Dawood Ibrahim joins hands with Naxals?

Source: News Bharati

Raipur, March 12: Residing amidst the welcome conditions of a generous host country called Pakistan, most wanted criminal Dawood Ibrahim has his eyes set on India's valuable mineral resources.

According to report of Daily Bhaskar, Dawood's D Company has been planning illegal mining of diamond and tin in the mineral-rich states of Chattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand, and has even started building ties with Naxalite forces operating in these areas.

India's intelligence agencies have issued alerts to these states regarding the threat, and have demanded reports on the state of illegal mining operations. It is believed that Ibrahim has planned to pump in Rs 4,000 crore in his illegal mining business in India.

Several international finance companies confirmed that Dawood's illegal operations business is currently worth over Rs 12,000 crore.

The centre had issued an alert about Dawood Ibrahim's ambitious plans to state police forces across the country last month. It has also demanded a detailed report on the matter from Chattisgarh police.

Meanwhile Naxalite forces operational in Chattisgarh have reportedly been acquiring weapons via the rail route. Recently Police raided godowns of a Raipur-based transporter and seized a large quantity of materials reportedly meant for manufacturing rocket launchers and grenades.

According to Bhaskar report, the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has also been aiding the growth of Dawood's business in India. Further, it has been reported that Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) facilitated the growth of ties between the Naxalites and Dawood's D company with the larger aim of spreading terror in India with the help of the Naxal forces.

The LeT has been supplying sophisticated weapons and explosives to Naxalites for the past three years- a fact confirmed by a LeT leader currently held under arrest in Delhi.

 http://en.newsbharati.com//Encyc/2012/3/12/Dawood-Ibrahim-joins-hands-with-Naxals-.aspx?NB=&lang=1&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=&NewsMode=int

The Northern frontiers of India ( POK )

 

In the name of development, massive efforts are taking place to change the geo-political scenario at high mountains of Himalayan region. Pakistan is playing a major role here because it has an illegal possession on northern frontiers of Indian soil. Chinese also have their interests in this land. Both the countries join hands to exploit this haven on the earth, and made the life of the people living here like the hell.

Among the major development projects in Pakistan in which the Chinese have been involved till now are the construction of an international commercial port cum naval base in Gwadar on the Makran coast in Balochistan and the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway connecting the Xinjiang province of China with Pakistan via the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) in the North-West Frontier Province.

The Pakistanis, since the days of General Pervez Musharraf have repeatedly sought Chinese assistance for the construction of a petrochemical complex at Gwadar and oil and gas pipelines and a railway line connecting Gwadar with the Xinjiang province. The Chinese interest in participating in development projects in Pakistan is presently confined to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir including the Northern Areas.

The Karakoram Highway was originally constructed with Chinese assistance with the participation of Chinese engineers. For the last 10 years it has been in a bad state of repairs due to poor maintenance by Pakistani engineers. The signing of an MOU for the construction of a dam at Bunji in the Astore district of the Northern Areas by officials of Pakistan's Ministry of Water and Power and China's Three Gorges Project Corporation. The dam,one of the eight hydel projects short-listed for construction will have a capacity of generating 7,000 megawatts of electricity.

Zardari attended a presentation on small and medium sized dams, water conservation and irrigation by the Zhejiang Design Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power. Li Yueming, the president of the institute, said they had carried out feasibility studies of a couple of medium-sized dams in PoK. Shakeel Durrani, chairman of the WAPDA, who was present on the occasion, said that Chinese companies were already working on a number of hydel projects in Pakistan, including Neelum-Jhelum and Gomal Zam and the raising of the height of the Mangla dam in PoK. He said the institute would be invited to bid for the construction of 12 smalldams.

The State was partitioned after the war between India and Pakistan and puppet rulers of Pakistani Administered Kashmir signed away vast areas of Gilgit Baltistan to their political bosses in Islamabad; and limited their interest to the area known as Azad Kashmir. Since 1947 bureaucrats and secret agencies of Pakistan ruled Gilgit-Baltistan with an iron fist.

The party (Muslim Conference) that signed that ignominious treaty with Pakistani rulers had no branches or even a single member in the areas of Gilgit Baltistan. One wonders what moral or legal justification they had to sign that treaty and leave the people of 28 thousand Square miles at the mercy of oppressive and imperialist minded bureaucrats of Pakistan.

After signing this agreement, Muslim Conference leaders and rulers of Azad Kashmir almost forgot about the plight of the people of Gilgit Baltistan; and confined their rule and interest to the territory of Azad Kashmir.

 For the first time in the past 63 years, rulers of Pakistani Administered Kashmir were allowed to visit Gilgit Baltistan. When there was some ambiguity regarding the legal status of these areas, Islamabad did not allow any ruler of Azad Kashmir to visit Gilgit Baltistan. In September 2009, Pakistan unilaterally and against bilateral and international covenants on Kashmir changed legal status of these areas and drastically made them a province of Pakistan.

So, as far as Islamabad was concerned they have allowed the Prime Minister and the President of Azad Kashmir to visit a 'Pakistani province'.The question is how do people of Jammu and Kashmir and All Parties Hurriyet Conference, who  claim to represent all the Kashmiris think of this? Are they too frightened to speak about Gilgit Baltistan because their political masters in Islamabad could get angry? In any case, the leadership of APHC have myopic view of the struggle and want to see everything with the lenses of religion and their influence is restricted to some sub districts of the Valley.

 In this rooftop of the world, as many as 33 peaks rise 24,000 feet, the borders of five countries lie in close proximity-Pakistan, China, India, Russia and Afghanistan. India is concerned about vast logistical network developed by China impinging on the country's security in the western sector through Aksai Chin and PoK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir). As there is no comparable road network anywhere else in the world with such a high degree of military importance, it is not surprising that thousands of Chinese and Pakistani troops are engaged more or less permanently on either side of the Karakoram to maintain it. China is in control of a portion of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir.

The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 oblige all leaders from the President down and all legislators to swear loyalty to the cause of accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan." Islam is the State religion (Article 3). The President and Prime Minister must be Muslim. 

The right of freedom of association is restricted. Article 7(2) says:

No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan.

If one go through the documents, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) adopted a resolution embodying its proposals for a settlement. On December 11,1948 the UNCIP offered proposals in amplification of the first to provide for a plebiscite. Both sides accepted it.

They were formally embodied in its resolution of January 5 1949.

According it, while the tribesmen from Pakistan and Pakistan's troops were to be withdrawn completely, India was to withdraw only the bulk of its forces retaining some "to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order". Accordingly the resolution provided that the government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will safeguard law and order and that human and political right will be respected. This is clear recognition of the legality of Kashmir's accession to India, India's external sovereignty over the State and the legal authority of the Government of the State. Though, the exercise was meaningless because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces from the occupied territory.

In utter disregard of the UN resolutions by which it swears, Pakistan imposed a new regime on POK on June 21 1952. Rules of Business were presented on October 28. Rule 5 said: The President of Azad Kashmir Government shall hold office during the pleasure of the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference duly recognized as such by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs.

POK is firmly riveted to Pakistan's control through the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council. It is presided over by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and comprises his five nominees and The President and Prime Minister of POK with six representatives of the POK Assembly elected by proportional representation. In December 1993 the blasphemy laws of Pakistan were extended to the POK. The northern parts of the State have been dismembered from the POK and their status as part of the state questioned. They are ruled directly through a chief executive, appointed by Islamabad with a 26-member Northern Areas Council. The people have never seen elections or enjoyed human rights.

The State's accession to India has never been challenged by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan or the Security Council. As early as 4 February, 1948, the US Representative in the Security Council declared: "External sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India and that is how India happens to behere as a petitioner."

Similarly, the representative of the USSR said at the 765th meeting of the Security Council:

"The question of Kashmir has been settled by the people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India."

The legal adviser to the UN Commission came to the conclusion that the State's accession was legal and could not be questioned. This fact was further recognized by the UN Commission in its report submitted to the UN in defining its resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949. Both these resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan.

The UN Commission resolutions have become obsolete. This view was expressed by the UN Commission itself as far back as 1949, and has been reiterated by Dr. Jarring and Dr. Graham,both UN representatives. Passage of time, change of circumstances, and Pakistan's repeated and continuing violations, have ruled out all possibility of implementing them.

Pakistan tried to impose a military solution by launching a war against India in 1965. The pattern was familiar. Massive infiltration was followed by invasion of Indian Territory on September 1, 1965.

After the war, bilateral talks were held in June/July 1972. Under the terms of this Agreement, the two countries undertook to resolve all differences bilaterally. Pakistan, through its commitment in the Agreement agreed to shift once for all the entire Kashmir question from the UN to the bilateral plane.

Gilgit and Baltistan of Pok are gateway to central Asia for India and southeastern countries, similarly it is gateway for central Asian countries to India, South east Asia and China.

Basically it is a strategic junction full with natural resources. Demography of POK has been systematically changed over past 6 decades with more of punjabis residing there along with retired Pakistan Army personnel’s.

The dignity of the Indian state would never allow it to compromise with any dilution of its integrity. India has kept the doors open to a dialogue with Pakistan, despite the latter's obduracy. But the offer of a dialogue should not in any way lead Pakistan into believing that India and its people do not have the innate strength and resilience to confront any territorial ambitions that Pakistan may nurture in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan ought to realize that the contours of a solution after six decades will necessarily be different than those that were envisaged in 1948-49 given Pakistan's concept of selective self-determination. Neither plebiscite nor independence can now be contemplated. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a solution which satisfies the aspirations of the people within the Indian Union, and redresses the wrongs, if any, they have suffered.

Increasing assertiveness of Chinese military in South Asian Waters: Is India Listening?

Source: News Bharati

Beijing, March 10: China’s Defence Budget is exceeded to $100 billion and its first Aircraft Carrier is likely to be commissioned on August 1 and deployed in the disputed South China Sea (SCS), boosting its blue water aspirations. Analysts say its deployment in the disputed waters of South China Sea, whose oil rich islands were claimed by China and number of ASEAN countries could stir up more tensions in the region.

United states has published  Pentagon’s 94-page report, ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China – 2011’. This report clearly states that ‘increasing assertiveness of the Chinese military, particularly over maritime territorial disputes, had worried China’s neighbors.’ This statement clearly points towards India. 

The report also states that, ‘China was also beefing up its border security amid distrust in ties with India, putting in place more advanced and survivable solid-fuelled missiles to strengthen its deterrent posture relative to India.

China has denied and expressed its “firm opposition” to this report. In a statement, Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun has said that it was ‘normal’ for the Chinese army ‘to develop and renew’ weapons and equipment given the progress of science and technology. He said China’s defence build-up was “solely to safeguard its own sovereignty and territorial integrity, and ensure smooth economic and social development, and does not target any country”. He further added that China reliably adheres to the path of peaceful development, and its national Defence policy is defensive in nature.

Importantly the annual Pentagon report also noted that despite an improvement in cross-strait relations, Taiwan remained the ‘main strategic direction’ of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and its modernisation.

Chinese military analysts hit out at the annual report, accusing the Pentagon of “provoking friction” between China and its neighbours.

China apparently was in a hurry to deploy to counter United States big Asia Pacific push strategy rallying countries that have maritime disputes with Beijing.

Experts believe China is in the early stages of building a ‘blue water’ navy in order to challenge American global supremacy at sea. Significantly China will be deploying the J-15 fighters, stated to be home made variant of Russia's Su-33 to operate from the carrier.

China's neighbors have, however, expressed concerns over the rise in military spending, which grew by 12.7 per cent last year to $91 billion. Spending grew by a lower than expected 7.5 per cent in 2010, the first time in two decades that the increase was a single-digit figure, seen by analysts as a result of the financial crisis as well as a move to allay regional fears.

India’s ‘China Experience’ is worst. In a report of Centre for Foreign Affairs states that, “China and Pakistan have traditionally valued one another as a strategic hedge against India. For China, Pakistan is a low-cost secondary deterrent to India,"

It continues, “India has long been perturbed by China's military aid to Pakistan. Observers in India see Chinese support for Pakistan as "a key aspect of Beijing's perceived policy of 'encirclement' or constraint of India as a means of preventing or delaying New Delhi's ability to challenge Beijing's region-wide influence." China and India fought a border war in 1962, and both still claim the other is occupying large portions of their territory. "The 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict was a watershed moment for the region,"

China’s ‘Encircling policy’ is an immense threat for India. China has its navel and military bases in each South Asian Nations which surrounds India. China’s ‘string of pearls’ strategy of bases is a part of encircling India. China’s growing naval presence in and around the Indian Ocean region, beginning in areas such as China’s Hainan Island in the South China Sea, is troubling for India. China deployed its Jin class submarines in 2008 at a submarine base near Sanya in the southern tip of Hainan, raising alarm in India as the base is merely 1200 nautical miles from the Malacca Strait and is its closest access point to the Indian Ocean.

The base also has an underground facility that can hide the movement of submarines; making them difficult to detect. The concentration of strategic naval forces at Sanya could propel China towards a consolidation of its control over the surrounding Indian Ocean region. The presence of access tunnels on the mouth of the deep water base is particularly troubling for India as it will have strategic implications in the Indian Ocean region, allowing China to interdict shipping at the three crucial chokepoints in the Indian Ocean – Babel Mandeb, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Strait of Malacca. Of particular note is what has been termed China’s “string of pearls” strategy that has significantly expanded China’s strategic depth in India’s backyard.

This ‘String of Pearls’ strategy of bases and diplomatic ties includes the Gwadar port in Pakistan, naval bases in Burma, electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal, funding construction of a canal across the Kra Isthmus in Thailand, a military agreement with Cambodia and building up of forces in the South China Sea.

These ‘pearls’ are to help build strategic ties with several countries along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in order to protect China’s energy interests and security objectives. Some of the claims are exaggerated, as has been the case with the purported Chinese naval presence in Burma.

India's defence expenditure was reported at $36 billion in the 2011-12 budgets - one-third of what China will spend this year. While Indian defence officials have expressed concerns over the widening gap between both military spending and infrastructure in border regions, China’s senior diplomat has stressed that China's military will not in the least pose a threat to other countries and followed a policy that was ‘purely defensive’ in nature.

Looking back to India’s China Experience, it is hard to trust the words of China. But is India, its diplomats, Defence strategists and UPA government listening?

http://en.newsbharati.com//Encyc/2012/3/10/Increasing-assertiveness-of-Chinese-military-in-South-Asian-Waters--Is-India-Listening-.aspx?NB=&lang=1&m1=&m2=&p1=&p2=&p3=&p4=&NewsMode=int

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/