On the contrary, there is nothing geopolitical at all in Somnath's proposals - its all pure economics.RamaY wrote:I think this is extreme trivialization of geopolitics.
Cooperative structures of engagement are "pure economics"?! Economics only provides the incentives/disincentives matrix...Its politics that makes, or needs to make it possible...Arjun wrote:its all pure economics
Item (4.) is standard part of gaining legitimacy for any movement or position that wants global approval - at least overtly. But what is most interesting are the bolded parts in (1+2). Thus the threat of "Islamic" identity of BD is sought to be tackled by claiming this "Islamism" itself as inseparable or equal-equal with "Bengali identity". Note that on this basis the future Bangladesh "rashtra" must look at "diversity" from the viewpoint of Bengali==Muslim and where the "others" which of course then includes non-Muslim "Bangladeshi" as no longer "Bengali" in identity but an "other" who can at most be "tolerated" based on supposed "ancient" Islamic values.The plan to counter cultural radicalization has to be based on four solid premises:
1. Recognition of the universality of human rights and values and a rejection of their attribution to a Western or Christian origin. Malaysia’s societal Islam, Islam Hadari, can be invoked as a form of Islam that accepts traditional cultural practices.
2. An insistence on the intrinsic relation between Islam—not only as a culture and a civilization but also as a religion—and Bengal as land, society, and history. In other words, any artificially posited dichotomy between Bengali identity and Muslim identity must be rejected.
3. A positive insistence on the future of Bangladesh as a state for all its citizens, with a recognition of the ancient and proven Islamic values of tolerance, diversity, and acceptance of others—Muslim or not—and rejection of the new Islamist conception of a monolithic Shariah state.
4. Zero tolerance for any movement, ideology, or political group that uses violence and intimidation as a way of achieving its aims, and the development of a national consensus towards that effect.
Transit rights and access to ports (your ask from BD side) are pure economics negotiations. What you have suggested we give are also purely economic and business parameters.somnath wrote:Cooperative structures of engagement are "pure economics"?!
RamaY-ji,RamaY wrote:Somnathji,
1. Net influence on BD given the interests of other donor nations and institutions (India can never replace them even if it offers to make $ to $ coverage). Probability - 80%; Impact -7 on -10 to +10 scale
2. Threat of Islamism. I cannot discount it as it is the single most reason for the creation of Bangladesh (remained strong even during/after 1971). This is the main reason IPI project is a non-starter, BTW (just an example - so pls do not jump on to that discussion). Probability 90%, impact -6 on -10 to +10 scale
3. Illegal immigration: None of these measures in any way will limit/influence the immigration patterns. That means political control of BD interests on all neighboring states in India (Try to calculate the area, population, and natural resources of these neighboring states which are candidates for future BD influence). Probability 60%, impact -9 on -10 to +10 scale.
they are intensely political negotiations...the economic rationale is a "slam dunk" in any case, the discussion is all political..Which is why it has taken so long!Transit rights and access to ports (your ask from BD side) are pure economics negotiations. What you have suggested we give are also purely economic and business parameters.
The Shariah state remains a hollow slogan. Islamists have not dared develop it, often out of fear of other Islamists. However, many techniques are in place to push Bangladesh, among other nations, on the path to a Shariah state. A serious challenge faces Bangladeshi Islamists of good faith: they must adjust their ideology to reflect the realities of the land or they risk setting their society on a path of misery. A more serious challenge faces others in Bangladesh- —secularists, leftists, nationalists, and democrats. The population of Bangladesh is still not voting Islamist; it amounts to suicidal denial, however, not to recognize that the political cul- ture in Bangladesh is now favorable to the Islamists. Let us acknowledge why this is so without insulting the intelligence of Bangladeshis. The cause is not Saudi money, the Pakistani Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI), or a U.S. conspiracy of one type or another. International interests are bound to exploit weaknesses in the country. It is, rather, the failure of democracy as a proposition, and the failure of the leftists, nationalists, secularists, and democrats, that have made support for the Islamist experiment, however qualified, a rational choice for Bang- ladeshi society. The Islamists’ agenda may be incoherent and full of contradictions—but they alone among political movements in Bangladesh seem to have an agenda.
RamaY-ji, I am a bit loathe to describing NATO as a success of a cooperative architecture in the current context - it has probably outlived its utility..But I would actually concede that - as a purely security architecture, it has at least survived and does take coordinated hard policy action...So to that extent, it is a success story...Economically, not so much...there is little economic content to NATO...RamaY wrote:You do not think NATO is not a success? How much economic benefits (direct and indirect) west reaped thru NATO structure?
How much economic value ASEAN created? See below data... I will stop with this post as we are getting distracted.... How is China growing and how is India growing
What these extracts are trying to convey is actually very interesting. The inevitable "extraneous" factors for example. It points to the importance of exploring whether the greater "Indian" penetration will only consolidate the Islamist position in reaction or not.It is precisely that experience in the Liberation War that complicates the army’s relationship to the Islamists, who openly sided with the repressive West Pakistani forces during the war. However, in the course of the subsequent two decades, a number of factors, most notably the reemergence of the Bengali Islamic identity, helped to dilute what could have been an enduring animosity towards Islamism on the part of the military.
The reemergence of the Bengali Islamic identity may have been set in motion by a changed relationship with India. The Indian armed forces were partners with the emerging Bangladeshi military in the fight for the creation of the new nation, but once the war was won, India—a regional superpower that virtually surrounds Bangladesh—began to be regarded as a potential threat. As Bangladesh struggled to check Indian hegemony and to ensure a degree of genuinely indigenous decision making, there emerged in the military realm a portrayal of “the Indian” as the “other,” or the external threat. For example, training targets for Bangladeshi soldiers were presented as turbaned human figures that unmistakably resembled Indian special forces.
A subtle shift in the Bangladeshi national self-conception accompanied the repositioning of India from friend to foe. While both Islam and Bengali nationalism were part of the mix of cultural ingredients that led to the formulation of Bangladesh as a national idea, the exploitation of East Pakistan by the Islamabad-led western wing had diminished the Muslim aspect of the East’s identity, and thus enhanced the Bengali facet. Even after independence, the memory of exploitation continued to feed a withdrawal from Islamic identity. But as this memory faded over time and tensions with and concerns about India became more salient, Islam in its most generic sense—not as the politicized ideology promoted by Islamism—regained its status as the central element in the life of Bangladeshis.
Although Bangladesh’s intellectual class and its increasingly cosmopolitan business and po- litical strata have a vision of their country based on notions of Bengali nationalism and/or Bangladeshi patriotism, the self-understanding of the majority of the country is based on a traditional “soft” Islam. This fact has over time been accepted by the two main political parties, the BNP and the Awami League, in spite of their respective nationalist and socialist pasts. For instance, both parties accommodate some Islamic symbolism. It should be underlined, however, that this accommodation is not as a result of Islamist pressure, but more a recog- nition of the reemerging role of Islam in Bangladeshi life. Thus the two phenomena—the restoration of “soft” Islam as part of Bangladeshi life after independence, and Islamist militancy—have to be viewed as parallel but independent phenomena. Through this restoration, Bangladeshi society in its own mild way was devising a fusion between the two poles of its identity. Had it not been for the inevitable extraneous factors (politics, as well as the international cultural influence) Bangladeshi society would have had the pendulum swing between the two poles come to a halt at a gentle center.
Yet as the nation has grown more sympathetic to Islam, so has the army. The Bangladeshi armed forces reflect the socioeconomic and cultural makeup of the nation, and anecdotal evidence and accounts from within the army point to the emergence of Islam, even Islamism, at the expense of Bangladeshi liberation-style heroism, within the rank-and-file of the army. It has often been reported that younger officers tend to be more religious, and that some have even shown explicit support for Islamist ideas.
What are the "economic" benefits of military standardization to each of its constituents; What are the (indirect) economic benefits of their hold on global security and trade and so on...For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously stated the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".[4] Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure from 1966.
You are factually incorrect.On ASEAN, it is unfair to compare the bloc with India and China...Barrign Indon, all ASEAN countries are comfortably middle income (singapore is OECD levels)..India is way below middle income and China just about getting there now...So purely by base effect, the growth rates will be different...
Asean's downfall and PRC's rise comes from the fact that PRC attracted (with US's help) the industrial base from ASEAN. After that ASEAN became an also player. Soon India will do a 2nd China to ASEAN as at the end of the day each ASEAN country will be on its own and have to compete with other ASEAN members and non members.ASEAN covers an area of 4.46 million km2, 3% of the total land area of Earth, with a population of approximately 600 million people, 8.8% of the world population. In 2010, its combined nominal GDP had grown to USD $1.8 trillion.[9] If ASEAN were a single country, it would rank as the 9th largest economy in the world and the 3rd largest in Asia in terms of nominal GDP.
Rajiv BhatiaWithin South Asia, the SAFTA, though limited to trade in goods, should be treated as only the first step in moves towards free trade in investments and services, with the goal of progressively moving towards a Customs Union and Economic Union in South Asia. Pakistan will resist moves towards such economic integration in SAARC, unless there is a radical change in policies that it has deemed to be in its national interests for over three decades now. But, this should not deter us in seeking to isolate Pakistan within SAARC, if it chooses to remain negative.
Not really, the older ASEAN (excl Indon, and Indon had its own set of very adverse challenges which it is only now coming out of) has a PCI in the 4000-5000 dollar range, and China has only now reached that level...We shall see how fast China grows from this base - one can see the slowdown at rhe margin already..India is a long way away...RamaY wrote:You are factually incorrect.
Country------- GDP ($B) ---- Population (B) ---- Percapita nominal GDP
China --------- 5878 -------- 1.3 -------------- $4521
ASEAN -------- 1800 -------- 0.6 -------------- $3000
INDIA --------- 1538 -------- 1.2 -------------- $1281
Right on, Somnath.somnath wrote: Transit rights sit at the core of cooperative architectures...Some of the most successful ones are outside the P5 club...ASEAN in the East to EU in the West (well, EU does have France, but France is hardly the dominating force there)...That is precisely what China is also attempting through its variopus initiatves like the Karakoram Highway or the pan-Asian rail network..
BD gains access to Indian markets, India gains access to BD markets, and transit rights over BD..It helps us integrate NE better, and also gives us additional port facilities in Chittagong...If you go through the study I referenced earlier, the benefits accrue overwhelmingl to India...And in case you didnt se earlier, the news link referenced above - India is asking BD for precisely that...
There is a common belief that the name of the State has originated from "Tripura Sundari" - the presiding deity of the land which is famous as one of the 51 pethos of Hindu Pilgrims. Apart from this traditional view it is believed that originally the land was known as "Tuipra" meaning a land adjoining the water. It is fact that in days of yore the boundaries of Tripura was extended up to the Bay of Bengal when its rulers held sway from Garo hills to Arakan.
The east-west division of Bengal was not accidental. While Hindus constituted a minority of the Bengali population, [ignore the figures - 45% Hindus] they acquired a favored status under British rule. This was due in part to their own willingness as a minority barred from power in Muslim India [but it is claimed later that Hindu-Muslim growth was "organic" in Bengal where Islam was always tolerant so there could not be any relative deprivation on the Hindu side!] to grab an opportunity presented to them, but also due to the British preference for non-Muslims in controlling the jewel of their Crown. [ignore the role of the Dacca Nwabs and the coterie around them in preventing modern education spreading into Muslims creating the realtive "deprivation" and put the blame all on conniving "Hindus"] By the turn of the twentieth century, having undergone a cultural renaissance and having benefited from British rule, Hindu Bengalis were ready to assert their separate identity in West Bengal. This left East Bengal at a disadvantage.[why in west Bengal onlee - if it was the Hindu minority landlords lording it over majority tenant Muslims?]
Muslims may have had the upper hand in pre-British India. This was not the case, however, with Muslim Bengalis. Dominated economically and politically by elite Muslims from outside Bengal, Muslim Bengalis were merely the Atraf, the marginal lower caste, as opposed to the Ashraf, the nobility, coming to Bengal from the west and north. The Pakistan era merely confirmed the Ashraf-Atraf configuration, with the West Pakistanis assuming the role of the upper caste and confining Bengalis to lower-caste status. [hmm so there were some Muslim elite after all!]
We have one logic given for India's failure - here - that about "glamour". Any other plausible reason for Indian reticence given that India was not apparently spending much time on Pak either - economically or otherwise. So what prevented at least paying economic attention to non-Pak areas? We assume that GOI must have its own reasons for "not doing something".However, the movement to SAFTA is taking place in an environment where: (1) the precursor to SAFTA, i.e., the four rounds of SAPTA have failed to show concrete results, (2) several bilateral FTAs are well entrenched in the South Asian trading system, and (3) South Asian tariffs are already coming down under World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programmes. The third factor in effect is automatically reducing the preferential margin. Moreover, there are a number of shortcomings, clauses open for interpretation and items for further negotiations in the SAFTA agreement This shows that most of the research work that was done by the SAARC second-track 'think tanks' has not been fed in effectively to the SAARC first-track or the official process17.
Given this situation, not much can be expected from SAFTA. The initial euphoria that comes with the signing of the SAFTA agreement will soon taper away. The realities and the geo-politics of the region will once again determine the pace of negotiations in SAFTA. By that time, the bilateral FTAs would have delivered most of the results for the smaller South Asian countries and SAFTA will be an agreement mainly to promote India-Pakistan trade. Is it due to this realisation that the SAFTA agreement did not bother about a vision and ignored a number of worthy suggestions of the GEP Report?
Somnathjisomnath wrote: Anyway, I dont know what is the point you are making here..Is it that ASEAN is not successful? that clearly isnt the case, whichever matrix of evaluation you take - intensity of intra-ASEAN trade, intensity of intra-ASEAN investment, overall growth sine formation of the bloc compared to history et al...And now being extended into the political sphere as well..If ASEAN werent important, India wouldnt be trying to get a foothold since 1991!
I will be more than glad to translate it in English if someone here desires so. An amazing post it is.अक्सर आपने देखा होगा कि लेख समाप्त होने के बाद “डिस्क्लेमर” लगाया जाता है, लेकिन मैं लेख शुरु करने से पहले “डिस्क्लेमर” लगा रहा हूँ –
डिस्क्लेमर :- 1) मैं अण्णा हजारे की “व्यक्तिगत रूप से” इज्जत करता हूँ… 2) मैं जन-लोकपाल बिल के विरोध में नहीं हूँ…
अब आप सोच रहे होंगे कि लेख शुरु करने से पहले ही “डिस्क्लेमर” क्यों? क्योंकि “मीडिया” और “मोमबत्ती ब्रिगेड” दोनों ने मिलकर अण्णा तथा अण्णा की भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी मुहिम को लेकर जिस प्रकार का “मास हिस्टीरिया” (जनसमूह का पागलपन), और “अण्णा हजारे टीम”(?) की “लार्जर दैन लाइफ़” इमेज तैयार कर दी है, उसे देखते हुए धीरे-धीरे यह “ट्रेण्ड” चल निकला है कि अण्णा हजारे की मुहिम का हल्का सा भी विरोध करने वाले को तड़ से “देशद्रोही”, “भ्रष्टाचार के प्रति असंवेदनशील” इत्यादि घोषित कर दिया जाता है…
सबसे पहले हम देखते हैं इस तमाम मुहिम का “अंतिम परिणाम” ताकि बीच में क्या-क्या हुआ, इसका विश्लेषण किया जा सके… अण्णा हजारे (Anna Hajare) की मुहिम का सबसे बड़ा और “फ़िलहाल पहला” ठोस परिणाम तो यह निकला है कि अब अण्णा, भ्रष्टाचार के विरुद्ध आवाज़ उठाने वाले एकमात्र “आइकॉन” बन गये हैं, अखबारों-मीडिया का सारा फ़ोकस बाबा रामदेव (Baba Ramdev) से हटकर अब अण्णा हजारे पर केन्द्रित हो गया है। हालांकि मीडिया का कभी कोई सकारात्मक फ़ोकस, बाबा रामदेव द्वारा उठाई जा रही माँगों की तरफ़ था ही नहीं, परन्तु जो भी और जितना भी था… अण्णा हजारे द्वारा “अचानक” शुरु किये गये अनशन की वजह से बिलकुल ही “साफ़-सूफ़” हो गया…। यानी जो बाबा रामदेव देश के 300 से अधिक शहरों में हजारों सभाएं ले-लेकर सोनिया गाँधी, कांग्रेस, स्विस बैंक आदि के खिलाफ़ माहौल-संगठन बनाने में लगे थे, उस मुहिम को एक अनशन और उसके प्रलापपूर्ण मीडिया कवरेज की बदौलत “पलीता” लगा दिया गया है। ये तो था अण्णा की मुहिम का पहला प्राप्त “सफ़ल”(?) परिणाम…
जबकि दूसरा परिणाम भी इसी से मिलता-जुलता है, कि जिस मीडिया में राजा, करुणानिधि, कनिमोझि, भ्रष्ट कारपोरेट, कलमाडी, स्विस बैंक में जमा पैसा… इत्यादि की हेडलाइन्स रहती थीं, वह गायब हो गईं। सीबीआई या सीवीसी या अन्य कोई जाँच एजेंसी इन मामलों में क्या कर रही है, इसकी खबरें भी पृष्ठभूमि में चली गईं… बाबा रामदेव जो कांग्रेस के खिलाफ़ एक “माहौल” खड़ा कर रहे थे, अचानक “मोमबत्ती ब्रिगेड” की वजह से पिछड़ गये। टीवी पर विश्व-कप जीत के बाद अण्णा की जीत की दीवालियाँ मनाई गईं, रामराज्य की स्थापना और सुख समृद्धि के सपने हवा में उछाले जाने लगे हैं…
अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ चल रहे स्वतंत्रता संग्राम की याद सभी को है, किस तरह लोकमान्य तिलक, सावरकर और महर्षि अरविन्द द्वारा किये जा रहे जनसंघर्ष को अचानक अफ़्रीका से आकर, गाँधी ने “हाईजैक” कर लिया था. न सिर्फ़ हाइजैक किया, बल्कि “महात्मा” और आगे चलकर “राष्ट्रपिता” भी बन बैठे… और लगभग तानाशाही अंदाज़ में उन्होंने कांग्रेस से तिलक, सरदार पटेल, सुभाषचन्द्र बोस इत्यादि को एक-एक करके किनारे किया, और अपने नेहरु-प्रेम को कभी भी न छिपाते हुए उन्हें देश पर लाद भी दिया… आप सोच रहे होंगे कि अण्णा हजारे और बाबा रामदेव के बीच यह स्वतंत्रता संग्राम कहाँ से घुस गया?
तो सभी अण्णा समर्थकों और जनलोकपाल बिल (Jan-Lokpal Bill) के कट्टर समर्थकों के गुस्से को झेलने को एवं गालियाँ खाने को तैयार मन बनाकर, मैं साफ़-साफ़ आरोप लगाता हूँ कि- इस देश में कोई भी आंदोलन, कोई भी जन-अभियान “भगवा वस्त्रधारी” अथवा “हिन्दू” चेहरे को नहीं चलाने दिया जाएगा… अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ आंदोलन में जिस तरह तिलक और अरविन्द को पृष्ठभूमि में धकेला गया था, लगभग उसी अंदाज़ में भगवा वस्त्रधारी बाबा रामदेव को, सफ़ेद टोपीधारी “गाँधीवादी आईकॉन” से “रीप्लेस” कर दिया गया है…। इस तुलना में एक बड़ा अन्तर यह है कि बाबा रामदेव, महर्षि अरविन्द (Maharshi Arvind) नहीं हैं, क्योंकि जहाँ एक ओर महर्षि अरविन्द ने “महात्मा”(?) को जरा भी भाव नहीं दिया था, वहीं दूसरी ओर बाबा रामदेव ने न सिर्फ़ फ़रवरी की अपनी पहली जन-रैली में अण्णा हजारे को मंच पर सादर साथ बैठाया, बल्कि जब अण्णा अनशन पर बैठे थे, तब भी मंच पर आकर समर्थन दिया। चूंकि RSS भी इतने वर्ष बीत जाने के बावजूद “राजनीति” में कच्चा खिलाड़ी ही है, उसने भी अण्णा के अभियान को चिठ्टी लिखकर समर्थन दे मारा। ऐसा लगता है कि राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ में अभी भी वह “घाघपन” नहीं आ पाया है जो “सत्ता की राजनीति” के लिये आवश्यक होता है, विरोधी पक्ष को नेस्तनाबूद करने के लिये जो “राजनैतिक पैंतरेबाजी” और “विशिष्ट प्रकार का कमीनापन” चाहिये होता है, उसका RSS में अभाव प्रतीत होता है, वरना बाबा रामदेव द्वारा तैयार की गई ज़मीन और बोये गये बीजों की “फ़सल”, इतनी आसानी से अण्णा को ले जाते देखकर भी, उन्हें चिठ्ठी लिखकर समर्थन देने की कोई वजह नहीं थी। अण्णा को “संघ” का समर्थन चाहिये भी नहीं था, समर्थन चिठ्ठी मिलने पर न तो उन्होंने कोई आभार व्यक्त किया और न ही उस पर ध्यान दिया…। परन्तु जिन अण्णा हजारे को बाबा रामदेव की रैली के मंच पर बमुश्किल कुछ लोग ही पहचान सकते थे, उन्हीं अण्णा हजारे को रातोंरात “हीरो” बनते देखकर भी न तो संघ और न ही रामदेव कुछ कर पाये, बस उनकी “लार्जर इमेज” की छाया में पिछलग्गू बनकर ताली बजाते रह गये…। सोनिया गाँधी की “किचन कैबिनेट” यानी राष्ट्रीय सलाहकार परिषद (NAC) के “NGO छाप रणबाँकुरों” ने मिलजुलकर अण्णा हजारे के कंधे पर बन्दूक रखकर जो निशाना साधा, उसमें बाबा रामदेव चित हो गये…
मैंने ऊपर “राजनैतिक पैंतरेबाजी” और “घाघ” शब्दों का उपयोग किया है, इसमें कांग्रेस का कोई मुकाबला नहीं कर सकता… अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ़ आंदोलन से लेकर अण्णा हजारे तक कांग्रेस ने “परफ़ेक्ट” तरीके से “फ़ूट डालो और राज करो” की नीति को आजमाया है और सफ़ल भी रही है। कांग्रेस को पता है कि इलेक्ट्रानिक मीडिया का देश के युवाओं पर तथा अंग्रेजी प्रिण्ट मीडिया का देश के “बुद्धिजीवी”(?) वर्ग पर खासा असर है, इसलिये जिस “तथाकथित जागरूक और जन-सरोकार वाले मीडिया”(?) ने रामलीला मैदान पर बाबा रामदेव की 27 फ़रवरी की विशाल रैली को चैनलों और अखबारों से लगभग सिरे से गायब कर दिया था, वही मीडिया अण्णा के अनशन की घोषणा मात्र से मानो पगला गया, बौरा गया। अनशन के शुरुआती दो दिनों में ही मीडिया ने देश में ऐसा माहौल रच दिया मानो “जन-लोकपाल बिल” ही देश की सारी समस्याओं का हल है। 27 फ़रवरी की रैली के बाद भी रामदेव बाबा ने गोआ, चेन्नई, बंगलोर में कांग्रेस, सोनिया गाँधी और भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ़ जमकर शंखनाद किया, परन्तु मीडिया को इस तरफ़ न ध्यान देना था और न ही उसने दिया। परन्तु “चर्च-पोषित” मीडिया तथा “सोनिया पोषित NGO इंडस्ट्री” ने बाबा रामदेव की दो महीने की मेहनत पर, अण्णा के “चार दिन के अनशन” द्वारा पानी फ़ेर दिया, तथा देश-दुनिया का सारा फ़ोकस “भगवा वस्त्र” एवं “कांग्रेस-सोनिया” से हटकर “गाँधी टोपी” और “जन-लोकपाल” पर ला पटका… इसे कहते हैं “पैंतरेबाजी”…। जिसमें क्या संघ और क्या भाजपा, सभी कांग्रेस के सामने बच्चे हैं। जब यह बात सभी को पता है कि मीडिया सिर्फ़ “पैसों का भूखा भेड़िया” है, उसे समाज के सरोकारों से कोई लेना-देना नहीं है, तो क्यों नहीं ऐसी कोई कोशिश की जाती कि इन भेड़ियों के सामने पर्याप्त मात्रा में हड्डियाँ डाली जाएं, कि वह भले ही “हिन्दुत्व” का गुणगान न करें, लेकिन कम से कम चमड़ी तो न उधेड़ें?
अब एक स्नैपशॉट देखें…
राष्ट्रीय सलाहकार परिषद की 4 अप्रैल 2011 को लोकपाल बिल के मुद्दे पर बैठक होती है, जिसमें अरविन्द केजरीवाल, बड़े भूषण, संदीप पाण्डे, हर्ष मन्दर, संतोष मैथ्यू जैसे कई लोग शामिल होते हैं। सोनिया गांधी की इस “पालतू परिषद” वाली मीटिंग में यह तय होता है कि 28 अप्रैल 2011 को फ़िर आगे के मुद्दों पर चर्चा होगी…। अगले दिन 5 अप्रैल को ही अण्णा अनशन पर बैठ जाते हैं, जिसकी घोषणा वह कुछ दिनों पहले ही कर चुके होते हैं… संयोग देखिये कि उनके साथ मंच पर वही महानुभाव होते हैं जो एक दिन पहले सोनिया के बुलावे पर NAC की मीटिंग में थे… ये कौन सा “षडयंत्रकारी गेम” है?
इस चित्र में जरा इस NAC में शामिल “माननीयों” के नाम भी देख लीजिये –
हर्ष मंदर, डॉ जॉन ड्रीज़, अरुणा रॉय जैसे नाम आपको सभी समितियों में मिलेंगे… इतने गजब के विद्वान हैं ये लोग। “लोकतन्त्र”, “जनतंत्र” और “जनता द्वारा चुने हुए प्रतिनिधियों” वाले लफ़्फ़ाज शब्दों की दुहाई देने वाले लोग, कभी ये नहीं बताते कि इस राष्ट्रीय सलाहकार परिषद को किस जनता से चुना है? इस परिषद में आसमान से टपककर शामिल हुए विद्वान, बार-बार मीटिंग करके प्रधानमंत्री और कैबिनेट को आये दिन सलाह क्यों देते रहते हैं? और किस हैसियत से देते हैं? खाद्य सुरक्षा बिल हो, घरेलू महिला हिंसा बिल हो, सिर पर मैला ढोने की प्रथा को समाप्त करने सम्बन्धी बिल हो, लोकपाल बिल हो… सभी बिलों पर सोनिया-चयनित यह परिषद संसद को “सलाह”(?) क्यों देती फ़िरती है? या कहीं ऐसा तो नहीं है कि संसद में पेश किया जाने वाला प्रत्येक बिल इस “वफ़ादार परिषद” की निगाहबीनी के बिना कैबिनेट में भी नहीं जा सकता? किस लोकतन्त्र की दुहाई दे रहे हैं आप? और क्या यह भी सिर्फ़ संयोग ही है कि इस सलाहकार परिषद में सभी के सभी धुर हिन्दू-विरोधी भरे पड़े हैं?
जो कांग्रेस पार्टी मणिपुर की ईरोम शर्मिला के दस साल से अधिक समय के अनशन पर कान में तेल डाले बैठी है, जो कांग्रेस पार्टी तेलंगाना राष्ट्र समिति (TRS) के अध्यक्ष की अलग राज्य की माँग की भूख हड़ताल को उनके अस्पताल में भर्ती होने तक लटकाकर रखती है…और आश्वासन का झुनझुना पकड़ाकर खत्म करवा देती है… वही कांग्रेस पार्टी “आमरण अनशन” का कहकर बैठे अण्णा की बातों को 97 घण्टों में ही अचानक मान गई? और न सिर्फ़ मान गई, बल्कि पूरी तरह लेट गई और उन्होंने जो कहा, वह कर दिया? इतनी भोली तो नहीं है कांग्रेस…
=========
ताजा खबर ये है कि -
1) संयुक्त समिति की पहली ही बैठक में भ्रष्ट जजों और मंत्रियों को निलम्बित नहीं करने की शर्त अण्णा ने मान ली है,
2) दूसरी खबर आज आई है कि अण्णा ने कहा है कि "संसद ही सर्वोच्च है और यदि वह जन-लोकपाल बिल ठुकरा भी दे तो वे स्वीकार कर लेंगे…"
3) एक और बयान अण्णा ने दिया है कि "मैंने कभी आरएसएस का समर्थन नहीं किया है और कभी भी उनके करीब नहीं था…"
आगे-आगे देखते जाईये… जन लोकपाल बिल "कब और कितना" पास हो पाता है… अन्त में "होईहे वही जो सोनिया रुचि राखा…"। जब तक अण्णा हजारे, बाबा रामदेव और नरेन्द्र मोदी के साथ खुलकर नहीं आते वे सफ़ल नहीं होंगे, इस बात पर शायद एक बार अण्णा तो राजी हो भी जाएं, परन्तु जो "NGO इंडस्ट्री वाली चौकड़ी" उन्हें ऐसा करने नहीं देगी…
(जरा अण्णा समर्थकों की गालियाँ खा लूं, फ़िर अगला भाग लिखूंगा…… भाग-2 में जारी रहेगा…)
Many a times you would've seen that there is a disclaimer at the end of an article. But I am putting it right in the beginning-
Dislaimer- 1. I respect Anna Hazaare as a 'person' 2. I dont oppse Lokpal bill
You must be thinking that why a disclaimer right in the beginning? Its because it seems, by looking at the 'mass hysteria' and 'larger than life' image of Anna Hazaare and his team created by the media and the candle brigade, there is a trend that any one who oppses Anna Hazaare is labelled as 'defected', 'anti-nationalist' and 'insensitive towards corruption'.
First we will see the 'final result' of this whole 'movement', so that we can analysis what happened in between. The biggest and first solid result of this movement of Anna Hazaare is that he has become the lone icon against corruption. The whole focus of print and news media has shifted from Baba Ramdev to him. Not that there ever was any positive focus of media towards Baba Ramdev or his demands or his movement, but whatever little there was, has now completely vapourized because of this 'sudden' hunger-strike of Anna. This means that the movement that was created by Baba Ramdev by attending thousands of meetings in more than 300 cities of India and which was creating awareness about Swiss-bank, Sonia Gandhi, Congress etc, has been completely killed. This is the first succesful result of Anna's movement.
The second result is similar to this one. This is that the the headlines that were in focus in the media not long ago, those related to the corrution of Karunanidhi, Raja, Kalmaadi, Swiss bank...are now nowhere to be found. What is being done by CBI or CVC, is no longer the topic of discussion. Baba Ramdev was creating an environment against Congress and corruption, suddenly he is left behind by the 'candle brigade'. After world cup win, the win of Anna is now being celebrated on TV. The dreams of 'RamRajya' are thrown around.
Everyone remembers the freedom movement against the British. How the movement spearheaded by Maharshi Arvind, Saavarkar, Tilak was suddenly hijacked by Gandhiji. Not only he hijacked it, but he became 'Mahatma;' and 'Rashtrapita'. He also sidenlined Tilkak, Patel, Bose etc within Congress, like a tyrant. And he never hid his nehru-love and also burdened it on the nation. Now you must be thinking whats the point of freedom movement in the talks about Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazaare?
Then after getting prepared to face the rebukes and abuses of all Anna Hazaare and Lokpal supporters, I clealy put forth this allegation that never will the 'Hindu' and 'Saffron' will be allowed to do any movement in this country. Just how Tilka and Arvind were sent to the background in the freedom struggle, almost similarly the saffron rob wearing Baba Ramdev has been sidelined by a white cap wearing Gandhian icon. A big difference here is that Baba Ramdev isnt Maharshi Arvind, cause where on one side Maharshi Arvind never cared for Gandhi, on the other hand Baba Ramdev not only gave place to Anna on stage in his first rally in November, he sat with him on the stage in his (Anna's) hunger-strike and supported him. Since even the RSS is still weak in politics after all these years, it too supported Anna's movement in its letter. It seems the RSS still isnt so 'consummate' after all these years, which is needed in the 'politics of the throne'. The 'political maneuvers' and 'speacial kind of cunning' that is required to destroy the opposition, RSS lacks. Otherwise there was no need to support the movement that was only cutting and taking away the crop that was grown by Baba Ramdev after preparing the soil and sowing the seeds. Anna didnt need the support of RSS anyway, and neither he showed gratitude nor he cared for it. But the same Anna Hazzare who could not be recognized by more than a handful on Baba Ramdev's stage, was made hero overnight and the RSS and Baba Ramdev couldnt do anything, other than being a hanger in the shade of his 'larger image' and clap. The aim that was made by the kitchen cabinet of Sonia (NAC) and its 'NGO brand generals' from the shoulders of Anna Hazaare, finished Baba Ramdev.
Above I used words such as 'consummate' and 'political manuvers' and noone can match the calibre of congree in these. From freedom struggle to the Anna Hazaare movement, the Congress has perfectly used the 'divide and rule' policy and has been succesful. Congress knows the powerful grip that the electronic media has on the nation's youth and the English media on 'intellectuals'. Hence the same 'aware and for the people' media which completely ignored the huge rally by Baba Ramdev in Ramlila maidan on 27th Feb, the same media got completely enthused even by the announcement of Hazaare's hunger-strike. The media created sucn an environment in the nation, even in the beginning of the strike, as if the Lokpal bill the panacea for the nation. After 27th Feb in Delhi, Baba Ramdev did rallies in bangalore, Goa etc but the media didnt pay any attention, as is the case always. But the 'Church-cherished' media and Sonia's 'NGO industry' neutered the hard work of 2 months of Baba Ramdev by 4 day strike of Anna. The focus of the whole world shifted from the 'saffron' and 'congress' to 'Gandhi hat' and 'Lokpal'. This is called manuverism. What RSS and what BJP, all are children in front of Congress in this. When eveyone knows that the media wolf is hungry only for money and doesnt care one bit for the society, then why isnt there a try such that there are enough bones thrown to these wolves that they at least stop tearing away the skin of Hindutva, what to think of apotheosis.
Now lets see. The NAC meets on the Lokpal on 4th April in which Arvind Kejriwal, big Bhushan, Sandeep Pandey, harsh Mandar, Santosh mathew and the ilk participates. The 'pet council' of Sonia decides that further discussions will be held on 28th April. Next day itself, on 5th April, Anna sits on strike, which he announced long back. What a coincidence that the same gentlemen are there with him on the stage which were there in the NAC meeting just a day ago! What kind of conspiracy game this is?
See the gentlemen of NAC here- Harsh Mandar, Dr. John Drews, Aruna Roy etc. You will find these names in all the councils etc. How high the calibre of their knowledge! Those who cry in the name of 'democracy' 'republic' and 'elected by the people' never tell which people elected this NAC? In this council, the intellectuals who dropped from sky, advice the PM and cabinet! What is their right to do so? Be it food security bill, domestic violence bill or lokpal, on every single bill, this Sonia chosen council advices the parliament! Is it so that every single bill that gets presented in parliament, cant pass the watchful eyes of this council? Which democracy you cry about? Or is just a coincidence too that all members of this council are fanatically anti-Hindu?
The congress which has oil in its ears for the 10 year long strike of Irom Sharmila of Manipur, the Congress that hangs the strike of TRS chief till he is in hospital and even then gives only lip-service, the same Congress suddenly accepts all demands of Anna within 97 hours? Not only Congress agreed, it completely surrendered and agreed on everything! Not so innocent Congress is!
-----------------------
Latest news is- 1. Anna agreed to demand that corrupt ministers and judges wont be suspended.
2. Second is that Anna says that Parliament is above all and he will accept it even if it rejects the Lokpal bill.
3. Another statement of Anna is- 'I never supported RSS and was never close to them'
Lets keep seeing...when and how much this Lokpall bill passes. In the end, 'what happens is what Sonia wishes only'. Till Anna Hazaare comes openly in support and with Narendra Modi and Baba Ramdev, he wont succeed. And even if he agrees on that, the 'NGO group' wont let him do that.
First we will see the 'final result' of this whole 'movement', so that we can analysis what happened in between. The biggest and first solid result of this movement of Anna Hazaare is that he has become the lone icon against corruption. The whole focus of print and news media has shifted from Baba Ramdev to him. Not that there ever was any positive focus of media towards Baba Ramdev or his demands or his movement, but whatever little there was, has now completely vapourized because of this 'sudden' hunger-strike of Anna. This means that the movement that was created by Baba Ramdev by attending thousands of meetings in more than 300 cities of India and which was creating awareness about Swiss-bank, Sonia Gandhi, Congress etc, has been completely killed. This is the first succesful result of Anna's movement.
Isn't core matter of the above blog is fromHere is the English translation of above posted articled-
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... px?id=1722
The truth is simple and direct. Anna Hazare has replaced Baba Ramdev as the central figure in the nation’s war against corruption in exactly the same way that Gandhi replaced Tilak and Aurobindo within the Indian National Congress; and for the exact same reasons: no people’s movement in Hindu bhumi will be allowed to be led by a conscious Hindu, no campaign in this country will be allowed to wear a Hindu face;
SC rejects Gandhi faith query
New Delhi, April 18: The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition against a 2006 order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) refusing to give details about the Gandhi family’s professed religion.
The commissioner had on December 28, 2006, denied the information to an RTI applicant on the ground that these were matters private to an individual and cannot be forced out by invoking provisions of the RTI Act.
A former Haryana police officer, P.C. Wadhwa, had sought the information given by the Gandhis — Rajiv, Sonia, Rahul, Priyanka and her husband Robert Vadra — regarding their religion in the 1991 census.
In his application, Wadhwa had argued that the members of the Gandhi family were public figures who projected a certain image about their religious belief and faith.
They performed rituals at religious places which showed them as belonging to a particular faith, he said, but claimed that their publicly displayed faith was different from the one they actually followed in their private lives.
Wadhwa believed the country had a right to know what the truth was and that could come out only if access was given to the census records.
The commission, however, held that faith or belief of a person was an intensely private matter.
“There is no reason why privacy, which is valuable for an ordinary individual, should not be precious also for public figures. Having a public persona does not imply surrender of privacy by making public personal information,” the CIC said in another order of April 9, 2007, after Wadhwa filed a review plea before the commission.
Wadhwa then moved Punjab and Haryana High Court and, after his plea was thrown out there, went to the Supreme Court.
During hearings in the apex court, his lawyer M.N. Krishnamani argued that Section 1(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, suggested both a power and a duty.
Since the word “personal” is not defined in the act, Krishnamani said the CIC had a duty to first ask the third party about whom the information was being sought whether it had any objections to the disclosure. The information officer should have issued notices to the third parties, in this case the Gandhis, seeking their views before throwing out the plea, he argued.
Although the census records are not open to inspection or admissible as evidence, the RTI Act overrides the Census Act, Wadhwa said in his appeal, adding the high court had ignored this in denying his claim.
But a two-judge bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik didn’t agree and rejected his plea after a short hearing.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110419/j ... 872534.jsp
RamaY-ji, "strategic" is a very broad motherhood expression...In realpolitik terms, it can mean anything under the sun..But increasingly, when nations interact, the currencies of engagement intertwine the political and the economic..RamaY wrote:India's interest in ASEAN is more of strategic than economic in nature. The economic benefits will be temporary and minimal (given the fact that we are not going there to exploit local productivity gains for our interests) where as the strategic interests we would develop can be long-term (sometimes permanent).
I give you the benefit of doubt that in some cases, such as ASEAN, the economic route can achieve strategic interests in some cases; where 'strategic a.k.a civilizational ethos' congruences exist. It seems you tend to believe BD is such case. Others, including I, tend to believe BD is more of a softer version (out of geographic compulsions) of Pakistan. We can see what happens when MMS will be able to do a peaceful-orgy with Pakistan; in current BD borders. Is it good for Indian strategic interests? That is the crux of this discussion (be it language, economics or more fundamental civilizational ethos).
It is not realistic or necessary to expect that all political and social conflicts will have to be resolved first before meaningful cooperation can happen. Indeed, economic cooperation is also a powerful means for resolving political and social conflicts. Trust and goodwill at the citizens' level can be a credible way for resolving conflicts. Economic cooperation by raising citizen's welfare can be instrumental in building this trust.
One cannot wish these issues away. They have to be tackled in a practical and peaceful manner through political means. It is a pity that neither government has come to grips with the prospects of cooperation for mutual benefit, the potentialities of which are enormous in the sectors of trade, investment, technology, transit, energy and utilising the water resources.
If India tries to get transit rights through BD, it is going to give BNP a political issue on a tablet on the lines of "Hasina selling off the strategic interests of Bangladesh to India"!somnath wrote:RajeshA-ji,
So by your hypothesis, a deeper engagement will consolidate anti-India constituencies, but an offer to subsume the country into India will generate goodwill!
Yes, the difference being that Indian neighbors are essentially parts of the Indian civilization itself, and anti-Indianism is much more of a bitter family feud, where the neighbors are the small minded relatives ready to enter into agreements with the devil to spite us.somnath wrote:About anti-Indianism in neighbouring countries, India isnt Robinson Crusoe in that respect...Large powers typically tend to breed a certain amount of wariness among various "smaller" countries, especially its neighbours...The reasons are as disparate as the number of countries, but it is a constant factor...Russia is feared by all its neighbours, prety much every country in East Asia (and India) is wary of China, and virtually every country (well almost) has an anti-US constituency...It comes with the territory of being large, powerful and material...
So even as these regimes in our neighborhood would be wooing us, they will be integrating themselves with security regimes of those powers, which are not friendly towards India, in order to extract the maximum benefit from both India and the other powers. India would be forced to play on their terms, and basically it would give our neighbors the strategic independence they wish from India! That is not what India's aim is - to consolidate our neighborhood under Indian leadership to take on the other poles in this multi-polar world! The other powers would have managed to box us in our neighborhood itself, despite our economic progress and despite our military muscle.somnath wrote:The solution to that is not to ask all apprehensive states to get subsumed within..Nor is it to withdraw in a cocoon of defensiveness...
All countries, well most in any case, have complex state structures and societal dynamics...The challenge before diplomacy/statecraft in general is to nurture and further those constituencies that are most favourable to one's cause...
W.r.t BD, the good news is that it isnt Pak (in fact no country is)...So there is a rational constituency there that is publicly, vocally in favour of a pragmatic relationship with India...Today, that constituency is also on political ascendency...True for SL as well, the Rajapakse regime is publicly looking for closer engagement with India, a far cry from the PRemadasa/Jayawardane regimes of the yore...The pragmatists realise the benefits of engaging with India...It is an opportunity for us to lose!
Arjun wrote:Seriously not sure what the point of this discussion is....transit rights, access to ports etc have been proposals from the Indian end for several decades now. The resistance obviously has been from the BD side !
As regards investment by Indian firms in BD - Indian corporates have never shied away from any ROI-generating opportunity anywhere in the region and & the idea does not need much prodding from GOI. Interest in investment into BD on the part of Indian corporates is already at a high...
Is there a specific new idea / strategic scenario on the table out here?
Foreign relations is used for internal change and internal policy. No country does this kind of stupidity.brihaspati wrote:
A more immediate problem will be the utility of Indian initiative as an attack on Islamic/Bengali nationalism, and greater polarization. It is a double edged sword because this in itself will become a further pressure point for "canis pseudo-saecularis" to act within India to further its anti-"Hindu" agenda - because it will be claimed that any "advance" of "communal forces within India" will jeopardize the "economic relations" being built with BD.
Do you honestly believe current political regime can do that? India can't bomb its own land occupied by others how can it do policing of nations in IOR.RamaY wrote:What is the possibility of India coming up with an Indian Ocean Treaty that (at high level) forms a security arrangement between all 'willing' IOR nations under Indian nuke-umbrella (Indian nukes are legitimized thru nuke bill)?
What should be the overall structure of such a treaty and what are the challenges and consequences?