Rupee News

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

You can fool some of the poeple all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

Slowly but steadily the truth about Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s racism is becoming self evident to most Americans. What was only whispered a few decades ago, what was only mentioned in hushed coversations a few years ago, is now part of the Congressional Record of the United States of America. The cacaphony of the criticism against Mr. Gandhi is now being shouted from the top of the mountains and is consecrated in the library of congress books. The farce cannot be hidden anymore.

Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten  Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER  DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | September 3rd, 2008  |

United States of America Congressional Record on Mohandas Gandhi

RACISM OF INDIAN FOUNDER EXPOSED
(Extensions of Remarks – December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi’s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,” said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India.”

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,” occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India’s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India’s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.” In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

Mr. Speaker, reporter Rory Carroll of The Guardian wrote an excellent article on the controversy about the Gandhi statue. I would like to place it in the Record at this time.

[The Guardian, Friday Oct. 17, 2003]

GANDHI BRANDED RACIST
AS JOHANNESBURG HONOURS FREEDOM FIGHTER
(By Rory Carroll)

It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people. The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.

But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.

Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: “Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India,” said a correspondent to The Citizen.

Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon “hated” black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.

Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.

The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.

Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa’s first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.

However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi’s writings.

Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: “Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.”

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness”.

The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.

The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki’s visit to India.

Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.

Gandhi’s offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr. Ntshangase.

“Later he got more enlightened.”

Her are some articles on Mr. Mohandas K. Gandhi:

• http://www.kush.co.za/workarea/show.asp?ArticleNo=36
• www.Guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1065018,00.html
• www.Gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php
• www.Gandhism.net/sergeantmajorgandhi.php
• www.Gandhism.net/unletter.php
• Gandhi used to beat his wife up routinely.
• Gandhi was having sex when his father lay breathing his last upstairs.
• Gandhi denied sex to his wife for decades.
• Gandhi was an adulterer and had a spiritual marriage with two British women who were in the Ashram
• Gandhi slept naked with his niece (and 12 year old virgin girls) and other women to prove that he could control his manliness and to get energy from the virgins.
• Gandhi would do enemas twice a day and if he liked you allowed you to enter the piece up his rectum.
• Gandhi used to drink his own urine and also the urine of cows.Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to Prime Minister Desai to common man
  Hindu India: A gift from the Hindu Gods:Cows Urine: UK Telegraph reports by Julian West
• Gandhi son left him and converted to Islam. Two of Gandhi’s grandsons have written books about him. Both books list his indiscretions and adultry.
• The racist Gandhi was a total failure in South Africa where he tried to stratify the society, Whites, Indians and Africans. His racism towards the Africans was horrendous. His horrific advice to all Jews to commit suicide was abomible. His atrocious letters to his friend Hitler were the height of stupidiy.
• Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
• The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
• Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
• Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion
• www.Gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php
• www.DalitVoice.org/Templates/oct_a2005/articles.htm
• SikhSpectrum.com Monthly. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and … -
• Mahatma Gandhi’s letters to Hitler
• koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhihitler.html
• Council of Khalistan CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
• http://www.khalistan.com/CongRecords/CR121305_Towns_RacismOfIndianFounderExposed.htm
• www.House.gov/towns
• http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas-gandhi-his-failures-sexual-perversion/
• Hsi Lai: Gandhi “slept between two 12-year-old female virgins”
• Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
• The sex life of Mr. Gandhi, and his failures as a politician
• The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence
• Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties
• Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer war, Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.Gandhi did not bring the British Empire down.
• Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
• Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion

GANDHI’s RACISM AGAINST BLACKS

Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
The sex life of Gandhi. His failure as a politician
The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and nationalism
Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service
Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars

Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi sex life deviant sexual perversion, and political failures Is India a failed state? Peek behind the Bollywood gloss!
Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. Gandhi to PM Desai to common man

Related articles

• Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (karachitelegraph.com)
• Mohandas Gandhi’s collaboration with the British prolonged the Colonial Raj. http://www.mohandasgandhitruth.com (rupeenews.com)

The 109th Congress of the USA condemned Mohandas Gandhi

Share

'Dead Reckoning' redefines history of 1971

Share

Dead Reckoning: This ground-breaking book chronicles the 1971 war in South Asia by reconstituting the memories of those on opposing sides of the conflict. 1971 was marked by a bitter civil war within Pakistan and war between India and Pakistan, backed respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States. It was fought over the territory of East Pakistan, which seceded to become Bangladesh. Through a detailed investigation of events on the ground, Sarmila Bose contextualises and humanises the war while analysing what the events reveal about the nature of the conflict itself. The story of 1971 has so far been dominated by the narrative of the victorious side. All parties to the war are still largely imprisoned by wartime partisan mythologies. Bose reconstructs events via interviews conducted in Bangladesh and Pakistan, published and unpublished reminiscences in Bengali and English of participants on all sides, official documents, foreign media reports and other sources. Her book challenges assumptions about the nature of the conflict, and exposes the ways in which the 1971 war is still playing out in the region.

Product code: 455601, ISBN13: 9781849040495, 288 pages, paperback
Published by C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd in 2011

SARMILA BOSE is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a political journalist in India and combines academic and media work. She was educated at Bryn Mawr College and Harvard University.

Ms. Sharmila Bose in her paper entitled “Losing the Victims: Problems of Using Women as Weapons in Recounting the Bangladesh War”  paints a picture of the Pakistani military as a disciplined force that spared women and children. She writes:

During my field research on several incidents in East Pakistan during 1971, Bangladeshi participants and eyewitnesses described battles, raids, massacres and executions, but told me that women were not harmed by the army in these events except by chance such as in crossfire. The pattern that emerged from these incidents was that the Pakistan army targeted adult males while sparing women and children.

She also quotes the passage from the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report that I cited above to support her assertion that so many rapes could not have occurred. 20,000-34,000 could not have raped 200,000 to 400,000 women in the space of nine months.

She states in the introduction:

That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. The question is what was the true extent of rape, who were the victims and who the perpetrators and was there any systematic policy of rape by any party, as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.

To try to bolster her argument that the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh could not have raped so many women, she claims:

The number of West Pakistani armed forces personnel in East Pakistan was about 20,000 at the beginning of the conflict, rising to 34,000 by December. Another 11,000 men — civil police and non-combat personnel — also held arms.

For an army of 34,000 to rape on this scale in eight or nine months (while fighting insurgency, guerrilla war and an invasion by India), each would-be perpetrator would have had to commit rape at an incredible rate.

There are numerous reports out there now which negates the well established beliefs. The declassified US reports, Indian military officers account, Pakistan military officers account, General Niazi’s memoirs, Sharmila Bose, Hamoodurahman commission report.

Pakistan Military officers fought hard. Many foreign correspondents speak well of their bravery. It is the bravery of a Muslim soldier that Indian Military got tough fight. These Pakistani Mard-e-Momin fought so hard that they had almost regained the control of East Pakistan from the dirty hands of Mukt-Bahini. When India saw this, She then started the military action which resulted in the fall of Dhaka.

Then  Mujib showed his true colors after the formation of Bangladesh with his BAKSAL party. How he became authoritative and usurped democracy is not a secret anymore. He was going to make Bangladesh part of India that he was killed timely by the Pakistani military officers (yes those Bengalis who never gave up allegiance to Pakistan. I stand in honor for them).

References:
1) Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpCroezFrY
2) Read “RAW in Bangladesh by ZainulAbidin (an ex-Mukti Bahini member) on 1971 war.
3) Read Blood and tears by a Pakistani writer about 1971 war.
4) Check the website of Federation of American Scientist on 1971 war
5) Read “East Pakistan Tragedy” by L.F. Rushbrook Williams.

Related articles

• Truth about 1971 comes out: Sarmila Bose (timesofislamabad.com)
• 1971: Pakistan soldiers could not have raped so many women (thedawn.com.pk)
• Truth about 1971 (pakistanindependent.com)
• Let the Stranded Pakistanis come back home (thedawn.com.pk)
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan should apologize (teabreak.pk)

'Dead Reckoning' redefines history of 1971

Share

Contrary to Wikileaks Arabs take nuanced stand towards Iran

Share

Contrary to Wikileaks Arabs take nuanced stand towards Iran

If one listens of Hillary Clinton or read Wikileaks–the Arabs are to blame for all the polemics against Iran.

Realpolitik is a bit different. The Gulf Cooperation States are no dummies. They really comprehend the dangers of provoking another war in the Middle East–one which the Sheikhdoms may not be able to withstand.

A US war on Iran will decimate the US bases in the Gulf States and also wreak havoc with the carefully built prosperity of the UAE as well as Saudi Arabia. It will push the Middle East back for several decades and may splinter the countries.

Osama Al Sharif writing for the Arab News describes the dangers faced by the Kingdom, and defines a strategy for the the Saudis.

The world is still abuzz over the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables revelations, which have caused both embarrassment and anger in Washington and other major capitals. The press is still sifting through hundreds of thousands of classified US diplomatic cables and every day sheds light on one issue or another.

There are two immediate points which Arab leaders should take note of, regardless of the perceived damage caused by the leaks in some cases. One concerns long-term relations with Iran and the need to chart an independent Arab, particularly GCC, policy toward Tehran. The second is the Palestine Question, which appears to have regressed from being the central cause for the Arabs, at least in the eye of US diplomats in the region, to becoming a marginal or side issue.

The first challenge is enormous and appears to have been underestimated by Arab leaders. Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its attempt to develop fuel enrichment technology away from international supervision is a genuine cause for concern, in the Middle East and elsewhere. But Iran’s diplomatic showdown with the West should not dictate Arab policies. Our relationship with Tehran is much more complex. It involves the long-term security of the Gulf and the region, bilateral relations at different levels, Iran’s involvement in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine and cultural and religious ties. Iran is not an outsider to this region, but a major geopolitical player who is here to stay.

Israel and the West have their own agenda with regard to Iran and its nuclear program. The Arabs should not be followers; they have their own vested interests to protect and safeguard. Their quarrel with Iran centers over specific topics, most of which can be resolved through direct talks and binding assurances.

Certainly the Arabs have no interest in seeing another war conflagrate in the Gulf region. We are yet to see an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if a military confrontation, with incalculable risks and outcome, does break out between Iran and the West, the Arabs should resist being sucked into it.

Instead the Arabs have a strategic role to play, as does Turkey, in calming Tehran’s fears and encouraging it to compromise and open up. On the record, no Arab country is against Iran’s legitimate right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful means. And if Iran’s latest assurances that it will never attack a Muslim country are to be taken at their face value, then the Arabs should launch a diplomatic drive to hold Tehran to its word.

With a new round of negotiations this week taking place in Geneva between Iran and the 5+1 group of nations over Tehran’s nuclear program, the Arab world should express support and provide ideas to make these talks fruitful. The alternatives are frightening and profound. The repercussions to our region will be disastrous. It is pivotal that key Arab nations debunk the allegations made in WikiLeaks cables and come forward with a gesture of goodwill toward Iran. The GCC summit in Abu Dhabi was expected to cover this matter.

Such move will force Tehran to reciprocate and to provide assurances that its nuclear program is indeed peaceful and threatens no one. If the Iranian leadership fails to make such pledges, then Arab leaderships and public opinion will be united.

In the Manama Dialogue earlier in the week, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made some positive statements, directed to his country’s neighbors. There is no reason why the Arabs should not respond in kind. Before him President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discounted the effect of the WikiLeaks revelations and accused the United States of attempting to divide Muslims and stir regional trouble. While Arab and Muslim capitals refuted the veracity of allegations made in the WikiLeaks cables, it is important that they send a positive sign to Tehran.

What is at stake is much more than Iran’s nuclear program, but its relationship with its Arab neighbors. The Arabs need to engage Tehran on many issues such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the security of the Gulf region. It is there that Arab diplomacy should focus.

The Palestine Question has received little coverage in the WikiLeaks documents, so far. This is an issue that raises many questions on the intentions of the whistleblower site. As much as Iran, Iraq and others are important it is difficult to believe that US foreign policy has not given attention to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. For millions of Arabs and Muslims and for many nations around the world Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and the future of the peace process remain central.

At a time when the US appears to have failed to convince the Israeli government to accept a three-month freeze on settlement activities, the Arabs should step in and underline the importance of resolving this decades-old conflict. Focus on Iran or Afghanistan should not be at the expense of the Palestine Question, which remains crucial to peoples of the region.

King Abdallah of Jordan, also speaking at the Manama Dialogue, underlined the importance of not missing a last chance to implement the two-state solution. He warned of a regional catastrophe and his words should be heeded.

There is a dire need to re-galvanize Arab strategies and policies in the wake of the disruption that the WikiLeaks cables have caused. The Arabs need to present a new and unwavering stand on priorities and positions in order to deflect any damage that the WikiLeaks cables may have caused. It is imperative that they act now! By OSAMA AL SHARIF | ARAB NEWS: Fresh Arab approach toward Iran, Palestine is needed now. — Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist and political commentator based in Jordan.

• WikiLeaks claims are ‘psychological warfare’ says Ahmadinejad
• Iranian president claims that the leaks are part of a campaign of psychological warfare against his country

The Guardian reports:

Iran today lashed out at the WikiLeaks revelations, with the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dismissing the controversial leaks as a “worthless” psychological warfare campaign against his country. But Israel said it felt vindicated by the public exposure of Arab and international concern over Iran’s nuclear programme.

“We don’t think this information was leaked,” the Iranian president insisted during a televised press conference in Tehran. “We think it was organised to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.”

Ahmadinejad told reporters that documents highlighting Arab hostility to Iran and its alleged nuclear ambitions would have no impact. “We are friends with the regional countries and mischievous acts will not affect relations,” he said.

Contrary to Wikileaks Arabs take nuanced stand towards Iran

Share

Saudis to use $500-$700 billion to get Nuclear power 2009-2014

Share

King Abdullah Economic City, Saudi Arabia

• Saudi Arabia plans to be producing nuclear power within 10 years
• Saudi Arabia’s planned spending of some 500-700 billion dollars on infrastructure over 2009-2014

RIYADH:  Saudi Arabia plans to be producing nuclear power within 10 years, a senior US trade official said here Monday. “They want to have civil nuclear power as a part of their mix …relatively soon,” said Under Secretary of Commerce Francisco Sanchez, after meetings with Saudi officials. The world’s largest supplier of oil wants to have nuclear power “within the next 10 years”, he told journalists. Riyadh has begun to move toward nuclear power to replace burning valuable oil and natural gas in power plants. The country signed a cooperation agreement on civil nuclear technology with the United States in 2008, and has held talks with France and Russia in the past year on similar agreements.

In April the country announced it would build the research-and-development focused King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energies to underpin its move to diversify energy use away from fossil fuels. Sanchez was in Riyadh leading a delegation of US businessmen in the infrastructure and energy sectors to meet Saudi counterparts. He said Saudi Arabia’s planned spending of some 500-700 billion dollars on infrastructure over 2009-2014 made it an important target for US businesses, especially in the alternative energy sector.AFP-Dawn

• U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting the Saudi capital on [in 2008] formalized new agreements that would give the relationship between the two countries a boost.
• Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power.
• Another agreement involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts and other support services as needed. Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops.

Saudis to use $500-$700 billion to get Nuclear power 2009-2014

Share

Patterson's 'As the world turns' megalomania

Share

The most reviled US Ambassador in the world

“Well we are not in Kansas anymore Toto”

The a petite, blond is from Arkansas, with a non-classy Southern drawl to prove it.  Anne W. Patterson is a career foreign service officer appointed by George W. Bush as ambassador to Pakistan in 2007. Pakistanis and the sane world sighed a sigh of relief when the most reviled US Ambassador in the world, returned to Washington last month, after more than three years in Pakistan–where she attempted to play the role of America’s Viceroy.

Pakistanis across the spectrum were relieved that the Ambassador suffering from “The God Syndrome” was finally out of her fortress in Islamabad–replaced by what seems like a sane man. Islamabad fondly remembered the good old days of Wendy Chamberlain and Robert Oakley who had won over the hearts and minds of Pakistan. The USA was the most liked nation on earth under the stint of Robert Oakley–today in a post-Patterson era it ranks at the bottom.

Only a few hundred of the more than 250,000 cables obtained by WikiLeaks have been released so far, but one correspondent being singled out for crass reporting is Anne. W. Paterson. Most of the 8th grade reporting is unprofessional and reads like the script of a soap opera.

When Patterson was not trolling petty Pakistani politicians, she was inviting the government officials to lavish parties–grand galas complete with butler service, free bars, and all the accouterments what would have shamed the Viceroys to Delhi. She had a five million a year expense account and took that very seriously. As pointed out by pugnacious Talk show hosts on Pakistani TV channels, Patterson’s “cables” sent to the president lack any sense of professionalism. The cables were petty, focusing on off-the-cuff-conversations, off-the-record-dialogue, gossip, innuendo, dangling modifiers and sentence fragments. The cables narrate the brief snippets of conversations without context.

The Pakistani politicians it seems joined the American dog and pony show and may have said what the Ambassador wanted to hear–rending the entire exercise a farce. What value-add did Ms. Patterson get out of these circus like conversations? It is obvious that she did not develop any relationship. She did not improve US-Pakistani relationships.

Sheik Rashid is popular politicians very popular on the talk-show circuit. His prescient prophecies usually make headlines. his responses on Wikileak cables are iconic. When asked if it’s true that Pakistani politicians lie to their own people and tell U.S. officials the truth, he said: “No they lie to the Americans too.”–Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the President of the Awami Muslim League.

One of the funniest cable is an episode, where Ms. Patterson asks for and gets invited to a luncheon by the leader of a very small religious party which had been wiped out in the last elections. Why Ms. Patterson chose to meet Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman is beyond comprehension. It would be analogous to the Pakistanis Ambassador seeking an audience with with a politician who had lost an election in South Dakota and then was sending a cable full of details about what that politician had said.

Patterson playing the part of “The Ugly American” was busy running her soap opera. She needs to pick the right titles. Certainly it won’t be “The bold and the beautiful”.

Each of her cables is studded with salacious gossip and concocted intrigue. Patterson does not report on the questions asked–only the answers. For example her cable dutifully reports that Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman wants to the prime Minister–but does not describe the context. During a four hour lunch, did the topic of Premiership come up? Was this a hypothetical question put of the head of the JUI? Was a casual question thrown in–Would he like to be Prime Minister if his party got a majority? Then the answer (to the question, do you want to be PM) could be an innocuous “Yes”. However if Mr. Maulana Rehman was groveling on his feet asking to be made a PM, then the Ambassador should have simply ignored this nonsense. Sadly we are not given the details. Maybe we will have to wait for the Paterson diaries!

Another episode keeps us guessing. A former Prime Minister is mentioned and he is caught stating that he is not Anti-American. We are left hanging. Was this part of a deep and profound discussion on reducing Anti-Americanism or was is Mr. Nawaz Sharif‘s response to a direct question “Are you Mr. Sharif Anti-American”. We don’t know the context. And we will probably never know. However we do know that Ms. Patterson has ventured where no other Ambassador has ventured before.

In another episode of this never ending soap, Ms. Patterson reports Mr. Rehman Mailiks wild insinuation that the army, judiciary, the Saudis, and two other political parties are conspiring against his government. Has this been taken from one of Mr. Rehman’s notoriously contradictory public speeches or a folder handed to her by the Interior Minister marked “Top Secret”. We don’t know.

In another episode, she reports that the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) distrusts the major opposition leader as much as he dislikes the president. Certainly General Kayanis actions do not depict any such thing. Was this conversation captured after a few rounds of Blue Label–or was it whispered to Ms. Patterson under a cone of silence in the US Embassy. Inquiring minds want to know.

Many in Pakistan, including the government ministers have claimed that many of the cables have simply been manufactured to create Inter-Pakistani and Intra-Pakistan problems. Constructed or not–they sure do show a high level of showmanship and low level of Intelligent quotients. The cables do try to push US policy. Did Ms. Patterson have a vivid imagination, or do the cables really depict her intellectual capacity. What would the reader make of the “confession” of Mr. Sharif or the desire of Maulana Rehman? This is not actionable information. It is gossip.

Perhaps her stories are true. Ms. Patterson’s attempt to play peace-keeper and therapist for Pakistani politicians of all flavors is a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions which define and describe the role of an ambassador. Ms. Patterson is not a therapist, and her psycho-babble displays a dysfunctional past and troubled present. Were she a licensed mental health professional, Patterson could have self-diagnosed herself with pathological paranoia.

The harm she has caused US-Pakistani relations is incalculable. Ms. Patterson never knew when to stop. President Bush diagnosed it correctly, she has ruined the long-term relations and “made a mess of the US-Pakistani relations”.

Her funniest comment was judgmental and very Un-professional: “The fact that a former Prime Minister believes the U.S. could control the appointment of Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff speaks volumes about the myth of American influence here.”

Pakistan has suffered thirty years of US sanctions. General Ayub Khan wrote a very powerful book on US-American relations titled “Friends Not Masters”. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was repeatedly threatened by Henry Kissinger, but he did not back off on developing a Nuclear program. The very politicians that Ms. Patterson makes fun of defied the US and went on to explode a Nuclear device. Pervez Musharraf was threatened with “being bombed to the stone age”, and agreed to the conditions set by Richard Armitage–however one of the biggest charges brought against him was that he was duplicitous and did not live up to the promises. Recently the Pakistanis almost threw out the Kerry-Lugar Bill with its intrusive monitoring mechanisms.

Pakistanis have now seen the Curtain Call on the Patterson show. However the aftermath of her theatrics will continue to cast a long shadow on US-Pakistani relations. She confirmed the American stereotype–now known to the common man on the Pakistani street. Most Pakistanis see the US politicians and Ambassadors as lying, cheating, sniveling, double-dealing used-car-salesmen. That is the Patterson legacy in Islamabad.

Mr. Munter the new Ambassador seems like decent fellow–but he is left holding the bag–a bag full of the Patterson poop.

Related articles

• Gilani asked US to bomb TTP, but halt drone bombings (timesofislamabad.com)
• Gilani asked to target TTP but halt drones: Wikileaks (pakpunch.com)
• Gilani did ask for the release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui: Wikileaks (pakistanindependent.com)
• You: In WikiLeaks cables from Pakistan, U.S. officials struggle for leverage (washingtonpost.com)
• Impact of Wiki-Floods on Hydro-Floods and beyond (pakistanakhbar.com)
• US chagrined at poor standing of the superpower among Pakistanis (pakpunch.com)
• Karzai admits giving safe-haven to Baloch terrorists (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Scahill’s epiphany (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari ‘prepared for assassination’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Wikileaks complicates American-Pakistani relations (newpakistantimes.com)

Patterson's 'As the world turns' megalomania

Share

Wikileaks on the Grand Chessboard

Share

Cover via Amazon

The Case for Wikileaks;

We those willing to look beyond the manufactured War on Terror have always been aware that the American war in Afghanistan / Iraq and other strategic hot spots were not only illegal. However every time we raised our disgust with the war we faced the same common response “the guilt trip” – 9/11 and the tragic deaths.

Somehow by citing this number in the United States of America somehow legitimized the gross human rights violations, indiscriminate killings more than often reported as insurgents killed. Time and time again people who attempted to question the facade of WOT were labeled conspiracy theorists, un-patriotic, traitors and in my case everything under the sun has been called because I am a Muslim and thus without an opinion or able to display logic. It was important that people especially in the United States who were oblivious to the cold blooded killings and brutalities in Iraq and Afghanistan were made aware of what was taking place. Here was a war that was motivated for economic reason, Imperial reasons based on the nonsense written by the likes of Zbignew Brzezinski and the Project for The New American Century. This benefited, nations like Israel and India who now felt the world may somehow ignore their state terrorism and look onto them as victims as they quickly aligned behind the Neocon vision for American Imperialism.

Wikileaks proves that behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were geostrategic objectives that benefited America and all those aligned with the USA with economic superiority by suppressing sovereign nations. Suppressing their ideas of freedom and questioning their ideas of governance and installing proxy puppet regimes by force to maintain their hegemony for a new century.

Central Asia has always been a chessboard and Zbignew Brzezinski calls todays conflicts the Grand Chessboard because this will decide the fate for American Superiority for another century. A bloody brutal chessboard where conflicts are played out inside Afghanistan the buffer state created by The British who played the last great game here.

Wikileaks lay bare the reasons for war in Iraq, the way decisions were made and question the moral and ethics of these cold calculative decisions that sealed the fate of millions of innocent people. Let me draw you on how conflict is communicated to Americans and in The Western Hemisphere – where cold blood killings are declared counter terror attacks against Al Qaeda and resurgents. The witness statements of American soldiers are somehow more credible than the actual eyewitness survivors – but at least those survivors lived to tell their story. What of those who have been indiscriminately killed and declared insurgents, terrorists, killers – killed like ants by gung ho trigger happy American and Coalition soldiers.

Back in July this year – the 6th of July 2010 to be precise, Private Bradley Manning aged 22 years of age working as an intelligence analyst with the United States Army in Baghdad was charged disclosing the following video;

Unfortunately the brave private entrusted a spineless journalist. The whistle-blower behind the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, has called Mr. Manning a ‘hero’ and rightly so. Private Manning is currently imprisoned in Kuwait after being court martialed while the heartless, cold blooded unprofessional inefficient Apache crew and those behind the cover up depicted in the video have yet to be charged. To assist Private Manning, please see bradleymanning.org.

It corroborates what brave soldiers enlisted in the United Sates Military have long said;

The wikileaks corroborate private Manning – 5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad this included two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to attain the video through the Freedom of Information Act however with little success ever since 2 highly decorated Reuters staff in Iraq were slain indiscriminately in Baghdad. The video captured from an Apache helicopter gun-sight provided Reuters and everyone willing to question the indiscriminate belligerent killing sin Iraq. The above video shows the unprovoked murder of a wounded Reuters employee and those he came to see as well as his courageous rescuers. Even the two young children involved in the rescue were not spared and were clearly seen. This not only provide a chilling insight into the nature of unlawful killings in Iraq and Afghanistan but the contempt the Americans have for these wrongfully demonised people. by and large the fault comes from the media who have long been given a free hand at demonising the Iraqis and Afghans to the point their deaths are very easily overlooked. This is another charge to be brought against the Neocons in the way the war was not only crumpled together but also in the way it was carried out. Reading into wikileaks brings a new dimension into the causes and reasons for war and the way politicians play nations off against each other. Whistleblowers within the army are swiftly silenced and reliance on journalists as in the case of Private Manning is not credible. Wikileaks provided this additional dimension and channel to expose the wrongdoings in these manufactured tragic wars.

The unexplained of millions of innocent has to be accounted for and there is enough evidence in the wikileaks to hold the architects of this barbaric war namely The Neocons and Tony Blair accountable in an International War Tribunal at the Hague.

Der Spiegle sums up the importance of wikileaks at exposing the strategies and machinations of war.

Never before in history has a superpower lost control of such vast amounts of such sensitive information — data that can help paint a picture of the foundation upon which US foreign policy is built. Never before has the trust America’s partners have in the country been as badly shaken. Now, their own personal views and policy recommendations have been made public — as have America’s true views of them.

It is important we all support wikileaks and a great gratitude needs to be extended to it for exposing America and her allies and we may just might learn “what actually happened on that frightful day of 9/11?.

Related Articles

• Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard (rupeenews.com)

Wikileaks on the Grand Chessboard

Share

A dictator's farcical 'elections' in Egypt prepare way for successor

Share

Hasni Mubarak’s henchmen went into over-drive and prevented the opposition from getting any seats. Kristen Chick of the Christian Science Monitor writes–”The consensus among many analysts is that the regime overreached, delivering an embarrassingly large majority when it had actually intended to only cut down the opposition representation to about 50 seats, making a show of fairness.” This will probably have long term implications for Egypt, the Middle East and the rest of the world.

The farce of the Egyptian elections are in full display for the world to see. These farcical “elections” will create long term issues for America.

The Atlanta Journal reports that “The Brotherhood vowed to continue legal challenges against the results.

‘The new parliament has no legitimacy and it must be dissolved,” said Brotherhood spokesman Mohammed Morsi. “These polls scandalized the ruling regime while giving a boast to our legitimacy and popularity.’

Dan Murphy and Kristen Chick,of the Christian Science Monitor report that “President Hosni Mubarak, who is 82, has not yet announced whether he will run for reelection next year, but is widely believed to be grooming his son Gamal to take power. The crushing results of the election may have been a consequence of tensions within the NDP over succession. The result led to discomfort among among the “young guard” of NDP members around Gamal.”

• A group of rights organizations called The Independent Coalition for Elections Observation called on Mubarak to nullify the elections and use his constitutional powers to dissolve the newly elected parliament. Atlanta Journal.
• The two rounds of voting were marred by reports of armed clashes in the north and south, along with reports of vote-buying and ballot box stuffing in many areas. WP.
• Many Egyptians argue the outcome will hurt the government’s legitimacy as the country heads into next year’s presidential election. WP.
• Hours before the results were even announced, a coalition of Egyptian rights groups alleging fraud demanded that President Hosni Mubarak annul the elections use his constitutional powers to dissolve the newly elected parliament. WP.
• The Ikhwan Ul Muslimeen stunned the ruling party in the last elections, in 2005, by winning 20 percent of parliament’s seats.
• The Brotherhood decided to boycott Sunday’s runoffs after if failed to win a single seat in a first round it said was marred by irregularities. WP.
• “Transparency standards were overlooked on the largest scale. Rigging and forging the citizens’ will have become the law regulating this election,” WP.

CAIRO — Egypt’s ruling party won a sweeping victory in parliamentary elections, according to results released Monday, after a final round of voting boycotted by the two main opposition groups in protest of what they said was massive vote-rigging.

Hours before the results were even announced, a coalition of Egyptian rights groups alleging fraud demanded that President Hosni Mubarak annul the elections use his constitutional powers to dissolve the newly elected parliament.

The outcome leaves Mubarak’s National Democratic Party in firm control of the new parliament and its main rivals in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood completely shut out, as the country gears up for a crucial presidential vote next year.

The security forces carried out a heavy crackdown on the Brotherhood before the vote, rounding up 1,400 supporters. The Brotherhood decided to boycott Sunday’s runoffs after if failed to win a single seat in a first round it said was marred by irregularities.

The group stunned the ruling party in the last elections, in 2005, by winning 20 percent of parliament’s seats.

This time, Mubarak’s party won 83 percent of the seats, according to Monday’s final results. If dozens of elected independent candidates join ranks with the NDP, as is expected, the ruling party could control 96 percent of the legislature.

• The runoff election to fill the seats in Egypt’s parliament yesterday was hardly a nail biter: after a fraudulent first round of voting last week and a decision by opposition parties to withdraw from the race, the result was largely a foregone conclusion.
• A signal has been sent that whoever runs for president in elections scheduled for September 2011 – President Hosni Mubarak will be 83 years old by then – that the opposition and voters will have no say in the outcome.  CSM.

The Brotherhood vowed to continue legal challenges against the results.

“The new parliament has no legitimacy and it must be dissolved,” said Brotherhood spokesman Mohammed Morsi. “These polls scandalized the ruling regime while giving a boast to our legitimacy and popularity.”

Along with the Brotherhood, the other main opposition party, the Wafd, also pulled out after the first round on Nov. 28, in which it won just two seats. Four of its candidates violated the party’s boycott and won in runoffs, giving the party a total of six seats – the same standing it had in the outgoing parliament. The Wafd, however, has said it will expel the candidates who violated the boycott.

A group of rights organizations called The Independent Coalition for Elections Observation called on Mubarak to nullify the elections and use his constitutional powers to dissolve the newly elected parliament.

“Transparency standards were overlooked on the largest scale. Rigging and forging the citizens’ will have become the law regulating this election,” the groups said.

Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif on Monday described the election as “the best in Egypt’s election history.” He promised his government would investigate fraud allegations, but election officials say the few reports of violations have been dealt with and had no effect on the results.

The two rounds of voting were for 508 parliament seats. Mubarak appoints 10 additional lawmakers to the 518-seat body. Four seats are still undecided, after the election commission said those votes were compromised by irregularities.

The two rounds of voting were marred by reports of armed clashes in the north and south, along with reports of vote-buying and ballot box stuffing in many areas.

• Last week’s first round made clear that the regime was intent on dominating, and reducing the size of the opposition in parliament. Poll monitors and representatives for opposition candidates were routinely denied access to voting centers across the country, and those election monitors who did gain access reported ballot-box stuffing and other irregularities, while government forces used violence and intimidation to keep voters away in some cases.
• The result was that the Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest opposition movement, won no seats outright, and the secular and free-market-oriented Wafd Party, won only two. Brotherhood candidates run as independents to avoid the government’s ban on religious parties. CSM.

Many Egyptians argue the outcome will hurt the government’s legitimacy as the country heads into next year’s presidential election.

The 82-year-old Mubarak has had health concerns, undergoing gall bladder surgery earlier this year. He is believed to be grooming his son Gamal to succeed him. But there is widespread public opposition to the “inheritance” of power, and Mubarak could still decide to run again in next year’s election.

After the first round, the Obama administration said it was disappointed by widespread reports of irregularities that cast doubt on the credibility of the polls in the strong U.S. ally. Cairo rejected the criticism of its handling of elections as unacceptable interference in the country’s affairs and refused to allow foreign observers to monitor the poll. Washington Post. Associated Press writer Salah Nasrawi contributed to this report. By MAGGIE MICHAEL. The Associated Press Monday, December 6, 2010; 4:21 PM

• Ahead of the election, a senior government official who asked not to be named predicted an electoral massacre for the Islamist Brotherhood, but the emergence of a bloc of seats for the secular Wafd party as a meaningful opposition.
• The Wafd have far less popular support than the Brotherhood and are easier for the regime to control as a result.
• After the opposition was shut out in the first round, many speculated that the regime intended to “fix” its problem in the second round by allowing more opposition candidates to win, giving the parliament a veneer of legitimacy.
• But it never got the chance – the Brotherhood and Wafd announced they would pull their candidates from the runoff, provoking strident criticism from NDP officials. CSM.

Sources: CHristian Scient Monitor, New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal, Agency reports, API, etc

A dictator's farcical 'elections' in Egypt prepare way for successor

Share

Yogo is not Hindu

Share

Yoga is practiced by about 15 million people in the United States, for reasons almost as numerous — from the physical benefits mapped in brain scans to the less tangible rewards that New Age journals call spiritual centering. Religion, for the most part, has nothing to do with it.

But a group of Indian-Americans has ignited a surprisingly fierce debate in the gentle world of yoga by mounting a campaign to acquaint Westerners with the faith that it says underlies every single yoga style followed in gyms, ashrams and spas: Hinduism.

The campaign, labeled “Take Back Yoga,” does not ask yoga devotees to become Hindu, or instructors to teach more about Hinduism. The small but increasingly influential group behind it, the Hindu American Foundation, suggests only that people become more aware of yoga’s debt to the faith’s ancient traditions.

That suggestion, modest though it may seem, has drawn a flurry of strong reactions from figures far apart on the religious spectrum. Dr. Deepak Chopra, the New Age writer, has dismissed the campaign as a jumble of faulty history and Hindu nationalism. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has said he agrees that yoga is Hindu — and cited that as evidence that the practice imperiled the souls of Christians who engage in it.

The question at the core of the debate — who owns yoga? — has become an enduring topic of chatter in yoga Web forums, Hindu American newspapers and journals catering to the many consumers of what is now a multibillion-dollar yoga industry. Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga’s Soul By PAUL VITELLO

An erotic fitness DVD featuring a Playboy Playmate performing yoga moves in the buff has enraged Hindu leaders.

Hindu elders are outraged over what they say is an attempt to cash-in on an “age old and revered system of yoga” and have asked the company to discontinue the workout DVD. Rajan Zed, the president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, has been most vocal in the midst of the controversy. He’s taken aim at Playboy publishers over the raunchy new yoga video, in which 2007 Playmate of the Year Sara Jean Underwood performs the asanas in the buff. The online video uploaded to Playboy.com features Underwood performing various yoga poses on a mat – naked.

In June, it even prompted the Indian government to begin making digital copies of ancient drawings showing the provenance of more than 4,000 yoga poses, to discourage further claims by entrepreneurs like Bikram Choudhury, an Indian-born yoga instructor to the stars who is based in Los Angeles. Mr. Choudhury nettled Indian officials in 2007 when he won a United States patent for 26 yoga poses he packaged as “Bikram Yoga.”

Organizers of the Take Back Yoga effort point out that the philosophy of yoga was first described in Hinduism’s seminal texts and remains at the core of Hindu teaching. Yet, because the religion has been stereotyped in the West as a polytheistic faith of “castes, cows and curry,” they say, most Americans prefer to see yoga as the legacy of a more timeless, spiritual “Indian wisdom.”

“In a way,” said Dr. Aseem Shukla, the foundation’s co-founder, “our issue is that yoga has thrived, but Hinduism has lost control of the brand.”

For many practitioners, including Debbie Desmond, 27, a yoga instructor in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the talk of branding and ownership is bewildering.

“Nobody owns yoga,” she said, sitting cross-legged in her studio, Namaste Yoga, and tilting her head as if the notion sketched an impossible yoga position she had never seen. “Yoga is not a religion. It is a way of life, a method of becoming. We were taught that the roots of yoga go back further than Hinduism itself.”

Like Dr. Chopra and some religious historians, Ms. Desmond believes that yoga originated in the Vedic culture of Indo-Europeans who settled in India in the third millennium B.C., long before the tradition now called Hinduism emerged. Other historians trace the first written description of yoga to the Bhagavad Gita, the sacred Hindu scripture believed to have been written between the fifth and second centuries B.C.

The effort to “take back” yoga began quietly enough, with a scholarly essay posted in January on the Web site of the Hindu American Foundation, a Minneapolis-based group that promotes human rights for Hindu minorities worldwide. The essay lamented a perceived snub in modern yoga culture, saying that yoga magazines and studios had assiduously decoupled the practice “from the Hinduism that gave forth this immense contribution to humanity.”

Dr. Shukla put a sharper point on his case a few months later in a column on the On Faith blog of The Washington Post. Hinduism, he wrote, had become a victim of “overt intellectual property theft,” made possible by generations of Hindu yoga teachers who had “offered up a religion’s spiritual wealth at the altar of crass commercialism.”

That drew the attention of Dr. Chopra, an Indian-American who has done much to popularize Indian traditions like alternative medicine and yoga. He posted a reply saying that Hinduism was too “tribal” and “self-enclosed” to claim ownership of yoga.

The fight went viral — or as viral as things can get in a narrow Web corridor frequented by yoga enthusiasts, Hindu Americans and religion scholars.

Loriliai Biernacki, a professor of Indian religions at the University of Colorado, said the debate had raised important issues about a spectrum of Hindu concepts permeating American culture, including meditation, belief in karma and reincarnation, and even cremation.

“All these ideas are Hindu in origin, and they are spreading,” she said. “But they are doing it in a way that leaves behind the proper name, the box that classifies them as ‘Hinduism.’ ”

The debate has also secured the standing of the Hindu American Foundation as the pre-eminent voice for the country’s two million Hindus, said Diana L. Eck, a professor of comparative religion and Indian studies at Harvard. Other groups represent Indian-Americans’ interests in business and politics, but the foundation has emerged as “the first major national advocacy group looking at Hindu identity,” she said,

Dr. Shukla said reaction to the yoga campaign had far exceeded his expectations.

“We started this, really, for our kids,” said Dr. Shukla, a urologist and a second-generation Indian-American. “When our kids go to school and say they are Hindu, nobody says, ‘Oh, yeah, Hindus gave the world yoga.’ They say, ‘What caste are you?’ Or ‘Do you pray to a monkey god?’ Because that’s all Americans know about Hinduism.”

With its tiny budget, the foundation has pressed its campaign largely by generating buzz through letters and Web postings to academic journals and yoga magazines. The September issue of Yoga Journal, which has the largest circulation in the field, alluded to the campaign, if fleetingly, in an article calling yoga’s “true history a mystery.”

The effort has been received most favorably by Indian-American community leaders like Dr. Uma V. Mysorekar, the president of the Hindu Temple Society of North America, in Flushing, Queens, which helps groups across the country build temples.

A naturalized immigrant, she said Take Back Yoga represented a coming-of-age for Indians in the United States. “My generation was too busy establishing itself in business and the professions,” she said. “Now, the second and third generation is looking around and finding its voice, saying, ‘Our civilization has made contributions to the world, and these should be acknowledged.’ ”

In the basement of the society’s Ganesha Temple, an hourlong yoga class ended one recent Sunday morning with a long exhalation of the sacred syllable “om.” Via the lung power of 60 students, it sounded as deeply as a blast from the organ at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

After the session, which began and concluded with Hindu prayers, many students said they were practicing Hindus and in complete sympathy with the yoga campaign.

Not all were, though. Shweta Parmar, 35, a community organizer and project director for a health and meditation group, said she had grown up in a Hindu household. “Yoga is part of the tradition I come from,” she said.

But is yoga specifically Hindu? She paused to ponder. “My parents are Hindu,” she said. But in matters of yoga, “I don’t use that term.” Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga’s Soul By PAUL VITELLO

Related articles

• Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga’s Soul (nytimes.com)
• Yoga belongs to no religion, Indian guru tells US pastor (topinews.com)
• Hindu Group Stirs a Debate Over Yoga’s Soul (nytimes.com)
• Playboy June 2010 features naked Sara Jean performing Yoga (panasianbiz.com)
• Hindu leader attacks Playboy over naked yoga video (topinews.com)

Yogo is not Hindu

Share

Arming Without Aiming: Inadequacy of India’s response to Strategic realities

Share

Three data points about Bharati Defense procurement. Apart from the overpayment for the Admiral Gorshkov, the inability to build the kevari, and construct the LCA, there are hundreds of glaring examples of Ready Fire and Aim the Bharati strategies.  Stephen Cohen, the author of Bharat‘s “Cold Start Strategy” is at it again. It got Bharat into a pickle in 2001 with his hair brained Operation Parakaram which was robustly rebutted by Pakistan‘s Azm e Nau exercises. The entire philosophy did not cater to a Post-Pokhran world. Now, Stephen Cohen turns this around and has begun to blame the Bharati establishment. The obsession with Pakistan is apparent in Vice Admiral Raman Puri’s recent interview with Rediff News.

Vice Admiral Raman Puri points out some hard facts while talking to Sheela Bhatt of Rediff News on issues of Indian military’s equipment procurement from the US and joint operation of the armed forces.

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don’t have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America’s concern, but India’s concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame. Vice Admiral Raman Puri

• Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”
• Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power
• India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy
• India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status
• The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation.
• In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year.
• “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Stephen Cohen will sell a lot of books but will it be worth it? Here is an analysis by Gurmeet Kanwal.

According to a recent KPMG report, India is likely to spend up to $100 billion on the purchase of military equipment over the next 10 years. During the last decade, India acquired T-90S main battle tanks, the USS Trenton, an amphibious warfare ship that can lift an infantry battalion, and weapon-locating radars, and signed deals for six Scorpene attack submarines and for the upgrade of Mirage 2000 fighter-bomber aircraft. Admiral Gorshkov, a Russian aircraft carrier, will soon be on its way after a prolonged refit and INS Arihant, an indigenously designed, nuclear-powered submarine, is undergoing sea trials. India also acquired a host of low-end equipment for counter-insurgency operations and for upgrading the infantry’s combat efficiency. Besides these purchases, the acquisition or manufacture of 126 MMRCA fighter aircraft, almost 1,500 155mm howitzers, about 250 light helicopters, P8I Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft, C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for Special Forces, C-17 Globemaster heavy lift aircraft and many other items of defence equipment are in the pipeline.

Are these defence acquisitions part of a carefully structured strategy for military modernisation or are these piecemeal purchases that will only replace obsolescent weapons and equipment with more modern ones but will not add substantially to India’s comprehensive military power? In Arming Without Aiming: India’s Military Modernisation, Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta carefully analyse the plans for and the thought process behind India’s ongoing military modernisation and aver that the process lacks political support and guidance, is haphazard and bereft of strategic direction and is not in consonance with evolving doctrinal and organisational changes. They conclude rather pessimistically: “We believe that this state of arming without aiming will continue into the future.”

Given the absence of a resolute strategic culture and keeping in view of India’s gross neglect of long-term national security planning, it is difficult to dispute Cohen and Dasgupta’s finding that India is arming without aiming. India lacks not only a coherent national security strategy, but also the tools and processes necessary to formulate such a strategy. As the authors argue, civilian distrust of the military has been deep-rooted since the Nehru era and the armed forces have little say in national security decision-making. While there is the National Security Council for long-term defence planning, its apex body — which essentially comprises the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) plus the National Security Advisor (NSA) — seldom meets to deliberate on long-term threats and emerging challenges and on the adversaries’ military capabilities that should together drive military strategy, force structures and the modernisation plans necessary to meet and defeat future threats.

The armed forces have drawn up a long-term integrated perspective plan (LTIPP), but it is yet to be approved by the government. The 11th Defence Plan (2007-12) is now in its fourth year and has not been accorded formal approval. The armed forces are left with no choice but to stumble along from one financial year to the next. The defence-acquisition process is plagued by tardy decision-making, and large amounts of budgetary allocations on the capital account are surrendered every year, leading to completely haphazard military modernisation. In FY 2009-10, the Ministry of Defence surrendered Rs 5,439 crore over the budgetary estimates for the year. Cicero, the Greek philosopher, wrote almost two millennia ago, “Armies can signify but little abroad unless there be counsel and wise management at home.”

However, not all is lost. The two new mountain divisions by the army clearly indicate that the emphasis has shifted from Pakistan, whose military power is rapidly declining, towards a rising and increasingly assertive China, which shall indisputably remain a long-term military threat as long as the territorial dispute is not satisfactorily resolved. The acquisition of strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and air-to-air refuelling for fighter aircraft signals India’s attempts to build intervention and rapid reaction capabilities in keeping with its regional power status. The importance being given to upgrading command and control systems shows the aspirations of the armed forces to acquire the tools necessary to benefit from the combat synergies provided by network-centric and effects-based operations.

Yet, as Cohen and Dasgupta, who have competently covered a fairly wide canvas in a short book, point out, India’s military strategy has not evolved in concert with its nuclear power status. While analysing the complexities of the modernisation of the military (army, navy, air force and paramilitary), they examine the contours of India’s emergence as a “reluctant” nuclear power and discuss the fragility and ambiguity of strategic stability in south Asia. They also delve into the factors behind India’s famed strategic restraint and abnormally high threshold of tolerance and conclude that India is unlikely to dramatically change its policies with increasing affluence and growing military power. Finally, the authors highlight the common concerns and the congruence of interests between India and the US and recommend that the US must support India’s military modernisation plans.

As with previous books on south Asia by Cohen, which were very well received, Arming Without Aiming presents a masterful analysis of the complex strategic realities that confront India and the inadequacy of India’s response. The authors have identified the fault lines very well and while they have refrained from being too prescriptive, they have offered many positive suggestions for Indian policymakers to consider. This book must be read by all those who are involved in national security decision-making and policy-analysis. (Gurmeet Kanwal is director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi)

Related Articles

• Delhi frustrated at incapacity to dictate to Rawalpindi (rupeenews.com)
• Operation Parakram was a politico-military failure: Rear Admiral (retd) K R Menon (rupeenews.com)
• Rear Admiral (retd) K R Menon called Operation Parakram a politico-military failure for Bharat (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• Why Bharat couldn’t cross into Pakistan in 2009 and can never attack Pakistan ever (rupeenews.com)
• 2001: Why Bharat’s Operation Parakram failed (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• Army does not have a mission statement: Vice Admiral Raman Puri (indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com)
• More delays for Bharat on Admiral Gorshkov (rupeenews.com)
• How Pakistan defeated India’s Operation Parakram in 2001 (rupeenews.com)

Arming Without Aiming: Inadequacy of India’s response to Strategic realities

Share

Pakistan, US, NATO Post-Lisbon reconciliation inevitable

Share

Both parties have made a point. Pakistan has refused to allow NATO access to its territories, Pakistan has shut down NATO supplies, Obama has gone to India, and Pakistan has refused to go into North Waziristan. The US has tried to bypass the Pakistan and was embarrassed by holding ‘peace negotiations” with with Taliban imposter.

So each party is peeved and angry. After a cooling off period, after the Chinese Premier has visited Pakistan, after Bharat has cooled down from ephemeral high, all parties will realize that there is no way Afghanistan can be resolved without some give and take.

Ambassador Bhadrakumar writing about NATO, the US, and Bharat has some great insights into the US-Pakistan relationship. His prescient foresight is worth reading.

The following elements reveal how, despite the prickly nature of their partnership, the U.S. and Pakistan are like Siamese twins: Both seek a peaceful Afghanistan but have divergent approaches to how to achieve it; both agree that durable peace is not possible without legitimising traditional Pashtun aspirations; the U.S. knows that Pakistani military leadership wields influence over the insurgents; it accepts that Pakistan’s cooperation is vital not only for reaching a settlement but also ensuring that peace will be durable so that Afghanistan stabilises; Pakistan remains hesitant to give up its “strategic assets” lest Washington overlook its strategic needs; NATO operations will run into serious difficulty without the supply routes via NWFP and Baluchistan but then Pakistan receives billions of dollars in aid annually and it cannot afford to antagonise the U.S. either; the Pakistani military is averse to undertaking operations in North Waziristan but at the same time it tacitly provides basing facilities (and probably intelligence) for the U.S. drone operations in the tribal areas, besides permitting hundreds or thousands of American intelligence operatives to function all over the country; all in all, the U.S. has limits to its capacity to pressure Pakistan, which seamlessly leverages its “all-weather friendship” with China.

Quite clearly, Pakistan and the U.S. are under a strong compulsion to reconcile their divergent approaches and work toward an Afghan settlement. The main sticking point is the strategy currently pursued by U.S. commander David Petraeus, who hopes to degrade the insurgents so that the Americans can eventually talk with the Taliban leadership from a position of strength. Indian pundits shouldn’t exaggerate the gravity of this discord.

Overarching these considerations comes the U.S. strategy visualising NATO as the provider of security to the Silk Road that transports the multi-trillion dollar mineral wealth in Central Asia to the world market via the port of Gwadar. The Afghan-Pakistan trade and transit agreement concluded last month was a historic milestone and was possible only because of Washington’s sense of urgency. Without doubt, Pakistan is assured of a key role in the U.S. regional strategy. This will keep foreign money flowing into Pakistan’s economy and the Pakistani military will willingly accelerate the partnership programmes with NATO, and even upgrade them.

India’s ability to tap into the Silk Road depends on the settlement of differences with Pakistan which would, hopefully, encourage the generals in Rawalpindi to jettison their “India-centric” mindset. Being NATO member- countries alone didn’t really help Turkey and Greece through four decades and ultimately it was the sustained bilateral initiative by Ankara, keeping in view the imperative of accession talks with the European Union, that improved the climate of relations with Athens. NATO and South Asian security. M. K. Bhadrakumar. (The writer is a former diplomat.)

Keywords: NATO, Asian security

Related articles

• “Imposter Taliban proves Afghan talks cannot be held without Pakistan” and related posts (pakistanpal.blogspot.com)
• Politley defying US pressure: Refuting Lisbon goals (rupeenews.com)
• Post-Nato Afghanistan: Pakistan cautions against civil war in Kabul (rupeenews.com)
• Delhi upset at inability to dictate to Rawalpindi or Islamabad (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Is the antagonist of Asia – India deluding herself? (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Delhi frustrated at impotence to intimidate Rawalpindi (pakistanindependent.com)
• Delusions of Grandeur (timesofislamabad.com)
• The Asian Chessboard and India’s role (newpakistantimes.com)
• Delhi’s unrealistic expectations from Indo-US alliance (pakistanindependent.com)
• America’s indepspensible partner (newpakistantimes.com)
• Indo-US alliance needs a dose of reality (thedawn.com.pk)
• The case against US Drone attacks (rupeenews.com)

Pakistan, US, NATO Post-Lisbon reconciliation inevitable

Share