J & K news and discussion

[CRamS]

Counterpoint

A Question of Identity

Brilliant artcile and a keeper. Bharat Mata Ki Jai.

[SSridhar]

Hey, what is the correct answer when Pakis bring up Junagarh?

Abhishek, you have to know the history of accession of Junagarh (and possibly Hyderabad, Deccan as well as J&K) before you can demolish the Pakistanis. They may also bring up the case of the Travancore State. Here is some info for you. I have posted the below a couple of times here before.

It is true that the Dewan of Travancore announced on June 11, 1947, within eight days of the British Government making public its decision to grant independence to India, that the State will be independent. It is also true, there was an attack on Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Iyer on July 25,1947 after the young Maharajah had announced on July, 18 his decision to resume Travancore's "independence and sovereignty in full measure". Paradoxically, Sir. CP was totally opposed to Jinnah and his tactics and was for accession to India Union Republic and not a dominion. After meeting Mountbatten on July 21,22, Sir.CP returned to Travancore with the Instrument of Accession and the letter from the Viceroy. He wrote a letter to the Maharajah on July 28, wherein he stated, "On my return from Delhi and after reading the narrative, I deliberately advocated the cause of accession subject to the conditions and concessions made by the Viceroy so that you may not hear only one side." Travancore was a tiny state in southern Kerala along with the Princely states of Kochi and Malabar. Sir CP, as he was called, was a famous and erudite lawyer from the neighbouring Madras Presidency and he was appointed as a Dewan by the very young and inexperienced Maharajah of Travancore, who felt he needed an able personality of Sir. CP's stature to conduct the state's administration. The Maharajah demanded considerable respect and loyalty from his subjects because of the lineage of the Travancore royalty which had such illustrious icons as the Swati Tirunal, one of the Trinities of the Carnatic Music and Raja Ravi Varma, a renowned painter of Hindu pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. However, the Dewan took over practically the powers of the young Maharajah with his commanding presence, overbearance, acumen, all-round brilliance and radiant intelligence. Mountbatten wrote in a Personal Report to London on July 25: "I gather the Maharaja is completely under Sir C.P.'s thumb." The autocratic behaviour of an imported Dewan was resented by the subjects and this resulted in frequent violent clashes with the Maharajah's police, which the Dewan put down with an iron hand. Though Sir. CP was known as an able administrator, the rising Communism, the fervour of Indian Freedom Movement and the mutual dislike between two egoists, Nehru and Sir. CP led to further bloodshed when Sir. CP announced his decision not to accede to Indian Union in 1946. The popular revolt by the peasants, students, general public, communists and workers was put down ruthlessly by Sir. CP resulting in hundreds of deaths. He proclaimed martial law and assumed overall command of the armed forces. In this general ferment, an attempt was made on his life in a music concert hall and the Dewan decided to leave Travancore back to his native Madras. Investigation has since conclusively established that the conspiracy to eliminate Sir. CP was hatched and executed by the Communists. The Maharajah then decided to accede to the Indian Union. Sir. CP was an Indian to the core and the state of Travancore was a Hindu-majority Princely State ruled by a Prince of a deeply religious Hindu royalty. There was absolutely no reason other than the singular personality trait of Sir. CP that was instrumental in the decision of the Travancore Princely State to remain independent. To make fortuitous linkages between the Dewan's decision driven purely by personal vicissitudes with Pakistan's desire to see ghosts in every shadow is laughable, though understandable.

It has also become fashionable to mention the case of Junagadh/Manavadar, and Hyderabad to garner support for the Pakistani thesis that India used force to "occupy" these Princely States or that India used one set of standards for Kashmir and another for Hyderabad and Junagadh.Nothing can be farther from truth than these blatant attempts to tarnish India's fair name. Let us look at these Princely states which had a Hindu-majority but were ruled by Muslim princes.

Firstly, a little bit of background. Hyderabad, Deccan (as it is known in order not to confuse with Hyderabad, Sind) was a princely state ruled by the Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali, at the time of the Partition. The Princely state was about 85% Hindu and surrounded on all four sides by a predominantly Hindu British India with no external access except through these lands. The Princely State of Hyderabad had no sea-ports. The Nizam, at that time, was reputed to be the world's richest man. On the same day the Maharajah of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to India, Oct. 26, 1947, the Nizam was supposed to sign the "Standstill Agreement" with the GoI. The "Standstill Agreement" effectively maintained a status-quo relationship with India while the Nizam could make up his mind about the future of his state. The Nizam essentially did not want to lose his power of lordship over his citizens (I don't blame him, who would ?. But, unfortunately, his desire for perpetuating his rule, flew in the face of the realities of a changed scenario.) He wanted to strike a deal with Jinnah who promised him many concessions if Hyderabad so chose to join with Pakistan. The draft Stand-Still agreement had earlier been approved by his Executive Council after three days of debate and had been also negotiated with the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten. However, when the time came to sign it, the Nizam was found wavering. In the meanwhile, the Razaakars (a private militia under the patronage of the Nizam) of Ittehadul-Muslimeen surrounded the house of the delegation carrying the Standstill Agreement and forced them to flee. At last, the Nizam signed the Agreement on Nov 29, 1947. However, this incident led to a loss of trust by New Delhi in the Nizam (and rightly so). The Nizam sent an Ittihad emissary to Jinnah for advice. Jinnah, though he probably knew the futility of a land-locked and Hindu majority state way down south ever being part of Pakistan, still decided to make life miserable for Indian leaders at the cost of the Nizam. He advised the Nizam "not to give an inch" and the Nizam promptly played into his hands. The Princely State of Hyderabad and GoI negotiated for the next nine months to reach an agreement between the Heads of States to formalize the Stand-Still agreement, but the Nizam was steadfast in following Jinnah's advice. The distrust that GoI had started to develop with the Nizam was complete when on June 15, 1948, the Nizam rejected the final draft after it had been re-drafted three times with his Executive Council. The final draft was very generous leaving the Nizam complete control except in matters of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. The Nizam also approached the US which refused to intervene. After considerable debate within the cabinet of GoI, after having exhausted all reasonable avenues, after having waited more than a year, after repeated obstinacy from the Nizam, after the Razaakars had started indulging in violence, and after a couple of last-minute postponements at the instance of the First Indian Governor-General Rajagoplachari in order to give more time to the Nizam for sanity, the Indian Government finally launched Operation Polo on Sep. 13, 1948. The blame rests entirely with the Nizam and Jinnah, the former for being greedy, power-hungry and oblivious to reality and the latter for his callousness to human lives and suffering just in order to make lives of India and Indian leaders miserable, a prospect which he probably relished. With the end of Jinnah nearing in August 1948, the Nizam's game was up.

Junagadh was again a Princely State in the Kathiawar area on the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat with 95% Hindu population with a Muslim ruler and like Hyderabad not having any geographical contiguity with Pakistan.The story starts with an unexpected announcement by the Nawab of Junagadh on Aug. 15, 1947 to accede to Pakistan. There was no response from Pakistan till Sep. 13 when it announced its acceptance. This came as a surprise to Indian Govt because India and Pakistan had agreed not to have enclaves of one country inside the other. That was why India had refused the plea of the Khan of Kalat, the largest Princely State of Balochistan, as it had no physical contiguity with India. A mass protest movement started in Junagadh as a result. An Indian representative, V.P. Menon, was sent to Junagadh to talk to the Nawab who refused to meet him. Upon this, he met the Dewan (aka, Prime Minister in modern parlance), Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, the father of Z.A. Bhutto, who agreed with VP that he personally favoured a referendum for ascertaining the wishes of the people. Sir. Bhutto would later play a crucial role, as we would see. On the 18th of Sep, the neighbouring Sheikh of Mangrol, a vassal state of Junagadh, signed the Instrument of Accession with India. Both Mangrol and Babariawad, another vassal state that had acceded to India, argued that with the lapse of Paramountcy, they were independent to take decisions. This caused resentment to the Nawab of Junagadh who ordered his troops to invade Babariawad. This was rightly construed by GoI as an act of aggression on Indian territory. However, the GoI desisted from taking any action until the British Constitutional experts opined on GOI's reference to the legality of the Sovereign decisions of Mangrol and Babariawad. In the meanwhile, the GoI asked the Nawab to withdraw his forces from Babariawad which the Nawab refused on 25th Sep. After the legal opinion was obtained on the admissibility of the Instruments of Accession of Mangrol and Babariawad, the GoI decided to take military action by end Sep. The GoI decided to send troops to the Kathiawar region, to the borders of Babariawad and Junagadh, awaiting further orders. Even as the troop deployment was about to begin, the Nawab of Junagadh went ahead and occupied Mangrol on 1st Oct. The GoI then instructed the Indian commander to prepare a plan for the retrieval of Mangrol and Babariawad. On Oct. 5, the GoI issued a detailed press statement on the situation there. Nehru asked Liaqat Ali, the Pakistani PM, on Oct 5, to ask the Nawab to withdraw from Mangrol and Babariawad. Liaqat Ali replied evasively. More than 5 weeks after the Nawab invaded, and after repeated attempts to end it peacefully, the patience of the GoI ran out and on Nov. 1, a small Indian force accompanied by civilian administrators, re-possessed both Babariawad and Mangrol peacefully. In the meanwhile, the situation in Junagadh itself was becoming very difficult. On 27 Oct, Sir. Bhutto wrote to Jinnah thus "The Muslims of Kathiawar seem to have lost all enthusiasm for Pakistan". The Nawab had already fled to Pakistan on Oct. 24, on seeing the Indian forces, taking with him the entire cash balance of the treasury, his kennel of a thousand dogs and his Begums. It was Sir. Bhutto who was running the show in Junagadh now. On Nov. 5, the Junagadh State Council decided that "it was necessary to have a complete re-orientation of the State Policy and a re-adjustment of relations with the two Dominions even if it involves reversal of the earlier decision o accession to Pakistan". On Nov. 8, the Dewan, Sir. Shah Nawaz Bhutto requested the Indian Government to take over Junagadh. The request was promptly accepted. A referendum was conducted on Feb 20, 1948 and the state was merged with Saurashtra on Feb 20, 1949.

In the case of both Hyderabad and Junagadh, as in Jammu & Kashmir, it is very obvious that in spite of grave provocation, India stuck to legalities, a step-by-step process, attempt at peaceful resolution and employed armed forces as a last resort only after exhausting patiently all possible options. And, in the case of Junagadh per se, there was no military action at all.

[Airavat]

Hey, what is the correct answer when Pakis bring up Junagarh?

Bring up Chitral, which was tributary to J&K, and illegally acceded to Pakistan.

When they bring up Hyderabad, you bring up Kalat, the Baloch princely state which was invaded and forcibly annexed by the Pakistan army.

When arguing with pukes you should NEVER go on the defensive and start explaining the legalities or complexities regarding Hyderabad, Junagadh, or J&K. Put them on the backfoot with aggressive rhetoric on Kalat, Chitral, Gilgit, Bangladesh, Pashtunistan, Durand line, Seraikistan, Sindhudesh, and whatever else you can think of.

[SSridhar]

Counterpoint
A Question of Identity

Brilliant artcile and a keeper. Bharat Mata Ki Jai.

Truly, a remarkable article.

[RajeshA]

In 1947, the actual aspirations of Kashmiris for self-determination got skewed and hijacked by the conflict unleashed by the ideology behind Partition. Had India not been partitioned, Kashmir would most probably have been happy merging with India. When Kashmir acceded to India, much of the bitterness amongst the Kashmiris simply arose because the decision to accede was taken by not a very popular Raja. Of course this bitterness was also stoked by Sheikh Abdullah and other ‘Kashmiri Leaders’. The unpopularity of the Raja got transferred to his decision to accede to India and ultimately towards India itself. As such India could have easily overcome this disapproval through democracy, empowerment, respect and financial help, but it was not to be.

With Pakistan having interceded in Kashmir, and with the religion argument on its side, Pakistan saw to it that the discontent in the valley could not come to peace. Pakistan has waged a successful campaign in Kashmir against India and in the meantime has brainwashed the Kashmiris to such an extent through the message of Islamism, that a accession to India for many Kashmiris seem impossible, because of the incompatibility of India’s secular political structure and the new desires in Kashmir for an Islamic system. From the point where the Kashmiris have travelled to, it is difficult for India as India is today, to coax the Kashmiris to walk back. Besides the Pakistanis have been able to create a history of rebellion against the Indian state, in which Kashmiri lives have been lost. This history itself gives sufficient fuel to keep the fires of secession burning for an eternity. To be frank, I don’t think it is possible for the Indian state to put the genie back into the bottle. Kashmir is a fire that will always keep on simmering in the Indian House, and Indians would always stay pressed to keep it from getting out of control, an activity that is exacting on the Indian polity.

So as things stand, the current Indian Union has the following choices:

1. Massive Financial Aid: Throwing more money into Kashmir doesn't really help. It just helps the Kashmiris to work less and protest more.
2. Demographic Change: India can scrap Article 370, and try to settle some patriotic Indians in the Kashmir Valley, including Kashmiri Pundits, who were driven away. India could try to settle families of Indian soldiers in the Kashmir Valley by giving them land. Or redistribute Kashmir Valley land to those Indians who are willing to fight for this allocation. I am not sure, but this would weaken perhaps the Indian Union, as various states may feel threatened by the Center taking upon itself to do such a demographic engineering, trampling over the interests of a state in the Indian Union. Again, I am not sure. India would also be castigated by the world and by "liberal" Indians themselves for such a policy, a policy similar to that of the Chinese in Tibet. Sure, Kashmir was always a part of India, but that fact would be conveniently overlooked. This policy also require the political parties to develop a spine, which I am afraid, is easier said than done.
3. Plebiscite: Even though the UN Resolution conditions are not fulfilled, India conducts a plebiscite in Kashmir Valley. Most probably we would lose the plebiscite. Kashmir Valley is allowed to become independent. That would be a real punch on India's face. This would only be a temporary pit-stop to Kashmir Valley becoming Pakistan.
4. Joint Management with Pakistan: India could agree to a peace with Pakistan, according to some plan Mushy pulled out of his musharraf. Again this would only be a temporary pit-stop to Kashmir Valley becoming Pakistan.
5. Massive Military Force to Subdue Kashmiris: India can of course use massive military force to subdue Kashmiris and not let them come out for their daily protests, etc.. This would however weaken India's case on Kashmir in the international arena. It would also pin too many of our security forces in Kashmir itself. It also can't be a permanent solution.
6. Attack Pakistan: There is then that issue of everything going out of control and the situation going nuclear.
7. Wait for Pakistan to Collapse: We have been waiting a long time, and 3½ are not going to let that happen.

All the above are options ranging from less than agreeable to inconceivable. There is however a far better option, a lot more painless and permanent. To read about it, please read my ebook. Order your copy in the Off-Topic Thread by giving your email.

[SSridhar]

Lecturer arrested

A lecturer of a government college was today arrested for allegedly setting a paper filled with questions related to the recent unrest in Valley.

“Noor Mohammad Bhat, a lecturer at Gandhi Memorial College, has been arrested,” IGP (Kashmir range) S M Sahai told PTI.

The students appearing in the English paper for BA, BSc and B Com annual examinations were surprised to find questions related to the five month unrest in Kashmir.

‘Are the stone-pelters the real heroes?’, was one of the questions asked.

The students were also asked to translate from Urdu to English, a paragraph laden with allegations of human rights violations by security forces.

Investigations revealed that the question paper was set by Mr. Bhat, leading to his arrest.

[abhishek_sharma]

Abhishek, you have to know the history of accession of Junagarh (and possibly Hyderabad, Deccan as well as J&K) before you can demolish the Pakistanis. They may also bring up the case of the Travancore State. Here is some info for you.

...

Thanks Sridhar.

[Ashoka]

Sridhar, Thanks a lot for the inputs.

On the news where PC says there is solution in sight, it should be noted that TSP PM Gilani also had stated last month there is 'good news' due on Kashmir soon. TSP PM's assertion, latest series of bad incidents in the valley (SuAR) and now PC says some solution in sight. How can anything which is good news for TSP PM can be a political solution to us? This is making me worry increasingly if we are going to surrender to the terror & hand over some part of valley to TSP.

From what I can see, MMS has formed a committee to revive job situation in Jammu & Ladakh. At least it is my understanding that Kashmir valley is not included in that. Is it because MMS is planning to cede it to TSP? I may have very limited visibility, but whatever is happening is not surely giving me a good vibe. Unless there is some master Chanakyan plan that we are operating to save the valley, I see we are being prepared for secession.

[milindc]

Hey, what is the correct answer when Pakis bring up Junagarh?

Bring up Chitral, which was tributary to J&K, and illegally acceded to Pakistan.

When they bring up Hyderabad, you bring up Kalat, the Baloch princely state which was invaded and forcibly annexed by the Pakistan army.

When arguing with pukes you should NEVER go on the defensive and start explaining the legalities or complexities regarding Hyderabad, Junagadh, or J&K. Put them on the backfoot with aggressive rhetoric on Kalat, Chitral, Gilgit, Bangladesh, Pashtunistan, Durand line, Seraikistan, Sindhudesh, and whatever else you can think of.

And when they bring up UN resolutions? Tell them first need to decide who is the true inheritor of previous Pakistan (Bangladesh or Pakistan)...
Or just say things have changed so much, that we need to involve Bangladesh in the resolutions as well.. It pisses them no end

[jamwal]

RajeshA

Sir jee, Maharaja Hari Singh and his ancestors were much respected and very progressive rulers. Just because a few muslims in the valley hated them, doesn't gives anybody the right to call them unpopular or something like that. It was the J&K kingdom's Hindu soldiers who fought to the last man defending the state against Paki invaders. Most of the muslim soldiers had mutinied and joined their Paki brethren in killing and raping the civilians.

[abhishek_sharma]

'Back channel diplomacy' underway with India on Kashmir: Pakistan

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 082612.cms

[Dipanker]

RajeshA

Sir jee, Maharaja Hari Singh and his ancestors were much respected and very progressive rulers. Just because a few muslims in the valley hated them, doesn't gives anybody the right to call them unpopular or something like that. It was the J&K kingdom's Hindu soldiers who fought to the last man defending the state against Paki invaders. Most of the muslim soldiers had mutinied and joined their Paki brethren in killing and raping the civilians.

I have a question for you. Are the muslim population of Jammu division in muslim majority areas ( Poonch, Rajauri, Doda etc.) are pro secession or o.k. with being part of India?

Based on what I read from the pro seperatist papers like GK, the kashmiri seperatists do claim their support.

[jamwal]

Not 100% sure on this one. I knew a few muslim guys from Uri and Rajauri. They always refused to be lumped in same category with Kashmiris. Father of one of the guys was a senior police officer and for sure hated morons from the valley as much as rest of us did. Though, it could be because we out numbered them in Jammu .

[brihaspati]

I cannot place it right now, but Munshi Premchand had a story which I vaguely remember as portraying the Dogra rulers as extremely sadistic [arranging for a girl to get married and then "using" her in front of her newly married husband]. I read it as a child and found it so striking that I still remember it. I have since tried to find it, but failed. If I am wrong with the author or the novel, please let me know. I have tried to look up on this alleged aspect of the rulers, but not found any strong refs from insider sources like that by Jarmani Dass about the various Punjab and surrounding area "royal houses".

[sum]

'Back channel diplomacy' underway with India on Kashmir: Pakistan

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 082612.cms

Am only praying that this is usual Paki speak through their musharraf..

[RajeshA]

jamwal ji,

My post was about Kashmir Valley Muslims only, about their perspective and why they are a pain in the ass!

[Raghavendra]

J&K: 697 leaders dead in militancy, past 2 decades
http://www.zeenews.com/news674055.html

Jammu: Over 697 political leaders and activists from Jammu and Kashmir have lost their lives during two decade long militancy in the Valley, a report by the State Home Ministry said.

According to the Ministry's recent report on militancy, the highest number of casualties (100) were reported in 2002 while the lowest (3) in 2008.

This year, so far four leaders were killed in the militant activities as compared to six in 2009.

In 2007, militancy claimed the lives of nine leaders, 17 in 2006, followed by 40 in 2005, 62 in 2004, 52 in 2003, 100 in 2002, 76 in 2001 and 35 in 2000.

Of the 697 leaders and activists killed in militancy up to November, 420 were from ruling National Conference, followed by 96 of opposition People Democratic Party and 85 of Congress party.

CPI-M lost its 16 leaders, BJP and Awami League 15 each, Independents 14, 12 of Janta Dal, 4 from PDF, three each from Awami Action Committee and Nationalist congress party, 2 each from JKNPP, JEI, Peoples Conference, Muslim United Front and Awami National Party and one each from Awami Mahaz, Akali Dal and ABVP.

[ramana]

X-posted.....

The litany of woes listed by Madhu Kisawar discloses the INC modus operandi to bolster the sagging IM support for them. I thought Omar Adbullah was being induced by dreams of US support for a independent Cashmere but now I get it. The revival of the terrorism is a move by INC to draw the IM inot their votebank. Same as Digvijay Singh's rants about Karkare's killing and PC's periodic mutterings of saffron terror. There is a method to the madness.

Or take the example of the most politically sensitive state of Jammu & Kashmir. Manmohan Singh allowed an anti- Omar agitation to turn into an anti India agitation much against his own counsel, all because he dare not sack Omar Abdullah from the CM’s post even when the entire Valley rose in revolt against his high handed, corrupt and callous regime. Senior Congress leaders admit in private that Omar cannot be touched since he is a buddy of Rahul Gandhi. Dr Singh knows well that Omar’s continuation has given a new lease of life to the Pak inspired separatist and terrorist movement in Kashmir.

[RamaY]

^
The decision to remove OA would be a political one and falls into Rajmata's jurisdiction. As we know Yuvaraj wanted OA to remain and that is the decision.

If one removes
- selection of ministry
- Allocation of portfolios
- Coalition politics
- Oversight on cabinet ministers
- Oversight on state politics

MMS, the PM of India is nothing but a constable at the helm. The only difference is that he is guarding the gaddi for yuvaraj not Indian interests.

[ramana]

Thats unfair characterization. Even in the limited scope of his domain he is doing his little bit for the nation after taking care of the family.

[RamaY]

^ You could be right Ramanaji, in other circumstances. But we are talking about PM of India here, and that is the apex political authority in India.

If MMS believes that a person with partial eligibility (Rajyasabha membership), partial authority (limited control of GoM), and partial responsibility (Not responsible for the actions of other members of Counsil of Ministers) can be the PM of India then he is doing the utmost damage to Indian Interests.

Looks like he thinks that he with his limited eligibility/authority/responsibility is better than another individual. I respectfully disagree.

Let us assume a corrupt, incompetent and stupid yuvaraj/pichchi-reddy is the PM of India instead of MMS. Then we would have had a chance to get that person royally kicked out of his PM gaddi by now.

What MMS doing is that he is not letting that happen, and he has the audacity to talk about democracy, parliament, and opposition actions. Shame shame!!!

[ramana]

the entire babudom supports him as they see that as the only way for them also to be in same position. The family is deathly afraid of being in front and will only run by remote control. For this they need baseless, rootless individuals(ex-babus) to be the accpetable honets face whiel they are looting everyday.

Note: Every paen to MMS declares he is a babu/bureaucrat. Though he never sat for any UPSC exam!

[rohitvats]

^^^If I'm not mistaken, is not Manmohan Singh an Indian Economic Services?

[abhishek_sharma]

Grenade attack at CRPF camp.

[Rahul Mehta]

The decision to remove OA would be a political one and falls into Rajmata's jurisdiction. As we know Yuvaraj wanted OA to remain and that is the decision. .... MMS, the PM of India is nothing but a constable at the helm. The only difference is that he is guarding the gaddi for yuvaraj not Indian interests.

The decision lies with USG\MNCs, not Rajmata\Yuvaraj. Rajmata\Yuvaraj and MMS are puppets of USG\MNCs. You are paying undue importance to them.

[chaanakya]

^^^If I'm not mistaken, is not Manmohan Singh an Indian Economic Services?

His was lateral entry. No need to sit for Exams.

Either way his career is too illustrious to sit for babu log's exam which in any case selects mediocre only.

CURRICULUM VITAE

DR. MANMOHAN SINGH
PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA


ACADEMIC RECORD

1962

D. Phil., Nuffield College, University of Oxford. Topic: India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth. [Published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964]
1957 Economic Tripos [First Class honours], University of Cambridge
1954 M.A. Economics, Panjab University – First Class with first position in the University
1952 B.A. Economics(Hons.), Panjab University – Second Class with first position in the University
1950 Intermediate Panjab University – First Class with first position in the University
1948 Matriculation, Panjab University – First class
PRIZES AND AWARDS

2000 Conferred Annasaheb Chirmule Award by the W.LG. alias Annasaheb Chirmule Trust setup by United Western Bank Limited, Satara, Maharashtra
1999 Received H.H. Kanchi Sri Paramacharya Award for Excellence from Shri R. Venkataraman, former President of India and Patron, The Centenarian Trust
1999 Fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi.
1997 Conferred Lokmanya Tilak Award by the Tilak Smarak Trust, Pune
1997 Received Justice K.S. Hegde Foundation Award for the year 1996
1997 Awarded Nikkei Asia prize for Regional Growth by the Nihon
Keizai Shimbun Inc. (NIKKEI), publisher of Japan’s leading business daily
1996 Honorary Professor, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi
1995 Jawaharlal Nehru Birth Centenary Award of the Indian Science
Congress Association for 1994-95
1994 Asiamoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year
1994 Elected Distinguished Fellow, London School of Economics, Centre for Asia Economy, Politics and Society
1994 Elected Honorary Fellow, Nuffield College, University of Oxford,
Oxford, U.K.
1994 Honorary Fellow, All India Management Association
1993 Euromoney Award, Finance Minister of the year
1993 Asiamoney Award, Finance Minister of the Year
1987 Padma Vibhushan Award by the President of India
1986 National Fellow, national Institute of Education, N.C.E.R.T.
1985 Elected President, Indian economic Association
1982 Elected Honorary Fellow, st. John’s College, Cambridge,
1982 Elected Honorary Fellow, Indian Institute of bankers
1976 Honorary Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
1957 Elected Wrenbury Scholar, University of Cambridge, U.K.
1955 Awarded Wright’s Prize for distinguished performance, &
St. John’s college, Cambridge, U.K.
1956 Awarded Adam Smith Prize, University of Cambridge, U.K.
1954 Uttar Chand Kapur Medal, Panjab university, for standing first in
M.A.(Economics), panjab University, Chandigarh
1952 University Medal for standing First in B.A. Hon.(Economics),
panjab University, Chandigarh
Recipient of Honorary Degrees of D.Litt. from :
- Panjab University, Chandigarh
- Guru Nanak University, Amritsar
- Delhi University, Delhi
- Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi
- University of Bologna, Italy
- University of Mysore, Mysore
- Chaudhary charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (D.Sc)
- Kurukshetra University
- Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, patiala (D.Sc)
- Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar
- Osmania University, Hyderabad
- University of Roorkee, Roorkee (Doctor of Social Sciences)
- Doctor of Laws by the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
- Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University (formerly Agra University) - Doctor Letters degree
- Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (Deemed University) D.Sc. (Honoris Causa)
- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur


WORK EXPERIENCE AND POSITIONS HELD

May 22, 2004 – till date: Prime Minister of India
March 21, 1998 – May 22,2004: Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha (Council of States) Parliament of India
June, 2001: Re-elected as member of Rajya
Sabha for a Term of six years
August 1, 1996 - Dec 4, 1997: Chairman, Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Commerce, Rajya Sabha
June 21, 1991- May 15, 1996: Finance Minister of India
June, 1995: Re-elected Member of Rajya
Sabha for a term of six years
September, 1991: Elected Member of Rajya Sabha
March 1991-June 1991: Chairman, University Grants Commission
Dec 1990 – March 1991: Advisor to Prime Minister of India on
Economic Affairs
August 1987 – Nov 1990: Secretary General and Commissioner,
South Commission
Jan 1985- July 1987: Dy. Chairman, Planning Commission
of India
Sept 1982 – Jan 1985: Governor, Reserve Bank of India
April 1980 – Sept 1982: Member-Secretary, Planning
Commission, India
Nov.1976 – April 1980: Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Dept. of Economic Affairs,
Government of India

Member [Finance], Atomic Energy
Commission, Govt. of India

Member [Finance], Space
Commission, Govt. of India
1972 – 1976: Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of
Finance, India
1971 – 1972: Economic Adviser, Ministry of
Foreign Trade, India
1969 – 1971: Professor of International Trade,
Delhi School of Economics,
Delhi University, India
1966 – 1969: UNCTAD, United Nations Secretariat,
New York
Chief, Financing for Trade Section
1966 : Economic Affairs Officer
1957 – 1965 : Panjab University, Chandigarh
1963-65 : Professor of Economics
1959-63 : Reader in Economics
1957-59 : Senior Lecturer in economics

OTHER ASSIGNMENTS

Leader of the Indian delegation to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Cyprus (1993)


Leader of the Indian delegation to the Human Rights World Conference, Vienna (1993)
Governor of India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and the International Bank of Reconstruction & Development (1991-95)
Appointed by Prime Minister of India as Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (1983-84)
Chairman, India Committee of the Indo-japan ;Joint Study Committee (1980-83)

- Leader, Indian Delegation to :

Indo-Soviet Monitoring Group Meeting (1982)
Indo-Soviet Joint Planning Group Meeting (1980-82)
Aid India Consortium Meetings (1977-79)

- Member Indian Delegation to :

South-South Consultation, New Delhi (1982)
Cancun Summit on North-South Issues (1981)
Aid-India Consortium Meetings, Paris (1973-79)
Annual Meetings of IMF, IBRD & Commonwealth
Finance Ministers (1972-79)
Third Session of UNCTAD, Santiago (April-May 1972)
Meetings of UNCTAD Trade & Development Board,
Geneva (May 1971 – July 1972)
Ministerial Meeting of Group of 77, Lima (Oct.1971)
- Deputy for India on IMF Committee of Twenty on
International Monetary Reform (1972 – 74)
- Associate, Meetings of IMF Interim Committee and Joint
Fund-Bank Development Committee (1976-80, 1982-85)
- Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of
IBRD (1976-80)
- Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors of the
IMF (1982-85)
- Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian
Development Bank, Manila (1976-80)
- Director, Reserve Bank of India (1976-80)
- Director, Industrial Development Bank of India (1976-80)
- Participated in Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting,
Kingston (1975)
- Represented Secretary;-General UNCTAD at several
inter-governmental meetings including :
Second Session of UNCTAD, 1968
Committee on Invisibles & Financing Related to Trade,
Consultant to UNCTAD, ESCAP and Commonwealth
Secretariat

- Member, International Organizations :

Appointed as Member by the Secretary-General, United Nations of a Group of Eminent Persons to advise him on Financing for Development (December, 2000)



PUBLICATIONS

(i) Author of book “India’s Export Trends and Prospects
for Self-Sustained Growth”
[Clarendon Press, Oxford University, 1964]

(ii) Have published a large number of articles in
economic journals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S/o. Shri Gurmukh Singh
Born on 26th September, 1932
Married in 1958 to Smt. Gursharan Kaur
Have three daughters



http://pmindia.nic.in/meet.htm

[rohitvats]

chaanakya, thank you for the effort and details.

[abhishek_sharma]

Will Geelani's son step into his shoes?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Will-Geel ... 38446.aspx

[vera_k]

So there is a Geelani dynasty too? WTF does he claim he's not Indian then?

[AjayKK]

So there is a (Syed) Geelani dynasty too? WTF does he claim he's not Indian then?

Usual case of " SG & Sons " and in this case, the Pak-pasand son returned to take charge.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s Son Back From Pakistan

2010-11-30

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Hardline Hurriyat chief’s son Nayeem Geelani has reportedly returned from Pakistan after about 12 years.

Ayaz Akber, Hurriyat spokesman said, “The only other option Nayeem Sahib had, was to get the citizenship of Pakistan, which he didn’t want to do . Hence, he chose to return.”

He also said that Nayeem will continue his medical practitioner profession and he doesn’t have any ambitions in the field of politics. Nayeem is said to have been an MBBS in Kashmir and in Pakistan, he completed his Masters in Surgery.

Some questions:
(1) Wonder why he returned, surely, he could have employed his skills better in the land of milk and honey ?
(2) Why is every half-jihadi a medical practitioner and majority being surgeons ? Are kasais and sons called surgeons in Pakistan !?
(3) And since when is a Pakistani madrassa certification valid in J & K ?

Btw, he is married to two wives, has two sons Nayeem and Naseem (passes around as a "teacher" at Kashmir Agriculture University) and five daughters and was branded a Raa agint in the usual weekly chankian-predictor game around the middle of the last J & K thread.

[AjayKK]

Curfew imposed in Srinagar to prevent Muharram procession

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 103927.cms

SRINAGAR: Curfew was imposed in several parts of this Jammu and Kashmir summer capital here Wednesday to prevent a Muharram procession.

"Curfew has been imposed in police station areas of Kralkhud, Shaheedgunj, Maisuma, Kothibagh and Ram Munshibagh in Srinagar to maintain peace in the city," a senior police officer said here.

The curfew has been imposed to prevent a Muharram procession scheduled to be carried out from the Shaheedgunj area, half a kilometre from city centre Lal Chowk.

The procession, if allowed, will be attended by hundreds of local Shia Muslims and end at Dalgate area of the city.

The procession, on the eighth day of the Muslim month of Muharram, has not been allowed in Srinagar since the early 1990s when the present armed violence started here.

Authorities have also imposed prohibitory orders, according to which an assembly of five or more people is deemed as "unlawful" in Srinagar.

Every year, prohibitory orders are in place for the Muharram procession but the
APHC affiliated get photographed around the venue trying to take out processions and get some cheap publicity.

[wig]

a confidante of gilani reveals :

Masrat Alam, a hard-line Hurriyat Conference leader, who led Kashmir unrest from June to September by issuing regular protest calendars, has so far confessed having received Rs 40 lakh from Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani through different channels to fuel the protests and incite stone pelters.

During his sustained interrogation by police after his arrest from outskirts of Srinagar more than one and a half month back, Masrat has admitted that he got Rs 40 lakh from Geelani during three months of hiding to generate protests and stone pelting incidents across the Kashmir valley.

Director General of Police (DGP) Kuldeep Khoda told the Excelsior today that police was trying to ascertain channels used by Geelani to make payments to Masrat in hiding. The sources, who were making payments to the Hurriyat chairman, are also being traced.

Mr Khoda said Pakistan has been using different channels to fund the separatists including Geelani to sustain protests, which were part of their new strategy. Some of them were paid cash during their trips to different States while some others got money through net banking. Srinagar-Muzaffarabad cross-LoC trade route has also been used for funding separatists, he added.

"It (the payment of funds to separatists and others by Pakistan) was not a simple mechanism. Had it been so simple, we would have choked it. Several channels are being used by Pakistan to fund separatists and militants’’, he said but added that police was always on the task to unravel the sources and block them.

Masrat Alam has revealed some of the channels implied by Pakistan. Police was on the job to nail the persons, who had acted as conduits between Geelani and Alam when the latter was issuing protest calendars and spreading trouble in the Valley from hiding using the funds given by Geelani, the DGP said.

He added that Masrat Alam, the new face among separatists in Kashmir, has been booked under several cases.

"It was not that everybody engaged in protests was paid. The organizers had been paid and they incited the people to hold protests and subject security forces and police to stone pelting. The militants of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) had also been working behind the scenes to fuel the protests’’, the State police chief disclosed.

He said in view of a sharp decline in militancy last year when it had gone an all time low, Pakistan changed its strategy this year to keep the Kashmir valley disturbed.

Under the new strategy, Pakistan encouraged separatists and other agents to incite people for mob violence. The separatists to hold street protests and mob violence exploited very small issues of public grievances, which could have been easily addressed. The simple protests were converted into ‘pro-azadi’ processions, he said.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/

[Raghavendra]

Rs. 40 lakhs spent for J&K protests: Separatist's confession
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-40 ... sion-72843

Jammu: The Director General of Jammu and Kashmir police Kuldeep Khoda has said that more than Rs. 40 lakh were spent to fuel protests and finance stone pelting in Kashmir, and the money came from many separatist leaders including Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

This he says was revealed in the interrogation of Masrat Alam, who led the agitation in Kashmir last summer.

Alam was arrested by the police from the outskirts of Srinagar in October.

"He has revealed a lot of things during interrogation. We are compiling it, we are taking further action on that and financing for stone pelting has also been revealed. His contacts who have emerged as facilitators of pelting in Kashmir, they are also being rounded up. Many of them have been booked under public safety act cases also and we will follow it up. The amount is quite a bit, in fact more than Rs. 40 lakh," said Khoda.

Asked if there was any connection between sponsorship of the protests and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Khoda said, "No, it has been coming from various separatists including him too."

Money was behind Kashmir protests: Militant leader
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Money-was ... 38680.aspx

A heavy flow of money was behind the stone-pelting protests in Kashmir last summer, according to a top militant leader who was believed to be instigating the stir in the valley. Hardline Hurriyat leader Masarat Alam, who became an icon for protesters, has told interrogators that he spent Rs 40 lakh to organise the protests that left more than 110 people dead in clashes with security forces.

"He also revealed that he had received the money from separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani," a senior police officer told IANS.

"We are trying to find out the channels through which the money came to Geelani and was distributed among the protest instigators like Masarat Alam," Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda has been quoted as saying in local newspaper Daily Excelsior.

Alam was arrested in October and curfew was imposed in Srinagar and other major towns of the valley a day after the arrest to prevent any violence.

The protests gained in intensity following the death of 17-year-old Tufail Mattoo after he was hit by a teargas shell in Srinagar June 11. The subsequent unrest in the valley claimed 110 lives, of mostly youngsters.

[jamwal]

Finally, some spine shown by GoI

From ToI

India declines to affirm 'One China' policy

But behind the warm, fuzzy public atmospherics was a lot of candid, tough talking by India on its core concerns. Maintaining S M Krishna's line that Jammu & Kashmir was integral to India just as Tibet was to China, the China-India joint statement failed to mention India's affirmation of a 'one China' policy — which states that Taiwan and Tibet are part of China. This was a significant first in Indo-Sino ties.

India has been asking China to affirm a one-India policy. Considering China was questioning Kashmir's accession to India, it appears India too has held its hand on a 'one China' policy.

On stapled Chinese visas for Kashmiris — something that has become a clear provocation for India — foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said that Wen raised the issue of stapled visas even before the Indians could. But in typical Chinese style, Wen only agreed to official discussions on it, instead of addressing the irritant. Sources said proof that China might walk back from its current policy would be evident only over time.

From HT

Pak wall splits India, China


In a firm response to the Chinese rebuff on J&K, India refused to include the usual mention of the “one China principle” and “Tibet Autonomous Region as part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China” in the joint statement.

Wen, whose trip was expected to normalise relations between the two countries, which have spent the last year-and-a-half sparring over issues ranging from Beijing’s claims over Arunachal Pradesh to the damming of the Brahmaputra to reported incursions by Chinese soldiers into Indian territory, failed to allay New Delhi’s concerns that Beijing is increasingly subscribing to Islamabad’s position on Kashmir.

[Pratyush]

^^^This could well be the bigening of the end.

[wig]

Curfew imposed in parts of Srinagar

dec17,2010SRINAGAR: Curfew was today clamped in seven police station areas of the city to maintain law and order as the main Shia Muharram procession is scheduled to be taken out through the summer capital.

The restriction has been imposed in the areas falling under the jurdistiction of Police stations Kothi Bagh, Maisuma, Kralkhud, M R Gunj, Safa Kadal, Nowhatta and Khanyar, official sources said

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 115929.cms

[jamwal]

Interlocutors arrive in Jammu

A two-member team of interlocutors today arrived here to meet Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and to assess situation in the mountainous Rajouri and Poonch districts.

As academician Radha Kumar could not come this morning and may join the team tomorrow, veteran and renowned journalist Dilip Padgaonkar along with M M Ansari reached here.

“During our three-day stay in Jammu, we will meet different sections of the people and also visit Rajouri, and Poonch districts to review the situation besides meeting the Chief Minister,” Mr Padgaonkar told reporters on his arrival at Circuit House.

Mr Padgaonkar added that the visit is in context with the Kashmir situation but refused to comment on the present political situation in state.

[Raja Ram]

Beware of the Ides of March!

It is time for a short ramble. There are things at the horizon that should not go unrecognized. The interlocutors have been going around speaking out of turn, and giving a whole lot of interpretations to long held positions of the Indian Union. That in itself can arguably dismissed as essential and necessary for starting a renewed peace process in the valley. The black mailers in the ranks of both factions of the Harried Rats have got a new lease of life.

The pakistanis, in deference to the pressure from the US have resorted to the new trick of organizing stone pelting intifada in the valley. The Af-Pak envoy, now dead, had been trying hard to come to India and make the GOI to commit on Kashmir, so that Pakistan do what is necessary from the US perspective.

The advent of State Department traditionalists coincided with Obama's election. Gentle Rakshaks, will no doubt recollect that the Harried Rats in the valley are essentially an US creation, aided and abetted by the pakis, who promptly took over American organized funding of the affront of an organization and then finally took over and split it into two factions. One more radical than the other.

While elements in the GOI have managed to get an overt play by the US by keeping the now dead, Holbrooke at bay, the political leadership of this GOI is committed to chase that elusive dream of turning Pakistan around, settling Kashmir in the name of Insaniyat. Towards this, there is a consensus across all PMs including ABV. The difference between all the other PMs and this one, is that none of them seem to have given in to a role for other powers in this, save the JLN who took the issue to the UN, but subsequently also resisted any attempts by the US or other powers to come in between.

What is indeed intriguing or the slowly emerging signs. PC issues a statement that a solution will be found to kashmir issue soon. There has been stated positions taken by the GOI that moves away from the legal and correct stand of GOI on accession and status of the same. These are signs that the GOI is heading towards a shift in long held positions.

Coupled with this is the USG's slow but sure attempts to bring in a resolution of this issue to gain some sort of leverage and cooperation for Pakistan. They have been investing quite heavily on this, with initiatives ranging from "Aman ki Asha" gimmicks, to encouraging a series of meetings with Pakistani leadership. A lot of carrots and lemons are being sold to the GOI, from support for UN to promise of lifting sanctions on entities, and outright flattery that India has arrived etc.

There is also a timetable announced by the USG that come July they will start withdrawing from Afghanistan. The USG is seeking to address pakistani sensitivities to Indian presence in Afghanistan. Now the two principal demands of Pakistan are:

(i) India should settle Kashmir Dispute and give Pakistan something tangible for cooperating with the US in Afghanistan
(ii) In Afghanistan, India should not be there at all and the dispensation there should be completely pro-pakistan.

Intrinsically, both of the above are not objectionable to the US. They do not make any difference to them or impact their interests. Or at least that is what their assessment is (which is wrong). If by acceding to these demands, US feels that they will have an influence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, but will be able to ensure that this region no longer poses to the US any terrorist threat, they will go for it. The USG is not interested in India's interests at all.

That is something the GOI should be concerned about. It is our responsibility to do what is in our interests. While no one can argue that a solution should be found for the Kashmir issue, it is imperative that the solution has to be in our national interests. It cannot be compromised in the altar of international geo-politics. It is not our job to worry about USG's interest or Pakistan's survival. Nor should we give in to any such demands to ensure either - no matter what the carrot is in terms of economic advantage or global high table positions.

What is therefore a cause of concern is the apparent willingness by the GOI to consider such "requests" from the USG or to go beyond our national consensus in search of a solution that is essentially a compromise on our national interests. For what? For some vague sounding carrots and other inducements?

But the GOI seems to be interested. The time table of July pull back indicates that the coming March is something that we should be worried about.

I sincerely hope that I have misread the GOI on this one.

As usual a ramble. Take it for what it is worth.

[BharataTalwar]

India is in a very dangerous position and its frustrating that nobody realises this.
All the worlds major powers have some beef with a certain group of Muslims. (Americans, Israelis, Russians, Chinese). All of them are currently trying to appease Muslims in an attempt to show that they are not at war with Islam and I feel all of them have their dirty eyes on Kashmir in an attempt to score brownie points at the expense of India. To them Kashmir is the magic key to their own problems and by assuming a pro-paki stance on Kashmir they will somehow pacify/gain paki support in their own troubled regions (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Turkestan).

We should be very careful. On one hand we cant be seen supporting Muslims in any of those regions or we would lose allies and on the other hand these vultures all consider Kashmir fair play.

Rock and a hard place.

[brihaspati]

The US statements about withdrwal delayed until 2014 could simply be a cover for a real quicker withdrawal within 2011. The Kashmir part could be up for bargaining, but the Congress will only try to stall, as it will be unsure of political backlash within home territories.