President Obama at 2012 AIPAC Policy Conference

Indian Americans Demand Action Against Modi for Muslim Genocide By Shaikh Saad - QaumiAwaz.info

http://www.qaumiawaz.info/muslim-india/2056-indian-americans-demand-action-against-modi-for-muslim-genocide.html

Indian Americans Demand Action Against Modi for Muslim Genocide

By Shaik Saad

Updated Monday, 05 March 2012 17:03:33 - IST (UTC +5:30)

 

New York: Coalition of Indian American NGO's "Coalition Against Genocide" (CAG) demanded Narendra Modi's arrest in case of anti Muslim riots in Gujarat and compensation to the victims. CAG also vowed to fight Hindutva ideology in the US. Rally and Candle Light Vigil in New York on the 10th Anniversary of Anti-Muslim Gujarat Pogrom. Jewish Leader Criticizes AJC for Giving Award to Advani. Rallies held in 9 other cities by CAG affiliated organizations

CAG, the broad-based alliance that was instrumental in getting the diplomatic visa of Narendra Modi revoked, for his role in Gujarat pogrom, organized a successful rally and candle light vigil in New York City.

Hundreds of Indian-Americans of diverse religious backgrounds gathered to remember the victims of the anti-Muslim pogrom in front of the Gandhi statue in Union Square on March 3rd, 2012. It was raining all morning, but just before the rally began, the ominous clouds cleared. Though the balmy 55 F made it feel like a beautiful spring evening rather than winter, the mood of the rally remained somber.

They had gathered to remember the victims of a carnage that was unleashed on the Muslims of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002. More than 2,000 were brutally killed, 500 women and little girls raped, and 150,000 people were ethnically cleansed in the spring of 2002 in the well-planned pogrom in the Indian state of Gujarat.

"We want Gandhi's Gujarat NOT Modi's Gujarat," they chanted, pointing to the statue of Mohandas Gandhi, the founder of modern India.

The rally was addressed by not only Indian American leaders but by well-known American religious leaders and human rights activists.

Dr. Hillel Levine, the founder of Center for International Conciliation, prayed for the victims of pogrom. He defined a pogrom and said that the state-orchestrated violence in Gujarat was a pogrom. Drawing on the history of Jewish suffering, he criticized the American Jewish Committee's award to L.K.Advani. Advani and Modi both represent, according to him, an ideology of hatred and intolerance. He demanded that the AJC take the award back.

Rev. Mark Lukens, the President of The Interfaith Alliance, Long Island Chapter, spoke against all kinds of discrimination including racism in America and Islamophobia. He spoke eloquently about the legacy of Gandhi and of how Modi has tarnished it.

Joe Lombardo, the national co-chair of United National antiwar Coalition, pledged to work with Coalition Against Genocide, and vowed not only to get justice for the victims of Gujarat but also to fight the infiltration of Hindutva-fascists in the US power centers. He thanked Muslim Peace Coalition USA and Desis Rising Up and Moving for their fight against discrimination in the US.

Al-Haj Imam Talib Abdur Rashid, an African American imam who heads the umbrella body of New York area Muslims known as the Islamic Leadership Council, stated that the movement that killed Gandhi and tens of thousands of Muslims and Christians will not be allowed to flourish in the US. He drew parallels between the civil rights movement in the US and the movement by Indian minorities and Dalits and predicted that truth shall overcome. He thanked the inter-faith allies for their stand against the New York police department's surveillance of the area Muslim communities.

Biju Mathew, one of the founding members of Coalition Against Genocide, vowed to continue the struggle till Hindutva-fascism is completely defeated. He announced the upcoming launch of a campaign to obtain justice for the victims of the pogrom. He exhorted the attendees to contact their congresspersons and urge them to support the resolution about the Gujarat pogrom that was presented in the US House of Representatives by congressman Keith Ellison the day before.

Dr. Shaik Ubaid, another founding member of the coalition pointed out that the coalition is expanding and that more American interfaith and civil rights leaders and groups are supporting it. This will help defeat the Hindutva ideology in the US and offer vital moral support to the pluralist forces in India. He advised the supporters of Narendra Modi in the US to abandon their support of Modi and Hindutva ideology and thus redeem themselves and the image of India. He explained that as long as Modi remains a persona nongrata in the US, his dream of becoming India's prime minister will remain derailed and it will be easier for him to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Biju Mathew and Dr. Shaik Ubaid were given the Lincoln-Gandhi-King Award by the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area Indian Americans for their role in launching the Coalition Against Genocide to fight for pluralism and justice and to keep Narendra Modi out of the US. The other speakers named them "The Men Who Defeated Narendra Modi."

Bhairavi Desai, the leader of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, and Svati Shah of South Asia Solidarity Forum, both Gujarati Hindu women, said “We want Gandhi’s Gujarat, not Modi’s Gujarat”. They agreed with a later speaker, Saeed Patel, a Muslim from Gujarat, that the Gujarat pogrom is a stigma and a mark of shame for Gujarat and India. Alex Koshi, a commissioner with Rev. Martin Luther King commission in New Jersey, Habeeb Ahmed, a human rights commissioner with the Nassau county, Juned Qazi of Indian National Overseas Congress, Yusuf Dadani of Indian American Muslim Council, Silky Shah and Bhumika Moochala of Gujarati ancestary, Azhar Bhatt of Muslim Peace Coalition, USA and Dr. Satinath Choudhry, a Dalit leader, were among the other speakers.

The rally was followed by a candle-light vigil, the candles representing the lives of all the victims of Gujarat pogroms that were violently snuffed out.

It was rush hour in Union Square and thousands of passers by stopped and picked up the flyers about Gujarat pogrom.

Similar vigil and rallies were held in ten cities across the US by organizations that are members of the Coalition Against Genocide http://coalitionagainstgenocide.org/

 

 

Ron Paul is in The Fight of His Life, We Must Stand With Him!

Iran – Next In Line For Western ‘Intervention’? - Medialens.org

Media Lens via mail-gateway-2.giga-sj-001.net	11:04 PM (12 hours ago)
to me

......	Doesn't look right? View it online here
	March 01, 2012 Iran – Next In Line For Western ‘Intervention’? What would it take for journalists to seriously challenge government propaganda? A war with over one million dead, four million refugees, a country’s infrastructure shattered, and the increased threat of retail ‘terror’ in response to the West’s wholesale ‘terror’? How horrifying do even very recent experiences have to be, how great the war crimes, before media professionals begin to exhibit scepticism towards Western governments’ hyping of yet another ‘threat’. Why is warmongering the default mode for the corporate media? On Channel 4 News, the famed ‘pinko-liberal’ news presenter Jon ‘Six Pilgers’ Snow intoned ominously: ‘It is still not a nuclear weapon, but an upgrading of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium ostensibly for its nuclear power plant.’ (C4 News headlines, February 15, 2012) ‘Still’ not a nuclear weapon - not yet? - but the primary focus is absolutely on an alleged military threat that does not actually exist. Foreign correspondent Jonathan Miller added: ‘This development does not bring Iran any closer to building a bomb… But if Tehran is trying to convince the world that its purpose is peaceful, no-one’s buying it...' (C4 News, ‘Iran reveals its latest step in nuclear arms’, February 15, 2012) That is not quite true, as we will see below. Miller added: 'This may look like the set of a 70s Bond movie, but this is the Natanz reactor…’ The reference is telling - much media reporting does seem to be inspired by a Bond movie vision of the world. Token balance was provided: ‘There’s no evidence that Iran is intending to construct a nuclear weapon.’ This put Snow’s opening comment in perspective. A more accurate version would have been: ‘It is still not evidence that Iran has plans to build a nuclear weapon.’ Instead, the required propaganda pitch was clear. Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was defiantly sticking ‘two fingers up to the UN and a hostile world’. As ever, it is 'us' (the 'world') versus 'them'. Miller continued: ‘The 74 million people of the Islamic republic are paying a high price for their leader’s defiance.’ As in Iraq, the Bad Guys, not the West, are responsible for any suffering caused. No question that Israel, the US and its allies bear any responsibility for the tension, or the lethal effects of sanctions. Miller added: ‘Their nation is isolated, they’re suffering from sanctions – prices are rising, credit tightening, currency plummeting. The Tehran regime thinks its brinkmanship gives it leverage – it has written to the EU offering to resume stalled nuclear talks.’ In media Newspeak, 'isolated' means 'bad'. Likewise, 'secretive' and 'hermit'. When North Korea is described as 'the secretive, hermit state' that is 'increasingly isolated', it means North Korea is Bad! Bad! Bad! Meanwhile, on the BBC's News at Ten, Huw Edwards presented the headlines: 'The Iranians delight in the latest advances in their nuclear programme.’ Little wrong with that. But moments later, when the actual news report was introduced, ‘nuclear programme’ had mysteriously morphed into ‘nuclear weapons programme’. Edwards told the watching millions: 'Iran has announced new developments in its nuclear weapons programme. State television reported that for the first time Iranian-made nuclear fuel rods have been loaded into a research reactor in Tehran. The event was attended by President Ahmadinejad.’ Behind a veneer of polite impartiality, the BBC - like Channel 4 News and the rest of the media - presents official enemies as Bond villains: grandiose, dangerous and absurd. Thus James Reynolds began his report: ‘Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a PhD in traffic management. But he often likes to play the part of nuclear physicist. This afternoon Iran’s president inspected new home-made fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran, all made without any help from the West.’ In 1998, an ITN report described how Saddam Hussein was ‘playing his favourite role of defender of the Arab people’. (James Mates, ITN, 10 O'Clock News, February 16, 1998) Obama, by contrast, is the 'leader of the free world'; he doesn't 'play' at 'roles'. Reynolds continued: ‘The most important of the president’s announcements on state TV may be the installation of 3000 new centrifuges for uranium enrichment. In itself, this does not prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. But it puts the country in a better position to do so, if it chooses.’ BBC ‘balance’ dictates that a reliable talking head should next provide a quote. This is almost never a whistleblower willing to counter the official view - people like veteran reporter Seymour Hersh, former IAEA nuclear inspector Robert Kelley or foreign affairs analyst Gareth Porter. A ‘respected’ think tank with close ties to the military-political establishment is preferred, such as the International Institute for Strategic Studies: ‘If it’s true that Iran is introducing 3000 more centrifuges, and that they are more efficient, that is significant. It means that the timeline for Iran being able to introduce a nuclear weapon, if they were to decide to do so, is significantly shorter.’ Perhaps within 45 minutes of a decision being taken? Is Cyprus at risk? Reynolds again: ‘Exactly how much shorter is something that negotiators will try to work out. The last time that world powers and Iran sat down for nuclear talks - a year ago. They achieved nothing. But Iran has now told the West it’s ready to have another go. ‘And this is what makes things all the more urgent. Only this week, Israel accused Iran of carrying out assassination attempts against Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand. It’s a charge denied by Iran but it adds to Israel’s own sense that Iran must be stopped.’ (BBC1, February 15, 2012) The ‘explanation’ echoes the official line. Rational scrutiny and serious appraisal are consigned to the margins, seemingly just beyond the reach of BBC journalism. ‘We’ Are Patient Peacelovers; ‘They’ Are Defiant Warmongers Away from BBC News, the print media went further. A front page story in The Times on February 20 made no pretence of balance or accuracy. Captured by the media monitoring group News Unspun, this story from an ostensibly serious paper in the Murdoch stable, asserted – contrary to the evidence - that there is an ‘illicit atomic weapons programme' and 'atomic weaponry' in Iran (Hugh Tomlinson and Roger Boyes, 'Defiant Iran cuts off oil to Britain,' The Times, February 20, 2012). This propaganda was reinforced, if also contradicted, by a Times editorial the following day which declared, quite outrageously, that it is ‘beyond doubt’ that ‘Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon’ (Leader, ‘Iran On The Brink’, The Times, February 21, 2012). In a media alert last November, we examined the media’s biased coverage of a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Despite all the political and media rhetoric, there was, in fact, no new evidence of any nuclear weapons programme. The respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh summed up where things now stand: ‘They found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization. In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact.’ Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has pointed to the emerging consensus among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States and Israel that Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that ‘Israel believes Iran itself has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to intelligence assessment to be presented later this week to U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey.’ US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented recently: ‘Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.’ A recent article in the New York Times was entitled: 'US Agencies See No Move By Iran To Build A Bomb.' Nevertheless, an Independent editorial declared that Iran’s leaders are ‘potentially, courting disaster.’ It is Tehran, not the West, that is ‘upping the ante’. The conclusion: ‘Before pursuing their present course further, Iran's leaders should understand that they risk provoking the very response they, and most of the rest of the world, are desperate to avoid.’ If Israel or the US attacks this year, it will be the result of Iran's provocation, even though there is simply no evidence that they are attempting to build a bomb. A Guardian report by Chris McGreal came heavily laden with the views of unnamed ‘US officials' with their ‘long-held doubts... about whether the Iranians can be enticed or cajoled into serious negotiations.' Alas, 'We don't see a way forward,' said one official. 'The record shows that there is nothing to work with.' McGreal continued: ‘official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a “sweet spot”, where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".’ Meanwhile, Israel is in need of US reassurance but portrayed as being patient; a simulacrum of responsible statehood: ‘"The sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking this issue seriously," said one official. "The focus is on demonstrating to Israel that this has a chance of working. Israel is sceptical but appreciates the effort. It is willing to give it a go, but how long will it wait?"’ It is standard practice to portray the official enemy as guilty of warmongering and sabre-rattling; not the West with its encirclement of Iran by military bases and autocratic US-supported Gulf states, together with the threatening presence of British, French and US warships in the region: ‘Iran's increasingly belligerent moves – such as the botched attempts, laid at Tehran's door, to attack Israeli diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia – are compounding the sense that Iran is far from ready to negotiate.’ A comparison of US and Iranian military spending is embarrassing and, so, rarely provided. As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times: 'But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.' There was a stunning lack of journalistic scepticism in the Guardian report; no quotes or insights from credible experts who doubt Iran is even trying to build a bomb. Had McGreal read anything by Hersh, for example, or followed Hersh's sources and links? Surely McGreal recalled the grave journalistic refusal in 2002-2003 to reflect the extent of scepticism concerning Iraq's alleged WMD. Amazingly, the mainstream’s default mode is so fixed that even the recent – and continuing - catastrophe of Iraq is unable to disturb the propaganda production process. We emailed McGreal but did not receive a response. Exchange With BBC News At Ten Editor On February 16, we emailed James Stephenson, editor of BBC News at Ten, to say that the previous night’s item on Iran had breached the news organisation’s obligations on accuracy and impartiality: Dear James, I hope all’s well with you. Do you have a moment to explain the important wording of your Iran item on the News at Ten last night, please? Huw Edwards said during the introductory headlines: 'The Iranians delight in the latest advances in their nuclear programme.' But then when he introduced the Iran item itself, at around 13 mins, he said: 'Iran has announced new developments in its nuclear weapons programme.’ A ‘nuclear’ programme had now become a ‘nuclear weapons’ programme. You ought to be aware that there is no definitive evidence of a ‘nuclear weapons’ programme and that you are misleading the BBC audience by stating it as a fact. Hersh wrote about this on The New Yorker website. Hersh quoted Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst, who said: ‘there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.’ Hersh also described the IAEA report as a ‘political document,’ not a scientific study. ‘They [the US’s Joint Special Operations Force Command] found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization.’ ‘In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact.’ How do you justify your assertion of a ‘nuclear weapons’ programme? I hope you will respond soon. Best wishes David Cromwell Co-Editor, Media Lens www.medialens.org To his credit, Stephenson responded the following day: Dear David Thank you for your email. As you say, the headline was accurate. The piece made clear that the latest developments do not prove Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, although it would make it easier to do so. This should have been reflected in the cue. Best wishes James Stephenson Editor, BBC News at Ten ‘This should have been reflected in the cue’ is about the biggest concession we’ve ever seen from a BBC editor in all the years we’ve been doing Media Lens. As we’ve pointed out over the years, such 'slips' consistently tilt in the direction of state-corporate propaganda. They never seem to go the other way: towards undermining the deceptions and falsehoods generated by government and big business. One of our regular posters on the Media Lens message board, ‘junglefish’, received a similar reply from Stephenson. Pressing further, he asked the BBC editor whether ‘the cue’ was scripted or whether it had been inserted on the hoof by Huw Edwards. Stephenson replied that it had been ‘an error in the script’. (Email, February 23, 2012). Our reader emailed back: ‘So, we can ascertain that a (presumably) senior BBC journalist, having reviewed the content of the item in question decided to write a cue that stated, "Iran has announced new developments in its nuclear weapons programme." This was then presumably sub-edited and checked by other members of the BBC News team, and yet no one noticed the obvious and I believe very important error. I find this quite remarkable. ‘I would be interested to know what your views are regarding this error, whether you feel that the BBC ought to exercise more care in this regard, and what steps you might be able to take to correct the mis-representation in this item?’ The BBC editor replied: ‘We work to very high standards and mistakes are rare. It is unfortunate a slip occurred on this occasion. We will make sure this does not happen again in the future. As I said in my earlier email, the headline was accurate and the piece made the Iranian position clear, so the full picture was given in the coverage despite the error in the cue. ‘I am afraid I do not have anything further to add. Of course you have the right to make a formal complaint via the BBC website if you wish to do so.’ (Media Lens message board, February 25, 2012) Regular readers will be all too aware of the stifling, bureaucratic treacle of the BBC complaints process described even by one former BBC chairman as ‘absolutely hopeless’. Poster ‘johnlilburne’ noted on our board: ‘You can be damn sure such an “error” would not be made if it cast the Israelis in a bad light. ‘If one did slip through, there would be hell to pay and heads would roll.’ (Media Lens message board, February 25, 2012) Finally, as another of our regular posters, George_HK observed sardonically: ‘Isn't it peculiar how these regular “mistakes” always favour the lies being propagandised about the official enemies and never told about our “allies”. ‘That's because these “mistakes” happen when people aren't careful to hold back on their prejudices and thought processes. Things which don't cross these peoples thoughts are never “mistakenly broadcast”.’ (Media Lens message board, February 25, 2012) SUGGESTED ACTION The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Please write to: James Stephenson, BBC News at Ten editor Email: james.stephenson@bbc.co.uk Huw Edwards, BBC News presenter Email: huw.edwards.01@bbc.co.uk Chris McGreal, Guardian reporter Email: chris.mcgreal@guardian.co.uk Richard Beeston, Times foreign editor Email: richard.beeston@thetimes.co.uk Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/timesforeigned Please copy us in on any exchanges or forward them to us later at: editor@medialens.org This Alert is Archived here: Iran – Next In Line For Western ‘Intervention’? Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook The second Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century' by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book: "Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth." Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop
	Donate... In July 2011, we reached our tenth anniversary. We would like to thank all those who have supported and encouraged us along the way. Media Lens relies on donations for its funding. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead? The email address we have for you is ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com, you can change it here Had enough of the Alerts? Unsubscribe here >> www.medialens.org

Smear campaign against Iran? - By Seema Mustafa - THE FREE PRESS JOURNAL, Mumbai, India

Steeped in their old practice of instantly blaming a certain favorite community, in case of any bomb blast incident, India's electronic media, saw no reason not to pick up Israel's instant charge on Iran for the Delhi car blast. However, this time around it had to eat humble pie, when an international consensus is emerging that Israel's charge is unproven and political and India and its media, at least should have hedged and waited for proof from their own national authorities, before spreading the charge. Their faux pas has exposed their unhealthy connection with corporate world and its demands on nursing prejudices against a certain community.

Of all the major India based TV Channels, Times of India's TIMES NOW, appeared to be as reckless as ever in repeating Israeli charge, without any care for either media responsibility or diplomatic propriety. As Justice Katju has pointed out, Media should now be under some level of scrutiny and accountability, so that it sticks to its hallowed role of informing people but not carrying out propaganda as paid media.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
--------------

http://www.freepressjournal.in/news/48934-smear-campaign-against-iran.html

• 
  

Smear campaign against Iran?

• India
• Feb 20, 2012

• Rate This  
•      

The question that needs to be answered is: why would Iran risk its growing friendship with India by launching a terror attack against Israel? And that too on Indian soil? And that too against a lowly Israeli official?
 
By SEEMA MUSTAFA

Journalists, now it seems a long long time ago, were always told to verify facts before levelling allegations.

And that if the allegations came without facts to always use the words " alleged" or " claimed" making it clear that the version was an allegation and clearly not verified. Journalists were always told not to accept any version as the gospel truth, and make all possible attempts to clarify and find out the facts.

This changed dramatically with the advent of 24- hour television channels, that accepted any and everything that came their way as the final truth. So it was in New Delhi when a vehicle, in which an Israeli official was travelling, blew up mysteriously at a traffic crossing just yards from the Indian Prime Ministers residence. The television channels scrambled to beat each other in the coverage of the alleged attack. Israel predictably hit the ground running, insisting that Iran was responsible for the alleged bomb attack on the vehicle in which the woman was travelling even before the flames had been doused. Israeli Prime Minister set their particular political ball in motion when from Tel Aviv he declared that Iran had launched a terror attack on Israel within minutes and hours of the incident.

The media without facts, started carrying headlines and organizing discussions on the basis of the Israeli charge.

Iran and Israel battle it out on Indian soil, screamed the headlines as the nationalist anchors came on air shaking their heads, and wagging their little fingers in a " look at what is going on" stance.

It was very unfortunate that the Indian media decided to accept Israels allegations as the gospel truth without any regard for the facts, or the consequences.

The investigations had not even begun when the media decided to accept the Israeli version and launch into 'breaking news'and discussions claiming a Israel versus Iran war was being fought on Indian soil. The Iranian denial was drowned in the din and one suspects the over- eagerness to please the corporate and allied interests. By the second day sections of the print media had also started joining the bandwagon, with not a single story questioning Israels claims, and the legitimacy of its assertions.

Fortunately, despite the tremendous pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv, India has continued to resist the temptation to support Israel, and cut off links with Iran. It is no secret that the US made its displeasure of Indias renewed friendship with Iran very clear during Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathais visit to Washington.

But till date New Delhi seems to be holding out, although given Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs close proximity with the US one cannot say at this stage for how long, or for that matter whether it will last the course.

Fortunately there is a division in the strategic elite establishment that crowds government corridors. Iran is quite a favourite with the Indian people, as well as sections of the Establishment. Besides, given the dip in growth statistics it is apparent even to those in government that the need to mop up energy resources is urgent. And India cannot afford to dismiss Iran as it had earlier. Against this back the timing of the attack could not have been better for Israel, not Iran.

After a hiatus India had started to mend relations with Iran that was clearly a source of worry for Israel and the US. The question that thus, needs to be answered is: why would Iran at this stage risk its growing friendship with India by launching a terror attack against Israel? And that too on Indian soil? And that too against a lowly Israeli official? Sleuths across the world establish the motive first as an important aid in investigations of a crime. In this case Israel has a motive, in that it wants relations between India and Iran to sour and break. Iran does not have a motive as its efforts currently are to strengthen relations as it needs the friendship of India in countering the Israeli offensive.

Investigators also like to study the modus operandi. Till date the sticky bomb that was supposedly used to blow up the Israeli diplomatic vehicle has been used only by Israel in its targeted assassinations across the world. This magnetic bomb was used by Mossad operatives to kill Iranian nuclear scientists in recent months. 

Also it is a well known fact that Mossad specializes in such specific operations, and crosses borders and boundaries to reach and exterminate the targets. Iran has not adopted such a modus operandi as yet, and has really been more of a victim on this front than an aggressor. But now the Israelis would have the world believe that their weapons and their methods are being used by targeted nations who are bowed under sanctions, and being hit on an hourly basis by vicious propaganda and threats from powerful nations.

India did err by voting against Iran at a crucial juncture at the IAEA on the nuclear issue. It also dropped out of the energy rich Iran- Pakistan- India peace pipeline, under US pressure. There were many experts in this country who criticized this move, and it has taken some time for the UPA government to realize that Iran is essential for energy that is essential for growth that is essential for the ruling Congress to win the next general elections. Or at least have a chance to win.

India will make a major strategic mistake if it shifts position against Iran under the growing pressure. It might be recalled that after abstaining from a vote at the UNSC against Syria it has now sided with the US against Syria, costing it much goodwill in the neighbouring region.

Foreign policy under the UPA government has taken the shape of a see saw that bends on the one or the other side under pressure. This has weakened India's position in the developing world, as non- western governments are no longer sure of its policy at any given point in time. There have been many instances when the government has moved back from categorical assertions, in a volte-face that defies comprehension and flies in the face of consistency.

It is important for the media to be brought under some levels of accountability, by journalistic bodies that too seem to be quite oblivious of the irresponsible reportage. The tendency of anchors to play the police, jury and hangman is coming increasingly in the way of the exercise of good, responsible, independent journalism and it is time that the few media outfits that have survived the test of time take a lead in what should become a long and deep introspective exercise. Otherwise, the media will lose all respect of the people and instead of acting as a watchdog and a counter check on the recklessness of the executive and the legislature in particular, will become an oppressive instrument against the people of India and the nations interests.

Must Watch - A Jewish/Zionist New World Order glimpse - Illumicorp - YouTube

Must Watch - A Jewish/Zionist New World Order glimpse, that should be an eye opener to all targeted victims of their diabolic plans to control the world through successful manipulations and rule over its people. It clearly lays out how America's Federal Reserve Board was created to create and supply funds to their world-wide mission. It adds to the mystique of these public display of their audacious conspiracies, when they say its FAKE. They said the same thing about Protocol Of the Elders of the Zion. As up-loader on YouTube, Narsimhadev explains, even if it is not a real Illuminati orientation/training video, it is still very educational for the TRUTHs that it reveals and the facts that are well-known.

GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

Uploaded by Narsimhadev010 on May 11, 2011

Not a real Illuminati orientation/training video but still very educational for the TRUTHs that it does reveal. What a real orientation video might look like!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dEL_gHlLBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Plmr_NifP5I

 

YouTube - Videos from this email

Comments posted on The Pioneer, over Ashok Malik’s article: India gets it all wrong again - By Ghulam Muhammed

Comments posted on The Pioneer, over Ashok Malik’s article: India gets it all wrong again:

One cannot ignore the difference of world view between an American Zionist warmonger like Kissinger and a traditionally pacifist India's then foreign minister Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh rightly avoided reply, out of politeness.

Why a country should have to have military alliances, so that it can fight wars. Why should it not try all diplomatic moves to avoid war and if time comes, why should it depend on others to join it in its own wars, like US and Israel and NATO always go about. Like a pack of hyenas, even when they can alone fight a war, and they did like in Iraq, without waiting for others to help them out.

I think Indian response on both Maldives and Iran, was most well considered and had for the first time avoided a knee jerk reaction, that some trigger happy countries expect India to jump at the first whistle. Those writers who have sympathies with US and Israel, are naturally use every logic to fault their own government. However, so much has now come out within the short period of a week or two on the nuances of Indian foreign policy on both subjects, it is rather too presumptuous to ignore the entire perspective and push an old jaundiced view of ideological preference when the matter involves 'appeasing' - the favorite Hindutva term -- the Muslim radicals, both in Maldives and in Iran. The real world is much more complicated than to be covered by ideological terminologies.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51084-india-gets-it-all-wrong-again.html

Author:  Ashok Malik

New Delhi's foreign policy flip-flops have left the world wondering whether there is anything ideologically or strategically non-negotiable for India.

As External Affairs Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh once recounted a conversation with Mr Henry Kissinger, former United States Secretary of State. Pointing out India’s strategic precariousness, Mr Kissinger asked Mr Singh to name one country that would completely trust India and stand by it whatever the circumstances, and would be willing to go to war for it. “And don’t say Bhutan,” the American rounded off.

As Mr Singh described it, he kept quiet, feigning to ponder over the issue. Then he pretended to be hospitable and asked Mr Kissinger if he wanted tea, gently changing the subject.

The story is telling and its lessons are perennial. This is especially so at a time when India has found itself sucked into the Iran-Israel conflict and has suffered the diminution of its influence in the Maldives, a part of the world that should logically fall under its strategic umbrella.

Reams have been written about how New Delhi can in effect do nothing in terms of the clash between Teheran on the one side, and Tel Aviv and Washington, DC, on the other. It is said India is genuinely torn between different (sets of) friends, is concerned about the impact of conflict in West Asia on its diaspora, oil imports and economy — and therefore has little autonomy for action even if it was probably Iran-backed terrorists who tried assassinating a diplomat in the heart of New Delhi.

All of this is true, as is the truism that India is trapped between competing choices — doing business with Iran, becoming at least for a while its biggest oil customer; or backing Israel in preventing a nuclear-arms race among adversarial Muslim countries in its near-neighbourhood. However, at a fundamental level a plethora of choices of this nature also indicates the absence of a choice. Far from flexibility, it gives India’s strategic space a certain vulnerability.

The upshot of this is when it comes to the crunch, at the absolute essence, few countries implicitly trust India. This is not because they dislike India or believe it to be inherently evil. It is just that the process of decision-making in terms of foreign policy and strategic choices is so unpredictable, so susceptible to pressures — personal and political, media and electoral — that India comes across not as a resolute power but a fickle actor. In the Iran-Israel case, for instance, India is trying to balance things and please both. It is likely it will please none.

The mess in Male offers another window to the same predicament. It is now obvious India misjudged the timing and smoothness of the transition from President Mohamed Nasheed to the successor regime. The Indian Prime Minister was too quick to send a congratulatory letter to the new Government in Male, according it legitimacy with astonishing speed and without holding out for any benefits. That aside, India doggedly refused to term the displacement of Mr Nasheed as a coup without quite explaining how the overthrow of a democratically-elected leader could be anything but that.

Perhaps this was an error of judgement. Fair enough, even diplomats and Foreign Offices make mistakes. What compounded India’s folly was the flurry of news stories and media plants that followed. The Ministry of External Affairs claimed to have organised the transition in Male. Then it began a process of disparaging Mr Nasheed — saying he was unpredictable, authoritarian, anyway in bed with the Islamists, even if the Islamists were emerging even stronger with his departure.

Again all of this may be true, but the post facto rationalisation from South Block was rather perplexing. It created the impression that India was eager to curry favour with the new regime in Male, whatever the cost. It was diplomacy at its most clumsy.

A week ago, on Saturday, February 11, the Indian Express published a long report on Mr Nasheed’s relationship with India. The report was fairly detailed and obviously based on top-level briefings. One paragraph was astounding: “It’s learnt that Nasheed would regularly send lists of Maldivian students studying in India, who were suspected radicals. In fact, it was this effort which led to the discovery that many fundamentalist Maldivian groups were sending terror recruits in the garb of students to India, who would later smuggle themselves into Pakistan for training. He had also agreed to far-reaching defence arrangements with India after 26/11.”

However hard one tries, it is difficult to see the utility of this briefing. Indeed, the official who gave away this information is guilty of almost treason. In a couple of throwaway sentences, he revealed the President of another country was sending India names of dubious students. This has completely compromised Mr Nasheed in the Maldives, where his opponents will accuse him of prioritising Indian security over safety of and loyalty to his fellow citizens.

Is this how India treats a high-ranking intelligence asset, one at the level of head of state? After this, would any future political leader in the Maldives offer support and cooperation to India? Unable or unwilling to keep its mouth shut, what is the message the Indian establishment is sending?

A stolid, solid strategic and foreign policy establishment needs to have some key attributes — reticence, consistency, dependability and maturity. New Delhi often falters against these benchmarks. If at the end of the day it is left with weakened political leverage in Male, it will have only itself to blame. In the case of the attack on the Israeli diplomat, if India cannot convey a simple, unambiguous and public message to Iran that it will not tolerate its territory being used to launch a terror strike, how can it be expected to be taken seriously?

India has gone through this before. It blundered its way through the ‘revolution’ in Nepal without optimising its best interests. Today, it matters less in Kathmandu than it did a decade ago. In 1990, India was quite okay with Kuwait being gobbled up by Iraq. After the Americans and their allies went to war and liberated Kuwait, India looked mighty silly. Far from protecting its diaspora, New Delhi ended up hurting it. Indians were punished and denied jobs and contracts in reconstruction-era Kuwait.

Taking a cautious and calibrated approach in times of crisis is all very well, but this cannot become an excuse for following the line of least resistance. It ends up presenting India as a country that can live with and accept anything — a democratic Maldives, an Islamist Maldives, a nuclear Iran, a non-nuclear Iran, just anything. It leaves the world, and even stakeholders at home, wondering whether there is anything ideologically or strategically non-negotiable for India.

Read 1292 times

Published in Edit