Follow me on Twitter

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Pakistan will remain driven by Army and America

Sep 29, 2011


Both can’t afford any break now
By Tarun Vijay

US-Pakistan relations are a perfect example of need-based opportunism. Neither trusts the other, and there is hardly any societal or civilisational affinity, yet they know they have to live with a love-hate relationship, till finally Pakistan as a country withers away, as some US-based analysts predict.

Currently, though Islamabad-Washington ties look like plunging to a new low following the US straight talk about the ISI encouraging and aiding terror attacks on international forces in Afghanistan, no substantial change will occur in their relationship. Such tides matter between equal partners. Can anyone in Pakistan simply afford to turn his back on the Islamic Republic’s real masters on Capitol Hill? Often described as the 51st state of the US, and its leaders getting insulting references in the US media (remember Washington Post cartoon depicting Pervez Musharraf as a dog of White House during his heyday?), it will be hilarious to take seriously Pakistan’s cosmetic angst against the Obama regime.

Just one brief statement by a US official made Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani call a special meeting of his top commanders on a Sunday and a midway return of their foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar. Pakistan’s interior minister Rehman Malik had the cheek to say that the Haqqani network was a product of the CIA. And perhaps in lighter vein added, “We are cooperating with US. We will cooperate with every country of the world who is fighting against terrorism.” But pray who cares what a minister Rahman or a Prime Minister Gilani speaks in Islamabad? The only factor that matters for Pakistan is either a White House spokesperson or Gen. Kayani’s men. Pakistan is the only country that is a bedfellow to the two powers, the US and China, who are poles apart in every respect.

The way the US treated Pakistan during the Osama killing and the later statements of Hillary Clinton, first placating the angry serfs and then warning them to behave, show the kind of relationship the two have.

The US state department always knew about Pakistan’s role in fomenting terrorism the world over, especially in India, but till their immediate interests were being served they kept silent and never helped India. Now Washington will have to reap what it sowed. Till they realise and recognise that Pakistan is the main source of terrorism globally and come forward as a democratic country to be a partner with India in ending terrorism, the US will continue to deal with the Haqqanis and the Headleys. They will also have to live with Islamabad getting too close to Beijing, thus unbalancing the power equation in the region. Post the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington may rethink its Pakistan policy, and there might be a little tightening of the leash, but overall the generals of Islamabad will continue to serve the US with loyalty, proving the efficacy of the Allah, Army and America formulation dominating Islamabad once again.

The writer is Rajya Sabha MP and member, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs

Friday, September 23, 2011

नरेंद्र बहादूर

21/September/2011
तरुण भारत
तरुण विजय

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

सागर पर संप्रभुता--पूर्वी एवं दक्षिण पूर्वी क्षेत्र में चीन के तीव्रता से बढ़ रहे सामरिक और आर्थिक प्रभाव को रोकने की दिशा में वियतनाम हमारा स्वाभाविक और विश्वसनीय मित्र है


http://www.amarujala.com/Vichaar/VichaarColDetail.aspx?nid=314&tp=b&Secid=40
20th September 2011.
गत पंद्रह से सत्तरह सितंबर तक भारत के विदेश मंत्री एस एम कृष्णा की वियतनाम यात्रा ने चीन की नींद उड़ा दी और यात्रा से ठीक पहले उसने भारत द्वारा दक्षिण चीन सागर में किए जाने वाले तेल तथा गैस अन्वेषण कार्य का विरोध दर्ज कराकर आपसी संबंधों में और गिरावट के संकेत दिए। इससे पहले, जुलाई में वियतनाम की सद्भावना यात्रा पर गए भारतीय नौसेना पोत ऐरावत को चीन की नौसेना ने दक्षिण चीन सागर की सीमा से बाहर जाने को कहा था। भारत ने इस घटना को ज्यादा तूल नहीं दिया, लेकिन सागर की अंतरराष्ट्रीय सीमा में मुक्त आवागमन के अधिकार का हवाला देकर दक्षिण चीन सागर में तेल अन्वेषण के चीनी विरोध को तिरस्कार के साथ खारिज कर दिया।

असल में वियतनाम के साथ चीन की शत्रुता काफी पुरानी है। पहले वियतनाम चीन के नियंत्रण में ही था। 1884 में चीनी सेना फ्रांस से पराजित हो गई और उसके बाद हिंद चीन (कम्बोडिया, लाओस और वियतनाम) पर चीन का आधिपत्य समाप्त हुआ। उसके बाद सोवियत संघ से वियतनाम की मैत्री ने चीन को नाराज कर दिया था। आखिरकार चीन ने फरवरी 1979 में वियतनाम पर हमला बोल दिया। उस समय जनता पार्टी शासन में तत्कालीन विदेश मंत्री अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी चीन की यात्रा पर थे और इस हमले से नाराज होकर वह यात्रा अधूरी छोड़ देश लौट आए थे। इस युद्ध में चीन के चालीस हजार और वियतनाम के एक लाख से अधिक सैनिक मारे गए थे। चीन की सेना हनोई के निकट तक पहुंच गई थी, हालांकि दो सप्ताह बाद अंतरराष्ट्रीय दबाव में उसे लौटना पड़ा, लेकिन सोवियत संघ के अंत तक दोनों देशों में तनाव बना रहा।

चीन द्वारा वियतनाम के सागर पर भी तेल और गैस के कारण कब्जा जमाने की कोशिशें होती रही हैं। वहां के संपूर्ण दक्षिण चीन सागर पर ही नहीं, बल्कि परसेल्स और स्प्रेतली द्वीपों पर कब्जे के लिए भी चीन वियतनाम से झगड़ा कर रहा है। इन दोनों द्वीपों में काफी मात्रा में तेल और गैस मिलने की संभावनाएं हैं। इसी कारण चीन दक्षिण चीन सागर क्षेत्र से वियतनाम को बाहर करना चाहता है, जबकि संयुक्त राष्ट्र के अंतरराष्ट्रीय सागर सीमा विनियमों के अनुसार इस क्षेत्र पर वियतनाम का नियंत्रण वैध है। ओएनजीसी विदेश लिमिटेड तथा पेट्रो वियतनाम के बीच हुए समझौते के अंतर्गत भारत वहां तेल और गैस अन्वेषण के कार्य में सक्रिय हुआ, तो चीन की चिंता बढ़ गई। वह अब तक वियतनाम को अपने प्रभाव क्षेत्र में मानते हुए यह सहन नहीं कर पाया कि भारत वहां भी अपनी दखल और मैत्री संबंध को मजबूत करे। जो चीन भारत के तीव्र विरोध के बावजूद पकिस्तान अधिकृत कश्मीर में अपनी सेना की मौजूदगी और अनेक जल विद्युत एवं सड़क निर्माण कार्य करता रहा है, और कराची के पास ग्वादर में बंदरगाह बनाकर भारत की सुरक्षा को सीधी चुनौती दे रहा है, वह अब भारत की गतिशील विदेश नीति की गरमाहट से तपने लगा है। वास्तव में भारत की घरेलू राजनीति के शोर में मनमोहन सिंह की पूर्वी एशियाई विदेश नीति की सफलता का यह महत्वपूर्ण सामरिक संदेश ढक गया। भारत के लिए अब अमेरिका या यूरोप से बढ़कर सामरिक एवं आर्थिक महत्व का क्षेत्र पूर्वी एशिया हो गया है।

यह क्षेत्र गत दस शताब्दियों से भारत की संस्कृति और बुद्ध के उपदेशों से हमारे प्रति सदैव मैत्रीपूर्ण रहा, पर औपनिवेशिक दास मानसिकता के कारण हम केवल पश्चिमी देशों की ओर देखते रहे और उस बीच चीन ने इस क्षेत्र पर प्रभाव विस्तार किया। दक्षिण पूर्वी एशिया के देशों में वियतनाम का बड़ा महत्व है। चीन द्वारा भारत को घेरकर उसे अस्थिर बनाने की कोशिशों का प्रत्युत्तर दक्षिण, दक्षिण-पूर्वी तथा पूर्वी एशियाई देशों के साथ, जिनको चीन ‘अपने प्रभाव के अंतर्गत’ मानता है, पारंपरिक मैत्री संबंध को मजबूत बनाकर ही दिया जा सकता है। गत दस वर्षों में वियतनाम के साथ हमारे आर्थिक संबंध दस गुना से ज्यादा बढ़े हैं, जो अब लगभग तीन अरब डॉलर तक पहुंच गया है। भारत वियतनाम की वायु सेना के चालकों को प्रशिक्षित कर रहा है और गैर परमाणु प्रक्षेपास्त्र देने पर भी विचार कर रहा है। पूर्वी एवं दक्षिण पूर्वी क्षेत्र में चीन के तीव्रता से बढ़ रहे सामरिक और आर्थिक प्रभाव को रोकने की दिशा में वियतनाम हमारा स्वाभाविक और विश्वसनीय मित्र है।

नवंबर 2000 में भारत ने वियतनाम के साथ गंगा-मेकोंग सहयोग करार पर हस्ताक्षर किया था। तब जसवंत सिंह हमारे विदेश मंत्री थे। उनके साथ मीडिया प्रतिनिधि के नाते मैं भी गया था। वियतनाम में भारत के प्रति जनता में एक सहज और आत्मीय प्रेम दिखता है, विश्व की महाशक्तियों को अपने देशप्रेम की अद्भुत ताकत से हराने वाले देश के प्रति भारत भी अत्यंत सम्मान प्रकट करता है। हमारे विदेश मंत्री ने वियतनाम यात्रा के दौरान रक्षा, व्यापार, शिक्षा, संस्कृति और पूंजी निवेश जैसे विषयों पर चर्चा की। 2011 से 2013 के बीच भारत द्वारा वियतनाम को दी जाने वाली सहायता, तेल और गैस अन्वेषण, रक्षा सहयोग, सेना, नौसेना और वायु सेना के संयुक्त अभ्यास, मीडिया दलों का आदान-प्रदान और ढांचा गत सुविधाओं के विकास पर भी करार हुए। हालांकि इस बात से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि इस क्षेत्र के सामरिक महत्व और चीन की चुनौती के संदर्भ में भारतीय सहयोग की अभी बहुत अधिक संभावनाएं हैं। फिलहाल वियतनाम पहल की सफलता हमारे लिए सार्थक उपलब्धि कही जाएगी।

India and China compete for influence in South China sea

An interesting piece. Except that the story Chinese pushing INS Airawat out of South China sea has been denied by China and India both.

Its just another view.

Vice President of Strategic Intelligence Rodger Baker explains how increasing Indian involvement in the South China Sea is a maneuver to outflank China, which is becoming involved in the Indian Ocean.



Although competition between China and India is not terribly new, we do see a current flare-up in the relations between the two countries. India has been expanding its relations with Vietnam, focusing on oil and gas exploration and production as well as military cooperation. This has received a strong verbal response from the Chinese as well as some physical activity.

India and Vietnam have been cooperating in offshore oil and gas exploration for several years. However, they are moving to a new phase with more of the exploitation of the resources. It appears that later this year a new memorandum of understanding between the two countries is going to be signed. China has responded to this by accusing India of violating Chinese territorial waters and of interfering in Chinese territorial issues. There has been a report of an incident where Chinese maritime police have interfered with the operations of an Indian vessel in the Vietnamese waters, and we see statements coming out of Beijing warning India to back off.

India for a long time has pursued what it calls a “Look East” policy but it has not pursued it very strongly. We see India now moving back again into the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] nations, into the South China Sea, trying to expand its activity, trying to secure some of its influence, and ultimately taking a role in securing the major supply routes to the area, but also in trying to counter the Chinese. Chinese activity in Pakistan, Chinese activity in Myanmar, the expansion of Chinese port agreements throughout the Indian Ocean Basin, even the Chinese naval activity in regard to the anti-piracy operations off of Africa, have left the Indians feeling a little bit vulnerable.

Seeing the Chinese become stronger, at least theoretically, in their operations in the Indian Ocean, India is looking in some sense to flank China now. In response to the Chinese activities in the Indian Ocean, the Indians are going to become more active in the South China Sea and maybe even farther north. There is talk about creating a trilateral grouping to discuss security, economics and politics of the region between India, the United States and Japan, for example. This very obviously to the Chinese looks like an attempt to constrain Chinese operations and Chinese capabilities within in their own sphere of influence.

The South China Sea has long been the center of competition for sea lane control as well as, for the most part, theoretically for resources; though fishing is there, there has been some offshore oil and gas activity. In recent years we’ve seen an expansion of attention into not only exploring but truly exploiting the undersea resources, and not just in oil and gas but also now in mineral exploration. This is changing, in some sense, the way in which the countries interact because formerly when lots of countries claimed either all or parts of the territory, there was little to force them into confrontation. Now as countries begin to access resources, begin to explore the resources in the sea beds, they are doing so in ways that in some sense asserts their territorial claim to that area. That leaves the other countries that don’t interfere with that in some sense accepting those territorial claims.

The concreteness of this has changed, in some sense, the way in which interactions regarding the South China Sea play out. As countries expand their operations, as they put in installations, semi-permanent, permanent installations, to be able to access these resources, they find themselves needing to defend those resources. Other countries may be interfering in the operations and so we see these issues where China will send a boat to interfere with the activity of another country’s ships. The response, then, from Vietnam, or from India in this case, may be to become more robust in their own military patrols in the area. And this builds up a case where you have more military vessels in the area at the same time and the chances for accidental confrontation start to rise.

In the end, while India is becoming more involved, there are some serious limitations. The Indians certainly have very large land borders that they are much more concerned about. The country still struggles with several internal insurgencies or militancy. And their ability to forcefully push themselves into the South China Sea is very limited. The Vietnamese who are working with them know this. Vietnam is playing a lot of different options, not just working with India but also working with China, with the United States, with Japan and several other countries.

As we watch this competition play, the countries in Southeast Asia are put in an interesting position. They have the ability to exploit this competition to draw, perhaps, greater attention from each of the different players. At the same time they have the risk of being exploited by these players and finding themselves caught up in this big power confrontation.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Wild dreams of the dragon and the tiger rediscovering its roar

THE TIMES OF INDIA
20 September, 2011

Tarun Vijay


How the domestic political scene clouds a significant foreign policy move abroad can be exemplified by an almost unreported Vietnam initiative by India. But for the Chinese opposition to the entry of ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) in South China Sea for oil hunt, which helped SM Krishna’s Vietnam visit get some mention in newspapers, the much praiseworthy Vietnam engagement would have been lost as yet another boring foreign jaunts of Krishna.

It's true, like China disputes its territory with India, South China Sea also is ‘disputed’ for Beijing and though it reserves the right to have interventions in any other land considered ‘disputed’ by a neighbouring country, like its PLA's presence in PoK. OVL first began its operation in South China Sea in 1992 with Petro Vietnam and British Petroleum (BP) and successfully discovered a 58-billion-cubic-metre gas field. A financial crisis compelled OVL to withdraw for a decade and again the opportunity arrived when BP offered to seel its stakes in Nam Con Son gas fields (with an area of 955 square kilometres). According to reports, OVL has invested $217 million and could invest up to $377.46 million. Chinese objection was specific to OVL’s exploration in blocks 127 and 128.

Full maks to India for responding befittingly to the Chinese objection.

Vietnam is one of the our significant strategic partners in South East Asia. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh had played a leading role in strengthening bilateral relations during their visits in 2000 and early 2001. Later, Manmohan Singh understood the strategic importance of this region and India signed a special strategic partnership treaty with Vietnam in 2007, giving emphasis to defence exchanges, military training and joint military exercises. Indian Naval ships have been making frequent goodwill visits to Vietnam ports.

China was feeling quite uncomfortable about the growing warmth between New Delhi and Hanoi and when Financial Times of London reported that a Chinese warship confronted the Indian Navy vessel shortly after it left Vietnamese waters in late July, everyone tended to trust it till China and India both contradicted the report.

The fact is that China wants to emerge as the maritime super power from Gwadar to South China sea, its vast maritime empire has helped its clout grow several times more than its immediate neighbours. Hence its discomfiture over India’s growing presence in an area which it treats as under ‘its influence’ can be well understood.

Like India experienced and resisted the brutal attacks of the foreign invaders and long spells of colonial rule, Vietnam too faced Chinese, French and American assaults and their long colonial subjugation, finally unshackling from their control and emerging as a proud sovereign country.

Apart from the shared values of freedom and patriotism, we share more than a thousand year old civilisational link. The entire region was once known as Champa in Indian literature and history. Vijaya was a city-state in the ancient kingdom in what is now Vietnam. It was the capital of Champa for several centuries. The ancient kingdom of Champa was situated in the central coast of Vietnam at one time stretched from the Ngang Pass (present Quang Binh province) to the upper basin of Dong Nai river. A senior diplomat and former secretary in the Ministry of External affairs, JC Sharma, has written a book on the ancient Shiva temples of Vietnam. Jawaharlal Nehru had shown great interest in this region and he helped Vietnam’s withdrawal from Cambodia as well as helping Ho Chi Minh, despite US reservations about his communist regime. Time magazine, in its October 1955 issue reported that Lao’s Premier Katay Sasorith on one of his Delhi visits, urged Nehru to help them, saying "Laos was an outpost of Indian civilization when there was competition between India and China ... We look to you today for help."

Kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam together were known as Indochina and had looked upon India as their natural ally and friend. But being under the colonial spell of the British, our governance and foreign policy had a western fixation, which continues even today.

India’s eastern move began quite late suffering from delayed milestones. The Southeast and the Eastern region, which had been a region civilisationally inclined towards India, had not received any significant attention till lately. Even today, India has a total trade of about $3bn with Vietnam, while China almost reached a trade level of $24bn in 2010 and may cross the $25bn mark by this year. It’s noteworthy that in spite of a long history of hostilities towards Vietnam (in 1979, China attacked Vietnam forcing India’s foreign minister Vajpayee to cut short his China trip midway. The war cost Vietnam more than one lakh soldiers and China lost more than 40,000 PLA men.) China has improved relations dramatically since the 90s. In 2009 Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung had met his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao in Beijing and both had shown their resolve to meet the goal of raising two-way trade to US$25 billion in 2010, alongside keeping trade balance and increasing cooperation between their border localities. On the contrary India feels satisfied with opening of English teaching schools and IT training centres. I must add here that OVL’s presence is an exception and certainly deserves praise.

With a feeble overall Indian investment history, it was quite expected that China considers itself as a lord of this region, and hence it objected to India’s oil and gas exploration bid with Petro-Vietnam in South China sea. While one must applaud India’s growing investment in this region, though a bit too delayed one, the Chinese discomfiture with it must make us alert. Beijing’s encirclement of India from Gwadar to Bay of Bengal is now quite well known. It has also sent its troops to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, an area that is disputed and is claimed by India. Its open intervention in Nepalese politics, creating an atmosphere of disaffection against India has also been exposed. Almost at every international forum China has been opposing Indian interests. Its military and economic aid to Pakistan has a direct bearing on India’s security.

Indian presence in South East Asia and the east needs more power push and a long-term strategic planning. The future lies in the east. The Indian tiger must reinvent its roar. The dragon will learn to adjust to the new realities.

सत्य का टकराव सत्ता से

18/September/2011
जनसत्ता
तरुण विजय

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Hinduism Sans Frontieres

OUTLOOK
india.com

MAGAZINE | SEP 19, 2011

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Then why not pre-1947 India?

THE TIMES OF INDIA
07 September, 2011

Tarun Vijay


Should we be thankful to god for giving us our daily dose of difficult times and challenges so that we may know who is a friend and who is not and test our inner core values too? And doesn't such a tough time also give us an opportunity to gauge our patience to listen to the moralist preachers whose feet betray their clay?

Kashmir faces this irony. The nation gets to know the friends of the nationhood and also the foes at such a time. We look politically divided on it and the moralist preachers - called interlocutors sometime tell us to put the clock back and arrive in 1953 from 2011 rather than moving ahead to 2020.

If pre-1953 status serves Kashmir better than why not try pre-1947 status to have it serve India better? Memory loss is one trait that often hurts India’s cause in Kashmir.

The 1953 status that interlocutors have spoken about was confronted head on by Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the then President of Janasangh. There was a permit system to enter J&K, for all Indians, two flags, head of the state was known as sadr-e- riyasat meaning President and political chief executive of the state was called vazire-azam, i.e. Prime Minister. Mookerjee’s courageous defiance to enter state without a permit and later his mysterious death in Srinagar jail, declared a ‘murder’ by Jana Sangh then, forced Nehru government to end permit system, rechristen posts of sadr-e- riyasat and vazir-e- azam as governor and chief minister respectively and gradually extend the jurisdiction of the supreme court, election commission and the Indian Administrative and Police Services. Still the two flag system continued, as was the provision of constitution’s article 370.

Soon,Sheikh Abdullah, who was known as Prime Minister of Kashmir then had to be arrested as was ordered by Nehru for his seditious demands and actions. He was released eleven years later. A person who was jailed for eleven years was entrusted the task to go to Pakistan and have talks with its President Gen. Ayub Khan, to find ways to 'solve' Kashmir problem!! This is how Congress was tackling Kashmir issue. We had already lost 83 thousand sq kms of Kashmir to Pakistan in 1947, when Pakistani army in the disguise of tribal raiders attacked Kashmir. Lt. Gen SK Sinha (retd) says Indian troops were ready to push Pakistanis back and reclaim the lost land but were stopped by Pt Nehru at the insistence of Sheikh Abdullah in October 1947. Prime Minister Nehru having declared a unilateral ceasefire and an assurance for a plebiscite filed a complaint with the UN Security Council. As if this was not enough to harm Indian interests, Sheikh Abdullah was coronated as J&K’s Prime Minister, who would later be jailed by the same government of Pt Nehru.

Again after Nehru’s demise in 1964, Sheikh became more vocal in demanding independence for Kashmir and he had to be interned from 1965 to 1968 and was exiled from Kashmir in 1971 for 18 months. Inspite of such a record of Sheikh saheb, playing a strange game Indira Gandhi signed an agreement with him in 1974 paving way for him to become the chief minister.He remained in power till his death in 1984.

I am mentioning these facts to stress the point that Congress was never encouraging patriotic forces in the valley and kept the rest of the two and equally important parts of the state completely ignored. Instead of forming a Kashmir policy on the basis of patriotic and nationalist population, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs, the entire J&K was seen through the myopic view of the valley alone.

Out of 2,22,236 sq kms of the J&K state, Jammu has 26,293 sq kms and Ladakh 1,38,942 sq kms. It must be remembered that 78,114 sq kms of the state is under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 37,555 sq kms under illegal occupation of China and 5,180 sq kms have been illegally handed over to China by Pakistan. While Ladakh constitutes 69.60 % of the state's total land area, Kashmir valley, the most turbulent and vocal one is just 11.48 % and Jammu 18.92 %. Within Ladakh, Buddhist majority district Leh has 45,110 sq kms and Shia Muslim majority district Kargil has 13,000 sq kms.

Have we ever found the voices of these two regions as sincerely heard in Delhi as it listens to the third part, i.e. the valley? Have we shown equal concern and seriousness to find ways to get back parts of Kashmir under Pakistan’s illegal occupation? On 7th August 1952, while speaking in Loksabha, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee had asked about these parts of Kashmir, “Is there any possibility of our getting back this territory? We shall not get it through the efforts of the United Nations: we shall not get it through peaceful methods, by negotiating with Pakistan. That means we lose it unless we use force and the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so. Let us face facts-are we prepared to lose it?”

Today, 59 years down the line, instead of getting back lost Kashmir, we are proposing to lose Kashmir that we have with us. Moreover, there is absolutely no concern for more than five lakh Kashmiri Hindus who were forced to flee from valley.

It’s to be noted that after Maharaja of Kashmir signing the instrument of accession with India’s then governor general, there remains no ambiguity in relation with Kashmir’s status. The document of accession, which describes Maharaja Hari Singh as also the King of Tibet, says -

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor General, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').

Later, on 22nd February 1994, India parliament unanimously passed a resolution in regard to Kashmir. Please allow me to quote it fully, because I feel this resolution must find a place in every school, office and home, reminding every Indian about the unfinished task of taking back parts of Kashmir under illegal occupation of Pakistan. The resolution says -

"This House"

Notes with deep concern Pakistan's role in imparting training to the terrorists in camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, the supply of weapons and funds, assistance in infiltration of trained militants, including foreign mercenaries into Jammu and Kashmir with the avowed purpose of creating disorder, disharmony and subversion: reiterates that the militants trained in Pakistan are indulging in murder, loot and other heinous crimes against the people, taking them hostage and creating an atmosphere of terror; Condemns strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir; Calls upon Pakistan to stop forthwith its support to terrorism, which is in violation of the Simla Agreement and the internationally accepted norms of inter-State conduct and is the root cause of tension between the two countries reiterates that the Indian political and democratic structures and the Constitution provide for firm guarantees for the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens; regard Pakistan's anti-India campaign of calumny and falsehood as unacceptable and deplorable. notes with deep concern the highly provocative statements emanating from Pakistan urges Pakistan to refrain from making statements which vitiate the atmosphere and incite public opinion; expresses regret and concern at the pitiable conditions and violations of human rights and denial of democratic freedoms of the people in those areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which are under the illegal occupation of Pakistan;

On behalf of the People of India, Firmly declares that - (a) The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means; (b) India has the will and capacity to firmly counter all designs against its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and demands that - (c) Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression; and resolves that -(d) all attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of India will be met resolutely." The Resolution was unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker: The Resolution is unanimously passed. February 22, 1994.

Please analyze, whether the interlocutors, who were appointed by the Government of India have acted on behalf of the people of India, or have they reflected the spirit of Indian Parliament’s resolution regarding Kashmir? Yielding to the demands of a miniscule minority of secessionists in the valley, have they not ended up pleasing the pro-Pakistani elements?

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

वैचारिक ध्रुवीकरण का दौर

04/September/2011
जनसत्ता
तरुण विजय

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Justice for Shehla

Speaking to the media in the BJP office today Shri Tarun Vijay said that Ms Shehla through her company Miracles had worked for their organisation Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation helping events in Srinagar, Kolkata and New Delhi. She was a brave RTI activist and a friend who helped tiger conservation and environment protection movement. In fact the day Anna was arrested, 16th August, we spoke on phone in the morning at about 9.30am about it for app three minutes . We are deeply saddened by her murder and have full sympathies with her family who is passing through a difficult time. Every right thinking Indian will stand by them and will not take rest till the culprits are booked and justice is done to Shehla. Police is naturally seeking and gathering information from all those who knew her as a friend and everyone is coming forthwith to help as all of us are equally concerned to see the culprits are booked and hanged to death. Whenever MP Police will seek information from us we shall be too willing to share all that we knew about her and help every effort to get culprits caught. I hope that this serious challenge to civil rights movement would not be politicized by anyone.