Pranab Mukherjee Takes Over as 13th President of India: First Bengali To Become Head of State

Veteran Congress leader Pranab Mukherjee has become  13th president of India. He is the first person from West Bengal to occupy the top Constitutional post and the third MP to be elevated to the office of President after Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Zail Singh.

The presidential election was a one-sided affair. Mukherjee — who was sworn in by Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia on July 25 — secured 68.12 per cent of the total 10,47,971 value votes cast by 4,659 members of the State/Territorial Assemblies and Parliament. Opposition-backed candidate PA Sangma, who was supported by the NDA, the AIADMK and the BJD, managed only 30.15 per cent of the votes.

There were a total of 81 invalid votes, to the value of 18,221. These include that of Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav, whose second ballot was invalidated by the Election Commission, for it violated the vote of secrecy.

Among the 748 Members of Parliament (excluding the nominated members who have no voting right) with the total vote value of 5,29,584, Mukherjee polled 527 votes (3,73,116) and Sangma got 206 votes (1,45,848).

There was some cross-voting in favor of Mukherjee in the BJP-ruled Karnataka: he got votes of 117 MLAs, against the BJP’s 103 in the 224-member Assembly. While three votes were declared invalid, one MLA did not vote.

In Kerala, Mukherjee made a clean sweep, polling all 124 votes; one was invalid. Sangma drew a blank. The CPI and RSP MLAs abstained from voting.

Only former President K.R. Narayanan, secured the maximum value votes of 9, 56, 290 (94.97 per cent), when he won in the 1997 election against the former Chief Election Commissioner, T.N. Seshan.

In the 2007 election, the outgoing President, Pratibha Patil, the first woman to hold the office, defeated the then Vice President, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, securing 65.82 per cent of the total valid votes. Shekhawat polled 33.18 per cent.

Career Graph

Born on 11 Dec 1935 in Mirati village, Kirnahar disttricy, Birbhum (West Bengal), Mukherjee will embark on a new journey transcending political affiliations in the high Constitutional job with an ease none of his predecessors may have enjoyed because of his experience spanning 45 years in government and politics.

His election to the President's office today comes as a fitting finale for the veteran Congressman from West Bengal, until recently the troubleshooter of UPA, a task he has handled for the past eight years.

Not a lawyer by training but considered an expert in the working of the Constitution and governance, he was ever seen as the perennial 'No. 2' in government.

Mukherjee was a utility man from the days of Indira Gandhi, when he was the powerful Minister of State for Revenue during the Emergency, and later as Finance Minister in the 1980s.

His rise had been steady and such valuable was his contribution to government that his nomination as a Presidential candidate came after a huge dilemma for Congress party, which heads the UPA coalition that has moved from crisis to crisis in the past eight years.

The veteran leader, known for his photographic memory, had become a Rajya Sabha (upper house of the Parliament) member for the first time in 1969.

Mukherjee was for a long time member of the Upper House before his first direct election to the Lok Sabha in 2004 from Jangipur in West Bengal. He repeated his victory in the 2009 elections but had expressed a desire not to contest elections again in view of his advancing age.

Mukherjee was a top-ranking minister and presided over the Union Cabinet meetings in the absence of the Prime Minister during 1980-85.

Of course, Mukherjee had his own bad days in the Congress which he had to quit in the mid-80s after he had evinced interest in becoming the prime minister after the death of Indira Gandhi in 1984. It took some time before he came back into the party but once he was in, there was no stopping his rise once again.

Mukherjee became finance minister again in 2008 after P Chidambaram was shifted to the Home Ministry in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.

Again his importance was seen when P V Narasimha Rao made him Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission as well as Minister of External Affairs. In between he had to quit because he ceased to be a member of Parliament and came back to the Cabinet after reelection.

Mukherjee started his public life in the 1960s in Bangla Congress during the time of former Chief Minister Ajoy Mukherjee of the United Front government when Jyoti Basu was Deputy Chief Minister in West Bengal. He was general secretary of Bangla Congress.

A post-graduate in political science and history, he can recollect any event of historical importance or mundane political and other events, a matter of envy to many of his colleagues.

Son of a senior Congress leader Kinkar Mukherjee from West Bengal, Mukherjee had done MA (history), MA (political science), and LLB, DLitt. He had a brief stint as lawyer, teacher and journalist before he was embedded to his destiny of politics in 1969, when he became a member of the Rajya Sabha.

Mukherjee, who headed 83 GoMs and EGoMs from June 2004 until recently, was Leader of the Rajya Sabha from 1980-85 and later he became Leader of the Lok Sabha. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is Leader of the Rajya Sabha.

When Mukherjee was Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh was appointed RBI Governor in 1982. In what could be described a case of chasing each other's shadow, Singh became Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission from 1985 to 1987, a post Mukherjee later held from 1991 to 1996, when Singh became Finance Minister in P V Narasimha Rao government.

Mukherjee also had a brief stint as Chairman of the Economic Advisory Cell of AICC between 1987 and 1989. Interestingly, Manmohan Singh also held this post, when Congress was out of power between 1999 and 2004.

Mukherjee, who started his career as a college teacher, always carried the traits of a teacher, never hestitating to give a reprimand or two to juniors whether in his party or the Opposition. He was also jocularly called 'GoM Mukherjee' in political circles as he headed 33 Groups of Ministers on various key issues including the recent one on setting up of Lokpal.

The man who headed Joint Committee on Lokpal that included Anna Hazare, Mukherjee has five books published to his credit on political and economic issues and under his editorial guidance, the history of Congress was published in which there was a candid admission of excesses during the Emergency.

Mukherjee was conferred the Best Parliamentarian Award in 1997. Ten years later, he was awarded Padma Vibhushan, the second highest civilian honor.

In Congress Party, Mukherjee became AICC treasurer in 1978. Journalists and AICC media department officials still recall Mukherjee's tenure as the Media Department Chairman of the party. Mukherjee was AICC General Secretary in 1998-99.

In 1984-1991, 1996 and 1998, Mukherjee was Chairman of the Campaign Committee of AICC, besides being a member of the Congress Working Committee and Congress Election Committee.

Mukherjee held all the key portfolios, including Defence from May 2004 to October 2006 and External Affairs from October 2006 to May 2009 besides the Finance portfolio, which he held again in 2009 after a gap of 27 years.

In the past, he also held portfolios like Commerce and Steel and Mines, Revenue and Banking (Independent Charge), Shipping and Transport, Industrial Development, Commerce and Supply besides presiding over a number of Parliamentary Committees.

Mukherjee got married to Suvra on July 13, 1957 and has two sons — Abhijit and Indrajit — and daughter Sharmistha. Abhijit is a Congress MLA in West Bengal.

Challenges in New Role

Mukherjee’s new role in Rashtrapati Bhavan (President’s House) will be quite contrary to the one he has just finished playing. The most critical test for Mukherjee as President will no doubt come in 2014 after the general election to the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Parliament). As in the past couple of decades, no one party is likely to get a majority of its own, and the bigger parties would have to depend on the support of alliance partners or new-found friends.

R. Venkataraman in 1989 and Sharma in 1996 followed the principle of inviting the leader of the single largest party to form the government. Rajiv Gandhi declined the invitation in 1989; Atal Behari Vajpayee accepted the invitation, but lasted as Prime Minister on that occasion for just 13 days. With these examples behind him, Narayanan insisted on letters of support from a claimant party’s allies before extending it an invitation to form the government.

Additional Qualities

Used to working long hours, he may have to find new outlets for his unbounded energy. Though it was apparent that the UPA had the numbers, 76-year-old Mukherjee campaigned tirelessly, moving from state to state, winning the support of even rivals in Karnataka, Bihar, Maharashtra and West Bengal. Reaching out to anyone and everyone who matters is a quality Mukherjee is known for. As president, he is expected to build bridges.

After being in the thick of politics for long years, will it be now Presidential activism for Mukherjee? Will he be able to rise above party politics in 2014 when the general election is expected to throw a split verdict? Since the Constitution is unclear about the formation of a government if no party gets a majority, the President is free to exercise discretion. In 1996 Shankar Dayal Sharma invited the BJP to form a government but it fell in 13 days as Atal Behari Vajpayee could not muster enough support. KR Narayanan, setting a precedent, asked for letters of support from the party staking the claim to form a government. How Mukherjee handles such a situation would be keenly watched. That may well be the defining moment for him.

Despite his personal religious observances — which are perfectly in consonance with India’s Constitution —Mukherjee is also a secular politician. One cannot imagine him chuckling with glee while the Babri Masjid was being vandalised or turning a blind ear to the cries of Muslims being massacred in Ahmedabad. As President, he may not be in a position to do either, but this is where a conversation with the late Giani Zail Singh, and what it revealed of British precedents, comes in.

Positive Points

* Constitutional expert: A Constitutional and governance expert, Mukherjee has always been seen as the perennial 'No. 2' in the government.

* Utility man: From the days of Indira Gandhi, Mukherjee's has been her trusted aide. He was the powerful Minister of State for Revenue during the Emergency, and later as Finance Minister in the 80s. For the past eight years, Mukherjee has been the Mr Troubleshooter for UPA.

* Photographic memory: The veteran leader is known for his sharp memory. He can recollect any event of historical importance or mundane political and other events, a matter of envy to many of his colleagues.

* Vast experience: With four decades of active life in politics, Mukherjee knows the Indian political system inside out.

Assessment

It can be said that in Mukherjee, India will have a knowledgeable and pragmatic President who is well-versed in constitutional procedures and practices, and who was, until his nomination as a candidate by the ruling coalition, an active politician and senior Union Minister.

Mukherjee will be a President who could just as easily have been prime minister. There have been presidents who have come straight from the Union Council of Ministers, but none has carried the political weight and executive experience of this man from small-town Bengal. We have little doubt he will dignify the office he is about to step into and leave little room for narrow partisanship.

Unlike Pratibha Patil, who was out of active politics long before she became president, APJ Abdul Kalam, who was a genuinely nonpolitical person in the best sense of the term, and KR Narayanan, Shanker Dayal Sharma and R Venkataraman, who served as vice president before they entered Rashtrapati Bhavan, Mukherjee is making the switch from active politics and governance to the office of President in next to no time.

From the moment Mukherjee’s name was formally proposed by the UPA for the presidency, there was little doubt that the veteran Congress leader would sail through even in the event of a contest. As such, the result of the presidential poll between Mukherjee and Purno A. Sangma, who was backed by some regional parties and the BJP and some of its NDA allies carries no surprise. Given Mukherjee’s standing in public life, everyone expects him to be correct and proper in discharging his duties.

Undoubtedly, the former federal minister for finance, defense and external affairs has not only been one of the country's most important policy-makers in recent times but also that his long career in Government has allowed him to gain a deep understanding of the functioning of the Indian polity. This — an invaluable trait in today's era of coalition politics and tenuous political ties — naturally made Mukherjee the perfect choice as a firefighter of the UPA regime. Over the years, particularly in its second term, as the Congress-led UPA slid into an inert state of policy paralysis, becoming a sitting duck for the Opposition, it was Mukherjee who reached out to the critics, addressed their concerns and built the much-needed consensus.

It is hoped that Mukherjee will keep his promise to the nation and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Good luck Mr President!

Post-Godhra Massacre Case: Narendra Modi, Others Get Clean Chit

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) has given Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case and sought its closure as it found no evidence against him. Modi’s clean chit was revealed by a trial court in Ahmedabad on April 10, which said that the SIT had said “it did not find any prosecutable evidence against Narendra Modi and 69 others” in the massacre. Putting a spanner in the works for Modi and others, however, are independent findings by amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran on the Gulberg killings.
The SIT was headed by former CBI Chief R.K. Raghavan and probed the Gulberg Society riots of 2002. It is believed to have said its findings should be treated as a “closure report.”
Though magistrate M.S. Bhatt did not pronounce the court's decision on the closure report, he ordered the SIT to give a copy of it, within 30 days, to the complainant, Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was among the 69 killed in the massacre.
In his order on a batch of petitions seeking a copy of the report, including the one filed by Zakia Jafri, Bhatt said the investigators had filed a closure report, having found no evidence to justify the filing of an FIR against any of the persons named in Zakia Jafri's complaint in the Supreme Court, accusing Modi and 62 others of direct or indirect involvement in the communal riots.
The court stated: “According to the SIT, no offence has been established against any of the persons listed in Zakia Jafri's complaint. Therefore, as per the Supreme Court's order and the principle of natural justice, the complainant has to be given a copy of the report and related documents.”
No notice was needed to be issued to Zakia Jafri as she had already approached the court for a copy of the report. But the court did not make any reference to the copetitioners who sought a copy, including the Mumbai-based Citizens for Justice and Peace, which has been helping the riot victims in the legal battle.
That the SIT had given a clean chit to Modi and others was known in official circles for some time. But it was officially being confirmed by the court for the first time.
Supreme Court’s Monitoring
The SIT, whose investigations into Zakia Jafri’s complaint were monitored by the Supreme Court, has come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the accused. Hence, it has recommended a closure of the case that has already dragged on far too long and achieved nothing apart from slandering Modi and others. In normal circumstances, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court-appointed (and monitored) SIT. But these are not normal circumstances since the Congress, its stooges masquerading as ‘human rights’ activists and a biased media are intent upon pinning blame on Modi for the sheer vicarious pleasure of maligning him as also to demonstrate their ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ credentials. Also, in normal circumstances this particular case would have come to a closure with the SIT’s report setting aside the allegations.
However, those who have scavenged on the grief and misery of the families of the victims of the 2002 violence for a decade and converted activism into a profitable business will not allow that to happen. They sought to tar the SIT soon after it was set up, fearing their campaign of calumny would be exposed; they have now shown no hesitation in maligning the SIT for telling the truth which is clearly unpalatable to them, not the least because it strips them of their mask.
SIT First Report
Earlier in May 2010, SIT gave a ‘clean chit' to Modi when it submitted to the Supreme Court its first report on the complaint of Zakia Jafri, whose husband Ehsan Jaffri, former Congress MP, was among the 69 persons killed in the Gulberg Housing Society riots in 2002.
The SIT, in its report, said: “In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. Modi had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. However, this utterance by itself is not sufficient to make out a case against Modi.”
On the allegation that there was undue delay in requisitioning and deployment of the Army though anti-minority violence had broken out on February 27, 2002 afternoon itself in Vadodara and Ahmedabad, the report said, “The deployment of the Army commenced with effect from 11 a.m. on March 1, 2002 and the Army [personnel] had taken up their position[s] after being flown in from the forward areas within 21 hours of requisition by the State government.” The allegation that there was undue delay was therefore not established.
It was alleged that Modi did not visit the riot-affected areas in the initial days, though he visited the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 itself. The report pointed out that Modi himself admitted having visited the station the same day and that he visited Gulberg Society and other affected parts of Ahmedabad only on March 5 and 6, 2002. “This possibly indicates his discriminatory attitude and the allegations stands proved.”
Advantage Modi
The SIT report giving a clean chit to Modi in the Gulberg Society massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots could not have come at a more appropriate time for Modi, who, by all accounts, has started nursing national ambitions now.
The court ordered that a copy of the SIT report and related documents be given to Zakia Jafri within 30 days giving her the right to pursue her private criminal complaint against Modi and others.
For sometime now, BJP supporters here have been insisting that there is no alternative to projecting Modi as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.
The Gujarat Assembly elections are scheduled for the end of the year, which the supporters firmly believe Modi would win for the third time.
The term of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Nitin Gadkari is also coming to an end at almost the same time.
Initially, there was a view that Gadkari would be given a second term. But recent events that brought Gadkari in the news for all the wrong reasons have sealed his fate.
At the same time, it is also common knowledge in BJP circles that the RSS, which eventually decides who should take command of the BJP and which had been backing Gadkari earlier, is also averse to promoting any of the D4 leaders (Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, M Venkaiah Naidu and Ananth Kumar).
The Sangh has been wary of Modi as well. But sources said that in the present scenario, Modi enjoys TINA (There is no alternative) factor.
Court Convicts Accused
An special court in Anand on April 9 convicted 23 accused and let off as many in a case it described as "rarest of rare." The court held 23 of the 47 accused guilty. One of the accused died during trial. Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (conspiracy) has been applied to all 23 convicted, while 18 have also been convicted of the charge of murder, four of abetment to crime and one of unlawful activities.
According to the prosecution, a 1,500-strong mob gathered in Ode village on March 1, 2002, and started throwing stones and damaging the property of the people in the minority community-dominated Suriewali Bhagol. A handful of policemen present lobbed teargas shells and then opened fire to disperse the mob. The people dispersed, but the death of a boy, Nishith, in the police firing sparked tension.
Twenty-three persons, including nine women and as many children of the minority community, were burnt to death in a house in Pirwali Bhagol area of Ode village by a mob of over 1,500 on March 1, 2002 following the Godhra train burning incident that had triggered communal conflagration across the state.
Earlier, a court had awarded the death sentence to 11 and life term to 20 in the Godhra train burning incident in which 58 persons, mostly kar sevaks, had been killed on February 27, 2002.
Assessment
The court's own decision on the matter — whether to accept or reject the closure report – will doubtless be litigated by one side or the other. But whatever the final view taken by the courts on his individual legal culpability for the tragedy of Gujarat, Modi should know this much. The fact that he remained — at best — a mute spectator to the killing of hundreds of innocent citizens and did nothing to ensure justice for the victims afterwards is a moral and political badge of dishonor that will ensure the higher office his supporters seek for him remains out of reach.
Nevertheless, it is an open secret that the Modi government has remained a mere spectator during post-Godhra carnage pogrom resulting in the destruction of over 500 places of Muslim worship and loss of precious lives for which the Gujarat High Court has indicted the state government only, as reported. In fact, all of our sensible countrymen and women must admit that whatever had happened was a blot on our secular credentials.
Modi may be the latest of the persons in power not doing the right thing in the heat of highly charged riots between communities, whoever the instigator was. It takes statesmanship to show right action even at the cost of personal popularity. I recall then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's counsel at the time to Modi to follow Raj Dharma which was sadly not followed. In addition to Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, none of the leaders since Independence including Indira Gandhi, Kumaraswami Kamaraj, Rajiv Gandhi and others followed this dictum when they faced similar challenges.
As case after case is taken up of that unfortunate period of recent history, it is sad that Modi-led Gujarat Government has not thought it fit to tender a public regret over its failure to prevent such large scale killings. The Gujarat chief minister keeps talking of the need to move on, but would not a public apology go a long way in healing 10-year-old wounds?

Assembly Elections 2012: SP Storms Back to Power in Uttar Pradesh, SAD-BJP Creates History in Punjab, Congress Scores Hat Trick in Manipur

The Election Commission has declared results of the 2012 Assembly elections to five States. The Congress has come a cropper despite the party’s high decibel campaign in Uttar Pradesh, which was led by Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi and a galaxy of senior leaders, while in Goa the party has failed to reach, leave alone cross, the double-digit mark in the 40-member House, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sweeping the elections.
In fact, the most disastrous performance of the Congress has been in Punjab where the party had taken its victory for granted, fed by glowing feedback about its prospects from a host of sources, not excluding sections of the media.
In Uttar Pradesh it is Akhilesh Singh Yadav, the 39-year-old heir apparent of Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, in Goa it is Manohar Parrikar and in Punjab it is Sukhbir Singh. More important, voters have given their preferred parties a clear majority.
The SP’s landslide victory in Uttar Pradesh was a reflection that the electorate had turned the tables on the Bahujan Samaj Party for non-performance just the way the latter had mauled the SP in the 2007 assembly elections. The fact that both the national parties—the BJP and the Congress—failed to make an impression in Uttar Pradesh was a reflection of the desire of people at large to throw out autocratic Mayawati for which they felt the SP was her most credible adversary. The spectacular victory of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)-BJP combine in Punjab where the anti-incumbency factor did not work in favour of the Congress was the result of sustained hard work in wooing the electorate. In Goa, the BJP’s impressive win was a reaction to the corrupt rule of the Congress, while in Manipur, the Congress sway was never in doubt.
Uttar Pradesh
The SP — with its campaign led by Mulayam Singh Yadav’s son Akhilesh Yadav — swept Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) out of power in Uttar Pradesh and left the Congress reeling.
The SP, romped home after winning 224 of the 403 Assembly seats.The SP juggernaut reduced Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati from 206 seats in the outgoing House to just 79. The BJP’s tally came down from 51 seats to 47; while the Congress, which had 22 MLAs earlier, managed to add only six more to its kitty. Its alliance partner, Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal, won nine seats.
Akhilesh Yadav is clearly the man of the moment at the SP headquarters. The graduation from ‘bhaiyaji’ to ‘adhyakshji’ (state president) and now the possibility of ‘mukhya mantriji’ has been a long struggle for the three-time Kannauj MP. This was a battle he fiercely fought both on the streets and inside the family quarters, emerging the winner on both fronts.
In fact, the Congress not merely lost Punjab, but was also routed by the BJP in Goa. In the hill state of Uttarakhand, a clear majority eluded both the Congress and the BJP. Pre-poll surveys had indicated a clear victory for the Congress. The only consolation for the beleaguered Congress was its victory in Manipur, where it managed to retain power.
The Congress’ defeat was all the more severe as it could manage to win only two of the 10 Assembly segments which comprise the twin Lok Sabha constituencies of Rae Bareli and Amethi, the party’s pocket boroughs since the days of Indira Gandhi. Law Minister Salman Khurshid’s wife Louise was trounced in Farrukhabad, in third place after an Independent candidate and the BJP.
BSP supremo Mayawati was perhaps the first to suspect a huge anti-incumbency factor working against her government. She thus went to great lengths in an attempt to salvage her party with a massive ‘clean-up exercise’ involving throwing out of 23 ministers and dozens of legislators and replacing more than 100 sitting MLAs weeks before the Assembly elections.
That the SP surpassed the BJP's1991 tally of 221 seats achieved during the Ram wave speaks for itself. The BSP, which was uniquely placed with a committed core vote, has only itself to blame for squandering away a rare opportunity. Mayawati restored law and order and instituted several positive measures, especially towards the uplift of the Dalit community. But her achievements faded when measured against the corruption of the administration and her own perceived arrogance. In the end, the statues she built for herself became a metaphor for the regime's obsessive self-interest.
The belated damage control to distance her party from the corruption of its leaders did not cut ice with the state’s voters. The magic which she had woven in 2007 with so-called social engineering clearly remained an empty slogan this time.
Of the 403 seats, Mayawati had this time given tickets for 88 (21.83 per cent) to the Dalits, 113 (28 per cent) to OBCs, 85 (21.09 per cent) to Muslims and 77 (19.10 per cent) to Brahmins, 33 (8.18 per cent) to Rajputs and the remaining to those from communities like the Kayasths, Vaishyas and even Punjabis.
Among the many surprises that this election threw up was the Congress being wiped out from the party's so-called fiefdom of Rae Bareli and Amethi where the Gandhi-Nehru family had put its personal prestige at stake. The most embarrassing result was in Congress President Sonia Gandhi's parliamentary constituency of Rae Bareli where the party did not win even one of the five Assembly seats. In Amethi, the constituency of Rahul Gandhi, the party managed to salvage two seats of Jagdishpur and Tiloi while conceding to the SP the remaining three seats of Amethi, Gauriganj and Salon.
Punjab
The SAD-BJP alliance made history by overcoming anti-incumbency to retain power for the second consecutive term, thus creating history in the Punjab electoral politics. By winning 56 seats on its own and with its alliance partner BJP winning 12 seats, this will be the first time in Punjab’s history that a ruling party has been voted back to power.
By wrestling 68 of the 117 Assembly sets, the Akali BJP combine has got a formidable lead over its main rival, Congress, which has won 46 seats. While three independents have won at the hustings, the Third Front under the banner of “Sanjha Morcha” has failed to get any seat.
The People’s Party of Punjab (PPP) which was part of the third front failed to open its account and its president Manpreet Singh Badal lost both Gidderbaha and Maur seats. In fact he was third on both these two seats. The SAD-BJP alliance won the contest, but several of its heavyweights fell. This includes Vidhan Sabha Speaker Nirmal Singh Kahlon and ministers, Hira Singh Gabria, Sucha Singh Langha, Tikshan Sud, Ranjit Singh Brahampura, Satpal Gosain. Arunesh Kumar, Sewa Singh Sekhwan, Upinderjit Kaur, besides others.
It was only a one per cent swing in votes that gave the SAD - BJP alliance a gain of 22 seats. The SAD-BJP alliance polled 42 per cent votes with the Congress getting 41 per cent of the vote share. The PPP got six per cent votes that damaged the Congress more than it could harm the Akali Dal. Independents and others according to initial reports secured 11 percent votes that upset many poll calculations.
Manipur
The Congress stormed back to power in Manipur for the third consecutive time with a clear majority, helped by a fragmented opposition. Manipur came as the only solace for the Congress which clinched 36 of 52 seats in the 60-member house and was leading in five of the remaining eight seats.
Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh won from Thoubal and his wife O Landhoni Devi from Khangabok.
The Trinamool Congress, part of an 11-party Peoples Democratic Alliance which came into being very recently, sprang a surprise winning seven of the 48 seats it contested. It had a sole member in the outgoing House.
Other partners of the alliance together with the Trinamool Congress were able to secure only 16 seats. The Manipur State Congress party won four, the Naga Peoples Front three and NCP and LJP won a seat each.
The BJP which contested 19 seats drew a blank. The CPI, which was a former coalition partner of the Congress in the erstwhile Secular Democratic Front failed to win a single seat.
Uttarakhand
The Congress has been set to emerge as the single largest party in Uttarakhand, enjoying an edge against ruling the BJP in a nail-biting finish for half-way mark in the elections to the 70-member Assembly.
Out of the 60 results declared so far, Congress won 27 seats and was ahead in five others while the BJP bagged 28 constituencies and led in three.
The biggest setback for the BJP was the defeat of Chief Minister B.C. Khanduri who was defeated by S.S. Negi of the Congress from Kotdwar seat by 4,632 votes.
The BSP won three seats and three independents emerged successful, thus positioning themselves as possible kingmakers. The Uttarakhand Kranti Dal-Panwar (UKD-P) won one seat.
Goa
The Congress suffered its worst-ever defeat in the Goa Assembly elections. The BJP, riding the anti-incumbency wave against the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party's (NCP) “corruption, misgovernance,” won a clear majority with 21 seats in the 40-member House. The BJP's ally, the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP), won 3 seats. Two Independents supported by the BJP also won.
So severe was the mauling for the ruling coalition that as many as eight of the 11 Ministers, including both NCP Ministers, were defeated. While the Congress won just 9 out of 33 seats it contested, the NCP failed to get even one of the seven it contested. Five independents, two of them Congress rebels, and two MLAs of the Goa Vikas Party (GVP), a regional outfit, also won capitalising on the anti-Congress mood.
The five independents who won are Vijay Sardesai in Fatorda, Naresh Sawal (Bicholim), both Congressmen denied tickets; Benjamin Silva (Velim) and Avertano Furtado (Navelim), both supported by the BJP, and Rohan Khavtye from Porvorim.
So decisive was the mandate for the BJP-MGP combine, following a very high turnout of nearly 83 per cent, that except for Micky Pacheco, former Tourism Minister (Nuvem), and Caetano R. Silva (Benaulim), who won on the GVP ticket, no other regional outfit or new entrants like the Trinamool Congress or independents fielded by village groups could make any adverse impact.
The BJP — which hitherto got only Hindu votes, while the nearly 27 per cent Catholic population looked at it with suspicion and traditionally rallied behind the Congress-NCP alliance — for the first time found a massive mandate from across the communities.
Other Perspective

Undoubtedly, the 2012 Assembly elections have been free and fair, and the Election Commission deserves all the kudos. But when money, caste and religion come into play and make a mockery of polls, can they be called free and fair?
The poll results for the state Assemblies of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa and Manipur cannot hold much cheer for the Congress, which heads United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre. Barring the state in the Northeast, where the party retained its government with a thumping victory, in the other states its performance has been well below par.
The UPA government had come under considerable pressure on a variety of counts for the past one in particular — the high prices of goods of everyday consumption, the breaking of corruption scandals which fed the anti-Congress Anna Hazare campaign whose reverberations were felt throughout the country, and the political oneupmanship of UPA partners, particularly the Trinamul Congress, which stopped the government from pushing a policy quotient that might have brought credit to the government and the Congress as a party. For the Congress, the negative implications of these developments have not been politically neutralised through face-saving poll results at the state level in elections taking place approximately half way through the second term of the UPA.
Demand of the Situation
All eyes will now be on the Manmohan Singh government at the Center which has run half its term. The UPA has indeed been in a state of siege with a surfeit of corruption scandals sullying its image. If the Congress-led combine was looking for redemption from this round of assembly elections, the results are a major disappointment. The fact that the SP does not need Congress support in the State would render its support to the UPA uncertain. In the event of Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress pulling the rug from under UPA’s feet, the federal government could face a crisis of survival if the SP support is not forthcoming.
The common people have been unsparing in their verdict on several outgoing ministers, refusing to elect them. Several Congress heavyweights, including the outgoing Deputy Leader of the Congress Legislature Party, have also been rejected. Personal nominees of former chief minister Narayan Dutt Tiwari, who is said to have arm twisted the party into fielding them, have lost and so have the young faces from the Youth Congress, foisted ostensibly at the insistence of Rahul Gandhi.
However, that is not how the people will perceive the performance of the Congress whose campaign was led from the front by Rahul Gandhi. Bagging 28 seats for the party after addressing 218 election rallies in 48 days is not something that he can flaunt as electoral success.
It can be said that the present Assembly election results as stunning would be an understatement given that incredible stories have emerged in at least three of the five States that went to the polls over the past six weeks. In other words, the verdict is a devastating blow to the Congress.
Results At A Glance
Uttar Pradesh: (403) SP 225, BSP 79, BJP 47, Congress 28, RLD 9, Others 15
Punjab: (seats 117) SAD 56, BJP 12, Congress: 46, Others 3
Manipur: (60) Congress 42, AITC 7, NPF 4, MSCP 5, LJSP 1
Uttarakhand: (70) Congress 32, BJP 31, BSP 3, Others 4
Goa: (40) BJP 21, Congress 9, MGP 3, Others 7

Will There Also Be Voice for Change in India?

After Tunisia and Egypt, in many Western-styled democratic countries questions are being raised whether the people of these so-called democratic countries should voice against wayward leaders. According to Bhaskar Ghosh (Frontline 28 February), in India itself all those agonies and problems are faced by people that are faced by the people in Egypt. Prices of essential commodities are skyrocketing, unemployment is on its peak and the scams and black deeds of corrupt leaders are getting exposed.

Existing Problem
The problem in India is that there are very few honest people in the seat of power. The ruling party and the opposition, both are alike in respect of wealth accumulating and nepotism. Interestingly these corrupt people are lawmakers themselves. They increase their salaries whenever they like and can throw any rule or regulation pertaining to the qualifications and morale standards fixed for contestants of the election. They can purchase the will of people by showing the magic of the wealth. There is no restriction on them of any kind.

RSS Venom Against Muslims
How can a revolution come to India, when the country is unfortunately divided on religion, region, caste, creed, and color? In addition to the above, Muslims here are in minority and there is a large majority of communal class who spews the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) venom against Muslims and wants to crush them in all walks of life. This majority class, forgetting values and humanity, has engaged itself in plunder of wealth. Rejecting the pious traditions of Mahatma Gandhi's truthfulness and non-violence, they have adopted the morbid theories of Vir Savarkar and Nathu Ram Godse. Under these circumstances, they cannot be united to raise voice against any ailing system.

During the period of Jai Prakash Narayan, the entire nation had stood up against Indira Gandhi but after sometime, she again came to power and in the name of democracy, the same family rule came into existence. In this country, efforts were desperately made to introduce a third power but in vain. Hence, the minorities to avoid the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), were unwillingly forced to vote for the Congress party, which is itself is a party of transgressors and ambidextrous politicians.

Voice for Proper Representation
Now the question arises who should streamline the procedures of public representation, as characterless and criminal persons are sitting as public representatives. Why should they be ready for election reforms, as the voice for proper representation was raised, but they did not agree to it? A large section of people are themselves involved in corruption, hence they do not mind seeing their leaders corrupt as well.

There exists no organization or leadership for bringing amelioration or revolution. All of them content on rallies and congregations. Not one of them has the capability like Egyptians to bring revolution in just 18 days.

Home Minister's Warning May Deter Pakistan From Attacking India

Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram in his latest statement warned that if a fresh Mumbai-like terrorist attack is launched again India will take an instant retaliatory action. He said: "Pakistan is a trouble-shooter neighboring country of India. It should mend itself as a responsible neighbor."

It is a bold statement that the way terrorist attacks are being carried out against India it would be an ideal situation to give a befitting reply to Pakistan-based terrorist and their handlers, yet nothing has been done like that so far.

Resolving Kashmir Issue
Even a cursory look at the Indian history would show that India never invaded any country. On the contrary, it became the victim of invaders. On its very creation, Pakistan picked up trouble with India and captured one-third territory of Kashmir in 1947.

In 1965, when Pakistan attacked India, our forces marched forward right up to Lahore by crushing it heavily, but under the Tashkent Agreement reached through the Russian mediation, India withdrew from the Pakistani territory captured by it. Lal Bahadur Shastri died after signing the agreement.

In 1971, Pakistan made yet another invasion of India where 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were made war prisoners in Bangladesh and India captured certain parts of the Pakistan territory. But under the Simla Agreement, Indira Gandhi in response to the entreaties made by Bhutto released war prisoners and also returned the Pakistani territory. Likewise, Pakistan carried out an attack on Kargil treacherously. Pakistan was inflicted upon a crushing defeat in the Kargil war. As consequences, the US endeavors a cease-fire was enforced there and a safe passage was given to trapped invaders to retreat from there.

Since 1980, proxy war is being fought by Pakistan against India in the form of terrorism and it has been causing huge harm to Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, and other parts of the country. But India has never launched attacks on terrorists and their sponsors in Pakistan.

When terrorists carried out strikes on the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly and the Parliament building in Delhi, the patience of the whole country was absolutely exhausted. The then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee declared a "do or die" war with Pakistan and deployed Indian troops along the border with Pakistan, but failed to carry out an invasion.

A determined prime minister like Vajpayee who carried out the second nuclear test at Pokharan had the potential to launch an attack, but he did not do so. Gradually, he also agreed to hold talks with Pakistan and the Indian forces returned to the barracks.

In September 2008, when Pakistani terrorists triggered explosions under the very nose of the Indian Government, only then the government awoke out of its slumber to some extent. But, Pakistani militants attacked Mumbai on 26 November 2008. It took three days for the Indian security squads and commandos to tackle them and a Pakistani terrorist, Ajmal Kasab, was arrested.

Dismantling Militant Training Camps
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders asked the Pakistani Government to dismantle militant training camps on the Pakistan soil and hand over the conspirators to India or prosecute them within Pakistan. The government went to the extend of saying that unless and until Pakistan demolish terrorist training camps and hand over the accused to India talks will not be held with Pakistan.

However, even after remaining in the denial mode for quite some time, Manmohan Singh held talks, first with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at Yekaterinburg in Russia and later at Sharm al-Shaykh (Egypt) with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. In the wake of these talks, India returned with the cancer of Balochistan.

The state of affairs now is that whenever the Taliban or some other terrorist groups trigger an explosion or a violent incident, Pakistani ministers and other authorities stand harping on the allegation of the Indian hand behind it or the Balochistan unrest. Notwithstanding all this, Manmohan Singh maintains "resolution of bilateral issues between the countries is possible only through talks."

Focusing Internal Security
Ever since Chidambaram assumed the charge of the Home Affairs Ministry he has been focusing on the internal security and enhanced the strength of the police and security forces and also provided modern arms to them. He has taken effective steps against militants.

The question is: What is the prime minister's opinion on his latest statement? Will he allow him to go ahead to translate his statement into action? If Chidambaram actually implements his warning, Pakistan will never muster up the courage to launch terrorist attack on India.

Whenever India Broke

"Jawaharlal Nehru's daughter, former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was a ruler who employed all tactics, fair or unfair, to prolong her rule and justified them according to her own-devised political moral." These are the words of noted Indian intellectual, politician and diplomat, Patwant Singh whose English language book the "Of Dreams and Demons", based on his memoirs has recently been published that exposes various aspects of the recent past history.

Country's Foreign Policy
Giving an account of a meeting of the External Affairs Ministry during the era of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Patwant Singh writes that in 1963, an important official of the ministry expressed his concern about the country's foreign policy to Nehru if the Communists came into power in the centre? Upon which Nehru said: "Why you people are so afraid of Communism and communists? Right wing Hindu communalist forces are the real threat to India and not the communists". Patwant Singh says Nehru's apprehensions came true when many years later his daughter very cleverly played with the religious sentiments of right wing Hindu communal groups and gave India the gift of the storm of carnage in 1980s.

Patwant Singh admittedly writes that Mrs Indira Gandhi had played key role in making East Pakistan to Bangladesh. According to him, Indira Gandhi was fortunate that she got people like Sheikh Mujibur Rehman who easily played like puppets in her hands.

The author analysing power-hunger political psyche of Indira Gandhi writes that after changing East Pakistan into Bangladesh, she had presumptions that working on this lines and fanning communal hatred among various religions, she could continue to rule India like a queen for long time.

Patwant Singh draws similarity between Indira Gandhi's this mentality and Byzantine conspiracy. Indira Gandhi's Byzantinian conspiracies started in India at a time when she was facing tough competition in elections in East Punjab. She conspired to create rifts between the Hindu and Sikh communities and to use the broken Hindus in Punjab to ensure victory of Congress-I in the elections.

Sikh Insurgency
According to Patwant Singh, for this purpose the "principle" was devised that Sikh community be pitted against Hindus and once again incite old conflicts between the two communities and flare up communal and ethnic strife that could engulf the whole Punjab. To achieve this objective there was a need for a young Sikh religious leader who could flare up quickly having all historical instincts of Sikhs. Indira Gandhi chose President Giyani Zail Singh for this purpose to search for such a young Sikh and work hard to gain the appreciation of the prime minister.

The authors of the Of Dreams and Demons Patwant Singh rejects vociferously this notion that the 1980s Sikh insurgency which engulfed the Punjab state was because of a natural reaction to any political action. According to the author, all this was done by Indira Gandhi which was later accomplished through Sant Jarnail Singh Bindaranwala with the abetment of Giyani Zail Singh, whose speeches ignited the flame of religion among Sikhs of Punjab, which may not be put down any more.

Jarnail Singh was given free hand in Punjab. His speeches and reports of rallies were given extensive share in state media. His tirades against Indian constitution and Indian Penal Code were intentionally ignored. In those days, Patwant Singh says, whenever we mentioned about Sant Jarnail Singh's activities to Indira Gandhi, she always said: "Let him to do all these things...very soon his inflammatory politics will cool down. I know how to deflect these kinds of storms." After Indira Gandhi's such statements everyone would seek to remain silent. But later time proved that Indira Gandhi's presumption was a misconception. The waves of the storm she had claimed to be turned back swallowed her when time came.

Congress Leadership
In 1980 when Congress-I under the leadership of Indira Gandhi once again came into power, Jarnail Singh Bindaranwala was given more importance under the secret instructions of Indira. At the behest of secret agencies fudged figures and data were planted in newspapers and media to prove that Jarnail Singh was the biggest leader of Sikh community. Everywhere Sikh solidarity, historical arrogance and ego were propagated. Its aim was to make the Hindus of the East Punjab realise that now they cannot withstand in front of the raging storm of Sikhs and if they want to remain safe from the tyranny of Sant Jarnail Singh Bindaranwala in future, they should come under the umbrella of Indira Gandhi along with the bundles of their votes.

According to Patwant Singh, she was assuming that like the erstwhile East Pakistan where she tactfully exploited and used the feeling of alleged injustices and exploitation of Bengalis by the West Pakistan and proved herself victorious, can also be successful in achieving her objectives in East Punjab by exploiting its battered situation but the time proved that her assessment was wrong.

Hoodwinking Peace-Loving Muslims
Patwant Singh writes that like Karnataka and Andra Pradesh where Indira Gandhi garnered votes by using the slogan of "eliminate poverty" and by hoodwinking the peace-loving Muslims throughout the country in the name of secularism in 1983, she thought that in East Punjab also, she can make her vote bank safe by widening the religious, ideological and ethnic gape between Hindu and Sikh communities.

But she woke up when in 1984, noted Sikh leaders under the leadership of Sant Jarnail Singh decided to set on fire the Indian constitution. It fell on Indira Gandhi like a bombshell. First she herself tried to talk to Sant Jarnail Singh on telephone but he refused to attend her call. At that time Jarnail Singh Bindaranwala had holed up himself in Amritsar's Golden Temple and a common man could not reach him.
Rremained Steadfast
The author writes that: "Later on the instruction of Indira Gandhi I along with Harchand Singh Longwal, Lieutenant General (retired) J.S Arora, Air Marshal (retired) Arjun Singh, and ambassador Gurbajan by a plane reached Amritsar to meet Sant Jarnail Singh as he had fixed timing of the meeting. But unfortunately, an hour before our scheduled meeting with Bindaranwala, Indira Gandhi rang up and called us back to New Delhi." Sant Jarnail Singh took this move as his insult and, according to Patwant Singh, Sant Jarnail Singh and his men took oath to not to meet Indira Gandhi, and remained steadfast on this principle until his death.

Finally the moment came when Indian army troops on tanks and with missiles stormed the most sacred place of Sikhs -- Golden Temple. During this bloodshed although Sant Jarnail Singh was killed, what was the crime of about 4,000 innocent Sikh people who had come to offer prayers at that time, were also killed? The writer says that Indira Gandhi's this order ignited an unending flame of hatred in the heats of Sikhs about Hindus which was demonstrated when she herself became the first target of her own Sikh bodyguards.

New Phase of India-Saudi Arabia Relations

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's tour of Saudi Arabia when Pakistan's influence on Taliban and Al-Qa'ida is growing is considered extremely important. Editors of international newspapers are attaching great importance to the visit. This is the first visit of India's head of state to that country after 28 years. Before this, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi visited the country in 1986. Before Indira Gandhi, her father Jawaharlal Nehru had extremely good relations with Saudi Arabia.

The biggest proof of this was that India was strongly opposed to the illegal creation of Israel and was pro-Palestinian. But now it seems that India's foreign policy in the Middle East has changed drastically and it has devoted its complete attention to improving its ties with Israel more and more.

Developing Trade Ties
India has wide ranging trade relations with Saudi Arabia and the two countries have cordial relations. After the 2006 tour of King Abdullah to India, relations between the two and trade that stood at $500 million increased to $22 billion. Now a large portion of India's need for oil is satisfied by Saudi Arabia. A few years ago this position was held by Iran.

Some concerned parties are assuming that India is exercising foresight and is preparing for its future needs. Singh's trip is a part of the plan because relations between Iran and the United States are worsening by the day and the gulf between them is widening, and anything can happen between the two sides suddenly.

If the situation worsens and economic sanctions are slapped on Iran, India cannot show too much sympathy for Iran, although it claims sympathy for Iran at every forum. But it cannot show so much sympathy, so that Iran continues to supply India with oil. In such a situation it will be important for India that it prepares to satisfy its oil requirements from alternative sources.

Enlarging Relations
Policymakers feel that India is enlarging its relations with Saudi Arabia to fulfill its requirements for oil in case of war. And this is the view that is prevailing about Singh's trip to Saudi Arabia. A small proof of it can be seen that the country's oil requirement from 25.5 MMT has gone up to 40 MMT. Only time will tell how much truth there is in this conjecture. But otherwise also, Singh's trip is very important.

Regional cooperation and extradition of criminals, 10 such joint agreements have been signed. Experts are attaching great importance to the extradition of criminals because many of those involved in terrorism often take shelter in Saudi Arabia. Some big names of terrorism are involved in this, and many examples of it have been sited in the past.

India-Pakistan Talks
Minster of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor is also accompanying the prime minister. Can Tharoor be there and no problem arises? Is this possible? Here also, Tharoor reminded his presence and created a new problem. His suggestion that Saudi Arabia can act as a mediator between India and Pakistan proved to be a bombshell. This gave the opposition a new stick to beat the government with and no one can predict how the issue will play out.

However, it goes without saying that Tharoor statement was highly irresponsible because so far nobody has thought in terms of a mediator for the India-Pakistan talks. It has always been kept at a bilateral level. Without any warning, to issue such a statement was definitely an irresponsible act.

The opposition is sharpening its claws and waiting for Singh's return so that it can pounce on him. One has to wait and see that after Singh's trip to Saudi Arabia, problems are reduced or increase some more.

India-Pakistan Talks: A Review

A number of problems between Pakistan and India have been awaiting solution since the partition of the Indian-Pakistani subcontinent. Major problems among these are Kashmir, Sir Creek, distribution of water, Siachen Glacier, and now terrorism is also a problem that has contributed to widening of the gulf between the two countries.

In addition to leadership-level talks between the two countries, dialogues were also held at ministerial and secretaries level between the two countries during the last 63 years to solve the problems. During the course of time, wars were also fought, which broadened the gulf of mistrust further, and the Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 pushed the level of mistrust to an extreme end.

The latest, the foreign secretary-level talks between Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir was held after a long time, which ended without any positive results. The Pakistani Government is making efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue and other disputes. However, the Indian Government's stance was limited to talks on terrorism only. Now, these talks again proved meaningless and serving no purpose, and became a thing of the past like those held previously.

Salman Bashir declined to hand over the mastermind of the Mumbai terror attacks, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, to India, saying that it is futile to link the Hafiz Saeed issue with the dialogue process. Meanwhile, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao raised the terrorism issue at the talks with Salman Bashir and demanded the arrest of Hafiz Saeed because India has been the victims of terrorism attacks from the Pakistani side since a long time. India also entrusted to Pakistan a dossier of the list of 40 terrorists, but whether Pakistan would make any comment on it, is doubtful.

The manner in which the two sides were engaged in filling the blanks shows that the dialogue was held without much preparation. Those who consider this to be another failure of India's foreign policy cannot be totally dismissed. This is because our rival country, which had made India agree to talks even if that meant coming to New Delhi, seems to have been successful in claiming this to be a diplomatic victory. It could achieve this feat without changing its viewpoint after 26 November 2008.

Ministerial Level Talks
The first session of Pakistan-India ministerial level talks was held on 27 December 1962 in Rawalpindi. Pakistan was represented by Foreign Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and India by its Foreign Minister Suran Singh. These six-phase talks concerning the Kashmir issue remained inconclusive. The second phase of these talks was held in New Delhi from 16 to 19 January 1963, while the third phase from 8 to 11 February ended inconclusive in Karachi. However, it was decided to hold one more meeting in Calcutta (Kolkata) to find new ways for solution to the problem. Hence, the fourth phase of talks kicked off on 11 March in Calcutta where the proposal of Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was agreed on, saying the Kashmir problem should be solved on the basis of economy and not religion. Yet, no permanent solution to the problem was reached, and it was decided to take the matter forward and holding of another session of talks was agreed.

Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru once again emphasized on solution to the Kashmir and other issues. The fifth phase of ministerial-level talks began in Karachi on 22 April 1963, which ended without yielding any results. The sixth and last phase of these talks began in New Delhi on 15 May 1963, which proved unsuccessful on 16 May when Pakistan suggested making the Kashmir an international issue. In this way, these ministerial-level talks comprising six phases concluded without yielding any results.

There had been no ministerial or diplomatic contact between the two countries for almost seven years; rather, India attacked Pakistan in 1971, resulting in disintegration of the country into two parts (inception of Bangladesh); Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Indian prime minister signed Shimla Pact thereafter.

On 31 July 1971, the Pakistan-India diplomatic staff held bilateral negotiations at Rawalpindi to bring the political situation to normalcy. On 29 November 1974, the diplomats from the two countries held negotiations at New Delhi to remove ban from the bilateral trade, imposed in 1965. On 24 January 1975, Pakistan and India signed a trade agreement at Islamabad. Negotiations on Pakistan-India trade were arranged at Karachi from 12 to 13 January 1976.

The Indian cricket team, after a 17-year gap, came to Pakistan on a two-month long tour on 24 April 1978. On 4 February 1980, Indian Foreign Secretary R.D. Sethi along with a four-member delegation came to Pakistan to hand over Indira Gandhi's letter to President Ziaul Haque, in which meetings with Pakistani Foreign Secretary S. Shah Nawaz for bringing relationships of both the countries to normalcy and situation of Afghanistan were discussed.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ghulam Ishaq Khan and his Indian counterpart Narasimha Rao held a two-phase meeting on 10 June 1981, in which discussions were made on the international situation and the bilateral relationships. Pakistan and India held negotiations on No-War Pact and bilateral relationships on 30 January 1982.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Yaqub Khan held a 50-minute meeting with his Indian counterpart Bali Ram Bhagat to discuss bilateral relationships. The second round of this meeting was held in New Delhi on the issue of Siachen Glacier.

In October 1978, the two countries arranged negotiations at Islamabad on the Wooler Barrage dispute. On 31 December 1988, multiphase meetings were held between Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her Indian counterpart Rajiv Gandhi. On 1 January 1989, Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi signed three bilateral accords: No attack on each another, solution of bilateral taxation dispute, and cultural cooperation.

Secretary-Level Negotiations
The first round of the secretary-level negotiations between the two countries was held at Islamabad on 17 July 1990, in which Foreign Secretary Tanvir Ahmed Khan represented Pakistan, while Indian Foreign Secretary Machkana Darbe represented his country. These negotiations were of seven phases. The second round was held in New Delhi from 10 to 11 August 1990, third round in Islamabad between Pakistani Foreign Secretary Sheheryar Khan and his Indian counterpart Machkana Darbe and J.N. Dixit from 18 to 20 December 1990 and seventh round in Islamabad from 2 to 3 January 1994.

In these negotiations, which were held after a 17-month gap, nuclear nonproliferation, Kashmir, and Siachen disputes and reduction of weapons were discussed. However, these negotiations didn't bear any fruit. On 28 March 1997, Pakistan-India negotiations at the foreign secretary-level resumed in New Delhi after the lapse of three years. Shamshad Ahmed Khan represented Pakistan, while Salman Haider represented India. The second round of these talks was held in Islamabad from June 19 to 22 1997.

Negotiations at the foreign secretary-level restarted at Islamabad on 15 October 1998 after a gap of 13 months, in which Shamshad Khan represented Pakistan, while Raghunath participated from the Indian side. Discussions were made for the restoration of confidence building environment. As a result of these meetings, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Pakistan in 1999.

In 2003, the Pakistan-India contacts were restored at the foreign secretary-level, in which the India forwarded 12 suggestions for confidence building and stress was laid on the reopening of land, water and air routes. Pakistan showed positive response to almost all of the suggestions. However, it partially rejected one of the suggestions, and also imposed some conditions.

Also, in addition to this, four suggestions were presented from Pakistan's side: Increase in the number of delegation staff and starting Lahore-Amritsar bus service in place of increase in number of buses on Lahore-Delhi route were suggested. On 6 January 2004, a meeting was held between General Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the SAARC leaders' conference in Islamabad where both of them agreed to hold purposeful negotiations in February for restoration of relationships.

As a result, negotiations at the secretary-level were held from 15 to 17 February 2004 in Islamabad, which broke down the three-year deadlock. The second round of these talks started in Islamabad from 27 to 28 December 2004, in which Foreign Secretary Riaz H. Kokar represented Pakistan, and from the Indian side Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran forwarded 20 suggestions for restoration of confidence over strategic and regional issues and the Kashmir dispute.

This peace process fell in jeopardy after the seven bomb explosions in Mumbai trains on 11 July 2006, in which approximately 200 people were killed. As expected, India put the responsibility of the explosions on Pakistan and talks at the foreign secretary-level were halted. And it is also said that the Pakistani diplomatic staff was deported from India. However, the deferment lasted for a very little duration and, once again, negotiations started at the foreign secretary-level in New Delhi from 14 to 15 February 2006. In the third phase of this meeting, the Khokhrapar Monabao border was opened on 1 February 2007.

An agreement was signed in March 2007 to prepare combined mechanism against terrorism. However, important, complicated and solution-seeking issues between the two countries remained unresolved. And most importantly, India kept rolling back on its own 12 suggestions that it had forwarded for confidence restoration in October 2003.

During the SAARC Council of Ministers meeting on 7 December 2007 in New Delhi, Pakistani Caretaker Foreign Minister Inamul Haq met his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee and emphasized on negotiations. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Pakistan from 21 to 22 May 2008, and another meeting was held in Islamabad for the evaluation of the fourth round of Pakistan-India negotiations.

On 27 June 2008, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi visited India and invited his counterpart for negotiations, after which the fifth phase of negotiations at the foreign secretary-level started on 21 July 2008. Under these negotiations, friendly cooperation in various sectors was ensured and discussions were made on suggestions of availability of resources for easy issuance of visas and increasing people-to-people contacts.

Pakistan and India agreed for confidence rebuilding over the Kashmir dispute and steps for amalgamation of the divided families. However, no agreements over the Kashmir dispute and other issues came to forth.

Disastrous Point
26 November 2008 proved to be a very fatal day for the Pakistan-India peace process when approximately 170 people lost their lives in the massive terrorist activities in the Indian city of Mumbai. India held Pakistan responsible for these activities and one again the negotiation process suspended. And now India is laying stress on negotiations only over the agenda of terrorism.

And news published in various dailies show the bias that India at the moment does not want to deviate from its stance and talk about other issues. One this occasion, we are recalling/remembering these words of the Indian prime minister, which he had spoken on 12 July 2001 for war: "If India and Pakistan remain busy in peaceful and sincere bilateral negotiations for removing mutual differences, then none of the problems could linger unresolved."
Assessment
If the responsible people sitting on the negotiations tables recall these words of Vajpayee, without any doubt, peaceful environment will be established in the region, which will guarantee development of all.

The most important aspect of the 25 February talks is that Pakistan's foreign secretary came here and our foreign secretary talked to him. Even if both of them repeated their old allegations full of resentment, at least it broke the silence. It should be noted here that during the time when formal talks between the governments remain stopped, politicians on both sides spread much more hatred among their people. Before leaving, Pakistani foreign secretary extended an invitation to the Indian foreign secretary to come there. We must continue this sequence.

To conclude, I am also recalling a quote of Jawaharlal Nehru, which he had uttered soon after independence: "A prosperous and secure Pakistan would benefit India; with which (Pakistan) we can establish close and friendly relations." In the light of these words, India should not miss this opportunity at any cost. And it (India) should take such steps that help Pakistan become a stable and prosperous country, so that it also has positive impact on India.

Atrocities Against Sikhs in Pakistan

In Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, the Taliban killed two Sikhs by beheading them, which has exposed how hollow the Pakistani Government's claims are. The Taliban have already imposed Jazia tax (tax on non-Muslims) on Sikhs.
Every Sikh has to pay Rs1000 annually to practice his religion. These Sikhs are Pakistani citizens and have been living there from before partition. Until 2009, there were more than 10,000 Sikhs in this region, who have left their homes and shifted to cities like Peshawar after the Jazia tax was imposed. Now, only around 500 Sikhs remain in the tribal areas because of the Taliban's terror rule.

India's Initiative
Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram has stated that Sikhs who had gone abroad during the phase of militancy in Punjab and wish to abandon militancy like Kashmiri militants can be considered to stage a return to the national mainstream. Chidambaram's observation can be termed a welcome statement though it cannot be said whether it can be implemented.
Its chief reason is that the attitude of successive union governments, especially of the Congress-led governments, toward Sikh issues has been cynical all through in the past. Hence Sikhs cannot expect much of the claims made by the federal government.
The Indian Government has condemned the killing of Sikhs by the Taliban and has strongly criticized Pakistan. Democratic politics is also on the boil on this issue. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has asked why the Indian Government did not do anything when these people were abducted. It is but natural for India to be angry with this kind of brutal killing, but it should not be termed as the government's diplomatic failure. These Sikhs are Pakistani citizens and the Indian Government cannot do anything about abduction of Pakistani citizens in Pakistan. It is the Pakistani Government's failure that its laws have no value in its own country. The world community should exert pressure on Pakistan to give guarantee of security to the minorities in that country.

Militancy in Punjab
In 1980s and 1990s, militancy in Punjab was at its peak. Sikhs took up arms at the behest of foreign countries, yet the then Congress-led federal government can be held entirely responsible for meting out injustice to the struggle. Then, Indira Gandhi was at the helm of affairs and she never liked such political parties that posed a challenge to the stable federal government by speaking in terms of granting more powers to the state governments.
In Indira Gandhi's views, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) was a political party to which she desired to impart a lesson. It was such mindset that led to militancy in Punjab.
The phase of militancy in the state was linked to the attack on the Golden Temple, Amritsar, assassination of Indira Gandhi, and killings of Sikhs. In reality, all these incidents are interconnected.
During militancy in the state, Sikh youth migrated to foreign countries because of terrorism in the state. Since then Sikhs have never been meted out justice in any case. The Congress leaders responsible for the killings of Sikhs have not been punished so far.
Recently, terrorist activities in India's Punjab have intensified. Several arrests and recovery of arms and explosives indicate that Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence is again trying to incite Sikh separatists. The religious tax shows how safe Sikhs are in Pakistan, which provides shelter and encouragement to terrorist organizations and still advocates the rights of Sikhs.

Golden Temple Targeted
Indira Gandhi targeted the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the most sacred religious seat of the Sikh community, by razing the Akal Takht, the highest temporal seat of Sikhs. The Indian Army killed thousands of innocent Sikhs.
It was as a reaction to the attack that Indira Gandhi was assassinated. In the wake of her assassination, Sikhs were murdered in a well-planned manner.

Fulfilling Sikhs' Desire
It has been repeatedly demanded that Sikhs settled abroad desire to return to India and join the national mainstream. The blacklist should, therefore, be scrapped. Nevertheless, the blacklist continues to be kept intact.
If even moderate Sikhs are not allowed to return to India, how can it be expected that hard-liner Sikhs would be provided an opportunity to stage a comeback to the country and join the national mainstream.
The issue of safety of Sikhs could also be raised in the India-Pakistan talks to be held this week. Pakistani citizens' security is an internal matter of that country and respecting that position is in India's interest, otherwise Pakistan, which is supposedly concerned about the Indian Muslims' safety would get a chance to raise that point. If India wants the security of Pakistani Sikhs, it should provide visa and citizenship to those who want to come and settle here.

Demand for Separate Statehood for Telangana

After facing great pressure, the Central Government has conceded to the demand for a separate Telangana State for which the process will be initiated and an appropriate resolution moved in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. The decision was taken at a late night meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had with Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister K. Rosaiah after two rounds of consultations in the Congress core committee with Sonia Gandhi and senior cabinet colleagues. The Centre and the Congress were forced to take such a step after further deterioration in the health of Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) chief K. Chandrasekhar Rao, whose indefinite fast entered the 11th day on 9 December and tension simmered in the entire Telangana region apprehending the worst.
Telangana region accounts for 119 of the 294 Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and 17 of the 42 Lok Sabha seats. The TRS, which was formed in 2001 on the plank of a separate Telangana State by Rao after he quit the TDP, was part of the UPA after the 2004 elections. It parted ways with the Congress in 2006, saying the UPA was doing nothing on its demand. While in the 2004 elections his party won five Lok Sabha seats, it managed only two seats in 2009 and suffered severe erosion in the Assembly elections as well.

Why this Demand?
The main reason was that the Congress Party, which was in power at the Centre as well as in the state, was in the forefront of the demand. A political solution was facilitated in 1973 when it became clear that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was not in favour of a separate state. This time round, the agitation is led by the Telangana Rashtra Samithi, although Congressmen of the region also appear to be supportive. But more significantly, the Opposition parties, notably the Telugu Desam and the BJP, have jumped into the fray. It is not yet clear if this complicating factor will lend the demand a decisive edge, especially since the condition of fasting Chandrasekhar Rao appears to be delicate. The Congress leadership appears to be in a fix. It would certainly like to call the shots in the Assembly of the new state, should its formation become inevitable. It has the strength from the Telangana districts in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly.
In fact, the issue of a separate Telangana State has been hanging fire for the past so many years as successive governments at the Centre and in the State have been dithering over it. The region, with 119 out of 294 seats in the State Assembly, has long been neglected. Indeed, lack of development of this region is the root cause of the problem. The Congress fought the 2004 elections jointly with the TRS, promising separate statehood. However, as the Congress backtracked, the TRS parted ways with it. Former Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy was strongly opposed to Telangana. He felt that it would further trigger the demand for a separate Rayalaseema State, leading to the trifurcation of the State.
In addition, the historical poverty from the Nizamshahi period has persisted in the Telangana area whereas the wealth of the delta districts has grown, and many from coastal Andhra — the wealthy and the middle classes — have homed in on Hyderabad, offering competition in the economic sphere to the people of Telangana. Similar problems have dogged many States and have been dealt with reasonably. The risks attendant on small States should not be overlooked.

Dealing With Untoward Situation
However, there are two separate ironies in the situation. The first pertains to the idea of a hungerstrike culminating in the formation of a State. When the Andhra Gandhian Potti Sriramulu undertook a fast unto death in 1952 and made the supreme sacrifice doing so, the then Jawaharlal Nehru government was obliged to concede the demand of a linguistic state comprising the 11 Telugu-speaking districts of the erstwhile Madras state. Not doing so is likely to have produced an impossible situation. It is not wholly clear if the circumstances surrounding the Telangana demand now admit of a similar possibility, but the context has become troubled. It is perhaps necessary that the Centre steps in to ward off an untoward situation.
Moreover, at the political level, it might be beyond the ability of the three-month-old Rosiah government in Andhra Pradesh to tackle the demand. But an intervention by the Congress leadership could make it easier to address the demands of the regional development of the backward Telangana districts if the formation of a new State is to be headed off. The alternative is to accept the demand on terms that are acceptable on all sides. In that case too, the Centre might be better placed to play honest broker. The second irony lies in the twist of history. The time will better tell the story.