Letter to Press on Uranimum Mining in Meghalaya

Letter to Press about Uranimum mining in Meghalaya

Please find enclosed a letter requesting endorsements on the Uranium
mining proposal in Meghalaya. It is self explanatory.

Kindly DO NOT ignore this incident. Such action as arrests are being
undertaken under the new EIA Notification, and anyone who is a
researcher, activist, environmental enthusiast, NGO worker, etc. is
potentially a victim of such excesses by the State.

Leo Saldanha

-------- Original Message --------
From: Himanshu Thakkar

Dear Friends

Many of you may have followed the events in Meghalaya over the proposed
Uranium mining by UCIL. Tarun Bhartiya has sent the following letter from
Shillong, asking for people to put their names to a letter that they
want to release to the Press in Shillong on Friday, June 29, 2007.

Could you please pass this around urgently, and send your assent to
>?

Thanks

Sanjay Kak
---------------------------
Open Letter for Release to the Press

We are deeply troubled at the repression unleashed by the Meghalaya
Government against activists of a movement against the proposed Uranium
Mining by the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) in the
Domisiat/Wahkaji area of West Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya

This popular non-violent movement has from the mid nineties opposed the
secretive anti-people behaviour of the Indian Nuclear establishment, and
with considerable courage and popular participation managed to stop the
mining of Uranium from the area. Instead of respecting the people's
opinions, UCIL, supported by the State Government has tried to split the
indigenous community's solidarity through bribes, and attempted to
silence any dissent through use of the draconian Meghalaya Preventive
Detention Act (MPDA).

On 12th June, 2007 after announcing a Public Hearing on the issue,
without sharing any independent environmental assessment of Uranium
Mining, a hearing which the movement opposed as flawed, the government
made all attempts to get a farcical assent to its plans through rigging
the public hearing by creating a situation of police terror in the area.
Although the movement , led by the Khasi Students Union and Langrin
Youth Welfare Association had opposed the hearing in principle, it
decided to break through the security blanket, and attend the hearing.
Even this rigged Public Hearing had a surprise for the government: more
than three-fourth of the villagers opposed the project . Rather than
accept the people's verdict, the government has since unleashed a
vindictive campaign against the activists.

Following the hearing, 16 activists have been arrested so far (many of
them have reported torture), and 7 of them have been booked under the
Meghalaya Preventive Detection Act (MPDA), which allows the government
to hold them under custody for six months without bail or judicial
trial. Most of the other activists have been forced to go underground.

We demand that these activist be released, and Governments heed to the
voices of people who do not want Uranium Mining in the state of
Meghalaya, or indeed anywhere else.

Signed

Tarun Bhartiya
Sanjay Kak
Himanshu Thakkar

PMO's collusion with the disgusting Dow

"Around 1 a.m. on Monday, the 3rd of December, 1984, in a densely populated region in the city of Bhopal, Central India, a poisonous vapor burst from the tall stacks of the Union Carbide pesticide plant. This vapor was a highly toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate. Of the 800,000 people living in Bhopal at the time, 2,000 died immediately, and as many as 300,000 were injured. In addition, about 7,000 animals were injured, of which about one thousand were killed. A series of studies made five years later showed that many of the survivors were still suffering from one or several of the following ailments: partial or complete blindness, gastrointestinal disorders, impaired immune systems, post traumatic stress disorders, and menstrual problems in women. A rise in spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and offspring with genetic defects was also noted. (The Bhopal Disaster) This incident we now refer to as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which has also been called Hiroshima of the Chemical Industry one of the worst commercial industrial disasters in history."(Cohen)

As many as 180,000 people were treated for various ailments.

Under Indian National Congress led Union Government with Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister and Arjun Singh as the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh state government, five Union Carbide (India) officials were arrested and detained on December 3 and were charged with criminal negligence.

The Bhopal plant had experienced six accidents between 1981 and 1984, at least three of which involved MIC or phosgene, a highly poisonous gas used in World War I and a component in the manufacture of MIC.

Here is the proof of PMO's collusion with the disgusting Dow

http://www.bhopal.net/pmo.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Govt tries to cleanse Dow investment of Bhopal stain

NEW DELHI: In a bid to clear Dow Chemicals, the American giant that took over Union Carbide in 2001, of civil liabilities in the Bhopal gas tragedy — said to be the worst industrial disaster in the world — the Centre is making a concerted effort for an out-of-court settlement with it.

The victims of the tragedy may find this hard to believe, but documents with TOI show that the PMO, backed by finance and industry ministers and the vice chairman of the Planning Commission are trying to find ways to clear Dow Chemicals of any legal liability, so that the company agrees to invest in India.

Key issues of the 1984 disaster remain unresolved. While direct victims of the poisonous gas leak have been compensated, toxic waste from the plant in a 7-hectare area is said to have contaminated Bhopal’s ground water.

While the case is going on at the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh HC, Union Carbide was bought over by Dow. With that, it would have taken over Carbide’s civil liability. In the Jabalpur court case it is named as one of the respondents and the chemicals and fertiliser ministry has raised a demand of Rs 100 crore from Dow to clean up the contaminated factory site in Bhopal.

Faced with this, as well as the prospect of higher demands if the court holds it responsible for the ground water contamination, Dow first offered in 2005 to invest in a giant petrochemicals hub, covering 250 sq km, and then showed its reluctance to do so, citing the potential risk to its investment should liability come on it from the Bhopal case.

This is where, it appears, government machinery got whirring to allay Dow’s fears by seeking to reach an out-of-court settlement and thus pave the way for the investment in the petrochemicals hub. Documents acquired through an RTI application show a series of rapid-fire moves.


If settled out of court, Dow won't have any liability
NEW DELHI: Documents in TOI's possession show that an offer by Ratan Tata, who heads the Indo-US business council, to take up ‘remediation' - in plain words, cleaning up - of the Union Carbide plant site has been picked up by the PMO and top ministries to find a way out for Dow.

The problem with this, say activists, is that once settled out of court, Dow will no longer be responsible for compensating for the water contamination.

In other words, while the site might be cleaned up with the help of Tata and other industrialists, the indirect victims of Carbide's cavalier factory management might be left high and dry. What do the documents show? They consist of several notes generated by the PMO, finance and industry ministers, the Planning Commission and the Cabinet Secretary.

Commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath wrote to the PMO in February 2007, ‘‘While I would not like to comment on whether Dow Chemicals has a legal responsibility or not, as it is a matter for courts to decide, with a view to sending an appropriate signal to Dow Chemicals, which is exploring investing substantially in India, I would urge that a group under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary be formed to look into the matter in a holistic manner.''

He added,” In a similar manner as was done with respect to the Enron Corporation with respect to Dabhol Power Corporation.''

In the Dabhol case, an out-of-court settlement was reached with its now defunct promoter, Enron. Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia wrote to the PM, Finance Minister P Chidambaram and Kamal Nath in December 2006:

‘‘Ministry of Industry has granted foreign collaboration approval for a technical collaboration between Dow and Reliance. This was greatly appreciated as a signal that Dow was not blacklisted.

‘‘However, they have sought a statement from GoI in the court clarifying that GoI does not regard Dow as legally responsible for liabilities of Union Carbide. Similarly Shri Ratan Tata has written to the FM suggesting that we should launch an industry led intiative. Dow Chemicals indicated that they would be willing to contribute to such an effort voluntarily, but not under a cloud of legal liability.''

Ahluwalia goes on to advise: ‘‘Cabinet secretary should be asked to try and resolve the issue in an inter-ministerial meeting including Ratan Tata or his representative.''

Earlier, Tata wrote to Ahluwalia in November 2006: ‘‘Dow has mentioned in their letter that it is critical for them to have the ministry of chemicals and fertilisers withdraw their application for a financial deposit by Dow against remediation costs, as that application implies that the Government of India views Dow as liable in the Bhopal Gas Disaster case. This is obviously a key aspect and I want your assessment as to whether it is possible.''

He also wrote to Chidambaram. The finance minister concurred with Tata while writing in December 2006 to PMO: ‘‘I think we should accept this offer and constitute a Site Remediation Trust under the chairmanship of Shri Ratan Tata and including executives from the private sector.''

Dow, in the meanwhile, was in touch with top officials in PMO, in which they got the advice to consult top lawyer and Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Documents show the legal advice given by Singhvi saying that Dow could not be held responsible for the disaster and also not be held liable for any alleged contamination and consequent cleaning up of the Bhopal site. This advice forms part of the PMO file.

When contacted on the advice given, Singhvi said, ‘‘I have been appearing as a senior counsel in this case for over 18 months. I was engaged by a leading solicitor firm. I am not in any manner engaged in any matter of the case except appearing at the Jabalpur High Court case and advising Dow on various legal aspects involved in those proceedings. I am not aware of anything else.''

Eventually, in April 2007, the cabinet secretary put up a note that says: ‘‘It stands to reason that instead of continuing to agitate these issues (Dow's legal liability) in court for a protracted period, due consideration should be given to the prospect of settling these issues appropriately. An important aim is to remove uncertainties and pave the way for promoting investments in the sector.''

It adds that instead of leaving the matter to be settled by the court, the government should reconstitute the existing group of ministers (overseeing the work at Bhopal site) with an appropriate mandate.

30 Jun, 2007 TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Warning for repetition of 2006 flood disasters?

High Water Storage in Reservoirs before the monsoon

Warning for repetition of 2006 flood disasters?

Even as the nation awaits the arrival of monsoon (parts of India already drenched), a number of large water reservoirs in the country have significant water storages, which go upto 87% of their storage capacities. As per the Central Water Commission records updated on June 16, 2007, of the 76 large reservoirs monitored by CWC, 41 reservoirs had water filled upto more than 20% of its capacity, when ideally, the storage level should be 10% or less. In case of 20 reservoirs, the water level was over a third of the reservoir storage capacity. This situation could be dangerous as it could help create flood damages in the monsoon.

Existence of so much water stored just before the monsoon is difficult to justify in most cases. Particularly when such storages are seen in drought prone areas like Vidarbha (Maharashtra), Gujarat and Rajasthan and also flood prone basins like the Mahanadi.

Vidarbha For example, reservoirs like Upper Painganga (44% of its 964 Million Cubic Meters capacity reservoir full on June 16), Kamthi Khairi (88%), Upper Wardha (33%) and Arunawati (28%), are all in drought prone Vidarbha region, where one of the reasons cited for farmer suicides is lack of adequate irrigation facilities. The Prime Minister’s much celebrated Vidarbha package is mostly constituted of additional resources of large irrigation projects in this region.

Gujarat Similarly in Gujarat’s drought prone north Gujarat region, Kadana dam (54%) & Panam dam (38%) on Mahi River and Dharoi dam (38% full) & Jakham dam (in Rajasthan, 23%) on Sabarmati River had such high water storages. Ukai dam on Tapi River in South Gujarat, that brought unprecedented floods in Surat and other downstream areas last year, had 29% water storage at the end of May ’07, though the level had been brought down to 18% by June 15. Here it may be recalled that Ukai, Sabarmati and Mahi RIvers brought disastrous floods in Gujarat last year.

Rajasthan In neighbouring Rajasthan, in Chambal basin, Gandhi Sagar had 35% and Rana Pratap Sagar 87% storage capacity full as reported by CWC on June 16. The Chambal basin also experienced floods in 2006 and such high storages before monsoon could increase the risk of repetition of such floods this year.

Mahanadi In the flood prone Mahanadi, the Gangrel Dam (41%) and Hansdeo Bango (27%), both in Chhattisgarh and Hirakud dam (42%) in Orissa had unjustifiably high water storage in these big reservoirs. This is bound to increase the possibilities of high flood damages in this basin in 2007 monsoon.

Large Dams and the 2006 floods Significantly, the storage levels are significantly high in the river basins like Tapi, Mahi, Sabarmati, Chambal, Krishna and Godavari. These basins faced disastrous flood damages in 2006, mostly even before half the monsoon season was over. In case of most of the flood damages in these basins in 2006, the sudden release of high magnitude water flows was one of the most important reasons for the flood damages and better management of reservoir storages could have lead to avoidance of many of these floods. Many of the reservoirs in these basins had significantly high water storage level before the 2006 monsoon, a similar situation now prevails in 2007. No action has yet been taken against those responsible for the wrong reservoir operation in 2006, which brought catastrophic floods.

The current storage position of reservoirs in these river basins seems to suggest that events of 2006 could be repeated this year if adequate prior precaution is not taken. International weather forecasts have already suggested that the western & southern India (where most of these reservoirs with high water storage are situated) are likely to have above average monsoon with some intense bouts of rain. If these forecasts come true, then the high water level in these reservoirs could help increase the possibility of destructive floods in the river basins mentioned above.

India urgently needs a transparent, accountable reservoir policy and reservoir operation rules with legal force. Failure of such measures could prove very costly for the people and the economy.

For details contact:
Himanshu Thakkar (ht.sandrp@gmail.com)
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in) Delhi
(Ph: 2748 4655, 9968242798)

250 years of Battle of Plassey

In Kolkotta on June 23, a play, "Plassey" marked the completion of 250 years of the Battle of Plassey.

The Battle of Plassey took place on June 23, 1757, at Palashi, India, on the banks of the Bhagirathi River, about 150 km north of Calcutta, near Murshidabad, then the capital of the Nawab of Bengal. The opponents were Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal, and the British East India Company. The battle was waged during the Seven Years' War in Europe (1756–1763); the French East India Company sent a small contingent to fight against the British East India Company.

Siraj-ud-Daulah's army commander defected to the British, causing his army to collapse. As a result, the entire province of Bengal fell to the Company. The enormous wealth gained from the Bengal treasury allowed the Company to significantly strengthen its military might. Today, Plassey is judged to be one of the pivotal battles leading to the formation of the British Empire in India.

Pôlash, an extravagant red flowering tree (Flame of the forest), gives its name to a small village near the battlefield. A phonetically accurate romanization of the Bengali name would be Battle of Palashi, but the spelling "Plassey" is now conventional.

Background

The ostensible reason for the Battle of Plassey was Siraj-ud-Daulah's capture of Fort William, Calcutta (which he renamed Alinagar) during June, 1756, but the battle is today seen as part of the geopolitical ambition of the East India Company and the larger dynamics of colonial conquest.

This conflict was precipitated by a number of disputes [2]:

* The illegal use of Mughal Imperial export trade permits (dastaks) granted to the British in 1717 for engaging in internal trade within India. The British cited this permit as their excuse for not paying taxes to the Bengal Nawab.
* British interference in the Nawab's court, and particularly their support for one of his aunts, Ghaseti Begum. The son of Ghaseti's treasurer had sought refuge in Fort William, and Siraj demanded his return.
* Additional fortifications with mounted guns had been placed on Fort William without the consent of the Nawab; and
* The British East India Company's policy of favouring Hindu Marwari merchants such as Jagat Sheth .

During this capture of Fort William, in June 1756, an event occurred that came to be known as the Black Hole of Calcutta. A narrative by one John Zephaniah Holwell, plus the testimony of another survivor, Cooke, to a select committee of the House of Commons, coupled with subsequent verification by Robert Orme, placed 146 British prisoners into a room measuring 18 by 15 feet, and only 23 survived the night. The story was amplified in colonial literature, but the facts are widely disputed[3]. In any event, the Black Hole incident, which is often cited as a reason for the Battle at Plassey, was not widely known until James Mill's History of India (1817), after which it became the grist of schoolboy texts on India.

As the forces for the battle were building up, the British settlement at Fort William sought assistance from Presidency of Fort St. George at Madras, which sent Colonel Robert Clive and Admiral Charles Watson. They re-captured Calcutta on January 2, 1757, but the Nawab marched again on Calcutta on February 5, 1757, and was surprised by a dawn attack by the British [4]. This resulted in the Treaty of Alinagar on February 7, 1757 [5].

Growing French influence

At the connivance of the enterprising French Governor-General Joseph François Dupleix, French influence at the court of the Nawab was growing. French trade in Bengal was also increasing in volume. The French also lent the Nawab some soldiers to operate heavy artillery pieces.

Ahmad Shah Abdali

Siraj-Ud-Daulah faced conflicts on two fronts simultaneously. In addition to the threat posed by the British East India Company, he was confronted on his western border by the advancing army of the Afghan, Ahmad Shah Abdali, who had captured and looted Delhi in 1756. So, Siraj sent the majority of his troops west to fight under the command of his close friend and ally, the Diwan of Patna, Ram Narain.

Court intrigue

In the midst of all of this, there were intrigues at Siraj Ud Daulah's court at Murshidabad. Siraj was not a particularly well-loved ruler. Young (he succeeded his grandfather in April, 1756 at the age of 23) and impetuous, he was prone to make enemies quickly. The most dangerous of these was his wealthy and influential aunt, Ghaseti Begum (Meherun-Nisa), who wanted another nephew, Shawkat Jang, installed as Nawab.

Mir Jafar, commander-in-chief of the army, was also uneasy with Siraj, and was courted assiduously by Ghaseti. Eventually, through the connivance of traders such as Amichand (who had suffered as a result of the siege of Calcutta), and William Watts, Mir Jafar was brought into the British fold.

Company policy

The Company had long since decided that a change of regime would be conducive to their interests in Bengal. In 1752, Robert Orme, in a letter to Clive, noted that the company would have to remove Siraj's grandfather, Alivardi Khan, in order to prosper [6].

After the premature death of Alivardi Khan in April, 1756, his nominated successor was Siraj-ud-Daulah, a grandson whom Alivardi had adopted. The circumstances of this transition gave rise to considerable controversy and the British began supporting the intrigues of Alivardi's eldest daughter, Ghaseti Begum against that of his grandson, Siraj.

Instructions dated October 13, 1756 from Fort St. George instructed Robert Clive, "to effect a junction with any powers in the province of Bengal that might be dissatisfied with the violence of the Nawab's government or that might have pretensions to the Nawabship". Accordingly, Clive deputised William Watts, chief of the Kasimbazar factory of the Company, who was proficient in Bengali and Persian, to negotiate with two potential contenders, one of Siraj's generals, Yar Latif Khan, and Siraj's grand-uncle and army chief, Mir Jafar Ali Khan.

On April 23, 1757 the Select Committee of the Board of Directors of the British East India Company approved Coup d'état as its policy in Bengal.

Mir Jafar, negotiating through an Armenian merchant Khwaja Petruse, was the Company's final choice. Finally, on June 5, 1757 a written agreement was signed between the Company, represented by Clive, and Mir Jafar. It ensured that Mir Jafar would be appointed Nawab of Bengal once Siraj Ud Daulah was deposed.

Troops

The British army was vastly outnumbered, consisting of 2,200 Europeans and 2,100 native Indians and a small number of guns. The Nawab had an army of about 50,000 with some heavy artillery operated by about 40 French soldiers sent by the French East India Company.

Principal officers - British

* Major Killpatrick
* Major Grant
* Then Major Eyre Coote, later Lieutenant-General, and then Sir Eyre Coote
* Captain Gaupp
* Captain Richard Knox, 1st CO of the 1st Bengal Native Infantry

Principal officers - Nawab

* Mir Jafar Ali Khan - commanding 16,000 cavalry
* Mir Madan
* Manik Chand
* Rai Durlabh
* Monsieur Sinfray - French artillery officer

British East India Company Regiments

* 39th (Dorsetshire) Regiment of Foot, 1st Battalion
* 1st Bombay European Fusiliers, also known as 103rd Regiment of Foot
* Royal Madras Fusiliers, also known as 102nd Regiment of Foot
* Royal Bengal Fusiliers, also known as 101st Regiment of Foot
* 1st. Bengal Native Infantry (BNI), also known as the Lal Paltan (Hindi for Red Platoon)
* 9th Battery, 12th Regiment, Royal Artillery [7]
* 50 naval ratings from HMS Tyger [8]

Battle details

The battle opened on a very hot and humid morning at 7:00 a.m. on June 23, 1757 where the Nawab's army came out of its fortified camp and launched a massive cannonade against the British camp. The 18th Century historian Ghulam Husain Salim describes what followed:
“ Mīr Muhammad Jafar Khān, with his detachment, stood at a distance towards the left from the main army; and although Sirāju-d-daulah summoned him to his side, Mīr Jafar did not move from his position. In the thick of the fighting, and in the heat of the work of carnage, whilst victory and triumph were visible on the side of the army of Sirāju-d-daulah, all of a sudden Mīr Madan, commander of the Artillery, fell on being hit with a cannon-ball. At the sight of this, the aspect of Sirāju-d-daulah’s army changed, and the artillerymen with the corpse of Mīr Madan moved into tents. It was now midday, when the people of the tents fled. As yet Nawāb Sirāju-d-daulah was busy fighting and slaughtering, when the camp-followers decamping from Dāūdpūr went the other side, and gradually the soldiers also took to their heels. Two hours before sun-set, flight occurred in Sirāju-d-daulah’s army, and Sirāju-d-daulah also being unable to stand his ground any longer fled. ”
[9]

At around 11:00 a.m., Mir Madan, one of the Nawab's most loyal officers, launched an attack against the fortified grove where the East Indian Company was located, and was mortally wounded by a British cannonball. This cannonade was essentially futile in any case; the British guns had greater range than those of the French.

At noon, a heavy rainstorm fell on the battlefield, wherein the tables were turned. The British covered their cannons and muskets for protection from the rain, whereas the French did not.

As a result, the cannonade ceased by 2:00 p.m. and the battle resumed where Clive's chief officer, Kilpatrick, launched an attack against the water ponds in between the armies. With their cannons and muskets completely useless, and with Mir Jafar's cavalry who were closest to the English refusing to attack Clive's camp, revealing his treachery, the Nawab was forced to order a retreat.

By 5:00 p.m., the Nawab's army was in full retreat and the British had command of the field.

The battle cost the British East India Company just 22 killed and 50 wounded (most of these were native sepoys), while the Nawab's army lost at least 500 men killed and wounded [10].

Aftermath

The Battle of Plassey is considered as a starting point to the events that established the era of British dominion and conquest in India.

Mir Jafar's fate

Mir Jafar, for his betrayal of the Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah and alliance with the British, was installed as the new Nawab, while Siraj Ud Daulah was captured on July 2 in Murshidabad as he attempted to escape further north. He was later executed on the order of Mir Jafar's son. Ghaseti Begum and other powerful women were transferred to a prison in distant Dhaka, where they eventually drowned in a boat accident, widely thought to have been ordered by Mir Jafar.

Mir Jafar as Nawab chafed under the British supervision, and so requested the Dutch East India Company to intervene. They sent seven ships and about 700 sailors up the Hoogley to their settlement, but the British led by Colonel Forde managed to defeat them at Chinsura on November 25, 1759. Thereafter Mir Jafar was deposed as Nawab (1760) and they appointed Mir Kasim Ali Khan, (Mir Jafar's son-in-law) as Nawab. Mir Kasim showed signs of independence and was defeated in the Battle of Buxar (1764), after which full political control shifted to the Company.

Mir Jafar was re-appointed and remained the titular Nawab until his death in 1765, while all actual power was exercised by the Company.

Rewards

As per their agreement, Clive collected £ 2.5 million for the company, and £ 234,000 for himself from the Nawab's treasury [11]. In addition, Watts collected £ 114,000 for his efforts. The annual rent of £ 30,000 payable by the Company for use of the land around Fort William was also transferred to Clive for life. To put this wealth in context, an average British nobleman could live a life of luxury on an annual income of £ 800 [12].

Robert Clive was appointed Governor of Bengal in 1765 for his efforts. William Watts was appointed Governor of Fort William on June 22, 1758. But he later resigned in favour of Robert Clive, who was also later appointed Baron of Plassey in 1762. Clive later committed suicide in 1774, after being addicted to opium.

Terms of agreement

These were the terms agreed between the new Nawab and the Company:

1. Confirmation of the mint, and all other grants and privileges in the Alinagar treaty with the late Nawab.
2. An alliance, offensive and defensive, against all enemies whatever.
3. The French factories and effects to be delivered up, and they never permitted to resettle in any of the three provinces.
4. 100 lacs of rupees to be paid to the Company, in consideration of their losses at Calcutta and the expenses of the campaign.
5. 50 lacs to be given to the British sufferers at the loss of Calcutta
6. 20 lacs to Gentoos, Moors, & black sufferers at the loss of Calcutta.
7. 7 lacs to the Armenian sufferers. These three last donations to be distributed at the pleasure of the Admiral and gentlemen of Council.
8. The entire property of all lands within the Mahratta ditch, which runs round Calcutta, to be vested in the Company: also, six hundred yards, all round, without, the said ditch.
9. The Company to have the zemindary of the country to the south of Calcutta, lying between the lake and river, and reaching as far as Culpee, they paying the customary rents paid by the former zemindars to the government.
10. Whenever the assistance of the British troops shall be wanted, their extraordinary charges to be paid by the Nawab.
11. No forts to be erected by the Nawab's government on the river side, from Hooghley downwards.

* One of members of Clive's entourage at Plassey was a young volunteer called Warren Hastings. He was appointed the British Resident at the Nawab's court in 1757. Warren later became the first Governor-General of India for the British East India Company between 1773 to 1786 when he was impeached for corruption.
* Clive was later awarded the title Baron of Plassey and bought lands in County Limerick and County Clare, Ireland naming part of his lands near Limerick City, Plassey. It retains this name to this day and is now the site of the University of Limerick.
* The French guns captured at this battle can still be visited at the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta.
* The infamous meeting between Mir Jafar and Watts took place at Jaffarganj, a village close to Murshidabad. Mir Jafar's palace now stands in ruins at the place, but close to it is a gate called Namakharamer Deori (literally traitor's gate) where Watts is supposed to have entered the palace disguised as a purdanasheen (Urdu for veiled) lady in a palanquin.
* One of the unseen protagonists of the court drama was a wealthy Sikh trader who went by the family name Jagat Sheth (Hindi: World Banker (actual name - Mahtab Chand)). He was a hereditary banker to the Mughal Emperor and the Nawab of Bengal and thus well conversant with court intrigues. He negotiated a 5% commission from Clive for his assistance with the court intrigue to defeat Siraj. However, when Clive refused to pay him after his success, he is supposed to have gone mad. The family (i.e. Jagat Sheths) remained bankers to the Company until the transfer of the British head quarters to Calcutta in 1773 [13].
* The Indian rebellion of 1857 began almost exactly a century later during May, 1857
* Plassey Day is still celebrated by 9(Plassey) Battery, Royal Artillery

Quotes

* "A great prince was dependent on my pleasure, an opulent city lay at my mercy; its richest bankers bid against each other for my smiles; I walked through vaults which were thrown open to me alone, piled on either hand with gold and jewels! Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation" - Baron Robert Clive commenting on accusations of looting the Bengal treasury after Plassey, at his impeachment trial in 1773 [14] [15]
* "Heaven-born general" - British Prime Minister William Pitt 'The Elder', Earl of Chatham referring to Robert Clive
* "It is possible to mention men who have owed great worldly prosperity to breaches of private faith; but we doubt whether it is possible to mention a state which has on the whole been a gainer by a breach of public faith." - Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay, later British Secretary at War, who condemned Clive's actions

References

1. ^ a b c Paul K. Davis (1999). 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present. Santa Barbara, California. ISBN 1-57607-075-1.
2. ^ Dirks, Nicholas. Scandal of the Empire - India and the creation of Imperial Britain London, Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-674-02166-5
3. ^ Dalley, JanThe Black Hole: Money, Myth and Empire,London, Fig Tree, June 2006, ISBN 0-670-91447-9
4. ^ Robert Clive reports to his father on his victory over Sirajuddaulah, 23 February 1757
5. ^ Bad Link
6. ^ Hill,S.C. The Indian Record Series, Bengal in 1756-7., 3 vols. London, 1895-1905, Vol. 2:307
7. ^ The British Army
8. ^ 9 (PLASSEY) BATTERY ROYAL ARTILLERY, THE BATTLE OF PLASSEY, 23 JUNE 1757
9. ^ Ghulam Husain Salim Riyazu-s-Salatin (Calcutta) 1902 Fasc. IV Available Here
10. ^ Robert Clive's letter to the Select Committee of the Board of Directors of the British East India Company reporting on the battle, 26 July 1757 - at the Project South Asia
11. ^ This requested article does not exist
12. ^ Prices & Money, The Salacious Historian's Lair
13. ^ Macaulay, Thomas Babbington Critical and Historical Essays, London, 1828, Part III
14. ^ Bad Link
15. ^ Dirks, Nicholas. Scandal of the Empire - India and the creation of Imperial Britain London, Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-674-02166-5

[edit] Further reading

* Chaudhury, S. The Prelude to Empire; Palashi Revolution of 1757,, New Delhi, 2000.
* Datta, K.K. Siraj-ud-daulah,, Calcutta, 1971.
* Gupta, B.K. Sirajuddaulah and the East India Company, 1756-1757, Leiden, 1962
* Harrington, Peter. Plassey 1757, Clive of India's Finest Hour, Osprey Campaign Series #35, Osprey Publishing, 1994.
* Hill, S.C. The Three Frenchmen in Bengal or The Commercial Ruin of the French Settlement in 1757, 1903
* Landes, David S. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York: Norton and Company, 1999.
* Marshall, P.J. Bengal - the British Bridgehead, Cambridge, 1987.
* Raj, Rajat K. Palashir Sharajantra O Shekaler Samaj, Calcutta, 1994.
* Sarkar, J.N. The History of Bengal, 2, Dhaka, 1968.
* Spear, Percival Master of Bengal. Clive and His India London, 1975
* Strang, Herbert. In Clive's Command, A Story of the Fight for India, 1904

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

Citizens Call for Repeal of SEZ Acts

Even as the three day SEZ researchers' national workshop and All India Citizens' Convention Against Atrocities on the People of Nandigram and Against SEZs called for repeal of the Central and State SEZ Acts central government gave nod for SEZ land acquisition.

Union Commerce Secretary G K Pillai has reported to have said that the state government can go ahead with the land acquisition provided the farmers had no objections to their land being acquired.

Since April 5 empowered group of ministers led by Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee came out with a decision, prohibiting the state government from acquiring the land for SEZ, there had been confusion in the state government quarters over the acquisition of land for SEZs in the state.

The Maharashtra government has notified around 10,000 hectares for acquisition in 45 villages of Raigad district for MSEZ.

In a letter written by Pillai on June 1 to the Maharashtra industry secretary V K Jairath, he has said, since state government had started land acquisition process before the EGOM's decision, state government can go ahead with the process but it should not declare final award.

The letter also says, if the farmer has withdrawn objection to the land acquisition process or willingly given the consent, the state government can go ahead with the acquisition of the land.

The Rural Development ministry is working on amending the Land Acquisition Act and also new relief and rehabilitation policy is being drafted by the Centre.

If they are notified before the land acquisition process is completed they will become applicable to the whole land acquisition process for SEZ.

Media houses seem to live in a make believe world and lose sight of valiant movements of Kalinganagar, Singur, Nandigram, Raigad, Jhajjar, Barnala, Dadri, Jagatsinghpur and several other places.

It appeared to the business newspapers that Pillai's statement is a relief to Reliance Industries-promoted Mumbai Special Economic Zone (MSEZ) but the fact that even non-violent civil society leaders are now calling for 'militant approach' in peoples' struggles against forcible land acquisition for industry is hardly a matter of relief.

Arrested Burma's Prime Minister's Birthday

On 19th June, 2007 the 62nd birthday of Prime Minister of Myanmar (Burma), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was celebrated in New Delhi in the presence of Gandhains, socialist and communist leaders. More than 1 lakh signatures were received from across the country expressing support for Suu Kyi. Members of Parliament from Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) was present on the occasion.

In Rangoon, people gathered at the NLD headquarters on Shwegondine road to offer food to monks and release white doves as symbols of their hope for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom. A large mob of unidentified men in civilian clothing also surrounded the NLD headquarters and monitored the celebrations.

Suu Kyi is under house arrest in Burma by the military dictatorship since 20th July 1989 although her party National League for Democracy won decisively in 1990 general election called by the military dictators and she is legally the Prime Minister of Burma. In her famous "Freedom From Fear" speech, she said, "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it." She has been released in between and arrested again.

Her party won about 88 percent of the votes in the 1990 election as the people showed their appreciation for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's commitment.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the Burmese government to release Aung San Suu Kyi, as it released 2,831 prisoners, including 40 political prisoners, on 1 January 2007.

On 18 January 2007, the state-run paper The New Light of Myanmar accused Suu Kyi of tax evasion for spending her Nobel Prize money outside of the country. The accusation followed the defeat of a US-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Myanmar as a threat to international security.

On 25 May 2007, Myanmar extended Suu Kyi's detention for yet another year which would keep her confined to her residence for a fifth straight year.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is going to be conferred the first Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Award for her outstanding contribution to the struggle for restoring democracy in her country.

Suu Kyi's father, late Gen Aung San, had supported Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose when he entered Burma in 1943 with the INA to fight Anglo-American forces. The award will be given on a day between January 23 and January 25, during Netaji's birthday celebrations.

BBC spreads mis information to support G4 process

BBC spreads mis information to support G4 process

Burghard Ilge

======================================================================

Dear all.

BCC just published the article below.

Which uses the argument of the expiration of fast track authority of the US on 30th of June to legitimize the G4 process. Maybe it would be a good idea if someone [maybe
from the US or the UK] would address this mis information and demand an official public rectification by the BBC.

Burghard

================

source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6767099.stm
(visited today 18:00 CET)

WTO talks get push for late deal
Four key World Trade Organization members have
reopened trade talks to see if an agreement can be
reached ahead of a key deadline.
The US, Brazil, India and the European Union (EU)
are meeting for five days in Germany to see if a
global trade deal is still possible, the EU said.
Attempts to resolve the Doha round of trade talks
have failed to date, after disagreement over
farming subsidies.
The talks will not "finish Doha" but see if a deal
is possible said the EU.
'Final game'
Agriculture and farming subsidies have been a
major sticking point between the US, EU and
developing nations in the Doha round of talks -
named after the Qatari capital where discussions
started in 2001.
Jagdish Bhagwati, an economist at New York's
Council for Foreign Relations said the four
members were in the "final game of making
concessions, but this should have happened months
ago".
The EU has argued that the US caused the talks -
which were meant to boost trade as a means to
tackle poverty - to collapse.
Similarly the US has said Europe has failed to
open up its markets.
Mr Mandelson is attending the talks along with
Mariann Fisher Boel, the agriculture commissioner
of the EU.
Also present are US Trade Representative Susan
Schwab and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.
Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and Indian
Trade Minister Kamal Nath are also at the event,
which is taking place in Potsdam.
The need to resolve trade talks has intensified as
US President George W Bush's special "fast-track"
authority to negotiate trade deals ends this month.
President Bush's Trade Promotion Authority will
expire after 30 June, meaning that the US Congress
will again have the right to amend such agreements.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/6767099.stm

Published: 2007/06/19 11:41:26 GMT

© BBC MMVII

==============================================================
Source: WTO-Intl - the listserv the Our World Is Not For Sale network (OWINFS)

Honesty thy name is Vijayakumar

Honesty thy name is Vijayakumar

M.N. Vijayakumar is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service
(IAS). He belongs to the Karnataka cadre. He has served in Karnataka
for the last 25 years. And he is only one of three IAS officers, of
the 200 or so working in Karnataka, who has filed his assets and
liabilities.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Vijayakumar, currently of
the Principal Secretary grade, has been transferred six times in six
months during the H.D. Kumaraswamy regime.

From September 2006 to February 2007, Vijayakumar has sat on a
different seat in a different office in a different capacity�"each time
for “reporting serious corrupt practices by senior officers”.

His wife, Jayashree J.N., has now launched a spirited, even brave,
campaign on the web that throws light on how the IAS folk deal with
“black sheep” in their midst and how they use the convenient alibi of
“disobedience” to quell debate, discussion and action.

Jayashree asks:

# Is informing the head of the bureaucracy repeatedly about issues
of corrupt practices an act of disobedience?# Is persistently
insisting to follow Government notified policy an act of disobedience?

# Is bringing to the notice of higher authorities the violation of
Government policy and asking the violation to be brought before the
Cabinet an act of disobedience?

# Is communicating intention to approach Lokayukta an act of
disobedience?

# Is preventing (by following procedure) dishonest officials, from
doing things against public interest, an act of disobedience?

# Is insisting officers to act as per the Right to Information Act
an act of disobedience?

# Is repeatedly bringing to the notice of higher authorities
activities against public interest an act of disobedience?

# Is cautioning the higher authorities against continuing officers
indulging in activities against public interest an act of disobedience?

# Is making the fight against corruption one of the objectives in
the Annual Confidential Report an act of disobedience?

# Is saving crores of rupees to the Government and the Public, an
act of disobedience?

# Is introducing innovative methods to involve public in the
implementation of works an act of disobedience?

# Is introducing innovative methods to help redressal of
grievances so that the poor are not made to run from office to office
an act of disobedience?

# Is acting as per the calls given by H.E. the President and H.E.
the Governor an act of disobedience?

# Is being the first officer to declare assets to Lokayukta an act
of disobedience?

# Is informing the Hon’ble Lokayukta in the presence of CS, ACS
and all other senior officers on how to go about tackling corrupt
officers an act of disobedience?

# Is informing the higher authorities that the issues he raised
have nothing to do with the place or post going to be held by him an
act of disobedience?

# Is informing Government that he never sought modification of
transfer in past 25 years of his service an act of disobedience?

# Is not turning a blind eye to corrupt practices, going around
him an act of disobedience?

# Is giving suggestions to the Head of the Bureaucracy in public
interest an act of disobedience?

# Is complaining against dishonest practices before a promotion an
act of disobedience?

# Is giving honest and frank opinions to higher authorities an act
of disobedience?

On the site, Jayashree says she found “honest wives [of IAS officers]
are rarer than honest officers].

“An honest officer cannot morally raise his voice against
corruption unless he is supported at every stage by his wife and
children, which demands different types of sacrifices from time to
time by each member of the family. It is not enough if the officer is
honest but each and every family member also should be honest, if the
officer has to fight against very powerful corrupt persons.”

Visit Jayashree’s site: http://fightcorruption.wikidot.com/

Undertrials and Media

Media does not accord priority to the undertrials that they deserve.

Undertrials are those prisoners behind bars who, in the eyes of law, are yet to be convicted by the absolute final judgement, and they pass their days with suspense and expectations like light and shadow in their minds.

Prison is a State subject in the Constitution of India. States have to spend Rs. 55 per day per under trial in detention. At this rate, the States incurs more than Rs. 461 crores annually on undertrials.

According to the official classification of Undertrials as per the length of stay in Tihar Jail as on 30th April 2007, there are 10698 male undertrials and 387 female undertrials. This means a total of 11085 undertrials are in Tihar jail.

As per the same classification of Convict Prisoners as per term of imprisonment as on 30th April 2007, there are 2377 male convicts and 74 female convicts. The total number of convicts is 2451.

Tihar Jail Complex in New Delhi is one of the largest prison complexes in the world. It comprises of nine prisons in the Tihar Complex with a total population of around 13,000 prisoners against a sanction capacity of 4800 prisoners.

One District Jail at Rohini with a total Population of around 1800 prisoners against a sanction capacity of 1050 prisoners.

In a year about 70,000-80,000 prisoners remain lodged in these prisons for different duration.

This prison population has about 80% undertrials and includes about 520 women prisoners with about 41 children below 4 years of age dependent upon them.

Of the undertrials, a huge number has been in jail for several years. This is because of delays in the justice delivery system.

Putin's Censored Press Conference

"I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died."

Putin's Censored Press Conference

The transcript you weren't supposed to see

By Mike Whitney

06/10/07 "ICH" --- - On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave
an hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many
members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which
Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human
rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the
United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely
censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared in
a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize Putin)
the press conference has been scrubbed from the public record. It
never happened. (Read the entire press conference archived here )

Putin's performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the
questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and
statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main
issues.

The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the
growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a
brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations since
the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to present. Since
September 11, the Bush administration has carried out an aggressive
strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles on
its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite
political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed "pro-democracy" groups.
These openly hostile actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners
that the administration is going forward with the neocon plan for
"regime change" in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
Putin's testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably right.

The Bush administration's belligerent foreign policy has backed the
Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures.
He has no other choice.

If we want to understand why relations between Russia are quickly
reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the main
developments since the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat
Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his article "Doesn't Putin
Have a Point?"

Buchanan says:

"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe
voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from
Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old
Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem
hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states
like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile
systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and
Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and
"human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA
director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in
Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and
Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for
refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take
over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest
in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"

Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why his
press conference was suppressed. The media would rather demonize
Putin, than allow him to make his case to the public. (The same is
true of other world leaders who choose to use their vast resources to
improve the lives of their own citizens rather that hand them over to
the transnational oil giants; such as, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo
Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet endorsed the neocon missile defense
plan and, according to recent surveys, public opinion in Poland and
the Czech Republic is overwhelmingly against it.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of
the controversy.

Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense
system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to Russia's national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately invoke the Monroe
Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one doubts this. And
no one should doubt that Putin is equally determined to protect his
own country's interests in the same way. We can expect that Russia
will now aim its missiles at European targets and rework its foreign
policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its current plans.

The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system.
The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile defens
system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and
foreign opponents".

Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Putin said at the press conference, "Once the missile defense
system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE
NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part
of the US nuclear capability.

"For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there
are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent.
It simply changes the whole configuration of international
security�..Of course, we have to respond to that."

Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an
expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons
system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this should
be obvious.

The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to
achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the
"longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia".

In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First
Strike Threat" he states:

"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces
would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that
with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability,
they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."� This has been
analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by
one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling
--winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of
Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it
from "deterrence." �The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture
and moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That's right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
Washington's "diktats" or face the prospect of "first-strike"
annihilation. That's why Putin has expressed growing concern over the
administration's dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of
a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The "hawks"
who surround Bush have abandoned the "deterrence" policy of the past,
and now believe that a nuclear war can be "won" by the United States.
This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.

The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia
and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline
corridors throughout the region. That means Russia's influence will
have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the
neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised
him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the
dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and
state-owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to
the tenets of neoliberalism.

No wonder the neocons loved him.

Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional
influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the
ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow has
strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian
prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush's plans.

Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship
from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that
Russia's four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign
development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under
state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to
convert Russia's dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these
are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western
elites. Their response was swift.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext for an
all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is
"rolling back democracy" began; it's a feeble excuse for political
antagonism. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction", Edwards and
Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer
possible. They note that the government has become increasingly
"authoritarian" and that the society is growing less "open and
pluralistic". Blah, blah, blah. No one in the Washington really cares
about democracy. (Just look at our "good friends" in Saudi Arabia,
Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they're afraid of is
Putin ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That's what
counts. Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran and
rubber stamp a Security Council resolution to separate Kosovo form
Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the right to redraw national
borders? Was the creation of Israel such a stunning success that the
Security Council wants to try its luck again?)

Putin does not accept the "unipolar" world model. As he said in
Munich, the unipolar world refers to "a world in which there is one
master, one sovereign---- one centre of authority, one centre of
force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the
sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.� What is even
more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis
there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization."

He added:

"Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any
problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created
new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local
and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than
before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force �
military force � in international relations, force that is plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles
of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of
fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One
state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has
overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the
economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on
other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a
given question according to so-called issues of political expediency,
based on the current political climate. And of course this is
extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I
want to emphasise this � no one feels safe! Because no one can feel
that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of
course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must
seriously think about the architecture of global security."

How can anyone dispute Putin's analysis?

"Unilateral and illegitimate military actions", the "uncontained
hyper-use of force", the "disdain for the basic principles of
international law", and most importantly; "No one feels safe!"

These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the Bush
Doctrine better than anyone else.

The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases to
five thousand men on Russia's perimeter. Is this conduct of a
"trustworthy ally"?

Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia's borders even while Putin
has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and
military equipment hundreds of miles away.

As Putin said on Tuesday: "We have removed all of our heavy weapons
from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals" and
"reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other
steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in
Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is
receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in
Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas --
a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are
asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming
unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see
our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the
contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of
course we cannot help but be concerned."

(This is why Putin's comments did not appear in the western media!
They would have been too damaging to the Bush administration and their
expansionist plans)

Who Destroyed the ABM?

Putin said:

"We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue
with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources
and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both
understand that a missile defense system for one side and no such a
system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the
possibility of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE
STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance
without setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a
system to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now."

Putin: "AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the ABM
Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them
two years ago, "don't do this, you don't need to do this. What are you
doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You
must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps."
�we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about
them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to
develop these weapons." We told them that "it would be better to look
for other ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear
weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby
put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they don't
listen to us. They are not looking for compromise. Their entire point
of view can be summed-up in one sentence: `Whoever is not with us is
against us.'"

Putin asks, "So what should we do?" The present predicament has
brought us "the brink of disaster".

Putin: "Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just
as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of course it
is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets
worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But
we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to
divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations
with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed
to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in
that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and
energy dialogue around Russia".

So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his
responsibilities to the Russian people without taking defensive
"retaliatory" action to Bush's act of war. By expanding its nuclear
capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent danger, and so,
Putin must decide "precisely which means will be used to destroy the
installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat
for the Russian Federation". (Note that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM
HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)

Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people.
That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian
economy has been growing by 7% a year. He's lowered the number of
people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will
bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by
an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, "Combating poverty is one
of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our
pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the
average wage is still lower here than in Europe."

If only that was true in America!

Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has amassed
enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest in the world.
It is also one of the leading players in international energy policy
with a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi Arabia. It is also the
largest producer of natural gas in the world. Russia will only get
stronger as we get deeper into the century and energy resources become
scarcer.

Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to human
rights or is "rolling back democracy". He points out how
truncheon-wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas,
electric-shock devices and water cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is
that how the West honors human rights and civil liberties?

As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty
International's yearly report condemning the United States conduct in
the war on terror. "I have a copy of Amnesty International's report
here, which includes a section on the United States," he said. "The
organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE
VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE."

He added, "We have a proverb in Russian, `Don't blame the mirror if
your face is crooked.'"

Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore Russia's
self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He's demonstrated a
willingness to compromise with the Bush administration on every
substantive issue, but he has been repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing
he wants is a nuclear standoff with the United States. But he will do
what he must to defend his people from the threat of foreign attack.
The deployment of the missile defense system will require that Russia
develop its own new weapons systems and change its thinking about
trusting the United States. Friendship is not possible in the present
climate.

As for "democracy"; Putin said it best himself:

"Am I a `pure democrat'? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The
problem is that I'm all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole
wide world. Just look at what's happening in North America, it's
simply awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained
without trial and investigation. Just look at what's happening in
Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas
used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the
streets�.. I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died."

Well said, Vladimir.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm

Is poetry dying?

No poetry appears in media these days. This was not the case just few decades back.

Is it possible to replace some gross crime and political reporting with some poetry?

Is media a 'back hole' in which all poetic sensibilities get sucked in, never to reappear again?

Isn't poetry part of our traditional media?

Does modern media leave a space for traditional media to co-exist?

Poetry in Media

Some years ago I read 'Na Hanyate' (it does not die), a novel by Maitreyi Devi. The book captures the essence of true intimacy. The readers of this novel say, it is a poetry in disguise. There are some movies that almost fall in that category. I am trying to remember the ones that moved us but we could never put the cinematic experience in words.

I am exploring both the books and movies which have altered us in inexplicable ways. I am inviting the readers of this text to share their sublime experiences if any.

The reason for initiating this series is to trace the remnants of poetry in media.

State of affairs at IIMC and the role of Information and Broadcasting Ministry

To


Ms Asha Swarup

Chairperson,

Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC)

Secretary, Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

Government of India

New Delhi

Subject-State of affairs at IIMC and the role of Information and Broadcasting Ministry

Dear Mrs Asha Swarup,

Although belated I on my own behalf and on behalf of ex-students of IIMC wish to congratulate you on assuming the office of Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and for officiating as the Chairperson of IIMC.

I wish to bring to your notice the sad fact that IIMC is rapidly losing its reputation due to so many factors. It is high time the institution is either turned into a University or is affiliated to a University to impart quality media education and to improve the quality of faculty members through better remuneration and better selection process.

Please allow me to call a spade a spade. The Outlook survey (Outlook magazine's June 11, 2007 edition) shows that Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has failed to act. Despite informing the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology that "due to the limited manpower availability owing to vacancies in Research Department, the IIMC is pre-occupied with sponsored projects (work) which generates more income and resources with the result that the Institutes‘ own projects are delayed." The Ministry did so in July, 2006.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting informed the Parliamentary Committee that "Considering the fact that the IIMC is a centre of excellence in the field of communication, teaching, training and research and it aims to be a world class institute, the Committee are of the considered opinion that the Institute must be provided with the necessary infrastructure to carry out their assigned jobs in an effective manner."

It is astounding and highly unreasonable that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting having admitted shortage of manpower goes on to say that "it has been submitted that a post of Professor in the Research Department is lying vacant and a proposal has been referred to the Ministry under Annual Direct Recruitment Plan (ADRP), 2004 for approval of the Screening Committee." Is the Ministry referring to shortage of one Professor as shortage of manpower? Is it
this shortage which is coming in the way of IIMC becoming "a world class institute "?.

Besides there are have likes of private players like Mr N Ram and Mr Chandan Mitra representing both left and right political ideologies on the IIMC Society’s Executive Council and IIMC Society who own their own Journalism schools, therefore, they seem to have a manifest conflict of interest. It is obvious that they would be more keen to promote their own students rather than IIMCians. Mr Ram runs Asian College of Journalism, Chennai and Mr Mitra runs Pioneer Media School. These members have least interest apart from their commercial interest in taking note of the deterioration in faculty strength and quality of education being provided that is adversely impacting students training and their better placements.

The Outlook-Cfore college survey is a wake up call for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to set matters right at IIMC. It is high time IIMC is affiliated to a University and managed like educational institutions with better faculty and management instead of letting it deteriorate through its national pre-occupations. Why should IIMC suffer because the Ministry officials who officiate as office-bearers of IIMC do not give priority to the institute? These officials who seem to have no experience, expertise or training of running IIMC spare no time and energy to rectify the acts of omission and commission that is infesting IIMC today. The Ministry has not invested and devoted as much time, energy and money as behoves the stature of the institution. It seems to have pandered to the whims and fancies of political masters of all ilk in letting the standard of. IIMC suffer.

We sincerely hope that with your diverse experience you will set the functioning of IIMC in order and take the institution out of its frozen passivity and provide it the required nurturing so that IIMC can once again emerge as a purposeful academic institution.

We wish to apprise you with the following issues that are confronting IIMC with disease like crisis for quite some time with no one to diagnose and treat so that you can do the needful to stem the rot before it is too late:

Faculty: Faculty is core for any academic institution but at IIMC it has systematically been reduced to near Zero strength. IIMC faculty/academic staff strength was around 25 in 1983 when PG Diploma in Radio and TV Journalism and Hindi Journalism courses were not in existence. By applying same yardsticks the faculty strength should now be around 35-40 but it has been reduced to only 12. In fact faculty recruitment has not been done. Now an outrageous contract system has been introduced. Most of the faculty members appointed on contract have already left to join other places. And the remaining faculty members are always exploring greener pastures. To set matters right hiring quality faculty members with dignified fiscal incentives in tune with UGC standards is the crying need of IIMC.

Regular Appointment of IIMC Faculty instead of Contract System: The contract system is an attempt to tame, control and administer the faculty. No institution can grow and develop by weakening the core, which is the faculty. Contempt for teaching community is unlikely to serve the interests of IIMC. It is only the teaching community, which is subjected to the contractual system. IIMC recruited a registrar as regular appointment not contract. Basic entitlements like leave, PF contribution, gratuity, leave encashment, LTC, annual increments and medical cover as granted to the permanent IIMC faculty have been denied to faculty on contract.

In any case contract experiment in IIMC has failed to contribute to the interests of the students and to the individual growth of those who joined the Institute. Steps should be taken to rectify the situation. There are large number of grievances of the faculty and staff which has nothing to do with the Ministry and can be sorted out between Chairman and Director and at the most at the level of Institute’s Executive Council but it is regrettable that Chairman, IIMC has been kept dark on these vital issues that have deep bearing on the future of the Institute.

Need for full time Director of IIMC: A full time Director instead of current system of part time ones should be discontinued. The person who is assigned the task should have excelled in the field of media and academics. Key organs like office of Chairman, Director and Executive Council have been ad hoc and so dormant for quite long time that it has parlayed the IIMC.
Introduction of Masters Course: Upgrade the PG Diploma courses of Journalism to Masters courses with a multi-disciplinary approach that covers both rural and urban aspects of the political economy. It should have an inbuilt mechanism to ensure interface with institutions like legislatures and courts.

Affiliation with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU): This affiliation of IIMC would enable easy access and cross fertilization with its rich and diverse academic resources of JNU. It would provide sound material and intellectual basis for IIMC.

Introduction of Dynamic Course Modules & Workshops: In order to live upto the original mandate of IIMC to design effective education or communication processes that are essential in a society where scientific and technical developments are underway at a hitherto unimaginable pace so that the public opinion is not dictated by one way flow of information from the West. Incorporation of emerging issues of health, environment, labour, international trade and ethics besides positive and negative aspe