The Candid Eye

March 15, 2010

Corruption hits social projects in India: Bill Gates

While the congress government is trumpeting the victory of NREGA scheme in India, many parts of country where this scheme is introduced, has only fed the middle men and local politicians at the village level.Unless and until we get rid of these middle men and bureaucracy, corruption can not be eliminated.

Software czar Bill Gates engaged in a large number of social projects in India, has told US lawmakers that the northern parts of the India face difficult challenges.

“We see places like India, where the results are mixed. The north, which has the greatest need, tends to have the most difficult challenges,” Gates told members of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wherein he testified on “Building on Success: New Directions in Global Health Care”, convened by its Chairman John Kerry.

Bill Gates

Former US President Bill Clinton, who too is involved in social welfare projects in India and African countries in a big way, also testified before the Committee.

Gates was responding to question about experiences of corruption and accountability in these countries where his Bill and Milinda Gates Foundation is involved in social welfare projects.

In places like India, he said, there are mixed results. “Fortunately, things like vaccines or bed nets are not that attractive for the political elite to stockpile. And so if you can track the grants to the purchase of the commodity and the commodity getting delivered, then you can make quite sure the money’s not being diverted. It gets more difficult as you get into personnel systems,” he observed.

However, this is difficulty with education, road building, and even health systems to make sure that the work is actually being done, jobs just aren’t being given to the politically favoured, as opposed to the people who have the skill sets.

“That is not always executed on very well. You see, we see programmes like in Ethiopia where that’s being done well. We see places like India, where the results are mixed,” Gates said.

“The answer in many locations is to organise women’s groups and to make sure they have the expectation that their kids will be vaccinated, that they will get a bed net. And in a lot of locations, their activism has been key to making sure that nothing is lost between the money being given and the services being delivered,” he said.

In the case of vaccination, if people claim they are doing it when they are not, it’s easy to go in and do surveillance.There’s also a disease, measles that very quickly shows up; people who claim to have high rates who don’t, he said.Gates said there is always the challenge of which countries to help, the ones that are in the greatest need or the ones that have the best government so that the money will be most effective.

“In Ethiopia, certainly in the health area, they have very effective leadership. And the GHI (Global Health Initiative) proposal talks about some of the ambitious goals they’ve set for Ethiopia,” he said, adding there are some things like vaccinations that can be done even in the worst areas.

“Some of the other things, like training health-care workers and trying to get big improvement there, you want to pick places where you have strong governance, and GHI has this idea of picking countries. They have a challenge with India in particular where you don’t want to pick the whole country. You probably want the ability to pick parts of the country,” Gates said.

Source: Rediff

Advertisements

March 8, 2010

Support for Husain giving up Indian citizenship unfortunate

Calling the support for M F Husain on the issue of his giving up Indian citizenship as “unfortunate”, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar said one cannot accept blatant insult to the heroes of its land.

MF Hussain

“It’s unfortunate that there is much hue and cry about M F Husain giving up Indian citizenship. While India has a policy of free expression, one cannot accept blatant insult to heroes of its land,” he said in a statement here.

Ravishankar said it was the intention behind one’s creativity which is questionable.

“Will M F Husian show the same creativity and the same spirit with Islamic heroes and would he, then, be able to retain his Qatari citizenship?” he asked.

He also said one fails to understand why there should be different criteria for Slaman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen on the one hand and Husain on the other.

Source: TOI

March 3, 2010

ISI protecting IM founder Riyaz Bhatkal in Karachi

The attempts by the Pune police probing the February 13 German Bakery blast to track Riyaz Bhatkal may prove futile, since there is confirmation now that the founder of the Indian Mujahideen is safely ensconed in Karachi.

A police officer from Hyderabad, who is currently interrogating Ahmed Khwaja, a Lashkar-e-Tayiba militant currently in custody of Hyderbad police, told rediff.com that Bhatkal is in Karachi.

The official said that Khwaja was also questioned in-depth regarding the Pune blast, but he did not appear to know much about the plot.

Riyaz Bhatkal, the terrorist

“He has details of the Indian Mujahideen operatives and says that there are three key persons who control the IM. Bhatkal and Mohsin Chaudhary head the India operations, but they report directly to a man by the name Aamir Raza, who is a Pakistani national,” the officer said.

Khwaja also revealed that Bhatkal, who stayed in Dubai for a considerable amount of time, was asked to shift base to Pakistan at the insistence of the Inter Services Intelligence.

Indian Mujahideen

Bhatkal is a high-profile personality for them, and he is being protected by the ISI. Sources in the Intelligence Bureau told rediff.com that Bhatkal holds the key, and nabbing him would help crack the entire IM network in India.

The IB further adds that they have got information that Bhatkal has been housed under the protection of the ISI at the high-security Defence Enclave in Karachi, which show his importance for the ISI..

Karachi plot

The IB says that the interrogation of Khwaja and Shahzad (who was picked up by the Delhi police from Azamgarh, UP in connection with the Batla House case) have made one thing clear and that is the ISI was not planning on launching attacks in India with its Pakistan and Afghanistan based cadres.

Both Shahzad and Khwaja were aware of the Karachi plot (IB had sounded off a warning pertaining to a terror plot that was being hatched in Pakistan to target several Indian cities), and during their interrogation, their bosses told them that they needed to gear up for this.

The IB says that this is a worrying factor since the ISI is roping in Indian operatives for this plot. They are setting up their network in India and most of the heads of the India-based terror groups have been told about this plot, so that when they plan on carrying out the attacks, there would be no problems with the logistics.

The ISI, which plans on carrying out the Karachi plot with the help of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Al Qaeda and the Harkat-ul-Jihadi-Islami, will depend on Indian operatives for logistics and also to ensure that they provide a safe passage into the country for their fidayeen fighters.

February 24, 2010

J&K: Boatman’s betrayal

Who can save the boat that the boatman is determined to sink? Hindus in Jammu fear the possibility of fresh holocausts as Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s red carpet to terrorists in PoK reinforces the politics of Muslim precedence in J&K, and strengthens Kashmiri Muslim resistance to full integration with India. The state last month broke a 19-year tradition and refused to unfurl the tricolour at Lal Chowk, a decision that demoralized armed and para-military forces in the state.

While successive Indian governments have failed to redress the citizenship and human rights of refugees, mostly Hindu scheduled castes, who migrated to J&K after Pakistan grabbed parts of the state in the 1947-48 war, and again after the wars of 1965 and 1971, the UPA has with alacrity welcomed PoK-based militants to the Valley. Nearly one lakh Hindus remain excluded from the socio-economic and political life of the state, denied voting rights, education for their children, bank loans, and the right to own property, since 1947.

More dangerously for the Republic, religious cleansing operations are covertly going on in the Muslim-majority areas of Jammu, though the state government is hiding the magnitude of this internal displacement. The matter was, however, raised in the PM’s Working Group on Centre State Relations for J&K, though it seems to have been ignored.

Bemused Pandits and a stunned nation are at a loss to understand what prompted the Centre to unilaterally announce an open door policy for the terrorists who unleashed genocide and drove nearly four lakh Hindus out of the valley since 1990. So far, only 7,000 families have been sheltered in government camps in Jammu; the rest are dispersed nation-wide and left to fend for themselves. They suffer unemployment, serious health and psychological traumas, a falling growth rate of the community; but they are nobody’s children.

Yet, on Feb. 11, 2010, home minister Chidambaram said the Centre was ready to “welcome” Kashmiris (read Muslims) who crossed the LoC for arms training for insurgency operations, if they relinquished militancy. He had previously surprised the nation by announcing resumption of dialogue with Pakistan, despite lack of tangible moves by Islamabad to control terrorism. Chidambaram defended the amnesty mooted by chief minister Omar Abdullah on grounds that it was recommended by the Justice Saghir Ahmed Working Group appointed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, though this has been challenged by BJP member Arun Jaitley.

Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has contested this bird-brained scheme as Pakistan could use it as a cover to push foreign militants into the country. Azad argues it will be difficult to establish if the youth being accepted are the same men who went to Pakistan for arms training, and if they have genuinely eschewed violence. When Islamabad is refusing to hand over the accused in the Mumbai 2008 terror attack, how can New Delhi adopt a surrender policy that facilitates further infiltration of militants into the country?

It is estimated that nearly 4,000 youths crossed the LoC during the 1990s; many returned quietly, but about 800 remain. In 2006, these youth met an Indian delegation to PoK that included Omar Abdullah (PUGWASH Conference) and pleaded for help to return, claiming they were “homesick.” That may be true, but when separatism continues to thrive in J&K as a whole, and militancy is on the upswing, there is no political logic for such generosity. There are also complications like men who married local girls and have children who are Pakistani nationals.

Many Hindus view the amnesty scheme as a new incarnation of the J&K Grant of Permit for Resettlement Act, 1982, which was ultimately stayed by the Supreme Court on a petition by Mr. Bhim Singh of the Panthers Party. Sheikh Abdullah had piloted this legislation after his victory in the July 1977 state elections; Dr Farooq Abdullah became chief minister in September 1982 after the Sheikh’s death.

Like his father, Farooq too tended to raise the bogey of autonomy from time to time, in order to retard the process of the state’s integration with the Union of India. The Resettlement Act aimed at the resettlement of Kashmiris (read Muslims) who had migrated to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir or Pakistan itself, and wished to reunite with their Indian kith and kin. It was disliked by the state’s Hindu community which saw it as a ploy to deprive Hindus of the migrant properties which had been allotted to them. These fears have now been revived.

Observers saw the Bill as a step in the direction of concretizing the plan for a Greater Kashmir by ensuring an effective Muslim majority for the districts of Poonch and Rajouri. Governor BK Nehru received a plethora of complaints against it, which prompted him to send a message to the legislature outlining its legal and constitutional infirmities. But an adamant Farooq Abdullah got the assembly to pass the Bill again on October 4, 1982, and the Governor was constrained to give his assent.

Thereafter, the President referred the Bill to the Supreme Court, as the power to grant citizenship vests with the Centre, and not the states. But the apex court returned the matter last year without remarks. However, acting on Bhim Singh’s writ petition challenging the Act’s validity, the court took note of rising cross-border terrorism in J&K, where by then 50,000 persons had fallen victim to militancy, and stayed implementation in February 2002; this is still valid. It was argued that the Act was prima facie “ultra vires of the constitution.”

The UPA owes the country an explanation why the wars and sacrifices of 1947, 1965, 1971, Kargil, and the continuing thousand cuts which culminated in the spectacular violence of Mumbai 2008, are being discounted in this cavalier fashion. What compulsion drove Kashmir’s dominant Muslim majority to hound their unarmed Hindu brethren with violence and threats of violence issued from loudspeakers attached to mosques, to molest Hindu women and threaten to retain them as captives while forcing their men out of the land? Kashmiri Muslim obduracy continues to pose a threat to national security, yet the Centre is willing to risk the entry of more spies, saboteurs and outright terrorists, to stoke emotions and push the state in the direction of independence/secession. We need to know who is setting this treacherous agenda.The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

February 21, 2010

US and UK forced India to talk to Pakistan

Filed under: India,Jihad,Pakistan — thecandideye @ 6:00 AM
Tags: , , ,

Talks with Pakistan are a futile exercise, former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra tells rediff.com’s Sheela Bhatt, and urges the government to call the dialogue off.

Underlining the need to talk to Pakistan, former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had said we can’t choose our neighbours. Why are you against the talks?

I don’t remember the exact context of Vajpayee’s speech but every prime minister of India wanted good relations with Pakistan. There is nothing new in these attempts. What we [the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance government] did was different after learning the lessons from the Agra talks. We didn’t talk to Pakistan until it took some steps against terror.

In this context, what is more important is Vajpayee’s statement in April 2003 in Srinagar. He said, ‘Once again I extend my hand of friendship to Pakistan.’ That was the third and last time he did it and [former Pakistan] president [Pervez] Musharraf responded to that. Nothing happened until November 25, 2003. Then, the ceasefire on the Line of Control took place. Only after that, the back-channel discussion started with Pakistan.

Then we got the January 2004 declaration in Islamabad. That statement was very clear that the resumption of dialogue was dependent on cessation of terrorism. Unfortunately, the United Progressive Alliance government changed the meaning of the 2004 agreement when it came to power — the UPA says terrorism will not be allowed to impede the peace process. We said in January 2004 that terrorism and dialogue cannot go together. You have these statements of Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the meetings in New York and Havana. It was said that Pakistan was also the victim of terrorism and the ‘joint [anti-terror] mechanism’ was launched.

All that came to zilch. Terrorism continued. In 2006, serial blasts occurred in Mumbai and at the same time talks were going on with Musharraf with the help of back channel [diplomacy].

My point is that you have done it before. Despite terrorism, you held talks with Pakistan and did not succeed. Why are you doing same thing now? Why don’t you go back to the January 2004 statement? Terrorism and dialogue cannot go together. Tell Pakistan that you stop this and then we will resume the composite dialogue. Look, we have to talk — this is what this government is saying.

Much before what [United States Senator] John Kerry said on his tour to India this week, it was obvious to all of us that India was working under American and British pressure. They more or less forced India to talk to Pakistan. But, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are withdrawing from Afghanistan — as I see it, despite what Kerry is saying. Then, why do they need us to talk? Because Pakistan is very happy to help Taliban in Afghanistan so that the Americans and others can walk out. Some three months back General [Ahmed Shuja] Pasha, chief of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence, said he can arrange a meeting with [Taliban chief] Mullah Omar. I don’t understand why we need to talk to Pakistan then.

Indians are worried about terrorism. The government is looking for solutions. If we don’t talk to Pakistan, how do you go about it?

What is our past experience of talks to Pakistan? Indira Gandhi gave up 96,000 prisoners of war. [Zulfiqar Ali] Bhutto promised that he will accept the Line of Control as the border. He went back on his promise. He left India and immediately went on to give permission for building nuclear weapons. It’s not that India has not talked before, but we have been always betrayed by Pakistan. Being a neighbour you have to talk to them. But talk when you are stronger, not when we are weak.

Why do you say we are weak?

Of course we are weak! The US has given $10 billion and also, Pakistan is being given F-16 and other modern fighter planes. Pakistan, today, is becoming almost the same in conventional strength compared to India. While we have not been adding to our capacity, they are acquiring weapons at speed.

Even if Pakistan has betrayed India, as you say, the solution-oriented approach demands that we look for the way out to get them to do what we want.

But to do that you should be objective in assessing the situation. Just by having a wish for solution does not lead you to the correct assessment of the real situation. Let us be very clear — the Pakistan army does not want good relations with India.

First it was Kashmir but suddenly since the last few months, they are raising the issue of water. Now, they are telling the US and others that let India get out of Afghanistan. I don’t know which other issues they would raise tomorrow.

Of course, it’s not democracy that prevails in Pakistan. The Pakistan army considers itself as the guardian of Pakistan. Its very existence depends on enmity with India. My contention is that this is the objective situation. In this situation, what are you going to achieve unless you get them first to stop terrorist activity? When the announcement of talks with Pakistan was made early this month, it was said that we will talk about terrorism and other related issues — more or less composite dialogue.

One day before this announcement, the United Jihad Council met in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The UJC cannot meet without the permission of the Pakistan army and the ISI. And, I don’t imagine that the Pakistan army was not aware about what was happening on the diplomatic front between the two countries. Despite that, they allowed the UJC to meet and then next day they came out with the agenda for talks. And, still, we say that we want to talk about terrorism and other related issues. I want to understand what India is going to get from these talks.

Maybe peace?

That’s wishful thinking. It’s not an objective assessment.

India is facing terrorism.

So? It is the official agency in Pakistan that is supporting terrorism within India. There is terrorism in China. Is the Chinese government supporting it? No! In the US or the United Kingdom, terrorism is there but nowhere the official agency supports it — except in Pakistan. What I am trying to say is that I am not opposed to friendly and cooperative relations with Pakistan. But there are two conditions: One, India must be strong. Two, unless Pakistan stops supporting terrorism, there cannot be any talks.

But India is maintaining 8 to 9 per cent growth. India is united. It has a functioning democracy. India is strong enough to initiate dialogue.

If India is strong then it need not bother about Pakistan. The fact is India is not strong. The 9 percent growth is not going to ensure your national security. The first duty of the State is to protect the lives and properties of its citizens. What will this 9 percent growth do? Unless, you have 9 percent growth plus military strength, you are not going to be counted in the world.

Pakistan and China are hostile. Nepalese are dictated by Maoists. Despite Sheikh Hasina being in power, Bangladesh is getting closer to China. Despite what all you did for Sri Lanka, the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka is there for all to see. They are building a new port for them. India is a soft State. Nobody is bothered about us. Neighbuoring countries are taking advantage of you.

You helped defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, but when your ship went there to help with goods, it was not allowed to anchor for long. Nobody is bothered about India. They don’t consider 9 per cent growth important enough. Deng Xiaoping was talking about four modernisations. One of it was the modernisation of the People’s Liberation Army. He knew just economic reforms won’t make China stronger. We [India] have neglected the armed forces since Independence.

India is a poor country.

We are not poor.

How can you spend more on defence when people don’t have enough food, education and health facilities?

Then what will you do? Our space can be occupied by somebody. Is it okay? Let us remain the target. What are the Pune and Taj [Mumbai] attacks? What balance can you talk of when the State fails to fulfill its first duty — to protect its citizens’ lives and property?

In the post-Cold War era, bilateral relations are handled differently. In the modern world people want to move forward for development. If you are given the talks to move forward with Pakistan so that India can move forward on many other fronts, how will you go about it?

I told you. Let us talk about the January 2004 agreement. Ask Pakistan: What have you done? And, you are frequently talking about the ‘modern world’. Let me say a few things. After the demise of the Soviet Union, was it necessary for NATO to expand eastwards? This is the modern world you are talking about. If the Warsaw pact had been resolved, where was the threat for these countries from Russia? This is also the modern world. China has settled its border issue with Russia but they still have maritime issues with Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Isn’t it advantage India if bilateral relations with Pakistan improve?

Only if it improves on the basis of your conditions. Mrs [Indira] Gandhi did move forward; what did we get?

There is an argument that what is happening in Pakistan, and even terrorism in India emanating from Pakistan, is not under the control of the Pakistani government.

What is happening in India is under the control of Pakistan. Jaish [e-Mohammad], HuJI [Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami] and LeT [Lashkar-e-Tayiba] are certainly [under Islamabad’s control]. I am not talking about the Taliban. I am talking of the United Jihad Council in PoK. That’s of course under the control of Pakistan.

It was so even in 2004 when you were in Islamabad.

We got what was agreed by Musharraf. The statement said that Pakistan will not allow Pakistani territory to be used by terrorists. Only then we agreed to start composite dialogue. I am saying talk to Pakistan only on terrorism. Pakistan is saying clearly that they are going to Delhi to start composite dialogue. Across the table you will say terror and they will say Kashmir. What will you do? Failure?

I read in the newspapers that the government is not united about holding talks. The government’s statement is now revised. Instead of talking about ‘terrorism and other related issues,’ the government now says it will talk only about terrorism. If it’s true, then exactly this will happen. India will be sitting here and Pakistani representatives over there. And both will be talking at cross purposes. It’s a sure remedy for failure.

Then, some people would say, talk Kashmir.

I have told you that Kashmir is not the only issue between us. Second, how do you solve the Kashmir issue? Pakistan is not going to accept the LoC as the border.

During your time in the Prime Minister’s Office, you were talking through back channel too.

We were not talking on Kashmir. I did not. My entire back channel thing, which lasted less than one year, resulted in the ceasefire on the LoC. Two, it resulted in the January 6, 2004 statement. We didn’t talk about Kashmir, we talked about terrorism.

Do you see the issue shaping up in our lifetime?

Only if India is militarily strong, the Kashmir issue may take final shape. Then, Pakistan will accept the situation on the ground.

During your time, India was on a stronger wicket. What happened then?

How? I am talking of military strength. We lost 500 jawans in Kargil. It was the hard task. Now, Pakistan is much more militarily stronger than ever.

Sorry to use a cliche, but you sound hawkish.

Listen, I started off by saying that every prime minister of India started with having good relations with Pakistan. But, objective conditions today and the Pakistan army’s policy do not allow success. So, don’t waste your time on this. I am very sorry to say that 1 billion people were humiliated in Mumbai on 26/11 by them. Now, we are humiliating ourselves without them having done anything on 26/11.

They keep on postponing the trial. They have released Hafiz Saeed. What are we talking about? They allowed the UJC to have the meeting in PoK. Isn’t it the humiliation of 1 billion people? I say call off the talks.

A frequent argument is that let Pakistan’s eastern border see less tension to concentrate on the western border.

The Americans and the British have forced India to do this. But, it is their agenda. We should look after our own agenda. We can’t follow their agenda.

One thinking is that if the US and NATO’s defense position against Taliban gets strengthened, it’s in India’s advantage as well.

That is a very big if. Second, my reading is the US and the UK just want an honorable way out and [want to] hand over Afghanistan to the Taliban.

On his India visit Kerry said

I don’t read John Kerry.

He told a daily, ‘Under no circumstances are we planning to have no presence or suddenly depart.’

He has said so many things in the past.

So, you believe that the US will leave from Afghanistan as Obama has promised.

The US and the UK are going to run away from Afghanistan.

If that happens, that is the reason to talk to Pakistan. Because after the US and NATO’s exit from Afghanistan, the entire region will become more insecure.

But what will you talk to Pakistan? Hand over Kashmir for [better security]? Do you mean that? That is what Pakistan wants. Pakistan wants Kashmir, wants to settle water issues on their terms. And Pakistan wants India to remain out of Afghanistan. Do you think by talking to they will permit you to be in Afghanistan?

My submission is that the issue of Afghanistan is complex and it’s inter-related with the region’s security. So, the withdrawals of the US will have bearing on India’s security.

It is not complex if one is very clear about the aims of the Pakistan army. You people do not think of what the objective situation in Pakistan is. The situation is that Pakistan army has full control over three issues: India, Afghanistan and the nuclear issue. The civilian government has no say in these matters. The Pakistan army can not exist without having control over it. You keep on saying talk to Pakistan; talk to them about what?

Do you think it’s prudent to talk to the Pakistan army if and when possible?

If and only if you are strong. As I said, if you are militarily strong Pakistan will accept the situation as it is.

You paint a grim scenario.

It is a grim scenario. I haven’t made it up.

But military build-up will require another 10 years.

Now we are getting into the other part of the subject. The procedures of our defence department are 19th century procedures. We have to reform it. We have to take the strategic decision about modern weapons. The Bofors thing is still hanging on our politicians’ shoulders. They are worried that we will be accused of corruption. You will be accused of corruption in any case! But, you [politicians] are neglecting national security. They have declared that we want 123 multi-combat aircraft. But the way they are proceeding, it will take them 15 years to acquire it. By that time, the aircraft will be obsolete. Let us forget about these 19th century procedures and come up with a modern system. The government needs to have national security culture. It doesn’t have. It likes only 9 percent growth!

Here, some people may say, ‘Mr Mishra is saying the same thing that India is arguing since the last 60 years.’ You are saying the Pakistan army has control. Pakistan doesn’t want peace. But if India wants to move forward, it will need peace with Pakistan.

The same people about whom you are talking, why do they forget that every Indian government since the last 60 years has tried to have peace with Pakistan and failed? Why have they failed?

They allege that talks have failed because India is just not flexible to settle the issue.

Okay. On Kashmir? Then give up Kashmir!

How about give and take instead?

What give and take? Please you tell me what you can ‘give’? These very people who are saying do business with Pakistan, will they accept the change in the Line of Control?

I don’t think they will.

Then? What are we talking about?

What is the solution?

I told you. Be strong first.

That’s the long way to go.

Revise your acquisition procedures. Take strategic decisions — which weapons you want, and get it.

Looking at it practically, India is not losing anything. Rather, India will earn credibility that it is seeking peace with Pakistan.

Are we not losing anything? Pakistan has done nothing about 26/11. Just a few weeks ago you were only saying that we will not talk with Pakistan unless they take action against 26/11 plotters. What are we talking about now? [Home Minister] P Chidambaram was saying just three weeks ago that we won’t talk unless action is taken. [Finance Minister] Pranab Mukherjee said it when he was minister of external affairs. Now, what has happened?

Let me ask you again. Is India not worried about US-NATO forces moving out? Yes or no?

Of course we should be worried. But India has no control over it. These two gentlemen, President Barack Obama and [British] Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the two main contributors to the defence forces in Afghanistan, have decided to withdraw and run. They are looking for some honourable excuse.

Last week, a New Delhi-based expert told rediff.com that ‘by agreeing to talk to Pakistan under US pressure India is contributing in the fight against Taliban.’

Whoever has said that, ask him if his family member was attacked in 26/11. Ask him that, please. It’s very good to say such things sitting far away from the reality. They advise India should do this and do that, but ask those people who bore the brunt of terrorist attacks.

Barbara Crossette says India is the biggest pain in Asia and she says India often gives global governance the biggest headache.

This shows the failure of the diplomatic efforts of this government. When the victim is asked to make concessions, isn’t it a failure? The victim is being told to take into account the concerns of the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. Come on, please! These people don’t understand that the government’s diplomatic effort has failed miserably. It didn’t take strong action in the beginning [after the Mumbai attacks]. It has lost everything.

Source: Rediff

February 8, 2010

Finally, Muslim groups are supporting the terrorism openly!!

Several Muslim groups have come together to question for the first time the ban on Simi, the student group blamed by the government for involvement in anti-national activities in the country. The initiative has come three days before the ban on the Students’ Islamic Movement of India expires on February 7.

“It is for the first time that the community has shown the courage to come out in the open to protest against the ban on Simi. Though this should have been done much earlier, we are happy that we could gather the courage at least now,” said Zafarul Islam Khan of Milli Council, one of the groups involved in the campaign along with organisations like the Jamiat Ulema and the Jamaat Islami-e-Hind.

SIMI & Its terror attacks on India : Image Courtesy - http://www.zeenews.com/

So far, no Muslim organisation except the Jamaat Islami-e-Hind had publicly sympathised with Simi since it was first banned in 2001.The ban, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, had come in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the US. The government said Simi was involved in anti-national and terrorist acts. The outfit was outlawed again in 2003 and 2006.

The last time Simi — formed in April 1977 as the youth wing of the Jamaat Islami-e-Hind — had been banned was on February 8, 2008. A tribunal headed by Delhi High Court had stayed the order on August 6, but the next day the Centre had moved the Supreme Court, which stayed the tribunal’s order.

The Muslim organisations have already held a conference in Delhi and have decided to hold more across the country to put pressure on the government, fearing it might extend the ban.

Minority leaders say Simi is the only banned outfit that has moved court against the decision to outlaw it. “None of the other banned organisations like the Maoists have gone to court. Simi did it because it believes in the Indian constitution,” said Maulana Arshad Farooqi, who heads the Markazi Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

“We admit that Simi had an element of fanaticism in it,” said Milli Council’s Zafarul Khan. “But that does not make it a terrorist group. If fanaticism is a criterion, then organisations like the RSS and the Bajrang Dal, should have been banned.”

The minority groups have submitted memorandums to the Prime Minister and the home minister, urging them to lift the ban. They also plan to meet Sonia Gandhi, hoping that the “Congress’s new-found love for minorities” will encourage her to take a favourable stand.

Source: The Telegraph

February 4, 2010

Azharuddin wants job reservation for Muslims!

Filed under: Congress,India,Indian Politics,Islam,Jihad — thecandideye @ 6:00 AM
Tags: , , , ,

Former Indian cricket captain turned Congress MP Mohammad Azharuddin Monday supported reservation of government jobs for the Muslims, saying it was necessary for their welfare.

Mohammed Azharuddin : Image Courtesy - http://newshopper.sulekha.com/

‘Reservation is a must. I have raised this issue in parliament,’ Azharuddin told media persons while addressing a rally organised by a minority organisation here.

Azharuddin hoped the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime in New Delhi will ensure job reservation for the community.

The issue of job reservation for Muslims and other minorities has been occupying the political centrestage since the government made public the Ranganath Mishra Commission report which recommended that ten percent of government jobs be set aside for the Muslims and five percent for other minorities.

Azharuddin criticised West Bengal’s Left Front for acquiring land forcibly. ‘Most of the 27 percent Muslim population in the state depends on agriculture for sustenance. Why should land be snatched from them?’ he asked.

He appealed to the people to vote out the Left Front government. ‘What have you got from this state government? Nothing. There is no education, no jobs for you. Muslims should support the Congress which has always stood by the community. Has any other party done that?’ he asked.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.