Accession of J&K with India is Full & Final ¦ (JK STUDY CENTER)

Accession of J&K with India is Full & Final ¦ (JK STUDY CENTER)

Maharaja Hari Singh acceded  Jammu & Kashmir to Dominion of India on 26 Oct 1947 under a legitimate instrument of accession. The Instrument of Accession Signed  by Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Hari Singh ji was the same as was signed by other rulers of the other princely States of Indian Dominion . Similarly, the acceptance of the Instrument of Accession by the Lord Mountbatten  was also identical in respect of all such instruments. Lord Mounbatten , the then Governor General of India signed the acceptance on 27 October 1947 as I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession dated this 27th day of October , nineteen hundred and forty seven.

The relevant clauses of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, to support Jammu- Kashmirs full and final legal integration with India are:-

Clause No. 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”.

Clause No. 9 - I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Clause-1) made Jammu Kashmir a permanent part of Indian union. The state Constituent assembly on feb.6 1956 has also ratified the states accession to India.

Clause-3) of J&K constitution, the state of J&K is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.

Clause-4) The territory of the state shall comprise all the territories which on the 15th day of August,1947,were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the  J&K state,

Clause-147) Clause-3 & clause -4 cannot be revoked.

Later Maharaja Hari Singh ji said :-
The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act ,1947 , unless such amendment is accepted by me  an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

Note:-1) The Maharaja had no where talked of any dispute regarding accession of J&K.

Note-2) The state Constituent assembly on feb.6 1956 has also ratified the states accession to Indian Dominion

Note-3) Pt.Nehru,Lord Mountbatten, Mohd.Ali Jinnah,Maharani of Britain British Parliament and even the people of the Concerned states  had no rights to raise objections against the accession by the ruler as per provisions of India Independent Act (division of India in 1947 took place under the Provisions of India Independent Act)

Note-4) Merger of J&K in India was at par with all other Princely states.

Pakistan attacked Jammu-Kashmir & Blunders by Pt.Nehru

On Oct.22,1947 Pakistani Army attacked J&K & Captured 83,000 Sq.Km area of J&K and morethen 50,000 Hindus, Sikhs & Muslims were killed by Pakistani Army. Instead of retaliation in self defense, Pt.Nehru went to UN under chapter 35 on UN charter.Pt.Nehru forced Maharaja Hari Singh to appoint Sheikh Mohd.Abdullah  as Prime-minister of J&K & forced Maharaja Hari Singh ji to leave the J&K. Sheikh Abdullah did not allowed Our Army to vacate  the area of J&K Captured by Pakistan and announced  cease-fire on 1st-January 1949

Article-370 (Temporary,Transitional &Special Provision )

The format of the instrument of accession was the same as was executed by other heads of all princely states. The govt.of India agreed that final decision with regard to accession would be taken by the Constituent Assembly of J&K and  in the intervening period  temporary provision had to be made in the constitution of India. Thus ,article 370 was born out by the evil designs of politicians
(Sheikh Abdullah & Pt.Nehru) Art.370 became a tool for anti-nationals in J&K  & created problems rather than the solution..This article provides separate constitution & a separate flag that flies side by side with the Indian tricolor in J&K.It is the only example of one country with two flags and two constitutions.

Note:- Separate  constitution and separate flag are the by-product of Article 370
 Dr.S.P.Mookerjee had significantly observed: What you are going to do may lead to Balkanization of India, may strengthening the hands of those who do not believe that India is a nation but combination of separate nationalities

 Dr.B.R.Ambekar,chairman of drafting committee ,said I can't be a party to such a betrayal of national interest Maulana Hasrat Mohani member of constituent assembly on oct.17,1949 had warned against any move that accords a difference status to Jammu Kashmir on the score of religion and said, The grant of a special status would enable Kashmir to assume independence afterwards.

 For what is implied by more autonomy today will mean Independence tomorrow,i.e.pre-1953 position (no election commission of India,no.supreme court,no IAS and IPS,limited applicability of Art.352 & 356,no controller and Auditor General ,change of nomenclature (CM to PM )& Elected Governor by the state assembly.

 Need of Hour:

. Abolish Article 370 .
. Full integration of  J&K with India  i.e no separate constitution,no.separate flag,
.No Autonomy, No Self rule.
celebarate Oct.26 as Accession Day

(JK STUDY CENTER)

 http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/accession-of-jammu-kashmir-2/accession-of-jk-with-india-is-full-final%E2%80%A6jk-study-center/

Is Hindu-American Community Coming into its Own?

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin  

There are not that many more Muslims than Hindus in the United States:  2.454 million Muslims compared to 1.478 million Hindus, according to Pew Research, the US State Department, and others.  You would not know that judging by the tremendous imbalance in attention given the former over the latter; or the power and influence imbalance between the Council on Arab-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Hindu American Foundation (HAF).  During the height of Taliban expansion in 2009, for example, HAF failed to get Congress to pass even a non-binding resolution to condemn the Taliban for atrocities against Pakistani Hindus.  If you cannot get Americans to condemn the Taliban, you better take another look at the reality of your position.

We could suggest any number of theories for this disparity, but one thing is clear.  American Muslims have done a much better job of organizing as a relatively united US interest group than have US Hindus.  But that might be changing in this very tight and pivotal election year.
At least three candidates in the have made genuine outreach to the Hindu-American and Sikh-American communities a priority:  Congressman Mark Kirk, running for the US Senate seat from Illinois once held by President Barack Obama; Robert Dold, running for the suburban Chicago Congressional seat vacated by Kirk; and Joel Pollak, running for Congress from the adjacent District.  All three are in very tight races; all three genuinely consider the Hindu community’s concerns important; and all three are Republicans running in traditionally Democrat areas.  Hindu-Americans traditionally vote Democrat, especially in cities like Chicago, where Democrats maintain strong, “machine” power.
Activists attempting to create an independent Hindu power base recognized that.  As one of them told me, “we have to go around the traditional ‘leaders’ since they are tied to specific groups and will do their bidding in exchange for political crumbs.”  For years, community leaders reliably contributed to the Democrat machine and their media always endorsed its candidates.  Small businesses on Chicago’s Devon Avenue, dubbed Mahatma Gandhi Marg, knew that there would be consequences for displaying opposition candidates’ posters, something several of them told me.   This fall, that culture of corruption boiled over after numerous bad bank loans and foreclosures by the United Central Bank devastated many in the community.  The machine’s Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky—Pollak’s opponent—said she would help but intervened for only three wealthy businessmen—Mr. Amrit Patel, Mr. Balvinder Singh, and Mrs. Shahira Khan—who contributed to her political campaign.  That and a general rejection of Obama’s failed policies sparked anger and discontent within Chicago’s Hindu American community.

An early turning point came in August when Pollak and Dold marched down Devon on India’s Independence Day.  Their opponents were nowhere to be seen.  Pollak and his wife Julia came decked in traditional Indian garb and spent hours after the parade speaking with and listening to Indian-American residents and businessmen.  Dold marched even though the parade was not even in his District.  Dold later spent time at both Hindu and Sikh events; and Pollak spent hours with Shri Baba Brajraj Sharan learning about ecological and spiritual deterioration in India’s Braj region. Kirk has reached out to Indians state wide, including physicians hurt by Obama’s health care plan.  He also has reiterated his support for persecuted Bengali and other Hindus.
 
While community members still fear machine reprisals, there have been clear signs that the effort has borne fruit.  A recent cover story in one major Indian paper about the Pollak-Schakowsky election, gave the political upstart and the six-term Congresswoman equal coverage, something that had not happened in previous years.  And at least one Indian TV station has openly supported Kirk, Dold, and Pollak, while also tying their candidacies to my pro-Hindu human rights work. 
 
As a Congressman, Mark Kirk worked extensively to aid my own human rights work and has labored long to strengthen US-India ties.  Dold and Pollak are first-time candidates who have pledged the same support in Congress and recognize that and translate it into a stronger US.  Each candidate has formed Indian-American advisory committees from which they seek advice and pledge to continue empowering after the election as well.  Pollak is actually a human rights attorney, familiar with anti-Hindu oppression, especially in the Northeast; and Dold, who has personal experience with atrocity victims, actively seeks out information about anti-Hindu activities to help shape his own policies.
 
Substantively, we need that support to launch effective opposition by the United States against efforts to destroy Hindu communities in Bangladesh and elsewhere.  Politically, the candidates have identified us as a critical constituency whose issues and concerns they will not ignore.  Should they be victorious on 2 November, one national political insider told me, others will recognize your critical role, too, and “you won’t see a repeat of the failed anti-Taliban resolution.”

 http://south-asiaforum.org/2010/10/30/is-hindu-american-community-coming-into-its-own/

America’s Future is with Asia, not Europe

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin  

Passage of President Barack Obama’s health care bill has not lessened Americans’ opposition to it. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, fully 56 percent not only oppose it but also want it repealed, and only 41 percent oppose repeal.  Pundits have given a multitude of reasons for American opposition:  it is unconstitutional; it will be disastrous for the US economy; its re-distributive nature is contrary to American values of free enterprise and individual responsibility; its deliberately depressive effect on profits will hamper new medical research and innovation that have benefitted people worldwide; and that is only the beginning of the criticism.  Conservatives frequently accuse Obama of trying to re-make the United States along the lines of European socialism through the health care bill and the rest of his domestic and foreign agenda; and polls indicate that the charge rings true among most Americans.  As columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.” 

A basic assumption embedded in Obama care and the rest of that agenda is that America’s future is to become more like Europe; and that is a flawed assumption.  America’s real future lies in growing closer with Asia and more distant from an aged and failing Europe.  Stripped of its rhetoric, the Obama agenda is essentially Euro-centric and, dare we say it, racially biased.  In 2008, I wrote that the oft-made remark by partisans on the left (including then Senator Obama) that the US had lost the world’s respect under President George W. Bush was based largely on their perceptions about European support and the same racial bias.  Throughout Asia, on the other hand, our standing remained high, and people looked toward the United States for guidance and support.  The accusation also failed to consider that Europe’s disdain for the United States is endemic on the continent and long pre-dated Bush and his policies.  Only its expression quieted at those times when American arms and blood saved Europe from autocracy in 1918 and fascism in 1945; when American generosity rebuilt the Continent after World War II; and the when the US nuclear umbrella prevented its takeover by an aggressive Soviet Union and communist totalitarianism.  (Even so, as a young man traveling through Western Europe in the 1970s, I was urged to advertise myself as a Canadian due to high levels of anti-Americanism.)  As we move further from these periods when Europe’s very existence depended on the US, anti-Americanism is finding free expression there again.  This is not dissimilar to European anti-Semitism retaking center stage after being muted only briefly after Europe’s Holocaust sins.  Jessica C. E. Gienow-Hecht of Germany’s Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main wrote that “Anti-Americanism in Europe is a habitus, a syndrome, an ideological Versatzstück… a cultural phenomenon” that only “hides behind a political mask.”  According to Gienow-Hecht, it transcends historical periods, ideologies, and specific issues.  She quotes political analyst David Kaspar who wrote, “You want to know what anti-Americanism is for most people?  It’s a German schoolteacher who vacations in America, who watches American movies, who was defended from the Soviets by America and then later met an Eastern German cousin she never knew because Reagan won the Cold War, who sneers at America in front of the kids she teaches every day.”
 
Former British MP and Liberal leader, Lord Paddy Ashdown agrees.  Five months after the 9/11 attacks, he told the BBC that they gave the transatlantic relationship “a new lease on life,” but added, “That is more likely to prove a temporary reversal of an underlying trend, to which we will revert when all this is over.”  A year earlier in the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs, C. Fred Bergstrom predicted that the US and Europe “are on the brink of a major trade and economic conflict,” already manifest in mutual trade sanctions.  The conflict, however, goes beyond governmental tussles over trade, interest rates, and the extent to which the economies should be regulated.  There is growing competition between US and European firms as well over large contracts.  Recently, for instance, European aerospace giant EADS shed its American partner and went head to head with America’s Boeing to build an aerial refueling tanker for the United States Air Force.  Complicating matters further, several US lawmakers decried the very thought of giving a European company that military contract over an American one.  As markets continue to tighten in the international economy, look for European and American protectionist moves to grow.
 
We might also ask if Obama and his colleagues are backing the wrong horse with their agenda.  When I was in India earlier this year, I noticed that my US dollar bought more Euros but fewer Rupees.  The longer I was in South Asia, the more apparent it was that the region had escaped the worst ravages of the international economic crisis.  There had been some job losses in the IT and export sectors, but the Indian economy and the country remained vibrant.  Free enterprise is flourishing throughout South Asia, and even India’s left-center government is largely staying out of its way.  Once safe strongholds of India’s communist party (CPIM) are weakening, and the CPIM is expected to be out of power by the next elections in West Bengal after ruling there for more than three decades.  Indian and Asian economies are on the rise by adopting the same sort of laissez-faire capitalism that made the US an economic giant; Europe’s on the other hand are declining under the banner of socialism.
 
America’s founding fathers set out to build a nation premised on limited government and low taxes.  While that has changed somewhat, as Krauthammer noted, it remains basic American philosophy.  One indicator of that philosophy’s strength is tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product.  Money taken out of the economy in the form of taxes reduces amounts available for economic development.  The greater the amount, the more control government has over how resources are distributed. While running high at 28 percent, the US remains significantly below West European countries like the United Kingdom (38), Germany (40), France (46), and the Scandinavian countries (43-50).  South Asian nations, on the other hand, run from eight percent in Bangladesh to 17 percent in India.  Even communist China with extensive state control is only at 17 percent.  Whether in South Asia or the Far East, there is a palpable vibrancy to these Asian economies unfettered by the large government programs that characterize the European Union.  They resonate with traditional American values of self-reliance and government’s small role in the economy.
The American population itself is changing, too, becoming more “Asian” and less “European.”  A study by the respected Pew Research Center projects the Asian-origin population in the United States to triple by 2050.  According to US government figures, five of the top ten foreign countries for legal US immigrants and naturalized US citizens since 2000 are Asian; none are European.  Asians represented over 38 percent of naturalized American citizens in that period; Europeans only 13 percent.  Ironically, the lion’s share of those Europeans immigrants is likely to want an American more like Asia today than Europe.  Four of the five top European countries that contributed new American citizens in the past decade were formerly under communist rule.  People fled those countries and Europe to escape the same big government programs that stifled freedom and initiative there and which the Obama administration is attempting, to their horror, to implement in the United States.

 http://south-asiaforum.org/2010/05/06/america%E2%80%99s-future-is-with-asia-not-europe/#more-1124

Before India can deserve a UNSC seat…

  by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

There are so many reasons why India should be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, equipped with the same veto power enjoyed by the current batch of permanent members:  the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.  India is not, as some are fond of saying, an “emerging giant”; it is a giant—economically as well as militarily.  It is also home to more than one out of every six people on the planet, boasts the second, fourth, and eighth most populous cities on earth (Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata  respectively),and by 2030 is estimated to overtake China as the world’s largest country.

If India expects more than lip service from the United States, however (which is so far all that it has gotten from the Obama Administration), it will have to re-think its foreign policy into one that is not driven by domestic political calculations.  Israel is a great example.  The world over has touted the extremely tight relationship between the two countries, yet on critical UN votes, India consistently casts anti-Israel votes.  The current Palestinian Authority (PA) gambit is but the latest example.

Shortly after the Palestinians announced that they would go to the Security Council for a resolution of statehood, India announced that it would vote in favor of their move—even though it has been clear that the effort will do more to delay Middle East peace than advance it or bring about a functioning Palestinian state.  Indian officials have maintained its position, reaffirming it strenuously seemingly every chance they get.  Similarly, when the Goldstone Report on the 2009 Gaza War was brought before the United Nations for approval or disapproval last year, India unhesitatingly voted in favor of it.  India cast that vote despite the fact that the report was discredited almost from the beginning and eventually disavowed by its director and namesake as “skewed against Israel” from its initial mandate forward.  Does this mean that India must be a “good little boy” if it wants US support for a permanent Security Council seat?  No, it does not.  India, like any sovereign nation, has the responsibility to determine its own foreign policy, but Indian leaders must ask themselves why in the world would the United States support bringing in another veto toting country with a history of casting critical votes that are opposed not only to American foreign policy principles but even against the interests of its own people.

Greater security, economic, and other relations between India and the United States is indeed a strong possibility after the 2012 Presidential election, as both Republican frontrunners have come out for them (along with less cooperation with Pakistan) as basic to their overall worldview.  Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has been a strong advocate of that position for years.  In a recent debate, Texas governor Rick Perry did not even have to be prompted on the matter.  When asked what he would do if Pakistan lost control of its nuclear weapons, he responded immediately that stronger US ties with India are the key to US ability to affect events in the region.  Both men advance strong economic and foreign policy reasons for stronger ties with India.  With the US Presidential election still 13 months away, anything can happen to affect the results.  At this point, however, President Barack Obama’s chances of being returned to office appear to be fading with each passing day—which means a potential re-orientation of US foreign policy.  Will US-India cooperation be based on this century’s realities, or will they be mired in outdated and discredited ideologies of the last one?

How discredited?  Less than a year ago, Indian President Pratibha Devisingh Patil publicly supported Syria President Bashir Assad and his country’s claims in its dispute with Israel over the Golan Heights.  Since that time, Assad’s time and attention has been taken up with his ruthless oppression of democratic forces in his country that so far has claimed over 2,000 lives.  Moreover, while it was highly inappropriate for Patil to inject herself into the bi-lateral dispute, it probably represented little more than her toadying approach to foreign relations rather, old alliances, and fear of jeopardizing trade and foreign receipts from the Gulf States.  Should “fear” drive the foreign policy of a nation that towers over all others with its permanent Security Council seat?

Indian officials tend to justify their anti-Israel votes with reference to their “traditional” support for a Palestinian state—which probably reached its zenith when India voted in favor of the infamous UN “Zionism is racism” resolution—a resolution so embarrassing, politicized, and openly anti-Jewish (as opposed to pro anything) that the UN rescinded it 16 years later, and no one has had the temerity to raise the issue since.  India, by the way, was one of only six nations not formally communist or having a Muslim majority that voted for the resolution.  So much for the past; what about the present and the future?  Israel has now supplanted Russia as India’s major arms partner, and has provided the latter with sophisticated military and intelligence hardware.  India has become young Israelis’ favorite tourist destination, only part of the more extensive bonds being formed by the two peoples.  And the two nations share existential strategic interests.  After 26/11, Israel provided India with extensive intelligence on the jihadi attackers and their keepers in Pakistan; not a rupee came from the holders of the world’s petrodollars.  Israel provided aid to the victims and condemned the act as terrorism.  While top Arab leaders formally condemned the attacks, there was quite a different reaction on the popular side.  Al Jazeera hosted a forum to surfers wishing to identify with the terrorists in Mumbai, with almost unanimous support for the attacks and identification with the attackers.  Hamas, now part of the Palestinian “unity” government that the current UN resolution would advance, did the same without posting a single comment in opposition to the attacks.

The question facing Indian leaders is whether they will recognize that the interests of its people lay with the United States and Israel—which like India are major targets of international jihadis—or will they remain tied to discredited ideologies of a bygone era that not only fail on all fronts to help the Indian people in any tangible way but rather strengthen the forces of anti-Indian jihad arrayed against them?


http://folks.co.in/blog/2011/10/06/before-india-can-deserve-a-unsc-seat/