India Successfully Test-Fires Agni V Missile: Country Joins Elite Club of Nations

India successfully test-fired country’s long-range surface-to-surface Inter-Continental Ballisitic Missile (ICBM) -- Agni-V -- from the launch pad-4 of the Integrated Test Range (ITR) from Wheeler Island off Odisha coast on April 19. The missile can carry a pay-load of 1 ton and is capable of reaching deep into Asia and Europe. It is a move that would bring the emerging power into a small club of nations with intercontinental defense capabilities.
Only the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, Russia, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom – along with Israel, are believed to have such long distance missiles.
Most Advanced Version
The Agni V, a three-stage, all solid fuel powered missile with multiple independent targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV), is designed to be the most advanced version of the indigenously built Agni series. It is powered by solid rocket propellants and can be transported by road. India has tested several missiles in the past few years as part of its program, which started in the 1960s.
With a planned range of 5,000 km (3,100 miles), the Agni V will traverse 2,000 km more than any Indian missile has ever done. The present launch will see the missile first power its way to a vertical height of 500 km in the atmosphere before following a ballistic trajectory that will see it splash down in the Indian Ocean way beyond Indonesia.
A commercial jetliner would take over six hours to traverse such a distance. But Agni V, traveling at 24 times the speed of sound and 30 times faster than a commercial jet, will traverse that distance in just 18 to 20 minutes. In doing so, it will become not just the longest range ballistic missile in India's strategic armory but also its fastest. Most importantly, Agni V would put most of China's major cities, including Beijing and Shanghai, within Indian missile range.
Building Long-Range ICBMs
The test of Agni V would give India the capability of building long-range ICBMs or missiles that can reach targets of 8,000 km or more.
With a warhead weight of 1,500 kg (1.5 ton) Agni V will ultimately be capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads giving it deadly strike capability.
Agni V would be a significant step up from the range of Agni missiles that India currently has in its armory. The latest missile will have higher payload capability, a specialized booster and a new set of road-mobile launchers. The smaller versions of the missiles like Agni-II and Agni-III are rail-mobile which poses limitations in transportation especially when keeping these hidden from overhead satellites and prying human eyes.
Agni I goes to 700 km and Agni II, 2000 km. Both these are primarily meant to target Pakistan, giving India a capability to strike its neighbor from any part of the country.
Agni III and Agni IV are missiles in the 3,000 km class meant for China and other regional neighbors. The distance though is a limitation as these classes of missiles would be unable to strike many of China's strategic cities or locations. So the need for Agni V.
Avinash Chander, DRDO's Chief Controller R&D (Missiles and Strategic Systems), said, "There are many firsts we are incorporating in Agni V, these include two all new composite motors that would propel the missile to distances bordering ICBM capabilities."
At 17 meters in height, Agni V is almost 5 stories tall and has a diameter of two meters - similar to that of the giant main sewage pipelines that are laid in most Indian cities. Agni V is short and squat as compared to India's space rockets.
Almost three years in the making, Agni V is a three-stage rocket that, has one of the most highly developed guidance systems that the DRDO has ever built to enable it to strike targets at great distance with stunning accuracy.
While the first stage motor is similar to the one used in Agni III, the second and third stage motors are brand new and built of light composite materials that are being flight tested for the first time. It reduces weight and gives the missile greater punch.
Although the first launch would be from a static harness at the Island, Agni V would have tremendous road mobility once it is fully developed. These include a canister launch which means that it gives India "stop and launch" capability from any part of the country. Once India successfully test Agni V, the country would have broken the barrier of long range ballistic missile systems.
Facts About Missile
* With a range of 5,000 km, Agni V will traverse 2,000 km more than any other Indian missile
* Traveling at 24 times the speed of sound, Agni V will traverse 5,000 km in just 20 minutes
* If successful, it will give India the capability of striking all major Chinese cities, including Shanghai
* The technology being used in Agni V will ultimately give India the capability to build ICBMs.

4th BRICS Summit: Playing Crucial Role at World Level

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is a grouping of the world’s emerging economies, representing five continents. The BRICS countries together account for 40 per cent of global GDP ($18.49 trillion). Intra-BRICS trade is worth $212 billion, and is growing at 28 per cent a year. It has set itself a trade target of $500 billion by 2015.
The importance of BRICs in the world economy has increased manifold since the acronym was first coined approximately seven years ago. Few could have imagined then how the US economy would collapse and bring down with it much of the rest of the world. It is worth revisiting the original formulations on the significance of these four major countries that were made by representatives of a major US investment bank
Some member countries in the organization are among the fast emerging economies in the world. At the same time, the world has come to realize that to bring an end to the unipolar world and to maintain the power balance, the importance of Russia cannot be ignored. Countries such as China and Brazil not only want to maintain close relations with the United States, but with Russia as well.
However, the aim of the BRICS is to enhance cooperation among member countries and working together at the international forums. Clearly, it is an opportunity for India to improve and strengthen its relations with China and strive to get their disputes resolved.
The fourth BRICS Summit was held in New Delhi on March 28-29. The summit’s theme was “BRICS partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity.” The participants included Presidents Hu Jintao of China, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Jacob Zuma of South Africa and Brazil’s Dilma Rouseff. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted the summit, and also held a series of bilateral sessions with his guests, including China’s Hu Jintao.
The summit held against the backdrop of continued profound and complex changes in the international situation, uncertain prospects in world economic recovery and the steadily rising status and role of emerging markets and developing countries in international affairs. It was yet another important event in the ongoing BRICS cooperation. India has worked effectively in preparing for the summit. China tried to work with other BRICS members to push for positive outcomes. On the summit’s eve, the five nations resolved to resist protectionist tendencies worldwide.
The leaders of five emerging economic powerhouses affirmed not just their growing economic clout but also their impact on the global political order.
Delhi Declaration
At the end of the summit, BRICS leaders issued a Delhi Declaration. The Declaration hinted at backing an alternative candidate for the World Bank president's post which has always been appropriated by an American and exhorted the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to quickly realign their priorities and approach to the needs of the developing world. This is an agenda the five countries intend pursuing at the coming G20 meeting in Mexico as well.
The leaders also weighed the consequences of setting up a “BRICS Bank” and opted for a more contemplative approach by asking their Finance Ministers to examine its feasibility and report back at the next summit in Russia. They agreed that the bank should in no way emerge as a competitor to the World Bank and the IMF but provide funds for projects that do not find favor with these institutions.
In line with their professed commitment to multilateralism in economic and political problem solving, the leaders agreed to invest more in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which played a major role in catering to the interests of developing countries in the run-up to the setting up of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Seeking to reinforce their growing economic heft with diplomatic clout, the BRICS grouping pitched for a bigger say in global governance institutions, including the United Nations and the IMF, and told the West that dialogue was the only way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and the Syria crisis.
The leaders of BRISC’s formulation on Iran came close to condemning the West's pressure tactics to make other countries obey their latest restrictions on trade ties, especially in the energy sphere. Saying that a conflict would have disastrous consequences, it wanted the two antagonists to resolve suspicions over Iran's nuclear program through talks on multilateral fora.
On Afghanistan, BRICS exhorted the international community to stay the course on the development front for 10 years after the West withdraws most of its combat troops by 2014-end and, on Russia's insistence, made a mention of checking narcotic trafficking.
In a fresh assertion, BRICS asked the West to implement the 2010 governance and quota reform before the 2012 IMF/World Bank annual meeting, as well as the comprehensive review of the quota formula to better reflect economic weights. They asked for enhancing the voice and representation of emerging market and developing countries by January 2013, followed by the completion of the next general quota review by January 2014.
In a signature step, the BRICS decided to create their first institution in the form of a BRICS-led South South Development Bank that will mobilise "resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies and developing countries." The leaders directed their finance ministers "to examine the feasibility and viability of such an initiative, set up a joint working group for further study, and report back by the next summit."
The development banks of the five countries signed two pacts, including a master agreement on extending credit facility in local currency and BRICS multilateral letter of credit confirmation facility agreement, which could help scale up bilateral trade from $230 billion to $500 billion.
India’s Major Points
Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also said that the grouping has agreed to examine in "greater detail" a proposal to set up a South-South Development bank, funded and managed by BRICS and other developing countries.
Singh also urged member countries to speak in one voice on key issues such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms. He suggested that BRICS countries should speak in one voice on issues such as reforms of the international body.
On UNSC reforms, Singh suggested that BRICS countries should speak in one voice on issues such as reforms of the international body.
He also said in their restricted session, the grouping also discussed the ongoing turmoil in West Asia and agreed to work together for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Touching upon the issue of terrorism, Singh said the countries should enhance cooperation against terrorism and other developing threats such as piracy, particularly emanating from Somalia.
UN Millennium Development Goals
BRICS nations are the defender and promoter of the interests of developing countries. In their cooperation, BRICS countries have committed to promoting South-South cooperation and North-South dialogue, endeavored to implement the UN Millennium Development Goals, worked for early realization of the goals set out in the mandate for the Doha development round negotiations, strived to secure a greater say for developing countries in global economic governance and fought all forms of protectionism.
Cooperation among BRICS countries is made necessary by the ongoing economic globalization and democratization in international relations. It is consistent with the trend of the times characterized by peace, development and cooperation, and fully conducive to building a harmonious world of durable peace and common prosperity.
Role of China
An impression is sought to be created that with its massive monetary reserves and political clout, China may exert undue influence in this bank. This is unlikely. Such a bank will not require too much paid-up capital (relative to the average size of respective sovereign reserves) if intelligent financial engineering can help sequester foreign reserves. This would mean that the smallest BRICS economy, South Africa, could easily commit an amount similar to that of China in the capital structure. Such doubts could be further allayed with the institution of a rotating Presidency of, say, a two-year term that could initially be restricted to the BRICS countries alone.
India-India Strategic Ties
The China-India strategic and cooperative partnership has made all-round progress in recent years. A sustained, sound and steady growth of relations between China and India, the two large developing countries sharing borders with each other, will serve not only the well-being of the two peoples but also peace, stability and prosperity in Asia and the world as a whole.
The Delhi Summit will be remembered forever for one major achievement, at least. Its expected decision to set up a BRICS bank on the lines of the World Bank may change the course of economic activity in the member-countries. The setting up of this new financial institution by the bloc that has brought together half of the world’s population may speed up infrastructure development programs in the BRICS countries and serve as a second line of financial defense in times of economic crisis as is being faced by Europe today.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been in focus since more than a decade. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had already unanimously adopted a resolution asking all non-NPT states to join the treaty.
The 15-member council, while urging “other states” outside the NPT to join the controversial treaty as “non-nuclear states” to help rid the world of atom bombs, also urged all countries to sign and ratify the CTBT and refrain from conducting atomic tests. India has not signed the CTBT yet.
The Security Council had adopted a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution. Through this resolution, the Security Council had called upon all nations to sign the NPT. The countries that have not so far signed it have been asked to do so. Under this treaty a ban has been imposed on making nuclear bomb in the future.
The “other states”, which were not named in the resolution, were a clear reference to Pakistan and India, which have not signed the NPT, but are known to have atomic arsenals, and Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms but is believed to have a sizeable stockpile of warheads.
The resolution also calls for talks on drafting a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The mandate of the council came when it approved the resolution 1887 that calls on countries that have not signed the nuclear NPT “to comply fully with all their obligations”. The resolution will strengthen the NPT.
India’s Stance
A convergence of international factors — political, economic and military — has led to a situation where correct and timely decisions on the treaty can enhance India’s standing as a nuclear weapon state as well as brighten its economic prospects.
The reverse is also true. It is, therefore, important that the ongoing debate in the country on the CTBT is set on the right parameters.
Hitherto, the debate has been fudged by hangovers from the past. The NPT and CTBT have criss-crossed, their lines of distinction blurred in public perception. Another term in current international lexicon, the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), adds to the confusion.
Little is understood about the FMCT and the clout that India could wield by a correct posturing on this treaty, which is still in the making. Even more than the substance of these treaties — distinct in themselves — it is the history surrounding them that has influenced opinion in this country. It would be in order, therefore, to have a glimpse of this history and a closer look at what these treaties mean to India.
India has decided to affix its signature on the treaty. India has refused to abide by the Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty. India said it could not join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.
The Indian Air Force chief recently expressed apprehension of a possibility of a nuclear attack on India. In the past also India was asked to sign the NPT, but it declined to do so pleading that unless and until nuclear-weapon nations destroy their nuclear arms, the treaty would be useless. Now, India has yet again refused to sign the NPT. At that time India stated that some other nations are in possession of nuclear weapons, hence it will need to make its own nuclear weapons for the sake of self-defense because in view of the need of self-defense it is not advisable to sign the NPT.
Now, India, once again declining to be a signatory to the treaty, vehemently opposed the UN security calls. It pleaded: "We cannot implement the regulations thrust upon other nations, for these impinge upon the sovereignty and national interests." It will not be in the country's interests to accept such decisions.
India has already taken a categorical stand not to make first use of the nuclear weapons to which it is completely committed. India's permanent representative at the United Nations, Hardip Singh Puri, has in a communication to Susan Rice of Security Council raised questions on its role in the implementation of international treaties.
India’s refusal to sign the NPT is based on unexceptionable grounds of national security. While Pakistan has been a ‘rogue state’ which has fuelled nuclear proliferation by sharing its know-how for making nuclear weapons with China, North Korea, Libya and Iran, India has had an absolutely clean record of eschewing both proliferation and aggressive intent. It is this country’s misfortune that it is flanked by a nuclear-armed China which has had expansionist designs in the past and a hand-in-glove nuclear Pakistan which is most untrustworthy and sinister. If, in the circumstances, India seeks to retain its right to stay nuclear to deter its recalcitrant neighbors, it can hardly be faulted. India’s stand that the nuclear weapon states must work towards total disarmament to carry conviction is also perfectly legitimate.
There has been an important transformation after Pokhran II: India is now unambiguously a weapon state, with transparent and credible nuclear weapon capability. The thermonuclear test, backed by advanced Indian nuclear technology, further uplifted India’s status, completely changing India’s situation vis-a-vis the CTBT. Hurdles to India to being a full signatory to the CTBT are not per se in the draft of the treaty as such but in the continuing shadow cast by the NPT. In the event, the right course would be for India to declare its adherence to the CTBT unambiguously, while reserving the final step of signing and ratifying to an assurance from the United States — and others — that in implementation of CTBT, India’s nuclear status will be equal to the five recognized weapon powers.
Demand for Amendment to NPT Treaty
Simultaneously, eight nations of the world, including India, have demanded an amendment in the NPT treaty. The Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. The resolution passed by 15-member SC that the remaining nations should sign the NPT. The resolution adopted under the leadership of the United States, China, and Russia also has affirmed it.

Many nations, including India have not signed the NPT. The plea put forward by them is that developed nations have built their nuclear weapon reserves and the NPT is being thrust upon other nations, which is absolutely unjustified. The question arises whether countries in possession of nuclear weapons will not browbeat countries that do not have such weapons. For instance, Pakistani rulers in the past have been holding out, lamenting nuclear attacks on India.
Obama’s Indication
US President Barack Obama first signaled his dedication to the cause of the NPT at Prague way back in April 2009. While stressing non-proliferation, and indicating his preference for reducing the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, the US leader revealingly also said, "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies." This underlines that the US proposes one set of standards for itself, and another for India. This country’s long-held position has been that it is in favor of comprehensive nuclear disarmament, and that non-proliferation is not a substitute for this. President Obama is yet to offer disarmament as an attainable goal.
So long as that remains the case, it will continue to be on the wrong side of political morality. India too has been lax in not publicly countering the American stance under Obama right after Prague. It has also been remiss on another count. After the passage of UNSC Resolution 1887, its official view is that it won’t sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, whose obligations are of a different order under the NPT from those who have come on board as nuclear weapons states. This is at variance with this country’s original stance that the NPT ought to be rejected on grounds of being an inequitable arrangement that allows nuclear weapons only in the hands of a few.
Even now, India has voiced the apprehension that it is faced with a threat from Pakistani terrorists that intend to carry out a nuclear offensive against India because it is apprehended that some of the nuclear weapons of Pakistan have found their way to Al-Qaida and other groups. The United States had stated that Pakistani terrorists pose a big threat to India.
Even as the United Nations desires to make the world free of nuclear weapons as per the secretary general, it is high time to move forward. India has declined to sign the NPT, saying that it will not do so until nuclear weapon nations destroy their nuclear weapon reserves. The Indian stand is fully justified.
In varying degrees, the five NPT weapon powers are unwilling to give up their superior status which finds no place in the CTBT as such. A new brand of doublespeak nuclear diplomacy is at work. China wants India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapon status, citing a Security Council resolution, while France and Russia are veering round to de facto acceptance of India's nuclear weapon status provided this country accedes to the CTBT. The US, the decisive power in creation of the global non-proliferation regime, is mid-way.

US Persuading China, Russia To Support Sanctions on Iran

Through their diplomacy, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister, Tayeb Erdogan have persuaded Iran to hand over half of its semi-enriched uranium to Turkey and in return, it will be given enriched fuel for research and medical requirements for one year. While it will be able to enrich up to 20 percent of the remaining uranium.

Thus, Iran concluded an agreement on seven conditions with Turkey and Brazil. Keeping in view the US campaign to impose sanctions on Iran, the Brazilian president and Turkish prime minister, convinced Iran to abandon its previous stance so that some crisis may not emerge in the Gulf because the US was getting ready to launch a sudden air attack on Iran under the pretext of Iran's nuclear weapons program and was urging the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to impose the stringent sanctions on Iran. So far as Britain and France are concerned, they are bent on dismantling Iran's peaceful nuclear program out of their ethnic and religious prejudice, but Russia and China differed on imposing stringent sanctions on Iran.

Warning and Threats
And the US had overcome these differences by making deals. The US assured that it would not take up the issue of human rights violations in Russia while deferred its demand from China to revise its currency exchange rate. It appears that the US has persuaded Russia for the UN Security Council resolutions against Iran. Its proof is its (Russia's) dissatisfaction over the agreement concluded by Turkey and Brazil. It led to bitterness between Iran and Russia and the Russian foreign policy advisor, responded to the criticism of Russia by Iranian President Ahmedinejad with impoliteness. He warned the Iranian president that no president can retain his power by the force of his rhetoric as, what he said, was clear from 2,500 years of Iranian history.

This comes true in case of Russia that the Soviet Czar and his successor communist rulers failed to rule over Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan for more than 150 years and the local population drove them out and now their leadership is also being removed. In addition to these Turk- origin states, the white-skinned Christian population also came out of its empire. Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania broke away from the Soviet Union and became independent states. Now, Shishtan, Tataristan, and Dagestan are about to get freedom.

We are surprised at the Russian behavior. It does not talk about imposing sanctions on Israel, which has neither signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), nor Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). However, according to an estimate, it has 200 nuclear bombs while according to CIA estimate this number is 400. It hurls threat every other day to attack Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iran's nuclear program. To US, Russia, France, and Britain, Israel's nuclear stockpiles are not a threat to the world peace while the Iranian peaceful nuclear program is a grave threat for the western states. What sort of logic is this Putin! Medvedev?

Poland has deployed its anti-missile system in Poland adjacent to the Russian border, which Russia considers as a threat to itself. However, the Polish foreign minister has supported the deployment of the US forces in his country. The United States says that the missiles are being deployed to defend Europe from possible missile attack by Iran, and these are not a threat to Russia, but Russia considers them as a threat for its security.

In addition, The US had declared the Russian attack on Georgia on 7 March 2009 as threat to the world peace and expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Now, the number of Atlantic Treaty has increased to 28 from 16 in the wake of the end of cold war. The imperialistic forces will use their collective military power for seizing the natural resources of Afro Asia, and Latin American states. The US influence has reached up to Georgia and Ukraine while is has military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where it was hard to imagine during the cold war that the US will dare break into the Soviet Union. However, this is a fact that the United States has completely cornered off both China and Russia.

Blackmailing North Korea
Meanwhile, it is blackmailing North Korea, the old ally of China, to suppress China. It says that North Korea sank a South Korean warship in March. At the same time, it has used the Security Council to impose sanctions on North Korea with a view to destroy its nuclear arsenal and factories.

Hillary Clinton is going from post to pillar from Moscow to Beijing, so that Iran and North Korea may be disarmed to establish the US domination. The newspapers give an impression that China is also vacillating like Russia due to the US pressure.

If the information of the western media is to be believed, it (China) has also agreed to support the US draft resolution to impose sanctions on Iran. If it is correct, it is axing its own feet because China is an important buyer of the Iranian gas while Russia has built nuclear power houses in Iran and it has to work on more projects. If Russia and China supported the fourth US resolution on sanctions on Iran, they will lose the confidence of Afro-Asian and Latin American states.

Trade and Political Interests
Now, that Russia and China are compromising with the US and European Union under the compulsion of their expediency and for the sake of their trade and political interests, Turkey and Brazil have risen against the hegemony of five-member mafia (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) on nuclear energy. This is an important change in the international scenario.

The question is that all these five riders have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and are threatening and blackmailing other countries on this basis. They have declared themselves exempted from NPT, CTBT, and FMCT, while bullying the other states to follow these treaties. Now if we closely see, these five powers are holding the remaining 187 member states of the UN as hostage while according to the article one of UN Charter, all the member states of the world body have equal rights and independence.

Violation of UN Charter
The NPT is a flagrant violation of the UN charter. Then, why all remaining states should accept it? Now, even if the NPT is accepted in principle, then why it is not being implemented on Israel and India? While both the states have neither sign the treaty nor implemented the same.

Despite this, the 45- member nuclear supplier groups has exempted 35 percent nuclear reactors of India from the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under the US pressure, and given free a hand to them to produce nuclear bomb. Because of this, India voted against Iran's nuclear program in the IAEA board of governors and under the US pressure, it quit the Iran- Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.

Enriching Uranium Production
If China and Russia support clamping down of sanctions on Iran, it will be a great injustice with Iran because according to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sources themselves, Iran had frozen its nuclear program in 2003 and is not enriching uranium more than 20 percent. It is the clear evidence that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes because 93 percent uranium has to be enriched for production of bombs.

It appears that the days of this five-member mafia in international politics have been numbered and no matter even if these powers get resolution against Iran adopted at the Security Council, they should know that it will have no importance than a mere piece of paper. If the non-aligned countries become active at this juncture, then it will become imperative for the United Nations to cancel Article 27 about the cancellations of rights.

UN Security Council Expansion Imperative Amid New World Scenario

India has fully endorsed the proposal put up by the G4 countries to reform the United Nations Security Council to enable it to meet the present day needs. The G4 is a group of four nations -- India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan--which are demanding expansion of the UN Security Council and a seat for each in the expanded Security Council.

Dignity and Prestige
The fact is the United Nations is losing its dignity and prestige because of inherent shortcomings and irregularities. Gradually, its image has become one that only safeguards and protects the interests of the United States or Europe. It is not only surprising but strange that there are only five permanent members that claim to be a representative body of the international community.

Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, four are European countries and the United States. It is only China that represents entire Asia in the Security Council while the majority of the world population is found in Asia. Equally strange is that African countries have been totally ignored. Furthermore, four members are developed countries. Undoubtedly, such a situation cannot be termed just and impartial under any circumstances.

Asian and Developing Nations' Demand
Asian and developing nations are justified in their demand that the Un Security Council be reformed and the strength of its permanent and non-permanent members increased. The G4 countries made the demand in 2005. It demanded that while expanding the Security Council, new permanent members should be accorded the same rights, including the right to veto enjoyed by the five permanent members.

Countries such as the United States, despite agreeing to the demand of the G4, are avoiding expansion of the Security Council as it would mean the end of the US supremacy, and would become a hindrance to its designs. It is, therefore, keeping the issue pending.

India's Stance
The stance adopted by the Indian representative, Hardeep Singh Parmi, at the third session of the United Nations General Assembly, is not only in accordance with the demand raised by G4 nations but is also in tune with the demand of Asian and African nations.

Clarifying the Indian stand, Parmi advocated an increase in the number of non-permanent members. He maintained that two things have become clear during the first and third round of the talks. First, most countries accept that going by the current situation, the strength of the permanent and non-permanent members should be increased.

Reforms in the Organization

Since the establishment of the United Nations, the world has gone through a sea-change which makes the reform to the international body imperative and inevitable. While the disintegration of the Soviet Union has made the Cold War between two superpowers a part of history, the continuing economic crisis of the only superpower has proved hollowness of its strength.

Also, the beating that the United States has received in Iraq and Afghanistan has weakened it further and its claim to be the keeper of the world is slipping out of its hand. Thing have come to such a head that experts in world affairs have even predicted its disintegration in not very distant future. In such a scenario, the United States continues to play the role of a keeper of the United Nations only because of lack of reforms in the world body.

Despite the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of British colonial imperialism, the two countries continue to be permanent members of the Security Council. Keeping fast emerging economic powers such as India out of the Security Council and not granting them permanent membership is clear evidence of the injustice prevailing in the United Nations. Equally strange is the stoic silence of the United States on the issue.

The issue does not relate to India alone. The fact remains that countries like Brazil, Japan and Germany have made their presence felt in the comity of nations and have become powers to reckon with. They have also played a pivotal role in several international issues. Going by it all, these countries have indeed the right to demand a permanent seat in the Security Council. The inclusion of these countries in an expanded Security Council and their involvement in reforming the United Nations would certainly add to the dignity of the organization and strengthen its representative character indeed.

Inevitable Situation
The merger of East and West Germany has made Germany a major power in the world and Japan has left Europe and the United States behind in its industrial progress. Brazil is one country the industrial progress of which can easily be termed worth emulating by African countries.

As far as India is concerned, it is the second fast emerging economy of the world after China. In view of these factors, inclusion of these countries in the Security Council as permanent members has become inevitable. At the same time, reforming the United Nations and the Security Council should be considered seriously.

There have been several occasions when the working and the performance of the United Nations have come under heavy criticism. The United Nations has failed to perform its duty toward smaller countries. Imbalanced decisions on international issues have tarnished the UN image. The United Nations lacks capability and the will to act, things that are most needed in the world today.

Plight of Kashmiri Women

In the present scenario, the world is well aware of the fact that the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been under unconstitutional and illegal occupation of India for the last more than six decades. Due to this illegal occupation, the situation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is extremely awful and the Indian forces have been committing oppression and brutalities in every nook and corner of the state.

The Muslims of the state of Jammu and Kashmir are passing through a dark age of sufferings and miseries. They are feeling helpless, deprived and oppressed in all aspects of life in their own land. The world is also aware of the fact that for resolution of the Kashmir dispute the UN Security Council has passed 18 resolutions pledging Kashmiris plebiscite through which they could determine their fate and future. In this plebiscite they can decide either to join Pakistan or India.

However, the world is aware of this fact that despite the UN resolutions and the promises made by Indian rulers and leaders, more than sixty years have passed but neither the Kashmir dispute was resolved in light of its historical background nor the Kashmiris were given their birth right to self-determination. As a result the intentions of the Indian leaders have changed with the passage of time and they forgot about their pledges made at local, national and international level and adopted intransigence, extreme obstinacy and cruel tactics to further their illegal and unconstitutional occupation over Jammu and Kashmir. They also promoted the system of new settlement to change the Muslim majority into minority by brining and settling non-Muslims in the state from neighboring states by allotting them state subject certificates.

Massacre of Muslims
Muslims were killed on different pretexts. The massacre of Muslims started from Jammu where in few days in 1947 Indian forces in collusion with Dogra Army, Hindu Extremists and Sikh death squads massacred three hundred thousand Muslims and only two hundred thousand people managed to flee to Pakistan. During this massacre of the Muslims in Jammu respected women were subjected to organized gang rapes and the properties of Muslims were looted while hundreds of their towns were burnt in the night.

After the massacre of the Muslims, Hindus were brought in great number from the neighboring states of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Rajhastan and New Delhi and settled them in Jammu by allotting them state subject certificates and today they are being termed as real subjects of the state and the so called Muslim politicians of Jammu and Kashmir watched this drama silently.

More than one million Indian forces deployed in Jammu and Kashmir have been unleashing a reign of terror against the Muslim population during the past sixty years in general and the last 20 years in particular. Few living examples of the cruelty are before the international community. However, unfortunately the world has become champion of securing interests of some particular nations instead of championing human values. That's the reason that despite seeing, listening and observing everything nothing was done for the oppressed and suppressed Kashmiri people other than mere rhetoric. No real endeavors were made to pursue India to resolve the issue of Jammu and Kashmir justly in its historic perspective.

Role of the United Nations
The role of the United Nations is very regrettable as it failed in dispensing its moral and legal responsibility failed to resolve the Kashmir issue, nor it stopped human rights violations of the Kashmir Muslims by the occupation Indian forces. We can expect nothing from the Muslim world. The Muslim countries except for Pakistan have spiritually left this world and every individual Muslim ruler is trying to secure his regime or he is busy in seeking his personal comforts and luxuries. The Muslim rulers have made a deal on the overall interest of Islam and the Muslims. They are behaving as if they don't know anything about the flight of the Muslims.

The Muslim rulers must have followed Khilafat instead of kingship. Had they left their personal comforts and luxuries then the satanic forces in the world would have not dared to cast an evil eye on Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq Afghanistan, Kosovo and Chechnya and thus the spirits of the Muslim would have not suffered so much and they would have not shed blood and tears while looking towards the apathy of their rulers. At the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Pakistan has to wrestle and toil like wrestlers to pass an ordinary resolution for early resolution of the Kashmir issue and condemnation of human rights of the Kashmiri Muslims by one million Indian forces. Then the OIC issues a little condemnation of the Indian brutality and oppression in Kashmir.

A tradition of the holy Prophet Mohammad is that the prophet said in an address to the Muslim men that when your rulers are pious and kind, when your philanthropists are generous, and when your matters are in your own hands then your being alive is better than your death. However, when your rulers are cruel having bad character, your philanthropists are miser and your matters are in the hands of your wives then your death is better than your being alive. Now look at the character and role of our rulers and philanthropists in light of this tradition of the holy prophet and ponder over it as per your mental capacity.

Dispute between India and Pakistan
The world also knows that the Kashmir issue is a dispute between Pakistan and India and unless and until this issue is resolved, the relationship between Pakistan and India will never improve. Rather, there will always be a danger of a nuclear conflict in South Asia. The world can better understand this fact and the world leaders have expressed their views in this regard from time to time. What this means that former US President Barack Obama has termed Kashmir as a nuclear flash point. The current US Administration says that Kashmir is a sensitive issue and resolution of this dispute is very crucial to avoid any big disaster in the region. These days, international calls are being made by the United States and European Union to resolve this longstanding issue. We want to tell in categorical terms to these countries that mere rhetoric or statements would not reduce the suffering and plight of the Kashmiri people nor will it change the situation on the ground. Yes, some practical steps would make some difference.

Regarding the Kashmir dispute, we can see that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have never accepted the illegal occupation of India but they have always remained busy in peaceful struggle for liberation of their state from Indian yoke and they have stressed upon India on the political and diplomatic front to give them freedom and resolve the Kashmir issue under the UN resolutions in accordance with the pledges made by their rulers. However, the arrogant Indian rulers have never understood the language of politics and diplomacy and have always trod the path of intransigence and cruelty. India doesn't believe in resolution of issues through political and diplomatic means. India can be dealt with under the principle of "Iron Cuts Iron" or "Teasing led to War" [both Urdu idioms]. Thus in 1989 the valiant youth of Jammu and Kashmir took guns in their hands paying India in the same coin and made it frightened.

and some lost their husbands. When father of a girl dies she becomes hapless. When husband of a woman dies she becomes widow and when the brother, father or son of a woman is arrested she wails and dies every day. Many women fell victim to bullets fired by Indian forces and become martyrs. Many of the women are such who have been allegedly linked with the armed struggle and have been languishing in Indian jails. This process is still continuing.

Shopian Incident
The tragedy of women in Jammu and Kashmir is that the Indian forces are not only targeting and killing their loved ones but they are also harassing, raping and gang raping them. The fresh incident in this regard took place in Shopian where two unfortunate women Neelofar Jan and Asiya Bano were kidnapped by Indian troops on May 29, 2009. The troops gang raped them and killed them in cold blood. This incident was confirmed by the one-man inquiry commission of Justice Jan. The Shopian incident sparked angry protest demonstration in all parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian forces have been using brute force to suppress the demonstrations, which are still continuing. Several people were martyred in these demonstrations by Indian forces, who subject protesters to teargas shelling, cane charging and sometimes they open fire on them. Does the unfortunate rape of a ten-years-old girl Shabnam in Pain Badra in Handwara has any precedence in the world or is molestation of a 70-years-old woman by Indian troops in Posha Pora has any example in the history.

Few days after the Shopian incident, Indian police personnel in Tangmarg molested a girl and killed her grand mother who tried to protect the chastity of her grand daughter. What example of cowardice and humiliation can you quote other than this as On 5 July 2009 in Marmat Doda, two Special Police Officers molested an 80 years old woman. In the night between 8 and 9 July personnel of the territorial Army of India entered the house of Late Ghulam Ahmad Masoodi in Dolipora, Handwara, and tried to rape his daughter Amna Masoodi, a student, who cried to alarm the local people to save her chastity. However, the savaged troops pressed her throat and strangulated her to death. The Indian forces have violated all human and legal norms in brutalizing and subjecting to rape and molestation the women in Jammu and Kashmir. The stories of oppression against the women in the state are beyond description.

Protecting Honor of Womenfolk
Now the question is: Can any respectable, honorable and valiant man tolerate the rape or molestation of his sister, daughter, wife or mother? No, never. There are a number of examples when the respected men of Jammu and Kashmir have sacrificed their lives in order to protect the honor of their womenfolk. It will better to quote just one example of Jagarpora in Hadwara to save your precious time from being wasted. The family of Mohammad Abdullah Dar lives in central Jagarpora. Few years ago the Indian forces launched a crackdown in the area and entered the house of Mohammad Abdullah on the pretext of search. Abdullah's son and his daughter in law were also present in the house at that time. When the troops tried to molest his daughter in law the valiant Adullah strongly resisted the move of the troops. When the troops realized that they could not subdue him, they opened fire on him and martyred him on the spot. Then his son tried to protect his wife who was also gunned down. According to a tradition of the holy Prophet Mohammad the man who is killed in an attempt to stop brutality is a martyr and the man who is killed to protect honor and chastity of his womenfolk is also a martyr. Men of valiant nations, irrespective of their class and creed, always feel proud for sacrificing their lives to protect chastity and honor of their women.

Struggle for Right to Self-Determination
During the resistance movement and the struggle for the right to self-determination, the women of Kashmir have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with their son, brothers, husbands and fathers despite all odds. They have taken active part in the liberation struggle individually and in groups.

The women of Kashmir have played an active role in protest demonstrations against the oppression of the Indian forces. They have also demonstrated great courage and valor in organizing public meetings, protest demonstrations, rallies and other activities of the liberation movement besides encouraging their men to carry forward the struggle towards its logical conclusion.