the select committee, in answer to questions about whether it had bought Goodman’s silence, it had said he was paid off with a period of notice plus compensation of no more than £60,000. The new paperwork, however, reveals that Goodman was paid a full year’s salary, worth £90,502.08, plus a further £140,000 in compensation as well as £13,000 to cover his lawyer’s bill. Watson said: “It’s hush money. I think they tried to buy his silence.” Murdoch’s executives have always denied this.

When Goodman’s letter reached News International four years ago, it set off a chain reaction which now threatens embarrassment for Rupert and James Murdoch personally. The company resisted Goodman’s appeal, and he requested disclosure of emails sent to and from six named senior journalists on the paper. The company collected 2,500 emails and sent them to Harbottle & Lewis and asked the law firm to examine them.

Harbottle & Lewis then produced a letter, which has previously been published by the select committee in a non-redacted form: “I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures.”

In their evidence to the select committee last month, the Murdochs presented this letter as evidence that the company had been given a clean bill of health. However, the Metropolitan police have since said that the emails contained evidence of “alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers”. And the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who examined a small sample of the emails, said they contained evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national security and serious crime.

In a lengthy reply, Harbottle & Lewis say it was never asked to investigate whether crimes generally had been committed at the News of the World but had been instructed only to say whether the emails contained evidence that Goodman had hacked phones with “the full knowledge and support” of the named senior journalists. The law firm reveals that the letter was the result of a detailed negotiation with News International’s senior lawyer, Jon Chapman, and it refused to include a line which he suggested, that, having seen a copy of Goodman’s letter of 2 March: “We did not find anything that we consider to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by him.”

In a lengthy criticism of the Murdochs’ evidence to the select committee last month, Harbottle & Lewis says it finds it “hard to credit” James Murdoch’s repeated claim that News International “rested on” its letter as part of their grounds for believing that Goodman was a “rogue reporter”. It says News International’s view of the law firm’s role is “self-serving” and that Rupert Murdoch’s claim that it was hired “to find out what the hell was going on” was “inaccurate and misleading”, although it adds that he may have been confused or misinformed about its role.

Harbottle & Lewis writes: “There was absolutely no question of the firm being asked to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes … The firm was not being asked to provide some sort of ‘good conduct certificate’ which News International could show to parliament … Nor was it being given a general retainer, as Mr Rupert Murdoch asserted it was, ‘to find out what the hell was going on’.”

The law firm’s challenge to the Murdochs’ evidence follows an earlier claim made jointly by the paper’s former editor and former lawyer that a different element of James Murdoch’s evidence to the committee was “mistaken”. He had told the committee that he had paid more than £1m to settle a legal action brought by Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association without knowing that Taylor’s lawyers had obtained an email from a junior reporter to the paper’s chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing 35 transcripts of voicemail messages. Crone and the former editor, Colin Myler, last month challenged this.

In letters published by the committee, the former News of the World lawyer repeats his position. He says this email was “the sole reason” for settling Taylor’s case. He says he took it with him to a meeting with James Murdoch in June 2008 when he explained the need to settle: “I have no doubt that I informed Mr Murdoch of its existence, of what it was and where it came from.”

Myler, in a separate letter also published on Tuesday, endorses Crone’s account. Their evidence raises questions about James Murdoch’s failure to tell the police or his shareholders about the evidence of crime contained in the email.

Watson said that both Murdochs should be recalled to the committee to explain their evidence. Hinton, who resigned last month, may join them. Four days after Goodman sent his letter, Hinton gave evidence to the select committee in which he made no reference to any of the allegations contained in the letter, but told MPs: “I believe absolutely that Andy [Coulson] did not have knowledge of what was going on”. He added that he had carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry and that he believed Goodman was the only person involved.

Commenting on the evidence from the select committee, a News International spokesperson said: “News Corporation’s board has set up a management and standards committee, chaired by independent chairman Lord Grabiner, which is co-operating fully with the Metropolitan police and is facilitating their investigation into illegal voicemail interception at the News of the World and related issues.

“We recognise the seriousness of materials disclosed to the police and parliament and are committed to working in a constructive and open way with all the relevant authorities.”

Cautious China Denies Copter Access Reports

leave a comment »

China on Tuesday dismissed a report that Pakistan gave it access to an advanced U.S. “stealth” helicopter that crashed during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May.


Part of a damaged helicopter is seen lying near the compound after U.S. Navy SEAL commandos killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, May 2, 2011.

During the raid, one of two Blackhawk helicopters — believed to use advanced stealth technology — crashed, forcing U.S. commandos to abandon it. The Financial Times reported on Sunday that Pakistani authorities gave China access to the wreckage, despite CIA requests to Islamabad to keep the wreckage under wraps.

China’s Ministry of Defense denied this in a one-sentence statement, Beijing’s first public response to the report.

“This report is totally unfounded and extremely absurd,” said the statement on the ministry’s website. (www.mod.gov.cn)

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, the country’s top spy agency, also earlier denied the report.

The Financial Times said Pakistan allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed helicopter and take samples of its special skin that helped the American raid evade Pakistani radar.

One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, earlier told Reuters there was reason to believe Pakistan had allowed the Chinese to inspect the aircraft. But the official could not confirm with certainty that this had happened.

The surviving tail section of the downed helicopter was returned to the United States after a trip by U.S. Senator John Kerry in May, a spokesman for the U.S. embassy told Reuters.

Pakistan’s already tense relationship with the United States, its major donor, was badly bruised after U.S. forces killed bin Laden in May in Pakistan where he appears to have been in hiding for several years.

Meanwhile, China and Pakistan call each other “all-weather friends” and their close ties have been underpinned by long-standing wariness of their common neighbor, India, and a desire to hedge against U.S. influence across the region.

After the raid that killed bin Laden — the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks — China called the event a “progressive development” but also defended the Pakistani government, which has been criticized in the U.S. for failing to find bin Laden, if not harboring him.