It is self evident that this boosting of Raj Thackery by Chief Minister Maharashtra (who though he is technically in partnership with Udhay Thackery, Shiv Sena) was a politically expedient, self-interest tactic.

Proudly, the Chief Minister announces that he has telephoned Raj and a mutual settlement has been arrived at- under which Karan would donate Rs. 5 Crores to the army fund and promise not to engage Pakistani actors in future.

At this dark hour of cravenness, a small message from an army veteran shot up, condemning the involvement of the army in this petty politics, and making it clear that the army will not accept this money. The pulse of a common person in India is sounder and more honest than that of a politician – in the cynical words of George Bernard Show “Politics is the last resort for a scoundrel” or even the more cynical one of Samuel Johnson writer, who noted that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”.

The undertaking given not to engage Pakistani actors in the future is an act of disgrace- of surrendering to ruffian politics.

Will Karan and others at least now show their “penance” by donating Rs. 5 Crores, if not more, to the distressed farmers who are committing suicide in Maharashtra?

It was then cynically suggested that Pakistani actors can be engaged if they condemn Pakistani attack. Such a suggestion is not only disgraceful but is rather a self inflicted wound – because then the question may well be asked, why then Indo-Pak trade shows that over the last 12 years it has grown 8 times from just 345 million dollars to 2.6 billion dollars? This is true even in the matter of entertainment. A blow up by this pseudo patriotism has resulted in enforcing a complete ban by Pakistan on Indian TV and Radio. This fake patriotism will ruin both the neighbours.

In my view, in creating anti – Pak feelings, the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister cannot escape their responsibility. I say this because in the wake of strategic strike controversy (in which, of course, Rahul’s intervention made the Congress squirm), we witnessed even more embarrassing antics of Parrikar, when he “enlightened” the country by declaring that he feels that army has been motivated because of his training even though as a small-time RSS volunteer. Of course, he gave credit to Modi’s Leadership due to his longer training in RSS Shakhas. How laughable – what of 1965 war with Pakistan, which is legendary? The Prime Minister then was Lal Bahadur Shastri, whose antipathy to the RSS is well- documented.

PM’s comment that, “earlier ,one had heard about Israel doing such things – now the country has seen that Indian Army is no less”, was an ignorant bloomer – I am sorry Modi made such a statement without consulting the foreign office who would have told him that Israeli Army receives universal condemnation for its barbarous attacks on Palestine at every year at U.N. General Assembly meetings since over 30 years.

This laughable matter of RSS parade being the inspiration of PM, or of others training at RSS rally, is equivalent to the similar idle and laughably parallel boast of English aristocracy that , “Battle of Waterloo against Napoleon was won at the playing fields of public school Eton”.

It is unfortunate that in this jingoism of hysteria being spread by RSS pupil Parrikar and Modi, Congress Party should try to out do this jingoism as was openly done by the Congress leader Anand Sharma, demanding that government should declare the terror attack against the security forces at Udhampur Pathankot, and Uri as “Acts of War”.

I am deeply sad that Rishi Kapoor should have said that “Indian Industry will not work with any Pakistani actor in the future”. Has Rishi forgotten one of his best earliest film “Henna” made in 1991, where the heroine was Pakistani Film actress Zeba Bakhtiar and shot in area of Pakistan – the story of Pakistanis helping him to cross Jhelum river in Pakistan safely back to India by protecting him from Pakistani ruffians. It is worth emphasizing that at that time, militancy in Kashmir (supported by Pakistan) was at the highest level.

Such is the fear being spread that it reminds me of a somewhat similar situation after the Second World War in U.S.A. when Senator McCarthy spread his anti communist hatred so viciously that he succeeded in creating an atmosphere of terror amongst established writers, cinema actors, and there was a deadening silence at any protest from the public.

– But fortunately, for free speech, he over acted and tried the same vilifying accusations against U.S. Army. And then he met his nemesis. The nation was jolted, people picked up courage. As US Army reacted in protest like ours army, McCarthy was thrown out of public life and his career ended in dumps. Can we not stop this mud slinging by small-time politicians at creating a terror atmosphere, for those who want better relations with Pakistani people and enjoying their talent in films, Sufi Music and quawalis, which is a common heritage of both our countries?

But unfortunately, this mutual boast at border killing by both Pakistan and India are being treated as if it is a number of how many goals in hockey match have been scored against each other. What a sham!

I am fond of seeing films (though not a cinema buff). But as a penance, I will deny myself the pleasure of seeing this film either in Cinema Hall or even on T.V., because having spent my first 25 years of life in Lahore (Pakistan), I at least owe that much to both the countries.

It is somewhat heartening to read the statement issued by Hina Jilani (Pakistan) Chairperson of SAHR – a human right organization representing India, Pakistan, Lanka, Nepal, namely; “SAHR appeals to the governments of India and Pakistan to respect the sanctity of LoC and IB. It also strongly urges both governments to immediately implement the Ceasefire Agreement of 2003 in letter and spirit”.

Original Published Link

The Tribunal was presided over by Mr. Francois Houtrt, Chairperson of the U.N. Committee on Economic Recession.  The writer was one of the ten members of this panel.

As is well known, there have been, since over a decade, warlike encounters between  Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE); the latter were virtually running their own administration with unbearable losses to both sides.  At last, due to intervention by the USA and European Union, ceasefire agreement was signed between GOSL and LTTE in 2002, which was being overseen by Norwegians.

I can personally vouch for the comparatively relaxed and hopeful atmosphere that prevailed when our delegation of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, on invitation from a human rights group in Sri Lanka, visited it in 2003.  The confidence was such that Balsingham, the spokesman for Prabhakaran, LTTE Chief, on one of his visits, because of time factor constraint, had no hesitation in using Government helicopter to meet Prabhakaran before the start of one of the rounds of peace talks. However, on 2^nd January, 2008, the GOSL officially declared its withdrawal from CFA, of course, both parties blaming each other for this eventuality.

Various reasons were advanced for failure of Cease fire agreement, like the delayed response of the GOSL to begin reconstruction and rehabilitation work in the war-ravaged areas, as also, the failure to ensure the social and economic well being of the people, thus eroding the mutual confidence.

Especially after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Tamils were led to feel neglected, marginalized and discriminated against thus increasing their distrust.  The European Union’s decision to ban the LTTE in 2006 even before the war started has also been seen as a grave error that destroyed the parity of status conducive for the contribution of the peace process. In addition, the USA has been accused of being instrumental in undermining the post-Tsunami Operational Management structure which was put in place as a unified mechanism to carry out joint rehabilitation and relief work in the Tsunami affected areas by insisting that it would not direct money to any joint fund other than the Government Treasury.

But the most crucial reason for breakdown of ceasefire was the attitude of US Government which insisted on excluding LTTE from advanced talks in Washington.  The conduct of European Union, in withdrawing this early from talks, was explained by impartial witnesses as being due to strong pressure put by USA, which, because of its own war in Iraq and Afghanistan, wanted the logistic support of GOSL, and which it obviously could not hope to get if LTTE continued to be  associated with ceasefire talks.

The Tribunal found that the Lankan Army dropped cluster ammunition by war planes.  There was frequent use of heavy military against LTTE forces in civilian areas on public buildings and schools, which constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions. British and French media indicated that during the third week of fighting, some 20,000 Tamils had been killed.

Sexual abuse and the rape of women was yet another atrocity clearly proven against Government military and which would amount to crime against humanity, and  against the Geneva Convention.

The Tribunal rejected the claim that all these war crimes should be allowed as the best means to defeat the most dangerous enemy.  This kind of new security paradigm is totally unacceptable.

The State cannot be allowed to transgress international norms of Geneva Convention and Rome Statute, whatever the provocation and challenge to the authorities by its own citizens – such is the mandate of human rights law, which is universally accepted.

The Tribunal regretted that after repeated pleas, and in spite of the appalling conditions experienced by Tamils, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council failed to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate those responsible for the atrocities committed.

The Tribunal has emphasized that if normal conditions are to be restored in Sri Lanka, the Government must establish as a matter of urgency an independent and authoritative Truth and Justice Commission, to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by parties in conflict.

The Sri Lankan Government must also implement a political power-sharing solution that gives the Tamil people a proactive and legitimate role in the administration and management of the Northeast, while upholding their rights to equal citizenship, participation and representation at all levels, and ensuring a free, fair and peaceful electoral process in regard to parliamentary elections scheduled for May, 2010 and allow free and unlimited access to humanitarian organizations, such as the international Committee of the Red Cross, human rights defenders and media in refugee camps.

The Tribunal also urged the international community and the United Nations to appoint a UN Special Rapporteur for Sri Lanka to investigate and identify responsibilities for human rights violations and for war crimes committed by all parties in conflict.

I feel that in the matter of restoration of peace in Sri Lanka, Tamil Diaspora can play an important role.  It is well known that Tamil Diaspora in Europe and America was greatly sympathetic to LTTE demand for Eelam – its active help was stupendous.

It has, during the present tragedy, tried to do its best for rehabilitating the victims, but lack of support by the GOSL has greatly hindered its activities.  It is rightly not only deeply hurt but also furious at the indignities and brutalities suffered by their brethren / sisters – the same sentiments that every Indian in the country shares.

But in the anger, nothing should be done to bring Tamils in Sri Lanka again on the path of violent confrontation – of course, much will depend on how GOSL treats Lankan Tamils and whether it genuinely tries to give a humane, understanding touch to the strong sentiments of Tamils in Sri Lanka and gives them an equitable, honourable position in power sharing so that both of them can jointly make Sri Lanka, a beautiful country with bountiful nature, free of conflict and move on to a joint quest for a happy, united living without any discrimination of religion or language, each being considered on the same level.

NEW DELHI

(Pubished in part in: The Tribune, dt. 30.01.2010 :   https://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100130/edit.htm

and the complete version of the article appears in the Radical Humanist (March 2010): https://issuu.com/www.theradicalhumanist.com/docs/march_2010_-_rh)

In 1971, U.S.A. , under the Nixon presidency ,had a hostile attitude towards India. U.S.A. efforts to brow beat Indira Gandhi were unsuccessful. Nixon had even sent seventh fleet across Bay of Bengal to put pressure on her. How disgustingly hostile Nixon has been documented in the Nixon tapes released two years back, which show Nixon and kissinger using the foulest of language for Indira Gandhi, when they failed to dissuade her from giving aid to Freedom fighters in East Pakistan. The tapes, however, do not tell an even more secretive and interesting stand of Indira Gandhi,in resisting Nixon boosted by the confidence she had in the valour and capably of General Manekshaw.

Nixon thought that it was easy to brow-beat India, which was economically weak.  But they forgot the history of India’s independence and of Indira Gandhi, being the daughter of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the top-most freedom fighter, and also being so much a favourite of Nehru that even he could not withstand her stubbornness, as is shown when in 1957 and in a planned manner, she had the Communist Party Govt. of Namoodripad dismissed, notwithstanding Nehru’s opposition. It is in this background of personality traits that the following event may be helpful in understanding Nixon-Indira Gandhi confrontation.

As is known, Nixon and Kissinger first visited India in 1971 when conditions in East Bengal were very serious. Millions of people coming over was causing great strain on economy.  At that time, Nixon and Kissinger were in Delhi and were invited for break fast by her and I am repeating the story which I have it from absolutely authentic sources that it is true.

It is stated that on the eve of breakfast meeting at her residence with Nixon and Kissinger, Mrs. Gandhi phoned General Manekshaw, the then Commander-in-Chief of the Army.  She just told him to come for the breakfast in the morning.  She did not disclose as to who her other guests were.  She  further  told  General  that  when  he  comes for  break fast, he should come in uniform.  Naturally, General felt surprised and asked whether he had heard rightly because it was naturally a very strange suggestion.  Mrs. Gandhi was straight forward and told him yes, she wanted him to come for break fast but in uniform.  So, General Manekshaw went and soon, they were joined by Nixon and Kissinger.  Mrs. Gandhi was persistent in pleading with Nixon that he should try to restrain Pakistan for what was being done in East Pakistan, because the conditions there were becoming intolerable and it was almost becoming impossible for India to remain silent at the mass migration from East Pakistan, because of the atrocities being committed there.  Nixon and Kissinger were prevaricating and would not really give a straight answer.  Rather, they tried to underplay  the   situation.  Mrs.  Gandhi,  however,  still  insisted, but of no avail.

Nixon, in half annoyance, is said to have told her that USA can do nothing about it.  Obviously rattled, Mrs. Gandhi made a last minute appeal to Nixon to do something, otherwise she may have to do something herself ,which she was reluctant to do.

At this, Nixon again expressed his inability to do anything and asked her rather ironically as to what she intended to do.  At that time, she stood up and pointing towards General (who was in full military uniform) and told Nixon that if you cannot control the  situation  then I  am  going to ask him (meaning the General) to do the same.

There was stunning silence for a minute and the sharp message was conveyed to Nixon in a very stark manner.  As a matter of fact, General was himself surprised and suddenly understood the purpose as to why he had been asked to come in uniform rather than in civilian clothes at apparently, a harmless function of break fast.  Obviously, Nixon and Kissinger had their egos deflated and were not going to forgive Mrs. Gandhi for such an attitude.

Nixon tapes bring out an aspect of right of information even about the most confidential state secrets being shared with public, the ultimate sovereign in a democracy. But though we pride ourselves rightly as the largest democracy and though government records have opened up somewhat  because  of  Right  of  Information Act,  still,  the old mentality of British imperialism to keep state records secret is still continuing. In that connection, the demand by a large number of journalists and researchers a right to read Henderson Brooks report of 1962 war with China is being constantly refused, even when Neville Maxwell made full use of it in his book India’s  China War, written decades back.

Unfortunately, in our country, political   parties  of  all  hues   treat  Government information as a special preserve of the elite rulers for the time being

– all this false, secret mania must go, if Government’s claim to be people-oriented is to have any credibility.

This broad arrangement continued with minor ups and downs till a very serious change came about with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.  By this time, USA became a single super power.  Russia,  after the break-up of USSR, was expected to keep some kind of balance but unfortunately, because of its internal contradictions and economic collapse, was not able to keep up the pressure.

There was, of course, the other aspect of Europe trying to come together- the European Nations’ efforts to make and have European Union strong and big so that it would be able to challenge the USA in various matters. Unfortunately, however, they have not succeeded at present because their own material interests are at stake.  That influence is also going to now lessen because of the reflection of referendum on constitution by France and the Netherlands.  Apparently, this will stoke the ambition of the USA to behave irresponsibly and to behave like Don, ignoring completely the sensitivities and the interests of other nations.  There were other reform priorities- the US was undecided about the overall enlargement plan.  But the bottom line was clear enough: Germany was not welcome to join the club.  And if people thought that had something to do with continuing US resentments over Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, then they might not be all that wrong. Another recent point of difference between EU and USA is whether to open up contact with Hamas, a powerful group in Palestian; EU realizes its potential for peace or continued hostilities, if ignored, but the USA, blinded by its unallowed loyalties to Israel, looks askant.

Another strain is the attitude to Iran- European Union wants to engage Iran in talks so that a flash point is not reached, but the USA is adopting the same tactic of false statements, as used with Iran about danger of nuclearisation from Iran.

India has never been a favourite with USA nor, in my view, have we tried  to cater to that.  Rather, India, in the past, has had an uncomfortable relationships, even hostile, with the USA.

But since the last few years and the rapid opening up of the economy (one is not happy at the undiluted way in which it is done), which could have serious consequences,  USA has now, because of its potential of market in India, somewhat changed its tone and has at least lessened its hostile stance.

This stand has been encouraged a little by somewhat over indulgence by the various policies of the Central Government, namely its cooperative approach even in the matter of USA’s arms supply, joint military exercises and other exchange of delicate information.  The further domination of USA in the wake of 9/11 has made matters worse.  USA is now impervious to the U.N. pressure.  It treats even the Secretary General’s pleas with disdain. USA’s venture in Afghanistan met with some opposition but it was not strong enough to prevent it.  The neo-conservatives in US are ruling therein and have now embarked upon a programme of action and international behaviour wedded to the sole objective, i.e., how best it will serve USA’s interests even by causing damage to world peace or the world economy.  So much now is the indifference of USA that it is continuing with its Iraq policy and occupation of Iraq, notwithstanding that it has now been proved beyond any doubt that the excuse of Weapons of Mass Destruction being stored by Iraq and the danger of it being used by Saddam was a deliberate false cover up, and that this was so unashamedly done that the officials of USA did not even feel embarrassed to put on record (which documents have now become public) that this whole attack was in the planning for almost a year immediately after Bush got re-elected.  The whole venture of Iraq must be understood in the oil diplomacy that is now the sole determining feature of USA’s foreign policy, which has to be kept in view by all countries, especially by India when deciding its foreign policy for 21^st Century.  The latest example of this is to be seen in the strong statement where the USA’s Secretary of State, Ms. Condaleeza Rice threatened Pakistan not to enter into an agreement between India, Iran and Pakistan to supply Iran’s gas to India.  There is so much of brazenness and contempt for other nations that USA’s Secretary of State has made no secret of the fact that if Pakistan goes through this project, it will affect Washington’s relations with Islamabad.  

Of course, so far as India is concerned, though there may not be publicly slated opposition to it,  the fact is that India-Iran pipeline cannot be worked at an economic advantage, unless Pakistan is a party to it.

At present, with good relations between India and Pakistan on the rise, Pakistan is more than willing especially considering that it could earn upto 600 million US dollors a year from this pipeline which agreement is to be for 25 years on this 4 billion pipeline.  Ms. Rice, however, not only warned Pakistan against joining this India-Iran project, but also, without any embarrassment, suggested that Pakistan think of the alternative gas from Qutar and Turkmenistan ,which are being handled by USA oil companies.  Naturally, Iran is justifiably angry because its Oil Minister has publicly stated that it is unreasonable to prevent India and Pakistan from accessing Iran gas.  Here is one of the challenges to our foreign policy experts, because to give in to pressure by USA in such an important matter of our national economy could send wrong signals.  India needs to tell the USA that though it wants a friendly relationship with USA,  it cannot allow USA to suggest policies which will damage and delay the economic uplift of the country.

Another conflict being looming large before India’s foreign policy relations is the proposal for expansion of the Security Council.  The Group of 4 – India, Brazil, Germany and Japan are putting forth a proposal for expansion of the Security Council and their inclusion as permanent members.  They have even softened their approach on not having Veto rights straightaway, but providing for an interval of at least 15-20 years for this.  The USA, in brazen partisan manner, has opposed this matter being taken up in the current UN Assembly and is pressurizing other countries to Vote against it.  This opposition, apart from anything, is really aimed at India and Germany.

The opposition by USA to Germany was as mentioned above. But maybe, USA does not want India’s potential enhanced further by inclusion in the Security Council.  Maybe, it is sending a message to Pakistan who, unfortunately, notwithstanding some relaxations between India-Pakistan relations seems to be against India’s inclusion in the Security Council.  China is also opposing, more so, because it feels that if Japan and India are included its sole monopoly from Asia will suffer.  Naturally, we want good relations between India and China.

It will be one of the challenges of the 21st Century’s Foreign Policy as to how to combine our self-interest and justify our posture of wanting to play a bigger role in the international arena and, at the same time, not spoil our relations with China and Pakistan.

This needs a very delicate handling and understanding that, whatever the position of India, it will never be hostile to the interests of Pakistan or China.  Rather, we need to create an atmosphere, in which China should feel that it would play an even greater role if it, along with India, Pakistan and Japan, if were to form a workable understanding on major topics which, in any case, are common to these countries more than to the interests of USA.  In that connection, one was not very happy at the arms supply from USA, in the shape of pact which India did with USA but also for manufacturing advanced improved version of F-16.  To be drawn into arms manufacturing with USA does not fit with India’s Foreign Policy of settling the matters peacefully and of creating a world without conflicts.  The danger of joint arms manufacturing is that one is drawn inevitably in the orbit of USA which can have serious consequences in our independent relationship with China and also, especially for the up-coming countries like Brazil, Venezuela.

One of the touchy and delicate matters of our Foreign Policy is our approach to Myanmar.  For some time, the  Indian Govermment. is quite silent on the release of the leaders Aung San Suu Kyi.

Maybe, in its own interests, considering that there are portions in Myanmar which are the headquarters of the armed insurgents operating in North-East, India has to walk a little delicately.  But an impression should not be given that we have completely washed-off our hands against the pro-democratic movements in Myanmar.

If USA can publicly show its pressure, there is no reason why India, which is such a close and friendly neighbour to Myanmar, should not use its influence with understanding to seek the release of the Myanmar leaders of Burmese parties.

India’s Foreign Policy must give the top-most priority to improving relations with Pakistan.  The recent controversy on Advani versus Jihhah’s role in this country has been an unfortunate one- not in the sense that it may lead to weakening of BJP; if this was so, I would certainly welcome this development.  My worry is that the Congress, without properly appreciating the significance, jumped into a controversy of whether Mr. Jinnah was secular or not.  I believe it is a totally uncalled for controversy.  Quaid-e-Azam is the founder of Pakistan and deserves all respects like Gandhiji does in our country.  Gandhiji & Jinnah are the icon of their respective countries.  There may be an in depth and critical study by historians and serious political scientists on the respective merits and demerits of the contribution by Gandhiji and Jinnah, but I think it is not in the interest of our countries that politicians or media hacks should fall in the trap of discussing the merits and demerits of their contribution during the freedom struggle and of their work pre-1947 and purporting to give them honour or dishonour for any of their political thoughts.  These are not matters in which political parties at present have any business to enter into nor are they relevant at this stage.  Pakistan is an established reality.  Howsoever it came into being, the Indian Government must even in internal foolish jibes with opposition reiterate as a solemn pledge that the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan is an established reality, and that our foreign policy is based on a friendship between two independent countries with an effort to make both these countries stronger.  One should expect the ruling party to stay clear of it because it is justifiably engaged in improving good relations with Pakistan and taking reasonably good steps towards it.  It needs to be accepted that without real good open friendship a goodwill between India and Pakistan, neither of the countries can play any worthwhile role in the international field.  It is, therefore, in the interests of both the countries not to, in any way, spoil the atmosphere if we really want to be counted as a rising force in the world.