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?

Communal Violence Bill

Social worker Anna Hazare's struggle against corruption and scams was applauded by one and all. Muslims also supported the cause as every citizen has been suffocating with the corrosive decease. However, Muslims hope Anna could raise his voice about another poison communalism. Quite often this disease is internal but at times it comes from outside. Internally, our compatriots behave with discrimination and treats Muslims brethren suspicious.
Victim of Discrimination
The British for their vested interests had sowed the seeds of hatred and division between Hindus and Muslims which got deep rooted and is still prevalent. Being Muslim, they do not get employment in government and private sectors; they don't get flats in housing societies. When four men are talking and fifth man as Muslim come, they stop talking. Muslims become the victim of discrimination at all levels, as a result of which they feel suffocated.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the last secular prime minister who left most of the jobs incomplete. Communalism is a big problem, it devastates lives and properties, but the same frenzy subsides after a few days. The dream of minority and majority living together in consonance must come true.
Salient Feature
Showing concern on this sensitive issue, Congress President Sonia Gandhi has come out to move the communal and targeted the violence bill. The object of this bill is to provide protections to religious and lingual minorities, backward classes and tribal people. A National Authority will come to existence through the bill. The salient feature of the bill is the provisions of five-year imprisonment to police officers who fail to curb communal violence. The bill provides compensations of Rs.1.5 million to the next of kin of the deceased.
Harsh Mander, member of National Advisory Council, says that like the Right To Information Act, government officials will be accountable for the lapse. The Communal Violence Bill has been hanging since 2005. After the formation of the National Advisory Council, all aspects of the bill were discussed. Now the text of the bill will be presented before the prime minister. It will be a big day when Sonia Gandhi's vision will come to its practical shape and will emancipate the country from this execrable enormity.

UN Commission Report on Benazir Bhutto's Assassination

As the UN commission report on Benazir Bhutto's assassination has tried to make many things clear, it has also created many confusions regarding hosing down the site of the incident. The United Nations is said to be a representative body of all the nations, but it also serves the United States. It is either Kofi Annan or Ban ki-Moon, they have been holding the slot of secretary general of the United Nations just to the extent of splitting hair.

The former and the present secretary general of the United Nations may have high qualities and wisdom as persons, but whatever line they adopt is controlled by the United States on one side. Thus, to presume that the United Nations is an independent, autonomous, pro-justice, bold and a high moral-value body may be greatness of a thinker, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Suspicions and Apprehensions
The United Nations is so great institution that when the United States intended to hit Iraq or Afghanistan, all the representative nations like wolves in sheep's clothing passed the resolutions overnight according to the US aspirations giving it the license to deal with these countries as per its whims, and they would have no objection to it.

They never noticed oppression and tyrannies being committed in Kashmir and Palestine. Rather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, himself took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations; however, later, his attitude towards peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue through the UN remained negative. India's such an attitude still continues. The United Nations has never been in the position to take some steps while preaching justice based on purely human and moral values. The United Nations is a weak puppet, which is being controlled by uncontrolled the United States.

Anyhow, reverting to the UN report on Benazir Bhutto's assassination, there does not seem anything new in it. The report is more or less based on the points, which have been mentioned by our Television channels' anchors from time to time. For instance, why was the site hosed down? Why was post mortem not conducted? Why did the reserved vehicle in the motorcade left the scene earlier?

However, if the UN report has stated anything new, it has been narrated in a way that it seems like killing several birds wit h one stone. For example, the report said that the then DPO (District Police Officer) Rawalpindi said to a third person that an intelligence agency chief called him asking him to wash the site. Thus, the martyrdom of Benazir was attempted to be given two directions so that the things proceeded in a way that the facts remained on the background.

As the United Nations has always been kind to Pakistan, how could its constituted commission remain behind in expressing love for Pakistan? The Pakistani Government moved to the United Nations with sincerity and good intentions. However, it depends on the United Nations how it slants its reports and applies them to the Third World countries. They created a mischief, which is likely to create more suspicions and apprehensions regarding Benazir's martyrdom.

However, the incumbent government immediately formed an investigation committee. A senior civilian bureaucrat was appointed as its head and two other members -- one civilian and one military man -- were made its members so that they could determine whether a military person was involved in washing the site. In addition to the general, Saud Aziz, the then DPO Rawalpindi and some other persons also appeared before the committee and they recorded their respective statements. The statement of Saud Aziz exposed the UN report by claiming that the decision to wash the site was taken by him. He must have adjudged that as the ground was paved for emergence of confrontation among institutions by unnecessarily complicating the issue, the people are also facing an uncertain situation. He, thus, put the facts before the nation that no intelligence agency head interfered in this issue.

UN Intentions
What a great job was done by the UN commission? It pocketed heavy amount as fees and instead of informing people about the causes of the death of Benazir Bhutto, it started blaming the Pakistan's secret agencies, and also tried to involve them in this dirty game. The Pakistani nation is well-aware of the intentions of the United Nations and its commission, and knows that it will never receive any good news from them.

Even then, we have no other option and we have to depend on the United Nations and its commissions in our matters. And this society perhaps developed an acquaintance with the word 'commission', and every commission looks that it is our own, though it is an investigation commission instead of any financial or deal commission.

Institutions and Intelligence Agencies
As for the UN commission's report, if the SHO of Liaqat Bagh Police Station is encouraged to probe into the incident 'just for the sake of God', he may bring about better facts and disclosures than that the United Nations. Our own institutions and intelligence agencies are quite efficient. They are so efficient that they can be dubbed as 'Shan-e Kai' in the words of Iqbal. Then why is investigation of any incident occurring on this land not assigned to them? May God save this country from the enemies who are in the form of friends! If the United Nations is not an enemy to Pakistan, it can even not be described as a friend. The more we remain alert from it, the better it would be, as no one ever saw this institution speaking its own voice.

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.

Arunachal Youth Campaign Against China's Inimical Designs

India went whole hog to maintain friendly relations with China, and has been instrumental in China securing UN membership. We remained under the illusion of "Hindi-Chini, Bhai Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers) slogan whereas China, in pursuance of its expansionist designs, launched an aggression against India in 1962, and grabbed 60,000 sq mile of our territory in the Himalayan region.

Dialogue Process
We lost our Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru because of the shock he received following Chinese aggression. Nehru had taken numerous steps for the country's progress in various fields.
Several years later, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited China and started a dialogue process to resolve boundary disputes and to begin trade with China. It was thought that China's approach vis-à-vis India would undergo a change in the altered scenario. But China continued to tread an anti-India path.
China extended support to Pakistan in its anti-India nuclear program and manufacturing missiles. China also built a military station for its marine forces at Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, and constructed a big seaport at Gwadar in Pakistan's Baluchistan region.

Inciting Anti-India Sentiments
China is also supplying arms to rebel Maoists active in India's northeast sector. Not only that, China is engaged in inciting anti-India sentiments in Nepal by provoking Maoists.
India kept its eyes closed to all these issues, because our trade with China is registering a rise. However, under the pretext of trade, China flooded Indian markets with cheaper products that led to closure of various Indian small industries. China earned fabulous profit by pushing into India poisonous plastic toys, raw quality electrical goods, and electronic gadgets. After a long time, India got to know this and banned the import of such harmful products. In addition, anti-dumping duty was imposed on Chinese synthetic yarn, steel and tires.
Certain Chinese medicine manufacturers exported low quality medicines to African countries, tagging them with "Made in India" labels. The Indian Government woke up from its slumber only when African medicine control authorities raised this issue with the Indian Government. Finally, China had to take action against the companies concerned under international pressure. This way, the Chinese conspiracy to tarnish India's image, causing damage to the Indian economy and reputation, was countered.
Although several border dispute talks have been held with China, no settlement is in sight so far. On the contrary, China is staking claims on Arunachal Pradesh. It strongly protested against the visit of Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh, and also Dalai Lama's tour of this state.

Violation of Indian Airspace
In 2009, Chinese helicopters violated Indian airspace in Laddakh region several times. Then, Chinese soldiers made incursions 1.5 km inside Mount Gaya region and painted the word "China" in red color on a number of rock faces there. Chinese troops intruded into the Laddakh region 26 times in 2009. Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor termed it a serious issue. Chinese troops have become so bold that China took exception to the construction of a rural road in South Laddakh under NREGA scheme, following which the construction came to a standstill.
Conditions have turned grim with the establishment of Chinese cantonments in the vicinity of Indian border. The limit was crossed when a Chinese expert on military matters went to the extent of talking in terms of disintegrating India into several parts.

Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai
Strong resentment prevails among the youth of Arunachal Pradesh against China eyeing Arunachal Pradesh and other Chinese anti-India activities. The Arunachal Pradesh Students' Council has launched a campaign to boycott Chinese goods. The council president, Takum Tatung, led this campaign by Arunachal Pradesh youth at Akashdeep shopping complex in Itanagar recently. This campaign was launched by burning an effigy of Chinese President Hu Jintao and raising the slogan "Burn Chinese Goods". Takum Tatung maintains that the objective of this boycott campaign is to awaken the general public of Arunachal Pradesh and the rest of the country against China's anti-India designs.
Undoubtedly, by taking this step, these youth have expressed their sense of patriotism and to stir the minds of countrymen so that we are not once again deceived by China under the allurement of the "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" slogan.

Pakistan's Antics Against India as Attempts To Cover Up Failures

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik has once again made a mockery of India by saying that the Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) is extending support to terrorist activities in Pakistan. He added: "We are investigating into the role of this intelligence agency into creating unrest in Baluchistan."
A few months ago when Pakistan leveled such an allegation, India commented in the October 2009 editorial that Pakistan is trying to be smart by concealing its failure to foil the attempts by terrorist groups like the Taliban to spread violence in its territory. The discerning Pakistani public also is aware how their leadership is misleading them by indulging in falsehood.

Nefarious Aggressive Designs of Pakistan
There exists a general belief in India that "We wish we could retaliate nefarious aggressive designs of Pakistan then we would not have been subjected to terrorist violence spread across India." In fact, India faltered when it agreed to the incorporation of the reference to the Baluchistan issue in the joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Sharm-el Sheikh wherein it was stated that terrorism will not be included in the "composite dialogue with Pakistan." In this context, Manmohan Singh put forward the explanation, "how will Pakistan prove our involvement in Baluchistan when we are doing nothing there?"
Nevertheless, this provided an opportunity to Pakistan to level the charge against India. Malik even started saying that Pakistan is in possession of hard evidences of India's involvement in Baluchistan and the same can be produced before India at any forum. Notwithstanding all such claims, Pakistan has failed to bring them forward before India.

India's Non-Violence Approach
India is known for its history that even as it propagated its spiritualism and knowledge through saints and sages. Yet, it never mounted any military offensive in any part of the world. On contrary, the monarchs of India have been such that King Ashoka, extremely distressed over widespread bloodshed in the battle of Kalinga, abandoned the sword and adopted the path of non-violence by embracing Buddhism.
Prithviraj Chauhan pardoned Muhammad Ghori who invaded India 17 times and paid the penalty for his forgiveness when he was defeated in Ghori's 18th invasion. He was taken captive and his eyes were extracted. The Mughals invaded India and they settled here. In 1947, when Pakistan attacked Kashmir and when the Indian forces marched forward by pushing back Pakistan, Jawaharlal Nehru, showing magnanimity, affected the cease-fire and took the issue to the United Nations. As a consequence, one-third of Kashmir remained under illegal occupation of Pakistan.
In 1971, Indira Gandhi, exhibiting large heartedness and a sense of pardon, released 90,000 Pakistani troops captured by India. She displayed this quality of forgiveness when at the Shimla Conference Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto made entreaties to her saying, "With what face I will go before the Pakistanis empty handed."
Atal Behari Vajpayee also, in the wake of terrorist attack on Parliament, declared to go for a "do or die" war. Diplomatic relations with Pakistan were severed, air, road, and rail services were suspended, but later forces were withdrawn from the border. Exhibiting magnanimity, after some time all these services that remained suspended were resumed ultimately. In the name of "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai" slogan, China grabbed 60,000 sq. mile territory of India. Even now it indulged in incursions along the Indian border. We are promoting trade ties with it, but failed to regain our territory.
In so far as the intelligence agencies is concerned, they failed to give advance input to the government with regard to terrorist attacks on the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly, nor for that matter Parliament. They could not gather advance information regarding terrorist attacks on Delhi and Mumbai either. Had our successive governments and the intelligence agencies the potential to carry out any kind of aggressive action we would have long ago resolved the Kashmir problem and wiped out terrorist training camps being run in Pakistan.
The Pakistani prime minister and the interior minister are deliberately terming India valiant. But, notwithstanding all this, if Pakistan is doing so in order to cover up its failures, then India also is helpless.
Nonetheless, such statements must delight the Indian Government and those RAW officials who are being awarded such a big certificate of creating unrest and disturbance in Pakistan even after their actually doing nothing in that country.

Congress At 125: A Review

Today the Indian National Congress (INC) celebrated 125th Foundation Day across the country with much enthusiasm. Undoubtedly this is unprecedented in the annals of world political history. In other words, it is a historic moment, that in any country in the world, any political party would be successfully celebrating its 125th anniversary, and it is a matter of great pride for every member of the Congress to be a part of such a historic party, with a rich legacy of 125 years.

Unique Dimension
The INC is undoubtedly the largest, and, possibly, the oldest political party in the world, with a mass membership that quite possibly exceeds the population of several small countries. And yet, this is not the only unique dimension of the INC. The history of the Congress is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Indian independence movement, and hundreds of leaders and foot soldiers of the party had the honor to stand at the frontlines of the exceptional struggle for the country’s independence from the British rule.
The INC is exceptional because, once again, in the annals of world political history no other country has fought for and obtained its independence without warfare and weapons. Exceptional because the entire struggle for freedom was based on the foundation of truth and moral authority, and the creed of non-violence symbolized by the mighty power of the example of Mahatma Gandhi. Little wonder then that the name of Mahatma Gandhi resonates even today in the context of peace, and moral values in the world order.

Dominating Indian Political Landscape
The fact is that Congress and its leaders were born from the strong moral values and sacrifice of the freedom movement, and it is this spirit of service and dedication to the country, which informs the philosophy of the INC until today. From the battle for freedom, the Congress led the country in the task of nation building under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, and, during that golden period, the Congress dedicated itself to the ideal of a welfare state, the commanding heights of the public sector, and an India determined to come out of the wounds of partition, as also the shadow of colonial rule and take her rightful place in the comity of nations. Under the leadership of Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Congress reiterated its foundation of morality and ethics, and continued to dominate the Indian political landscape.
After that began a period in our political history, when elections to state legislatures were won by some political parties, and from being the party in the government, the Congress moved to occupy the Opposition space in some states. But soon Indira Gandhi dominated the national political scene and towered over all other leaders, with her fiery determination and commitment to the poor. "Gharibi hatao" (eradicate poverty) became the slogan of the Congress, both within the country and at different international fora. Whether it was the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) or the creation of Bangladesh, the abolition of privy purses or nationalization of banks, the Congress under Indira Gandhi found a lasting place in the hearts and minds of people. The poor of our country, the women, the dalits, and tribals, the disadvantaged all over the country, felt that Indira Gandhi would look after them and protect their interests. All over the country, it was the Congress alone which was the party in government, or the leading Opposition party of the country.

Generational Shift in Congress
The assassination of Indira Gandhi marked a generational change in the Congress, and the country’s youngest-ever Prime Minister in the form of Rajiv Gandhi assumed power at the Centre. Soon he led the Congress to a spectacular victory at the hustings. Thereafter began the era of youth, of redefining the role of the Congress in the modern world and taking India into the 21st century and to the path of success.
With refreshing idealism, which refused to be dampened by vested interests or nay-sayers, Rajiv Gandhi introduced to the party, and the country, computers, technology, efficient delivery, and, above all, the concept of transparent, accountable politics. His steadfast idealism saw the impossible happen. Power was devolved for the first time, in a real sense, to the level of local government. Also for the first time, dalits and tribals and women were given a share of decision-making and a space on the political horizon by the reservation of seats for them in local bodies.

Emergence of Sonia Gandhi
Sonia Gandhi took over the reins of the party years after the assassination of her husband, and in the face of great pessimism expressed by parties opposed to the Congress. The Congress itself was numb and traumatized by the death of Rajiv Gandhi, and many wondered if the grand old party would be able to fight its way out of the vacuum caused by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, who had been a leader acceptable not just to the entire Congress party, but to every Indian, cutting across barriers of geography, economics, caste and creed. In the 10 years Sonia Gandhi has led the party, the Congress has virtually gone from triumph to triumph, emerging once again as the only party with a truly pan-Indian presence, in government or the leading Opposition in every state of the country.
Moreover, the Congress has once again moved with the needs of the time and has fashioned itself, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, into a party committed to the welfare and upliftment of the most disadvantaged sections of Indian society, party committed to inclusive growth, to democracy, to accountability and to a strong self-reliant India. Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has been the pride of the party with his shining integrity and quiet dedication. The Congress represents every section of the society, including youth and women, and the iconic leadership of Rahul Gandhi has been tremendously instrumental in taking the message of the Congress to the youth of India.

Maintaining Winning Streak
The year 2009 witnessed another landmark for the Congress, which is leading United Progressive Alliance (UPA). It was widely expected that anti-incumbency would ensure that the Congress did not come back to power at the Centre, and indeed, in recent times, very few governments have won a second term at the national level. However, the steadfast commitment to inclusive growth, particularly schemes such as National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and the Right to Information Act, won huge trust and support from the Indian people.
Moreover, as any political observer could see, the electorate was tired of the hollow jargon-type electioneering followed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and certainly did not believe in Lal Krishna Advani’s promises of good and decisive governance. Also, the Congress, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi and Dr Singh, presented the much more satisfying prospect of good governance.

Revival of Congress in Uttar Pradesh
In fact, the true achievement lay in the revival of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. Rahul Gandhi’s repeated forays into the heartlands of Uttar Pradesh, his candid engagement of ordinary people, his transparent commitment to ensure democracy within the party, and good governance, saw the Congress winning back in substantial measure the trust of the people of Uttar Pradesh. It is an important signal that the days of polarizing and identity-based politics may not be fully history, but the success of Rahul Gandhi’s idealism signals a new watershed.
The challenges ahead are many. In a country like India, there is always the temptation to try the gimmickry of narrow electoral appeal and populist politics to win elections. Democracy within the party and accountability to the public, as well as making inclusive development electoral planks, may not bring gains in the short-term. But, if anything, it is clear, that the Congress has stood the test of time. With our historic legacy, and mature leadership, infused now by the idealistic and transparent appeal of youthful leaders like Rahul Gandhi, the Congress now towers head and shoulders over other formations. The Congress also has the ability to build patiently, and wait for results.

Assessment
To conclude it can be said that the achievements of the Congress are manifold, and self-evident. The challenges facing the party are the same as any that might face any mass-based political organization, but these challenges appear relatively minor in the face of the strength of the party and the vision of the leadership of Sonia Gandhi.
In addition, the tremendous moral authority of Sonia Gandhi's single act of declining the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has raised her leadership to heights that can never be achieved by other leaders, and invests her leadership with particular resonance. And the greater the heights achieved by the Congress, the greater will its commitment be to the service of the country. The time will better tell the story because the common people of the country have voted the Congress to power for the second consecutive term with great expections.