India Foundation

International Conspiracies Behind the J&K Imbroglio

Churchill called Hindus beastly people with a beastly religion. In a meeting with Mountbatten, he described Muslims as Britain’s allies and accused him of planning and organizing ‘the first victory of Hindustan (He refused to call it India) against Pakistan by sending British trained soldiers and British equipment to crush and oppress the Muslims in Kashmir and that it was an act of gross betrayal” (1)

British intention was to put in place a very week federal structure of India which will break in to many nations in due course of time. Mountbatten wanted to set up independent Hyderabad in the belly of India, also wanted Maharaja of Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. But he was helpless at the hands of Sardar Patel who will not let his machinations work and could tell him bluntly on his face. Western powers also wanted to appease and are even now appeasing the Muslim Umma by placating Pakistan on Kashmir. This article will delineate all such designs right from 1947 onwards.

We start with Edwina Mountbatten. Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of late Viceroy has said in her book and later corroborated it in an interview to Karan Thapar that “it could have been possible that Jawaharlal Nehru took the decision to refer Kashmir to the United Nations under the advice of Mountbatten and that later used Edwina Mountbatten’s emotional influence on Pandit ji for getting it through” (2)

“Gilgit agency had been acquired by the British from an extremely reluctant Maharaja Hari Singh on 60 years lease basis in 1935. But towards the end of July 1947, it was returned to him. Then there was a revolt against the Maharaja by Gilgit scouts led by a Scotsman Major Brown. Christopher Thomas an eminent journalist and a writer of the time has said “It is entirely possible that the British incited the revolt to ensure that this strategically vital region came under Pakistan’s jurisdiction in the expectation that Pakistan would cooperate in the Western defence pacts to block Russian ambitions” (3)

General Ismay Chief of staff to Mountbatten as also Field Marshal Lord Montgomery were of the view that “British strategy required the use of bases in the sub continent and that the relations with the whole Mussalman block had to be considered” C.Das Gupta, an illustrious diplomat has further said “By August 1947, the British authorities had determined that their strategic interests in the subcontinent lay primarily in Pakistan. This was buttressed by the view that Britain’s relations with the ‘whole Mussulman bloc’ would be jeopardised in the absence of close ties with Pakistan”(4)

Lt. General L.P.Sen, the then Brigade Commander who led the first counter offensive against the Pak forces had this to say on the empathy of British Commanders of Pak army for the Pakistani cause that “Major General Akbar Khan who led the Pak tribals, was a regular officer of the Pakistan army and had established his HQrs at Rawalpindi in the same building where Pak army Hqrs had been located. How was it that the British C-in-C of Pak army was not aware of it?”(5) Bias is apparent from what Philip Ziegler, an official biographer of Lord Mountbatten commented on the issue of J&K’s accession to India that “Secretary of state for Commonwealth Relations while spelling out the British approach observed “It would have been natural for Kashmir to eventually have acceded to Pakistan on agreed terms, because of her predominantly Muslim population” (6)

What happened after a reference was made to the U.N? As per H.V.Hodson, an eminent British historian, Pt Nehru said “He was shocked to find that power politics and not the ethics were ruling the United Nations and was convinced that the United Nations organization was being completely run by the Americans and that Senator Warren Austin, the American representative had made no bones of his sympathy for the Pakistan cause. Similarly Mr Noel Baker, the secretary of state for common wealth relations and leader of the United Kingdom’s Delegation had been as hostile to India as Warren Austin. The belief spread was that the United Kingdom wished to please the cause of Muslim solidarity in the Middle East and that the United states wished to rehabilitate their position visa-vis the Arabs after their advocacy of partition of Palestine.” (7)

Sardar Patel had always been opposed to any reference to the Security Council. Indirectly hinting on the role of Mountbatten, Gen. Ismay and some others, Patel told Arthur Henderson, British Under Secretary of state “Unfortunately, it is my experience that the attitude of an average Englishman in India is instinctively against us….We should never have gone to the UNO…At the UNO, not only has the dispute been prolonged but the merits of our case have been completely lost in the interaction of power politics….We were terribly disappointed at the attitude of your delegation….it was we maintain, the attitude of Noel Baker that tilted the balance against us. But for his lead, I doubt if The USA and some other powers would have gone against us” (8)

In 1953, Mr Adlai Stevenson the then Governor of Illinois (USA) met Sheikh Abdullah in Sri Nagar. Commenting on this meeting, Manchester Guardian disclosed in August 1953, that he (Mr Stevenson) “seems to have listened to suggestions that the best status for Kashmir could be independence from both India and Pakistan” and that Sheikh Abdullah had been encouraged by Adlai Stevenson. “Sheikh was suspected of planning a session of the constituent Assembly which instead of ratifying the accession to India, would declare the vale of Kashmir, independent.” According to New York Times July, 1953 “Kashmir valley would gain independence, possibly guaranteed by both countries and the rest of the state would be partitioned between them roughly along the present cease-fire line. It was said that John Foster Dulles, U.S Secretary of State supported a solution of this nature”

According to Ex-US ambassador Dennis Klux, in 1953 U.S. President Truman endorsed the UN Commission suggestion of arbitration to solve Indo-Pak differences on Kashmir. Pt. Nehru rejected it though in his meeting with John Foster Dulles, he agreed that partition might be a better way to solve the problem than the plebiscite” (9) Again in 1957-58, South Asia specialists of the U.S.State Deptt, put major sources of India-Pak tensions–Kashmir, Indus water and arms race in to a single negotiating basket for working out the solutions for all these problems. President Dwight Eisenhower reacted enthusiastically to the proposal. Pt Nehru however did not give a positive response.

Later John F. Kennedy, the then US President decided to send a team headed by Averall Harriman to the sub-continent. The British dispatched a parallel mission headed by Common Wealth Relations Secretary Duncan Sandys. Nehru scuttled the negotiations and wrote back “To give up valley to Pakistan or to countenance its internationalization, poses political and strategic problems for India which render such solutions impossible”

U.S. State Department experts outlined yet another solution, that is, joint India-Pakistan presence in the valley and partition of the rest of Jammu and Kashmir and sought President’s approval to step up U.S involvement. Kennedy agreed and proposed former World Bank President Eugene Black to serve as the mediator. Nehru however rejected the proposal.

Admittedly under pressure from the United States, talks were held with Pakistan in 1962-63. Indian delegation led by Sardar Sawaran Singh proposed modification of the cease-fire line in favour of Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held but yielded no result. However in 1963, Kennedy approved the release of US-UK paper outlining elements of settlement which were as follows:

• Giving both India and Pakistan a substantial position in the vale

• Ensuring India’s access through the vale for defense of Ladakh.

• Ensuring Pakistan’s interest in the head waters of Chenab River.

• Ensuring some local self rule in the vale and free movement of people to India and Pakistan and enhancing economic development.

In April 1963 Ambassador Galbraith raised the Kashmir issue twice with Pt. Nehru. Prime Minister took a hard line against the partition of the valley and wrote to Kennedy that “I am convinced that these ill considered and ill conceived initiatives, however well intentioned they may be, have at least for the present made it impossible to reach any settlement on this rather involved and complicated question”

Stephen Philip Cohen, an expert on South Asia gives the glimpses of the US strategy that “American officials now seem to accept facilitation as a legitimate and a useful role. The formula to deal with such issues is not to wait until they are ripe for resolution or turn away or to search for a definitive solution when none is available” (10)

Strobe Talbot, then a senior diplomat in the US foreign office has referred to his talks with Sh. Jaswant Singh the then Foreign Minister of India that “The first full cast session of the US-Indian dialogue took place in July 1998 at Frankfurt airport. Jaswant was prepared to talk about his Govt. converting the line of control in to an international boundary” (11)

Now let us talk about one much discussed personality viz., Farooq Kathwari, a member of the influential US Council on Foreign Relations. He is the chairman of the Kashmir Study Group which he founded in 1996. Its members are all well up in the policy making higher echelons of the US Govt. It published a report, titled ‘Livingston Proposal: Kashmir, A Way Forward’ Also known as the Farooq Kathwari report, the document aims at diluting Indian sovereignty in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, envisages creation of two Kashmir entities – one each on either side of the LOC and each with its own government, constitution or a single Kashmiri entity with its own constitutional framework and Government. Indirectly, it is the US vision of settling the Kashmir dispute.

Praveen Swami in his article in Frontline referred to the then Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah’s conclave with Farooq Kathwari whom he described as United States based secessionist leader and assessed it as part of a larger U.S. sponsored covert dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir. One can say that as a follow up to this, in March 1999 Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Sartaj Aziz met at Colombo. The tentative agreement, inter alia, suggested plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir on regional/district basis, division of Jammu province along Chenab River on communal lines, “maximum possible autonomy to Kashmir and its adjoining areas” and “annexation” of the remaining areas of Jammu province and Ladakh region by India. Singh and Aziz were to meet again after a month to give concrete shape to this agreement. However we saw the Kargil invasion. Round about this time, Rand Corporation, considered as the most prominent think tank, influencing the policies of USA published a report elaborating on various options for the settlement of Kashmir.

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn of 2002, Secretary General Kofi Annan identified hostility between India and Pakistan as one of the most perilous threats to global peace and security. He ‘gladly’ acknowledged and strongly welcomed efforts made by ‘well placed’ U.N. member-states to persuade the two countries to reduce tension. And that if another confrontation between India and Pakistan threatened to ignite war, Annan warned “the international community might have a role to play” Later a top US official source indicated that during discussion in New York, Annan and US President George W. Bush “had agreed on their hope to move beyond crisis management to real solutions on Kashmir”

The US Embassy in Pakistan had prepared a goal paper in 2002. It had fixed 2005 as the target year for solving the Kashmir issue by achieving (A) Regular movement of civilian traffic across the LOC (B) Kashmir politicians assume prominence in political discourse (C) Evolve a framework for eventual political resolution of the Kashmir problem. In a way, it had started happening with our Prime Minister’s desire to make the borders irrelevant and Musharraf’s plan of demilitarization and joint governance.

What was Musharraf’s formula? He told reporters everywhere that “I came out with a broad outline which included gradual demilitarization of the Line of Control and Kashmiri cities; maximum self-governance on both sides of the Line of Control; a joint governing mechanism for Kashmir; to include Pakistanis, Indians and local Kashmiri leaders and most important a porous Line of Control… I wanted to make the Line of Control irrelevant” This Pakistan-promoted option had the heavy endorsement of Washington.

Again as a follow up to Musharraf’s formula, former US President Bill Clinton suggested a Northern Ire land’s Good Friday Agreement which creates a broadly inclusive power sharing arrangements providing for equal representation in the Govt for the pro-British (Unionists) and pro-Irish (Nationalists) and the cross border institutionalised framework.

The then U.S Commander General David Petraeus had a strategy security review with Ahmed Rashid, an acknowledged authority on Taliban and Afghanistan. Rashid projected his latest proposal, called “grand bargain”, central argument of which draws the same connection between solving terrorism in Afghanistan and solving Kashmir. President Obama has also been advocating that Pakistan would be persuaded to stop supporting terrorism if India can be persuaded to solve Kashmir.

Another dice on the chess board of USA is ‘Go for a Kashmir solution for a ticket to UN Security Council membership and fulfilling your big power aspirations’ This is what Chidanand Rajghatta wrote from Washington in TNN in Sep 2010. That was the broad message of President Barack Obama.

Bob Woodward, an American investigative journalist and non-fiction author. who has written a famous book on US President Obama, gives the clearest insight into Obama’s thinking on the matter. In this book, top US policy makers are shown mulling on defusing the Kashmir situation as part of an exit strategy for US. “Why can’t we have straightforward talks with India on why a stable Pakistan is crucial?” Obama is reported as musing at one meeting. President Obama’s strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan always needed a settlement of Kashmir (12)

Bruce Riedel, author of the Obama administration’s Af-Pak strategy, has canvassed the centrality of the Kashmir issue to peace and stability in the region. In fact, the solution Washington has in mind is on the same lines of what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s deposed military leader Pervez Musharraf had broadly agreed on earlier. Riedel said before the scheduled visit of President Obama to India that he will quietly help Islamabad and New Delhi to get back to the deal, Musharraf and Singh had negotiated.

S. Rajagopalan wrote from Washington in The Pioneer dated April 2010 that “Pentagon has emerged as an active lobbyist for more pressure on India to take Pakistan’s concerns more seriously and that Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Govenment’s the then prime interlocutor with the powerful Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, was for “encouraging New Delhi to cooperate more with Pakistan”. Recently another columnist Siddharth Varadarajan wrote from Washington that US had moved from de-hyphenation to dual-hyphenation- “Whether valid or not, Obama administration and the rest of the world see a link between Afghanistan and the India-Pakistan relationship, between the ongoing military instability on the Afghanistan- Pakistan border and the unsettled relationship between New Delhi and Islamabad.

I shall end my presentation with two quotable quotes from our Prime Minister that “Gilani is a man of peace” and that Pak army wants peace with India. Let us keep our fingers crossed. As discussed above, syndicate of Western powers led by USA are determined to foist upon us their diabolic designs on Kashmir. We ought to be more watchful about the intentions of the world powers, build up the military muscle, dominate the world economy, play the diplomatic cards with confidence and with the cleverness of Chanakya otherwise we will lose Kashmir which will open the flood gates of secessionist activities across the country.

References:

1) Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann

2) India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power by Pamela Mountbatten

3) Faultline: Kashmir by Christopher Thomas

4) C.Das Gupta says in War & Diplomacy in Kashmir

5) Slender was the Thread by Lt. General L.P.Sen

6) Mountbatten- The Official Biography by Philip Ziegler

7) The Great Divide by H.V.Hodson

8) Sardar Patel’s correspondence-Vol. VI, page 387

9) Disenchanted Allies by Ex-US Ambassador Dennis Klux

10) The Idea of Pakistan by Stephen Philip Cohen

11) Engaging India by Strobe Talbot

12) Obama’s War by Bob Woodward

Interaction with the Israeli Ambassador to India

The Ambassador of Israel to India, Mr. Alon Ushpiz addressed and interacted with a select group of invited journalists, intellectuals and former diplomats on the recent conflict in West Asia over the Gaza strip developments. This session was held at the India International Centre Annexe in New Delhi on the 10th of January, 2013.

The Sino Indian Border Dispute

The Sino Indian Border Dispute was published by the India Foundation in December, 2012. The document that was reproduced in this publication was originally a document prepared as a top secret report by the CIA in May 1964, and was declassified only in May 2007. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Indo-China War, this document, the only known official report that exists (other than the still classified Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report) was acquired and published by the India Foundation.

While a many of the observations in this report may be not acceptable, the report provides invaluable insight into the events that led up to the War of 1962, and the viewpoints of various nations on the same.

Click here to download the document.

Western and Indic Perspectives of Human Rights

A Round Table discussion on Western and Indic Perspectives of Human Rights had taken place on December 19, 2012 at the IIC Annexe, New Delhi with Prof. Arvind Sharma, McGill University, Canada as the key note speaker. He was joined by two discussants Mr. Come Carpentier and Mr. Arif Mohammad khan, who shared their views on Christian and Islamic perspectives on Human Rights respectively.

The event opened with a general consensus as to how much has been discussed about the concept of Human Rights but as to how the notion was never really understood. Firstly, the welcome note by the Chair, Dr. Vinay Sahasrabuddhe highlighted how there exists a perception that the idea of Human Rights has been the creation of the West – India, or the East in general did not have such a notion in any context in their history.

Secondly, the Keynote Speaker, Prof. Arvind Sharma took stage next, and began by informing the gathering about how the concept of human rights from December 10, 1948 started evolving into 3 different stages: (a) civil and political rights, (b) social and economic rights, and (c) environmental rights. He went on to say that in the Indic context, and especially in Hindu thought there seems to be no single word for the notion of ‘Rights’, as such. There is however, the sense of ‘Duty’ that every individual is taught to live with. In the Indic context, he further elaborated, that one starts from the cosmic and comes down to the individual (from outward, in) as opposed to in the Western, where society is studied starting from the individual (from inward, out). This indicated the basic concept of a macro perspective versus a micro perspective. This trend therefore makes the Indic perspective rely heavily on ‘Duty’, which when followed meets similar goals as do ‘Rights’, he contended.

This was highlighted when an audience member supplied an anecdote to the gathering. He recalled what he was taught growing up – not harming anyone, and living by your own Dharma. This, he suggested met the same goals the Western concept of Human Rights, which tend to guarantee to each individual the right to his/her own person, opinions and speech, albeit with certain restrictions.

Thirdly, Mr. Come Carpentier brought to the gathering’s attention that most Rights Documents are essentially war documents. The French and the United States Declaration of Rights are both reactions to war, to safeguard the nation and its citizens. Therefore, he suggested, they are not really those that grant Rights per se, but ones that serve to merely protect one’s own nation against the many fall outs of war. He also touched upon how the Catholic Church would have been slightly apprehensive or uncomfortable with the declaration and/or the concept of Human Rights as it would have been at odds with their idea of ‘The Divine Right of Kings’. He appreciated what Prof Arvind Sharma had to say about ‘Dharma’ as Rights, and suggested that Human Rights as a concept had certain discrepancies within it, for example between freedom and liberty, and so on.

Lastly, Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan gave to the audience a wide range of anecdotal narratives. He spoke of incidents that pertained to Shri Shankaracharya Swamy and those of Maula Ali. He suggested that religions ought to be personal, and that one has to be cautious of any form of institutionalized religion; he said that all religions and their texts are fine in their entirety, but emphasized that as those who interpret it are only human, these interpretations are bound to be driven by various agendas. This, he said will affect the intrinsic inclination towards the principle of Human Rights that is prevalent in all religions of the world.

Concisely summing up all the speeches and ideas, Prof. Arvind Sharma stressed the importance of differentiating between Religion and Ideology. He suggested that in today’s scenario, these two concepts tend to be easily confused and substituted for each other. Expanding upon Mr. Khan’s point, Prof. Sharma talked of an Iranian scholar, Abdolkarim Souroush’s thesis titled Expansion and Contraction of Shari’a that separates religion per se, from religious knowledge. In the same vein he also suggested how the word ‘conversion’ can impose a problem, considering the ambiguity of language. On the one hand, it might mean exercising one’s right to change one’s religion out of one’s free will, but on the other hand it could also mean somebody’s right to ask/force one to convert. While the former does not need to be qualified, the latter has to be. Therefore, this fact is obfuscated as the word or term ‘conversion’ can be used in both contexts.

This is also similar to what Abdolkarim Souroush, the aforementioned scholar had referred to in distinguishing between religious ‘freedom’ versus religious ‘faith’. As was suggested by Souroush in an interview, “True believers must embrace their faith of their own free will – not because it was imposed, or inherited, or part of the dominant local culture. To become a believer under pressure or coercion isn’t true belief”¹

Members of the audience interjected that in addition to ensuring that no community is marginalized, was the need for Secularism. Prof. Sharma responded to this by summing up that in the United States of America, one sees ‘truly’ neutral Secularism. However, he added, what is needed in India is ‘positive’ Secularism, for instance teaching the basics of all religions in Indian schools, as opposed to ‘negative’ Secularism of rejecting all religion and running away from it. The problems that the Indian societal fabric faces as regards Secular practices cannot be done away with by denying that religion is and will continue to remain a reality in this society. Prof. Sharma suggested that debates arising from being acquainted with basics of all religions that exist today in the Indian context will indeed be healthier than conflicts arising out of ignorance.

Reference:

^1.Wright, Robin, Dreams and Shadows : the Future of the Middle East, Penguin Press, 2008, p.268

India and China: After 5 Decades of the 1962 War

A Conference on India and China: After 5 Decades of the 1962 War was held at the IIC, New Delhi on November 19, 2012 to discuss on how India has been tackling issues with China after the 1962 War. Gen. V.P.Malik, Former Chief of Army Staff, Air Chief Marshal Anil Tipnis and Shri Claude Arpi, eminent author and Tibetologist participated as speakers in the Conference which was chaired by Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli, Chairman of the Centre for East Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.
Similar Conferences with the same topic were also held in Chandigarh and Bangalore on November 25, 2012. Former Chief of Army Staff Gen. V.P.Malik, Research Professor from Centre for Policy Research Shri Bharat Karnad, Former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan Shri G. Parthasarathy and Security Analyst Shri Ram Madhav gave their presentations on the Subject while Air Chief Marshal Anil Tipnis presided over the Conference.

Below are the pictures from the Delhi session of November 19, 2012.

Below are the clips from the Chandigarh event of November 25, 2012:

Air Cheif Marshal Anil Tipnis speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/9TCkHPWQ4yE” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri P.C. Dogra speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/mCLKjVfK9g8″ width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri Bharat Karnad speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/MRhKjhIwNig” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri G Parthasarathy speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/HTRIkRMQP6c” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Shri Ram Madhav speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/t696xPm2QFA” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Gen. V.P. Malik speaking:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/WfrRISCQCd8″ width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Session:

[embed_youtube src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/zdKdrq65iyM” width=”470″ height=”295″ id=”thisid”]

Cultural Nationalism: The Indian Perspective

Cultural Nationalism: The Indian Perspective was a two day national seminar organized by the CSRS of the India Foundation on 9 and 10 of November, 2012. It was held at the IIC in New Delhi. Prof. Pralay Kanungo¸ Chairperson, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Prof. Balagangadhara Rao, Professor, Department of Comparative Sciences of Culture, Ghent University were the Keynote speakers over the two days. Over these two days, 25 scholars presented their papers. The valedictory speech was given by Dr. Krishna Gopal.


Day 1



Day 2

Evangelism: Impact on the Indigenous Tribes of India

Evangelism: Impact on Faith, Culture, Economy and Life of Indigenous Tribes of India is a detailed report by journalist Bhavdeep Kang, on a tribunal that was organised by the India Foundation a year before the publication of the report. The tribunal invited tribes from all over India to bring forth and talk about the everyday problems they faced in the wake of Evangelists and their agendas of forcibly converting the former into Christianity. This publication contains the detailed transcript of the events as they took place at the Tribunal with the Jury’s (KPS Gill, P.C. Dogra, Swami Atmananda and Suresh Soni) comments also given.

Click here to download the document.

International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma, Bhopal

International Conference on Dharma-Dhamma saw participation from Hindu and Buddhist scholars from over 19 countries and presented papers. The Conference was held over two days on September 22-23, 2012 in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in which the inaugural address was given by Dr. Prakash Ambedkar, President, Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangh, Mumbai and Dr. Kapil Kapoor, Professor of English (Retd.), Centre for Linguistics & English, JNU, New Delhi. Dr. Anand Guruge, Dean of Academic Affairs, University of the West, Los Angeles County, California gave the Keynote address. The valedictory speech was given by Former Union Minister Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi and renowned scholar Pandit Vamadeva Shastri (Dr. David Frawley). Honorable Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan had graced the occasion as Chief Guest.

The Andhra Mess

Boards with the words “Andhra Mess” scrawled on them are invariably found in the gullies and mohallas of most towns and cities in Andhra Pradesh.

Increasingly, such boards are popping up in several other cities too — Bengaluru, Thiruvananthapuram, Pune, Mumbai, Delhi and so on, inviting diners to small eateries serving the typical spicy cuisine of Andhra Pradesh with colourful chutneys, a range of curry powders, ghee and rice. Most often, the clientele of these eateries, notwithstanding their unpretentious ambience, return happy from a sumptuous treat for a reasonable price. A win-win situation for all.
In another sense, however, the words “Andhra mess” are portentous. A no-win situation for all those involved. The voters of Andhra Pradesh, who preferred the Congress in the elections of 2004 and 2009, are unhappy and some recent developments forecast more gloom. Though for the voters in Andhra Pradesh, the “Andhra mess” is not devoid of spice and flavour, they are the unhappy losers. The people of Andhra Pradesh are being taken for a ride, their patience is being tested and they are being denied even an iota of governance.
What a sad fall it has been for Andhra Pradesh! From the point where the state was becoming the preferred destination for investors in information technology, even giving Bengaluru, Pune and Gurgaon a tough fight, it is today in a mess of the typically Andhra kind. Urban renewal, self-help groups (SHGs) and a few other governance milestones are recalled with some cheer even today. But agriculture remained then and continues even today as a deeply depressing story.
Entrepreneurs and political observers had then referred to Andhra Pradesh as a “happening place”. Over the last two years, it has become a happening place again, but for all the wrong reasons. The liquor mafia, the land mafia, the mining mafia, the contractor-builder-politician nexus — very much like it is in the Congress-ruled Maharashtra — have flourished. Diversion of funds allotted for the Jalayagnam irrigation project was a shocking scandal that rocked the state’s stability. Yet the Congress kept looking the other way. Its only response was to change chief ministers, two in as many years.
The liquor scam is estimated at Rs. 5,000 crore. For every licensed liquor retail outlet, there are over 200 unauthorised, perhaps even mobile outlets called “belt shops”. Activists fighting the powerful liquor mafia claim that nearly eight ministers and several MLAs, together with some excise department officials, are involved in the scam. The Congress kept denying all allegations till the excise minister, Mopidevi Venkata Ramana Rao, was sent to judicial custody. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, too, refrained from taking names as “big names” were involved. Over the past few days a few more MLAs have been taken into custody.
The disproportionate assets case for which YSR Congress leader Jagan Mohan Reddy has been arrested too has wider connotations. These “disproportionate assets” are not like those of any ordinary citizen; huge wealth has been amassed and the case is against the son of a former chief minister, Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, a Congressman. YSR was the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh till his tragic death in September 2009. The funds which were invested in the commercial operations of the prodigal son amount to, according to the claims of the CBI in court, Rs. 1,200 crore. The CBI has said that at a personal level the son profited by over `300 crore. In essence, a comprehensive loot of the well-endowed state was going on during the Congress rule, from 2004 to 2009.
Evidence is slowly emerging, making it clear that the state was being looted with the active cooperation of several ministers who would issue government orders to benefit not the common man but YSR’s son or his business or the party. In this connection, nearly 26 government orders are subject of judicial scrutiny as the motives behind passing such orders are being questioned. The CBI is investigating the case at its own pace. But the impression is that many other powerful people who are involved are not being touched. The Congress’ response is to again distance itself from the matter as the CBI is functioning under the high court’s orders. But can the party deny that this entire episode relates to the Congress reign? A reign that continues even today.
On Telangana, the Congress-led UPA’s flip-flop together with the state Congress’ failure to take a decision had led to paralysis of administration in 10 districts. The coastal and Rayalaseema areas were left directionless. The state Congress spoke in multiple voices. Congress members of Parliament, particularly those from the Telangana region, failed to convince their high command on the election promise made since 2004. They feared losing their ground support, and so they protested in the Lok Sabha as the session was on and got reprimanded by the House, in the process. Some would say that these are just the dynamics of political decision-making. However, their impact on the ground has led to instability, neglect, suffering and stalling of growth.
It was, after all, the Congress in 2004, in alliance with the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS), which had promised to build a consensus on Telangana. After winning the election and having accommodated the TRS in the Cabinet, the Congress forgot about Telangana. And in 2009, when it won the Assembly elections without the TRS, it felt it had no obligation to build a consensus on the issue. On the contrary, wishing to draw political mileage, a hurried midnight statement and a speedier withdrawal of the same made by the Union home minister pushed the entire state into a veritable cauldron of maladministration.
The Congress has failed the people of Andhra Pradesh. A steadily progressing state has been brought to a grinding halt. Uncertainty prevails on every issue. Elections to local bodies, municipalities and some corporations are overdue. The Andhra Pradesh Congress party, too, is in a mess and unfortunately, Rahul Gandhi has no time for it. Byelections to one Parliament and 18 Assembly seats are in the process of completion. As if conceding defeat, the party has claimed that these byelections are no referendum on the Congress government.

(This article was originally published in the Asian Age on June 11, 2012)

Indian Economy: Roadmap to Recovery, Mumbai

A seminar titled Indian Economy: Roadmap to Recovery was held In the Walchand Hirachand Hall of the Indian Merchants’ Chamber, Mumbai in collaboration with the Indian Merchants’ Chamber. Shri Yashwant Sinha, former Union Minister for Finance had presided over this Seminar as the Chief Guest. Shri Arun Shourie (former Union Minister for Disinvestment, Communication and Information Technology) and Shri Suresh Prabhu (former Union Minister for Power) also spoke at this Seminar that was held on 13^th September, 2012.

Discussion on the Interlocutor’s Report on Jammu and Kashmir

A discussion on the Interlocutor’s Report on Jammu and Kashmir was held by India Foundation and was Chaired by Director Nirmala Sitharaman. The eminent panelists were Shri Arun Jaitley (Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha), Shri Arif Mohd. Khan (Former Union Minister), Shri Dileep Padgonkar (Chairman, Interlocutors’ Group) and Dr. Jitendra Singh (Spokesperson off the BJP in Jammu). This pramme was held at the Indian International Cente in New Delhi on the 21^stof July 2012.

Maoism: The Red Terror – Release and Screening

India Foundation’s Documentary, Maoism: The Red Terror was released and screened on the 28^th of June, 2012 with G.K. Pillai, former Union Home Secretary gracing the occasion as the Chief Guest. Shri. Vishwa Ranjan, Director General of the Chhattisgarh Police also spoke on the occasion. This event was held at India International Centre.

The documentaries can be viewed here.

Maoism: The Red Terror

This documentary was made in Hindi as well as in English.

HINDI VERSION

[embed_youtube src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3TwmYiesKQ"  width="470" height="295" id="thisid"]

ENGLISH VERSION

[embed_youtube src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lp2D1id1SJ0"  width="470" height="295" id="thisid"]

Hinduism in the Twenty-First Century

This is a compilation of speeches made by Dr. David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri). Requested by India Foundation, Dr. Frawley had agreed to speak in four different cities of India: Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Pune. He spoke to different sorts of audiences in the four cities and addressed each gathering on different topics regarding Hinduism. In Hyderabad, his speech was titled ‘Hinduism and its New Expansion in the Global Context’. In Bengaluru he spoke on ‘Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma’. In Kolkata his speech explored the meaning of religion itself and in Pune he spoke about the role of religion in the modern world.

These four speeches with one more final address expanding upon the challenges and opportunities faced by Hinduism in the 21st Century are detailed in this May 2012 publication.

Click here to download the document.

Interaction with the Ambassador of Israel to India

An Interaction with the Ambassador of Israel to India, Alon Ushpiz was held. As a part of this, many prominent intellectuals were invited to take part in the interaction in which issues that concerned both countries – India and Israel were discussed and deliberated upon. This interaction was held on the 17^th of May, 2012 in New Delhi at 30, Aurangzeb Road.