From: unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:21:33 +0000
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Digest for
unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com - 9 Messages in 9 Topics
To: Digest Recipients <unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com>
=============================================================================
Today's Topic Summary
=============================================================================
Group: unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/topics
- Bhaaratiya government showing weakness in every field [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/f8cdf2304a0f050c
- [No Subject] [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/451b2fb0e1ea56f6
- Did Indian Govt cede 10,000 acres of land to Bangladesh in the
guise of "Enclave Swapping"? [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/f3c59f9e14d73f43
- Decolonisation our universities - C.K. Raju's response to
Wildavsky's put-down of 'Third World' conference [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/273426946e6860ee
- Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan
&Afghanistan I-Ramtanu Maitra-14 September 2011 [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/cd4846b659ce6b7c
- Tributes - 911 [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/20eec2d976c9f060
- 12 Indian States oppose religion-based "Communal Violence Bill"
that breaches state autonomy [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/d2a03d315a73de8f
- Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan
&Afghanistan II - Ramtanu Maitra-15 September 2011 [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/afe22752bd032ce2
- Tamil Nadu Unfairly Targets Hindu Temples, from Stephen Knapp [1 Update]
http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/28d30eb1a92a7591
=============================================================================
Topic: Bhaaratiya government showing weakness in every field
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/f8cdf2304a0f050c
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: "Mohan Gupta" <mgupta@rogers.com>
Date: Sep 14 12:24AM -0400
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/7b2f012dd20e6c32
Bhaaratiya government showing weakness in every field
How long Hindus would continue receiving beatings at home?
From: chandksharma@yahoo.com;
Politicians are not serious about controlling terrorism as long as
they are wrapped in multi layers of security for themselves and their
families. They are doing overt actions simply with an eye on
elections.
We have been watching the commitment of UPA government in
controlling terrorism. It had perfected an automatic drill to be put
into action after every bomb blasts. Security agencies and Central
Government play safe naming that to be 'Pakistan sponsored'. Home
Minister prefers to link that to 'Hindu terrorism'. Prime Minister
always appealed for 'maintaining communal harmony'. Sonia strolls
through the affected area and ceremoniously visits the injured in
hospital escorted by some senior cabinet minister. Media arranges few
discussions between habitual participants about the incompetence of
police set up. Thereafter everything is forgotten till next blast. In
spite of that the Government is nervous about hanging the confirmed
terrorists.
Why we cannot think beyond that? Why couldn't we resort to hot
pursuit, abolishing entry of Pakistani and Bangladeshi citizens to
India, or restraining the activities of those within India who provide
shelter to the terrorists? If the Home Minister always had prior
information of likely blast, could he not be responsible to explain to
the nation as to what action had been taken by him to ensure
prevention?
It implies that Hindus should not react. They continue
being blasted or remain busy watching reality shows flooded with
Pakistani participants! We have been given over doze of Gandhian
Ahimsa that has got settled deeply in the marrow of our bones in the
form of inactivity.
All Sikh congregations are led by Panch Pyaras who are armed
to maintain the sanctity of the occasion. On the same pattern Hindus
temples and Congregations should think of deploying Panch Devas to
represent Shiva, one incarnation of Vishnu, Ganesha, Durga and
Hanuman, who should be armed with the weapons associated with those
deities. Their presence will remind Hindu community that violence for
self protection and for the protection of Dharma is as noble as non
violence preached by Gandhi.
In addition Hindus must employ armed security guards at all
the places of importance who should thoroughly screen and protect all
visitors till the arrival of Government security agencies during any
eventuality. Hindus should care for their own security as politicians
are vying with each other in appeasing minority vote bank for their
selfish interests. Hindu intellectuals and Dharma Gurus should ponder
over the subject with open mind.
Chand K Sharma
immediate and necessary steps that need to be taken to prevent loss &
maiming of Indian lives from further terrorist attacks.
HERMAN CAIN REFUSES TO APPOINT A MUSLIM IN HIS ADMINISTRATION.
HERMAN CAIN, A POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR US PRESIDENT IN 2012
REFUSES TO APPOINT A MUSLIM IN HIS ADMINISTRATION. - AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR HINDUS TO LEARN SOMETHING.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDXCwd65R5o&feature=related
From: Basu Bose - bbose9177@rogers.com;
Not paranoia but watch out of such extremism creeping in
In India in the name of tolerance and accommodation many objectionable
Islamic sharia laws have also been tolerated & accommodated resulting
in no uniform civil law as in most other democratic countries. We
don't have to be paranoid but be vigilant of the way Islamic extremism
have not only crept in but also getting embedded in the fabric of the
country where ongoing acts of Islamic terrorism are being dealt with
by the 'Congess Raj' in a lackadaisical manner and, the victims of
terrorism are forgotten as quickly as possible. This cannot go on -
India belongs to all her people not just to this shameless government
and its favoured community- a significant number of whom can be driven
by certain passages in their holy book which has preached genocide and
continues to preach extreme violence, hate, and subjugation of women.
The whole world has come to know today that Pakistan is the epicentre
of world terror, Pak is run by" front" civil govt but actually by army
and its spy agency ISI. They have only hatred, enmity and extreme
jealousy towards India. Pak ISI is behind every terrorism in India.
ISI names them Deccan Mujahidin, Indian Mujahidin or any other name to
hoodwink the people that terrorism against Hindus is an internal
Indian matter which is false and we start fighting with each other.
The world thinks Pak is ROGUE nation; Pak has double face, bunch of
liars and hypocrites. Their recent propaganda is that Pak is maximum
suffering from terror. This is a cunning statement as they are the
breeding ground for terrorists. Pakistan has very strong propaganda
machinery through which it is continuing "disinformation propaganda"
to Demoralise India and Indians. Soon after Delhi terror several
e-mails coming from several directions without letting know the source
of the sender is sent by ISI to disillusion India's investigators.
These days Pak ISI is affecting terrorism without leaving any CLUE for
India to detect. Not only that, Pak uses any natural calamity to
extract funds from abroad which goes to finance terrorism. Recently
there is flood in Pak and they are seeking funds from abroad. Pak
wants to occupy Afghanistan after USA leaves and they are deadly
against India having our embassy and consulates in Afghanistan.
Taliban is 100% Pakistani as they were trained, armed and brainwashed
in Pakistan during Dictator Zia Ullah Haqs regime. But Pak fools the
world by posing that Taliban and Pak are different. Pak and ISI have
killed one of our Major General and embassy staff at Kabul already.
One thing is true that Baluchistan is fighting for its independence
from Pakistan.
Now what is India government's position? Every subcontinent is aware
that congress govt will continue to give protection to minorities and
Muslims. They feel safe which is good. But there should not be gaddars
working on behalf of Pakistan. There are some Hindus on Pak ISI
payroll obviously. Secondly in spite of so much enmity from Pakistan
for 64 years the govt of India has not declared Pak as an enemy
whereas Pak has declared that India is an enemy from the beginning. If
we declare Pak is an enemy the borders with Pak has to be sealed
first. But in fact we have kept Indo-Pak border open. Enmity means
earlier USA vs. USSR situation. Whereas Pak is following the same line
towards India, we are not. Hence Pak has advantage to harass India
by,"continuously bleeding through thousand cuts". Pak will not allow
India to live in peace.
Al-Qaida is down, not out
Strategically defeating al-Qaida is not nearly as important as it
sounds. After 9/11, al-Qaida morphed into a more complicated,
decentralized and elusive threat consisting of three elements: core
al-Qaida, affiliates or franchise groups operating in places like
Yemen and Somalia with loose ties to the core group, and home grown
terrorists even in Bhaarat inspired by violent extremism, often
through the internet in the comfort of their own living rooms.
But plots by homegrowns and franchise groups have risen dramatically
in recent years. The 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the worst terrorist
attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, was the work of a home grown
terrorist. The "mastermind" of the 2010 Times Square car bomb plot was
a naturalized American citizen trained by the Pakistani Taliban, not
al-Qaida. Another franchise group, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula,
was behind the foiled 2009 Christmas Day "underwear bomber" aviation
plot and the 2010 plot to explode tampered printer cartridges aboard
cargo planes. The Bipartisan Policy Centre reported 11 violent
Islamist extremist terrorist incidents against the U.S. homeland in
2009, the most since 9/11. Nearly all involved what former CIA
director Mike Hayden calls "a witch's brew" of radicalized Americans
and franchise groups.
The second reason talk of defeat is premature has to do with weapons.
The potential for terrorist groups to acquire weapons of mass
destruction is. In 1995, a Japanese cult released sarin nerve gas in
the Tokyo subway, killing 12 people and injuring thousands. It was the
first weapon-of-mass-destruction terrorist attack in modern history,
and it sparked a wave of presidential terrorism commissions years
before bin Laden became a household name.
It is this spectre of the lone fanatic or small group armed with the
world's most devastating weapons that keeps experts up at night.
Today, there is enough nuclear material to build 120,000 weapons. As
long as fissile material is poorly stored and rogue states like Iran
and North Korea continue their illicit weapons programs, nuclear
terrorism remains a haunting possibility.
The third reason is that the Bhaarat has not yet become a first-rate
domestic intelligence agency. Analysts, whose work is vital to
success, are still second-class citizens, labelled "support staff"
alongside secretaries and janitors, and passed over for key jobs,
including running the bureau's intelligence units. The CBI's
information technology is so antiquated, it belongs in a museum. And
the old crime-fighting culture still lives. There is now a move afoot
to shrink new classified facilities so that agents don't have to
"waste time" away from their cases to read intelligence documents
there.
"Strategically defeating al-Qaida" sounds too good to be true. Because it is.
China is trying to surround Bhaarat
Invisible sea borders create potential naval conflicts
The Indian navy revealed recently that one of its vessels, the
amphibious assault ship INS Airavat, was hailed by a Chinese naval
officer demanding to know why it was in Chinese territory — while it
was actually off the Vietnamese coast heading for the Vietnamese port
of Haiphong. And last week it was reported that a Chinese spy ship was
discovered in India's Andaman Islands earlier this year.
Even that is small potatoes compared to the potential for a naval
conflict in the South China Sea. China insists that virtually the
whole sea is its territory, with claimed boundaries that skim the
coasts of all the other countries that border the sea: Vietnam,
Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.
China bases its claim on its historic sovereignty over the clusters of
low-lying islands in the middle of the sea, the Paracels and the
Spratlys. But Hanoi says that Beijing never claimed sovereignty until
1940, and that the islands had actually been controlled by Vietnam
since the 17th century. They were certainly under Vietnamese control
until 1974, when China seized them by force, killing several
Vietnamese soldiers in the process.
The Philippines also claims some of the islands, and all four
Southeast Asian countries reject China's claim to own the seabed
rights practically up to their beaches. To make matters worse, there
are now believed to be enormous reserves of oil and gas under the
sea's shallow waters.
Worst of all, the South China Sea is a maritime highway connecting
Europe, the Middle East and South Asia with East Asia, and none of the
other major powers is willing let it fall under exclusive Chinese
control. That's why an Indian warship was visiting Vietnam last July,
and why the United States is selling more warships and helicopters to
the Philippines.
It's a slow-burning fuse, but this is the most worrisome strategic
confrontation in the world today.
How to wipe out Islamic terror
Recently, many pseudo secularists wrote articles against Dr.
Subramanyam Swamy. Can such pseudo-seculars ever question Quran,
reservation based on religion or animal killing? Can they question
Islam to promote secularism, democracy and equal rights for
non-Muslims?
Read more at : http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/12476.html
We Hindus should thank DNA and Dr. Swamy for publishing a nice and
staunch article regarding solutions on Islamic Terrorism., which will
be eye-opener for many. To share your comments / feedback with DNA,
please click here :
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/12387.html#comments
By Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janata Party
The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires decisive
soul-searching by the Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be
killed in this halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day till the
nation finally collapses. Terrorism I define here as the illegal use
of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an
act against its will and well-being.
Islamic terrorism is India's number one problem of national security.
About this there will be no doubt after 2012. By that year, I expect a
Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan.
Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to "complete unfinished business".
Already the successor to Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader has
declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist
organisation and not the USA.
Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India "an unfinished chapter
of Islamic conquests". All other countries conquered by Islam 100%
converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion.
Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal
Islamic rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.
read full at http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/12387.html
India should occupy the position of Saudi Arabia which through its
instrument the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) acts as the
guardian of Islamic rights & rites through out the world. India should
throw the veil of secularism from its name while still maintaining
status quo on seperation of the State & Religion & religious policies
that foster communal harmony.It should start a similar club
Organisation of Dharmic Countries (ODC) with countries following
Hinduism (Dharma) & its offshoot Buddhism as members. This
organisation with cultural rather than political objective could well
serve as a catalyst for the "Look East" policy.
----------------------------
Allah and law of Allah, is only one for all mankind.
ISLAM IS DIVIDED IN 72 DIFFERENT SECTS, AND EACH ONE CLAIMS THEIR
VERSION IS THE ONLY WORD OF GOD.
THE TRUTH IS ALWAYS ONE, THERE CAN NOT BE 72 DIFFERENT TRUTHS.
FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM HATE AND KILL ALL NON MUSLIMS
THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE SENTENCE FROM GEETA OR ANY HINDU SCRIPTURE,
WHICH TEACHES HATRED FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, AS QURAN TEACHES.
Why dont Muslims condemn terrorism.Why dont they say they want death
for Mulla Omar,David Hadley,Dawood, Tiger Memon etc.Why they keep
quiet.Why cant they come out in open and say death for Kasab and
gang.They will never do because heart of hearts they will be
immensely happy
that Non Muslims are getting bashed for no fault of theirs.
The biggest problem with Muslims is that they are blind and deaf they
wont question their annual bath taking, bearded Mullas.If they dont
question how can they progress. I am seeing News papers which are
flooded by children who have bagged tons of Marks in SSC and PU and I
have not seen a single Muslim in that. But look at the Rogue's gallery
in a Police Station the scene is totally different.
Wake up Muslims.
-----------------------------------
=============================================================================
Topic: [No Subject]
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/451b2fb0e1ea56f6
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: "seema gupta" <seemagupta29@rediffmail.com>
Date: Sep 14 12:25PM
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/ee4d2e784bb4314b
Modi, Media and the Congress myopic vision.
The Supreme Court has not indicted Modi and his government in the
Gulbarg Society case-The SC refused to pass any order on Modis
involvement in the 2002 riots.The SC has referred the case to the
trial court saying that it need not monitor the case any longer and
has directed the Special Investigation Team to file a final report
with the magistrate court concerned, which will henceforth deal with
the findings as per law.This has given a chance for Modi bashers-the
Congress the Left parties and the NGOs to do what they are accustomed
to do.Even though the SC has not indicted Modi and does not find his
involvement in the Gulbarg case the Congress ,the Left and Teesta
find Modi accused and want him convicted. The media has also lapped up
their views because as far as Modi is concerned the media has always
been anti-Modi.Hence it puts Modi on trial. If the TOI splashes SC
breather, Modi exhales Ram Jethmalini demolishes it by stating that
Narendra Modi cant get a breather because he was never suffocated.
There was never any evidence against him. It is a vindication of his
innocence. The media also whips up passions and polarizes opinions
when it brings in at this juncture the idea of Modi as prospective PM
candidate. Even Modi may not have given a thought to it. He is full of
Gujarat and its development. May be his admirers had on various
occasions articulated such a proposition. Only goes to show the stuff
he is made of.It speaks of his caliber as an able administrator, as a
dedicated CM, as one who spares no effort and stands out as a
non-corrupt and incorruptible person.
The media goes further to analyze who are Modi supporters-who are the
fence sitters and who are wary of Modi in the BJP.This kind of
uncalled for expose will not be done say in the case of Rahul Gandhi,
who is projected as the crown prince. Will the media tell us who his
supporters are in the Congress-who are the fence sitters and who are
wary of RG? The media has a very crucial role to play in a democracy
it must play fair-project the truth and nothing but the truth. It
cannot play politics .So what is apparent is that the media is
terribly biased against Modi.
According to Abhishek Manu Singhvi the SC has not given Modi a clean
chit-it has left everything open for the magistrate to look into all
aspects. And Salman Kurshid wants us to believe that the BJP is privy
to court documents and hence is claiming Modi to be innocent. So one
has to believe by these utterances that the SC did not look into the
case at all and has simply referred the case to the trial court. The
media of course uses this as an opportunity to put Modi on trial. No
body thinks that the whole case is sub-judice and hence apart from
giving out the SCs verdict they cannot discuss it thread bare and give
their own judgements. The Congress spokespersons in other cases like
the CWG scam-the Adharsh scam the 2-G spectrum scam et al excused
themselves from commenting because these are sub-judice. But in Modis
case they are ready to pronounce him guilty as the media runs the
trial.The bias is so obvious. What is the reason-just vote bank
politics.
It was not long ago that P.Chidambaram appealed to the Sikh community
to put the massacre of the Sikhs at rest and to move forward.This when
100 times more persons of the minority community were
massacred-brutalized, raped and killed. Time to move on was his
appeal. But when it comes to the Gujarat riots it has to be fixed at
that riot incident-Time and again it has been used against Modi. Come
elections the NGOs canvass with the C Ds of the riots-the wailing and
the weeping of the victims and their relatives must be kept ever
fresh. Why this double standard? Did the Congress leaders not lead the
massacre brigade and supervise the killings of the Sikhs? Did not the
Delhi government abet it by silently watching the burning and the
killings? Did not Rajiv Gandhi justify this? So what moral right has
the Congress to fault Modi and his government,. It must be also noted
that this is not the first time Gujarat witnessed riots-not only
Gujarat but all over India there have been any number of riots. No one
person has been maligned as Modi as been
Vote bank politics has marred every single perception and action of
the UPA government. There have been 7 attacks since 2010 after
P.Chidambaram became the Home Minister. The Sept 7th bomb blast at
gate 5 of the Delhi High court is the 8th attack. This left 13 dead
and 88 injured. PC has suddenly become color blind. He who was so
obsessed with saffron terror suddenly finds just these as terror
attacks and is quick also in his briefing to Parliament to caution the
country of Naxal terror. No lessons learned. The issue before him is
Islamic terror and he is afraid even to term it so. It becomes just
terror. And our PM joins in the chorus to mouth hollow words that the
perpetrators would be punished. In which terror attack has the
perpetrators been punished may be know. So why mouth such promises?
Rahul Gandhi goes to visit the victims of the Sept High court bomb
blast at the RML hospital. He has forgotten to think because he had
earlier stated after his famous draft reading in Parliament that he
took so long to react to the LokPal bill because he had to think. Well
one does not know if to read a draft one has to put the thinking cap
and take such a long period of thinking. When he visited the hospital
he did not utter a single word. Either he forgot to put his thinking
cap or there were no draft writers by his side. Can this crown prince
not spontaneously offer a few words of comfort and listen to the
anguish of the grieving victims. And we are promised that this youth
icon will bring in much desired change.
This brings up corruption. The Congress advises the rest not to
politicize corruption. The same song it sings for every issue Dont
politicize terror attacks-dont politicize corruption is the litany the
Congress leaders chorus. But there is politics in corruption. It is
the vested interest of the politicians that gave birth to corruption.
It is the greed for power that makes the politicians abet corruption
and it is the attraction to status and power that makes the
politicians to sell his/her conscience and become corruption. In the
process corrupt others too. And as long as the Congress is the mother
head of corruption one cannot expect the Congress to fight corruption.
It is now blatantly stated in the emails which are circulated that Mrs
Sonia Gandhi the most powerful woman is the most corrupt. It is not
just only one person nay the family too. No wonder it is also said
that it took 100 years for Tata to become a billionaire, it took 50
years for Ambani to become a billionaire but it has taken only ten
years for Robert Vadra to become a billionaire. From where does this
money for chartered planes-treatment in the USA-special facility
apartment there et al and lavish spending come from? So it is
understandable when one is so filthy rich that Mrs Priyanka Vadra can
toss her head and order her two storied house in Himachal Pradesh to
be razed to the ground. A new site to be bought and new house to be
build. A house in which crores and crores would have been spent is
just to be demolished because it did not suit the environment and her
fancy. All this after she had been supervising and instructing while
the construction was on. Did she not know what materials were used for
it? This I narrate only as an example of the arrogance of money power.
No second thoughts .We see children by the seaside kick the sand
castles and built new ones according to their whims. The same kind of
attitude and mindset was displayed by Mrs Vadra which is a dangerous
streak and exhibits a disdain for loss of money and labor. The mention
of this is also meant to prove that Rahul Gandhis multi prong strategy
to fight corruption is a farce and mere rhetoric. He has to clean up
his own household first.
We had Chidambaram the other day stating that communalizing violence
is dangerous. We are no fools and we know what made PC make such a
statement. This government will not fight terrorism because it will
not embarrass the Muslims. This is clear in it bringing up the
Communal violence bill which just will not fight communalism but abets
communalism. First the National Advisory Council had no business to
draft such a bill.The NAC which is an unconstitutional body acts as a
super cabinet and a mini Parliament. This was meant to give a cabinet
ranking to Mrs Sonia and legitimize her face in all the GOI
advertisements. Second it has also all Modi bashers and baiters as
members. It has a hidden agenda and is biased .Hence the communal
violence bill is pro minority and anti majority. How can it fight
communalism when the very premise of it abets communalism?
Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,
Vadodara
=============================================================================
Topic: Did Indian Govt cede 10,000 acres of land to Bangladesh in the
guise of "Enclave Swapping"?
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/f3c59f9e14d73f43
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: Ravi <curved.sabre@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 13 12:39PM -0500
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/a0747910bbb4055
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws130911Land.asp
*Posted on 13 September 2011*
*CURRENT AFFAIRS*
INDIA-BANGLADESH
*Land Swap with Bangladesh can put govt in a spot*
*May have to cite 1970 SC judgement where it has held the demarcation of
borders through bilateral agreement doesn't construe cessation of territory*
*Iftikhar Gilani*
New Delhi
*Since most* of the land so ceded is from Assam, the Opposition has started
an agitation against CM Tarun Gogoi for being a party to the deal
------------------------------
ALSO READ
On eve of trip, PM drops Teesta after Mamata's
burst<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws050911BANGLADESH.asp>
PM leaving for Dhaka armed with host of
concessions<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws020911PM.asp>
Elections come and go. But the immigrant issue goes on
forever<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ne090411ELECTIONS.asp>
------------------------------
The land swap deal signed with Bangladesh during the Prime Minister's Dhaka
trip last week may not be easy for the government to implement as it
requires an amendment in the Constitution and the main opposition Bhartiya
Janata Party (BJP) will not agree to that. However, according to sources,
the government is taking cover of a 1970 judgement of the Supreme Court,
where it has held the demarcation of borders, through a bilateral agreement
does not construe cessation of territory. Therefore, the does not need an
amendment of Constitution or reference to the Parliament.
**Shrouded in secrecy, the deal is suspected to have ceded 10,000 acres of
land to Bangladesh in the name of peace with the neighbour. All that was
made public is that India gave 55 enclaves on the border to Bangladesh in
return for 111 from it. The number of enclaves given away are just half the
gain, but their total area is much bigger, the critics allege.
Since most of the border land so ceded is from Assam, an agitation has
already begun in the state with the opposition Asom Gana Parishad (AGP)
trying to make capital out of it by putting in the dock Chief Minister Tarun
Gogoi as being a party to the deal. Gogoi was a part of the delegation that
accompanied Dr Manmohan Singh to Dhaka for signing various agreements. The
AGP accused Gogoi of breaching trust of the people of Assam.
Asking the government to make public full details of the deal, specifying
the areas ceded, the BJP has set up a study group headed by Rajya Sabha
deputy leader SS Ahluwalia to examine it by consulting the stake-holders,
including MPs, MLAs, Panchayat representatives and concerned citizens and
submit a comprehensive report at the earliest.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Vice-President Bijoy Chakraborty, secretary
Muralidhar Rao and three MPs—Kabinder Purkayasth, Rajiv Pratap Rudy and
Chandan Mitra— are members of the group. Sarbonand Sonval former MP and
member, BJP national executive, will function as the coordinator of the
group and Mission Ranjan as Co-Coordinator.
Since the deal involves ceding of land to a foreign nation, it requires
Parliament's approval with voting by the two-third MPs through a
constitutional amendment. It is not for the first time that some land is
ceded to Bangladesh. Back in September 1958, India had signed an agreement,
ceding Berubari in West Bengal to then east Pakistan and the procedure
adopted then will have to be followed this time too.
The President had then referred the matter to the Supreme Court for its
opinion on how the agreement could be implemented. A Constitution Bench of
eight judges held that it requires Parliament's endorsement. It ruled that
"the agreement amounts to cession of a part of the territory of India in
favour of Pakistan and so its implementation would naturally involve the
alteration of the content and the consequent amendment of Article 1 and of
the relevant part of the First Schedule of the Constitution, because such
implementation would necessarily lead to the diminution of the territory of
the Union of India. Such an amendment can be made under Article 368."
Following the Supreme Court's observation, Jawaharlal Nehru got the
Constitution's Ninth Amendment passed to implement the India-Pakistan
agreement. Manmohan Singh will have to follow the same route and if he fails
to get the amendment passed, the agreement with Bangladesh can become
invalid.
The same procedure was followed in the acquisition of the Goa, Daman and Diu
territories in 1962 through the 12th Constitution amendment and that of
Sikkim in 1975 through the 36th Constitution amendment and will be required
to merge into Indian territory the enclaves conceded by Bangladesh and
remove from its territory the land ceded to Bangladesh.
Though the BJP held back its stand while asking the government to put the
deal with Bangladesh on paper, its senior leaders say the party was opposed
to any surrender of the Indian territory from the beginning and hence no
question of supporting the deal in Parliament.
The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in 1970 has in detail discussed
border dispute between India and Pakistan in the area of the Rann of Kutch.
The issue was referred by both the countries for arbitration. According to
the award made by the arbitrators, Kanjarkot and a few other villages fell
to Pakistan. When this award was sought to be given effect to by the
Government of India, certain persons approached the Gujarat High Court
questioning the power of the Central Government to, what they called, ceding
a portion of the territory of India to a foreign power. The matter was
ultimately carried to the Supreme Court. The apex Court held that it was not
a case of cession of territory, but a case of identifying the true border
between two States. While agreeing that cession of territory cannot be
effected without amending the Constitution, the Court held that such a
course was not necessary in that case.
*Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com *
iftikhar@tehelka.com
=============================================================================
Topic: Decolonisation our universities - C.K. Raju's response to
Wildavsky's put-down of 'Third World' conference
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/273426946e6860ee
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: viji <viji123@yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 13 03:05AM -0700
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/a4b63460ea9385bc
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam suntharv@yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/6294
Editors' note: in late July we posted an entry ('Decolonising our
universities: another world is desirable') that profiled a conference
statement reflecting significant unease regarding the dominance of the
'Western' model of higher education, including the university. A few
weeks later, Ben Wildavsky posted a response ('Academic Colonialism,
False Consciousness, and the Western University Ideal'). In our minds
both contributions include valid points, but they both contain a
significant number of generalizations: lines are drawn, and nuance and
shades of grey are missing — a point one of us (Kris Olds) also made
in a mid-August dialogue via Twitter with Ben Wildavsky, though Ben
obviously disagreed!
In any case, the debate continues below, for one of the conference
organizers (Professor C. K. Raju, School of Mathematical Sciences,
Universiti Sains Malaysia) has now submitted a response to Ben
Wildavsky's critical take on the conference statement, and the ideas
associated with it. We've posted Professor Raju's text below,
unedited, for it is clear that the issues are of some concern to many
parties, and we don't agree with Wildavsky that it is "condescending,
not respectful, to murmur sympathetically in response to nonsense." In
our mind it is better to air thoughts, and interrogate them. For
example, we have some concerns with C.K. Raju's use of broad
categorizations like "Western" and "non-Western," and how they are
associated with supposedly unified perspectives and institutional
spaces. However, we do think the views of C.K Raju deserve an airing,
and we are aware that they link into a variety of other currents of
thought
and initiatives — some connected, some not — around the university
as a 'political project' aimed at promoting particular kinds of
knowledge and identities. For instance, last week one of us (Susan)
attended a conference in Bristol on the new role of the university and
its role in innovation. A fascinating paper was presented by Surja
Datta on the history of India's first university and the key role it
played in providing lower-level civil servants who would rule in the
interests of the British empire. His argument was that this particular
form of the university in India has been detrimental to India's system
of innovation. The establishment of an indigenous Maori university in
New Zealand–Te WhareWānanga o Awanuiārangi–with a focus on local
knowledge and pedagogical approaches, is a further example of an
initiative that aims at confronting the political/colonial nature of
the university and its system of knowledge.
Finally, one of us (Kris) was in Washington DC last week at a NAFSA
meeting, and an interesting discussion emerged about a new
International Association of Universities (IAU) initiative designed to
"re-examine the concept of internationalization." As the IAU puts it:
"Is the concept and the definition of internationalization keeping up
with developments in higher education? Is there a shared understanding
of the concept? Has internationalization lost sight of its central
purposes?
IAU is posing these and other questions in a reflection directly in
line with the findings of the 3rd Global Survey on
Internationalization. The Survey clearly points out the differences in
why internationalization is pursued in different parts of the world
and how it impacts on various institutions in vastly diverse contexts.
Furthermore, this initiative is a natural sequel to past normative
efforts of the Association, such as the Policy Statement and
Declaration and Checklist for Good Practice. The Ad hoc international
Expert Group was created to bring together perspectives from all parts
of the world inter alia to: assess the extent to which
internationalization activities fit the current conceptual umbrella,
to critically examine the causes that are leading to some questioning
and even criticism of the concept and to investigate the ways to
address these concerns."
We'd like to thank both C.K. Raju and Ben Wildavsky for engaging in
this debate. We also look forward to insights that might be generated
by the IAU's initiative on Re-thinking Internationalization.
Kris Olds & Susan Robertson, "Decolonising our universities: time for
change" (GlobalHigherEd, 11 Sep. 2011)
To summarise, the following changes were proposed. (1) Eliminate the
falsehoods in Western history. (2) Eliminate the religious bias in
formal math and (3) in physics, by teaching calculus without limits
and functional differential equations, respectively. Naturally, I also
pointed to the dimension of hegemony. Referring these changes to
Western-endorsed experts would raise a conflict of interests, for
their lifetime accumulation of academic "merit" might vanish overnight
if they agreed to the changes. So, there must be a change in the
process, not merely the particulars of the curriculum. Hence, for
these proposed curriculum changes to be successfully implemented, a
fourth change is first needed. (4) A new model of validating
knowledge, by eliminating the bad technique of reliance on the
opinions of Western-endorsed experts articulated in secret. That
technique encourages subservience to the West; if these "experts" have
anything to say, they
should debate it publicly. Instead of papers published, through a
secretive process, I have proposed to measure academic merit by public
debate and the demonstrable benefits to the community. This would
expose the co-opted colonised elite.
The West might impose its educational model on client governments, but
it is amusing to claim, as Wildavsky does, that the Western university
model is perfect, so there is no alternative but to ape it. One could
more confidently assert the opposite: that the West has little
alternative but to implement the recommendations made above. For
example, bad math education was one reason for the sub-prime crisis:
the managers (from the best Western universities) lacked a personal
understanding of the complex math of financial derivatives, and the
risks they were taking. The traditional Western route of assimilating
non-Western knowledge by attributing it to a Westerner has failed this
time! So, it is time for Western universities to openly acknowledge
and accept non-Western knowledge if they are not to decline swiftly!
C.K. Raju, "Decolonising our universities: time for change"
(GlobalHigherEd, 11 Sep. 2011) – rejoinder to Wildavsky
Friends,
Thanks to Vinay's heads up on the Wildavsky article, we now have the
benefit of reading Raju's response in the same academic journal:
http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/decolonising-our-universities-time-for-change/
You can find the published version Raju's EPW (20 Aug 2011) rejoinder
to Ramani at
http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/16459.pdf (the concluding
punch line—that I've bolded below—was edited out by EPW).
Sunthar
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (19 August 2011)
"RE: Comparing Abhinavagupta and al-Ghazali - were they
ultra-conservatives or uncompromising radicals?"]
From: Prof. C. K. Raju
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 4:11 AM
To: suntharv@yahoo.com
Subject: Responses to decolonisation
Dear Sunthar,
Here is the update on my responses on decolonisation. Also at my blog
http://ckraju.net/blog/?p=65.
Rgds
CKR
Decolonisation: More responses
My response to Wildavsky appeared in Global Higher Ed blog at
http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/decolonising-our-universities-time-for-change/
The conversation in the Sun has been updated to 6 Sep 2011, at
http://ckraju.net/blog/?p=61.
The response to EPW appeared in EPW 46(34) 20 Aug 2011. This seriously
modified my original response, which was as follows.
My talk at the Penang conference on "Decolonising our Universities"
was misreported by Srinivas Ramani (Economic and Political Weekly, 23
July, 2011). Hard sciences are critical for the project of
decolonisation: Macaulay pointed to them and, even today, it is the
desire for science and technology (not Western social science) which
is still used to promote Western education. Decolonisation, therefore,
will not work if it is restricted to social sciences.
My point about the mathematics curriculum is reduced by Ramani to a
simplistic agenda to restore Indian tradition, though I pointed to
Indian traditions and Islam only to show the non-universality of
Western metaphysics. This misreporting undermines the gravity of the
matter. A pro-Christian religious bias in present-day formal
mathematics means its teaching is unconstitutional both in secular
countries like India, and in Muslim countries. So, the mathematics
curriculum ought to be immediately changed in schools and universities
across those countries. Concrete curriculum changes, backed by
teaching experiments, detailed in my paper. I even explained the
religious bias in the 2+2=4 of formal math, since pleading ignorance
of math to refer these changes to Western-endorsed "experts" is a
colonial trap, and also involves a conflict of interests. So the
matter be decided by public debate.
False history of science helped Macaulay to institute indoctrination
through colonial education. Therefore, the critical first step towards
decolonisation is to pull down this false history of science, still in
our school texts. This thesis about the systematic falsification of
history and its use as an instrument of "soft power" to establish and
maintain colonialism was misreported by Ramani as a series of personal
attacks on individuals (some who don't even exist).
The religious bias in Western math crept into physics thorough
Newton's metaphysical notion of time (arising from his
misunderstanding of the Indian calculus imported to Europe), and my
suggested curriculum change in physics was to teach functional
differential equations, which arise when Newton's mistake is
corrected. Einstein never understood this point about relativity
lifelong, though Poincare did. To avoid the colonial trap of banking
on "expert" opinion, it is necessary to explain this to laypersons.
That requires us to get into the issue of Einstein's personal
credibility, which is very thin. Further, my actual question was about
the truth of the proposition E=F (Einstein=Fraud), but about the
processby which its truth is decided (emphasis original). Colonial
education ensures widespread scientific illiteracy so that people
decide valid science by blind trust in Western scientific authority,
which entails subservience. So, for
decolonisation, it is necessary expose this authority, and a superb
example of its persistent failure for a century is provided by its
approval of Einstein's mistake about functional differential
equations. Thus, I made no ad hominem fallacy; instead, Ramani's
misunderstanding reflects a colonised mindset which fallaciously
guesses that the West could not have made such a serious mistake. That
mindset is what the conference aimed to change.
A fuller explanation, with references, is online at
http://ckraju.net/papers/rejoinder-epw.html.
[C.K. Raju]
[Rest of this thread at Sunthar's forward of Raju's email (17 August 2011) at
RE: "Academic Colonialism, False Consciousness, and the Western
University Idea" (Ben Wildavsky)]
=============================================================================
Topic: Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan
&Afghanistan I-Ramtanu Maitra-14 September 2011
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/cd4846b659ce6b7c
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: "Sandhya Jain " <sandhya206@bol.net.in>
Date: Sep 14 07:30AM +0530
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/e15703d120649998
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1960
Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan &Afghanistan - I
Ramtanu Maitra
14 September 2011
The May 2 killing by US Navy Seals of the notorious al-Qaeda leader,
Osama bin Laden, at his residence next door to Pakistan's principal
military academy, PMA, in Abbottabad, may not have a direct impact on
the ongoing nine-year-old US/NATO military operations against al-Qaeda
and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but it could very well change the
US-Pakistan relationship for years to come and may help expedite the
formulation of terms of exit for foreign troops in Afghanistan.
There is no question that US-Pakistan relations have always been
transactional - i.e., the Pakistani military, carrier of Pakistan's
flag for most of its existence since 1947, performed tasks for the
United States in return for cash, arms and American diplomatic
support. That was the bread and butter of the relationship. Also
embedded as an unstated part in the relationship was that the
sovereign state of Pakistan would not encourage anti-US forces on its
soil, or elsewhere.
Though that unstated part of the relationship has been violated
before, the United States, the provider of cash and arms and the
beneficiary of tasks performed by the Pakistani military and its
intelligence, ISI, always chose to look the other way. For instance,
in Afghanistan in 1996 when Osama bin Laden (stateless after carrying
out repeated terrorist attacks against US institutions in Arabia and
Africa) turned up, settled down with the personal blessings of Taliban
supremo Mullah Omar, and trafficked heroin far and wide to buy arms
for the host. Washington knew then, as it does now, that behind the
rise of Mullah Omar, and his takeover of Kabul in 1996, were none
other than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of the United States'
closest allies.
Despite this apparent incongruity, the transactional relationship
between Washington and Pakistan's military-intelligence combine
continued under the pretext that Pakistan has no other institution of
national power. Moreover, besides being a "good friend" from time to
time, Pakistan was also the protector of the House of Saud, a key US
ally. The House of Saud needed protection before, as it does now,
because a significant section of the Saudi population, including some
military officials, considers the royal family to be usurpers of
power. In the 1980s, Pakistan had outsourced its troops to provide
physical protection to the House of Saud, the oil providers to the
West and elsewhere, to make sure it is not dislodged. That, too, was
an unsaid part of the United States' transactional relationship with
Pakistan.
But this relationship has been endangered by what the American people
came to know on the morning of May 2: the United States' numero uno
enemy, Osama bin Laden, was not hiding in some distant mountainous
area beyond the reach of Pakistan's formidable security forces;
instead, he had been living for years less than a kilometer from the
Pakistan Military Academy (PMA), a military institution equivalent to
America's West Point, located in a virtual garrison town. Following
the raid that killed bin Laden, the Pakistan military and nominal
democratic government in Islamabad raised their eyebrows in apparent
surprise; but it also became rather embarrassing for such US military
brass as Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
who had been meeting Pakistani Chief of the Armed Services (COAS) Gen.
Ashfaq Kayani for years on a one-to-one basis. In other words, for
years Kayani had been throwing dust in Mullen's eyes, and the
Americans could not figure that out. That is surely embarrassing.
A Smoke and Mirror Trick?
This close-to-a-fairy tale version of the bin Laden assassination was
solemnly presented to the people by the Obama administration. But it
is difficult for any rational mind to envision the execution of the
mission considering the risk it involved. One of the most incredible
parts of this fairy tale is that the Pentagon brass and the White
House assumed that four unidentified helicopters, flying close to the
ground (to avoid radar interception) for at least 150 kilometers in
their inward journey to the semi-garrison town and the same distance
out again afterwards in the middle of a summer night when menfolk
typically sleep on rooftops, would go unnoticed in a country where
breach of security is a 24-hour priority concern of the military.
Another disturbing aspect is that those in power could consider such a
mission worth the risk. What could have happened if the Pakistani
military had intercepted those helicopters? Would the United States
Navy Seals engage themselves in a fire fight with America's long-time
ally, the Pakistan military? What would have been the consequences if
all four helicopters, including their passengers, were shot down by
the Pakistani Air Force, which is fully equipped to do so? What would
then happen to the US-Pakistan relationship, the US campaign in
Afghanistan, which involves 100,000 American troops, and the future of
the Obama presidency?
If indeed Pakistan had been kept in the dark about this elaborate
operation, it could have turned out to be a tactically worse mission
than "the charge of the light brigade" immortalized in Tennyson's poem
by the same title. Because of its very nature, this mission was quite
different from President Carter's failed hostage rescue operation in
Iran in 1979. That operation was covert; but the objective was not
covert and considered "necessary" by the American population
generally. US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan does not have
such unanimous backing.
So the most obvious scenario to consider would have been the PAF
decimating those four helicopters. What then would have been
Washington's explanation to the American people and to its allies
around the world? What could possibly have been the explanation of
what were they doing in Pakistan's air space in the middle of the
night heading toward Pakistan's chief military academy? Would
Washington then go public, explaining to the American people that the
mission was designed to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden and
Pakistan came in the way? What would Islamabad do then?
It would be natural to expect that at that point Islamabad would move
Osama from this safe house to another one and cut off all intelligence
sharing links with the United States. And finally, the most
devastating of all actions, it would also cut off the entire supply
line to Afghanistan that trundles through Pakistan every day. In other
words, the United States would have to have positioned itself at that
point in time to go into an all-out war with a nuclear Pakistan and a
formidable military based on its own turf. None of these assumptions
seem plausible, unless one concludes that a mad man resides in the
White House.
There is, however, a more rational analysis. It is that the whole
operation, like the regular ongoing drone attacks carried out by the
United States government, led by the CIA's Special Activities
Division, was well-organized and well coordinated between the Pentagon
and Rawalpindi. It is public knowledge that Pakistan's government
publicly condemns the drone attacks but has secretly shared
intelligence with the Americans and also allowed the drones to operate
from Pakistan's Shamsi Airfield until as late as April 21, 2011, when
150 Americans were asked to leave the airfield.
The series of contradictory statements issued by the Pakistan Air
Force are noteworthy. Soon after the incident, officials of the
Pakistan Air Force (PAF) reported that the PAF surveillance system had
been jammed by the US. Then they said Pakistani radars were switched
off. A few days later, the same PAF spokesman said that the
surveillance system was neither switched off nor jammed, but that it
was possible that the stealth helicopters evaded the Pakistani radar
system by flying close to the ground.
"The fall has been so hard that they don't know whether to turn right
or left; whether to say this or that. Which is why, with every passing
day, they are making the situation ever more difficult for the country
by their infantile reactions, increasingly putting the country in
further danger," says Kamran Shafi, a Pakistani political analyst.
Considering the routine protestations issued by Islamabad and
Rawalpindi against regular American drone attacks, the May 2
subterfuge by both sides should not be a surprise. According to secret
cables released by WikiLeaks, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights; but, in 2008, he
requested Americans to increase them.
However, during a meeting of the parliamentary committee on national
security April 29, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said:
"Unauthorized drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants
are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens." What
Malik is saying has nothing to do with truth or reality; it is an
effort on his part to make some Pakistani citizens believe that the
drone attacks were unilateral acts by the US against Pakistan.
In other words, much of what takes place between the United States and
Pakistan in terms of security matters and the so-called war on terror,
is done with smoke and mirrors. Both countries carry out outrageous
acts, some of which are then explained away to the citizens of the
respective countries as surreptitious, unilateral actions by the other
country. This is purely for public consumption.
The Osama killing is also a smoke-and-mirrors operation in which both
parties were seemingly fully involved, and the mission was agreed on
in advance. President Obama was applauded for pulling this daring act
through successfully; while Islamabad was relieved that the
over-the-hill terrorist, Osama bin Laden, whom it had protected for
years and could not eliminate physically for fear of drawing the wrath
of jihadists who function impudently even inside Pakistan's security
apparatus, was finally annihilated. Many observers expected that the
elimination of Osama bin Laden might create a spike in terrorist
activities for a while, but that it would bring to an end an issue
that has furthered alienation between Washington and Islamabad. Osama
bin Laden's death was considered "good riddance' by both the hunter
and the protector.
Vocal Outbursts in the United States
Following the revelation that Osama bin Laden had been living under
the nose of the Pakistani security apparatus, a hue and cry broke out
in the United States questioning Pakistani leaders' integrity and
trustworthiness. With 100,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan
across the borders from Pakistan, the Obama administration was
critical yet cautious about Pakistan's role in protecting a top
anti-US terrorist and his cohorts. There were outcries from believers
such as Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert at Georgetown University's
School of Foreign Service, who went on record saying: "The Pakistanis
have played us like kazoos. They say 'yes, yes, yes' but mean 'no, no,
no'…We need a transactional relationship with them that is based on
clear quid pro quo. The Pakistanis do not want anything more than
that, and we are deluding ourselves if we think otherwise."
Ms. Fair can rest assured that such "clear quid pro quo" is not yet
even in the furthest corners of minds in either Washington or
Rawalpindi/Islamabad. Soon after the raid on Osama's "hideout" next
door to the PMA, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Joint Chiefs
Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen made yet another trip to Islamabad in an
effort to patch up relations. However, the visit revealed no news
regarding the Afghan Taliban sanctuaries on Pakistani territory, which
are widely believed to be under the protection of Pakistan's
intelligence services.
According to a report in Time magazine, CIA chief Leon Panetta (now US
Secretary of Defense) was in meetings late on June 10 with Pakistan
Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani and his intelligence chief, Lieut.
Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director general of the ISI, regarding another
incident of Pakistani double-dealing that followed the Osama killing
According to reports, Panetta shared with the Pakistani generals a
10-minute edited video showing militants evacuating two bomb factories
in Waziristan. One of the factories is based in Miranshah, North
Waziristan; the other is in South Waziristan. According to reports,
Panetta alleged that the militants were tipped off within 24 hours of
the US sharing information on the facilities with the Pakistanis. When
Pakistani troops later arrived at the scene of the two facilities used
for the manufacture of improvised explosive devices, the militants
were gone. Time reported that the CIA believes elements within the
Pakistani security apparatus had informed the militants that they
would be targeted.
In article, "From Abbottabad and Worse," published in Vanity Fair,
Christopher Hitchens said: "…Everybody knew that the Taliban was
originally an instrument for Pakistani colonization of Afghanistan.
Everybody knew that al-Qaeda forces were being sheltered in the
Pakistani frontier town of Quetta, and that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was
found hiding in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani Army.
Bernard-Henri Lévy once even produced a damning time line showing that
every Pakistani 'capture' of a wanted jihadist had occurred the week
immediately preceding a vote in Congress on subventions to the
government in Islamabad. But not even I was cynical enough to believe
that Osama bin Laden himself would be given a villa in a Pakistani
garrison town on Islamabad's periphery…"
"The roll call of bad organizations, dangerous organizations in
Pakistan is very long," Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise
Institute told a congressional committee on May 3. "The bottom line is
that Pakistan is home to probably the densest concentration of the
most dangerous militant Islamist organizations in the world, and a
number of those have been allowed to run fairly free within Pakistani
territory for a variety of reasons."
The double game must end, says Kagan - a key architect of the
successful 2007 "surge" strategy in Iraq. And, in his view, it will
require Islamabad to take three key steps. "Pakistan's ruling elite
will have to come to a consensus that supporting some militant
Islamist groups as proxies, either in Afghanistan or in India, is a
failing strategy," Kagan says. "They will have to come to a consensus
that all militant Islamists pose a threat to Pakistan and that none
are, at the end of the day, able to be controlled by the state and
used reliably and safely as proxies .... And third, and this will
probably be most difficult, they will have to come to a consensus
about the need to conduct what will be long, very bloody, expensive,
and difficult operations against a number of these organizations that
are rather deeply rooted in Pakistani society and that go beyond the
FATA into the Punjab, into Sindh, into the Pakistani heartland."
Not every US analyst agrees with Kagan, or Hitchens. There is a
deep-seated fear, expressed by many analysts in Washington, that
worsening US-Pakistan relations will lead to further US woes in
Afghanistan. Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, says that the US should remain engaged with Pakistan and
should not cut off aid altogether, especially civilian assistance. She
qualifies her statement by saying that military assistance should be
conditioned on cooperation from Pakistan. "We simply cannot let the
status quo
=============================================================================
Topic: Tributes - 911
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/20eec2d976c9f060
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: Kanchan Banerjee <kbkali@yahoo.com>
Date: Sep 13 07:26PM -0700
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/8a4437cca30c26b9
Oh Nine Eleven!
When the whole world, particularly the US prepares to commemorate the
10th anniversary of the 911 terror strikes, the news of Delhi High
court
attack captures headlines for a couple of days and then fades away to
the recesses of history. As if people are immune to insane killings,
mainly because they have accepted it as a fact of life. Many, however,
see in it an utter surrender to the evil works of the ancestors of the
terror leaders of past. The history or terror, that the Indian
subcontinent has dealt with started with Bin Qasim and then came Ghori.
Ghazni and Temur et al, all the way to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Masood
Azhar. The world today has seen the works of Osama Bin laden, and knows
first-hand what India has been experiencing for long. The ideology of
hatred, separatism and violence guided by exclusivist ideas are
responsible to spill blood on this earth, and it is done just because
one did not agree with their crooked world-view. India is akin to an
ancient monument, where pluralism is cherished, and also the worst
terror victim in the world. History is replete with numerous incidents.
On these sad days of September, be it 6h or 11, it is
imperative to remember Swami Vivekananda, a great son of India, who won
the hearts of the Americans in September, 1893, and whose 150th
anniversary is being celebrated this year.
On the closing day of the World Parliament of Religions on September
11, 1893, he spoke with fervor to douse the enmity among people, with
shower of blessings to recognize goodness in all and touched the chord
of humanity by uttering the following:
"Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have
long possessed this beautiful Earth. They have filled the earth with
violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed
civilization, and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for
these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it
is now? But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that
tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell
of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen,
and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to
the same goal."
It seems that his blessings protected mainland America for about 108
years until the '9/11'. Let the world awaken to his message again to
regain the strength to remove violence, bigotry and fanaticism in the
name of religion, ideology, race, gender or nationality. Pray for all
the terror victims and their families on this tragic day.
http://www.newglobalindian.com/ngi-blog/oh-nine-eleven.html
Global Indians Networking: www.newglobalindian.com
=============================================================================
Topic: 12 Indian States oppose religion-based "Communal Violence Bill"
that breaches state autonomy
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/d2a03d315a73de8f
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: Ravi <curved.sabre@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 13 12:41PM -0500
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/6e81b2cd6f78655e
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws100911COMMUNAL.asp
*Posted on 10 September 2011*
*CURRENT AFFAIRS*
COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL
Some chief ministers fear the proposed law may breach their autonomy
*Bill opposed by West Bengal, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Punjab, Orissa, Tamil Nadu
and Uttar Pradesh*
*Iftikhar Gilani*
New Delhi
*The Communal* Violence Bill was opposed by all the states ruled by the BJP
and allies, including Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal
------------------------------
ALSO READ
What fits the bill — a hope or a
mirage?<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ne180611PROSCONS.asp>
'All victims of violence should get same compensation'
<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ne270811incoldblood.asp>
Let's not accentuate the
divide<http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Op270711Let.asp>
------------------------------
The Centre trying to put the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) on the mat with its
proposed Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill found at least a
dozen states revolting at the National Integration Council (NIC) meeting
here on Saturday against attempted breach the states' autonomy and those
protesting included West Bengal, ruled by the Congress ally Trinamool
Congress.
The consensus on the Bill that the government intends to introduce in the
winter session of Parliament proved elusive and the day-long NIC meeting
instead threw up a big political divide on the issue. The only unequivocal
support to the Bill came from the Left Parties who did not buy the autonomy
cry and insisted that a strict law was needed to tackle violence against the
minorities, more so in the states ruled by the communal parties where the
minorities live under perpetual fear. Of course, all Congress chief
ministers were one in endorsing the Bill, knowing well it is crafted with
the aid of Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC).
Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj led the attack
questioning communalism put on top of the agenda when no communal incidents
occurred in the past three years since the NIC met last time in October
2008.
The Prime Minister's reference to the Delhi High Court bomb blast and stress
on beefing up intelligence gathering mechanism to tackle terror in the
opening remarks gave her handle to demand that issues like terrorism and
Naxal menace were relevant for discussion and not communalism.
Dr Manmohan Singh, however, stressed in the same breath the "need to combat
divisive forces and the radicalisation of youth" in a veiled attack on the
Sangh Parivar's mobilisation of the younger generation for actions with
frenzy. The government had put the communal violence bill for testing
response of the states in the agenda which included communal harmony,
elimination of discrimination against minorities and scheduled castes and
handling of civil disturbances.
The Bill was opposed by all the states ruled by the BJP and allies— Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand,
Bihar and Punjab—as also by the BJD-led Orissa, AIADMK's Jayalalithaa's
Tamil Nadu, Mayawati-led Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
Each one of them endorsed Sushma Swaraj's view that the Centre is attempting
a "dangerous" piece of legislation that would hurt the federal structure of
the country as the Centre may misuse it to impose the President's rule at
the slightest provocation of communal tension in any state.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar shared concern of the BJP and others over
the Bill giving an impression that the minority is always victim and the
majority community is "always responsible" for any communal incident. His
speech was read out by senior state minister Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. Others
said the Bill has ingredients to encourage communalism by the minorities.
Jayalalitha, Mayawati and Mamata were among seven chief ministers not
turning up at the NIC meeting and the absentees also included Kerala's
Oommen Chandy of Congress, Narendra Modi, Parkash Singh Badal, Nitish Kumar.
Their views were put on record by their representative ministers or chief
secretaries.
Railway minister Dinesh Trivedi, who attended on behalf of Mamata's
Trinamool Congress, a key constituent of the UPA, said the Bill in the
present form is unacceptable to his party. Mayawati chose not to take a
stand on the Bill as she said in the speech read out in absentia that "it is
not the opportune moment to comment on the Bill."
Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal feared the hidden agenda in the
Bill was to dismiss the elected governments of opposition parties in the
state by invoking Article 355 while Sadanand Gowda (Karnataka) and Ramesh
Pokhriyal (now-ex CM Uttarakhand) towed their BJP line that the Bill was
against the majority community. "Strange, our endorsement is sought for the
Bill that would be a big blow to the national integration for which we are
gathered today," Pokhriyal said.
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh warned the Centre not to usurp the
state's powers of maintaining law and order and asserted that the Bill is
against India's federal structure. He said the states will lose autonomy if
the Centre-appointed national authority starts directing the states on
investigation of the communal incidents.
His Madhya Pradesh counterpart Shivraj Singh Chauhan saw an attempt to meet
the "vested interests" always out to blacken the majority Hindus. "If state
governments are weakened to serve some vested interests, the nation will
become weak and it will give impetus to parochial forces," he warned.
No religion-based separate criminal law: BJP
Bhartiya Janata Party President Nitin Gadkari on Saturday dismissed the
proposed communal violence bill as a religion-based separate criminal law
and dubbed it as dangerously unconstitutional.
"India can not countenance a situation where members of various religious
denominations have a separate criminal law," he said in a note circulated at
the National Integration Council meeting here. He said the Bill not only
usurps the power of the States, but also encroaches on personal liberty and
discriminates on the basics of caste and religion.
Advocating to handle civil disturbances "with care" without compromising the
authority of the State, Gadkari said, "Negotiations, Political dialogues,
engagement, must precede any police action that much be a later resort and
must be proportionate."
His note surprisingly came as an endorsement of the Prime Minister's concern
over increasing radicalisation of the youths as he said: "Radical actions of
youth in the name of religion or caste must not be permitted. This
radicalization has led to the increased emergence of Terrorism."
He also endorsed the Prime Minister that the intelligence agencies must
improve their professional skills to be able to give advance and adequate
information about the terror outfits to check their growth and expansion.
*Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com *
iftikhar@tehelka.com
=============================================================================
Topic: Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan
&Afghanistan II - Ramtanu Maitra-15 September 2011
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/afe22752bd032ce2
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: "Sandhya Jain " <sandhya206@bol.net.in>
Date: Sep 15 07:01AM +0530
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/6003d7a766f543f4
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1961
Osama's Death: How it could affect US policy toward Pakistan &Afghanistan - II
Ramtanu Maitra
15 September 2011
While the Osama killing has been depicted by Washington as "fully
consistent" with the laws of war, within Pakistan it has evoked a
negative response across the board. Some of the criticism stems from
the fact that Pakistan fears retribution by the jihadists. The
Lahore-based news daily, The Daily Times, made that clear in a May 3
editorial: "While his death is a definite blow to the militants, it
provides them with the perfect chance for bloody retribution. The US
and its allies - especially Pakistan, where bin Laden was killed -
will be sure terror targets. It is little wonder that the US is on red
alert security. Pakistan had also better watch out."
On May 5, Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir said the US forces
may have breached his country's sovereignty. Clutching UN Security
Council documents, Salman Bashir said: "There are legal questions that
arise in terms of the UN charter. Everyone ought to be mindful of
their international obligations." His comments, at a press conference
in Islamabad, may have been aimed as much at preventing India from
launching a unilateral raid on Pakistani territory in revenge for the
2008 Mumbai massacres as at reproaching Washington.
Prime Minister Gilani, who often echoes Pakistan military's voices
from Islamabad, said at a May 29 press conference in Lahore:
"Unilateral acts like the Abbottabad incident will not be acceptable
to us." Gilani told reporters in Lahore that US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry have supported Pakistan's
stance on the Abbottabad incident. He said the US leadership has not
accused Pakistan of incompetence or complacency on the Osama issue.
Professor Junaid S. Ahmad, a member of the faculty of law and policy
at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, in a May 30 article,
"Pakistan-US Relations in the Post-Osama Era," posted at the
Afro-Middle East Centre website, emphasized that lurking behind the
scenes is the threat that the Obama administration will hold back
billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. Ahmad's analysed:
"With each passing day, the scale of the consequences of the raid is
becoming clearer. Reports that the operation undertaken to kill Bin
Laden involved backup plans for an armed confrontation with Pakistani
forces highlight the decidedly dangerous nature of the raid. …. Since
the operation, Obama and other senior administration officials have
not only defended the risky raid and celebrated Bin Laden's killing,
but have also made it clear that the US was prepared to initiate more
such actions inside Pakistan.
"Bin Laden's assassination ostensibly came as a shock to Pakistani
authorities, who admitted to not being part of the operation to kill
the al-Qaeda leader. Furthermore, Washington immediately confirmed
that there was no Pakistani involvement in the mission whatsoever.
According to the US, the Pakistani government was only informed of the
raid after the event had occurred. However, in an article in the
Washington Post, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari stressed his
'satisfaction that the source of the greatest evil of the new
millennium has been silenced.' Moreover, he dismissed claims that
Pakistan had been sheltering terrorists. …
"In another sign of the Pakistani military's growing bitterness
towards the US, Major General John Campbell, the senior commander of
US forces in eastern Afghanistan, disclosed that Pakistan's armed
forces had halted all contact with the US and NATO for a few days
after the US raid, though communication has since been re-established.
There has been great anxiety within the US military that Pakistan
could once again interrupt supply lines from the port of Karachi to
the Khyber Pass through which the bulk of the food, fuel, weapons and
other vital supplies for the 140,000-strong US-NATO forces in
Afghanistan must pass.
"Several days after the raid, Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq
Pervez Kayani finally ended his silence by giving a stern warning to
the US. He asserted that 'any similar action violating the sovereignty
of Pakistan will warrant a review of the level of
military/intelligence cooperation with the United States.' Kayani
characterized the US operation in Abbottabad as a 'misadventure,' and
promised a rapid military response to any such raids in the future. He
also said US military personnel presence in Pakistan would be
curtailed 'to the minimum essential,' without elaborating further.
In conclusion, Ahmad noted: "The Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman
Bashir also reminded the US that 'there are red lines in Pakistan's
cooperation with the US and other members of the international
community, which should be observed.'"
Former Pakistani diplomat Asif Ezdi expressed concern over the nature
of the raid that killed bin Laden, questioning "whether our nuclear
deterrent is safe from a similar US assault."
Several Pakistani analysts implied that Osama bin Laden was really not
a threat, and that the American action was instead triggered by the
Obama administration's perception of domestic political necessity.
They claimed the Osama killing would enable Obama to re-brand himself
as a wartime president, detaching himself from the pledge of "change"
emphasized in his 2008 presidential campaign, and bringing his
administration ever closer to the military, the intelligence agencies
and influential sections of the US ruling elite.
Some Pakistani political analysts relate the killing to a growing
US-India relationship designed to hurt Pakistan. Prof. Junaid Ahmad
argues that the US has evidently balked at taking Islamabad into
confidence with regard to its strategy for a political settlement in
Afghanistan, a country that the Pakistani establishment has always
considered essential for strategic depth in challenging India.
"Moreover, Obama has continued with the Indo-US 'global strategic
partnership' initiated by George W. Bush, supporting India's aims in
Central Asia and the Middle East," Ahmad notes, adding: "And while the
US has virtually acknowledged India as a nuclear-weapons state, as
demonstrated by the exception Washington conferred on India by
permitting it access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel,
Pakistan's nuclear programme is viewed with great distrust by
Washington."
Osama Killing and America's Afghan Exit Strategy
In the United States, the immediate fallout of bin Laden's elimination
is related to the urgency to start withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan. Washington never made clear to the American people that
its stay in Afghanistan would be long and, perhaps, interminable.
Initially, it was understood, but not stated categorically, that the
purpose of the US invasion was to eliminate the ruling Taliban and
destroy the al-Qaeda network working under Osama bin Laden inside
Afghanistan. Taliban was defeated in 2002, but it was allowed to make
a comeback in 2005. Since then, after many battles and many deaths,
Washington has come to accept that the Taliban cannot be defeated and
some sort of arrangement needs to be worked out to end the indefinite
American stay in Afghanistan and the bloodshed that such stay ensures.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden remained in hiding since 2001, and the
Americans just could not get to him. Since his killing, it is only
natural to expect that the American population will demand that the
Obama administration draw down US troops in Afghanistan. More than a
year ago, President Obama had promised that withdrawal of US troops
would begin sometime in the summer of 2010 and full withdrawal would
take just a few more years.
Presidential promises and loss of American lives are not the only
reasons Americans are clamoring for a troop withdrawal. At this point
in time, the United States is spending about $10 billion monthly to
finance the stalemated war in Afghanistan. Americans ask how long will
Washington be able to borrow vast sums of money in the global bond
market, solely to pursue less than 100 followers of Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan? Some warn this may trigger yet another banking crisis and
real estate meltdown in the US, causing more unemployment and
deterioration of the US economy. Once the United States got engulfed
by a full-fledged sovereign debt crisis, there could be no reason why
a financially bankrupt US government would continue to throw away $120
billion-plus a year on a war increasingly devoid of rational purpose.
At the time Osama bin Laden was killed, deliberations on the futility
of an expensive war in Afghanistan had already begun. As Robert
Haddick stated in Foreign Policy magazine on June 3: "The war's
popularity inside the United States may be fading as fast as Karzai's
tolerance. The House of Representatives barely rejected - 204 to 215 -
an amendment that would have required the administration to establish
a faster timeline to exit Afghanistan. Twenty-six Republicans and all
but eight Democrats voted for the measure. According to the Washington
Post, a group of civilian advisers to Obama will soon make the
argument that the financial cost of the Afghanistan war - $113 billion
this fiscal year and $107 billion next year - is too much when the
goals and the risks of obtaining those goals are considered. To these
advisers, spending on Afghanistan operations is a ripe target for fast
budget savings."
However, on the issue of working out an exit strategy, Washington is
nowhere near resolving the two basic issues. Those are: the rate of
troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of the final
settlement that will allow the United States to officially declare the
end of the war. It is evident that on the question of finalizing the
rate of troop withdrawal, there exist a number of views dominating
discussions within the Obama administration.
During the final visit of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
(stepped down June 30) to Afghanistan, the drawdown of troops set to
begin in July loomed large. There are currently nearly 100,000 US
troops and 40,000 additional allied forces in the country.
Responsibility for security across the country is slated to be turned
over to Afghan hands by 2014, at which point all combat forces are
expected to be withdrawn. Reports have begun to emerge that the White
House is considering more significant reductions.
Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry is a
longtime friend and former Senate colleague of Vice President Joe
Biden, who in the 2009 war strategy review argued for a smaller US
military mission in Afghanistan that would focus on weakening
al-Qaeda, rather than on defeating the indigenous Taliban insurgency.
Kerry has called the war's $10 billion-a-month cost "unsustainable,"
and recently his committee issued a report critical of the economic
assistance program that is a key part of the counterinsurgency
strategy's goal of bringing stability and government to parts of the
country once controlled by the Taliban.
In the face of hawkish calls for a negligible drawdown, influential US
Senator Carl Levin has suggested a significant withdrawal of 15,000
American troops this year. But Secretary Gates has said that Obama
should move cautiously in removing troops from a battlefield where the
gains, in the White House's own assessment, remain "fragile and
reversible." Said Gates in his recent farewell speech in Brussels to
NATO bureaucrats: "I can tell you there will be no rush to the exits.
The vast majority of the surge forces that arrived over the past two
years will remain through the summer fighting season. Far too much has
been accomplished, at far too great a cost, to let the momentum slip
away just as the enemy is on its back foot."
Hanging fire is the issue of how to exit the Afghanistan theater. In
the June 7 Washington Post op-ed, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger pointed out that the quest for an exit from Afghanistan has
reportedly taken the form of negotiations under German sponsorship
between representatives of Mullah Omar, head of Taliban, and American
officials. Kissinger said: "Most observers will treat this as the
beginning of an inexorable withdrawal. The death of bin Laden, while
not operationally relevant to current fighting, is a symbolic dividing
line. Still, the challenge remains of how to conclude our effort
without laying the groundwork for a wider conflict."
Kissinger continued: "For negotiation to turn into a viable exit
strategy, four conditions must be met: a cease-fire; withdrawal of all
or most American and allied forces; the creation of a coalition
government or division of territories among the contending parties (or
both); and an enforcement mechanism. Enforcement is the most crucial
element and the most difficult to sustain. After decades of civil war,
the parties are unlikely to feel bound by provisions of any agreement.
The Taliban especially will try to take over the coalition government
or breach the cease-fire. In the absence of a plausible enforcement
mechanism, a negotiation with the Taliban, whose forces remain while
ours leave, will turn into a mechanism for collapse.
"An enforcement mechanism can be a residual American force, some
international guarantee or presence, or - best - a combination of
both. Total withdrawal is likely to be final; there should be no
illusion of re-intervention."
Kissinger also noted: "Afghanistan's other neighbors would be at
comparable risk if a Taliban-dominated government or region reverted
to the Taliban's original practices. Every neighbor would be
threatened: Russia in its partly Muslim south, China in Xinjiang,
Shiite Iran by fundamentalist Sunni trends. In turn, Iran would be
tempted by the vacuum to arm sectarian militias, a strategy it has
honed in Lebanon and Iraq."
Finally, he concluded: "The complexities of an exit strategy are
compounded because relations with Pakistan and Iran are severely
strained. These countries do not have the option of withdrawing from
the neighborhood. If their interests in Afghanistan are not related to
ours to some extent, Afghanistan will exist under permanent threat.
Without a sustainable agreement defining Afghanistan's regional
security role, each major neighbor will support rival factions across
ancient ethnic and sectarian lines - and be obliged to respond to
inevitable crises under the pressure of events. That is a prescription
for wider conflict. Afghanistan could then play the role of the
Balkans prior to World War I."
US-Pakistan Relations: What to Expect
It is likely that the killing of Osama bin Laden, which may trigger
other developments within Pakistan and beyond, will allow Washington
to set in place an exit strategy. While the exit strategy is seemingly
the priority of the Obama administration, the future of US-Pakistan
relations is about as clear as mud-laden waters. Notwithstanding the
Pakistani failure to eliminate bin Laden, there are reasons to believe
that the primary long-term interests of the United States remain with
Pakistan's security and stability. Some analysts point out that in an
important way, the removal or attenuation of both issues - Afghanistan
and al-Qaeda - will liberate the relationship from two major
distractions.
Perhaps for the same reason, some wise heads on Washington's Capitol
Hill are urging calm. "Distancing ourselves from Pakistan would be
unwise and extremely dangerous," Sen. Lugar of Indiana, the senior
Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said at a May 5
hearing. "It would weaken our intelligence gathering; limit our
ability to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan; further
complicate military
=============================================================================
Topic: Tamil Nadu Unfairly Targets Hindu Temples, from Stephen Knapp
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/t/28d30eb1a92a7591
=============================================================================
---------- 1 of 1 ----------
From: Srinandan@aol.com
Date: Sep 14 08:15PM -0400
Url: http://groups.google.com/group/unitedhindufront/msg/880c37fcc289993e
Namaste,
I've warned about this before, but this kind of bias against Hindu and
Vedic temples continues to go on. There needs to be serious demonstrations in
India itself to oppose this kind of arrangements that work against the Hindu
community for the benefit of the Christian and Muslim communities.
Hari Om,
Stephen Knapp
Tamil Nadu Unfairly Targets Hindu Temples While Giving Other Religions
Full Freedom
(http://www.chakranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Tamil-Nadu-is-home-to-some-of-the-Richest-Hindu-Temples.jpg)
Tamil Nadu is home to some of the richest Hindu temples
The Tamil Nadu government claims to be secular but has been treating Hindu
institutions and temples differently compared to institutions of other
religions. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department administers
36,425 temples, 56 mutts, 47 temples belonging to mutts, 1721 specific
endowments and 189 trusts. The department claims to be watching over all
religious institutions to maintain secularism but it has only been
looking over
the Hindu religious institutions and this policy is not being applied to any
other religions like Christian or Islamic institutions.
The indifference and lack of stance against such an issue by Hindus along
with the pushy missionaries being let into the region are the two main
causes of such an injustice. This has allowed the Tamil Nadu government to
process the way it does, assuming such a level of control.
Prominent mutts of the 1840's—when the British ruled—were asked to take
over certain temples and endowments. The heads of these mutts made sure to
get written documents from the British Government assuring the mutts that the
temples would not be taken into repossession by the government.
The mutts ran the temples well and efficiently using funds provided where
they should have been used—to perform important rituals and for renovations
in the temple. Overall, the funds were used for the primary purpose of the
temple—supporting worship. However, contrary to this, thousands of other
religious institutions were simply handed over to the trustees with the
government providing little or no supervision at all with what was being done
with the funding and whether it was being utilized for the purpose of which
it was given for.
The Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1925, was passed by the local
Legislature for the purpose of providing better governance and
administration of Hindu temples. This act was widely changed and
adapted several times
to consolidate the government's power over the Hindu institutions, both
before and after Independence. After independence, the act was widely
expanded.
What Hindus must remember is that it is not the job of a government body to
rule over and administer what is going on with Hindu temples, especially
when the same body is not doing the same for churches and mosques in the
same region. There must be something wrong if policies that were originated,
to be applied to all religions, are only being applied to one religion
continuously. Hindus should group together and petition against such
government
bodies, bringing outside agencies to help and audit the HR and CE
Department and its activities related to this issue. Hindus should
work together to
gain back access to the temples so that they are handed over to their
respective trustees or appropriate Hindu associations.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "United Hindu Front" group.
Related websites : http://www.shehjar..com
To post mail at: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Unsubscriptions: Unitedhindufront-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Visit this group at: http://groups.google.com/group/Unitedhindufront?hl=en
*************************************************************************************
Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed are only of the persons
posting the mail and not of the Owner/Moderator of UHF group and will
not be responsible for the contents. the person/persons writing the
message will be solely responsible. Anyone who wishes to unsubscribe
from this group can do so by sending an email to
Unitedhindufront-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
***************************************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment