« »

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Foreclosure Frauds: Unbridled corruption and fraud in US real estate market

why and how should property owners be blamed for refusing to cooperate with erroneous and fraudulent confiscation of their homes? Thick-skulled people say 'people ought to move out and let banks decide for themselves'.  But what part do such people not understand; banks are unable to decide ownership. 
Unbridled corruption and fraud in US real estate market is causing panics around the world as to the health of US economy. Last month, it was revealed that more than half of all homes sold in the United States since the beginning of this decade was based on fraudulent paperwork to avoid the taxes.
Big corporations having placed their puppets inside the US congress and other important government bodies, had managed to go around the laws of the nation, thereby pocketing huge amounts of tax-free money. Most of this money came from average American people's savings and pension contributions.
The following report by Barbara Jackson who is directly involved with the ongoing foreclosure mayhem, explains more about the housing business across the United States.
 ________________________________________________________

by Barbara Ann Jackson

Understandably, it seems that defaulted property owners seek to ‘beat the system’ –a small amount of them do.  Not even I am willing to assist in such a thing when those types contact me for help.  People in my crowd are not seeking to get a free home, and they are willing to pay rent.

Still, why and how should property owners be blamed for refusing to cooperate with erroneous and fraudulent confiscation of their homes?  Who can blame any reasonable person for not wanting to be homeless if there is a LAWFUL method to avoid it?
                   
Most of the time, the attorneys have made severe errors –sometimes intentionally, since errors help keep the billable tab going, and commit the very frauds that provide basis, defenses, and reasons to attempt negotiating mortgage contracts.

ADDITIONALLY, perhaps thousands of defaulted homeowners have likely already lost –and many others could still lose their homes –to not lenders with ownership of  “secured interests” in the properties, but to “straw buyers”!  How?  As a result of intentionally fraudulent foreclosures –of which there is LOTS of $$$$$$ in the foreclosure fraud / real estate racketeering industry!

Moreover, people who scowl at ‘deadbeats’ do not know everyone’s situation. NOT all defaulted homeowners obtained ill-affordable mortgages.  Scores of defaults arose from divorce,  medical bills, 'outsourced' jobs , and so much more.  And should ‘deadbeat’ borrowers with student loans have known how long it would take to get jobs?  Is there compassion for elderly people who were  tricked into usurious "home repair" refinancing?
          
Also, compare blighted neighborhoods and foreclosure deed conveyances to non-existent mortgage lenders; bankruptcy "Lift Stay" motions that "lack standing," and names on "proof of claims" different from 'lift stays' "movers"; and illegal property deeds.  Likewise, foreclosure lawyers’ failure to "effect service," and failure at various substantive Civil Procedure requirements made it not lawful to proceed with those cases until those errors are corrected.  Too, property owners seeking debt reorganization through Chapter 13 Bankruptcy should not be blamed for contesting lawyers’ falsified "proof of claim" or false "Lift Stay" motions that are being filed in courts across the country.
                      
Thick-skulled people say 'people ought to move out and let banks decide for themselves'.  But what part do such people not understand; banks are unable to decide ownership.  Still, scoffers brush aside the fact that fraudulent court pleadings are being filed by lawyers who are required to know better!  And scoffers ignore that ‘the bank’ may not even get that property AT ALL!  Meanwhile, if homeowners  'move out', the scoffers will be forced to welcome void and blight –and rats and vagrants eventually will also come and go be coming and going. (neighbors detest neighbors while the white collar elephant hides in plain sight).

Foreclosure Frauds, Wells Fargo-the Fox in Charge, and Victimization

India’s Hindutva dominated army is killing Kashmiri Muslims

By Latheef Farook

India’s Hindutva dominated army is killing Kashmiri Muslims with religious hatred and vengeance. This is how one could describe the manner in which the brutalized Kashmiri Muslim youths in peaceful demonstration were killed by the Indian army.
Kashmiri Muslims have been some of the most peaceful people in this planet. They endured with great patience the waves of unprecedented terror and cruelty inflicted upon   them by successive Hindu Maharajas ever since the British sold Kashmir to Raja Gulab Singh, a Hindu warlord of the Dogra family in Jammu, for 7.5 million rupees (750,000 pounds) under the 1846 Treaty of Amritsar.
Later Hindu Maharajas treated cows better than Kashmiri Muslims.
The question is how come such docile and peaceful people started rising up against the central government in New Delhi. The simple answer is that it was the successive Indian  governments’  systematic discriminations which forced them to rise demanding their legitimate democratic rights in the world’s largest democracy hijacked by Hindu fanatics.
Kashmiri Muslims came out on peaceful demonstrations demanding justice, freedom and dignity which remain integral part of democracy.
It was the political manoeuvrings of the central government in Delhi, the rigging of elections in 1987 and later in 1996, years of political frustrations, economic problems and poverty, combined with many other factors, led to the 1989 uprising which became a crucial turning point in the Kashmiri Muslims’ freedom struggle. Instead of listening to their grievances    New Delhi unleashed unprecedented brutalities in their arrogant and foolish drive to crush the uprising.
Since then, according to figures  released in the March 2010  issue of All Parties Hurriyet Conference Azad and Jammu Kashmir,  93,142 people were killed,  105,832 houses and shops destroyed, 107,326 orphaned, 9901 women molested and 22,719   widowed.
These brutalities are enough to turn even the most peaceful people to resort to worst type of violence to assert their basic human rights. Under such circumstances it is natural for oppressed people to think in terms of separatism. Separatist elements did emerge. However they were a small minority as bulk of the people wanted New Delhi to attend to their grievances to ensure they live in an atmosphere of freedom, justice and dignity.
Despite all these cruelties Kashmiri Muslims, in keeping with their peaceful nature,   took part in the elections and demonstrated their desire to live in peace expecting New Delhi to attend to their grievances peacefully. Their slogan since the beginning of the uprisings in 1989 has been” We are for peaceful and permanent settlement of Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. This slogan remains unchanged today”.
Had New Delhi dealt with the issue with sincerity and attended to the grievances of the people the question of   Pakistani   involvement or the rise of separatist elements would not have arisen. Did New Delhi take any sincere initiative? Nothing other than brutalising the Kashmiris while blaming Pakistan and separatists.
So much so Sonia Gandhi during this month’s all party conference expressed surprise at the spontaneous uprising of Kashmiri youth.  This was shocking because she and the government she runs could have played a crucial role to avert what is going on in Kashmir today. But she failed.
Kashmir would have remained peaceful if her husband Rajiv Gandhi’s grandfather, the first Prime Minister of India, had respected India’s commitment, held plebiscite as agreed and allowed Kashmiris to decide their political destiny. However unfortunately for both India and Kashmir Nehru Saacha kept on hoodwinking the world with deceptive tactics and failed to hold the plebiscite.
In the subsequent years had Sonia’s mother in law, the assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi stopped meddling in Kashmiri politics, hiring and firing elected governments, Kashmir would have remained heaven on earth.
Her husband, assassinated Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, said at a press conference in New Delhi after a visit to Kashmir in 1991  that ‘the brutalities of the Indian army and the Central Reserve Police meant that India may have lost Kashmir’”. 
Yet what is surprising is that Sonia Gandhi expressed surprise at the uprising sweeping   Kashmir today!
Sonia Gandhi is the chairman of Congress Party which rules India. Sonia is the uncrowned queen of India ruling the country with a prime minister and a government with remote control.   What step her government took at least to discuss their burning issues.
Absolutely nothing. Perhaps she was scared of antagonising the RSS and its affiliated Hindutva thugs and hooligans, who have systematically hijacked Indian politics, administrative and other government machinery and even infiltrated   the armed forces and mainstream media. The armed forces were given the license to arrest, torture, rape and kill Kashmiri Muslims with impunity.

The result is the spontaneous uprising of Kashmiri youths grew up in the midst of curfews preventing routine movements in the streets and even at homes and ruthless crackdowns which had been two of the most deadly strategies adopted by India. It was often said that barbarism inflicted, often demonstrated the hatred and intolerance towards Kashmiri Muslims.
Summing up the current situation Happymon Jacob of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and New Delhi. had this  to state;
The Hindu's editorial (September 14, 2010) accurately summed up the United Progressive Alliance government's current approach to the Kashmir issue and the urgent need to move beyond mere words: “By talking big while having little to offer, New Delhi has unwittingly fanned the flames in Jammu and Kashmir.” Hence, the need now is to announce a clearly defined ‘political package' for the agitating Kashmiris.
The all-party delegation cannot decide on such a political package; the Government of India can. But the more than hundred Kashmiris killed in recent months by the security forces have failed to prompt the Central government to think beyond its usual pious platitudes of dialogues, engagements and delegations. If New Delhi is determined to live forever in ignorance and denial, why should Kashmiris respond with anything other than cynicism to its out-dated and bumbling efforts towards what it likes to call ‘finding a solution'? New Delhi's complete lack of vision, seriousness and sincerity in previous dialogues with Kashmiris has understandably meant that the proposal is simply seen as a short-term tactic aimed to calm the situation. Once national and international attention wanes, and the Kashmiri protesters go about their normal lives, the government might go back, as it has done in the past, to the business of conveniently ignoring that thorny little issue in northwestern India.
Beyond platitudes
What, then, can be done to bring peace to the Valley? Can we, under the prevailing circumstances, lay out a clear roadmap for a political resolution of the Kashmir issue? The very fact that a political package is being contemplated as opposed to an improvised military strategy in order to address a political problem is itself encouraging. But there is a need to flesh out what it really entails. A long and drawn-out process of political dialogue without any time-bound commitments is unlikely to be accepted by Kashmiris; so the first step is to articulate a timeframe. A political solution to the Kashmir issue can be imagined as a multi-phased one, with measures relating to it being implemented in the immediate term, the intermediate term, and the long term.
Any further delay in addressing the situation politically will lead to increasing schisms within the Kashmiri body politic. The danger in Kashmir today is that the more mainstream your politics, the more likely it is that you would be termed a gaddar (traitor) by the agitating Kashmiris. So even the moderate dissidents are forced to take extreme positions.
Engaging Kashmiris in a result-oriented and goal-driven manner as laid out here is indeed taking the road less travelled, a road that is not easy to take. And so, before New Delhi decides to discard suggestions such as this, it needs to ask itself what serves India's long-term national interests better: maintaining the violent, chaotic, ungovernable status quo in Kashmir through brute force and military might, or meeting the legitimate political aspirations of the Kashmiris and convincing them that they have a place in the idea of India?
Meanwhile calling the government to act now before   foreign forces land in Srinagar Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan
Editor, The Milli Gazette said   in an article on 2 August 2010 that” For the last two months only bullets are talking in Kashmir. Dozens of lives, mostly school-going young men and women, have succumbed to the bullets fired by the security forces directly into their chests. Ten such victims have died within the last twenty four hours for pelting stones and violating curfew. The central cabinet?s security committee met last night without the attendance of even the  governor, the de facto ruler, of the state. Today the dummy chief minister of the state was called for a meeting in Delhi and assured that direct central rule will not be imposed on the state.

The situation in the Valley has not deteriorated within a day or two and forces across the border alone are not responsible for the chaos seen in the length and breadth of the Valley. Today?s chaos in the Valley basically reflects the failure of the central government which despite declarations and promises to the contrary, has utterly failed to negotiate with the people who matter in Kashmir, which has thrown in the dustbin the autonomy and self-rule proposals presented by its own trusted hands in the state.
Musharraf and even the current Pakistani government have been time and again offering proposals to arrive at a settlement of sorts taking into account the ground realities but visionless people in Delhi have squandered the opportunity. The army bullets once again prove what our enemies claim that India is interested only in the land of Kashmir and not in its people. Manmohan is fast becoming Jagmohan for Kashmir.
The way forward is to sack the childish government of Omar Abdullah, set free all activists and political leaders arrested during the last few weeks, withdraw the army and allied forces from all inhabited areas in the Valley, impose governor raj for a fixed and declared period of six months, accept the autonomy proposal presented by the J&K Assembly during Farooq Abdullah?s tenure in 2000, announce a general amnesty for all militants  , hold a fair election with none barred from contesting and monitored by foreign observers like Jimmy Carter and representatives from the UN, EU, OIC etc and let the real winner rule the state.
Meanwhile, India must engage in a serious and purposeful dialogue with Pakistan taking into account the various proposals offered by Musharraf and the current government in Islamabad.

Failure to work on these lines will be fatal. The protests in the Valley are quickly taking the shape of an intifadah which no amount of army bullets will be able to control. Rather, these criminal bullets and their innocent victims will invite foreign intervention. Let the short-sighted strategists in Delhi realize that foreign intervention is no longer a myth. A prolonged protest, wanton wholesale murder of the civilians and children by the security forces and collapse of the dummy civil government will be enough to pass a resolution in the UN to authorize foreign military intervention and the small men in Delhi will not be able to prevent such forces from landing in Srinagar.
The Valley today is a Kosovo-in-waiting. Act now before it is too late.
Later Dr Zafarul-Islam Khan who was also former President, All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat, sent An Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi on Kashmir on 17 September 2010 emphasizing the need for urgent action in this regard.
In his letter he stated that “I am writing this open letter to you because I believe that you are the only person in our polity today who can take a bold and effective initiative to salvage the day-by-day worsening situation in Kashmir.
The fast-deteriorating situation in Kashmir demands that you at once divert your attention to the Valley to apply the ointment of love and care on the bruised body of the people of the Valley who had only recently made it amply clear in two foreign opinion polls that they want to remain a part of India. But the merciless bullets and brutal batons of our security forces for the last three months have pushed a majority in the Valley to a point of no-return.

With an arrogant behavior, inability to feel the pulse at the grassroots and by adopting a cruel bullet-for-stone policy, our government has foolishly alienated the people of the Valley, and invited international intervention and rebuke of the harshest order. The world today has begun to doubt our commitment to democracy and human rights.
It is time for you to at once visit Kashmir, meet families of the victims of army bullets, lend an ear to their version of the situation on the ground, announce an immediate withdrawal of the army from all inhabited areas, set free all young and old people arrested for throwing stones and violating curfew, sack the failed government of Omar Abdullah, impose governor raj for a fixed period of six months during which truly free and fair elections must be held and thereafter whoever wins them must be allowed to rule Kashmir just as is the norm elsewhere in the length and breadth of India.
All this must be coupled with an immediate announcement that the central government is accepting the autonomy resolution passed by the J&K legislature in 2000.
And finally, once normalcy returns to the Valley, no time should be wasted to negotiate a final settlement of the issue with Pakistan. Without such a final solution, the Valley will keep bursting periodically, one way or the other, sapping our resources and diverting our attention for other pressing problems.
After all the sad events of the past three months, it is now impossible to retrieve the situation with half-hearted measures. The grave situation today demands an immediate action to wrest Kashmir back from the precipice by a bold and credible person like you.
In view of the legacy you represent and the youthful sincerity you exhibit, I am sure you will rise to the occasion and will not wait until it is too late to salvage the land and people of Kashmir. It goes without saying that personal relationships should not influence your decision just like your great grandfather when higher national interest is at stake.

U.S. intelligence trades on fear

 We are in the grip of yet another so-called terror plot designed to terrify the wits out of everyone.
_______________________________________________________________________


By Yvonne Ridley


Anyone of a nervous disposition was sent in to a tailspin of panic over the increasingly dramatic news coverage… this manifested itself in a tsunami of 911 calls in America which paralyzed parts of New York, Maine and Philadelphia for several hours.

Mercifully in Britain the majority of us refuse to get caught up in this bloody nonsense for many different reasons. The primary one being we had already endured more than three decades of this during the height of the IRA activities in London.

Virtually every single day for 30 years there would be some terror alert in the English capital -- it was called shoestring terrorism. One telephone call could bring a halt to a section of the London Underground.

The police would make their necessary checks, the media would ignore it and we all got on with our lives refusing to be intimidated by Irish terrorism.

And that is exactly how we should have treated Friday’s terror nonsense -- that does not mean to say people should be reckless or less vigilant but governments should stop trying to impose a fear factor on its citizens.

We can not sacrifice our freedoms and liberties just because the United States wants to impose its own neurosis, hysteria and paranoia on the rest of the world.

While British anti-terror police say no explosives were found in a suspicious package found onboard a UPS flight, the White House issued a statement completely contradicting this. Now the parcel has been removed for full forensic testing!

Call me cynical, but I find it too much of a coincidence that this bizarre alert came less than 24 hours after British Airways chairman Martin Broughton has accused the country of bowing to U.S. demands for increased airport security measures.

Mr. Broughton criticized the U.S. for imposing more security checks on U.S.-bound flights, but not on its own domestic services.

He urged the UK to stop kowtowing to demands for passengers to take their shoes off and to put any laptop computers through scanners to be screened separately.

The UK government said it would give airport operators permission to review their security procedures and I hope they stick to their promise despite all this nonsense.

One of the most ridiculous procedures we have to go through is to submit all of our potions, lotions and liquids to airport security.

This came about because of the so-called plot to blow 10 airliners out of the sky. That the fools behind this crazy scheme didn’t even have passports or a collective IQ of George W. Bush mattered not.

A video was shown of an explosion onboard a plane if this chemical had been mixed with that chemical.

The fact the bombmakers would have had to create sub zero laboratory conditions onboard a plane which would take around 40 minutes, mattered not.

As a frequent flyer I can tell you no one would be allowed to hog the tiny toilets for more than five minutes.

Yet despite this nonsense we have to hand over our liquids, but can buy them in vast quantities minutes later having past through airport security.

Just recently I was stopped because I had a brand new 200ml jar of Eve Lom face cleanser and was told I could not take it through. I pleaded for some commonsense from the security officer and he even went to his superior when I pointed out that the jar cost more than my airline ticket.

A nearby passenger who had just wistfully given up his full bottle of Remy Martin brandy sympathized with me.

Since when did Eve Lom become a threat to Britain's national security?

The British Government’s COBRA emergency committee is meeting as I write this. God only knows what will transpire but I hope this coalition government distances itself from these crazy security terror alerts coming over from the Americans.

U.S. President Barack Obama is facing his mid-term elections this weekend… if either he or his team have resorted to the “terror threat” ploy so often used by his predecessor to try and win votes then shame on them.

Of course what better way to divert voters’ minds from Afghanistan, Iraq and Wikileaks than to create a fresh new bogeyman… Yemen.

Any government which uses security and fear to win votes does not deserve to be in power.

Yvonne Ridley is a presenter for Press TV's show The Agenda and co-presenter of the Rattansi & Ridley show.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

US State of Indiana Deploys Armed Guards at Unemployment Offices

Millions upon millions of hardworking American workers have been stranded without industrial jobs for more than two years. 

Given the upcoming expiration of the federal extensions and the increased stress on some of the unemployed, we thought added security would provide an extra level of protection for our employees and clients.

Hundreds of armed anti-riot security guards are being deployed at all 36 unemployment bureau locations across the US state of Indiana. Local government officials fear there would be potential riots by hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers who are going to lose their bi-weekly unemployment checks before the end of this year.
The cost of deploying so many armed security guards at so many locations is paid by corporate elites and the growing plutocracy of the US government. The State of Indiana is only one among many other states facing the end of unemployment benefit paychecks, which have already been extended several times. 
According to Indiana’s employment department official, Marc Lotter, the situation is expected to become more confrontational once people lose their only source of income. "Given the upcoming expiration of the federal extensions and the increased stress on some of the unemployed, we thought added security would provide an extra level of protection for our employees and clients."
Millions upon millions of hardworking American workers have been stranded without industrial jobs for over two years. The Obama administration has injected vast amounts of money to keep the US economy afloat while nearly all US-owned companies try moving their business activities out of the country, notably to Asia in order to pay only a fraction of what they normally pay Americans.  
Economists believe US job outsourcing is a matter of historical proportion, a phenomenon expected to stay around permanently. The Obama administration main task - imposed upon it by a network of Zionists and large corporate establishment - at this conjuncture in US history is simply to stretch things out, that’s to buy a little bit more time until later on when about half of US population will be told that it’s now time to face the reality.

Anti-government protests across Europe

The growing struggles of the working class in Europe and internationally against mass unemployment and government austerity policies are exposing the reality behind the façade of bourgeois democracy.
In every country, the government, whether conservative or supposedly left, is cutting jobs and wages and slashing social programs in complete disregard for the overwhelming opposition of the population. Elections, parliamentary debates have no effect on policy. The state does the bidding of the financial aristocracy, tearing up the living standards of the masses in the interests of the bankers who are responsible for the economic crisis. The financiers and corporate executives are making more money than ever by exploiting mass unemployment and growing social distress to slash wages and increase the exploitation of the working class. Where the best efforts of the trade unions do not suffice to hold the workers in check and struggles break out that challenge the plans of the capitalists, most prominently in France and Greece, the state uses its powers of repression to smash strikes and protests. In France, the Sarkozy government has deployed riot police to break up protests, while arresting hundreds across the country. In Greece, the government, elected with the support of the unions, deployed the military to break a strike by truckers and others against massive layoffs. There have been general strikes and mass protests in Spain, Portugal and Ireland. In Britain, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government is imposing unprecedented cuts, which will mean the loss of at least 500,000 jobs in the public sector and another 500,000 in the private sector.
Protests in France continued to intensify this weekend, despite the decision late last Friday night by the country’s Senate to support the government’s controversial pensions' reform legislation. The bill - which would raise the retirement age from 60t o 62 - has resulted in days of strikes, riots and fuel shortages in the country. But the approval of the Senate vote has now cleared the last hurdle, meaning that the law could come into force as early as this week. It also led to police storming through picket lines at oil refineries and fuel depots last Friday afternoon after the government hardened its stance against the protesters. At some fuel depots, French officers fired tear gas to disperse demonstrators and managed to reopen the Grandpuits refinery, which is the main refinery serving Paris. Some of the protesters were injured in scuffles. However, despite the crackdown, the protests are not expected to die down, with unions announcing a seventh day of nationwide demonstrations for Thursday and another on November 6. UNEF, which is the country’s main student union, called on students and young people ‘‘everywhere in France’’ to demonstrate and take part in sit-ins.
The French government used force for the first time to open a key oil refinery that supplies Paris. Working out of a crisis center at the energy ministry, French authorities are directly controlling the distribution of oil in an effort to relieve concerns about the nation’s reserves. After 130 hours of debate over the pension law, the French Senate voted 177-153 in favor of the legislation. The lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, already passed a similar version of the bill. However, a committee was set to meet to merge the two versions, making the bill almost certain to pass. By the way, though Sarkozy gained a kind of victory in the Senate, his falling popularity will damage his presidency while the country's economy is suffering turbulences.
Elsewhere, British women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy are being confronted by Christian protesters, in a copy of tactics used by hardcore anti-abortionists in the US. A Texas-based religious group, which has support and funding from hundreds of American churches, has been holding protests outside Marie Stopes House in central London, one of Britain's first modern abortion clinics. It is the first time that the group – called 40 Days for Life – has targeted an abortion clinic in mainland Britain. Two years ago Parliament voted against reducing the cut-off limit for abortions from 24 weeks into a pregnancy to 22 weeks. Among those to vote for a reduction were David Cameron, William Hague and the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley. Anti-abortionists hope EDM 834 will spark a renewed debate over the abortion laws.
In the past week, thousands took to the streets across Britain protesting against massive budget cuts that would leave up to 500,000 people jobless. The British government unveiled its plans to cut government spending by 19 percent over the next four years and to raise the legal retirement age in an attempt to tackle the 155-billion-pound, 243 billion dollars, budget deficit. British trade unions have strongly criticized the cuts, the most radical shake-up of public finances in decades. During a protest meeting in London, Robert Crow, the head of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, called on the trade unions to take joint actions to derail the austerity plan. Some 20,000 people from across Scotland marched in downtown Edinburg, chanting slogans condemning Prime Minister David Cameron's government. Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, leaders of trade unions and public figures took part in the protest. Mass demonstrations also took place in Cardiff, Belfast, Cambridge, Sheffield, Norwich and other cities across the United Kingdom. During a rally in Bristol, a number of protesters were detained and two policemen were injured in a clash with demonstrators. British Prime Minister David Cameron is embarking on a painful period of austerity. There is hardly an aspect of British life that has been left untouched by the cuts. Ministerial budgets have been slashed by an average of 19 percent. Almost half a million public sector jobs will disappear over the next four years, while state expenditures will plunge by 83 billion pounds, that is 131 billion dollars, and taxes increased by 29 billion pounds. The retirement age is also set to rise.
In the largest government reshuffle in six years, Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said this week that he would eliminate two ministries and replace his deputy prime minister, in a bid to gain new political momentum and adhere to stricter austerity measures requested by the European Union. The reshuffle comes at a time when the prime minister's popularity has crumbled with unemployment above 20 per cent and the economy mired in very low growth levels. Analysts said the removal of the Equality and Housing ministries is unlikely to lead to major savings for a government struggling to bring down its budget deficit, which may be at around 9 per cent of gross domestic product this year. The two ministries have long been the target of criticism. They were created by Zapatero in recent years, as part of his renewed focus on social spending, but their functions have been unclear and often overlapped with those of local authorities. A fast reduction of Spain's budget deficit is a key concern in global markets, as the government is still anticipating a 6 per cent deficit next year. Spain's 1.5 trillion-dollar economy is much bigger than those of Ireland, Portugal and Greece, and a fiscal crisis in this country would likely have serious consequences for the euro zone as a whole. The changes comes at a time when Spain is grappling with a 20 per cent unemployment rate, the highest in the EU, and attempts to emerge from nearly two years of recession. Rodriguez Zapatero is trying to show that his new team will act better concerning the deteriorating economic conditions.

The mystery of the Afghan War & American follies

The various factors surrounding the mystery are neither verifiable nor so important because the damage is already done.
_______________________________________________________________


By Capt. ( R) Rab Nawaz Chaudhry

A MILLION dollar question that haunts many of us living in this region is, why were Americans arrogant to attack Afghanistan just about a month after the 9/11 episode? Everybody views it in his or her own perspective. The real secret is, of course, known to Mr Bush and it might be disclosed one day in his memoirs. However people speculate and I stand in line to share with the world my personal views. One of the most unconvincing pursuits was in search of Osama bin Ladin, the Qaeda chief who could plan the operation while sitting in the caves of some wild mountains with the most reliable and modern communication with highly secure secraphones un-decodable even by the most advance country of the world.

The masterminds of the 9/11 might one day volunteer a confession and reveal the truth about hitting the twin towers by the understudy pilots. Some consider it a joke but since it is only the one superpower’s quest, we might as well reluctantly compromise with their description. 


Osama was readily available with the Taliban government who were willing to hand him over to an international tribunal to be tried and dealt with in accordance with the decision of the court. However Mr Bush wanted a war bounty delivered to America as a future tribute to him. It is now almost ten years that NATO forces after putting the entire Afghan soil upside down with almost 60,000 modern A/C war sorties without finding trace of Osama. Majority of people in Pakistan believe that he is dead with no affidavit of his grave. The American leadership is still hoping against hopes to find him and present him to their people. 

Removal of the Taliban government was the next aim fulfilled in a few days of war because it was a fight between an ant and an elephant. The Taliban were defeated and a new government of the Northern Alliance was installed against the wishes of the Pakistan government. However it was limited to Kabul and its suburbs. The Taliban reorganised themselves and adopted new gorilla war tactics and are still fighting a very successful war against Americans and the NATO forces. Pakistan’s tribal areas are also involved as the belt is a common heritage between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The people belong to the same race and have been living together with inter-marriages since ages. 

The war has also dragged the Pakistan armed forces as ally of NATO against the tribals for the last eight years. In addition, there have been unlimited American drone attacks with casualties of many innocent people, creating more hatred towards America. There seems no end to this war between the allies and these rugged people who have the will and stamina to continue the fight.

Trapping Iran and having firm control of the newly-librated Central Asian States was the only legitimate reason for coming to Afghanistan. It was probably a good way of keeping China and Russia at bay also. The methodology should have been different than the one adopted. Development of Gawadar (in Balochistan) and Afghanistan was the key to this project. Destruction of Afghanistan was the last option sensible think tanks could work, even if they wanted to desert it at the end. 


Reaching to Pakistan’s nuclear assets was another hope Mr Bush, his aids and the Jewish lobby were thinking of. It was an impossible task to negotiate. Destabilising Pakistan was a dangerous adrift and an invitation to destabilise the whole region. Firstly, they have been declared safe by IAEA; secondly, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are so well concealed and dispersed that even Pakistanis may not be in a position to locate it easily what to talk of foreigners. It would be an exercise in futility to disturb the arrangement because it might cause another catastrophe in the world of today. 

A friendly Pakistan and its tribesmen are an asset to America in this region. A change of strategy in the area would be disastrous. The remote chance of securing monopoly in drug trade could be one of Mr Bush’s hallucination. It was similar to one when he thought about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The other reason could be expectations of mineral resources out of the virgin land of Afghanistan. Only the people of America can seek and find the truth. 

The funniest of all the approaches was establishing democracy in Afghanistan. A tribal society has own system of governance; little bit of democratic principles, some authoritative functions, a little bit of anarchist tendency, and rest of it religious values and mutual respect of elders in society. Rich and poor live with equality and justice. Although the system has been polluted by mixing with modern society, still old values take precedence over so-called mew civilisation. King Amanullah tried to modernise Afghanistan and lost his kingdom. The Soviets wanted to export communism and were defeated with losing their century-old union and alliances of East European states. Let people live their own way of life without learning modern dirty tricks, as long as they don’t interfere in others’ affairs. Change; they must bring from within and in their own time-frame. Red Indians and Amish are still following their own traditions inside the most-modern US. 

The Americans were not the first and may not be the last invaders in Afghanistan. Alexander The Great, Persians, Muslims, Mughals, and British failed in bringing the change. America [out of them] was the most-civilised country with the capacity to bring a surprise but without indulging in war and destruction. However after committing this folly they had plenty of time to re-think a better change. I am sure war was not the only option nature had prescribed. Wining of heart and mind, partners in trade and developments, friends in thick and thin were better choices to share pleasure and pain together. 

Pakistan is the only country outside NATO involved in this conflict. It, therefore, reserves the right to complain about all the damages done to her because of this war. The terrorist activities are outcome of her participation as an ally and as a result of drone attacks. The economic crises are only because of the war. The road system effected by heavy American supplies are beyond Pakistan’s capacity to repair. Pakistan govt. should have asked for construction of additional motor ways for this heavy traffic from Karachi to Afghanistan before allowing of this traffic. 

India on one and Iran on the other side of Afghanistan have their own axes to grind. None of them would be in favour of ending the war. However, any attempt by friends for using India against Pakistan may reverse the whole Afghan scenario where Pakistan forces go back to east and tribals set free on its west to use their own discretion. A fair distinction between friends and foes is an essential ingredient to strength. The theory of “there are no permanent friends and enemies but permanent interest only” is certainly a betrayal of friends at critical moments. Mr. Obama therefore may draw his own conclusion. 

The recent peace council of elders set by Mr Karzai and America reminds me of a Jew who was excited to win the lottery through divine concept that God once in 24 hours accepts the prayers of His people. He sat down to recitation and there came the moment of acceptance with an echo, “Mr David, at least go and buy a ticket.” Peace council is welcomed to negotiate but at least be gracious to offer a unilateral ceasefire as a simple goodwill gesture to begin with. 

The various factors surrounding the mystery are neither easily verifiable nor so important because the damage is already done. It is more or less an open secret. The recovery from it is vital and let us all try to get out of it. Pakistan is a bridge and a reliable link between Afghanistan and the world. A stable and strong Pakistan is a key to establish Peace in the region and guarantee to a safe passage for American exit.

Indian military crimes: illegal arms and ammunition manufactured in India

India has a long history of smuggling weapons to smaller countries across the world in general and to the Third World states in particular Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal could be cited as examples where India smuggled weapons and war explosives.
_____________________________________________________________

By Salim Bokhari

Had the ship, seized recently at a foreign port, been of Pakistani origin or arms and ammunitions manufactured in any ordinance factory inside its territory, the hell would have been let loose. It would have been either blamed on Pakistani intelligence agency ISI or any so-called terrorist group operating here. America, Israel and India would have shouted full throttle, accusing us of crime against humanity.
A media report says that a shipload of illegal arms and ammunition manufactured in India has been seized by Nigerian authorities at Lagos’ busy Apapa Port after 13 containers were opened for inspection. These containers were shipped to Nigeria from an Indian port July this year. But not a bird has fluttered. Neither the United Nations and the United States nor Israel uttered a single word about the haul. Instead, the issue has been hushed up.
India has a long history of smuggling weapons to smaller countries across the world in general and to the Third World states in particular. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal could be cited as examples where India smuggled weapons and war explosives.
If one takes a peep into the past, India was behind arming Mukti Bahni that was instrumental in separating East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. New Delhi has been found behind many bungled arms smuggling bids. In fact, India has continued supplying arms to rebel groups and terrorist organisations across the world. There is no dearth of evidence even on the web, suggesting that both India and Israel are the main arm smugglers in the black market.
Bangladeshi, Nepalese and Sri Lankan authorities have been holding talks with Indian Defence and Foreign Office authorities to block a huge quantity of heavy weapons that are frequently shipped or transported out of India to the neighbouring states. It is understood that each time this issue came up for discussion, New Delhi took refuge in the argument that these smugglers belong to the underworld over which the Indian government has no control.
It was in the recent past that the Pakistan’s Parliament was informed during a camera session that India was behind supplying arms to insurgents operating inside Balochistan. It was not a sheer allegation. Interior Minister Rehman Malik is on record for telling the MPs that the Pakistani authorities have documentary proofs of Indian involvement in the insurgency. The Indian involvement goes to the extent of arming the insurgents fully. Arms caches seized by the Frontier Constabulary were of Indian origin.
Similarly, India is also responsible for allowing arms supplies to Kabul for onward delivery to al-Qaeda terrorists through whom these weapons reach the Pakistani Taliban fighting against the Pakistan Army in South and North Waziristan.
Diplomatic observers here are of the view that such illegal arms smuggling by Israel and India is going on unchecked. In their opinion, the matter should be raised at the international forums, including the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC. Pakistan, being a victim of suicide bombings and target killings, should take the lead and raise the issue at the United Nations.

Let all nuclear weapons disappear forever

 The five permanent members of the Security Council must take the initiative and start talks with other nuclear weapon states on this issue in order to make the world a safer place to live, for them as well as for others. They must move fast and have a target date for total elimination of all nuclear weapons.
 ________________________________________________________

 By Dr Abdul Matin.


The president of the United States of America, often described as the most powerful leader of the world, can hardly perform any of the functions vested upon him by the US Constitution without the approval of the Senate. He is, however, empowered to order a nuclear strike. Out of frustration, President Lyndon B. Johnson once said that the only power he had got was that of the bomb, but “Alas! I can’t use it.”
President Harry S. Truman was the only US president to have allowed the US military to drop two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the World War II. The two nuclear explosions were enough to force Japan to surrender on August 15, 1945.
It is reported that president Bill Clinton misplaced the nuclear code card, popularly known as the “biscuit,” which allows the US president to access his “nuclear briefcase” containing the codes to order a nuclear attack. The card was actually missing for months. This was disclosed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton in his memoir, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior.
The "nucler briefcase," in its present form, was developed during the Cuban Crisis when President Kennedy wanted to have direct control over the nuclear weapons. The mode of operation of the code card is a state secret. The card contains some numbers to open the briefcase and allows the president to use the nuclear codes.
The briefcase is carried by a trusted presidential aide who accompanies the president everywhere. He stands next to the president on all occasions, walks close to him and sits nearby in his car, plane or helicopter. The briefcase is transferred from one president to another on the day of inauguration at noon when the official transfer of power takes place.
Clinton was not the only president to misplace the "biscuit." President Carter had left the code card in a pocket of his jacket which he had sent for dry-cleaning. The card was missing for a while after the assassination attempt on President Reagan, who carried it in his wallet. President Ford once left the briefcase along with his aide on a plane during a visit to Paris.
President Carter did not allow his aide to sleep in his farm in Georgia during his visits. The aide used to sleep in motels with the briefcase miles away from his farm. The senior Bush once left his aide in a tennis court. The aide had to hire a taxi to follow him. Clinton also made his aide run after him for fifteen minutes, carrying the heavy briefcase, when he had left him in the middle of a road after attending the 50-year anniversary ceremony of Nato in Washington in 1999.
Such incidents, though amusing, show how the nuclear code card or the nuclear briefcase went beyond the reach of the US president temporarily. Can we assume that these incidents at least reduced the probability of a US nuclear strike during the periods the devices were missing? In that case, can we not think of a world without the nuclear code cards, the briefcases and the bombs?
Thank God, the code card has not been used since its invention. The atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped by an executive order of the US president. What will happen if, God forbid, the code card is ever used? In the words of President Jimmy Carter: "In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall. A World War II every second - more people killed in the first few hours than all the wars of history put together."
Will the survivors of a nuclear war be lucky? No, as President John F. Kennedy said: "For they would inherit a world so devastated by explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot conceive of its horrors." The actual condition of the survivors was more aptly described by Chairman Nikita Khrushchev of the former Soviet Union, who said: "The survivors would envy the dead."
The consequences of a nuclear war being such, it is unfortunate that the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons has been increasing gradually in spite of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Besides the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, at least three countries, India, Pakistan and North Korea, have confirmed their nuclear weapons capability. Israel, believed to possess a large nuclear arsenal, neither confirms nor denies allegations regarding possession of nuclear weapons.
It is difficult to predict the number of the aspiring nuclear weapon states. With every addition of a new member to the so-called "nuclear club,' the world comes closer to the brink of a nuclear war.
The present anti-terrorism drive around the world has virtually pushed the goal of a total and global nuclear disarmament to the rear seat. Both the drives deserve equal priority and should proceed simultaneously and vigorously. The consequences of nuclear proliferation will be worse in case some nuclear weapons or dirty bombs fall into the hands of terrorists trying to capture state power in some countries.
It is now obvious that NPT or CTBT has not helped much in preventing nuclear proliferation. Many countries believe that the two treaties are discriminatory. The world will not be safe as long as nuclear weapons exist, no matter which countries possess them. It is, therefore, time to put new efforts for a total and global nuclear disarmament.
The five permanent members of the Security Council must take the initiative and start talks with other nuclear weapon states on this issue in order to make the world a safer place to live, for them as well as for others. They must move fast and have a target date for total elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Friday, October 29, 2010

What or whom is Iran buying in Afghanistan?


Afghan President Hamid Karzai has admitted that officials from his government had been receiving bags of cash ‘totalling five hundred, six hundred or seven hundred thousand of Euros once or twice a year’. The latest incident of the kind occured in August this year during Karzai’s visit to Tehran when a bag of cash was given to Umar Daudzai, Karzai’s chief of staff and his most trusted confidant.
At the same time, Karzai denied any wrongdoing in the incident saying it was fully transparent and a part of official Iranian aid that had been going on for years.
Still, the White House expressed its deep concern over a possible ‘negative influence’ Iran may have on the processes in Afghanistan. White House spokesman Bill Burton urged Iran to play a more positive role.
There is little surprise in a report that the Afghan government is getting cash from any source it can. Afghanistan, even receiving billions of foreign aid, still remains among the poorest nations of the world. The level of corruption in that country is unprecedented and corruption has crawled up to the highest strata of Afghanistan’s power pyramid. The recent accusations of Hamid Karzai’s eldest brother Mahmoud are one small but very significant example.
It is enough to walk for half an hour along the worn-out and rugged streets of Kabul to see a number of lush new buildings rising in the midst of dirty and decayed clay huts. And this means that there are some people who know how to make money out of the scarce resources this poor country possesses. There are basically only two: drug trafficking and foreign aid.
As a former EU Ambassador to Afghanistan Francesc Vendrell said commenting on the news of bags of cash being presented to Afghan officials, the practice of receiving cash donations was far from unusual. "Many governments that hope to court influence are paying and providing money to the president's office in what I would call a slush fund. This has been going on since the very beginning, and the Americans are very much in the vanguard. So I'm not surprised the Iranians are doing it."
So why are the Americans so eager to accuse Iran of bribing Afghan officials if they themselves ‘are in the vanguard’, according to Vendrell?
In fact, in the case of Afghanistan Iran could be a naturalally of the US. It has always been a strict opponent of the Taliban and supporter of the most powerful anti-Taliban force inside Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance – partly due to ethnic reasons (the Northern Alliance was comprised mostly of ethnic Tajiks, i.e. an ethnic group closely related to Iranians), and partly due to ideological and political reasons – the Shia Iran needed a strong opposition to the extremist version of Sunni Islam represented by the Taliban. Iran is worried by the terrorist groups finding safe haven in Afghanistan and its neighboring countries no less that the US. Iran is also worried by the growing poppy cultivation and drug trafficking from Afghanistan.
But of course, the US would never recognize Iran as an ally – even if it comes to containing the terrorist and extremist threat coming from Afghanistan. Hence the present level of suspicion.
And that is also the reason why Western media have grasped this incident to wage a new wave of anti-Iranian propaganda. In fact, while the US and NATO are mostly bombing Afghan villages, Iran is doing a not so highly visible but much more important work of building roads and infrastructure objects in Afghanistan. By pointing to a set of separated incidents of bribery the West is trying to diminish the Iranian role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
But what is probably even more important, is the fact that transfers of bags of cash signify a complete failure of the international community to establish a strong and reliable government in Afghanistan. It looks as if Karzai and his clan fully realizes that he is a temporary ruler in this war-rigged country, and as such he and his associates use any opportunity to secure a comfortable life once they are gotten rid of – either by the West or by Afghans themselves. When this will happen, no one knows for sure, but everyone including Karzai himself knows for sure that sooner or later this will happen. Since money does not smell, it makes little difference for Karzai where it comes from, and he is ready to accept it from the US, from Iran or whoever.

Arundhati Roy’s home truths on Kashmir

By Sultan M Hali

Arundhati Roy’s home truth regarding “Kashmir not being an integral part of India” has irked the Indian government, which is contemplating taking action against her and hardliner Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Gilani under charges of sedition and is seeking legal opinion in this regard. The famed Indian novelist, essayist and human rights activist who focuses on issues related to social justice and economic inequality, won the Booker Prize in 1997 for her novel, The God of Small Things has also written two screenplays and several collections of essays.

For her work as an activist she received the Cultural Freedom Prize awarded by the Lannan Foundation in 2002. On October 24, 2010, at a seminar in Delhi named “Azadi – The only way”, where Roy took part with Hurriyat Conference leader S.A.S.Geelani and Varavara Rao, Roy said that “Kashmir should get Azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan”. Her remarks attracted criticism from the BJP leader Arun Jaitley that she was promoting secession of the Union of India, and that the central government was not acting on the issue and prosecuting Roy and others.

Arundhati Roy had claimed that soon after independence in 1947, India became “colonizing power.” Roy spoke in the “Wither Kashmir: Freedom or enslavement” seminar organized by the Coalition of Civil Societies (CCS) in Srinagar. Arundhati also supported Hurriyat leader, Syed Ali Shah Gilani on his pro-Azadi remark on Kashmir during a meeting in New Delhi on October 21. However, after the charge-sheet by the Indian government, Arundhati Roy has declared: “Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free.” Roy has made two speeches in New Delhi and Srinagar in the past few days in which she sought independence for Kashmir from India. The writer said she has read in newspapers that she may be arrested on charges of sedition for her remarks supporting “Azadi” for Kashmir. “I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I as well as other commentators have written and said for years. “Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice,” she said.

Earlier too Ms. Roy has been in trouble. In an interview with Times of India published in August 2008, Arundhati Roy expressed her support for the independence of Kashmir from India after massive demonstrations in favor of independence took place—some 500,000 separatists rallied in Srinagar in the Kashmir part of Jammu and Kashmir state of India for independence on 18 August 2008, following the Amarnath land transfer controversy According to her, the rallies were a sign that Kashmiris desire secession from India, and not union with India. She was criticized by Indian National Congress (INC) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for her remarks.

The fact is that Indian rule in Occupied Kashmir is illegal and illegitimate not only according to international law but according to the Indian Partition Act of 1947; according to which, all princely states were given the option to join either Pakistan or India. The approved principle was that if the ruler of the state was a Hindu but the majority of the subjects were Muslims or vice-versa, the subjects would have the right to express their option of which country they wanted to join. In Kashmir, where the ruler was a Hindu but 98% of the Kashmir Valley were predominantly Muslim, this principle was violated by India. Maharaja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler was yet to declare his accession, when Indian forces landed in Srinagar and occupied the Valley and forced the Maharaja to sign the letter of accession to India. Pakistan sent its troops to liberate the Kashmiris but India resorted to the United Nations.

The UN declared all the territories as disputed and passed several UN resolutions calling India and Pakistan to allow a UN administered plebiscite. Unfortunately, India not only reneged on the UN Resolutions, but tried to declare that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Pakistan and India went to war in 1965 and 1971 but the Kashmiris remained under Indian subjugation. Having tired of waiting for the fulfillment of the UN Resolutions, the Kashmiris took up the cudgels of fighting for their own rights. Their just struggle for liberation was met with brute force by India, which launched a reign of terror, killing and maiming lakhs of Kashmiris in a bid to subdue them. India not only failed miserably but also lost face that it has been unable to control the movement. It has resorted to torture, extrajudicial killing and unlawful detention of the Kashmiris.

India did not follow the principle of accession in the case of Hyderabad and Junagadh either, and annexed them by force. The case of the Kashmiris has been pending for over six and a quarter decades but there has been no let up in the bloodshed and tyranny on the part of India. Arundhati Roy, who has been vociferously advocating the cause of Kashmiris, does not mince her words in stating that India had launched a protracted war to suppress the ongoing movement in occupied Kashmir by its military might. She maintains that the ongoing movement had highlighted the aspirations of the Kashmiris and it was high time for the Kashmiri people to set goals for Azadi and achieve them systematically. She cautioned that there was an elite section in the occupied territory, which was allowing the oppression. She also hailed the role of Kashmiri women in the ongoing movement. It is for the world to take cognizance of the plight of the Kashmiris. US President Obama will be visiting India in November; he had promised to help resolve the Kashmir crisis but has forgotten it under Indian pressure. If he truly aspires for peace in the region, he must help resolve the crisis.

Can Obama make India an ally?

Within a week, President Barack Obama will come to India on a three-day visit,” the most time that he has spent in a single country” since assuming office. It seems an age ago, but just four years ago, it was then Senator from Illinois Barack Obama who introduced a killer amendment to the Senate legislation ratifying the Bush-Singh nuclear deal. Some weeks previous to this effort, Senator Obama had met a small group of Indians visiting Washington in order to sound out legislators on the agreement. At the breakfast meeting, which was held at the residence of a prominent Indian-American Obama backer, the brilliant and very persuasive junior senator was transparent in his distaste at the attempt by George W Bush to give India the same rights in nuclear commerce as those states that had signed the Non-proliferation Treaty. Obama clearly saw India as undeserving of the privilege of nuclear commerce unless it first gave up its nuclear weapons, a view that he shared with the leaders of almost all of Europe, Australasia, East Asia and North America.

The only reason that the Nuclear Suppliers Group accepted the US contention that India merited a waiver was the steady and relentless pressure exerted by President Bush. To the final hours before the final NSG vote two years ago, Bush and Condoleezza Rice cajoled world leaders among the 45 member-states to ensure a unanimous decision favouring India. To the last, countries such as Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and China opposed the waiver, but finally fell in line because of the diplomatic blitz unleashed by President Bush. Had it been an Obama presidency, there would never have been an India waiver, for the incoming President of the United States has appointed a non-proliferation team whose members have spent much of their working lifetimes trying to get India to follow the advice given by Bill Clinton, which is to “cap, roll back and eliminate” its nuclear and missile deterrent. Although Clinton has got a bad press in India for such insistent advice, he may perhaps not have been aware that India was a country of more than a billion people in a very unpleasant neighbourhood. Or, if he was aware of this, perhaps he may have been willing to introduce legislation to permit a few tens of millions of Indian nationals to settle in the US, should a nuclear attack befall an India that disarms itself under his advice. Bill Clinton has visited India since demitting office as President, usually to paint the country as the endemic focus of either AIDS or as the prime candidate for a nuclear attack. These visits have been sponsored ones, one having as the host Amar Singh, one of the most colourful politicians in India, whose access to big money is as legendary as the wonderful time those attending his many soirees have.

In each of these, the food and drink are of the most superb quality, several lovely Bollywood starlets are in attendance, and music and relaxed conversation flow in as much profusion as the liquid refreshments. Add to that a Speaking Fee, and it is no surprise that Bill Clinton made time for Amar Singh! While the many Clintonites in the US claim that it was Clinton’s March 2000 5-day visit to India that put relations on a fast track, the reality is that his very arrival - in the final months of his term in office - was because India had grown too large to be ignored or bullied, the way it had been during the earlier part of his term. The worst period was 1993-95, when his close friend Robin Raphel (then Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia) did all she could to arm-twist the Narasimha Rao government into handing over the Kashmir Valley to Pakistan, while at the same time helping in the build-up of the Taliban. Although it is Pakistan that is these days given the blame for setting up that militia, the reality is that the Taliban are very much a “Made in USA” outfit. During Clinton’s two terms in office, numerous Taliban leaders came to Washington and returned with promises of assistance.

Like Robin Raphel, who made no secret of her love for Pakistan and her friendship with prominent Pakistanis (including the legendary Shafqat Kakakhel), Bill Clinton shared with Richard Nixon a tilt towards Islamabad, so it was dismay that Delhi saw President Obama replacing his A-team with Clinton holdovers, including Richard Holbrooke, who shares with other Clintonites the view that only Europe counts – or should count - in the international order. Within months of his taking office, President Obama made it known that he did not share George W Bush’s enthusiasm for India, going so far as to follow Clinton in offering China the role of South Asia Policeman during his first visit to Beijing after taking charge. He scrapped the Bush team’s decision to open up Space Cooperation and speed up hi-tech transfers, and even went so far as to condemn outsourcing of services to India, despite its economic benefits to the US. And on matters of commerce, the “idealistic” Obama has favoured Dow Chemicals - the present owner of Union Catrbide - despite the 30,000 deaths on Bhopal and wants that US nuclear power companies should be indemnified from claims that would result out of a nuclear accident. It is therefore no wonder that unlike the Bush visit, there has been almost zero public excitement about Obama. The fact that he has chosen to come during the Festival of Lights (Diwali), thereby putting citizens of Delhi and Mumbai to considerable inconvenience because of traffic restrictions, has been another factor.

The Clinton visit of a decade ago was filled with ladies hugging the US President but short on tangible achievements. The betting in Delhi is that the Obama visit will be no different, except that the presence of his beautiful wife Michelle by his side may prevent too many society ladies in Delhi and Mumbai getting close enough to the handsome US President for a hug! However, there may be a surprise. President Obama has recently been shedding large chunks of the Clinton legacy, and has been adopting a much tougher policy on China than the former President ever did. He has also sanctioned many more drone attacks within Pakistan in a year than Dick Cheney (the real architect of the War on Terror ) did in eight years of office. Would President Obama be able to resist the pressure from the Clintonites (to put India in the South Asia box) and make his visit truly historic by opening up avenues of cooperation in education, health, military and high-technology? Certainly he has a few very perceptive advisors ( such as Harvard University’s Roderick MacFarquahar) who are in favour of a broad, civilisational alliance between the US and India.

After all, both India and the US form part of what may be termed the “21st Century Anglosphere”, the alliance of English-speaking countries linked together by a common (and unfortunate) history of colonization by Britain. Winston Churchill thought that race was the foundation of alliances, and rejected the view that countries that did not have European-origin peoples were qualified to join his “English-speaking Union”. Indeed, to the end, Churchill opposed the giving of independence to you, and when it became inevitable, helped the Founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, to ensure Partition. Unlike Mahatma Gandhi, who was neutral during World War II, Jinnah took the side of the British, and was rewarded in 1947 with the fulfillment of his dream. However, since then the world has changed, and today it is India that is seen as the natural ally of the US, especially as the former country has more than 200 million people who speak English. And after decades of politicians seeking to block the poor from getting access to English ( for fear that they would then demand more rights), pressure from the people has ensured that English gets taught to every high school student in India, so that in 15 years, more than 500 million people will know the language.

Although they do not regard India as being “mature enough” to possess nuclear weapons, or to join an expanded UN Security Council, the Clintonites in the Obama administration wish to sell about $20 billion worth of armaments to India, including the obsolete F-16s. They also want India to buy a further $20 billion of nuclear equipment. All this without first loosening the immense web of technology controls that have been placed on India since Zbigniew Brezezinski (who is known to favour China and dislike India) became Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in the 1970s. Brezezinski is a favourite of the Clintons though he has not warmed to the rest of the Obama team, and is the author of the “G 2 Theory”, which postulates that China and the US need to team up to solve the world’s security dilemmas. The Polish-born Brezezinski is no fan of the Anglosphere, and can be expected to look askance at efforts at creating a new alliance of India, the UK and the US, the core of a “21st Century Anglosphere” Although public expectations are low about the Obama visit, a hopeful sign is that he will not be accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the India visit. Some influential individuals in the Manmohan Singh government claim that several important agreements may get announced during the Obama visit, which they expect will ensure that the discriminatory treatment against India be stopped.

The Space authorities are looking forward to cooperation with NASA, as are others in various hi-tech sectors in India. However, the Clinton agenda focuses not on such issues, but on Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations. Will Obama too focus on Kashmir and on India-Pakistan relations, thereby annoying his hosts? Or will he treat India as a global, rather than as merely a South Asia, player? A week will tell.

 M D Nalapat:  
The writer is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Haryana State, India.

Indian soldiers marched naked with kids

He is no soldier of fortune, but Ashok Kumar Sirohi says he wants what is his due. The ex-BSF constable alleged that he was ill-treated by his department and was expelled on medical grounds. Sirohi claims that he is fit and ready for his job.
So, on Wednesday afternoon the jawan and his young kids marched naked through the heart of the city as a mark of protest. Ashok wanted to meet Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi but the cops detained him while he was walking nude on the Rajpath.
Ashok is from Sahvada village in Nangloi area of Delhi."We detained him as soon as we received information regarding the matter. We are interrogating him regarding the incident," said a police officer. Ashok threatened that if he doesn't get his job back, he would commit suicide, as he has no money left to take care of his family. His interrogation was on till late evening at the Parliament Street police station.
BSF officials refused to comment on the issue saying they didn't have any information about Ashok's termination from the force. "We don't know too many details about this incident. We will investigate the matter," said Vijay Singh, PRO BSF.

Obama visit strikes fear in Kashmir


By Sudha Ramachandran

In a week’s time, President Barack Obama will begin his five-day visit to India. He is keenly awaited in cities like Delhi and Bangalore, where people are looking to see whether Obama will endorse India’s permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council or what he will say about outsourcing of business.
To those in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, however, the visit of an American president ignites fear and foreboding.
During the trip to India 10 years ago of another US president, Bill Clinton, Kashmir witnessed one of its worst massacres and among its most controversial. There is concern that a similar tragedy will mark Obama’s visit.
"The visit of the US president to India is ... from the publicity point of view, large enough [for terrorists] to try and create something, even if it is not in any place near where President Obama would be," Home Secretary G K Pillai told CNN-IBN news channel. "We fear that innocent civilians will be killed and then the blame would be put, like the last time, on the Indian army. All indications are that the propaganda machinery would be out to do the same. Therefore, we are being careful," he added.
"The last time" that Pillai is referring to is the horrific killing of Sikhs in Kashmir on March 20, 2000. Hours before Clinton's arrival in Delhi, "unidentified gunmen" sneaked into the village of Chittisinghpura in Kashmir's Anantnag district and shot dead 36 men. The assailants were reportedly dressed in army fatigues. While some media reports claimed that the assailants spoke in Urdu, thus hinting they were Muslims, others noted that they had raised Hindu slogans after the massacre.
India blamed the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. It claimed that the killings were aimed at drawing international attention to the Kashmir issue to get the Americans to mediate between India and Pakistan. Early that month, Clinton had described Kashmir as "the most dangerous place on Earth", in the context of the long-standing dispute of the two nuclear armed neighbours over Kashmir. The Chittisinghpura massacre was aimed at "underscoring that perception of Kashmir", Indian officials said then.
Pakistan and the Kashmiri separatist groups accused Indian security forces of carrying out the attack in order to "malign the Kashmiris' struggle for independence from Indian occupation" in the eyes of the world. The "mujahideen have nothing against the Sikh community, which sympathises with our struggle", Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin clarified.
Indeed, Sikhs had not been targeted ever by the militants in the decade-long insurgency.
Kashmiris themselves have been bitterly divided on the matter with some blaming Indian authorities and others pointing in Pakistan's direction. Some accused the Ikhwanis ie, surrendered militants, for the killings.
On a visit to Chittisinghpura a few months after the killings, this writer found that its residents were unsure of the identity of their assailants and lived in mortal fear of "them" returning to take revenge if the villagers said too much. Adding fuel to the fire was the discovery some years later that the five youths killed by Indian security forces a few days after the Chittisinghpura incident on suspicion of being involved in the killings were in fact innocent.
Further muddying the waters was Clinton's observations. While his immediate response to the massacre was cautious - he was careful to attribute it to "unknown groups" - that changed in his introduction to former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright's book The Mighty and the Almighty, where he wrote that "Hindu militants" had murdered the Sikhs in cold blood. The publisher Harper Collins subsequently removed the reference to Hindu militants, describing it as an "error ... due to a failure in the fact-checking process".
Some months ago, it was reported that David Headley, the Pakistani-American Lashkar operative linked to the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, had admitted to Indian and American officials that the Chittisinghpura massacre was the work of the Lashkar, vindicating India's position.
Allegations and counter-allegations, rumours and conspiracy theories have swirled around discussions of the Chittisinghpura incident, keeping this massacre a mystery for the past decade. Whoever carried it out and whatever their message, the impact of the killings remains alive to date.
"One visit of a US President brought misery in the form of the killings," Nanak Singh, a survivor of the massacre told The Tribune. Karamjeet Singh, another survivor said that in the run-up to Obama's visit "there are similar fears of militant attacks".
"We fear they [Indian agencies] can do something similar [to the Chittisinghpura killings]" during the Obama visit," pro-Pakistan Kashmiri separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani said a few days ago in Srinagar.
Echoing that view from his home in Pakistan controlled Kashmir, Salahuddin warned that "minority communities can be massacred, another drama like Mumbai attacks can be staged, an attack on parliament or important government offices or a foreign mission may be carried out" during the US president's visit and "Hurriyat [an umbrella group of separatist organisations] leaders will be blamed".
Indian officials say the separatists are planning attacks, hence these statements to prepare the ground to deflect blame from themselves. The Indian government is not taking any chances and has stepped up security, especially in Kashmir.
But meanwhile, a "threat" far less horrific but more damaging to India's image is troubling the Indian government.
Booker prize winning novelist and activist Arundhati Roy's said at a conference in Delhi that "Kashmir has never been an integral part of India". The statement has triggered angry calls for her arrest on charges of sedition. The government is under pressure from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to arrest her. But Obama is coming next week and Roy's arrest would sully Delhi's democratic image in the eyes of the international media.
What Roy has said has been said by many before her. This is a position of many in the Kashmir Valley and some in India have articulated before. But Roy, while a lightning rod for criticism in India, has many supporters in the West. Her arrest on the eve of Obama's visit would keep international attention riveted on Kashmir and India's many failings there.
That is a prospect that India would like to avoid.
Officials in the Home Ministry told Asia Times Online that Roy's arrest on charges of sedition was ruled out, "at least for now".
India has been opposed to "external meddling in the Kashmir problem". It does not want to give reason "for Obama to refer to the 'K word' in any context other than that of Pakistan's continuing support to terrorism there," the official said.
Indeed, Obama will have to tread carefully if he does not want to annoy his Indian hosts.
The British learnt their lessons the hard way. During Queen Elizabeth's visit to India and Pakistan in 1997, foreign secretary Robin Cook told a group of journalists in Pakistan that “he would take up the Kashmir issue with India". "We realise it is our responsibility to resolve this dispute in view of its historical perspective. The Labour Party wishes to solve this problem according to the aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and, therefore, the two parties should accept her role in this regard," Cook was quoted as saying.
India's response was swift. Prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral shot back by describing Britain as "a third-rate power nursing illusions of grandeur of its colonial past". "It created Kashmir when it divided India [in 1947]. Now it wants to give us a solution," he said.
The damage was done. The queen's visit to India was declared a disaster even before she set foot in India.
Ahead of his visit to India in 2009, foreign secretary David Miliband wrote an article in The Guardian linking the terror attacks in Mumbai with Kashmir. Although he did not say so explicitly, he suggested that the Mumbai attacks would not have happened if India settled the Kashmir dispute. India's Foreign Office responded by dismissing Miliband's views as "unsolicited advice".
Ahead of British Prime Minster David Cameron's visit this year, columnist Alex Barker wrote in his blog that Cameron should refrain from mentioning "Kashmir" or "poverty" while in India, avoid a "patronising tone" or "coming over too fresh" (The 43-year-old Miliband repeatedly addressed the 73-year-old Pranab Mukherjee, India's then foreign minister, by his first name). "It's time to learn some manners. Indian politicians are, as a rule, double his age and four times as grand," Barker wrote.
Cameron seemed to have heeded that advice and avoided the "elephant traps". His trip to India went off well. Not so the Pakistan leg.
Wisely, Obama is visiting only India this time. He will have to tread carefully to avoid tripping over India's red-line issues.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.