http://timesofindia.
...The Times of India Have government schemes failed Muslims? By Subodh Varma, TNN | Jan 14, 2013,  A report authored by Abusaleh Sharif, member secretary of the Sachar committee and the man widely regarded as being the main author of that committee’s report, indicates that not much has changed even after the implementation of many government schemes for the upliftment of Muslims in India.
Six years ago, the Sachar Committee report
showed that the Muslim community in India suffers from severe
deprivations in education, employment, health services, public
infrastructure, access to financial services leading to much higher
poverty than other religious groups, somewhat like the condition of
scheduled castes and tribes. The government responded by setting up a
separate ministry for minority affairs, and launching several programs
to provide benefits to the Muslims.
How have these programmes fared? And, what is the condition of Muslims in the key areas that the Sachar committee had underlined? A report authored by Abusaleh Sharif, member secretary of the Sachar committee and the man widely regarded as being the main author of that committee's report, indicates that not much has changed. The report has been released by the US-India Policy Institute of which Sharif is now the chief scholar. In a unique exercise, Sharif has calculated that providing education to Muslim and SC/ST communities would on its own boost the GDP growth rate up to 12%. At present, Muslims contribute only 11.2% to the country's GDP while dalits and adivasis contribute only 16.5%. This is because these communities are poorly educated and forced to work in traditional and low value creating occupations. In traditional services, the share of Muslims and SC/STs in the workforce is about 18% each while in modern services their respective shares are just 8 and 14%. Comparing NSSO data of 2004-05 with 2009-10, the report notes that in this period literacy levels of Muslim OBCs improved by 5.9 percentage points in rural areas and 5.3 points in urban areas. In the same period, literacy among dalits improved by 8.5 points in rural areas and 5.1 points in urban areas. Among tribal communities, literacy shot up by 11.3 points in rural areas and 8.6 points in urban areas. As a result, Muslims, who were earlier roughly at the same level as dalits and tribals, are now beginning to lag behind. At the class 10 level, a similar situation exists. In both rural and urban areas, the number of students clearing class 10 has increased by 13% and 11% for STs and SCs respectively in urban areas, and 10% and 9%, respectively in rural areas. For Muslims, the change is only about 5% to 7% in rural and urban areas. The share of 17 to 29 years old youths who are in higher education has increased by just 1.6 percentage points for Muslim OBCs over the same period. For other Muslims, it has increased by a minuscule 0.8 points. Compare this with a 9.4 points increase among Hindu upper castes and 5.3 points among Hindu OBCs. The improvement in dalits and tribals are similar to the Muslims. Analysis of the nature of employment across different types of work shows that Muslims continue to be concentrated in lower paying jobs. The source of income for almost a quarter of Muslim households is self-employment in non-agricultural occupations, mainly artisanal work. Only 14% of dalits and 6% of tribals earn their living from similar occupations. Another 23% of Muslims households earn by doing agricultural labour. Among dalits and tribals, the shares are 36% for this occupation. In urban areas, over 45% of Muslims are self employed — more than any other community. They are usually involved in petty trade and various services like repair, etc. In the better paying and more secure salaried jobs, Muslims have the lowest share of all communities. NSSO data from 2009-10 shows that in urban areas, over 88% of Muslims workers of age 15 years and above are in informal employment, the highest for any community. Muslims make up just over 6% of all government jobs, the lowest share of all communities and social groups. Government schemes like the MGNREGS meant to provide a cushion for the unemployed too seem to have bypassed the Muslim community as Muslim households made up only 2.3% of those that got work under the scheme. The report also points out that there is policy confusion about how minority communities are to be targeted for benefits under various schemes. Two sets of "minority concentration districts (MCDs)" have been flagged - one set is of 90 districts having 52% Muslim and 3.3% Christian population while the other set of 121 districts is the target of the prime minister's 15-point programme and has 66% Muslim and 11% Christian population. Financial inclusion by extending credit facilities to the minority community on a priority basis is one of the big planks of the 15-point program. RBI data shows that in the 121 districts, average per capita advances to Muslims increased from Rs 50,000 in 2008 to over Rs 100,000 in 2011. But in the same districts, advances to Hindus increased from around Rs 230,000 in 2008 to Rs 270,000 by 2011. The report reviews expenditure by the ministry of minority affairs and shows that while allocation has increased from Rs 500 cr in 2008-09 to Rs 3,135 cr in 2012-13, the actual per capita expenditure was working out to just Rs 230 in 2011-12 because 20% of the funds remained unutilized and also because coverage of the schemes was only about 50% of the total Muslim population. For the multi-sectoral development programme of the ministry, of the Rs 2,966 cr available in 2011-12, only 44% had been spent. It is only in the case of the scholarship programs that targets are being surpassed. ----- Readers' comments:
Muslims
should not expect the Government to bail them out like babies crying
for milk. If they have any self respect and pride, they should work like
the Sardars in Punjab who were affected by partition .Mullahs dictate
the life of every Muslim.Those who break away from shackles of obscurant
mindset prosper like movie actors. cricket players , singers , artistes
etc. Sachar Committee report only helps in putting the Muslims back in
a bottle of poverty with the lid firmly with the Congress party
Why
do Muslims need government schemes in India. They should feel lucky
that the Hindus r still tolerating these traitors for sixty years. On
what basis do they deserve special schemes.
Ofcourse
they have failed. Congress doesnt care about muslims. They care about
muslim votes. Unfortunately, muslims dont seem to realize this. The
great irony is that according to the Sachar Commitee Report, the state
with the highest standard of living among Muslims is Gujarat. Surprised?
You see, all muslims need is a few distractions and they go chasing
that. Draw a cartoon, make a youtube video...they will kill each other.
Promise them reservation, tell them the opposition is
anti-muslim....they will vote for you. Never mind the facts. Ironically,
BJP will probably do more for muslims than Congress ever will.
Muslims
have only themselves to blame. In a country that has had Muslim
presidents, cricketers, actors it is ridiculous to talk about
discrimination. I studied at NIT. There were about 35 muslims in my
batch of 500. there was no reservation in NITs for muslims at the time
(dont know about now). These guys got in like everyone else - studying
hard and doing well in the AIEEE exam. They came to college, did their
studies like everyone else. My batch had a 100% placement that year. So
all 35 of them got placed. Today, atleast 10 of them earn higher
salaries and hold higher posts than me (I'm Hindu). When I talk to those
guys, they dont speak about an India that discriminates against
muslims. They speak of an India where if you study well and work hard,
you can get anywhere. Yes, there are a**holes and racists here and there
but saying the reason for all your problems is the majority is
ridiculous. Do you honestly think Shah Rukh, Salman and Aamir would be
India's best paid actors if Indians hated muslims?
unless
muslims are not part of beaurocracy the progammes for upliftment of
muslims can not be fully implemented with sincerity. why the allocated
budget not utilised 100 %, the beaurucrates will have the ready made
answer. government is not so serious in implementation of programmes
planned for muslims. they declare some thing before election and then
every thing disappears.
Whats
that? Going to madrassas, growing long beards, covering women in
burqas, reading the Quran, producing children like cockroaches laying
eggs, blowing up mosques, destroying national monuments, killing
kafirs...doesnt pay well? How shocking!....Anyway who cares? Muzzies are
going to paradise to f*** 72 virgins and drink unlimited booze. They
can do some low paying work. Let us kafirs enjoy the high paying jobs
of earth because anyway we will burn in hell afterwards. Atleast, thats
what the Quran said.
In
my opinion, the bitter truth of the matter is that the muslims in India
are equally, in fact, in many cases, more responsible than the
government for their miserable condition. Why only in India, the
muslims, from all over the world, with few exceptions, are primarily
responsible for their miserable conditions. Srtarting from Indonesia in
the east to Mouretania in the west, if we study and analyze the social
conditions of the muslims in terms of major living parameters, such as
education, research and development, peace, progress, prosperity,
social justice, human rights, efficiency and productivity, geo-political
stability, health and hygene, living standard and many more, we see
that the conditions of majority of muslims are not better than the
Indian muslims. By and large it is very much similar. Why should we go
far, take the example of muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Are the
conditions of muslims in the neighbor better than Indian muslims ? Are
they better educated ? Do they have better peace, progress and
prosperity ? Is their living standard better ? Do they have better
social security ? Do they have better freedom and social stability, Do
they have better record of human rights and social justice ? Do they
have better facilities of health and hygene ? In which parameter are
they better than Indian muslims ? I acknowledge that there are some
discriminative elements in India, but they are few. Discrimination is
not confined only to India. It exists in many parts of the world in
different forms and magnitudes. I have seen many of the muslims,
habitually try to find lame excuses for their miserable conditions. They
never realize that they are also equally responsible for this.They
wish, somebody should put all the success, prosperity, natural blessings
on their palm, without paying the right price for such blessings. Who
can do that ? One has to work for these blessings. Nobody will put such
blessing on our palm.
Let us take one parameter of social progress and success, the education.
What is the educational status of Indian muslims ? How can we expect to
have better life without good education ? Traditionally a large section
of muslim groups and families did not encourage education both for boys
and girls, in fact more so in case of girls, fearing that the education
may keep them away from their religion. Traditionally a large section
of muslims linked education with bread and butter only, nothing beyond
that. Even today one can see few Imams in the mosques are openly
advising the muslim not to learn science (science is nothing but
knowledge) as science will keep them away from their religion. If this
is the mentality and intellectual level of such religious leaders on
education, who will help them ? Not even the God. Unfortunately these
narrow minded moulvis have huge influence on muslim masses. Anyway, the
ray of hope is that these days there is much better awareness among the
muslims on education and other social parameters.
What a foolish topic to discuss. Govt programs are failing for all the citizens of this country.
It is easy to feel alienated if you are a minority otherwise all are sitting on the burner!!!!!!
7
4
4
Without
proper reservation in govt. jobs and educational institutions, muslims
condition will remain the same. In Indian scenerio nothing will work
other than strict reservation, because govt. welfare schemes hardly
reach muslims and everywhere discrimination. It is not only the upper
caste hindus discriminate, upper caste muslims also discriminate poor
muslims.
The
fact is many Muslims do not believe in family planning and have many
children due to which they will not be able to give them even the basic
education and besides they do not believe in family planning inspite of
their family conditions. Some of them prefer Madarasas than the normal
school education. Read the below lines of Asghar Ali Engineer - Family
Planning and Islam - In fact, in view of the paucity of resources, it
has become necessary to adopt family planning. When the Quran was being
revealed there was neither any properly organised state nor education
nor health services being provided by a state agency.
It is important to note that the Quran, which shows eight ways to spend
zakat, does not include education or health which is so essential for
the state to provide today. Thus what Imam Razi suggests is not only
very correct but also enhances the importance of family planning in
modern times as a small family can support better education and health
services.
This
prove that Muslims has been fooled for this many years of freedom by
Congis. They have been exploited for votes only in the name of fear of
Hindutva. This is high time to stand up and think that neither of the
promise of protection or development has been fulfilled. Come and join
the Idea of Inclusive growth 'Development for all, appeasement for
none'. You know whom I am talking about
I
spent my 21 years in till 1977 in kerala in malapuram dist which is
carved by EMS on demand of muslims being a mulsim majority dist (all
muslim parties are non-secular and join hands with madrsa-mullah groups)
and is having best modern schools-colleges-hospitals etc etc but still
many prefer to educate in madrsa or islamic schools and many are left
out with brainwashed idealogy as the household numbers are quite high
and land in pretty jobs at home or mideast. Despite high literacy the
mindset whcih has cemented in childhood
to adapt and adjust with new environment has hardly been changed, and
its worse in other states. Community leaders are interested to keep them
poor and ignorant for retaining their power and base in the name of
religion and politics. Mostly they themselves are to blame, as
appeasement do not function all the time.
7
4
1
If
you were in Kerala in 70s, you'd also probably remember the CPM govt at
that time tried to create a separate state for muslims to be called
‘Moplastan' and created out of the muslim majority districts, probably
4. That’s how muslim appeasement has been practiced in India, the result
being that the real issue of their development is sidelined
kumar replies to Awadhesh Kumar 1 hr ago
To
remain in power congress is in hands with M-Leauge & communists
with IUM-Leauge, a ploy that muslims with 2-non secular party hold the
triump card and part of power share. And such away carved out dist, laws
and even funding to madrsas,turning malapura-calicut a de facto islamic
areas, finally in natinonal level. Not a single indvidual or secular
party has ever won in muslim dominated areas as MLA/MPs since without
backing of ML/IUML or mullahs paving away communal politics again by
christian dominated kerala congress remote controlled by
bishops.Politics changed into communalism and i witness it on every
visit to the land am born and feed sad of decay of morals n principles.
4
4
3
I
know most of Muslim brothers who come to MH from other parts of India
for procuring MH farm products like veggies and fruits never give
payments to farmers and/or traders. Most of the muslim traders flee MH
after taking farm produce worth 50 lacs to 1 cr and more. This is usual
habit of Muslims brothers to rob non muslim people
In every caste.. there are poor people and RICH people in india... either it is upper caste or it is lower caste.
But when commitee formed to look after perticular community, their concentarion is limited.
Give the same and equal education to all from primary to Highschool. close all the private schools.
Let private colleges be there. close the MADARA's...
They
can uplift themselves we have carried them long enough. Hindus all over
the world carry their own burden. Muslims all over the world need
lifting up. FACT.
2
4
2
Similar
reports on govt schemes for other groups apparently not there. only
then we can say whether failure of schemes are group/religion specific
or otherwise. If a scheme fails it is due to many factors one of which
is rejection or opposition of the group concerned,For e.g. if thisgroup
prefers religion based education. \Perhaps lack of consultative planning
is the reason. But basically how secular is the govt when it prefers a
group over others!
"Muslims
contribute only 11.2% to the country's GDP": I am from a muslim
dominated region where they own a huge business, lands and also
uneducated. As far as i know, many rarely files correct IncomeTax as
many lives in abroad. Also many involved in smuggling (i not saying
muslims but many in my region does it). IMO this 11.2% is not a correct
value. Comparing everyone, they got thier share better than others.
[Message clipped] View entire message |
Monday, January 14, 2013
Have government schemes failed Muslims? By Subodh Varma, TNN, The Times of India
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Yvonne Ridley - Use media to counter Islamophobia - IANS - Newatrackindia.com
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/01/12/232--Use-media-to-counter-Islamophobia-Yvonne-Ridley-.html
Hyderabad, Jan 12 (IANS) Award-winning British-born journalist Yvonne Ridley has called upon Muslims to join together and publish the truth to counter Islamophobia.
Addressing the 'Spring of Islam' conference here, organised by the Jamaat-e-Islami over video conference from London, she said more and more Muslims should join the media as it is the most powerful way to get the message out about the purity of Islam.
"Ambitious parents want their sons and daughters to become doctors, lawyers, scientists and engineers. Why don't you encourage them to join the media as writers, photographers, filmmakers and documentary makers," said Ridley, who was denied a visa by India to attend the conference.
She said by joining the media, Muslims can counter lies and distortion about Islam and can make people see Islam as a religion which promotes peace, encourages education and does not discriminate against women.
"We need to lift the veil of ignorance towards Islam from the face of the West and the best way is to create more and more journalists from within our ranks. Misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, and negative stereotypes, heighten tension and legitimise imperialistic wars, brutality and torture of Muslims," she said.
"If the pen is mightier than the sword, and I truly believe it is, then we must arm ourselves and be prepared to use it as a potent weapon in the war of words," she said.
Ridley, who hit the headlines after she was captured by Taliban in Afghanistan 2001, said the 9/11 attacks changed her life, like that of so many others, forever.
"9/11 brought us to the war on terror and the media began to portray Islam as an enemy towards mankind, especially the West.
Islam became the new face of the public enemy, and Muslims, whether young or old, we all became targets of physical and verbal abuse," said Ridley, who embraced Islam in 2003.
"Men, women and children were targeted in work places, schools, universities and in streets in the West. I know similar abuse has been meted out to my Muslim brothers and sisters in India and hate crimes in India are reaching an unacceptable level. Islam is not a threat to India. It is not a threat to mankind or humanity," she said.
Ridley, who worked for The Sunday Times, The Observer, Daily Mirror, the News of the World and other newspapers, said being a Muslim journalist was challenging. "We are checked daily. Our work and words are scrutinized and the need of honesty and accuracy in reporting is probably at a level higher than for anyone else," she said.
Pointing to how Islam spread 1,400 years ago by word of mouth amongst merchants, who used to travel to far away countries, Ridley said it is now easy for the Muslims to use the sophisticated means of communication. She also called for harnessing social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to spread the message of Islam.
Use media to counter Islamophobia: Yvonne Ridley
India,Religion,
Sat, 12 Jan 2013
IANS
Hyderabad, Jan 12 (IANS) Award-winning British-born journalist Yvonne Ridley has called upon Muslims to join together and publish the truth to counter Islamophobia.
Addressing the 'Spring of Islam' conference here, organised by the Jamaat-e-Islami over video conference from London, she said more and more Muslims should join the media as it is the most powerful way to get the message out about the purity of Islam.
"Ambitious parents want their sons and daughters to become doctors, lawyers, scientists and engineers. Why don't you encourage them to join the media as writers, photographers, filmmakers and documentary makers," said Ridley, who was denied a visa by India to attend the conference.
She said by joining the media, Muslims can counter lies and distortion about Islam and can make people see Islam as a religion which promotes peace, encourages education and does not discriminate against women.
"We need to lift the veil of ignorance towards Islam from the face of the West and the best way is to create more and more journalists from within our ranks. Misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, and negative stereotypes, heighten tension and legitimise imperialistic wars, brutality and torture of Muslims," she said.
"If the pen is mightier than the sword, and I truly believe it is, then we must arm ourselves and be prepared to use it as a potent weapon in the war of words," she said.
Ridley, who hit the headlines after she was captured by Taliban in Afghanistan 2001, said the 9/11 attacks changed her life, like that of so many others, forever.
"9/11 brought us to the war on terror and the media began to portray Islam as an enemy towards mankind, especially the West.
Islam became the new face of the public enemy, and Muslims, whether young or old, we all became targets of physical and verbal abuse," said Ridley, who embraced Islam in 2003.
"Men, women and children were targeted in work places, schools, universities and in streets in the West. I know similar abuse has been meted out to my Muslim brothers and sisters in India and hate crimes in India are reaching an unacceptable level. Islam is not a threat to India. It is not a threat to mankind or humanity," she said.
Ridley, who worked for The Sunday Times, The Observer, Daily Mirror, the News of the World and other newspapers, said being a Muslim journalist was challenging. "We are checked daily. Our work and words are scrutinized and the need of honesty and accuracy in reporting is probably at a level higher than for anyone else," she said.
Pointing to how Islam spread 1,400 years ago by word of mouth amongst merchants, who used to travel to far away countries, Ridley said it is now easy for the Muslims to use the sophisticated means of communication. She also called for harnessing social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to spread the message of Islam.
Friday, January 11, 2013
IDSA : The Aggressor Will Always Get Away - By Ramesh Phadke - IDSA - Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis
http://www.idsa.in/
  IDSA COMMENT The Aggressor Will Always Get Away
January 10, 2013
India, on the other hand, mistakenly believes that because Pakistanis talk, eat, speak and very often behave like us they are indeed like us; our long lost brothers whose wayward behaviour can only be corrected through sustained and sincere peace building as well as disproportionately large concessions because India is after all a big country which is focused on its economic development and can ill afford to be distracted by resort to arms. India is also convinced that Pakistan’s benefactors will not let that country sink beyond a point and intervene to ensure its survival. There is much truth in this assessment but history tells us a somewhat different story. Right from the time of its birth, Pakistani leaders including Jinnah had convinced themselves that India had somehow cheated and short-changed Pakistan with British help and that is how Jinnah got a ‘moth eaten Pakistan’. Although legal, the accession of Jammu & Kashmir was also seen as another case of Indian treachery conveniently forgetting that it was brought on by Pakistani aggression and attempts to wrest control of the state by force. India committed its first blunder by prematurely taking the issue to the United Nations and compounded the folly by choosing the ‘wrong’ article/clause of the Charter, thus allowing Pakistan to become an equal party to the ‘dispute’ when in fact Pakistan was simply the aggressor and nothing more. Thereafter, through the last 65 years, Pakistan has tried to settle the matter by resort to force whenever its leadership felt that the circumstances were propitious and favourable. A major mistake that Pakistan has always made and continues to make even today is to underestimate the resolve of India’s leadership and the capability of the Indian military. The defensive defence policy that India has followed in preference to military retaliation has unfortunately emboldened Pakistan, which continues to believe that it can always get away. Repeated attacks by Pakistan at Haji Pir, Kargil and Chhamb are examples of such aggressive behaviour. Worse, every time Pakistan lost the battle its resolve became stronger to somehow avenge the previous defeat. The wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999 were followed by more aggressive and violent behaviour. India’s shooting down of a Pakistan Navy Atlantique, which had violated Indian air space, was followed by the hijack of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814 in December 1999 as well as various terrorist attacks including KaluChak, Delhi’s Red Fort and the Indian Parliament. India did not retaliate to any of these provocations. It must not be forgotten that in the run-up to bigger hostilities, Pakistan always began with sustained heavy shelling of border posts and towns, as in Kargil in July 1998, to gauge the Indian reaction. In all of these incidents Pakistan’s losses were minimal simply because India had consistently demonstrated self-imposed restraint but to no avail. The recent case of cease-fire violation and Pakistani barbarity should be seen against this backdrop. Once again a pattern is discernible. Pakistan has reportedly violated the 10-year long ceasefire on many occasions but since 01 December 2012 alone the number of such violations has gone up to 22. India has repeatedly been telling the world that the Pakistan Army resorts to unprovoked firing across the Line of Control (LoC) to facilitate infiltration of terrorists but somehow refuses to take action with the result that the world at large does not believe the Indian story. If it is true that Pakistan lost a soldier (Lance Naik Aslam) in the exchange of fire in Mendhar on Saturday last, India should have expected a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan. In 1996, when a Pakistani helicopter carrying a Brigadier was allegedly shot down by India over the Siachen heights, Pakistan lost no time and shot down an Indian Mi-17. The brutal Pakistani response came on Tuesday simply because it had to avenge the loss of Aslam. It reportedly chose Mendhar because here the border fence is well within Indian held territory and Indian army patrols move along and inside the LoC but still on the other side of the fence hence making it easier for Pakistan to mount a raid across the LoC. Foggy conditions further helped Pakistani designs but it is not understood why the so-called Area Domination Patrol was moving so close to the LoC in such poor visibility and that too in the aftermath of the Saturday incident and when the Intelligence Bureau had warned of possible Pakistani action. What sort of area domination was achieved when the Pakistani intruders in fact return unscathed? It is also noteworthy that the Pakistan Army was not satisfied with merely killing the two Indian soldiers and injuring others in the well planned ambush but had to leave a tell-tale signature, a sign of victory, by beheading and mutilating the body/bodies of the Indian soldiers in the medieval practice of victors building a pyramid out of the heads of slain enemy soldiers right outside their tents. The main aim of the exercise was never to hide the barbarity but to explicitly tell the Indian Army to not mess with Pakistan. Why else would Pakistan have returned the mutilated bodies of the brave Lieutenant Saurabh Kalia and the six Indian soldiers during the 1999 Kargil Conflict? This is the psyche that India needs to understand. No amount of cajoling or appealing to their better sense is likely to change this characteristic of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistani message is clear; “We have done what we had to; you want to escalate, do so at your own peril. Pakistan has thrown the gauntlet, try if you have the guts”. Pakistan knows full well that there will soon be a chorus from world leaders demanding restraint and cooling of tempers from both sides. Pakistan knows it can get away unscathed. This time, however, India cannot blame the Jihadi terrorists for wanting to provoke hostilities between the neighbours because it is Pakistani regulars who have perpetrated this atrocity. The tragedy is that many among Indian decision makers are experienced and intelligent enough to understand perfectly well the real import of such brutal and barbaric behaviour but are unable or unwilling to devise appropriate responses in the vain and forlorn hope that Pakistan will somehow mend its ways and reform itself into a ‘normal’ member of the international community. It is time India reviewed this thinking. Instant, hard and yet calibrated military, diplomatic and political response is needed since mere warnings and protestations have proved grossly inadequate to change Pakistan’s behaviour. It is not surprising that the Indian Government spokesperson is ‘perplexed’. While India cannot afford to respond in anger it must also not make the mistake of allowing others to meddle in its affairs but, in fact, show to the world that it is perfectly capable of taking care of these pinpricks and teaching its recalcitrant neighbour(s) a hard lesson if need be. To do this, India must, however, shed its misplaced and grossly exaggerated fears of escalation into a two front war if such limited military action was initiated; in fact, the world will welcome it. The Indian Jawan is a simple man who is trained to obey orders but his morale should not be undermined by continued inaction and India’s faith in high sounding principles of international behaviour. The constant demand to withdraw the AFSPA from parts of Jammu & Kashmir when the Indian Army is repeatedly attacked by the so-called militants is already causing the Jawan avoidable anguish. He still routinely walks into harm’s way without a moment’s hesitation simply because he has vowed to defend his sacred land. But his unquestioned obedience must never be taken for granted nor should he ever be allowed to feel defenceless against such atrocities. It is not as if India lacks the wherewithal to safeguard its borders. Intelligence gathering mechanisms, armed and attack helicopters, Special Operation Forces, specially trained Commandos and above all plenty of electronic air and space based means are available to accurately identify and strike at the enemy in a highly calibrated response with little or no collateral damage. But for such actions to be successful India needs to first show strong resolve and equally importantly initiate without any further loss of time a truly ‘joint’ planning process that includes all arms/agencies of the state. While politicians and diplomats will do their job by informing other countries of India’s concerns and limits of patience, let the military devise ways to ensure a permanent stop to future provocations from across the borders. It is also time India considered the use of ‘drones’ or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) fitted with suitable weapons and missiles to punish the enemy; merely possessing them will however not help. There is a chance that such declarations of red lines and open preparations for military retaliation will raise a storm of protest and criticism by India’s neighbours and other countries simply because they are not used to India taking any action but that should not be allowed to dissuade us. By constantly resorting to legal action such as exchange of dossiers of universally known international criminals, India has been sending a wrong message to the world. What India must urgently consider is a declaratory national security policy that includes as a first step the recovery of India’s lost territories to its neighbours or national reunification even if it means waging a long struggle. The absence of such an articulated aim has in fact weakened India’s case. A bold yet calm declaration of red lines is the only way India can put the onus of peace on the other side. The Indian soldier is enjoined to not only defend the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty but more importantly its honour. We must not be found wanting in this sacred duty by neglecting the soldier’s honour. Views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. |
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Hagel can reveal the 'real' Obama - By M K Bhadrakumar - Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
Hagel can reveal the 'real' Obama
By M K Bhadrakumar
In Spanish, they say Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres - "Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are."
When United States President Barack Obama walked into the East Room in the White House on Monday evening with former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, his nominee for defense secretary, that was the thought that came to mind. It was a short walk, which nonetheless had precipitated in its anticipation much animated debate in the Washington circuit.
Hagel is an extraordinary person for the US president to walk with at this point in America's trajectory as the world's lone superpower with a military budget that outstrips the rest of the world combined.
Obama underscored it by saying his choice of Hagel is "historic", since the former senator would be the "first from the enlisted
ranks" to serve as secretary of defense and "one of the few secretaries who have been wounded in war" who would know "war is not an abstraction... [he] understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary."
Obama said everything that he thought was needed to be said about Hagel - that is, almost everything. However, what he didn't say and what is on everyone's mind nonetheless is also important to recount: Hagel is someone who opposed the 2003 Iraq war and in fact went on to seek an investigation over the reasons given by the George W Bush administration to justify the invasion. He is someone who questioned the "surge" in Afghanistan and drew parallels with Vietnam, and who is a strong critic of economic sanctions in general.
He also favors talks with Hamas.
Here is someone who won't mistake engagement as "appeasement" but will regard it as an "opportunity to better understand" others, and who advocates that great and powerful nations "must be adults in world affairs".
Here is a future US defense secretary who believes that the conflicts of the future "are beyond the control of any great power" and unlikely to involve unilateral US action"; and who estimates that the defense department that he is going to run "in many ways has become bloated" and "in many ways... the Pentagon needs to be pared down".
Shedding timidity
That is to say, prima facie, Hagel is an odd choice as the defense secretary if the conventional wisdom holds good that US foreign policy is driven by that country's military-industrial complex and the pervasive lobbies that work out of Washington, and is indeed embedded deep within American imperialism.
So, where is the real departure - or, is there a departure at all? The answer to the question lies in Obama's political personality. Obama has been a proponent of "soft power", but being a consummate politician, he proved to be a pragmatic president in his first term, surrounding himself with advisers such as Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Robert Gates, whom he knew very well to be by no means his soul mates sharing the beliefs he boldly professed - on the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, and so forth - while being an aspirant for the Oval Office.
Looking back, Obama picked up the threads on many issues where Bush left them, and he coolly abandoned some of his own campaign promises.
Suffice to say, the nomination of Hagel harks back to the "audacity of hope" that Obama famously held out in the run up to his unceremonious entry as an outsider into national politics in the US. The big question today is: Are we about to witness the real beginning of the Obama era in US foreign policy?
A good case can be made that Obama is breaking out of the image of timidity that somehow came to be associated with the foreign policy he pursued in the first term as president. Of course, to be fair to him, the lurking suspicion was always there that as a clever politician he deliberately chose not to follow his instincts during his first term as president in order to get re-elected. To be sure, he ended up disappointing his admirers (home and abroad) and supporters - and at times vindicated his detractors - but then, it is never an easy balance to strike between value-based politics and the politics of expediency.
Arguably, a combination of the difficult circumstances within the US and the complexities of the emerging world order would now enable Obama to settle on a style of leadership, finally, that is value-based and accords to his beliefs and convictions. Meanwhile, liberated from the exigencies of having to fight for another public office, he is also largely free to follow his instincts without inhibitions. Obama being a gifted intellectual with a strong sense of history would also have his eyes cast on his presidential legacy as the helmsman at this defining moment in his country's future.
Obama is acutely aware of the rise of other leading states on the international arena and is conscious of the growing limits to the US's dominant military might in the international system. On the other hand, as he never tires of admitting, he is a great patriot who is a passionate believer in the ideas of American exceptionalism, and in the US's destiny as a world leader. Without doubt, therefore, he will continue to uphold American interests and seek to relentlessly perpetuate the US's lead role in world affairs, although his methods may vary.
A powerful signal
However, it may not necessarily be up to Obama to set his foreign-policy compass, given the volatility of the international environment and the forces of history that are at work today. In sum, he is going to be as much a "victim" of events overseas as a navigator.
Take the Iran problem, for example. Reaching a grand bargain with Iran may seem a low-hanging fruit (which it is) - ensuring that Tehran doesn't pursue a nuclear weapon program in return for Washington lifting the onerous economic sanctions - but it overlooks that there are entrenched interest groups on both sides, including among some of the US's key allies in the region, who would continue to thwart any attempts by him to unfreeze US-Iran ties.
Again, ending the crisis is Syria may seem a deceptively simple matter of working out a deal with Russia and of the US exercising self-restraint by refraining from directly involving in fighting the war. But on the contrary, the eruption of sectarian schism in that country may already have let loose demons that could prove to be difficult to control even with the best of intentions in Moscow and Washington.
Similarly, the Arab Spring is yet in its early stages, and already the palpable reality staring the world in the face is that the US is barely coping with the treacherous flow of events.
Clearly, the will to end the Afghan war is undeniably there, but then, the challenge of reassuring a problematic Pakistan and cajoling it to relinquish its long-held objective of gaining "strategic depth" and to give up the support for the Taliban as a hedge to ward off Indian influence in Kabul as the US role wanes is a formidable one, with no clear prospects of an agreeable end result in view, although the withdrawal of US combat troops is scheduled to be completed within the year.
Yet, imagine, all these troubling questions are also closely linked one way or another to the US's discourse with the Muslim world. Moving further on, the expert opinion happens to be that US relations with China and Russia may be heading for a rough patch. The US's "rebalancing" to Asia; its propensity to get involved in China's territorial disputes and its support of democratic advances; Obama's own "Asia Pivot Tour" soon after the November election - Beijing no doubt sees them all as provocative.
Similarly, Obama needs to reinvent the "reset" with Russia, but whether he feels the urge to strike a productive relationship with President Vladimir Putin - as he apparently struck with former president and now prime minister Dmitry Medvedev - remains in doubt.
The high probability is that although Obama has promised "more flexibility" with Russia on the thorny issue of missile defense after his re-election, the US administration would still continue to engage Russia only selectively on pressing issues of concern to the US while otherwise by and large ignoring Russia. On its part, Moscow seems to be keeping its fingers crossed as to the prospects for a real breakthrough in the increasingly acrimonious US-Russia discourse during Obama's second term.
Thus, on balance, it all but seems likely that the more things appear to change, the more they might remain the same. But that will be a gross simplification of the powerful signal Obama has chosen to send by selecting two Vietnam veterans for the two key cabinet posts of secretaries of state and defense - John Kerry and Hagel.
Obama is signaling much more than a new leadership style of using more carrots than sticks, more ideas and persuasion than threats and sanctions, more "soft power" than "smart power". The bottom line is that now that he won't be running again, Obama enjoys far greater space and flexibility than during the past four years to really test a values-based foreign policy approach that relies on negotiations.
Monday's short walk with Hagel is long enough to recall who Obama used to be - and could still turn out to be.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Hagel can reveal the 'real' Obama
By M K Bhadrakumar
In Spanish, they say Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres - "Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are."
When United States President Barack Obama walked into the East Room in the White House on Monday evening with former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, his nominee for defense secretary, that was the thought that came to mind. It was a short walk, which nonetheless had precipitated in its anticipation much animated debate in the Washington circuit.
Hagel is an extraordinary person for the US president to walk with at this point in America's trajectory as the world's lone superpower with a military budget that outstrips the rest of the world combined.
Obama underscored it by saying his choice of Hagel is "historic", since the former senator would be the "first from the enlisted
ranks" to serve as secretary of defense and "one of the few secretaries who have been wounded in war" who would know "war is not an abstraction... [he] understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary."
Obama said everything that he thought was needed to be said about Hagel - that is, almost everything. However, what he didn't say and what is on everyone's mind nonetheless is also important to recount: Hagel is someone who opposed the 2003 Iraq war and in fact went on to seek an investigation over the reasons given by the George W Bush administration to justify the invasion. He is someone who questioned the "surge" in Afghanistan and drew parallels with Vietnam, and who is a strong critic of economic sanctions in general.
He also favors talks with Hamas.
Here is someone who won't mistake engagement as "appeasement" but will regard it as an "opportunity to better understand" others, and who advocates that great and powerful nations "must be adults in world affairs".
Here is a future US defense secretary who believes that the conflicts of the future "are beyond the control of any great power" and unlikely to involve unilateral US action"; and who estimates that the defense department that he is going to run "in many ways has become bloated" and "in many ways... the Pentagon needs to be pared down".
Shedding timidity
That is to say, prima facie, Hagel is an odd choice as the defense secretary if the conventional wisdom holds good that US foreign policy is driven by that country's military-industrial complex and the pervasive lobbies that work out of Washington, and is indeed embedded deep within American imperialism.
So, where is the real departure - or, is there a departure at all? The answer to the question lies in Obama's political personality. Obama has been a proponent of "soft power", but being a consummate politician, he proved to be a pragmatic president in his first term, surrounding himself with advisers such as Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Robert Gates, whom he knew very well to be by no means his soul mates sharing the beliefs he boldly professed - on the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, and so forth - while being an aspirant for the Oval Office.
Looking back, Obama picked up the threads on many issues where Bush left them, and he coolly abandoned some of his own campaign promises.
Suffice to say, the nomination of Hagel harks back to the "audacity of hope" that Obama famously held out in the run up to his unceremonious entry as an outsider into national politics in the US. The big question today is: Are we about to witness the real beginning of the Obama era in US foreign policy?
A good case can be made that Obama is breaking out of the image of timidity that somehow came to be associated with the foreign policy he pursued in the first term as president. Of course, to be fair to him, the lurking suspicion was always there that as a clever politician he deliberately chose not to follow his instincts during his first term as president in order to get re-elected. To be sure, he ended up disappointing his admirers (home and abroad) and supporters - and at times vindicated his detractors - but then, it is never an easy balance to strike between value-based politics and the politics of expediency.
Arguably, a combination of the difficult circumstances within the US and the complexities of the emerging world order would now enable Obama to settle on a style of leadership, finally, that is value-based and accords to his beliefs and convictions. Meanwhile, liberated from the exigencies of having to fight for another public office, he is also largely free to follow his instincts without inhibitions. Obama being a gifted intellectual with a strong sense of history would also have his eyes cast on his presidential legacy as the helmsman at this defining moment in his country's future.
Obama is acutely aware of the rise of other leading states on the international arena and is conscious of the growing limits to the US's dominant military might in the international system. On the other hand, as he never tires of admitting, he is a great patriot who is a passionate believer in the ideas of American exceptionalism, and in the US's destiny as a world leader. Without doubt, therefore, he will continue to uphold American interests and seek to relentlessly perpetuate the US's lead role in world affairs, although his methods may vary.
A powerful signal
However, it may not necessarily be up to Obama to set his foreign-policy compass, given the volatility of the international environment and the forces of history that are at work today. In sum, he is going to be as much a "victim" of events overseas as a navigator.
Take the Iran problem, for example. Reaching a grand bargain with Iran may seem a low-hanging fruit (which it is) - ensuring that Tehran doesn't pursue a nuclear weapon program in return for Washington lifting the onerous economic sanctions - but it overlooks that there are entrenched interest groups on both sides, including among some of the US's key allies in the region, who would continue to thwart any attempts by him to unfreeze US-Iran ties.
Again, ending the crisis is Syria may seem a deceptively simple matter of working out a deal with Russia and of the US exercising self-restraint by refraining from directly involving in fighting the war. But on the contrary, the eruption of sectarian schism in that country may already have let loose demons that could prove to be difficult to control even with the best of intentions in Moscow and Washington.
Similarly, the Arab Spring is yet in its early stages, and already the palpable reality staring the world in the face is that the US is barely coping with the treacherous flow of events.
Clearly, the will to end the Afghan war is undeniably there, but then, the challenge of reassuring a problematic Pakistan and cajoling it to relinquish its long-held objective of gaining "strategic depth" and to give up the support for the Taliban as a hedge to ward off Indian influence in Kabul as the US role wanes is a formidable one, with no clear prospects of an agreeable end result in view, although the withdrawal of US combat troops is scheduled to be completed within the year.
Yet, imagine, all these troubling questions are also closely linked one way or another to the US's discourse with the Muslim world. Moving further on, the expert opinion happens to be that US relations with China and Russia may be heading for a rough patch. The US's "rebalancing" to Asia; its propensity to get involved in China's territorial disputes and its support of democratic advances; Obama's own "Asia Pivot Tour" soon after the November election - Beijing no doubt sees them all as provocative.
Similarly, Obama needs to reinvent the "reset" with Russia, but whether he feels the urge to strike a productive relationship with President Vladimir Putin - as he apparently struck with former president and now prime minister Dmitry Medvedev - remains in doubt.
The high probability is that although Obama has promised "more flexibility" with Russia on the thorny issue of missile defense after his re-election, the US administration would still continue to engage Russia only selectively on pressing issues of concern to the US while otherwise by and large ignoring Russia. On its part, Moscow seems to be keeping its fingers crossed as to the prospects for a real breakthrough in the increasingly acrimonious US-Russia discourse during Obama's second term.
Thus, on balance, it all but seems likely that the more things appear to change, the more they might remain the same. But that will be a gross simplification of the powerful signal Obama has chosen to send by selecting two Vietnam veterans for the two key cabinet posts of secretaries of state and defense - John Kerry and Hagel.
Obama is signaling much more than a new leadership style of using more carrots than sticks, more ideas and persuasion than threats and sanctions, more "soft power" than "smart power". The bottom line is that now that he won't be running again, Obama enjoys far greater space and flexibility than during the past four years to really test a values-based foreign policy approach that relies on negotiations.
Monday's short walk with Hagel is long enough to recall who Obama used to be - and could still turn out to be.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Monday, January 7, 2013
"Jamaat recipe: Ban co-education, live-in relationship" - FPJ Bureau - The Free Press Journal, Mumbai, India
http://freepressjournal.in/
Headlines January 8, 2013 04:10:24 AM | By FPJ Bureau
My humble addition to the Jamaat list:
Separate health facilities for women, exclusively manned by women doctors, surgeons, medical equipment operators, nurses, ward attendants, building supervisors, cleaners, Ambulance drivers and attendants. Women's dignity should be upheld at all costs.To achieve the Women Only services by Women Only -- 50% compulsory reservation in Medical Education and other ancillary educational and training services.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
Headlines January 8, 2013 04:10:24 AM | By FPJ Bureau
Jamaat recipe: Ban co-education, live-in relationship
The Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, too, has
its own recipe for preventing rapes: It wants co-education and live-in
relationships blamed. It also wants that women be made to wear what it
calls “dignified dresses”.
The
outfit has submitted 11 suggestions, one of which is the public
execution of rapists. The following are its suggestions forwarded to
Justice JS Verma committee for ensuring safety and security of women.
- Only a proper marriage contracted by free will should be recognized as the permitted form of legal sexual intimacy. All sex outside marriage, including live-in relationship, should be illegal and punishable.
- There should be provision for capital punishment for heinous crimes such as rape. These punishments should be given in public and people should be afforded an opportunity to witness the same, so that it might act as a deterrent to such heinous crimes.
- Co-education should be abolished
- Educational institutions should prescribe sober and dignified dress for girls.
- Services of religious institutions and religious leaders should be sought to reform society
- Proper transport facilities for woman be made available in towns and cities.
- Marriage should be made: all forms of dowry be abolished and all unnecessary expenditures be curbed and made punishable.
- Electronic and print media should avoid exposing woman and it should be made punishable.
- Alcohol is in the root of all evils
- The criminal laws in cases of offenses against women should be made more stringent, the judicial procedure be simplified and made faster.
- Police reforms should be implemented and the complaint of not lodging FIRs or delaying of FIRs be made punishable offences.
My humble addition to the Jamaat list:
Separate health facilities for women, exclusively manned by women doctors, surgeons, medical equipment operators, nurses, ward attendants, building supervisors, cleaners, Ambulance drivers and attendants. Women's dignity should be upheld at all costs.To achieve the Women Only services by Women Only -- 50% compulsory reservation in Medical Education and other ancillary educational and training services.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)