Author Archives: Dr. Abdul Ruff

Prolific Writer, Analyst, Independent columnist and commentator on world affairs
Chancellor-Founder of Center for International Affairs(CIA) a university Teacher

On Trump-Putin informal meeting at G20 in Germany!

On Trump-Putin informal meeting at G20 in Germany!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

Foreword

Entire world’s attention was focused on the first ever meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Valentin Putin in Germany where they had come to attend the G-20 meeting.

World is shivering due to the terror wars launched by US led NATO continuing endlessly in Mideast, already killing millions of humans. More millions have been displaced, seriously wounded, fled to other countries in order to evade terror attacks by their sworn enemies with western terror goods.

End of terror wars could lead to peace in the world. People across the globe think if USA and Russia come together, the world, living beings and human race could be saved. But USA and its allies like Israel do not want peace anywhere in the world as they cannot then sell their terror goods to the third world.  The merchants of terror goods (death) consider peace the potential enemy of those nations that thrive in arms trade.

USA and its allies therefore, do not want any credible relationship with Russia and China. They seek only businesses and finances form these countries.

 

A new bilateral phase?

 

It is believed that the US-Russia relations have been permanently strained and they cannot be true friends or genuine international allies but only cooperate and coordinate their terror efforts to reduce the Muslim populations across the globe.

As veto super powers with maximum resources at their command, including most dangerous WMD, USA and Russia in a way control entire world.  They are also the top suppliers of terror goods to entire world which makes them suspicious of each other.

The relationship between President Trump and President Putin has been under scrutiny amid allegations of Russian interference in the US election.  US intelligence agencies believe Moscow tried to tip the election in Trump’s favour, something denied by Russia. Trump has rejected allegations of any collusion. The two world leaders had a couple of undisclosed conversations at this month’s G20 on…….  The White House has confirmed that the leaders of rival super powers spoke towards the end of a formal dinner but the White House has not revealed what was discussed. President Trump has, in his characteristic say, condemned media revelations of the talks as “sick”.

 

An extra conversation also happened during a private meal of heads of state at the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier in the month. The an hour meeting, which came after a more-than-two hour formal sit-down the two men had earlier in the gathering, was previously undisclosed and, given the nature of Russia’s aggressive meddling in the 2016 election, is something we need to know more about.

The Kremlin said at the time that the two leaders had had “an opportunity to continue their discussion during the dinner”, but the extent of the meeting was not known. Trump had been seated next to Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s wife, so the US interpreter at the dinner spoke Japanese, not Russian. No media were in attendance. Trump left his seat and headed to Putin, who had been sitting next to Trump’s wife, Melania, US media said. The US president was alone with Putin, apart from the attendance of the Russian president’s official interpreter.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the two leaders had “exchanged opinions and phrases in the margins of the visit on more than one occasion”. “There were no covert or secret meetings. It is absolutely absurd to claim this,” he was quoted as saying by Russia’s TASS news agency. Peskov also mocked the notion that the subject of a conversation between the two men could have been kept secret, saying that is a “manifestation of schizophrenia”. The length of the talks has been disputed.

Ian Bremmer, president of the US-based Eurasia Group, who first reported them in a newsletter to clients, said: “Donald Trump got up from the table and sat down with Putin for about an hour. It was very animated and very friendly.”

Later, however, in a statement, a senior White House official said there was no “second meeting”, just a brief conversation after dinner. The official said: “The insinuation that the White House has tried to ‘hide’ a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd. It is not merely perfectly normal, it is part of a president’s duties, to interact with world leaders.”

 

 Uncomfortable

 

Given the poor state of relations between Washington and Moscow since the onset of the so-called Cold War and the recent controversy surrounding Russia’s alleged efforts to interfere with the US presidential campaign, each and every encounter between Putin and Trump is bound to be carefully scrutinized. Thus the apparently impromptu discussion between the two men at the G20 dinner inevitably raises many questions. What was President Trump seeking to do in approaching the Russian president? Were matters of substance discussed? If so, why was it kept a top secret and no formal note taken? And why did the US president have to rely upon a Russian official for translation? This all may be highly unusual, especially at a time when relations between the two countries are laden with so many problems.

President Trump also appeared unaware of another dimension – the message that his tete-a-tete would send to other leaders in the room, who must have watched the US president’s gambit with some unease. Trump’s spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at the White House that the dinner was part of the president’s publicly released schedule. “You guys came and took pictures of it,” she told journalists. “It wasn’t like this was some sort of hidden dinner. To act as if this was some secret is just absolutely absurd.”

Bremmer had not been at the dinner but said details were given to him by unnamed attendees who, he said, were “flummoxed, confused and startled” by the turn of events. “At summit meetings you have little ‘pull-asides’ between heads of state to discuss business all the time – a one-hour pull-aside is highly unusual in any context,” he told the BBC.  “A one-hour pull-aside between Putin and Trump where only the Kremlin translator is there, where we don’t know what’s discussed, given the uniqueness of the US-Russia relationship… makes the US president, surprisingly and disturbingly, not credible.”

National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said: “A conversation over dessert should not be characterized as a meeting.” Trump later said on Twitter: “Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is ‘sick.’

 

Inconsistency

 

Questions about what Trump and Putin talked about — we don’t really know since there was no a US official or translator present — need to be answered by this White House. Sadly, there’s little chance they will be. Instead, we’re likely to get more attacks on the media for their alleged role in the story.

Trump spoke about his conversation with Putin at the G20 dinner in Germany. The conversation came to light, with US media reporting it lasted an hour and was “animated”. But Trump said it lasted for only 15 minutes and was mostly “pleasantries”. He said the pair talked “about adoption”. Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian orphans as a reaction to US measures against Russian officials accused of human rights violations.

 

All G20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!” The dinner and its attendees have always been known. Only the Trump-Putin discussion had not been reported before. At the earlier, formal meeting, their first face-to-face encounter,  Trump said he had repeatedly pressed Putin about the allegations of interference in the US vote. “I said, ‘Did you do it?’ He said, ‘No, I did not, absolutely not.’ I then asked him a second time, in a totally different way. He said, ‘Absolutely not.'”

 

 

Trump and Putin

US President Donald Trump comes face-to-face with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for the first time on Friday. The formal meeting will be scrutinized across the world, set as it is against the backdrop of US investigations into possible collusion between Russia and Trump campaign figures during last year’s election.

At the outset it should be noted that both the leaders have one important idea in common- both want to make their respective nation great. Neither man hides his ambition to recover some sense of lost grandeur for his country. That in itself is not a negative aspect. Putin famously called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century”. His moves in Ukraine and Syria are seen as attempts to bolster Russia’s power and influence, and hit back at the West for the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe that he so resents. And Western European officials accuse him of meddling in their elections to try and weaken the European Union.

First meetings between major world leaders can be unpredictable affairs.  Trump has in the past suggested he could get along with Putin and praised him as a “strong leader” but it is unclear how he feels now.

In Moscow, the Kremlin is painting the meeting as an opportunity for the pair to “get acquainted and finally understand the true approach of each other”. But looking beyond the testy politics of US-Russia relations, what do Trump and Putin have in common, and what sets them distinctly apart?

If there’s one sharp difference between these two men, it is their back stories.

Vladimir Putin spent his early career in the world of Cold War espionage, and was working as a Soviet spy in East Germany when the communist state crumbled. He is used to operating in the shadows, and kept a low profile as an aide to the mayor of St Petersburg in the 1990s before taking the reins of the FSB intelligence agency and later the presidency.

Putin has been at the top of Russian politics since 2000 and has the reputation of a cunning street fighter, an image that can be traced back to his days growing up in a tough communal housing block in Leningrad. He has said those years taught him that “if a fight is inevitable, you have to throw the first punch”.

Donald Trump, in contrast, was born into wealth as the son of a New York real estate tycoon. He managed to avoid being drafted into military service during the Vietnam War, and got started in real estate himself with a $1m loan from his father, eventually building a property, hotel and entertainment empire.

Far from keeping a low profile like Putin, Trump shot to stardom as host of reality TV show The Apprentice’. He later used his fame and wealth as a springboard to make a bid for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2015. Yet though his public style is very different – brash and unpredictable where Putin is comfortable yet controlled – like the Russian leader he doesn’t shy away from a fight.

Trump refused to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand during an awkward March photo-op, and pushed past Montenegro’s prime minister at a NATO summit in Brussels in May to ensure he was front and centre. Vladimir Putin uses more calculated means to intimidate others, once letting his large labrador into a meeting with Mrs Merkel, who is afraid of dogs.

Both leaders the target of media and both criticize the media opportunism and hollow news and views. Trump might have popularized “fake news” as a pejorative term that politicians the world over can now hurl at journalists, but he’s not alone in describing critical coverage as false. Putin’s government keeps a public list of foreign press stories that it says contains “false information about Russia”. In dealing with the media, however, Vladimir Putin normally remains calm. Unlike Trump, he does not fire off angry tweets about coverage he doesn’t like – he is calculating and level-headed when taking questions from journalists.

For Trump this means boosting US military spending, putting pressure on allies to pay for more their own defense, and pulling out of efforts to fight climate change to protect jobs in domestic industries like coal.

Backgrounds:  The Trump White House is a family affair, something that certainly cannot be said of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin. President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, has an office in the West Wing and advises her father in an unpaid role. Her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior adviser to the president and a significant force in the White House. His responsibilities stretch from the Middle East and China to criminal justice reform and relations with Mexico.

President Putin, on the other hand, zealously shields his private life and family from scrutiny.. He and Lyudmila, his wife of nearly 30 years, announced their divorce in 2013, and his two daughters are kept well away from the public gaze.

Little was known about them until media reports in 2015 revealed his youngest daughter Katerina was living in Moscow under a different name and working in a senior position at Moscow State University. She is also an acrobatic rock and roll dancer. Maria, the elder daughter, is an academic specializing in endocrinology.

The differences in approach to family are stark. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s five-year-old daughter Arabella sang in Mandarin to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his US visit in April. Putin, meanwhile, recently refused to disclose the names and ages of his two grandchildren.

 

Rhetoric and substance  

Generally, most of the talks during the campaign is mere rhetoric meant to get votes of the majority community. Trump resorted this strategy to win the presidency against a very powerful Democratic candidate Mrs. Clinton with a lot of connections as former foreign minister of USA. And Trump won.

Trump initially promised to ban all Muslims entering the US – a “total and complete” shutdown should remain until the US authorities “can figure out what’s going on”. But he switched to “extreme vetting” after he became the party’s presidential candidate. As president, he has introduced two travel bans, which have both become ensnarled by legal challenges. The second was a slightly watered-down version of the first, but a judge in Hawaii said barring people from six mainly Muslim countries, even temporarily, violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination. Another judge in Maryland cited Trump campaign statements as evidence.

President Trump has railed against “judicial overreach” and hinted that he may take the case to the Supreme Court, but has said little on the matter in a round of media interviews this week.

Trump repeatedly told his supporters that every single undocumented immigrant – of which there are 11.3 million – “have to go”. As polling day approached, his stance began to soften slightly, then after the election he scaled it back to some two to three million deportations of people who “are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers”.

The Migration Policy Institute, a US-based think tank, has one of the higher figures for illegal immigrants with criminal records, which it puts at 890,000, including people charged with crossing the border illegally. The number of removals peaked in 2012 and has been falling since. It is too early to say if there has been an increase since President Trump’s inauguration.

Trump repeatedly questioned the military alliance’s purpose, calling it “obsolete”. One issue that bugged him was whether members were pulling their weight and “paying their bills”. In one New York Times interview in July 2016, he even hinted that the US would not come to the aid of a member invaded by Russia. But as he hosted Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House in April, the US president said the threat of terrorism had underlined the alliance’s importance. “I said it [Nato] was obsolete,” Trump said. “It’s no longer obsolete.”

During a speech in Iowa in November 2015, Trump warned that he would, using an expletive, bomb so-called Islamic State into obliteration. The president dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal on an IS-stronghold in Afghanistan.

Trump repeatedly pledged to label Beijing a “currency manipulator” on his first day in office, during an election campaign when he also accused the Asian powerhouse of “raping” the US. China has been accused of suppressing the yuan to make its exports more competitive with US goods.  He told the Wall Street Journal in April that China had not been “currency manipulators” for some time and had actually been trying to prevent the yuan from further weakening. “I am looking for judges and have actually picked 20 of them. They’ll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for and what it represents.”  He vowed to appoint a conservative justice and he has – Neil Gorsuch. It took a procedural change to Senate rules, but it’s a victory nonetheless.

Trump said he would approve waterboarding “immediately” and “make it also much worse”, adding “torture works”. But after his inauguration, the president said he would defer to the opposing belief, espoused by Defence Secretary James Mattis and CIA director Mike Pompeo. Pompeo said during his confirmation hearing said he would “absolutely not” reinstate such methods. “Lock her up” was one of the main rallying cries of Trump’s supporters. They wanted to see Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in prison over the use of her private email server while secretary of state.

And Trump was more than willing to back their calls for, at the very least, a fresh investigation. During the debates, he told Mrs Clinton: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.”

 

The president-elect’s tone changed almost as soon as he had won, describing the woman he had said was “such a nasty woman” as someone the country owed “a debt of gratitude”. Later, he said he “hadn’t given [the prosecution] a lot of thought” and had other priorities. On 22 November, Trump’s spokeswoman said he would not pursue a further investigation – to help Mrs Clinton “heal”.

The country’s infrastructure “will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people back to work as we rebuild it”, he said in his victory speech in November. Has repeated his vow to spend big on the country’s roads, rail and airports, but no sign yet of action.

Trump pledged during his campaign to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a divided city which both Israelis and Palestinians claim.  He approved a waiver to keep the embassy in place, but suggested in a statement that it would be eventually relocated. “The decision was taken in order to “maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians”.

Trump has not yet initiated any step to the establishment of  the State of Palestine  deal to take place.

The Republican healthcare plan came to a juddering halt in the Senate, where it did not even have enough support to bring it to the floor for a vote. The president backed it but it was mauled by doctors’ groups, hospitals and other parts of the medical industry, mainly because of its deep cuts to Medicaid, the health programme for the poor, and fears that millions would lose insurance.

Meanwhile, the president said he would not have named Jeff Sessions as attorney general if had he known he would rescue himself from the inquiry.

The president has also spoken about an undisclosed conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a G20 dinner, saying it was mostly “pleasantries”.

 

Campaign promises

 

Donald Trump made a string of promises during his long campaign to be the 45th president of the United States. Many of them made headlines – from banning all Muslims entering the US, to building a wall along the border with Mexico. But as he and his White House team approach the 100-day mark of his presidency, it is clear he has shifted his stance on a number of key issues.

Trump said in September 2016 that he would reverse the deal President Barack Obama had struck to reopen diplomatic relations and improve trade. As president, he told an audience in Miami that he was “cancelling the Obama administration’s one-sided deal.” But in reality, he has only rolled back certain parts, placing restrictions on travel and business.

As a candidate, Trump derided climate change as a hoax concocted by China, and the regulations of Paris as stifling to American growth.  After three months of prevarications behind the closed doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the president came down decisively on the side near the exits. Quitting the Paris deal, signed by nearly 200 countries, will take a few years but this is unequivocally a promise kept.

His vow to build a wall along the US-Mexican border was one of the most controversial of Trump’s campaign promises.  Trump also insisted that Mexico would pay for it. Mexico maintains it will never pay for it, and even the president has conceded that the US will have to pay up front and then seek reimbursement in some way.

The US Congress is exploring funding options for the wall, but many Republicans will be unhappy about footing a bill which could rise to $21.5bn (£17.2bn), according to a Department of Homeland Security internal report.

That’s much higher than Trump’s estimated price tag of $12bn (£9.6bn). There are also landowners who protest against a “government land grab” – and a lawsuit from an environmental group launched in April.  “We’re building the wall,” he said in February. “In fact it’s going to start very soon.”

Trump called Nafta “a disaster” and warned that the TPP “is going to be worse, so we will stop it.” Trump pledged to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). He did in his first few days. And he vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Association (Nafta) and, after threatening to pull out, the White House has said that Canada and the US have agreed to talks.

 

Rising son and son in law

 

The Senate, the House and a Justice Department special counsel are all investigating whether Russia interfered in the election to try to tip it in Donald Trump’s favour. They are also investigating whether there was any collusion with the Trump team, which both Russia and Trump have denied.  Trump Jr and Manafort have been called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Wednesday.

 

US President Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr, his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner and ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort are to testify before the Senate about their links to Russian officials, on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and , over a meeting they had with a Russian lawyer in June last year.  One key subject will be their meeting with a Russian lawyer last year.

There are congressional investigations, and one by a special counsel, into the allegations of Russian interference in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump team. The Senate intelligence committee said it wanted to interview Trump Jr said he had attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya as he was promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton, but it did not materialize. Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia’s RT television channel she would be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter.

Two days earlier, Kushner is to answer questions in a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The hearings will be the most high-profile since sacked FBI head James Comey gave testimony in June. The three members of Trump’s inner circle attended a meeting in New York in June last year with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised damaging material on Trump’s election rival, Hillary Clinton. A former Soviet counter-intelligence official, now a lobbyist also attended the meeting, Trump Jr, who confirmed the meeting in a series of emails, said that no information on Hillary Clinton was provided. The meeting is the firmest evidence yet of non-diplomatic interactions between Trump campaign aides and Russian figures. Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia’s RT television channel she would also be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter.

 

President Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, defended his son’s actions. He said he had spoken to a number of senators who agreed that if they had been called and offered information on an opponent, they would have attended such a meeting. In the same interview, Trump rounded on Sessions. The attorney general rescued himself from overseeing the Justice Department’s Russia investigation in March, after failing to disclose at his confirmation hearing at the Senate that he had met Russia’s ambassador to the USA. The president said: “How do you take a job and then recue yourself? If he would have rescued himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you’.”

 

 

Observation: Trump, Putin could end terror wars, creation of Palestine and peace in West Asia

 

That President Donald Trump huddled with Russian President Vladimir Putin for almost an hour at a G20 dinner in Germany earlier this month is news. This was not ‘Fake News’ which is fast becoming more and more dishonest. What’s as telling as Trump’s willingness to chat with Putin with no US translator or any other US official around, however, is the way in which the president responded to the news of the meeting. He did it via his preferred communication tool: Twitter. And here’s what he said — in two separate tweets that very night:

 

This is a classic bit of Trump misdirection. No media outlet reported anything about a “secret dinner.” No one is making the dinner look “sinister.” And, no one is suggesting that the media was unaware that the dinner was taking place. That is not the story. The story is that the president of the United States had a somewhat lengthy sidebar conversation with the president of Russia and with no other US officials present. And that we didn’t know about it until Ian Bremmer reported on it next night.

Trump, of course, knows all of that. The shrewd business magnet for all of his life time is also smart enough to understand that this is a bad story for him — particularly in light of the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election and the drip-drip-drip of details about a meeting his son, Don Jr. had with a Russian lawyer in hopes of obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton.

That’s why he’s working to change the story — by responding to allegations no one has made. And he’s working to change the story into one that he knows will score points with his hardcore base: The media is terrible! “The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest!” The media is “sick!” That will, of course, work for some segment of people who take Trump’s words for, well, everything, or only get their news from the president’s most ardent media defenders.

But, because it will work doesn’t make it true. This is not a media story. This is a story about an undisclosed meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia at a time when relations are very much in flux between the two countries. Making it about anything else is a purposeful diversionary tactic by Trump. Simple and plain!

Meanwhile, the White House said Trump would nominate former Utah governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Russia, a key post for a president who promised to improve relations with Moscow.  Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China and Singapore, needs to have his name confirmed by the Senate. The suspicions over Russian interference are likely to play a significant factor in his confirmation process, correspondents say.

 

Question is not how many times the two world leaders met in Germany at or on the sidelines of G20. But the outcome of the meetings significant if anything emerged. Any positive development, if any, would automatically get reflected in their bilateral ties from now on. Russia’s foreign minister said President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump may have met more than three times at the G-20summit, but he shrugged off the importance of the encounters Lavrov made light of the situation in the interview, comparing it to children mingling at a kindergarten.

Whether Trump will ever raise the issue of election hacking is the million-dollar question, given he has downplayed Russia’s alleged role.

 

They also share a “strongman” style and macho attitudes which have shone through in meetings with world leaders.

 

On Trump-Putin informal meeting at G20 in Germany!

On Trump-Putin informal meeting at G20 in Germany!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

______

 

Foreword

Entire world’s attention was focused on the first ever meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Valentin Putin in Germany where they had come to attend the G-20 meeting.

World is shivering due to the terror wars launched by US led NATO continuing endlessly in Mideast, already killing millions of humans. More millions have been displaced, seriously wounded, fled to other countries in order to evade terror attacks by their sworn enemies with western terror goods.

End of terror wars could lead to peace in the world. People across the globe think if USA and Russia come together, the world, living beings and human race could be saved. But USA and its allies like Israel do not want peace anywhere in the world as they cannot then sell their terror goods to the third world.  The merchants of terror goods (death) consider peace the potential enemy of those nations that thrive in arms trade.

USA and its allies therefore, do not want any credible relationship with Russia and China. They seek only businesses and finances form these countries.

 

A new bilateral phase?

 

It is believed that the US-Russia relations have been permanently strained and they cannot be true friends or genuine international allies but only cooperate and coordinate their terror efforts to reduce the Muslim populations across the globe.

As veto super powers with maximum resources at their command, including most dangerous WMD, USA and Russia in a way control entire world.  They are also the top suppliers of terror goods to entire world which makes them suspicious of each other.

The relationship between President Trump and President Putin has been under scrutiny amid allegations of Russian interference in the US election.  US intelligence agencies believe Moscow tried to tip the election in Trump’s favour, something denied by Russia. Trump has rejected allegations of any collusion. The two world leaders had a couple of undisclosed conversations at this month’s G20 on…….  The White House has confirmed that the leaders of rival super powers spoke towards the end of a formal dinner but the White House has not revealed what was discussed. President Trump has, in his characteristic say, condemned media revelations of the talks as “sick”.

 

An extra conversation also happened during a private meal of heads of state at the G20 summit in Hamburg earlier in the month. The an hour meeting, which came after a more-than-two hour formal sit-down the two men had earlier in the gathering, was previously undisclosed and, given the nature of Russia’s aggressive meddling in the 2016 election, is something we need to know more about.

The Kremlin said at the time that the two leaders had had “an opportunity to continue their discussion during the dinner”, but the extent of the meeting was not known. Trump had been seated next to Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s wife, so the US interpreter at the dinner spoke Japanese, not Russian. No media were in attendance. Trump left his seat and headed to Putin, who had been sitting next to Trump’s wife, Melania, US media said. The US president was alone with Putin, apart from the attendance of the Russian president’s official interpreter.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the two leaders had “exchanged opinions and phrases in the margins of the visit on more than one occasion”. “There were no covert or secret meetings. It is absolutely absurd to claim this,” he was quoted as saying by Russia’s TASS news agency. Peskov also mocked the notion that the subject of a conversation between the two men could have been kept secret, saying that is a “manifestation of schizophrenia”. The length of the talks has been disputed.

Ian Bremmer, president of the US-based Eurasia Group, who first reported them in a newsletter to clients, said: “Donald Trump got up from the table and sat down with Putin for about an hour. It was very animated and very friendly.”

Later, however, in a statement, a senior White House official said there was no “second meeting”, just a brief conversation after dinner. The official said: “The insinuation that the White House has tried to ‘hide’ a second meeting is false, malicious and absurd. It is not merely perfectly normal, it is part of a president’s duties, to interact with world leaders.”

 

 Uncomfortable

 

Given the poor state of relations between Washington and Moscow since the onset of the so-called Cold War and the recent controversy surrounding Russia’s alleged efforts to interfere with the US presidential campaign, each and every encounter between Putin and Trump is bound to be carefully scrutinized. Thus the apparently impromptu discussion between the two men at the G20 dinner inevitably raises many questions. What was President Trump seeking to do in approaching the Russian president? Were matters of substance discussed? If so, why was it kept a top secret and no formal note taken? And why did the US president have to rely upon a Russian official for translation? This all may be highly unusual, especially at a time when relations between the two countries are laden with so many problems.

President Trump also appeared unaware of another dimension – the message that his tete-a-tete would send to other leaders in the room, who must have watched the US president’s gambit with some unease. Trump’s spokesperson Sarah Sanders told reporters at the White House that the dinner was part of the president’s publicly released schedule. “You guys came and took pictures of it,” she told journalists. “It wasn’t like this was some sort of hidden dinner. To act as if this was some secret is just absolutely absurd.”

Bremmer had not been at the dinner but said details were given to him by unnamed attendees who, he said, were “flummoxed, confused and startled” by the turn of events. “At summit meetings you have little ‘pull-asides’ between heads of state to discuss business all the time – a one-hour pull-aside is highly unusual in any context,” he told the BBC.  “A one-hour pull-aside between Putin and Trump where only the Kremlin translator is there, where we don’t know what’s discussed, given the uniqueness of the US-Russia relationship… makes the US president, surprisingly and disturbingly, not credible.”

National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton said: “A conversation over dessert should not be characterized as a meeting.” Trump later said on Twitter: “Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is ‘sick.’

 

Inconsistency

 

Questions about what Trump and Putin talked about — we don’t really know since there was no a US official or translator present — need to be answered by this White House. Sadly, there’s little chance they will be. Instead, we’re likely to get more attacks on the media for their alleged role in the story.

Trump spoke about his conversation with Putin at the G20 dinner in Germany. The conversation came to light, with US media reporting it lasted an hour and was “animated”. But Trump said it lasted for only 15 minutes and was mostly “pleasantries”. He said the pair talked “about adoption”. Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian orphans as a reaction to US measures against Russian officials accused of human rights violations.

 

All G20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!” The dinner and its attendees have always been known. Only the Trump-Putin discussion had not been reported before. At the earlier, formal meeting, their first face-to-face encounter,  Trump said he had repeatedly pressed Putin about the allegations of interference in the US vote. “I said, ‘Did you do it?’ He said, ‘No, I did not, absolutely not.’ I then asked him a second time, in a totally different way. He said, ‘Absolutely not.'”

 

 

Trump and Putin

US President Donald Trump comes face-to-face with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for the first time on Friday. The formal meeting will be scrutinized across the world, set as it is against the backdrop of US investigations into possible collusion between Russia and Trump campaign figures during last year’s election.

At the outset it should be noted that both the leaders have one important idea in common- both want to make their respective nation great. Neither man hides his ambition to recover some sense of lost grandeur for his country. That in itself is not a negative aspect. Putin famously called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century”. His moves in Ukraine and Syria are seen as attempts to bolster Russia’s power and influence, and hit back at the West for the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe that he so resents. And Western European officials accuse him of meddling in their elections to try and weaken the European Union.

First meetings between major world leaders can be unpredictable affairs.  Trump has in the past suggested he could get along with Putin and praised him as a “strong leader” but it is unclear how he feels now.

In Moscow, the Kremlin is painting the meeting as an opportunity for the pair to “get acquainted and finally understand the true approach of each other”. But looking beyond the testy politics of US-Russia relations, what do Trump and Putin have in common, and what sets them distinctly apart?

If there’s one sharp difference between these two men, it is their back stories.

Vladimir Putin spent his early career in the world of Cold War espionage, and was working as a Soviet spy in East Germany when the communist state crumbled. He is used to operating in the shadows, and kept a low profile as an aide to the mayor of St Petersburg in the 1990s before taking the reins of the FSB intelligence agency and later the presidency.

Putin has been at the top of Russian politics since 2000 and has the reputation of a cunning street fighter, an image that can be traced back to his days growing up in a tough communal housing block in Leningrad. He has said those years taught him that “if a fight is inevitable, you have to throw the first punch”.

Donald Trump, in contrast, was born into wealth as the son of a New York real estate tycoon. He managed to avoid being drafted into military service during the Vietnam War, and got started in real estate himself with a $1m loan from his father, eventually building a property, hotel and entertainment empire.

Far from keeping a low profile like Putin, Trump shot to stardom as host of reality TV show The Apprentice’. He later used his fame and wealth as a springboard to make a bid for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2015. Yet though his public style is very different – brash and unpredictable where Putin is comfortable yet controlled – like the Russian leader he doesn’t shy away from a fight.

Trump refused to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hand during an awkward March photo-op, and pushed past Montenegro’s prime minister at a NATO summit in Brussels in May to ensure he was front and centre. Vladimir Putin uses more calculated means to intimidate others, once letting his large labrador into a meeting with Mrs Merkel, who is afraid of dogs.

Both leaders the target of media and both criticize the media opportunism and hollow news and views. Trump might have popularized “fake news” as a pejorative term that politicians the world over can now hurl at journalists, but he’s not alone in describing critical coverage as false. Putin’s government keeps a public list of foreign press stories that it says contains “false information about Russia”. In dealing with the media, however, Vladimir Putin normally remains calm. Unlike Trump, he does not fire off angry tweets about coverage he doesn’t like – he is calculating and level-headed when taking questions from journalists.

For Trump this means boosting US military spending, putting pressure on allies to pay for more their own defense, and pulling out of efforts to fight climate change to protect jobs in domestic industries like coal.

Backgrounds:  The Trump White House is a family affair, something that certainly cannot be said of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin. President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, has an office in the West Wing and advises her father in an unpaid role. Her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior adviser to the president and a significant force in the White House. His responsibilities stretch from the Middle East and China to criminal justice reform and relations with Mexico.

President Putin, on the other hand, zealously shields his private life and family from scrutiny.. He and Lyudmila, his wife of nearly 30 years, announced their divorce in 2013, and his two daughters are kept well away from the public gaze.

Little was known about them until media reports in 2015 revealed his youngest daughter Katerina was living in Moscow under a different name and working in a senior position at Moscow State University. She is also an acrobatic rock and roll dancer. Maria, the elder daughter, is an academic specializing in endocrinology.

The differences in approach to family are stark. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s five-year-old daughter Arabella sang in Mandarin to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his US visit in April. Putin, meanwhile, recently refused to disclose the names and ages of his two grandchildren.

 

Rhetoric and substance  

Generally, most of the talks during the campaign is mere rhetoric meant to get votes of the majority community. Trump resorted this strategy to win the presidency against a very powerful Democratic candidate Mrs. Clinton with a lot of connections as former foreign minister of USA. And Trump won.

Trump initially promised to ban all Muslims entering the US – a “total and complete” shutdown should remain until the US authorities “can figure out what’s going on”. But he switched to “extreme vetting” after he became the party’s presidential candidate. As president, he has introduced two travel bans, which have both become ensnarled by legal challenges. The second was a slightly watered-down version of the first, but a judge in Hawaii said barring people from six mainly Muslim countries, even temporarily, violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination. Another judge in Maryland cited Trump campaign statements as evidence.

President Trump has railed against “judicial overreach” and hinted that he may take the case to the Supreme Court, but has said little on the matter in a round of media interviews this week.

Trump repeatedly told his supporters that every single undocumented immigrant – of which there are 11.3 million – “have to go”. As polling day approached, his stance began to soften slightly, then after the election he scaled it back to some two to three million deportations of people who “are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers”.

The Migration Policy Institute, a US-based think tank, has one of the higher figures for illegal immigrants with criminal records, which it puts at 890,000, including people charged with crossing the border illegally. The number of removals peaked in 2012 and has been falling since. It is too early to say if there has been an increase since President Trump’s inauguration.

Trump repeatedly questioned the military alliance’s purpose, calling it “obsolete”. One issue that bugged him was whether members were pulling their weight and “paying their bills”. In one New York Times interview in July 2016, he even hinted that the US would not come to the aid of a member invaded by Russia. But as he hosted Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House in April, the US president said the threat of terrorism had underlined the alliance’s importance. “I said it [Nato] was obsolete,” Trump said. “It’s no longer obsolete.”

During a speech in Iowa in November 2015, Trump warned that he would, using an expletive, bomb so-called Islamic State into obliteration. The president dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal on an IS-stronghold in Afghanistan.

Trump repeatedly pledged to label Beijing a “currency manipulator” on his first day in office, during an election campaign when he also accused the Asian powerhouse of “raping” the US. China has been accused of suppressing the yuan to make its exports more competitive with US goods.  He told the Wall Street Journal in April that China had not been “currency manipulators” for some time and had actually been trying to prevent the yuan from further weakening. “I am looking for judges and have actually picked 20 of them. They’ll respect the Second Amendment and what it stands for and what it represents.”  He vowed to appoint a conservative justice and he has – Neil Gorsuch. It took a procedural change to Senate rules, but it’s a victory nonetheless.

Trump said he would approve waterboarding “immediately” and “make it also much worse”, adding “torture works”. But after his inauguration, the president said he would defer to the opposing belief, espoused by Defence Secretary James Mattis and CIA director Mike Pompeo. Pompeo said during his confirmation hearing said he would “absolutely not” reinstate such methods. “Lock her up” was one of the main rallying cries of Trump’s supporters. They wanted to see Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in prison over the use of her private email server while secretary of state.

And Trump was more than willing to back their calls for, at the very least, a fresh investigation. During the debates, he told Mrs Clinton: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.”

 

The president-elect’s tone changed almost as soon as he had won, describing the woman he had said was “such a nasty woman” as someone the country owed “a debt of gratitude”. Later, he said he “hadn’t given [the prosecution] a lot of thought” and had other priorities. On 22 November, Trump’s spokeswoman said he would not pursue a further investigation – to help Mrs Clinton “heal”.

The country’s infrastructure “will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people back to work as we rebuild it”, he said in his victory speech in November. Has repeated his vow to spend big on the country’s roads, rail and airports, but no sign yet of action.

Trump pledged during his campaign to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a divided city which both Israelis and Palestinians claim.  He approved a waiver to keep the embassy in place, but suggested in a statement that it would be eventually relocated. “The decision was taken in order to “maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians”.

Trump has not yet initiated any step to the establishment of  the State of Palestine  deal to take place.

The Republican healthcare plan came to a juddering halt in the Senate, where it did not even have enough support to bring it to the floor for a vote. The president backed it but it was mauled by doctors’ groups, hospitals and other parts of the medical industry, mainly because of its deep cuts to Medicaid, the health programme for the poor, and fears that millions would lose insurance.

Meanwhile, the president said he would not have named Jeff Sessions as attorney general if had he known he would rescue himself from the inquiry.

The president has also spoken about an undisclosed conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a G20 dinner, saying it was mostly “pleasantries”.

 

Campaign promises

 

Donald Trump made a string of promises during his long campaign to be the 45th president of the United States. Many of them made headlines – from banning all Muslims entering the US, to building a wall along the border with Mexico. But as he and his White House team approach the 100-day mark of his presidency, it is clear he has shifted his stance on a number of key issues.

Trump said in September 2016 that he would reverse the deal President Barack Obama had struck to reopen diplomatic relations and improve trade. As president, he told an audience in Miami that he was “cancelling the Obama administration’s one-sided deal.” But in reality, he has only rolled back certain parts, placing restrictions on travel and business.

As a candidate, Trump derided climate change as a hoax concocted by China, and the regulations of Paris as stifling to American growth.  After three months of prevarications behind the closed doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the president came down decisively on the side near the exits. Quitting the Paris deal, signed by nearly 200 countries, will take a few years but this is unequivocally a promise kept.

His vow to build a wall along the US-Mexican border was one of the most controversial of Trump’s campaign promises.  Trump also insisted that Mexico would pay for it. Mexico maintains it will never pay for it, and even the president has conceded that the US will have to pay up front and then seek reimbursement in some way.

The US Congress is exploring funding options for the wall, but many Republicans will be unhappy about footing a bill which could rise to $21.5bn (£17.2bn), according to a Department of Homeland Security internal report.

That’s much higher than Trump’s estimated price tag of $12bn (£9.6bn). There are also landowners who protest against a “government land grab” – and a lawsuit from an environmental group launched in April.  “We’re building the wall,” he said in February. “In fact it’s going to start very soon.”

Trump called Nafta “a disaster” and warned that the TPP “is going to be worse, so we will stop it.” Trump pledged to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). He did in his first few days. And he vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Association (Nafta) and, after threatening to pull out, the White House has said that Canada and the US have agreed to talks.

 

Rising son and son in law

 

The Senate, the House and a Justice Department special counsel are all investigating whether Russia interfered in the election to try to tip it in Donald Trump’s favour. They are also investigating whether there was any collusion with the Trump team, which both Russia and Trump have denied.  Trump Jr and Manafort have been called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Wednesday.

 

US President Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr, his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner and ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort are to testify before the Senate about their links to Russian officials, on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and , over a meeting they had with a Russian lawyer in June last year.  One key subject will be their meeting with a Russian lawyer last year.

There are congressional investigations, and one by a special counsel, into the allegations of Russian interference in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump team. The Senate intelligence committee said it wanted to interview Trump Jr said he had attended the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya as he was promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton, but it did not materialize. Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia’s RT television channel she would be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter.

Two days earlier, Kushner is to answer questions in a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The hearings will be the most high-profile since sacked FBI head James Comey gave testimony in June. The three members of Trump’s inner circle attended a meeting in New York in June last year with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised damaging material on Trump’s election rival, Hillary Clinton. A former Soviet counter-intelligence official, now a lobbyist also attended the meeting, Trump Jr, who confirmed the meeting in a series of emails, said that no information on Hillary Clinton was provided. The meeting is the firmest evidence yet of non-diplomatic interactions between Trump campaign aides and Russian figures. Ms Veselnitskaya told Russia’s RT television channel she would also be willing to testify before the Senate on the matter.

 

President Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, defended his son’s actions. He said he had spoken to a number of senators who agreed that if they had been called and offered information on an opponent, they would have attended such a meeting. In the same interview, Trump rounded on Sessions. The attorney general rescued himself from overseeing the Justice Department’s Russia investigation in March, after failing to disclose at his confirmation hearing at the Senate that he had met Russia’s ambassador to the USA. The president said: “How do you take a job and then recue yourself? If he would have rescued himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you’.”

 

 

Observation: Trump, Putin could end terror wars, creation of Palestine and peace in West Asia

 

That President Donald Trump huddled with Russian President Vladimir Putin for almost an hour at a G20 dinner in Germany earlier this month is news. This was not ‘Fake News’ which is fast becoming more and more dishonest. What’s as telling as Trump’s willingness to chat with Putin with no US translator or any other US official around, however, is the way in which the president responded to the news of the meeting. He did it via his preferred communication tool: Twitter. And here’s what he said — in two separate tweets that very night:

 

This is a classic bit of Trump misdirection. No media outlet reported anything about a “secret dinner.” No one is making the dinner look “sinister.” And, no one is suggesting that the media was unaware that the dinner was taking place. That is not the story. The story is that the president of the United States had a somewhat lengthy sidebar conversation with the president of Russia and with no other US officials present. And that we didn’t know about it until Ian Bremmer reported on it next night.

Trump, of course, knows all of that. The shrewd business magnet for all of his life time is also smart enough to understand that this is a bad story for him — particularly in light of the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election and the drip-drip-drip of details about a meeting his son, Don Jr. had with a Russian lawyer in hopes of obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton.

That’s why he’s working to change the story — by responding to allegations no one has made. And he’s working to change the story into one that he knows will score points with his hardcore base: The media is terrible! “The Fake News is becoming more and more dishonest!” The media is “sick!” That will, of course, work for some segment of people who take Trump’s words for, well, everything, or only get their news from the president’s most ardent media defenders.

But, because it will work doesn’t make it true. This is not a media story. This is a story about an undisclosed meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia at a time when relations are very much in flux between the two countries. Making it about anything else is a purposeful diversionary tactic by Trump. Simple and plain!

Meanwhile, the White House said Trump would nominate former Utah governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Russia, a key post for a president who promised to improve relations with Moscow.  Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China and Singapore, needs to have his name confirmed by the Senate. The suspicions over Russian interference are likely to play a significant factor in his confirmation process, correspondents say.

 

Question is not how many times the two world leaders met in Germany at or on the sidelines of G20. But the outcome of the meetings significant if anything emerged. Any positive development, if any, would automatically get reflected in their bilateral ties from now on. Russia’s foreign minister said President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump may have met more than three times at the G-20summit, but he shrugged off the importance of the encounters Lavrov made light of the situation in the interview, comparing it to children mingling at a kindergarten.

Whether Trump will ever raise the issue of election hacking is the million-dollar question, given he has downplayed Russia’s alleged role.

 

They also share a “strongman” style and macho attitudes which have shone through in meetings with world leaders.

 

Story of Indian Hindu fanaticism, secularism and Muslims. India on fascist path: PM Modi and Hindutva criminal operations in Gandhian India!

Story of Indian Hindu fanaticism, secularism and Muslims. India on fascist path: PM Modi and Hindutva criminal operations in Gandhian India!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

———-

 

Indian Hindutva looks very close to criminal Zionism of Israel that brutally occupies Palestine, and unless the trend is checked legally, it could harm the nations and entire world.  If PM Modi is really opposed to Hindus murdering Muslims in cow’s name, why can’t he initiate legal action against Hindutva fanatics, who eye Hindu vote banks, and end such crimes against humanity? Why?

India is often in the news for crimes against women and, according to government statistics, a rape is reported every 15 minutes. More incidents remain unreported. Even reported cases go on for years in the courts before the guilty are punished, if at all, whereas when a cow is slaughtered or a Muslim caries beef, Hindu extremist groups immediately go and kill or beat up whoever they suspect of cow slaughter or they bluff in order to kill Muslims for Hindu votes.

 

_________

 

Zionism influences Hindutva

 

There is a saying across the world that “if you name who is your thick friend others would know who are” and as an emerging thick friend of fascist fanatic Israel, India cannot be entirely different.  Both are fanatically pursuing colonialist policies to terrorize the masses of their colonies – Palestine and Kashmir, respectively.

RSS-BJP duo takes counsel from Israel. That PM Modi who represents entire Indian secular nation decided to visit Israel- a criminal state in Mideast – without going to Palestine revels what the RSS-BJP is all about.

Modern India for which leaders of the nation after the independence laid secular and democratic foundation, is fast moving towards a fascist Hindutva format to catch up with Zionist Israel, among cruelest fanatic dispensations. Funnily the BJP led government of Narendra Modi deliberately plays double roles in the promoting Hindutva establishment by maintaining a total silence over the communal atrocities on Muslims and other oppressed sections of the nation.

Guided by RSS, the BJP government of Modi takes revenge on Muslims to gain the sympathy and votes of majority Hindus. They believe if they get  a major chunk of Hindutva votes, BJP and other Hindutva outfits can easily win the polls and they need to depend on Muslims or secular or democratic sections  of India for  winning  polls. Moreover, they know Congress and other so-called secular parties have no real sympathy of Muslims and these parties get Muslim votes on the strength of their fear for Hindu communal elements targeting Muslims.

Right from the day of Indian independence in 1947 Muslims are being targeted by the criminal minded Hindus and politicians for Hindu votes but in recent years the phenomenon of anti-Muslimism has obnoxiously increased the risk for Muslims with state promoting Hindutva mentality against the fundamentals of a secular democracy. These Hindu criminal do not attack any Muslim criminals or frauds that they deliberately promote to terrorize Muslim community but only sincere and god abiding Muslims are the Hindutva victims.

Today, the Hindutva parties very dangerously use issues like Muslims, patriotism of Muslims, Pakistan, mosque etc for getting Hindu votes and to come to power with Hindu votes.

Today, Indian political scene has reached a level where any Muslim could be killed straight away by Hindu criminal elements just by blaming for eating beef or buying a goat or cow. The ruling BJP and their media lords consider it an act of crime graver than killing a human or bombing the Parliament or a state assembly with Israeli cluster bombs.

Had PM Modi declared, as he assumed power as Indian executive chief in 2014, punitive measures for those Hindus who kill any Muslim for fulfilling their sadistic pleasures, or anyone from other minority communities that would have sent a clear message to India and Hindutva criminal elements in BJP to care for legal system of India.  But true to his past Hindutva credentials as CM of Gujarat state – in consideration of which he was made the PM candidate by BJP – Modi did not say word of warning or punishment to Hindu criminals. He wanted to save the Hindu criminals who destroyed the Historic Babri Mosque by appointing Hindutva minded judges.

Modi now feels sad that his Hindutva guys are kiting Muslims in place animals in his country.  On June 29 Modi told a gathering in his home state Gujarat that killing people in the name of cow protection was “not in keeping with the principles of India’s founding father, Mahatma Gandhi”. “As a society, there is no place for violence,” Modi said, adding that “no person has the right to take the law in his or her own hands”. Bur those criminals who have taken law into their own dirty hands are free to operate in the country now.

The Modi statement in itself is indeed a positive development in Indian Hindutva criminal politics. This is significant because the former ruling outfit Congress party which owns wholesale Muslim banks has never expressed sympathy with Muslims or criticized the Hindutva elements for attacking Muslims and never said a word of appreciation for Muslim contribution to Indian development and growth. In fact it always insults Muslims.

Congress party promotes and wants Hindus rule entire India both at the centre and states and ensured that no Muslim emerges as a contender for CM in any state even in Kerala where Muslims are more than 30 percent at par with Hindus and Christians.

BJP made a Muslim president of India. But the then President APAJ Abdul Kalam was hated by the Congress party and began sideling Muslim leaders in the party, except those who can only be used as successful votebank managers to garner Muslims as votebank material.

There cannot be two opinions that Indian PM Narendra Modi is a “proud” Hindu and a Hindutva fanatic but as PM Modi cannot openly propagate his Hindutva moorings or openly ask Hindus to attack and kill Muslims. He lets his “people” do that and he protects them as his prime duty as Indian PM. But he is doing everything indirectly to promote Hindutva and make Muslims the target of Hindutva criminal elements.

Of course, a basic RSS champion, Modi is not a democrat or secularist. Modi came to the national scene only after his government killed Muslims just as a revenge to appease the RSSBJP/VHP zealots.

Beef- a tasty, healthy meat!

Modi became Indian PM in 2014 not to promote Muslim interests in India or abroad. Like his predecessors from Congress party, Modi also promotes millionaires’ interests inland and abroad. Hindutva parliament gives him the necessary support to do whatever he wants and he tours the world and creates problems for the people. PM Modi takes along with all top corporate lords in his foreign tours.

Hardcore Hindutva leaders want Modi to advance their interests and he has so far done that religiously. .

In recent months, the innocent looking  and humble cow has become India’s most polarising animal as Hindutva parties, upon their  success in using the  anti-Muslimism and hatred for Islam for  promoting Hindu vote bank, have accelerated their Hindutva  gimmicks to increase their Hindu vote share. The BJP insists that the animal is holy and should be protected. Cow slaughter is banned in several states, stringent punishment has been introduced for offenders and parliament is considering a bill to bring in the death penalty for the crime.

Beef is global meat consumed by people belonging to all religions and cow meet is also consumed by Indians and foreigners who like the taste of that animal meat. While vegetarian people don’t eat meat all, beef is a major and cheap meat consumed by most Indians, including Hindus. Hindus world over eat beef as their favorite dish in varieties and enjoy life. Also, the BJP vote bank promoters do not think beef is bad but in order to generate fear and hatred among Hindu voters toward Muslims, ask the party carders and other pro-RSS people to kill those Muslims in India who eat beef, though their target is Muslims and low caste Hindus and Christians, others.

A few politically charged fanatic Hindus, whose Hindutva imagination is boosted by Hindu god characters in movies, and brainwashed by Hindutva activists and Muslim haters, propagate the domestic animal cow as a “sacred animal” and cow slaughter is banned in several states by BJP governments.

Muslim slaughter ri snot banned anywhere in India because Hindutva criminal mended people want to kill Muslims to feel themselves elated.

Modi, who came to the national scene by targeting Muslims in his Gujarat state, knows the Hindu communal elements want to destroy peace in the country. Like Jews, they promote violence culture in India. They have taken law, judges and judiciary into their own hands and want the judges deliver judgment according toothier “notes” sent to the government. After demolishing historic Babri mosque like jungle beasts do, they say they won’t accept court judgment on the destruction of Muslim property and place of Islamic worship.

Since Muslims are a minority and directly controlled by Hindu government and Hindu network, BJP thinks they can do anything to them. Gradually the RSS-BJP, a large fanatic family targeting Muslims and Islam, question the very existence of Muslims in India, questioning their patriotism, cricketism, food habits, etc and threaten them with sedition laws. The TV media lords pronounce sedition and death sentences of those Muslims who eat beef.

That is food terrorism policy of RSS-BJP.

 

Beef lynching targeting Muslims:  Indians protest

 

RSS and its political outfits and some sections of other Hindu parties like Congress and SP, etc and their media mouth pieces target Muslims for their blood and flesh. The governments support that Hindutva ideology as the basis for Hindustan. Muslims have been converted into not just vote stuff but also the Hindutva objects to target.

RSS-BJP hardcore leaders keep trying new tricks to trap Hindus and harm Muslims. Under Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP, the cow has become a polarising animal and religious divisions are widening. Restrictions on the sale and slaughter of cows are fanning confusion and vigilantism.

Critics of the government say that ever since the Hindutva BJP came to power in 2014, RSS/BJP Hindutva forces began implementing the hidden agenda.  Its cow protection vigilantes have carried out numerous attacks on Muslims and Dalits, for whom beef is a staple. Hindus and Christians also enjoy beef in different flavors. They have also criticised Modi for not doing enough to condemn the attacks. Nearly a dozen people have been killed in these attacks. Targets are often picked based on rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.

 

Ever since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in the summer of 2014, vigilante cow protection groups have been emboldened and there have been numerous attacks on Muslims and Dalits, for whom beef is a staple.

Nearly a dozen people have been killed in these attacks over the past two years. Targets are often picked based on unsubstantiated rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.

 

Possibly RSS believes Muslims should be slaughtered instead of animals. In India Cow slaughter is banned in several Indian states that are now under spell of extremist Hindutva moorings, and those found violating the law can be jailed for up to 10 years. Parliament under the control of Hindutva forces is also considering a bill to bring in the death penalty for the crime.

 

On 26 June 2017 a 15-year-old Muslim boy, returning home from Eid shopping with his three brothers, was killed in a brutal assault by a mob of about 20 men on a train in the north Indian state of Haryana. Police say that the reason for Junaid Khan’s murder – in which his three siblings were also injured by the knife-wielding mob – was mainly because of a row over seat space on the train. But a man arrested for being part of the mob said on TV that he was goaded into it by others because Muslims ate beef. Shaqir, one of the surviving brothers, told reporters in the hospital that the attackers “flung our skull caps, pulled my brother’s beard, slapped us, and taunted us about eating beef”.

 

Nearly a dozen people –Muslims- have been killed in the past two years in the name of the cow. Two years ago, a mob killed farm worker Mohammed Akhlaq over “rumours” that his family had stored and eaten beef. Protests under the banner #NotInMyName are being organised in 16 Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Allahabad as well as in London on Wednesday. Gatherings are also planned for later in the week in Toronto, Boston and Karachi. The protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar monument was expected to be the biggest.

 

 

Targets are often picked based on unsubstantiated rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.  Ghosh, who is from the eastern city of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), says he became aware of “this dangerous mix of religion and vote bank politics” only after he moved to Delhi a few years ago and that “this project is a silent form of protest that can make an impact”. So earlier this month, during a visit to New York, he bought the cow mask from a party shop and, on his return, began shooting for the series, taking pictures of women in front of tourist hotspots and government buildings, on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, on a boat and in a train, because “women are vulnerable everywhere”.  ” I started the project from Delhi since the capital city is the hub of everything – politics, religion, even most debates start here. “I took the first photo in front of the iconic India Gate, one of the most visited tourist places in India. Then I photographed a model in front of the presidential palace, another on a boat in the Hooghly River in Kolkata with the Howrah Bridge as the backdrop.”

 

Protests are taking place across India against rising attacks on Muslims and Dalits (formerly untouchables) by vigilante cow protection groups. About 2,000 people turned out in Delhi. Protests were also being held in 15 other cities as well as in London, protest organizer Saba Dewan said. The campaign, #NotInMyName, started with a Facebook post she wrote after a Muslim teenager was killed last week.

 

The protests come amid reports that a Muslim dairy farmer in Jharkhand state was assaulted and his house was set on fire after the carcass of a cow was found at his door on Tuesday afternoon. The protest organizers have alleged that the family of Junaid Khan, the 16-year-old Muslim boy brutally killed by a Hindu mob on a train last week, had not been able to attend because they were intimidated by the authorities.

 

Crowds gathered at Jantar Mantar, a historical Delhi monument and popular venue for protests. Many of the 2,000 present held posters and banners saying #NotInMyName. Others wondered if it is so easy to divide Indians on the basis of religion. On the stage, poets recited verses, and musicians sang songs of protest. Organiser Saba Dewan demanded that Indian citizens be protected, saying the right to life is non-negotiable. One young woman told me the murders were not how she wished to remember her country.

A photography project which shows women wearing a cow mask and asks the politically explosive question – whether women are less important than cattle in India – has gone viral in the country and earned its 23-year-old photographer the ire of Hindu nationalist trolls.”I am perturbed by the fact that in my country, cows are considered more important than a woman, that it takes much longer for a woman who is raped or assaulted to get justice than for a cow which many Hindus consider a sacred animal,” Delhi-based photographer Sujatro Ghosh told the BBC.

The project is “his way of protesting” against the growing influence of the vigilante cow protection groups that have become emboldened since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, came to power in the summer of 2014. “I’ve been concerned over the Dadri lynching [when a Muslim man was killed by a Hindu mob over rumours that he consumed and stored beef] and other similar religious attacks on Muslims by cow vigilantes,” Ghosh said.

 

The documentary filmmaker said she was “shattered” when she heard about last Thursday’s attack on 16-year-old Junaid Khan, who was killed by a mob of about 20 men on a train in the northern state of Haryana while returning home from Eid shopping in Delhi. Her anguished Facebook post has managed to galvanize a large number of Indians, with thousands pledging to participate in the protests. “The protest is against this systematic violence against Muslims and Dalits that is going on in our country at the moment,” Ms Dewan said. “Junaid’s killing was a shattering moment for me, and also for a lot of other people. I started crying when I heard about his murder. “We’ve always been saying we should protest, but there’s been no leadership. So we decided to do this ourselves. How long can you keep waiting till the cows come home?” she added.

 

Two weeks ago when he launched the project on Instagram, the response was “all positive. It went viral within the first week.” But after the Indian press covered it and put out their stories on Facebook and Twitter, the backlash began. “Some wrote comments threatening me. On Twitter people started trolling me, some said I, along with my models, should be taken to Delhi’s Jama Masjid mosque and slaughtered like a cow and that our meat should be fed to a woman journalist and a woman writer the nationalists despise. They said they wanted to see my mother weep over my body.”  Some people also contacted the Delhi police, “accusing me of trying to instigate riots and asking them to arrest me”.

 

The threats, however, have failed to scare him. Positive fallout of the project going viral has been that he’s got loads of messages from women from across the globe saying they too want to be a part of this campaign. So the cow, he says, will keep travelling. Ghosh is not surprised by the vitriol and admits that his work is an “indirect comment” on the BJP. “I’m making a political statement because it’s a political topic, but if we go deeper into the things, then we see that Hindu supremacy was always there, it has just come out in the open with this government in the past two years.”

 

Hindutva lynching

Like Capitalism and imperialism, fascism and its varied tendencies are an option for the regimes. India is one those modern states that have opted for fascism in palace of humanism.

 

Some rulers pretend they oppose these trends but in fact they indirectly promote provoke them in order to stay in power. Modi’s perpetual silence on all anti-Muslim and anti-human operations of the party and its mother RSS gave the impression that he guides them from behind.

True, the Prime Minister in a tough message against mob lynching and killing in the name of the cow said such actions were not acceptable and warned that no one has the right to take law into his hands. This is not the first time that Modi has commented on the cow vigilante groups. He had made similar comments earlier last August, but, interestingly, mob lynching of Muslims accused of eating beef or killing cattle have continued.

In a tough message against cow vigilantism and mob lynching, Narendra Modi said killing people on pretext of protecting cows is not acceptable and warned that no one has the right to take law into his hands. His statement on gau rakshaks: Words not enough, strict action required, says Opposition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally broke his silence on the killing of people in the name of gau bhakti (cow worship). Condemning the attacks, he said, “This is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve.”  His statement elicited some strong reactions from all quarters.

But RSS-BJP has not given up their anti-Islam and essentially anti-democracy and anti-humanity criminal policies

Just hours after PM Modi gave a strong statement against cow vigilantes, a Muslim Alimuddin alias Asgar Ansari accused of carrying beef was lynched to death in BJP-ruled Jharkhand’s Ramgarh district. IANS quoting police sources said, Ansari was carrying the “banned” meat in a Maruti van and was apprehended by a Hindutva mob belonging to BJP which attacked him brutally lke wild beasts. His van was set on fire. According to reports, police personnel rescued Alimuddin from the murderous mob and rushed him to the hospital. But he couldn’t be saved. According to police, it is a case of ‘pre-meditated murder’ and people involved in beef trade plotted to kill him. The killers have been identified. as per police.

This is second such incidence of cow related violence in Jharkhand in a week. A Muslim was beaten up in Jharkhand after a dead cow was reportedly found outside his house. The incident took place in Beria Hatiatand village in Deori area of Giridih district, nearly 200 km from Ranchi. A Hindutva criminal mob also set the house of Usman Ansari on fire after they spotted the carcass of a cow. The victim has been injured and undergoing treatment. His condition is stable.

On June 29, 2017, Mamata Banerjee and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi also emphasized the need for action. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who could be the Opposition’s  prime ministerial candidate for PM for the next elections,  said, “Condemn killings in the name of gau raksha, just words are not enough. Modi is trying to subvert democracy. The killings must stop now.”We condemn killings taking place in the name of gau raksha. This must stop now. Just words not enough

Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi criticised Narendra Modi’s speech over cow vigilantes, saying that the statement was ‘too little too late’. Gandhi wrote, “Too little too late. Words mean nothing when actions outdo them.”  The prime minister must reaffirm that he believes in the founding values of the Indian state.”  Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi, in a sarcasm-laced remark, said the “presence of Gandhiji’s living spirit in Sabarmati Ashram” must have affected Modi. “What he has said is absolutely right, but it should be followed by very strong action on the ground. All the perpetrators (of hate crimes) have to be caught and prosecuted and the public’s confidence in (law and order) has to be revived,” Gandhi told IANS.

Hollow rhetoric without substance

 

 

 

Rashtriya Janata Dal spokesperson Manoj Jha said Modi’s words sound hollow. “He had made such delayed statements about the Rohith Vemula suicide and the Una incident (thrashing of Dalits) too. Did it stop? In fact, all sound and no substance in terms of action have emboldened such vigilante groups. What this nation urgently requires is a robust legislation against mob lynchings,” Jha said.

Protests were held in several cities across India under the banner of “#NotInMyName” to protest against the mob lynching. Manisha Kayande of Shiv Sena said Modi’s statement has come late but is welcomed. She has said that though Modi had made a similar statement earlier, there is a need for strict action now. “Modi gave a clear message to his own people… Since the BJP government has come to the Centre, all this is happening. Who are they to kill in the name in the name of cow protection? We know who is provoking them and which party is behind them,” Kayande said.

Girish Karnad, a 79-year-old playwright and film director said Modi should instead be talking to the people within the BJP who have made life difficult for cattle traders. “What’s the point of the prime minister preaching to us?” Karnad asked. “He should be preaching to his party men, to those who have created this problem in the first place.” Asaduddin Owaisi, chief of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, said that the prime minister’s words won’t have desired action. Gau rakhshaks get direct support from BJP, Sangh.” D Raja, CPI national secretary said that the prime minister has broken his silence after long. PM statement is mere lip service as there has been slip between cup & lip: Asaduddin Owaisi

Will any fundamental change in Modi mind possible?

 

Possibly PM Modi uttered these words as one of his favored  monologues called “man ki bat” while addressing a public meeting to mark the centenary of the Mahatma Gandhi’s Sabarmati ashram in Ahmadabad, Modi said indulging in violence in the name of “gau bhakti” goes fully against the ideals of the Father of the Nation. Voicing his concern on the spate of incidents of lynching and violence over cows’ protection, the prime minister said nothing would be achieved from such acts. “Today, I want to express my sadness and my pain, when I am here at the Sabarmati ashram,” he said. “This is a country which has the tradition of giving food to ants, street dogs, fish, a country where Mahatma Gandhi taught us lessons of non-violence. What has happened to us?” Modi asked. “If a patient dies due to an unsuccessful operation, relatives burn down hospitals and beat up doctors. Accident is an accident. When people die or are injured in the accidents, a group of people come together and burn vehicles,” he said, pointing out the prevalent trend among the people of taking law into their hands, and the mob violence. “Nobody would have practiced cow protection and cow worship more than Mahatma Gandhi and (his follower) Vinoba Bhave. They showed us the way how to protect cow. The country will have to adopt their way,” the prime minister said.

The comments come just days after a Muslim teenager was brutally killed on a train by a group of Hindu men.  He did not ask the concerned departments to book the Hindutva criminals. Soon thousands of Indians took part in protests against rising attacks on Muslims and Dalits (formerly untouchables) by vigilante groups. Similar protests under the banner #NotInMyName were held in several Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Allahabad, as well as in London. Gatherings are also planned for later in the week in Chennai city as well as in Toronto in Canada, Boston in the US, and Karachi in Pakistan.

Modi just expressed his opinion that killing people in the name of cow protection was “not in keeping with the principles of India’s founding father, Mahatma Gandhi”. “As a society, there is no place for violence,” Modi said, adding that “no person has the right to take the law in his or her own hands”. Bur those criminals who have taken law into their own dirty hands are free to operate in the country now.

However, it is indeed significant that for the first time in his life and career, Modi says something fundamentally against the RSS ideology by criticizing the Hindus who target Muslims in the name of cow and beef to garner Hindu votes. Since Congress and other so called “secular” parties like SP, JRD, BSP, etc are also pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim parties that steal Muslim votes and betray them. These Hindu parties pretend to be sympathizing with Muslims just for their votes and they are essentially anti-Islam. All these political parties and their leaders have betrayed Muslims; hit them both from behind and from the front. They see Muslims in India are powerless and hapless.

In a tough message against cow vigilantism and mob lynching, Narendra Modi said killing people on pretext of protecting cows is not acceptable and warned that no one has the right to take law into his hands. His statement on gau rakshaks: Words not enough, strict action required, says Opposition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally broke his silence on the killing of people in the name of gau bhakti (cow worship). Condemning the attacks, he said, “This is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve.”  His statement elicited some strong reactions from all quarters.

 

 

Failure of India’s political imagination: Beef lynching

Beef is a staple and cheap meat for Muslims, Christians and millions of low-caste Dalits (formerly untouchables) who have been at the receiving end of the violence perpetrated by the cow vigilante groups.

 

PM Modi must take action against those Hindutva criminals who kill Muslims or others only to get more Hindu votes.  Ruing that the “state has been complicit in murders in the cow’s name”, Gandhi hoped that Modi’s statement should be the beginning of a change. Janata Dal-United (JD-U) spokesman KC Tyagi said he does not see any substance in Modi’s remarks. “I don’t think the prime minister’s so-called warning to cow vigilantes has any meaning. The prime minister has spoken on cow vigilantism earlier too, but it has had little impact on the ground.In fact, every time he issues such advisory to gau rakshaks (cow vigilantes), the incidents of violence in the name of cow go up,” Tyagi told IANS.

 

What officers in the city of Malegaon in Maharashtra, one of India’s most populous states, are doing in an attempt to enforce its new beef ban. “We are keeping the photographs for verification purposes only,” one policeman said. “If someone alleges that some illegal activity has taken place and if the owner has a photo, it will be easy to establish the truth.” I’m not sure that’s right. How do you match a steak with a photo of a cow? To be fair, this is a tough law to enforce. You’d pretty much have to catch the newly criminalized butchers with their hands in a cow carcass – literally “red-handed” – to be certain of conviction. That’s because, without DNA analysis or a very refined palate, it is hard to tell the difference between beef and buffalo meat.

 

Criminalized Hindus don’t want any proof in order to kill Muslims.

 

Photographs are morphed too.

Unfortunately for India’s buffaloes, they aren’t regarded as close enough to God to deserve protection. Buffalo is banned in just one of the country’s 29 states.

Beef, meanwhile, is already banned in most of Hindutva-BJP minded northern and western India, and there are partial bans in most of the rest of the country.

There is an economic issue in tightening the laws. The Hindu majority – 80% of the country’s 1.2 billion people – regards cows as divine; the 180 million-strong Muslim minority sees them as a tasty meal. Many Muslims see the extension of the beef ban as evidence of an assault on one of the key principles on which independent India was founded – secularism.

 

Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle. Muslim men have been lynched by Hindu mobs, mostly in BJP-ruled states, for allegedly storing beef and, in one case, for helping an mixed-faith couple elope.

Many are wondering whether India is hurtling towards a “mobocracy” under Modi’s watch. They also question the prime minister’s silence over the killings. There is a sense of a rapid breakdown of law and order when it comes to protecting minorities.

 

The police at the railway station in BJP-ruled Haryana failed to save the teenager. The local police station chief told The Times of India newspaper that they could not rescue the boy because of the criminal crowd. “Such things happen. Whenever there is a riot or fight such things happen and people say some communal things but we can’t do anything,” he said.

 

The ultra fanatic chief minister of BJP-ruled Rajasthan, where 55-year-old dairy farmer Pehlu Khan was lynched in April, offered condolences over his “demise” without mentioning the fact that he had been murdered. A BJP lawmaker said he had “no regret” over the killing because Khan was a “cow-smuggler”.

The spate of mob murders is earning a bad name both for Hinduism and Modi’s government. “India is slipping beyond the pale. It is unfathomable that the ancient Hindu horror at the taking of life, any life – the very same doctrine of ahimsa, or non-violence, that governed the beliefs of men like Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr – should in our time be used as a justification for murder,” noted author Aatish Taseer, writing in The New York Times.

The Economist magazine has suggested that under Modi debate about communal relations has “atrophied”.

To be sure, hate crimes are not new to India. The crisis of violence is not unique to the country either – many point to the US, where there are high rates of gun crime.

And mob lynching is also not new to India. Hundreds of people – more than 630between 1982 and 1984 alone – were murdered by mobs during the three-decade-long Communist rule in West Bengal. The reckless vigilantism was blamed in part on political oppression and appalling law and order. Interestingly, there was little public outrage.

 

On the day of Junaid Khan’s killing, a Muslim police officer was beaten to death by a Muslim mob outside the main mosque in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir.

 

Earlier this month a Muslim activist was allegedly murdered by overzealous government officials after he objected to them taking pictures of women defecating in the open. India has a shambolic record when it comes to religious violence. It ranks fourth worst in the world for religious intolerance, according to a recent Pew Research Centre analysis.

Women are routinely branded as witches and lynched to death for property in large parts of the country. There are also high rates of domestic violence. But the problem with Modi’s government, say many, is that it is seen as ineffective – or unwilling – to rein in the thuggish Hindu mobs. It is, in the words of sociologist Shiv Visvanathan, a “politics of insecurity and anxiety” which is leading to anarchy even as the “state watches lynching as a spectacle”.

Many wonder whether India is staring into a dangerous abyss when a government with a majority led by a powerful leader refuses to condemn hate crimes and a vast number of citizens stay silent or appear to privately support it.

A lawyer tweeted that he had “family elders supporting [the lynching]. Took me great self-control to avoid anger”.

Why is there a lack of outrage outside a handful of journalists, teachers and activists? Have most Indians become inured to violence and intolerance?

On Wednesday, countrywide protests are being planned against such “targeted” murders.

What many Indians who choose to remain silent do not realize is that small-scale and large-scale violence are intimately connected. The perpetuation of hate crimes can easily lead to wider violence. “Every act of violence that you tolerate without protest, brings it a step closer to your doorstep. It is because small violence is tolerated that big violence is rendered possible,” writes Sudipta Kaviraj from Columbia University.

It is a warning India ignores again and again.

 

 

Modi government’s food fascism

 

The BJP’s tallest party leader and PM Modi has repeatedly reasserted his commitment to secularism yet the party has supported the clampdown on beef in Maharashtra. That’s why while the idea of cow mug shots may be amusing, the beef ban is deadly serious.

 

A lawmaker from India’s southern state of Kerala has announced that he is returning to eating meat, beef inclusive,  fish and eggs after practicing vegetarianism for nearly two decades. There’s nothing unusual about a lapsed vegetarian but VT Balram said his decision was prompted by the federal Hindu nationalist BJP government’s attempt to seize the people’s right to eat what they wanted. “I have been living without eating meat, fish or eggs since 1998. But now the time has come break it and uphold the right politics of food assertively,” Balram said, while posting a video of him eating beef with friends and fellow party workers.

The BJP believes that cows should be protected, because they are considered holy by India’s majority Hindu population. Some 18 Indian states have already banned slaughter of cattle. But millions of Indians, including Dalits (formerly untouchables), Muslims and Christians, consume beef. And it’s another matter, say many, that there’s no outrage against the routine selling of male calves by Hindu farmers and pastoralists to middlemen for slaughter as the animals are of little use – bullocks have been phased out by tractors in much of rural India, and villagers need to rear only the occasional bull.

 

The government, then run by Akhilesh Yadav, appeared to buy peace on the cheap.  Yadav flew out Akhlaq’s family to the state capital, Lucknow, upped compensation for the family for the third time since the incident and assured them justice and security. The Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejriwal’s foray into the village, again nearly a week after the incident, accused the police of trying to stop him from entering the village and then, and attacked other parties for “indulging in vote bank politics”. Been there, heard that. The state appears to have withered away under Akhilesh Yadav rule; and incidents of religious clashes and crime are on the rise.

 

The opposition parties have done no better. Rahul Gandhi, the heir-apparent of the enfeebled 129-year-old Congress party, visited Akhlaq’s family nearly a week after the incident. He put out half-a-dozen anodyne tweets, saying “touched by the desire of the villagers to maintain harmony” and that this “spirit will help the country through tough times”. It was almost if this “politics of naiveté and adolescence”, Gandhi’s politics, had abdicated from its responsibility of shoring up bipartisan secular support against the poison of communalism, and left it to the people to fend for themselves. This is all India’s Grand Old Party could manage.

 

 

Cow a polarising animal

 

Ironically, the cow has become a polarising animal. Two years ago, a mob attacked a man and killed him over “rumours” that his family ate beef. Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle. More recently, the chief of BJP’s powerful ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers’ Organisation) has called for a countrywide ban on the slaughter of cows. And this week, a senior judge said the cow should be declared a national animal and people who slaughter cows should be sentenced to life in prison.

Many say this is all contributing to effectively killing India’s thriving buffalo meat trade.

 

Earlier this week, several Indian states opposed the federal government’s decision to ban the sale of cattle for slaughter at livestock markets. The government said the order was aimed at preventing uncontrolled and unregulated animal trade.

But the ban, say many, could end up hurting some $4bn (£3.11bn) in annual beef exports and millions of jobs. There are some 190 million cattle in India, and tens of millions “go out of the system” – die or need to be slaughtered – every year. How will poor farmers sell their animals?

 

So, as lawyer Gautam Bhatia says, the new rules are “perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban”. He believes the government will find it difficult to defend them if they are challenged in the court – one state court, responding to a petition that they violate the right of a person to chose what he eats, has already put the ban on hold.

The badly-drafted rules, Mr Bhatia says, are “an opportunity for citizens and courts to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all”.

 

Critics have been calling the beef ban an example of “dietary profiling” and “food fascism”. Others say it smacks of cultural imperialism, and is a brazen attack on India’s secularism and constitutional values. Don’t laugh, but there could be a conspiracy to turn India vegetarian, screamed a recent headline.

Many believe that the BJP, under Narendra Modi, appears to be completely out of depth with India’s widely diverse food practices which have always been distinguished by religion, region, caste, class, age and gender.

 

Indians now eat more meat, including beef – cow and buffalo meat – than ever. Consumption of beef grew up 14% in cities, and 35% in villages, according to government data analyzed by IndiaSpend, a non-profit data journalism initiative.

Beef is the preferred meat in north-eastern states like Nagaland and Meghalaya. According to National Sample Survey data, 42% Indians describe themselves as vegetarians who don’t eat eggs, fish or meat; another baseline government survey showed 71% of Indians over the age of 15 are non-vegetarian.

 

Governments have tried to impose food bans and choices around the world, mostly using health and environment concerns and hygiene concerns.

In the US, for example, groups have rallied against subsidised vegetables, outlawing large sodas, promotion of organic food and taxing fat. Bangkok is banning street food to clean up streets and enforce hygiene standards.

India has done the same in the past. Crops like BT brinjal have been stalled by the government and industrially manufactured food like Maggi noodles banned temporarily amid claims they contained dangerously high levels of lead. Scarcity has also led to bans – a ban of milk sweets in the 1970s in Delhi was justified because milk used to be in short supply.

To the extent that this ban on cattle slaughter justifies itself by speaking of ‘unfit and infected cattle’, it seems to invoke public health, but then stops short by not banning the sale of goats, sheep and chicken as well,” sociologist Amita Baviskar told me.  “In fact, the public health argument leads logically to a move towards better regulation like stricter checking of animals for disease, more hygienic slaughter and storage of meat rather than a flat-out ban.”

Clearly, the ban appears to be working already.

 

 Observation

India, now controlled by right wing Hindutva nationalist party, has been, since it came to power in 2014, pushing for a Hindutva state just like its Zionist ally Israel has already embarked upon a extremist Jewish state in Israel.  While PM Modi keeps silence on the crucial issues and Hindu-Muslim conflict over lynching of Muslims over beef, the BJP and other Hindutva extreme factions keep attacking Muslims and speak ill of Islam.

 

The Hindutva criminal elements are sure that BJP and other Hindu parties can service in state assemblies sand parliament only if Muslims, Kashmiris, are brutally targeted and Pakistan is shown as enemy number one of India and Hindus. Indian core media just obey the Hindutva leaders for business cum Hindutva reasons.   

The meat-eating habits of Indians have been changing rapidly in the last couple of decades and the chicken, once regarded as a “dirty bird” eating all sorts of things on their ways, is now the most popular meat. Long queues are there in the evening in front of places that serve chicken and roti, etc. Also, there is a greater polarization taking place between red states (meat-eating) and white states (chicken eating).  Within the white states, meat-eaters will have to skulk about, looking over their shoulder as they bite into a beef kebab”.

Rich alone can afford highly costly mutton. Beef is significantly cheaper than chicken and fish and is part of the staple diet for many Muslims, tribal people and dalits – the low caste Indians who used to be called untouchables. It is also the basis of a vast industry which employs or contributes to the employment of millions of people. But, as with so much conflict in the world, the real reason the ban is such a sensitive issue here is religion.

RSS-BJP duo continues to discover new themes to target Muslims. Selling red meat, even goat meat, in BJP-ruled states is dangerous now and injurious to one’s health. Who would want to risk the wrath of the vigilantes?

 

Mohammad Akhlaq, an ironsmith, was killed in his village in Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, barely 50km (31 miles) from the Indian capital. His 22-year-old son Danish was seriously injured in the attack. Another son, Mohammad Sartaj, who works as a technician with the Indian Air Force, survived the attack because he does not live in the village.

 

What does the aftermath of the lynching of a 50-year-old Muslim man by a criminal Hindu mob over rumours that his family had been consuming beef say about political imagination in India?

 

Lynching a person merely on suspicion that he or she may have eaten beef is aa serious crime, the antithesis of all that India stands for and all that Hinduism preaches”, almost implying that lynching a person. Sedition law should be slapped those echo kill humans for eating beef because they violate Indian Constitution that protects minority rights.

Hindutva criminals that seek to control even judiciary,  argue that any Indian living in India who has consumed beef should be killed by Hindus and law and their beef crime does not deserve to be condoned.

The main problem with India is the regime supports everything that the Hindutva criminals do. Secularism in India means something a little different from elsewhere. It doesn’t mean the state stays out of religion, here it means the state is committed to supporting different religions equally. Hindutva people are anti-democracy and anti-secularism because they are anti-Muslim. They are responsible for partition of India and murder of father of Nation. Cruelly, they are still active to destroy the unity of nation and people.

India’s secularism was a response to Hindutva maneuverings and horrors of the partition when millions of people were murdered as Hindus and Muslims fled their homes. The country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, argued equal treatment was a reasonable concession to the millions of Muslims who’d decided to risk all by staying in India. But India is now governed by a Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. It sees India as a Hindu nation.

India’s triumph has been in forging a nation in which Hindus and Muslims can live happily together. But RSS is opposed to peace. The fear is that the beef ban is part of a state process that is gradually undermining not just the compromises of genuine nation that made that possible but insulted the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of minorities and their belongings in this country, which is indeed is a serious Sedition case for life imprisonment. When Hindus violate Constitution their own by employing Muslims- they should be punished. .

The reaction to Dadri indeed points to a larger failure of India’s political imagination cutting across national and regional political spectrum. India’s democracy – a gift which has kept the diverse country together – appears to be all about winning elections alone by hook and crook. Every party sees every issue as a political opportunity. There is this obsession with electoral politics alone. Electoral democracy has actually become anti-democracy. Electoral politics has become obscene in India. This is the view of many critics.

 

The fact that Akhlaq’s last call for help was to a Hindu friend before the mob descended on his house, and that a number of Hindu families in the village moved many of their Muslim neighbours to safety also offer hope. This proves that India’s armed forces remain resolutely secular and most of its people – despite the fact that many in Akhlaq’s village showed no remorse after the incident – remain plural, notwithstanding media menace. . But the politicians know how to poison the minds of people of all walks of life in single stroke of rhetoric.

 

The poverty of political imagination did not end with Modi’s silence and media articles from Hindutva cynics.

 

High caste Mahesh Sharma, federal culture minister and local MP, visited the dead man’s family, and said that the “murder took place as a reaction to that incident”, alluding to rumours of cow slaughter in the area. Sharma reminded reporters that there was a teenage girl – Akhlaq’s daughter – in the home, and nobody had touched her, as if India’s women should be eternally grateful for such small mercies.

 

Hindutva criminals have taken law into their own hands. And, BJP party lawmaker Sangeet Som, visited the victim’s village and stoked religious tensions by saying Hindus were capable of giving a “befitting reply” if innocent members of the community were “framed” for the murder. No Hindutva guy should be punished under law!!!

 

BJP and likeminded Hindu communal parties thrive in India because of lack of honesty and sincerity on the part of political class, ably supported by executive and judiciary. Media lords try to fish in troubled waters and make maximum profits. .

India, clearly, needs to fix its dysfunctional democracy. On the one hand it needs more but credible democracy, but the idea of democracy cannot begin and end with elections alone. Until that happens, lives like Mohammad Akhlaq’s will continue to be lost because of, say, the politics of food. Will India’s corrupt and anti-Muslim parties please stand up?

 

One wonders in which direction the Hindu leaders led by Hindutva BJP and soft Hindutva Congress and other so-called “secular” parties along with their Muslims vote bank managers take India?

 

Post-script

 

A week into the horrific incident in his backyard, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, usually so active on social media, has maintained a studied silence. He has expressed his “gratitude to American people” for their hospitality during his recent trip to the USA, feels indebted to the Jewish pork with which he was offered sumptuous dinners in Israel; he greeted a cabinet colleague and a governor on their birthdays, offered his condolences on the death of a singer’s son and congratulated a billiards champion on his prolific twitter feed. Not a word on Akhlaq. Modi’s soundlessness on Dadri, is the “silence of indifference which becomes obscene, because it denies dignity to the victim”. Modi is not a BJP leader alone, he is now PM of entire India.

 

Later on July 16, speaking at a BJP meeting in New Delhi, PM Narendra Modi said cow vigilantism should not be given political or communal color. Modi speaks out against lynching in the name of cow protection again, asks states to take strict action

 

So, a big statement has come from the big boss, PM Narendra Modi again amid ongoing controversies over cow vigilantism in various regions of the country. PM Narendra Modi asked all the states to take strict action against those violating law in name of cow protection. “The cow vigilantism should not be given political or communal color; the nation doesn’t benefit from it, said Modi at the meet. Also, PM Modi said that the “belief” that cow is like ‘mother’ but this should not let people take law in their own hands.

 

Those who worship cow do not let the animal stay in their bed rooms but let stay in dirty places behind the house. Briefing the media after all party meet, Union Minister Ananth Kumar said, “PM said that strict action will be taken against such people (gau rakshak violence). According to news agency ANI, PM Modi also asked various parties and states to take action against corrupt leaders. PM Modi has asked all parties and states to cooperate in the probe against corrupt leaders.

 

But how sincere he is in his rhetoric remains to be seen!

 

. Will the RSS and BJP sanyasis let Modi have  his final say over Hindutva criminal operations in democratic and secular India?

 

Earlier, a day ahead of the start of the Monsoon session of Parliament, the CPI (M) said it would raise the issue of cow vigilantism in the House and demand the passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill. CPI (M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury told reporters here there were 16 bills listed by the government in what was perhaps going to be the shortest Monsoon session.

 

Modi became famous in BJP and RSS because of his Hindutva actions. He never opened his mouth so far even his so-called “man ki baat” – regular twitter feature about his thoughts,   and only now he opened his mind. This is indeed a fantastic monologue by India’s Hindutva leader cum PM.

 

But how sincere is he about what he says? Will he take action against the Hindutva criminal elements that do all this in order to force Hindus to vote for BJP and likeminded Hindutva parties?

 

That is the trillion dollar question!

——

 

India on fascist path: PM Modi and Hindutva criminal operations in Gandhian India! (Story of Indian fanaticism, secularism and Muslims)

India on fascist path: PM Modi and Hindutva criminal operations in Gandhian India! (Story of Indian fanaticism, secularism and Muslims)

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

———-

 

Indian Hindutva looks very close to criminal Zionism of Israel that brutally occupies Palestine, and unless the trend is checked legally, it could harm the nations and entire world.  If PM Modi is really opposed to Hindus murdering Muslims in cow’s name, why can’t he initiate legal action against Hindutva fanatics, who eye Hindu vote banks, and end such crimes against humanity? Why?

India is often in the news for crimes against women and, according to government statistics, a rape is reported every 15 minutes. More incidents remain unreported. Even reported cases go on for years in the courts before the guilty are punished, if at all, whereas when a cow is slaughtered or a Muslim caries beef, Hindu extremist groups immediately go and kill or beat up whoever they suspect of cow slaughter or they bluff in order to kill Muslims for Hindu votes.

 

_________

 

Zionism influences Hindutva

 

There is a saying across the world that “if you name who is your thick friend others would know who are” and as an emerging thick friend of fascist fanatic Israel, India cannot be entirely different.  Both are fanatically pursuing colonialist policies to terrorize the masses of their colonies – Palestine and Kashmir, respectively.

Modern India for which leaders of the nation after the independence laid secular and democratic foundation, is fast moving towards a fascist Hindutva format to catch up with Zionist Israel, among cruelest fanatic dispensations. Funnily the BJP led government of Narendra Modi deliberately plays double roles in the promoting Hindutva establishment by maintaining a total silence over the communal atrocities on Muslims and other oppressed sections of the nation.

Guided by RSS, the BJP government of Modi takes revenge on Muslims to gain the sympathy and votes of majority Hindus. They believe if they get  a major chunk of Hindutva votes, BJP and other Hindutva outfits can easily win the polls and they need to depend on Muslims or secular or democratic sections  of India for  winning  polls. Moreover, they know Congress and other so-called secular parties have no real sympathy of Muslims and these parties get Muslim votes on the strength of their fear for Hindu communal elements targeting Muslims.

Right from the day of Indian independence in 1947 Muslims are being targeted by the criminal minded Hindus and politicians for Hindu votes but in recent years the phenomenon of anti-Muslimism has obnoxiously increased the risk for Muslims with state promoting Hindutva mentality against the fundamentals of a secular democracy. These Hindu criminal do not attack any Muslim criminals or frauds that they deliberately promote to terrorize Muslim community but only sincere and god abiding Muslims are the Hindutva victims.

Today, the Hindutva parties very dangerously used issues like Muslims, patriotism of Muslims, Pakistan, mosque etc to come to power with Hindu votes.

Today, Indian political scene has reached a level where any Muslim could be killed straight away by Hindu criminal elements blaming for eating beef or buying a goat or cow. The ruling BJP and their media lords consider it an act of crime graver than killing a human or bombing the Parliament or a state assembly with Israeli cluster bombs.

Had PM Modi declared as he assumed power as Indian executive chief punitive measures for those Hindus who kill any Muslim or anyone from other minority communities that would have sent a clear message to Hindutva criminal elements in BJP to care for legal system of India.  But true to his past Hindutva credentials as CM of Gujarat state – in consideration of which he was made the PM candidate by BJP – Modi did not say word of warning or punishment to Hindu criminals. He wanted to save the Hindu criminals who destroyed the Historic Babri Mosque by appointing Hindutva minded judges.

However, he says he feels sad that his Hindutva guys are kiting Muslims in place animals in his country.

That is indeed a positive development in Indian Hindutva criminal politics. This is significant because the former ruling outfit Congress party which owns wholesale Muslim banks has never expressed sympathy with Muslims or criticized the Hindutva elements for attacking Muslims and never said a word of appreciation for Muslim contribution to Indian development and growth. In fact it always insults Muslims.

Congress party promotes and wants Hindus rule entire India both at the centre and states and ensured that no Muslim emerges as a contender for CM in any state even in Kerala where Muslims are more than 30 percent at par with Hindus and Christians.

BJP made a Muslim president of India. But the then President APAJ Abdul Kalam was hated by the Congress party and began sideling Muslim leaders in the party, except those who can only be used as successful votebank managers to garner Muslims as votebank material.

There cannot be two opinions that Indian PM Narendra Modi is a “proud” Hindu and a Hindutva fanatic but as PM Modi cannot openly propagate his Hindutva moorings or openly ask Hindus to attack and kill Muslims. He lets his “people” do that and he protects them as his prime duty as Indian PM. But he is doing everything indirectly to promote Hindutva and make Muslims the target of Hindutva criminal elements.

Of course, a basic RSS champion, Modi is not a democrat or secularist. Modi came to the national scene only after his government killed Muslims just as a revenge to appease the RSSBJP/VHP zealots.

 

Beef- a tasty meat!

Modi became Indian PM in 2014 not to promote Muslim interests in India or abroad. Like his predecessors from Congress party, Modi also promotes millionaires’ interests inland and abroad. Hindutva parliament gives him the necessary support to do whatever he wants and he tours the world and creates problems for the people. PM Modi takes along with all top corporate lords in his foreign tours.

Hardcore Hindutva leaders want Modi to advance their interests and he has so far done that religiously. .

In recent months, the innocent looking  and humble cow has become India’s most polarising animal as Hindutva parties, upon their  success in using the  anti-Muslimism and hatred for Islam for  promoting Hindu vote bank, have accelerated their Hindutva  gimmicks to increase their Hindu vote share. The BJP insists that the animal is holy and should be protected. Cow slaughter is banned in several states, stringent punishment has been introduced for offenders and parliament is considering a bill to bring in the death penalty for the crime.

Beef is global meat consumed by people belonging to all religions and cow meet is also consumed by Indians and foreigners who like the taste of that animal meat. While vegetarian people don’t eat meat all, beef is a major and cheap meat consumed by most Indians, including Hindus. Hindus world over eat beef as their favorite dish in varieties and enjoy life. Also, the BJP vote bank promoters do not think beef is bad but in order to generate fear and hatred among Hindu voters toward Muslims, ask the party carders and other pro-RSS people to kill those Muslims in India who eat beef, though their target is Muslims and low caste Hindus and Christians, others.

A few politically charged fanatic Hindus, whose Hindutva imagination is boosted by Hindu god characters in movies, and brainwashed by Hindutva activists and Muslim haters, propagate the domestic animal cow as a “sacred animal” and cow slaughter is banned in several states by BJP governments.

Muslim slaughter ri snot banned anywhere in India because Hindutva criminal mended people want to kill Muslims to feel themselves elated.

Modi, who came to the national scene by targeting Muslims in his Gujarat state, knows the Hindu communal elements want to destroy peace in the country. Like Jews, they promote violence culture in India. They have taken law, judges and judiciary into their own hands and want the judges deliver judgment according toothier “notes” sent to the government. After demolishing historic Babri mosque like jungle beasts do, they say they won’t accept court judgment on the destruction of Muslim property and place of Islamic worship.

Since Muslims are a minority and directly controlled by Hindu government and Hindu network, BJP thinks they can do anything to them. Gradually the RSS-BJP, a large fanatic family targeting Muslims and Islam, question the very existence of Muslims in India, questioning their patriotism, cricketism, food habits, etc and threaten them with sedition laws. The TV media lords pronounce sedition and death sentences of those Muslims who eat beef.

That is food terrorism policy of RSS-BJP.

Hindutva lynching

Like Capitalism and imperialism, fascism and its varied tendencies are an option for the regimes. India is one those modern states that have opted for fascism in palace of humanism.

 

Some rulers pretend they oppose these trends but in fact they indirectly promote provoke them in order to stay in power. Modi’s perpetual silence on all anti-Muslim and anti-human operations of the party and its mother RSS gave the impression that he guides  them from behind.

True, the Prime Minister in a tough message against mob lynching and killing in the name of the cow said such actions were not acceptable and warned that no one has the right to take law into his hands. This is not the first time that Modi has commented on the cow vigilante groups. He had made similar comments earlier last August, but, interestingly, mob lynching of Muslims accused of eating beef or killing cattle have continued.

Just hours after PM Modi gave a strong statement against cow vigilantes, a Muslim Alimuddin alias Asgar Ansari accused of carrying beef was lynched to death in BJP-ruled Jharkhand’s Ramgarh district. IANS quoting police sources said, Ansari was carrying the “banned” meat in a Maruti van and was apprehended by a Hindutva mob belonging to BJP which attacked him brutally lke wild beasts. His van was set on fire. According to reports, police personnel rescued Alimuddin from the murderous mob and rushed him to the hospital. But he couldn’t be saved. According to police, it is a case of ‘pre-meditated murder’ and people involved in beef trade plotted to kill him. The killers have been identified. as per police.

This is second such incidence of cow related violence in Jharkhand in a week. A Muslim was beaten up in Jharkhand after a dead cow was reportedly found outside his house. The incident took place in Beria Hatiatand village in Deori area of Giridih district, nearly 200 km from Ranchi. A Hindutva criminal mob also set the house of Usman Ansari on fire after they spotted the carcass of a cow. The victim has been injured and undergoing treatment. His condition is stable.

In a tough message against cow vigilantism and mob lynching, Narendra Modi said killing people on pretext of protecting cows is not acceptable and warned that no one has the right to take law into his hands. His statement on gau rakshaks: Words not enough, strict action required, says Opposition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally broke his silence on the killing of people in the name of gau bhakti (cow worship). Condemning the attacks, he said, “This is not something Mahatma Gandhi would approve.”  His statement elicited some strong reactions from all quarters.

On June 29, 2017, Mamata Banerjee and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi also emphasized the need for action. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who could be the Opposition’s  prime ministerial candidate for PM for the next elections,  said, “Condemn killings in the name of gau raksha, just words are not enough. Modi is trying to subvert democracy. The killings must stop now.”We condemn killings taking place in the name of gau raksha. This must stop now. Just words not enough

Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi criticised Narendra Modi’s speech over cow vigilantes, saying that the statement was ‘too little too late’. Gandhi wrote, “Too little too late. Words mean nothing when actions outdo them.”  The prime minister must reaffirm that he believes in the founding values of the Indian state.”  Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi, in a sarcasm-laced remark, said the “presence of Gandhiji’s living spirit in Sabarmati Ashram” must have affected Modi. “What he has said is absolutely right, but it should be followed by very strong action on the ground. All the perpetrators (of hate crimes) have to be caught and prosecuted and the public’s confidence in (law and order) has to be revived,” Gandhi told IANS.

 

Will any fundamental change in Modi mind possible?

 

Critics of the government say that ever since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014, RSS/BJP Hindutva forces began implementing the hidden agenda.  Its cow protection vigilantes have carried out numerous attacks on Muslims and Dalits, for whom beef is a staple. Hindus and Christians also enjoy beef in different flavors. They have also criticised Modi for not doing enough to condemn the attacks. Nearly a dozen people have been killed in these attacks. Targets are often picked based on rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.

On June 29 Modi told a gathering in his home state Gujarat that killing people in the name of cow protection was “not in keeping with the principles of India’s founding father, Mahatma Gandhi”. “As a society, there is no place for violence,” Modi said, adding that “no person has the right to take the law in his or her own hands”. Bur those criminals who have taken law into their own dirty hands are free to operate in the country now.

However, it is indeed significant that for the first time in his life and career, Modi says something fundamentally against the RSS ideology by criticizing the Hindus who target Muslims in the name of cow and beef to garner Hindu votes. Since Congress and other so called “secular” parties like SP, JRD, BSP, etc are also pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim parties;ll these Hindu parties pretend to be sympathizing with Muslims just for their votes and they are essentially anti-Islam. All these political parties and their leaders have betrayed Muslims; hit them both from behind and from the front. They see Muslims in India are powerless and hapless.

 

Possibly PM Modi uttered these words as one of his favored  monologues called “man ki bat” while addressing a public meeting to mark the centenary of the Mahatma Gandhi’s Sabarmati ashram in Ahmadabad, Modi said indulging in violence in the name of “gau bhakti” goes fully against the ideals of the Father of the Nation. Voicing his concern on the spate of incidents of lynching and violence over cows’ protection, the prime minister said nothing would be achieved from such acts. “Today, I want to express my sadness and my pain, when I am here at the Sabarmati ashram,” he said. “This is a country which has the tradition of giving food to ants, street dogs, fish, a country where Mahatma Gandhi taught us lessons of non-violence. What has happened to us?” Modi asked. “If a patient dies due to an unsuccessful operation, relatives burn down hospitals and beat up doctors. Accident is an accident. When people die or are injured in the accidents, a group of people come together and burn vehicles,” he said, pointing out the prevalent trend among the people of taking law into their hands, and the mob violence. “Nobody would have practiced cow protection and cow worship more than Mahatma Gandhi and (his follower) Vinoba Bhave. They showed us the way how to protect cow. The country will have to adopt their way,” the prime minister said.

 

When in a surprising move, India’s Narendra Modi has said murder in the name of cow protection is “not acceptable”. The comments come just days after a Muslim teenager was brutally killed on a train by a group of Hindu men.  He did not ask the  concerned departments to book the Hindutva criminals. Soon thousands of Indians took part in protests against rising attacks on Muslims and Dalits (formerly untouchables) by vigilante groups. Similar protests under the banner #NotInMyName were held in several Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Allahabad, as well as in London. Gatherings are also planned for later in the week in Chennai city as well as in Toronto in Canada, Boston in the US, and Karachi in Pakistan.

Indians protest against targeting Muslims:  Beef lynching

 

RSS-BJP hardcore leaders keep trying new tricks to trap Hindus and harm Muslims. Under Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP, the cow has become a polarising animal and religious divisions are widening. Restrictions on the sale and slaughter of cows are fanning confusion and vigilantism.

 

Ever since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in the summer of 2014, vigilante cow protection groups have been emboldened and there have been numerous attacks on Muslims and Dalits, for whom beef is a staple.

Nearly a dozen people have been killed in these attacks over the past two years. Targets are often picked based on unsubstantiated rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.

 

 

 

Possibly RSS believes Muslims should be slaughtered instead of animals. In India Cow slaughter is banned in several Indian states that are now under spell of extremist Hindutva moorings, and those found violating the law can be jailed for up to 10 years. Parliament under the control of Hindutva forces is also considering a bill to bring in the death penalty for the crime.

 

Nearly a dozen people have been killed in the past two years in the name of the cow. Targets are often picked based on unsubstantiated rumours and Muslims have been attacked for even transporting cows for milk.  Ghosh, who is from the eastern city of Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), says he became aware of “this dangerous mix of religion and vote bank politics” only after he moved to Delhi a few years ago and that “this project is a silent form of protest that I think can make an impact”. So earlier this month, during a visit to New York, he bought the cow mask from a party shop and, on his return, began shooting for the series, taking pictures of women in front of tourist hotspots and government buildings, on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, on a boat and in a train, because “women are vulnerable everywhere”.  “I photographed women from every part of society. I started the project from Delhi since the capital city is the hub of everything – politics, religion, even most debates start here. “I took the first photo in front of the iconic India Gate, one of the most visited tourist places in India. Then I photographed a model in front of the presidential palace, another on a boat in the Hooghly river in Kolkata with the Howrah Bridge as the backdrop.”

 

Two years ago, a mob killed farm worker Mohammed Akhlaq over “rumours” that his family had stored and eaten beef. Protests under the banner #NotInMyName are being organised in 16 Indian cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Allahabad as well as in London on Wednesday. Gatherings are also planned for later in the week in Toronto, Boston and Karachi. The protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar monument was expected to be the biggest, Ms Dewan said.

 

 

Protests are taking place across India against rising attacks on Muslims and Dalits (formerly untouchables) by vigilante cow protection groups. About 2,000 people turned out in Delhi. Protests were also being held in 15 other cities as well as in London, protest organizer Saba Dewan said. The campaign, #NotInMyName, started with a Facebook post she wrote after a Muslim teenager was killed last week. Wednesday’s protests come amid reports that a Muslim dairy farmer in Jharkhand state was assaulted and his house was set on fire after the carcass of a cow was found at his door on Tuesday afternoon.

Crowds gathered at Jantar Mantar, a historical Delhi monument and popular venue for protests. Many of the 2,000 present held posters and banners saying #NotInMyName. Others wondered if it is so easy to divide Indians on the basis of religion. On the stage, poets recited verses, and musicians sang songs of protest. Organiser Saba Dewan demanded that Indian citizens be protected, saying the right to life is non-negotiable. One young woman told me the murders were not how she wished to remember her country.

The protest organizers have alleged that the family of Junaid Khan, the 16-year-old Muslim boy brutally killed by a Hindu mob on a train last week, had not been able to attend because they were intimidated by the authorities.

A photography project which shows women wearing a cow mask and asks the politically explosive question – whether women are less important than cattle in India – has gone viral in the country and earned its 23-year-old photographer the ire of Hindu nationalist trolls.”I am perturbed by the fact that in my country, cows are considered more important than a woman, that it takes much longer for a woman who is raped or assaulted to get justice than for a cow which many Hindus consider a sacred animal,” Delhi-based photographer Sujatro Ghosh told the BBC.

The project is “his way of protesting” against the growing influence of the vigilante cow protection groups that have become emboldened since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, came to power in the summer of 2014. “I’ve been concerned over the Dadri lynching [when a Muslim man was killed by a Hindu mob over rumours that he consumed and stored beef] and other similar religious attacks on Muslims by cow vigilantes,” Ghosh said.

 

The documentary filmmaker said she was “shattered” when she heard about last Thursday’s attack on 16-year-old Junaid Khan, who was killed by a mob of about 20 men on a train in the northern state of Haryana while returning home from Eid shopping in Delhi. Her anguished Facebook post has managed to galvanize a large number of Indians, with thousands pledging to participate in the protests. “The protest is against this systematic violence against Muslims and Dalits that is going on in our country at the moment,” Ms Dewan said. “Junaid’s killing was a shattering moment for me, and also for a lot of other people. I started crying when I heard about his murder. “We’ve always been saying we should protest, but there’s been no leadership. So we decided to do this ourselves. How long can you keep waiting till the cows come home?” she added.

 

Two weeks ago when he launched the project on Instagram, the response was “all positive. It went viral within the first week, my well wishers and even people I didn’t know appreciated it.” But after the Indian press covered it and put out their stories on Facebook and Twitter, the backlash began. “Some wrote comments threatening me. On Twitter people started trolling me, some said I, along with my models, should be taken to Delhi’s Jama Masjid [mosque] and slaughtered, and that our meat should be fed to a woman journalist and a woman writer the nationalists despise. They said they wanted to see my mother weep over my body.”

Some people also contacted the Delhi police, “accusing me of trying to instigate riots and asking them to arrest me”. Ghosh is not surprised by the vitriol and admits that his work is an “indirect comment” on the BJP. “I’m making a political statement because it’s a political topic, but if we go deeper into the things, then we see that Hindu supremacy was always there, it has just come out in the open with this government in the past two years.”

The threats, however, have failed to scare him. “I’m not afraid because I’m working for the greater good,” he says. Positive fallout of the project going viral has been that he’s got loads of messages from women from across the globe saying they too want to be a part of this campaign. So the cow, he says, will keep travelling.

 

On 26 June 2017 a 15-year-old Muslim boy, returning home from Eid shopping with his three brothers, was killed in a brutal assault by a mob of about 20 men on a train in the north Indian state of Haryana. Police say that the reason for Junaid Khan’s murder – in which his three siblings were also injured by the knife-wielding mob – was mainly because of a row over seat space on the train. But a man arrested for being part of the mob said on TV that he was goaded into it by others because Muslims ate beef. Shaqir, one of the surviving brothers, told reporters in the hospital that the attackers “flung our skull caps, pulled my brother’s beard, slapped us, and taunted us about eating beef”.

 

Hollow rhetoric without substance

 

Beef is a staple for Muslims, Christians and millions of low-caste Dalits (formerly untouchables) who have been at the receiving end of the violence perpetrated by the cow vigilante groups.

 

Yes, PM Modi must take action against those Hindutva criminals who kill Muslims or others only to get more Hindu votes.  Ruing that the “state has been complicit in murders in the cow’s name”, Gandhi hoped that Modi’s statement should be the beginning of a change. Janata Dal-United (JD-U) spokesman KC Tyagi said he does not see any substance in Modi’s remarks. “I don’t think the prime minister’s so-called warning to cow vigilantes has any meaning. The prime minister has spoken on cow vigilantism earlier too, but it has had little impact on the ground.In fact, every time he issues such advisory to gau rakshaks (cow vigilantes), the incidents of violence in the name of cow go up,” Tyagi told IANS.

 

Rashtriya Janata Dal spokesperson Manoj Jha said Modi’s words sound hollow. “He had made such delayed statements about the Rohith Vemula suicide and the Una incident (thrashing of Dalits) too. Did it stop? In fact, all sound and no substance in terms of action have emboldened such vigilante groups. What this nation urgently requires is a robust legislation against mob lynchings,” Jha said.

Protests were held in several cities across India under the banner of “#NotInMyName” to protest against the mob lynching. Manisha Kayande of Shiv Sena said Modi’s statement has come late but is welcomed. She has said that though Modi had made a similar statement earlier, there is a need for strict action now. “Modi gave a clear message to his own people… Since the BJP government has come to the Centre, all this is happening. Who are they to kill in the name in the name of cow protection? We know who is provoking them and which party is behind them,” Kayande said.

Girish Karnad, a 79-year-old playwright and film director said Modi should instead be talking to the people within the BJP who have made life difficult for cattle traders. “What’s the point of the prime minister preaching to us?” Karnad asked. “He should be preaching to his party men, to those who have created this problem in the first place.” Asaduddin Owaisi, chief of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, said that the prime minister’s words won’t have desired action. Gau rakhshaks get direct support from BJP, Sangh.” D Raja, CPI national secretary said that the prime minister has broken his silence after long. PM statement is mere lip service as there has been slip between cup & lip: Asaduddin Owaisi

 

 

Failure of India’s political imagination: Beef lynching

 

What officers in the city of Malegaon in Maharashtra, one of India’s most populous states, are doing in an attempt to enforce its new beef ban. “We are keeping the photographs for verification purposes only,” one policeman said. “If someone alleges that some illegal activity has taken place and if the owner has a photo, it will be easy to establish the truth.” I’m not sure that’s right. How do you match a steak with a photo of a cow? To be fair, this is a tough law to enforce. You’d pretty much have to catch the newly criminalized butchers with their hands in a cow carcass – literally “red-handed” – to be certain of conviction. That’s because, without DNA analysis or a very refined palate, it is hard to tell the difference between beef and buffalo meat.

 

Criminalized Hindus don’t want any proof in order to kill Muslims.

 

Photographs are morphed too.

Unfortunately for India’s buffaloes, they aren’t regarded as close enough to God to deserve protection. Buffalo is banned in just one of the country’s 29 states.

Beef, meanwhile, is already banned in most of Hindutva-BJP  minded northern and western India, and there are partial bans in most of the rest of the country.

 

There is an economic issue in tightening the laws. The Hindu majority – 80% of the country’s 1.2 billion people – regards cows as divine; the 180 million-strong Muslim minority sees them as a tasty meal. Many Muslims see the extension of the beef ban as evidence of an assault on one of the key principles on which independent India was founded – secularism.

The BJP’s tallest party leader and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly reasserted his commitment to secularism yet the party has supported the clampdown on beef in Maharashtra. That’s why while the idea of cow mug shots may be amusing, the beef ban is deadly serious.

 

Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle. Muslim men have been lynched by Hindu mobs, mostly in BJP-ruled states, for allegedly storing beef and, in one case, for helping an mixed-faith couple elope.

Many are wondering whether India is hurtling towards a “mobocracy” under  Modi’s watch. They also question the prime minister’s silence over the killings. There is a sense of a rapid breakdown of law and order when it comes to protecting minorities.

 

The police at the railway station in BJP-ruled Haryana failed to save the teenager. The local police station chief told The Times of India newspaper that they could not rescue the boy because of the criminal crowd. “Such things happen. Whenever there is a riot or fight such things happen and people say some communal things but we can’t do anything,” he said.

 

The ultra fanatic chief minister of BJP-ruled Rajasthan, where 55-year-old dairy farmer Pehlu Khan was lynched in April, offered condolences over his “demise” without mentioning the fact that he had been murdered. A BJP lawmaker said he had “no regret” over the killing because Khan was a “cow-smuggler”.

The spate of mob murders is earning a bad name both for Hinduism and Modi’s government. “India is slipping beyond the pale. It is unfathomable that the ancient Hindu horror at the taking of life, any life – the very same doctrine of ahimsa, or non-violence, that governed the beliefs of men like Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr – should in our time be used as a justification for murder,” noted author Aatish Taseer, writing in The New York Times.

The Economist magazine has suggested that under Modi debate about communal relations has “atrophied”.

 

But India’s senior most bureaucrat in charge of law and order, Rajiv Mehrishi, has instead accused the media of “over reporting” the muders-incidents. “I don’t think the hate crime is new in India. It is feudal in nature. Today, they shake the conscience. You cannot say lynching or hate crimes are something new. I think they are over hyped and over reported,” he said.

To be sure, hate crimes are not new to India. The crisis of violence is not unique to the country either – many point to the US, where there are high rates of gun crime.

And mob lynching is also not new to India. Hundreds of people – more than 630between 1982 and 1984 alone – were murdered by mobs during the three-decade-long Communist rule in West Bengal. The reckless vigilantism was blamed in part on political oppression and appalling law and order. Interestingly, there was little public outrage.

 

On the day of Junaid Khan’s killing, a Muslim police officer was beaten to death by a Muslim mob outside the main mosque in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir.

 

Earlier this month a Muslim activist was allegedly murdered by overzealous government officials after he objected to them taking pictures of women defecating in the open. India has a shambolic record when it comes to religious violence. It ranks fourth worst in the world for religious intolerance, according to a recent Pew Research Centre analysis.

Women are routinely branded as witches and lynched to death for property in large parts of the country. There are also high rates of domestic violence. But the problem with Modi’s government, say many, is that it is seen as ineffective – or unwilling – to rein in the thuggish Hindu mobs. It is, in the words of sociologist Shiv Visvanathan, a “politics of insecurity and anxiety” which is leading to anarchy even as the “state watches lynching as a spectacle”.

Many wonder whether India is staring into a dangerous abyss when a government with a majority led by a powerful leader refuses to condemn hate crimes and a vast number of citizens stay silent or appear to privately support it.

A lawyer tweeted that he had “family elders supporting [the lynching]. Took me great self-control to avoid anger”.

Why is there a lack of outrage outside a handful of journalists, teachers and activists? Have most Indians become inured to violence and intolerance?

On Wednesday, countrywide protests are being planned against such “targeted” murders.

What many Indians who choose to remain silent do not realize is that small-scale and large-scale violence are intimately connected. The perpetuation of hate crimes can easily lead to wider violence. “Every act of violence that you tolerate without protest, brings it a step closer to your doorstep. It is because small violence is tolerated that big violence is rendered possible,” writes Sudipta Kaviraj from Columbia University.

It is a warning India ignores again and again.

 

 

Modi government’s food fascism

 

A lawmaker from India’s southern state of Kerala has announced that he is returning to eating meat, beef inclusive,  fish and eggs after practicing vegetarianism for nearly two decades. There’s nothing unusual about a lapsed vegetarian but VT Balram said his decision was prompted by the federal Hindu nationalist BJP government’s attempt to seize the people’s right to eat what they wanted. “I have been living without eating meat, fish or eggs since 1998. But now the time has come break it and uphold the right politics of food assertively,” Balram said, while posting a video of him eating beef with friends and fellow party workers.

The BJP believes that cows should be protected, because they are considered holy by India’s majority Hindu population. Some 18 Indian states have already banned slaughter of cattle. But millions of Indians, including Dalits (formerly untouchables), Muslims and Christians, consume beef. And it’s another matter, say many, that there’s no outrage against the routine selling of male calves by Hindu farmers and pastoralists to middlemen for slaughter as the animals are of little use – bullocks have been phased out by tractors in much of rural India, and villagers need to rear only the occasional bull.

 

The government, then run by Akhilesh Yadav, appeared to buy peace on the cheap.  Yadav flew out Akhlaq’s family to the state capital, Lucknow, upped compensation for the family for the third time since the incident and assured them justice and security. The Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejriwal’s foray into the village, again nearly a week after the incident, accused the police of trying to stop him from entering the village and then, and attacked other parties for “indulging in vote bank politics”. Been there, heard that. The state appears to have withered away under Akhilesh Yadav rule; and incidents of religious clashes and crime are on the rise.

 

The opposition parties have done no better. Rahul Gandhi, the heir-apparent of the enfeebled 129-year-old Congress party, visited Akhlaq’s family nearly a week after the incident. He put out half-a-dozen anodyne tweets, saying “touched by the desire of the villagers to maintain harmony” and that this “spirit will help the country through tough times”. It was almost if this “politics of naiveté and adolescence”, Gandhi’s politics, had abdicated from its responsibility of shoring up bipartisan secular support against the poison of communalism, and left it to the people to fend for themselves. This is all India’s Grand Old Party could manage.

 

 

Cow a polarising animal

 

Ironically, the cow has become a polarising animal. Two years ago, a mob attacked a man and killed him over “rumours” that his family ate beef. Vigilante cow protection groups, operating with impunity, have killed people for transporting cattle. More recently, the chief of BJP’s powerful ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers’ Organisation) has called for a countrywide ban on the slaughter of cows. And this week, a senior judge said the cow should be declared a national animal and people who slaughter cows should be sentenced to life in prison.

Many say this is all contributing to effectively killing India’s thriving buffalo meat trade.

 

Earlier this week, several Indian states opposed the federal government’s decision to ban the sale of cattle for slaughter at livestock markets. The government said the order was aimed at preventing uncontrolled and unregulated animal trade.

But the ban, say many, could end up hurting some $4bn (£3.11bn) in annual beef exports and millions of jobs. There are some 190 million cattle in India, and tens of millions “go out of the system” – die or need to be slaughtered – every year. How will poor farmers sell their animals?

 

So, as lawyer Gautam Bhatia says, the new rules are “perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban”. He believes the government will find it difficult to defend them if they are challenged in the court – one state court, responding to a petition that they violate the right of a person to chose what he eats, has already put the ban on hold.

The badly-drafted rules, Mr Bhatia says, are “an opportunity for citizens and courts to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all”.

 

Critics have been calling the beef ban an example of “dietary profiling” and “food fascism”. Others say it smacks of cultural imperialism, and is a brazen attack on India’s secularism and constitutional values. Don’t laugh, but there could be a conspiracy to turn India vegetarian, screamed a recent headline.

Many believe that the BJP, under Narendra Modi, appears to be completely out of depth with India’s widely diverse food practices which have always been distinguished by religion, region, caste, class, age and gender.

 

Indians now eat more meat, including beef – cow and buffalo meat – than ever. Consumption of beef grew up 14% in cities, and 35% in villages, according to government data analyzed by IndiaSpend, a non-profit data journalism initiative.

Beef is the preferred meat in north-eastern states like Nagaland and Meghalaya. According to National Sample Survey data, 42% Indians describe themselves as vegetarians who don’t eat eggs, fish or meat; another baseline government survey showed 71% of Indians over the age of 15 are non-vegetarian.

 

Governments have tried to impose food bans and choices around the world, mostly using health and environment concerns and hygiene concerns.

In the US, for example, groups have rallied against subsidised vegetables, outlawing large sodas, promotion of organic food and taxing fat. Bangkok is banning street food to clean up streets and enforce hygiene standards.

India has done the same in the past. Crops like BT brinjal have been stalled by the government and industrially manufactured food like Maggi noodles banned temporarily amid claims they contained dangerously high levels of lead. Scarcity has also led to bans – a ban of milk sweets in the 1970s in Delhi was justified because milk used to be in short supply.

To the extent that this ban on cattle slaughter justifies itself by speaking of ‘unfit and infected cattle’, it seems to invoke public health, but then stops short by not banning the sale of goats, sheep and chicken as well,” sociologist Amita Baviskar told me.  “In fact, the public health argument leads logically to a move towards better regulation like stricter checking of animals for disease, more hygienic slaughter and storage of meat rather than a flat-out ban.”

Clearly, the ban appears to be working already.

 

 Observation

India, now controlled by right wing Hindutva nationalist party, has been, since it came to power in 2014, pushing for a Hindutva state just like its Zionist ally Israel has already embarked upon a extremist Jewish state in Israel.  While PM Modi keeps silence on the crucial issues and Hindu-Muslim conflict over lynching of Muslims over beef, the BJP and other Hindutva extreme factions keep attacking Muslims and speak ill of Islam.

 

The Hindutva criminal elements are sure that BJP and other Hindu parties can service in state assemblies sand parliament only if Muslims, Kashmiris, are brutally targeted and Pakistan is shown as enemy number one of India and Hindus. Indian core media just obey the Hindutva leaders for business cum Hindutva reasons.   

The meat-eating habits of Indians have been changing rapidly in the last couple of decades and the chicken, once regarded as a “dirty bird” eating all sorts of things on their ways, is now the most popular meat. Long queues are there in the evening in front of places that serve chicken and roti, etc. Also, there is a greater polarization taking place between red states (meat-eating) and white states (chicken eating).  Within the white states, meat-eaters will have to skulk about, looking over their shoulder as they bite into a beef kebab”.

Rich alone can afford highly costly mutton. Beef is significantly cheaper than chicken and fish and is part of the staple diet for many Muslims, tribal people and dalits – the low caste Indians who used to be called untouchables. It is also the basis of a vast industry which employs or contributes to the employment of millions of people. But, as with so much conflict in the world, the real reason the ban is such a sensitive issue here is religion.

RSS-BJP duo continues to discover new themes to target Muslims. Selling red meat, even goat meat, in BJP-ruled states is dangerous now and injurious to one’s health. Who would want to risk the wrath of the vigilantes?

 

Mohammad Akhlaq, an ironsmith, was killed in his village in Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, barely 50km (31 miles) from the Indian capital. His 22-year-old son Danish was seriously injured in the attack. Another son, Mohammad Sartaj, who works as a technician with the Indian Air Force, survived the attack because he does not live in the village.

 

What does the aftermath of the lynching of a 50-year-old Muslim man by a criminal Hindu mob over rumours that his family had been consuming beef say about political imagination in India?

 

Lynching a person merely on suspicion that he or she may have eaten beef is aa serious crime, the antithesis of all that India stands for and all that Hinduism preaches”, almost implying that lynching a person. Sedition law should be slapped those echo kill humans for eating beef because they violate Indian Constitution that protects minority rights.

Hindutva criminals that seek to control even judiciary,  argue that any Indian living in India who has consumed beef should be killed by Hindus and law and their beef crime does not deserve to be condoned.

The main problem with India is the regime supports everything that the Hindutva criminals do. Secularism in India means something a little different from elsewhere. It doesn’t mean the state stays out of religion, here it means the state is committed to supporting different religions equally. Hindutva people are anti-democracy and anti-secularism because they are anti-Muslim. They are responsible for partition of India and murder of father of Nation. Cruelly, they are still active to destroy the unity of nation and people.

India’s secularism was a response to Hindutva maneuverings and horrors of the partition when millions of people were murdered as Hindus and Muslims fled their homes. The country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, argued equal treatment was a reasonable concession to the millions of Muslims who’d decided to risk all by staying in India. But India is now governed by a Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. It sees India as a Hindu nation.

India’s triumph has been in forging a nation in which Hindus and Muslims can live happily together. But RSS is opposed to peace. The fear is that the beef ban is part of a state process that is gradually undermining not just the compromises of genuine nation that made that possible but insulted the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of minorities and their belongings in this country, which is indeed is a serious Sedition case for life imprisonment. When Hindus violate Constitution their own by employing Muslims- they should be punished. .

The reaction to Dadri indeed points to a larger failure of India’s political imagination cutting across national and regional political spectrum. India’s democracy – a gift which has kept the diverse country together – appears to be all about winning elections alone by hook and crook. Every party sees every issue as a political opportunity. There is this obsession with electoral politics alone. Electoral democracy has actually become anti-democracy. Electoral politics has become obscene in India. This is the view of many critics.

 

The fact that Akhlaq’s last call for help was to a Hindu friend before the mob descended on his house, and that a number of Hindu families in the village moved many of their Muslim neighbours to safety also offer hope. This proves that India’s armed forces remain resolutely secular and most of its people – despite the fact that many in Akhlaq’s village showed no remorse after the incident – remain plural, notwithstanding media menace. . But the politicians know how to poison the minds of people of all walks of life in single stroke of rhetoric.

 

The poverty of political imagination did not end with Modi’s silence and media articles from Hindutva cynics.

 

High caste Mahesh Sharma, federal culture minister and local MP, visited the dead man’s family, and said that the “murder took place as a reaction to that incident”, alluding to rumours of cow slaughter in the area. Sharma reminded reporters that there was a teenage girl – Akhlaq’s daughter – in the home, and nobody had touched her, as if India’s women should be eternally grateful for such small mercies.

 

Hindutva criminals have taken law into their own hands. And, BJP party lawmaker Sangeet Som, visited the victim’s village and stoked religious tensions by saying Hindus were capable of giving a “befitting reply” if innocent members of the community were “framed” for the murder. No Hindutva guy should be punished under law!!!

 

BJP and likeminded Hindu communal parties thrive in India because of lack of honesty and sincerity on the part of political class, ably supported by executive and judiciary. Media lords try to fish in troubled waters and make maximum profits. .

India, clearly, needs to fix its dysfunctional democracy. On the one hand it needs more but credible democracy, but the idea of democracy cannot begin and end with elections alone. Until that happens, lives like Mohammad Akhlaq’s will continue to be lost because of, say, the politics of food. Will India’s corrupt and anti-Muslim parties please stand up?

 

One wonders in which direction the Hindu leaders led by Hindutva BJP and soft Hindutva Congress and other so-called “secular” parties along with their Muslims vote bank managers take India?

 

Post-script

 

A week into the horrific incident in his backyard, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, usually so active on social media, has maintained a studied silence. He has expressed his “gratitude to American people” for their hospitality during his recent trip to the USA, feels indebted to the Jewish pork with which he was offered sumptuous dinners in Israel; he greeted a cabinet colleague and a governor on their birthdays, offered his condolences on the death of a singer’s son and congratulated a billiards champion on his prolific twitter feed. Not a word on Akhlaq. Modi’s soundlessness on Dadri, is the “silence of indifference which becomes obscene, because it denies dignity to the victim”. Modi is not a BJP leader alone, he is now PM of entire India.

 

Later on July 16, speaking at a BJP meeting in New Delhi, PM Narendra Modi said cow vigilantism should not be given political or communal color. Modi speaks out against lynching in the name of cow protection again, asks states to take strict action

 

So, a big statement has come from the big boss, PM Narendra Modi again amid ongoing controversies over cow vigilantism in various regions of the country. PM Narendra Modi asked all the states to take strict action against those violating law in name of cow protection. “The cow vigilantism should not be given political or communal color; the nation doesn’t benefit from it, said Modi at the meet. Also, PM Modi said that the “belief” that cow is like ‘mother’ but this should not let people take law in their own hands.

 

Those who worship cow do not let the animal stay in their bed rooms but let stay in dirty places behind the house. Briefing the media after all party meet, Union Minister Ananth Kumar said, “PM said that strict action will be taken against such people (gau rakshak violence). According to news agency ANI, PM Modi also asked various parties and states to take action against corrupt leaders. PM Modi has asked all parties and states to cooperate in the probe against corrupt leaders.

 

But how sincere he is in his rhetoric remains to be seen!

 

. Will the RSS and BJP sanyasis let Modi have  his final say over Hindutva criminal operations in democratic and secular India?

 

Earlier, a day ahead of the start of the Monsoon session of Parliament, the CPI (M) said it would raise the issue of cow vigilantism in the House and demand the passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill. CPI (M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury told reporters here there were 16 bills listed by the government in what was perhaps going to be the shortest Monsoon session.

 

Modi became famous in BJP and RSS because of his Hindutva actions. He never opened his mouth so far even his so-called “man ki baat” – regular twitter feature about his thoughts,   and only now he opened his mind. This is indeed a fantastic monologue by India’s Hindutva leader cum PM.

 

But how sincere is he about what he says? Will he take action against the Hindutva criminal elements that do all this in order to force Hindus to vote for BJP and likeminded Hindutva parties?

 

That is the trillion dollar question!

——

Why does India make national awards fake? Now cricket mafias try to boost the image of Indian women cricketers for Bharatratna?

Why does India make national awards fake? Now cricket mafias try to boost the image of Indian women cricketers for Bharatratna?

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

______

 

Unfortunately, India is suffering  with  ill-focusing on national award by easiest ways and cricketers think they can get national awards by using corporate lords who got the Congress government to offer Bharatratna- the highest national honor for hard work- to a fake sportboy Sachin tendulkar of his fake 100s arranged through mafias- both state and non-state elements. . .

There cannot two opinions that cricket is fake but what is intriguing that the cricketers want to keep the cricket fake forever so that they could mint huge money and national awards on false presumptions of the regimes. The mafias of the regimes do not let any real reform of cricket to make it a genuine sport.

Genuine cricket means a fever runs for any “big or tall” batboy and celebration for the bowlers and fielders. Batboys who jointly control cricketism, like GST (Global State Terrorism) powers by capitalist powers, oppose any change to weaken their position as a weak guys and girls.

It seems global cricket mafias operating across the cricket world now wants Indian regime to offer  national awards to Indian women and so there has been concerted efforts  to boost the  image of women batgirl players also by offering 10ss and 50s by other teams in  the so-called World cup. As the teams have done so far in promoting Indian batboys like tendulkar, it has become very easy to  do the same  without any hassles. Bowlers are e told how bowl nice balls for 4 and 6s after pretending to finish them off in a few overs as a mere stunt.

Special favors from bowlers and opponent teams do not come freely;  there is a price tag, like for any government job or important postings and transfers ,  attacked to every such favor.  The payments are made by the cricket board directly or through the mafia or directly by the country concerned through the ambassadors, as the case may be.  Of course, a high level secrecy is maintained by all concerned so that no body suspects the records and rankings.

England, Australia, New Eland, etc, have joined other teams to promote Indian lady batboys.

Funnily, the BJP government is no different from the previous Congress government in fixing tournaments and awards for the cricketers as gods.

Interestingly, all players maintain a strict vigil on their mischief so that none would detect their secret deals. The governments, filled with corrupt and criminal minded people, do not allow any possible revelations about the match fixings.

Cricket was invented by England to keep the youth of their occupied colonies in good g humors by offering 100s and 50s and asking them to  return the favors. They made the p[itches exclusively  let the batboys hit 6s and 4s  and bowlers to  struggle and suffer without  getting a wicket.  The bowlers are advised not to worry about run flow and offer enough runs  and they should try to get a wicket or two initially and them offer big scores.

Thus the bating strategy continues today without any basic changes.  Bowlers, who seek a career in the main team, are instructed not to complain about patches or speak to the media directly without permission from the cricket board.  The way the bowlers jump up to the sky and down when they by fluke get a wicket is indeed amazing.

It is necessary to make cricket a real sport by bringing in elements of neutrality and justice for the nations concerned- and not for the batboys alone. Batboys also must struggle like bowlers to get a run on board but as of today now they keep hitting 4s and 6s and go fast get a 100 runs   because only 50s and 100s are counted for awarding national fake honors and more black money.  .

Both boys and girls enjoy being at the case with a stick and a “nice” pitch that promotes them. They hit and get 6 or 4 or less runs. Hardly any wickets fall.  That is the strategy of international frauds like mafia, cricket boards, sports ministries and even governments themselves that promote cricket as a fake sport like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, England and South Africa, in fact all cricket countries.

Cricketism is illegal as there is an official mischief inherent in the game.

Neutrality and justice cannot be ensured without masking pitches neutral that would make the batboys roil to get a run. Every ball should be a potential wicket for bowlers. Batboys cannot enjoy their immoral stay at the crease to hit big runs in 4s and 6s should be declared OUT as the ball is hit directly outside the boundary. And 4s also be abolished let the batboys earn their und by running between the wickets.

The reform would sp stop the greedy people from entering cricket for 100s and national awards- the easiest way to obtain that.

Will cricket boards, sports ministries, corporate lords and their medias, and corporatist governments themselves?

That is indeed a trillion dollar question- more the money the mafias and cricketers get as their booty for playing mischief with the public for centuries. .

Meanwhile, Muslim nations would do better if they give up cricket which is invariably fixed for 100s and 50s or at least done as a “give and take” exercise, and concentrate on real sports to win medals in a proper manner. Cricket is spoiling the mindset of young Muslims to increase their greed for wins and more wealth immorally and illegally. For non-Muslims, cricket is a way of their life to mint money and wealth illegally. Muslims who practise Islam as true religion need not to follow the wrong paths for fame and wealth.  In fact, Muslims are not supposed to eat everything that others enjoy or practise ways of behaviors other do. .

Muslims have their own way of life.

_____

Post coup foreign policy of Turkey!

Post coup foreign policy of Turkey!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

 

 

Foreign policy of Turkey under president Erdogan has been both prudent and assertive, tactfully protecting all genuine national interest of the former Ottoman Empire by linking domestic with foreign policy in the background of an anti-Islamic environment across the world where the GST (Global State Terror) forces led by USA, Israel and India in the guise of fighting terrorism, are very active.  Turkey pursues fruitful polices even with anti-Islamic nations like USA and Israel.

It is now one full year when Turkey and its ruling AKP government faced the biggest challenge in recent times on July 15, 2016 to them from the foes of Islam and Turkey. The disastrous coup forced the Islamist government President Erdogan to change the Turkish policies both at home and abroad as in the aftermath of terrific 7/15 Turkey encountered new challenges that are increasing daily and hence  found dangerous to keep its foreign policy that harmed the nation by allowing all anti-Turkey elements unchanged.

It appears, entire anti-Islamic world is targeting Islam and Islamist government in Turkey. They have already removed Egypt’s first ever elected President Mohammad Morsi of Brotherhood party and jailed him to formally murder him, thereby insulting democracy, and dismantled the party. This shows how cruelly dangerous the anti-Islamic moment across the globe.

USA and its CIA plus global allies would not let Islamic world work for the welfare of humanity.  They have crated all so-called Islamic terrorist  groups in order to insult Islam and terrorize the Muslims and world at large.

If earlier, the ruling AKP could not distinguish between true friends and real allies that resulted in the failed attempt of coup cum assassination of President Erdogan, the post coup era let the government identify its foes that work against the Islamist government and Islam.

n the past too, the country has witnessed several failed and successful coup attempts in its political history, but July 15 was different as the failed coup attempt in Turkey claimed the lives of 249 and injured 2,000 on July 15. The people’s unprecedented stance against this bloody attempt is unforgettable, marking the first time in history that a coup was stopped by popular anguish and resentment of Turks.

Syria was the first front in which Turkish foreign policy radically shifted. Turkey launched a military operation in Syria on Aug. 24, 2016, following a Daesh suicide attack that killed 59 civilians in the border city of Gaziantep on Aug. 20. The attack was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Operation Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving Daesh and Kurdish fighters back from its border, was Turkey’s biggest intervention in Syria since the war began.

Nobody expected such a major operation at a time when the strength of Turkey’s army after the coup attempt was being questioned. Under the operation, which ended in March, Turkey took the border town of Jarablus, cleared Daesh from a roughly 100-km stretch of the border, then moved south to the strategic town of Al-Bab.

One of the positive outcomes of the coups is the greater ties between Turkey with Russia and Arab world. The failed coup attempt has not only shaped domestic politics but also Turkey’s foreign policy, including on Syria and relations with regional and global actors (particularly the US and Russia), the West, NATO and the EU.

USA has been at work to delink Moscow from other big powers, including Turkey and China. While it achieved much in its objective, China and Turkey remained stubborn with their external policies. Astoundingly, Russian-Turkish relations had started normalizing before July 15, and were cemented after a phone call between the countries’ presidents following the coup attempt. Putin and Erdogan decided to further strengthen their ties against the will of Washington.

Many thought the “arranged” assassination of Russia’s ambassador Karlov to Turkey on Dec. 19 by a Turkish police officer would hamper normalization, but it brought Moscow and Ankara closer. Further, they and Tehran have been instrumental in the crucial Astana talks on Syria, and are in close contact regarding the war.

The coup attempt added new issues to strained Turkish-American relations, which were not majorly improved by a regime change in the USA in January with the arrival of Donald Trump. The most controversial issue is Turkey’s vehement objections to the US decision to arm and equip the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). USA deliberately supports Kurdish movement to make Turkey dependent on USA.

Israel also follows similar strategy. In a bid to end six years of diplomatic impasse, months after the coup attempt Turkey and Israel sent their ambassadors to Tel Aviv and Ankara respectively as part of their reconciliation deal. Promisingly, Turkey’s energy minister is set to visit Israel by the end of this year to conclude a deal to build a natural gas pipeline from the Jewish state to Turkey.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the Trump government is starting to repair ties with Turkey, yet Washington still pursues policies that have caused only tensions. The US intentions and rhetoric are at variation.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently said Turkey gives its ties with Russia and the US equal status. Amid these tensions, Ankara engaged in talks with Moscow without the White House’s knowledge.

Turkish-EU relations were already suffering before the coup attempt, but European countries’ belated condemnation of the attempt caused a deep crisis of confidence from Ankara’s side. Relations worsened further after several European countries canceled rallies planned by Turkish officials to garner support from Turks living in Europe for a constitutional referendum that took place in April.

Moreover, last week the European Parliament advised the European Council to suspend membership negotiations with Ankara, and the recent failure of talks on Cyprus has further widened the Turkish-EU gap. But despite these problems, both sides seem to agree that they cannot do without one another in a politically fragile environment. Amid all this is the ongoing Gulf crisis.

Growling ties

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed Alexei Yerkhov, the former consul general in Istanbul,  as Russia’s ambassador to Turkey. Russia’s newly appointed ambassador to Ankara said that Turkey is an important partner of Russia in solving the Syrian crisis and increasing the trade volume between two countries to $100 billion is a “possible goal.”

The veteran Russian diplomat spoke to Turkish media outlets regarding his new duty and recent issues between the two countries. Indicating that many of Ankara and Moscow’s interest were overlapping, Yerkhov said that Russia’s cooperation with Turkey has reached the highest level “in all aspects and degrees.” “Ankara has always held a special place in Moscow’s foreign policy,” he said, adding that he will work hard to improve the bilateral relations of the two countries during his time as ambassador.

The new ambassador said that the goal of increasing trade volume between the two countries to $100 billion, which was set by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a “tough and assertive task but an achievable” goal.

Yerkhov indicated that all states have their own priorities while developing their internal and foreign policies and said that it is normal to have different opinions in Syria. However, he stressed, talks for a solution to the Syrian crisis will continue in Astana and negotiations for de-escalation zones, cease-fire agreements and other major issues are also ongoing. “Turkey and Russia have similar interests in Syria,” he said.

Russia emphasized the legal process of the assassination of previous Russian ambassador Karlov to Turkey Andrey Karlov, adding that Turkish and Russian officials are in close contact regarding the issue. Karlov was killed last December following an attack by a gunman at the opening of an art exhibition in the Turkish capital. Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş, 22, an off-duty policeman, shot the ambassador nine times in the back while he was delivering a speech.

The assassination was meant to spoil any possible relations between Turkey and Russia came amid efforts to rejuvenate Turkish-Russian relations after the 2015 jet crisis and establishing a nationwide cease-fire in Syria.

There is also a strong indicator of the level of bilateral relations as 3 million Russians are expected to vacation in Turkey until the end of the year. The ambassador also said that he works hard to learn Turkish and that he will “overcome it sooner or later.” Verbs are very hard to learn in Turkish. Now, I am working on it again. I will achieve it sooner or later,” the diplomat said.

Credit for the success of Turkish foreign policy goes to the experience of Turkish president Erdogan and his ruling AKP party in dealing with foes within and abroad during his long tenure as Premier and President.

Having realized the undercurrents trying to destabilize their relations, both Russia and Turkey would move very cautiously to integrate their efforts for peace in Mideast.  Their rule in establishment of Palestine is very crucial as President Trump is seen trying  to get a credible Mideast peace deal in place as early as possible  and he is pulling the strings in Tel Aviv which is now busy selling its terror goods to third world terror hungry nations including an innocence claiming India, continues to resist the US move for peace in Mideast.

Post coup foreign policy of Turkey!

Post coup foreign policy of Turkey!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

 

 

Foreign policy of Turkey under president Erdogan has been both prudent and assertive, tactfully protecting all genuine national interest of the former Ottoman Empire by linking domestic with foreign policy in the background of an anti-Islamic environment across the world where the GST (Global State Terror) forces led by USA, Israel and India in the guise of fighting terrorism, are very active.  Turkey pursues fruitful polices even with anti-Islamic nations like USA and Israel.

It is now one full year when Turkey and its ruling AKP government faced the biggest challenge in recent times on July 15, 2016 to them from the foes of Islam and Turkey. The disastrous coup forced the Islamist government President Erdogan to change the Turkish policies both at home and abroad as in the aftermath of terrific 7/15 Turkey encountered new challenges that are increasing daily and hence  found dangerous to keep its foreign policy that harmed the nation by allowing all anti-Turkey elements unchanged.

It appears, entire anti-Islamic world is targeting Islam and Islamist government in Turkey. They have already removed Egypt’s first ever elected President Mohammad Morsi of Brotherhood party and jailed him to formally murder him, thereby insulting democracy, and dismantled the party. This shows how cruelly dangerous the anti-Islamic moment across the globe.

USA and its CIA plus global allies would not let Islamic world work for the welfare of humanity.  They have crated all so-called Islamic terrorist  groups in order to insult Islam and terrorize the Muslims and world at large.

If earlier, the ruling AKP could not distinguish between true friends and real allies that resulted in the failed attempt of coup cum assassination of President Erdogan, the post coup era let the government identify its foes that work against the Islamist government and Islam.

n the past too, the country has witnessed several failed and successful coup attempts in its political history, but July 15 was different as the failed coup attempt in Turkey claimed the lives of 249 and injured 2,000 on July 15. The people’s unprecedented stance against this bloody attempt is unforgettable, marking the first time in history that a coup was stopped by popular anguish and resentment of Turks.

Syria was the first front in which Turkish foreign policy radically shifted. Turkey launched a military operation in Syria on Aug. 24, 2016, following a Daesh suicide attack that killed 59 civilians in the border city of Gaziantep on Aug. 20. The attack was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Operation Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving Daesh and Kurdish fighters back from its border, was Turkey’s biggest intervention in Syria since the war began.

Nobody expected such a major operation at a time when the strength of Turkey’s army after the coup attempt was being questioned. Under the operation, which ended in March, Turkey took the border town of Jarablus, cleared Daesh from a roughly 100-km stretch of the border, then moved south to the strategic town of Al-Bab.

One of the positive outcomes of the coups is the greater ties between Turkey with Russia and Arab world. The failed coup attempt has not only shaped domestic politics but also Turkey’s foreign policy, including on Syria and relations with regional and global actors (particularly the US and Russia), the West, NATO and the EU.

USA has been at work to delink Moscow from other big powers, including Turkey and China. While it achieved much in its objective, China and Turkey remained stubborn with their external policies. Astoundingly, Russian-Turkish relations had started normalizing before July 15, and were cemented after a phone call between the countries’ presidents following the coup attempt. Putin and Erdogan decided to further strengthen their ties against the will of Washington.

Many thought the “arranged” assassination of Russia’s ambassador Karlov to Turkey on Dec. 19 by a Turkish police officer would hamper normalization, but it brought Moscow and Ankara closer. Further, they and Tehran have been instrumental in the crucial Astana talks on Syria, and are in close contact regarding the war.

The coup attempt added new issues to strained Turkish-American relations, which were not majorly improved by a regime change in the USA in January with the arrival of Donald Trump. The most controversial issue is Turkey’s vehement objections to the US decision to arm and equip the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). USA deliberately supports Kurdish movement to make Turkey dependent on USA.

Israel also follows similar strategy. In a bid to end six years of diplomatic impasse, months after the coup attempt Turkey and Israel sent their ambassadors to Tel Aviv and Ankara respectively as part of their reconciliation deal. Promisingly, Turkey’s energy minister is set to visit Israel by the end of this year to conclude a deal to build a natural gas pipeline from the Jewish state to Turkey.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the Trump government is starting to repair ties with Turkey, yet Washington still pursues policies that have caused only tensions. The US intentions and rhetoric are at variation.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently said Turkey gives its ties with Russia and the US equal status. Amid these tensions, Ankara engaged in talks with Moscow without the White House’s knowledge.

Turkish-EU relations were already suffering before the coup attempt, but European countries’ belated condemnation of the attempt caused a deep crisis of confidence from Ankara’s side. Relations worsened further after several European countries canceled rallies planned by Turkish officials to garner support from Turks living in Europe for a constitutional referendum that took place in April.

Moreover, last week the European Parliament advised the European Council to suspend membership negotiations with Ankara, and the recent failure of talks on Cyprus has further widened the Turkish-EU gap. But despite these problems, both sides seem to agree that they cannot do without one another in a politically fragile environment. Amid all this is the ongoing Gulf crisis.

Growling ties

In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed Alexei Yerkhov, the former consul general in Istanbul,  as Russia’s ambassador to Turkey. Russia’s newly appointed ambassador to Ankara said that Turkey is an important partner of Russia in solving the Syrian crisis and increasing the trade volume between two countries to $100 billion is a “possible goal.”

The veteran Russian diplomat spoke to Turkish media outlets regarding his new duty and recent issues between the two countries. Indicating that many of Ankara and Moscow’s interest were overlapping, Yerkhov said that Russia’s cooperation with Turkey has reached the highest level “in all aspects and degrees.” “Ankara has always held a special place in Moscow’s foreign policy,” he said, adding that he will work hard to improve the bilateral relations of the two countries during his time as ambassador.

The new ambassador said that the goal of increasing trade volume between the two countries to $100 billion, which was set by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a “tough and assertive task but an achievable” goal.

Yerkhov indicated that all states have their own priorities while developing their internal and foreign policies and said that it is normal to have different opinions in Syria. However, he stressed, talks for a solution to the Syrian crisis will continue in Astana and negotiations for de-escalation zones, cease-fire agreements and other major issues are also ongoing. “Turkey and Russia have similar interests in Syria,” he said.

Russia emphasized the legal process of the assassination of previous Russian ambassador Karlov to Turkey Andrey Karlov, adding that Turkish and Russian officials are in close contact regarding the issue. Karlov was killed last December following an attack by a gunman at the opening of an art exhibition in the Turkish capital. Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş, 22, an off-duty policeman, shot the ambassador nine times in the back while he was delivering a speech.

The assassination was meant to spoil any possible relations between Turkey and Russia came amid efforts to rejuvenate Turkish-Russian relations after the 2015 jet crisis and establishing a nationwide cease-fire in Syria.

There is also a strong indicator of the level of bilateral relations as 3 million Russians are expected to vacation in Turkey until the end of the year. The ambassador also said that he works hard to learn Turkish and that he will “overcome it sooner or later.” Verbs are very hard to learn in Turkish. Now, I am working on it again. I will achieve it sooner or later,” the diplomat said.

Credit for the success of Turkish foreign policy goes to the experience of Turkish president Erdogan and his ruling AKP party in dealing with foes within and abroad during his long tenure as Premier and President.

Having realized the undercurrents trying to destabilize their relations, both Russia and Turkey would move very cautiously to integrate their efforts for peace in Mideast.  Their rule in establishment of Palestine is very crucial as President Trump is seen trying  to get a credible Mideast peace deal in place as early as possible  and he is pulling the strings in Tel Aviv which is now busy selling its terror goods to third world terror hungry nations including an innocence claiming India, continues to resist the US move for peace in Mideast.

Agenda of G20 Summit 2017! (new)

Agenda of G20 Summit 2017!

 

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

_____

 

 

 

Amid clashes between police and protesters, the top advanced nations known as Group of 20, or simply ‘G-20’ summit is getting underway on 7-8 July in the German port city of Hamburg with terrorism, global trade and climate change among the major issues on the agenda. From Paris Climate Accord to North Korean Nuclear threat, US-Russian ties to Indo-China strain, this G20 summit will witness the global superpowers in their worst, trying to make their best. Germany’s G20 Presidency with three main focuses: Ensuring stability; improving viability for the future and Accepting responsibility.

 

The city of Hamburg has boosted its police with reinforcements from around the country and has 20,000police officers on hand to patrol Hamburg’s streets, skies and waterways. The meeting follows skirmishes between police and protesters elsewhere in Germany’s second-biggest city. Police said that at least 76 officers were hurt, one of whom had to be taken to a hospital with an eye injury after a firework exploded in front of him. On Friday morning, dozens of protesters attempted to block cars from accessing the summit, being held at the trade fair grounds in downtown Hamburg, but they were quickly thwarted by police. Further away in the city’s Altona district, police said people set several parked cars alight and attacked a police station, though the situation quickly calmed down.

 

The G-20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, France, Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Also attending the summit are the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Guinea, Senegal, Singapore and Vietnam.

 

The G20 is the main forum for international cooperation among the 20 leading industrialized nations and emerging economies in the fields of finance and economics. The G20 nations are together home to almost two thirds of the world’s population, as well as generating more than four fifths of global GDP, and accounting for three quarters of global trade.

 

The host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, says she hopes to find “compromises and answers” on a range of issues at the two-day meeting of leading industrial and developing nations. The G20 finance ministers will be focusing on achieving progress on the stricter regulation of financial markets, especially in the field of shadow banking.

In the run up to the G20 summit, numerous line minister meetings were held, in order to explore individual G20 issues in greater depth. Between January and May 2017, ministers responsible for finance, foreign affairs, labor affairs, health, agriculture and digital policy met. As was the case during the G7 Presidency, Angela Merkel met with representatives of civil society between March and June 2017; several dialogues took place, including events for the business community (Business20), non-governmental organisations (Civil20), trade unions (Labour20), the science and research community (Science20), think tanks (Think20), women (Women20) and youth (Youth20). The civil society organisations themselves are responsible for these meeting as well as for recommendations for Presidency, which will pick up on relevant G20 issues.

The G20 Summit, being hosted this year on July 7 and July 8 in Germany, which will see the coming together of 20 of the World’s biggest economies to discuss, debate and resolve various issue of global and continental importance. Many of the G20 nations have developed differences ranging from environmental issues to prevailing tensions or war-like situations, and are expected to use this platform to at least find a resolution acceptable to all.

While main issues to focus, given the global-political scenario, can be broadly divided into two general categories, primarily as Environmental and Political, here we will look at these in a bit detailed fashion. While the G20 Summit in its definition aims to strengthen the resilience of the global financial system and proper regulation of all financial markets, it also organizes bilateral talks among the members to discuss and if needed resolve differences, at the disposal of the two nations involved. The first meeting was hosted by Germany as well after the formation of the group in 1999.

Among the nations which are expected to directly take part in this metaphorical intervention of President Trump are British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. While May will reportedly express Britain’s full commitment towards the Paris agreement and in her one-on-one talks with him will stress how the accord should not be renegotiated, Chancellor Merkel who said that the US’s withdrawal from the agreement was ‘extraordinarily regrettable’ said that her sentiments will remain similar to what it was during her last meet with Trump.

The decision to exit the European Union is irreversible now and it has been accepted by all, citizens of Britain and the European Union alike. Given that this decision to exit the Union by Britain, popularly called BREXIT, will have obvious impact upon the economical set-up and future of both Britain and the Union, G20, which is primarily an economic platform might resolve a few issues which they may encounter. While it is true that the main focus might not be upon the BREXIT phenomenon, but ignoring the economic decisions might not be possible for either of the parties here.

 

Top Issues likely to dominate Geopolitics at Hamburg would be as follows:

 

1.   Stability of the global economy

 

Germany is happy to assume the G20 Presidency as of 1 December, and to host the G20 summit in July, declared Chancellor Angela Merkel in a video podcast on the German G20 Presidency. She cited the stability of the global economy as the “top issue”. a number of issues “related to development” will be given a very high profile, in particular fighting pandemics.

2.   Ensuring stable and resilient national economies

The first pillar involves strengthening stable environments for the global economy and the financial system, but also promoting dynamic economic growth. Structural reforms are the lynchpin here. Germany’s G20 Presidency will continue cooperation on international financial and fiscal issues, employment, and trade and investment. The aim is to strengthen free and fair trade around the globe. The German government will also be working for sustainable global supply chains.

3.   Fit for the future

Germany not only aims to ensure the stability of the global economy, but also, and this is the second pillar, to make it more fit for the future. One main concern is to make progress on realising the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

It is every bit as important to discuss viable energy and climate strategies for the future. And the growing importance of digitalization for the global economy will play a prominent part in the discussions of the G20. To be fit for the future will also mean improving health care. The worldwide fight against antimicrobial resistance is part of this, as are efforts to put in place the mechanisms to prevent the outbreak of pandemics. And empowering women in the economy, in particular improving the quality of women’s jobs, is on the agenda. Angela Merkel will be working to give women in developing countries easier access to information and communication technologies.

4.   Accepting responsibility – especially for Africa

Germany also intends to strengthen the G20 as a community of responsibility – and that is the third pillar. A priority concern is to achieve sustainable economic progress in Africa. German Presidency aims to take concrete steps to improve people’s living conditions in the long term and to put in place a stable environment for investment. And it aims to promote infrastructure development on the African continent. In June a separate conference entitled “Partnership with Africa” will be held in Berlin. The G20 also aims to accept responsibility in other fields. Migration and refugee movements, the fight against terrorism, money laundering and corruption will also be addressed during Germany’s G20 Presidency.

 

  1. The beef over Syria, North Korea and climate

 

The issues which we can expect the nations to touch upon in this meet are the US pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, Britain’s drift from the European Union, Syria, North Korea nuclear tensions and although off the table, but possible mentions of the rising tension between India and China.

 

The long standing issue of Syria and its future, threatened by, on one hand the Assad regime and its alleged atrocities on the people and the rebels on the other, and worsened by the presence of the Islamic State terrorists. While primarily it has been speculated and confirmed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that US President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will seek to find a common ground over Syria, the most important decision both countries may arrive could be regarding establishing no-fly zones and on the ground ceasefire norms.

The G20 and world at large looked at the decision of US President Donald Trump with an expression of predictable horror, when he declared that the USA will no longer be part of the Paris Climate agreement. While his decision was censured by citizens of the US and other nations alike, this G20 platform will be reportedly used by a couple of nations to show President Trump that in this issue, the USA is isolated from the rest and as Greenpeace Director Jennifer Morgan would say,’ The only game in town.’

Indian Hindutva agenda of anti-beef issue would not even be mentioned in the summit although such grave issues that are detrimental to normalcy and prosperity of a nation need to be debated and such nations promoting fanaticism as their key ploy as policy should be warned against the dangerous drama just for majority votes. .

 

Will G20 achieve anything?

 

Like UN, the G20 and other such forums only promote multilateral trade and do not think about the future of poor nations and poor populations in real terms. World Bank and IMF impose economic measures to weaken the poor people. They and all governments promote ah and help  the rich and MNCs, corporate lords and their  wealthy trade outfits.

 

With the global political dynamics changing over the period of one year severely and more so in the last few months, perhaps the Summit is well-timed to resolve the differences which have visibly surfaced within several members and non-members of the G20 nations.

No one is sure about the outcomes as the US led Syria war is in the minds of every leader attending the summit.  While there’s little disagreement on fighting terrorism, prospects of finding common ground on climate change and trade look uncertain.

 

The illegal war in Syria led by USA and joined by Russia must be stopped and the remaining Syrians must be saved as the first action priority of G20 and UNSC.  Israel and India must be brought to negotiating tables to discuss the burning issue of reestablishment of Palestine and Kashmir as soverign nations as they had existed before.

 

Remaining Palestinians and Kashmiris must be saved. Only Big powers can make the genuine dreams of Palestinians and Kashmiris a reality as quickly as possible.

 

However, since the veto powers control everything including the UN and G20, no one is yet sure if the communique that would be drafted at G20 would sternly warn the colonialist and imperialist powers destroying peace in the world, destroying climate, destroying poor people in every country, destroying nations and people; These should be warned against the crimes they perpetrate against humanity by attacking and killing the native people living in them.  Apart from helping the poor and weak nation in economy and development programs, the G20 should also make suitable recommendations to arrest the climatic change taking place globally that would make many island nations disappear from the face of our earth.

Looking forward to the best possible outcomes from the G20 summit in Germany!

Agenda of G20 Summit 2017!

Agenda of G20 Summit 2017!

 

-Dr. Abdul Ruff

_____

 

 

Amid clashes between police and protesters, the top advanced nations known as Group of 20, or simply ‘G-20’ summit is getting underway on 7-8 July in the German port city of Hamburg with terrorism, global trade and climate change among the major issues on the agenda. From Paris Climate Accord to North Korean Nuclear threat, US-Russian ties to Indo-China strain, this G20 summit will witness the global superpowers in their worst, trying to make their best. Germany’s G20 Presidency with three main focuses: Ensuring stability; improving viability for the future and Accepting responsibility.

 

The city of Hamburg has boosted its police with reinforcements from around the country and has 20,000police officers on hand to patrol Hamburg’s streets, skies and waterways. The meeting follows skirmishes between police and protesters elsewhere in Germany’s second-biggest city. Police said that at least 76 officers were hurt, one of whom had to be taken to a hospital with an eye injury after a firework exploded in front of him. On Friday morning, dozens of protesters attempted to block cars from accessing the summit, being held at the trade fair grounds in downtown Hamburg, but they were quickly thwarted by police. Further away in the city’s Altona district, police said people set several parked cars alight and attacked a police station, though the situation quickly calmed down.

 

The G-20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, France, Britain, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Also attending the summit are the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Guinea, Senegal, Singapore and Vietnam.

 

The G20 is the main forum for international cooperation among the 20 leading industrialized nations and emerging economies in the fields of finance and economics. The G20 nations are together home to almost two thirds of the world’s population, as well as generating more than four fifths of global GDP, and accounting for three quarters of global trade.

 

The host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, says she hopes to find “compromises and answers” on a range of issues at the two-day meeting of leading industrial and developing nations. The G20 finance ministers will be focusing on achieving progress on the stricter regulation of financial markets, especially in the field of shadow banking.

In the run up to the G20 summit, numerous line minister meetings were held, in order to explore individual G20 issues in greater depth. Between January and May 2017, ministers responsible for finance, foreign affairs, labor affairs, health, agriculture and digital policy met. As was the case during the G7 Presidency, Angela Merkel met with representatives of civil society between March and June 2017; several dialogues took place, including events for the business community (Business20), non-governmental organisations (Civil20), trade unions (Labour20), the science and research community (Science20), think tanks (Think20), women (Women20) and youth (Youth20). The civil society organisations themselves are responsible for these meeting as well as for recommendations for Presidency, which will pick up on relevant G20 issues.

The G20 Summit, being hosted this year on July 7 and July 8 in Germany, which will see the coming together of 20 of the World’s biggest economies to discuss, debate and resolve various issue of global and continental importance. Many of the G20 nations have developed differences ranging from environmental issues to prevailing tensions or war-like situations, and are expected to use this platform to at least find a resolution acceptable to all.

While main issues to focus, given the global-political scenario, can be broadly divided into two general categories, primarily as Environmental and Political, here we will look at these in a bit detailed fashion. While the G20 Summit in its definition aims to strengthen the resilience of the global financial system and proper regulation of all financial markets, it also organizes bilateral talks among the members to discuss and if needed resolve differences, at the disposal of the two nations involved. The first meeting was hosted by Germany as well after the formation of the group in 1999.

Among the nations which are expected to directly take part in this metaphorical intervention of President Trump are British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. While May will reportedly express Britain’s full commitment towards the Paris agreement and in her one-on-one talks with him will stress how the accord should not be renegotiated, Chancellor Merkel who said that the US’s withdrawal from the agreement was ‘extraordinarily regrettable’ said that her sentiments will remain similar to what it was during her last meet with Trump.

The decision to exit the European Union is irreversible now and it has been accepted by all, citizens of Britain and the European Union alike. Given that this decision to exit the Union by Britain, popularly called BREXIT, will have obvious impact upon the economical set-up and future of both Britain and the Union, G20, which is primarily an economic platform might resolve a few issues which they may encounter. While it is true that the main focus might not be upon the BREXIT phenomenon, but ignoring the economic decisions might not be possible for either of the parties here.

 

Top Issues likely to dominate Geopolitics at Hamburg would be as follows:

 

1.   Stability of the global economy

 

Germany is happy to assume the G20 Presidency as of 1 December, and to host the G20 summit in July, declared Chancellor Angela Merkel in a video podcast on the German G20 Presidency. She cited the stability of the global economy as the “top issue”. a number of issues “related to development” will be given a very high profile, in particular fighting pandemics.

2.   Ensuring stable and resilient national economies

The first pillar involves strengthening stable environments for the global economy and the financial system, but also promoting dynamic economic growth. Structural reforms are the lynchpin here. Germany’s G20 Presidency will continue cooperation on international financial and fiscal issues, employment, and trade and investment. The aim is to strengthen free and fair trade around the globe. The German government will also be working for sustainable global supply chains.

3.   Fit for the future

Germany not only aims to ensure the stability of the global economy, but also, and this is the second pillar, to make it more fit for the future. One main concern is to make progress on realising the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

It is every bit as important to discuss viable energy and climate strategies for the future. And the growing importance of digitalization for the global economy will play a prominent part in the discussions of the G20. To be fit for the future will also mean improving health care. The worldwide fight against antimicrobial resistance is part of this, as are efforts to put in place the mechanisms to prevent the outbreak of pandemics. And empowering women in the economy, in particular improving the quality of women’s jobs, is on the agenda. Angela Merkel will be working to give women in developing countries easier access to information and communication technologies.

4.   Accepting responsibility – especially for Africa

Germany also intends to strengthen the G20 as a community of responsibility – and that is the third pillar. A priority concern is to achieve sustainable economic progress in Africa. German Presidency aims to take concrete steps to improve people’s living conditions in the long term and to put in place a stable environment for investment. And it aims to promote infrastructure development on the African continent. In June a separate conference entitled “Partnership with Africa” will be held in Berlin. The G20 also aims to accept responsibility in other fields. Migration and refugee movements, the fight against terrorism, money laundering and corruption will also be addressed during Germany’s G20 Presidency.

 

  1.  The beef over Syria, North Korea and climate

 

The issues which we can expect the nations to touch upon in this meet are the US pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, Britain’s drift from the European Union, Syria, North Korea nuclear tensions and although off the table, but possible mentions of the rising tension between India and China.

 

The long standing issue of Syria and its future, threatened by, on one hand the Assad regime and its alleged atrocities on the people and the rebels on the other, and worsened by the presence of the Islamic State terrorists. While primarily it has been speculated and confirmed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that US President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will seek to find a common ground over Syria, the most important decision both countries may arrive could be regarding establishing no-fly zones and on the ground ceasefire norms.

The G20 and world at large looked at the decision of US President Donald Trump with an expression of predictable horror, when he declared that the USA will no longer be part of the Paris Climate agreement. While his decision was censured by citizens of the US and other nations alike, this G20 platform will be reportedly used by a couple of nations to show President Trump that in this issue, the USA is isolated from the rest and as Greenpeace Director Jennifer Morgan would say,’ The only game in town.’

Indian Hindutva agenda of anti-beef issue would not even be mentioned in the summit although such grave issues that are detrimental to normalcy and prosperity of a nation need to be debated and such nations promoting fanaticism as their key ploy as policy should be warned against the dangerous drama just for majority votes. .

 

With the global political dynamics changing over the period of one year severely and more so in the last few months, perhaps the Summit is well-timed to resolve the differences which have visibly surfaced within several members and non-members of the G20 nations.

No one is sure about the outcomes as the US led Syria war is in the minds of every leader attending the summit.  While there’s little disagreement on fighting terrorism, prospects of finding common ground on climate change and trade look uncertain.

 

No one is yet sure if the communique that would be drafted at G20 would sternly warn the colonialist and imperialist powers destroying peace  in the world, destroying climate, destroying poor people in every country, destroying nations and people; These should be warned  against the crimes they perpetrate against humanity by attacking and killing the native people living in them.  Apart from helping the poor and weak nation in economy and development programs, the G20 should also make suitable recommendations to arrest the climatic change taking place globally that would make many island nations disappear from the face of our earth.

Looking forward to the best possible outcomes from the G20 summit in Germany!

Why is India scared of talks over occupied Kashmir?

Why is India scared of talks over occupied Kashmir?

(A Soverign Kashmir; Random Thoughts-305)

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

_____

 

 

While Israel do agree, though without sincerity and just for the sake of fooling the Palestinians and world at large, for talks with Palestinians, Americans and others on the issue of establishment of Palestine with full membership of UN, its new strategic partner in terrorism related issues India does not allow any other nation to mediate between Pakistan and India and even refuses to talk to Pakistan on Kashmir; India is interested only in its favorite theme “terrorism” and does not talk to Pakistan about Kashmir.

 

Palestinians are being besieged by the militaries of Israel and Egypt through terror blockades and the Zionist state terrorist forces keep attacking the Palestinians, killing them in hundreds and thousands and destroying their properties worth billions of US dollars and confiscating lands for future illegal settlements’ construction for criminal Jews imported from abroad. India just kills Kashmiris as part of its sadistic strategy to silence them from seeking sovereignty for an independent nation as it had existed before it was invaded and annexed by India and Pakistan.  Already over 1000,000 Kashmiris have been slaughtered by the paid Indian forces as the jungle beasts do and apparently their blood thirst is not fully quenched so far.

Meanwhile, a veto power China got a part of Kashmir from Pakistan’s share of Jammu Kashmir, making it implicit in the crimes committed against humanity in Kashmir. So, China also, like India and Pakistan, occupies Kashmir, hereby further complicating the sovereignty struggle of Kashmiris. India, the major occupant of alien Jammu Kashmir, is very bold today to tell the world and UN nothing doing about Kashmir.

Not really seeking to end bloodbath in Kashmir, occupation nuclear powers India, Pakistan or China never mention about sovereignty for Kashmiris. While India and China do not say anything about the future of Kashmir, Pakistan wants a plebiscite to determine the majority opinion of Kashmiris about their future, hoping that Kashmiris would prefer Pakistan to India which is seen by Kashmiris as occupying terrorist nation.

For India, Jammu Kashmir is a part of India and its constitution and it does not want to talk to anybody on that issue.  Pakistan asks India to discuss the Kashmir issue and let peace return to South Asia. India as well as Pakistan have very tactfully acquired nuclear weapons illegally against the will of IAEA, thanks to defend their illegal joint occupation of Jammu Kashmir ad not to let Kashmiris regain their lost sovereignty. In fact, much of the cross border cross fires across the LOC is meant to terrorize the Kashmiris living in both asides of occupied Jammu Kashmir.

One could laugh at UN, USA, UK, India and Pakistan for crudely directing the Kashmiris to choose between India and Pakistan.

Why should Kashmiris accept rule of a foreign power- India or Pakistan just because they have got strong militaries and large arsenals of terror goods, including WMD? Anyone who can read an authentic history of Kashmir would testify that it was a soverign nation for centuries but ruled by many invading rulers, including Hindus and UK.  Now India and Pakistan occupy the nation of Kashmiris. While Pakistan does not kill any Kashmiri, India does just exactly that, just keep killing them by calling them the “terrorists” and “insurgents”. Recently several secret graveyards have been discovered in Kashmir and obviously they were Kashmiris who protested against Indian misrule through militarization of Kashmir valley.

Indian terror strategists think attack on Kashmiris and terrorism alone can help India retain Jammu Kashmir as a mere state within India. Hence Indian military over powered to deal with Kashmiris who do accept Indian yoke. Indian media lords eagerly wait for “reports” of Kashmiri “terrorists” being killed by Indian “patriotic” solders.  Military attacks on Kashmiri youth continues unabated and India has sought costly terror drones from the newly found strategic partner Israel.

India officially rejects talks on Kashmir and uses USA and Israel, among other colonialist powers to support its Kashmiri case. India begs Russia, which is the largest seller of terror goods to New Delhi, not to sell terror goods to Pakistan or support its Kashmir case. India on July 07 rejected peace talk’s offer from United States to facilitate and resolve Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. India has consistently ruled out talks with Pakistan and any third party mediation, including that by the UN or the USA. Pakistan on the contrary welcomes international mediation and also encourages the USA and the UN to help resolve its disputes with India.

This impression of not accepting a third or even second party mediation by India was extremely peculiar. This in itself reflects a grim picture of the Indian reluctance in resolving the issue and maintaining bilateral relation with Pakistan and future Kashmir.

Like Israel on Palestine freedom issue, New Delhi has taken it for granted that Kashmir should not be resolved and pays huge sum to USA to oppose both Pakistan and Kashmiris or at least help delay it  and keep it an unsettled issue. It wasn’t also surprising that PM Modi’s only problem is that he lacks a political aide with sufficient heft to take the conversation forward. Congress also hates both Pakistanis and Kashmiris.

In order to gain sympathy of Americans and Jews, India hides its Kashmir terror designs and fails diplomacy in resolving the Kashmir issue and make genuine ties with Pakistan and Afghanistan, instead of promoting hidden agendas in the region. In fact, India does not want good neighborly relations with Pakistan, fearing that would make India also lose Kashmir and its nuclear terror goods. Thus, the on-and-off resumption of dialogue drama has become more of a pattern between the strained India-Pakistan relations.

Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif signed the Lahore Declaration in 1999 to say that the two countries would intensify efforts to resolve all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. Pursuant to the directive given by their respective Prime Minister to adopt measures for promoting a stable environment of peace, and security between the two countries — But today, India pretends Kashmiris are happy being occupied by Indian forces and there is no final settlement to be made.

Interestingly, India’s confrontational policy regarding Pakistan is also visible in the provocative statements at the BRICS Summit in Goa. At a rally in Goa the then  military minster Parrikar  said: “If someone looks at the country with an evil eye, we will gouge his eyes out and put them back in his hand; we have that much power.” That is indeed the Indian variety of state fascism. Apart from the above factors importantly former R&AW chief A.S. Dulat talks about the need for communication and respect for resolving the Kashmir dispute. His views in advocating low military presence in Kashmir created a lot of ripples. He also argued the need for India to build confidence amongst Kashmiris through humanitarian measures.

It is crucial to mention the Kashmir issue continues to remain at the heart of all debates between the two countries, however, India has set the fires of war alight instead of dealing with the situation through negotiations. For India, it is a matter of domestic concern and does not seek any external interference where a resolution on that front seems like an impossible dream. For some Indians occupation of another country makes India great and admirable among big powers. .

With the recent rejection of mediation India also is trying to play an upper hand by blocking the peace dialogue between the two nations. Indian media lords, particularly the TV channels in English enjoy as their prime hobby by insulting Pakistan and asking USA to end aid to Islamabad and urgently make India a veto member. Indian strategists relish too much sadist pleasure by continually snubbing Pakistan and its peace offer.

India refuses to say that Kashmir was invaded and annexed with the help of the then Hindu ruler of Kashmir. Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solve a problem, many Indians would say.

True, India is happy to live in perpetual denial and enjoy the status of “terror victim” to join the USA led imperialist powers with fascist intent.

India treats Pakistan like any of its cricketism partners purchased for the IPL and being used for boosting the false image of fanatic India. India wants Pakistan to close the Kashmir matter and keep the part of Kashmir it occupies and never ask for more land from Indian illegal possession.  And therefore, India formally rejected Pakistan’s proposal to hold exclusive talks on the issue of Kashmir and said it will only discuss the issue of terrorism alleged infiltration of militants with Pakistan.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced his proposal at the annual United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, saying the two nuclear-armed countries should formalize a ceasefire in Kashmir and take steps to demilitarize the divided region. India quickly ssued a swift rebuttal, accusing Pakistan of claiming to be the primary victim of terrorism while “in truth, it is actually a victim of its own policy of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.”

Planned talks between national security advisers from India and Pakistan were canceled in August hours before they were due to start, dashing hopes the two might tackle the violence that many fear could one day spark a nuclear showdown. In the talks, India had wanted only to discuss terrorism-related issues. Pakistan sought a wider agenda, including the status of Kashmir.

India’s Secretary for External Affairs S. J. Shankar wrote a letter to Islamabad, in which it was mentioned that “India would not hold dialogue with Pakistan over Kashmir issue.” Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad Gotam Bambawale handed over the letter to Secretary Foreign Affairs Aizaz Chaudhry. Earlier this month, a letter was written by Foreign Affairs secretary to his Indian counterpart Shankar, inviting him to visit Islamabad to hold bilateral talks on the disputed territories of Jammu and Kashmir. “India has rejected the proposal saying that it would only hold talk with Pakistan on terrorism and the alleged infiltration of militants from the Line of Control (LoC),” said the Foreign Office.

The letter written by Pakistan had highlighted the international obligation of both countries to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council. The offer by Pakistan was made despite the Independence Day speech of Indian PM Modi in which he spoke about alleged human rights abuses in Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

In order to force Pakistan to stop talking about Kashmir once for all, now a days, New Delhi pokes its nose in Balochistan, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.

In order to force Kashmiris to shelve their demand for sovereignty, Indian forces use state terror techniques, killing them to silence them.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since becoming independent countries in 1947, two of them over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which both claim in full but rule in part. Sharif, elected in 2013, promised to improve relations with India. But since then domestic troubles have forced him to cede more control over foreign and security policy to Pakistan’s military. Indian PM Modi has taken a hard line with Pakistan, insisting he is unwilling to discuss other issues unless Pakistan admits its role in terror attacks in India.

In August the adviser to PM on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz had offered a dedicated dialogue to India on Kashmir and observed that India’s policy of not engaging in a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan was not conducive for peace in South Asia.

In fact, India does not care for what Pakistan or China thinks about the Kashmir issue but it cannot digest a map of India without Kashmir on its top like its head. Jammu Kashmir is not just the beautiful place with a lot of fruits, eye catching sceneries for shooting, it is a heaven for one of the greatest prophets on earth before the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (SAS) who lived and passed away there. Most likely Britishers do believe that. How can that heaven be annexed and heavily militarized by India in order to kill the Kashmiris in a sustained manner?

Kashmiris and Human Rights groups have been demanding demilitarization of Kashmir valley and let Kashmiris live peacefully. But India refuses to oblige popular sentiments as it wants to keep Kashmiris tensed and terrorized.

A soverign Kashmir would promote peace in the region.  Kashmir has been and a sensitive issue, crucial to the relationship that the two nations share. India must understand it is blocking peace and prosperity of South Asia by refusing to resolve the Kashmir issue by allowing them sovereignty so that it could seek UN membership.

India should not delay the peace process so that  a soverign Kashmir become reality as quickly as possible.

UN must take steps to free all nations under foreign occupation and that are colonized by big powers on their military strength.

Hopefully all western countries propagating true democracy would take the lead in releasing the colonized nations from the colonial foreign nations and the process should be   conducted in a time frame.

 

,

 

%d bloggers like this: