Kerala remembers C. H. Mohammed Koya – Great Son of India, former and only Muslim Chief minister of Kerala!

Kerala remembers C. H. Mohammed Koya – Great Son of India, former and only Muslim Chief minister of Kerala!



Life and work of former Kerala chief minister C. H. Mohammed Koya, who worked to give Kerala Muslims a status as equal citizens that made them in due course stand with some prestige that they enjoy today, should help Indian Muslims to live with honour in India.

Muslims of Kerala state marked with profound sense of respect and admiration the 35th anniversary of C.H. Mohammed Koya assuming power as Kerala’s Chief Minister on 12th October 1979. C.H. Mohammed Koya was the first and only Muslim chief minister Kerala state has seen and contribution to the state he had made during his brief period of CM position as well as a minister for long period has been admired by one all.

A simple function was organized in Thiruvananthapuram on 20th October as part of the anniversary programme at Trivandrum Press Club in which many important persons praised the simple person C.H. Mohammed Koya that he was but highly productive nature of work done by Koya for the people of Kerala. Prominent people of Kerala who had personal experience with Koya also dwelt about this infallible character and concern for the backward Malappuram region with poor people which he developed as new district. Today Malappuram is no less important than other districts. Educational and economic levels of the region have improved stead fast, especially with Gulf jobs for them.

Among the speakers, M.M Hassan, the Vice President of Kerala state Congress party, Onakkur Joseph, Abdul Wahab, among others detailed their experiences with Koya, detailing his qualities as minister and human. Shockingly, the Muslim league leaders like E.H. Ahmad, former central minister, M.K. Muneer, son of CH Muhammad Koya and a minister in the UDF ministry of state, did not attend the meeting, citing some vague reasons. The electricity was cut a few times in the hall during the meeting for no specified reasons, though the state secretariat is just nearby. In fact, the electric problem started when the Imam of Palayam mosque began reciting relevant verses from Holy Quran. Maybe, that is only a coincidence and not a deliberate attempt to disrupt the meeting.

As the chief architect of modern Malabar and the force behind the establishment of University of Calicut, CH Muhammed Koya has done maximum for the uplift the region and people. One of most sincere statesmen in Kerala, C.H. Mohammed Koya was born on July 15 1927 at Attoli of Calicut district as the son of Ahmed Musliyar and Mariyumma. His father was a countryside doctor and a specialist in Yunani Medicine. The family had to face many hardships in their life. At high School was his primary experience of politics. His child education from his father and mother and the primary education passes at Kongannur Aided Elementary School and next stage education was at Velur Mappila Elementary School and Quilandi Board High School. He was the one of the great and unmemorable leader in the Kerala Political History.

C.H. Mohammed Koya was an Indian politician and the tenth Chief Minister of Kerala. He served from October 12, 1979 to December 1, 1979. His term of just 54 days is the shortest term ever by a Chief Minister to this date. He experienced his first taste of politics right from his high school. He was actively involved with the IUML. In his early years, he served a short term in the Kurumpranad District Muslim League committee and later in the Municipal Office in Calicut. In 1951, he was elected to the National Executive of the IUML and shortly afterwards, was elected the Councilor of Calicut Municipality. Mohammed Koya was elected into the Kerala Legislative Assembly from the Tanur constituency in 1960. C.H. Mohammed Koya defeated K.P. Kuttikrishnan Nair of the Indian National Congress.

Seethi Sahib guided CH to this path, it was. He would do nothing without consulting him. Of course there is no doubt that it was Syed Abdur Rahman Bafaqi who raised CH giving him all the necessary essential of life. But who influenced CH intellectually was Seethi Sahib, besides Ismail Sahib (one of the founding members of Indian Union Muslim League). His chief mentor, both in personal life and political career, was Syed Abdur Rahman Bafaqi Thangal, to whom he was indebted for all his achievements.

Despite being one of the youngest members in the Assembly, he was known for his charisma and the flair with which he discharged his duties. When Muslim league quit the political alliance at State level, Mohammed Koya resigned Speakership and contested the ensuing Parliamentary Poll successfully from the Calicut constituency. Again, in the State Assembly elections held in 1967, he won by a vast majority, contesting from Mankada constituency. He was the Education Minister in the cabinet headed by Shri E.M.S. Namboodiripad. He continued to retain his Education portfolio in succeeding ministries headed by C. Achutha Menon, K. Karunakaran, A.K. Antony till the Ninth ministry headed by P.K. Vasudevan Nair. As Education minister he was instrumental in formulating many plans that has helped Kerala reach the forefront in the education sector in India. On June 9, 1961 he became the Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly after the sudden demise of K.M. Seethi Sahib. He took oath in the name of Allah at the legislative assembly.

On October 12, 1979 C.H.Mohammed Koya became the Chief Minister of Kerala and his term continued to December 1, 1979. He was the Deputy Chief Minister in the next United Democratic Front (UDF) ministry headed by K. Karunakaran. Continuing in the seat even after the ministry was re-constituted in 1982, after the General Election, Koya stayed there till his untimely demise in the ensuing year, but could not become CM again.

CH Muhammed Koya was a good leader among minority Muslims in Kerala. C.H was the main architect cum founder of Calicut University. Northern Kerala was very backward in the educational field. The university was established to uplift its people and make them capable of facing the challenges of the modern life. C.H.Mohammed Koya Library is an Academic library, affiliated with Calicut University has a collection of 95000 volumes, promoting quality research. The C H Mohammed Koya Library in the campus of the University of Calicut and the Haji C.H. Mohamed Koya College for Advanced Studies under the University of Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram are named in his honour.

CH maintained good ties with the Arab leaders as well. It was following C.H.’s efforts that Arabic teachers in Kerala began to enjoy equal opportunities as their colleagues in government run schools and colleges. Former chief of Sharia Court, Sharjah said: “The history of Indian Muslims is incomplete without the name of Muhammad Koya” It is impossible to speak of CH without a personal touch because it was he who led me to active politics. I had never cherished a dream to enter politics. The only ambition in life was to become a lawyer. I would not say that he disliked me becoming lawyer, but he disallowed me. Whenever I would enter court, he would send for me. Once during a conversation, he asked me to enter the ‘Court of people’ than the ‘Court of law’. Some elders disliked the youthful fervor put forward by people like CH and me. We were trying to infuse new ideas and tactics. When criticism would take serious turn, I used to say to CH “why to enter these quarrels. Why not pursue a career in academics or profession?” CH replied, “My friend, tomorrow we are the ones to lead. How will that happen if we fear these old ones?” He was a true leader forever!

After the partition, many leading Muslim personalities, fearing Hindu fanaticism and anti-Muslim crimes, left for Pakistan. It was iron-willed choice of Seethi Sahib to stay back on his motherland that later paved a path for a political leadership for Muslims in India. Later when Jawaharlal Nehru asked him to dismiss the League, he replied in a convincing tone “I have no authority to do so” referring to the trust that the community had put in him. “Let us have a mainstream of our community and let us also have to merge that mainstream with the national mainstream, keeping the identity of our community as enshrined in the constitution” wrote CH when he was at Delhi. ‘What a quotable quote has Ch written’ exclaimed the colleague who read the letter. Once when he was the chief minister, the opposition leader said in protest, “Chief Minister, you should understand that we are sitting here as opposition”. CH replied, “Honorable opposition leader, I understand what you mean by ‘opposition’. But it is not right to say ‘sitting’ opposition because you are always ‘standing opposition’. The assembly burst in laughter. CH gave instant replies that sealed the lips of his opponents. Although many had differences political differences with him, everyone around him enjoyed his sense of humor.

Satire was the domain special to CH. His literary reviews were also full of humor. He brought to life the characters in the novels of Vaikom Mohammed Basheer- the legendary novelist of Kerala whose works have been translated to several European languages.

Unlike the hypocritical attitude of other political parties, Indian Union Muslim League never hesitated in declaring that it stood for the interest of its community. C.H was bold enough to declare this even in his short-lived Chief Ministry. He spoke thus while being the Chief Minister of Kerala in the assembly, “I am a sincere Muslim. I will not compromise on the privileges of my community. Nor will I snatch the rights of other communities.’

CH was persistent in fighting for the rights of his community. But at the same time he would not snatch what was due to other community. This is what CH taught us. He had to face great criticism even from his own circles. But at the same time he had a sense humor even while facing hardships. He would not leave anyone from criticism. Once there were rumors in the press about differences between him and then chief minister, K. Karunakaran. While talking to the press reporters, he said, “It is true that there are differences between me and chief minister. When having tea, he drinks it with sugar while I have without it.”

Whenever his community’s prestige was questioned, CH fought back with this pen and tongue. Once when he was the Minster of Public works, the opposition raised questions about the lack of construction of roads and bridges. CH gave a ‘befitting excuse’ to them saying, “I like to build them as soon as possible. But the honorable Chief Minister seated here does not require roads and bridges to travel. His car can go over any marshy paddy fields. But my fellow MLAs cannot do so” joked CH while hinting to the chief minister to speed up the concerned files. Even his own colleagues could not escape his criticism. The political sincerity that CH held was the path that Syed PMSA Pookoya followed, what Syed Bafaqi led and what Seethi Sahib preached. When the Communists government came to power in Kerala, the Vasudevan Nayar, the then Chief Minister, tried to lure to CH saying “CH! How long will you sit there in opposition?” He responded immediately saying “As long as you sit there (as ruling party), I will be seated here”!

Some Muslim leaders from Kerala had gone to Delhi accepting the invitation of Ms Indira Gandhi, the then Indian prime Minister. As they reached her home, they had to wait for some time. When they saw the children playing in the compound, CH intended to play with them. When others refused, he convinced them saying “My dear friends! They are the future prime Ministers of India”. How can we forget that simplicity of CH?

Anti-Islamic Hindus, among others who could not stand a Muslim becoming CM, had accused him of being a communalist. But the same accusers addressed him as the greatest nationalist when he died. Those who called him a radical later called praised him as a broad -minded politician.

Now the Muslim League functions as a subordinate party of the Congress party.

In pursuing as a national policy of secular, democratic India to deny Muslims any chances for becoming Premier and Chief-ministers, Kerala political parties and leaders promote only non-Muslims to become chief ministers of the state, while they deliberately and very tactfully oppose any Muslim leaders becoming chief minister.

Koya’s help made Muslims deserving dignity and his good intentions and best wishes have kept the Muslims in Kerala in good stead, though prospering in Mideast and in turn making Kerala economically strong. His Honesty and Public awareness is very popular and well known to all Kerala. He was the representative of the Indian Union Muslim League.

Today, Muslim leaders are available in the ruling Congress party to be considered for promotion as chief minister but for some bogus and vague Hindutva reasons the party leadership refuses any senior Muslim leader to assume chief-minstership. Besides, the Muslim League (AIML) which is a collation partner of ruling UDF with second largest MLAs to sustain the government against the LDFs rigorous efforts to win over a couple of MLAs to pull down the Congress led government. However, the Muslim League does not resort to blackmail tactics to get from UDF at least Deputy CM post which legitimately deserves.

it is really Indian absurdity that even though Muslims in Kerala constitute about 30% of the population, Muslims are denied their right to become the CM of the state. By appeasing anti-Muslim forces in the country, the Congress party has deliberately kept the Muslim leadership in its control, not allowing them to become really genuine leaders of the community and state and country. As a result, Muslim leaders just work as paid vote bank agents and are deceiving the community.

Indian Parliament could pass a law to make a minority member Deputy CM, if Hindu leader is the CM so that Muslim leaders also get a chance to become CM in due course. Secular democracy is not joke.

H. Mohammed Koya who did everything possible to uplift his community and region, apart from working for the Kerala state, died on September 28 at the Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad in 1983.

Before death, Mohammed Koya served the cause of Kerala state, its poor people, development of backward regions. Muslims in the state gradually got empowered by his compassion towards the poor. By founding Calicut University in Malappuram, he helped the poor Muslims also to get educated in order to make a better living.

Kerala Muslim leaders have lessons to learn from Koya’s illustrated life.

A great son of India. May Allah enlighten his grave!
*د. عبد راف *

Educationist, Prolific writer, Specialist on State Terrorism; Chronicler of Foreign occupations &
Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International
Affairs(CIA); Commentator on world affairs & sport fixings, Expert on
Mideast Affairs, university teacher; Author of books/ebooks; Editor.



Jammu Kashmir cannot be resolved without China


Jammu Kashmir cannot be resolved without China

(A free Kashmir: Random Thoughts- 200)




A genuine and credible resolution of Jammu Kashmir issue cannot be solved properly without involving China which also has been occupying a part of Jammu Kashmir.

Interestingly, China has not made any statement regarding its occupation of Jammu Kashmir apart from India and Pakistan.  China’s continued silence on the complicated issue even when Kashmiri Muslims are targeted by Indian forces and when India and Pakistani forces blast each other at the LOC, makes the resolution more difficult than we can imagine.

Interestingly, again, neither India nor Pakistan even mention about China’s part in the resolution of the conflict.  That is because, obviously, both these occupiers do not want to resolve the Kashmir problem by surrendering the parts of Kashmir they have.

When the occupying nations are silent about China, not even the Kashmiris raise the issue anywhere.

Does it means, China can occupy the part of Kashmir It has while Indian must return the part of Jammu Kashmir it occupies

That Kashmiris never asked Pakistan also to return the lands they captured from Kashmir only indicates they do not want Pakistan to return Azad Kashmir to Kashmiris in order to make an independent Kashmir.  Rather, they want to make Kashmir a part of a destabilized Pakistan.  Already, Pakistan ahs incorporated part of Jammu Kashmir in Pakistan and when India quits Kashmir under its occupation, Pakistan wants to take that as well as Azad Kashmir to make totally destabilized weak Pakistan.

India and Pakistan keep cross-firing at each other to terrorize Kashmiris but interestingly Kashmiris do not find anything wrong with Pakistan’s efforts to terrorize the Kashmiris.

Even USA knows India would not quit Kashmir just like that and it can kill every Kashmiri Muslim if they want to cede from India to switch sides and become Pakistanis.

Any dialogue in future should be represented by India, Pakistan, China and Kashmir so that a clear cut message could be delivered from the meeting avenue.

It looks Kashmiri mindset devoids of logic.

Why should  Kashmiris who are being  killed day in and day out not ask China to end occupation of  Kashmir by its military?

Kashmiris must give up hypocrisy and pretensions. They should realize and admit that China, India and Pakistan are certainly guilty of occupational crimes in Jammu Kashmir. Kashmiris should now ask all these occupying nations to leave Jammu Kashmir to peace.

In case, Kashmiris do not have the strength to do so, then, they should accept the current position as people under permanent occupation as their fate and end hostilities with India and begin living in peaceful manner to improve the quality of their lives. .

Regimes of India, China and Pakistan should know that Kashmiri children also deserve to live  happily and play as free children.  .


*د. عبد راف *

Educationist, Prolific writer, Specialist on State Terrorism; Chronicler of Foreign occupations &
Freedom movements (Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Xinjiang, Chechnya, etc.) Chancellor-Founder of Centor for International
Affairs(CIA);  Commentator  on world affairs & sport fixings, Expert on
Mideast Affairs, university teacher; Author of books/ebooks; Editor.

Fragile Denuclearization: Russia steps up arsenal build ups

Fragile Denuclearization: Russia steps up arsenal build ups

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal







Denuclearization has remained a useless myth since it is purely utopian to expect the big nuke powers USA and Russia to renounce their arms arsenals, especially the weapons of mass destitution (WMD). While arms race is being propelled by these powers, the arms limitation talks are also going on, achieving literally nothing, while more and more nukes are being manufactured to terrorize the humanity on permanent basis.


Even arms control mechanisms evolved by nuclear powers are in fact meant to get rid of only the outdated or those reached the acutely dangerous level without having used them for too long.



Notwithstanding all treaties between USA and Russia, missile arsenals kept increasing in both countries, giving no chances for world peace. USA tops in warheads with 45000 warheads while Russia is second with about 40000 warheads and these arsenals are sufficient enough to destroy entire world in hours.


Americans also make Israel a nuke power by adding it more arsenals. Israel is now self proclaimed super power of Mideast, threatening the Arab nations and Iran.


Though both former Cold War adversaries have massively cut their nuclear arsenals since 1991, the data shows that over the past six months — a period that has seen Russia-West relations dive bomb over the crisis in Ukraine — both nations have boosted their nuclear forces. Although both nations increased their deployments this year, over the past three years they have moved in different directions: In 2011, Russia had 1537 warheads deployed — 106 less than now. The USA claims three years ago it had 1,800 warheads deployed, meaning it has decommissioned 158.


Since March this year, when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, Moscow has upped the ante in both regards, increasing the number of launchers from 906 to 911 and its arsenal of warheads deployed from 1,512 to 1,643.  According to US State Department report, with 1,643 nuclear warheads deployed, Moscow has now reversed 14 years of US superiority, and now has one more warhead in the field than the Pentagon. The report, which is released annually to monitor arms control efforts, has two key metrics — the number of individual nuclear warheads deployed, and the number of launchers and vehicles to deliver those warheads, such as intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems, submarines and bomber planes.

This has allowed Russia to achieve parity with the USA, which has showed less zeal in deploying new weaponry, growing its deployment of its nuclear warheads from 1,585 to 1,642 since March. Washington has reduced the number of its launchers from 952 to 912.




That is to say, maintaining the nukes for a long period of time is a big task.


The veto nations, having amassed huge piles of conventional and nuclear weapons do not want to disarm themselves but expect other powers to give up their nukes.


On the other hand, those emerging nations that want to go nuclear are eager to somehow enter the veto regime so that they can share the global wealth.


Nevertheless, not many nations   ask for dismantle the veto regime of UNSC so that credible peace could prevailed on earth.


Every nation is fearful of other nations having nukes in their arsenals.  Several treaties have been signed by nuke powers, especially by former super powers USA and Russia , but have never been implemented.


The ever-growing rift between the USA and Russia is a concern throughout the foreign policy community.



Arms controlling mechanisms evolved so far by big powers have only promoted the powers concerned and not worked to advantage of the humanity since no nuclear power is interested in really give up its nuclear and conventional arsenals.  In 1968, the USA and the Soviet Union hashed out their first arms control measures at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), freezing the number of missiles in their arsenals.  At that time, the USA had 1,710 missiles, and the Soviet Union had 2,347.

Although SALT attempted to curb the arms race, it did not address limitations on warheads. Both sides quickly realized that they could outfit their limited missile arsenals with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to deploy many nuclear warheads after launching. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik to talk arms reduction. On the table was a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals and at one point Gorbachev even told Reagan he would eliminate all of the weapons if the USA were to ditch its missile defense plans. Reagan refused, and the arsenals survived, but the conference produced the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which was the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Today, the INF treaty is under fire, with U.S. officials accusing Putin’s Russia of violating the treaty, and senior Russian officials openly mulling pulling out of the agreement.

In 1991, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed, limiting nuclear arsenals to 1,600 delivery vehicles and 6,000 warheads.  Over the next two decades, attempts to work out a START II and III treaty never panned out, but in 2002 Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed to reduce warhead arsenals to 2000 warheads under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, which is also known as the Treaty of Moscow). New START brought the cap down by a further 450.

However, these treaties have only applied to deployed weapons, and as such mask the still massive arsenals both sides have shacked up in storage. According to data from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a global nuclear watchdog, the total size of the US strategic nuclear arsenal peaked at 32,000 warheads in 1966. The Soviet Union surpassed the US in 1978 and hit a high of 45,000 warheads by 1986. It should however be noted that these figures ignore technical capabilities and differences and don’t say much about the actual strength of each side. Russia still has 8,000 nuclear weapons, and the USA — 7,000.

Under the New START arms control treaty, which was signed into force in 2011 by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, the size of each nation’s nuclear arsenal is reported every six months. Although the treaty sets a cap of 1,550 nuclear warheads, it counts weapons on bomber aircraft as being a single warhead — meaning that each side may have a few hundred warheads over the limit. That cap is a fraction of what Russia and the US once aimed at one another.



Last month, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin said Russia’s nuclear forces — the backbone of its military might — would receive a complete overhaul by 2020 as part of the nation’s massive $700 billion rearmament campaign.  Moscow is pressing forward with its troubled Bulava (Mace) submarine-launched missiles, and new Yars land based intercontinental ballistic missiles and the uptick in Russian deployment mirrors advances in weapons delivery systems.

The dominant US narratives tend to stress the anti-democratic features of Russian politics, Vladimir Putin’s so-called dictatorship, his heavy-handed leadership, and aggressive foreign policy. The picture drawn has hardened during the Ukrainian crisis. The narratives point to a Russia that stands apart from the international community and to a president who cares little about this isolation and its political, security, and economic ramifications for his country.

However, US specialists do not compare Russian position as being very much equal to isolated Israeli position.

The current state of affairs in US-Russia relations is as distressing as it is alarming. By all accounts, this critical relationship has reached a point of rupture. In the United States, much of the discourse is centered on how to push back against Russia and President Vladimir Putin in light of what is happening in Ukraine. The answers stem from a set of narratives about Russia’s domestic trajectory, foreign policy objectives, and Putin’s personality.

Are dominant US narratives about Russia and Putin accurate, sufficient, and useful for guiding policy toward Russia? What are Putin’s objectives toward Ukraine and other post-Soviet states? What interests and assumptions are driving Russia’s policies toward the region?  Are there ideas that would help end the crisis that have been obscured by a hardening of attitudes in Russia and the USA?

Ukraine is only the recent issue between the Americans and Russians but there have been similar issues over which both reacted aggressively. Without  effective  denuclearization   or  verifiable  arms control mechanisms,  not only Ukraine  issue cannot be resolved but  more  complex issues would crop up in future too.

The dire consequences of an escalation of conflict between the US and its allies and Russia call for a debate in the USA that examines the basic assumptions that shape American super power  ideas about, and policies toward, Russia. It is no less important that Russians examine the assumptions that underlie their views about the West.

There is no commitment to improving the US ability to understand Russia and interpret its policies. Because prevailing narratives impact foreign policies, it is imperative to get the basic narratives right and subject them to continued scrutiny.

There is also no real US commitment to denuclearization globally. This is because neither USA nor Russia is keen to dismantle all its nuke arsenals.  USA wants all other powers to sacrifice their nukes and obey Washington.

Most Russians know that dismantling fo the mighty Soviet Russia was the work of USA and its  imperialist allies and  they don’t want  Russia to  be ready to be fooled by Washington again. Under the US command circumstances, Russia needs to worry about US intentions and secret operations targeting the Kremlin.


> Neocons driven foreign policy of USA

> Neocons driven foreign policy of USA
> -Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
> __________
> 1. Bushdom era and Obama times
> As the only global super power, USA wants the world to listen to
> Americans as earth’s lords, carryout the tasks entrusted to them by
> Washington with full dedication; serve the US causes and interests
> with commitment because the Americans are democrats seeking to make
> peaceful democratic world. Above all, USA expects the world nations
> and leaders to trust what Americans and their media lords say day in
> and day out. Truth and nothing but truth! And anyone who does not
> accept or oppose this “truth” should be ready for deadly punitive
> measures.
> The Sept-11 hoax was manipulated by Washington to the extent that all
> militaries and intelligence wings of the world are now under US
> control.
> The hawkish Neocons foreign policy experts, mainly of Americans and
> Jews,  that controlled the Bushdom era, unfortunately continues to
> decide the  foreign policy course of  the Obama regime as well.  An
> innocent looking and first ever black American president Barak Obama,
> after assuming power at the historic White House allowed himself a
> brief  relaxation period and reverted back to the Bush era polices
> because that is the easiest thing to do while shifting the
> responsibility to  the Bush Jr and  other Republicans.
> Not only Obama continued with the arrogant and militaristic policy of
> Bush era, but he also expanded it to include more Muslim nations for
> the purposes of destabilization, genocides and loots.
> Obama’s valiant efforts to limit US involvement in the region are
> under attack not just from the usual bunch of right wing Republicans
> but from opinion makers in Washington and New York.
> Americans continue to pursue a pro-Zionist policy in Mideast that work
> for advantages in trade with Arab nations. Apart from Israel, USA does
> not have any clear foreign policy.
> Until all Muslim nations follow the US commandments, placing their
> resources and services to Washington’s Pentagon-CIA duo scheme terror
> attacks on them.
> The fact is that USA-Israel terror twins are a compound danger to all
> kinds of regimes in the region – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even
> Turkey and Egypt but they can do nothing to over  the challenge. .
> 2. Fake threat perceptions
> Many Asian countries expected huge gains from US announcement of tilt
> toward  Asia though Obama pivotal but  are disappointed now as
> Americans want them only to  join Washington to contain the Chinese
> influence in Asia and other regions.
> Obama shamelessly state that the biggest external threat to the US
> super power that has the world’s largest terror arsenals, is Islamists
> in Iraq and Syria who had scarcely been heard of a year ago. His Asia
> pivotal remains a big joke as Obama is not interested to contain the
> rise of an expansionist mega state, China or even an angry Russia
> which has, through Ukraine, openly challenged US supremacy.
> Islamists, who want make Muslim societies as far as Islamic in
> content, are the easiest softest target of the Obama regime.
> Moreover,  Obama is eager to make full use of the global media, now
> ill focused on Islam.
> China which subsidizes capitalist US economy by loans is not that easy
> to challenge today. .
> US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey assert
> that the nascent Islamic State is “an imminent threat to everything we
> have,” saying the USA must use “all means at our disposal” to wipe it
> off the face of Syria, and a former commander of US forces in
> Afghanistan calls on President Obama to do whatever is necessary to
> kill it.
> Saudi Arabia, which feels threatened to lose its importance to ISIS,
> already endorsed the Obama desire to attack ISIS and divert the
> insulting attention from Russian humiliation of Americans in Ukraine
> last few months.
> The USA as the global chief policeman helped to create a Middle East
> quagmire over years of fascist operations and now it wants to escape.
> With the second invasion of Iraq the US seems determined to launch
> itself back into the middle of this extremely complicated fray.
> Washington has been creating a foreign policy driven by media
> headlines and the urgings of American plus Jewish politicians with
> minimal knowledge of the outside world and its complexities. Hence the
> top threat has moved from Al Qaeda to Iran’s nuclear program, to China
> and its ambitions in the east and South Seas, to Ukraine and Russian
> revanchism and now back to Iraq.
> In  fictitiously targeting Islamic ISIS, US military strategists hope
> to  make Russia soft on USA over Ukraine  by reminding the
> post-Sept-11hoax scenario when Russia quickly extend its support to US
> drive against Islamic regime in Afghanistan, a nation that  Russian
> had lost for ever.  Russia, however, refused to accept the NATO as the
> necessary evil.
> However, the chief beneficiary of US strikes against ISIS in Syria
> will be Syrian president Bashir el-Assad, the brutal suppressor of an
> uprising that the USA had pledged to support.
> There is no chance that Assad could be forced out now with reinvasion
> of Iraq.  Obama and Pentagon know that too well.
> 3.  US predicament
> The US does not seem to want to learn from past mistakes.  It does not
> allow others to offer counsels. Because advices come on a big cost and
> it is Americans who advise others and reap the huge benefits.
> While USA does not have consistent policy abroad, it militarism has
> stayed as the consistent factor in US war policy planning. Using Sunni
> leaders against Shiite leaders has definitely harmed Islam but has not
> made any significant headway for USA in terms of foreign policy its
> own agenda, except in energy resources gains. .
> Like Palestinians, Americans have difficulty maintaining focus on one
> task as they, wanting to shine always, get easily distracted, miss
> details, forget things, and frequently switch from one activity to
> another. It seems Americans get bored with a task after only a few
> minutes, unless doing something enjoyable. As a superpower existential
> result, they have difficulty focusing attention on organizing and
> completing a task.
> _______
> *د. عبد راف *
> (Humanity has a right to know the truth which does not require
> endorsements) Unfortunately, today there is not even one Muslim nation
> today practicing  truly Islamic faith and life.
>  (Account: No 62310377429* -* CIF No:
> 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India)  Phone: 91-8129081217
> ___________________

Russia meets Ukraine amid standoff!

Russia meets Ukraine amid standoff!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal





After all there were together fighting the enemy of socialism during the cold war and have some basic understating about their problems and the can find solutions. Russia and Ukraine were part of Russia for centuries and separated as the mighty Soviet state crumpled and dissolved into 15 independent republics.


Splitting the Soviet Union had been one of the major agenda of US led NATO>and they did succeed in making the Soviet system crimple.






The post-Crimea military tension in Ukraine shows no signs of abating. The United Nations Human Rights Committee concluded that separatists and Ukrainian forces have both committed an array of abuses. According to the findings the rebels have engaged in murder, torture and abductions that were “disproportionately targeting civilians”. They receive a steady supply of sophisticated weapons and ammunition from Russia. Violations by the Ukrainian military and Interior Ministry special battalions include “arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture. Most of the fighting, which has cost at least 2,000 lives, has been concentrated in Ukraine’s industrialized Donbass region and the key rebel strongholds of Donetsk and Luhansk, which separatists have declared as independent states.


The fighting in eastern Ukraine began in mid-April, a month after Russia annexed Crimea. It has killed over 2,000 people and forced over 340,000 to flee, according to the U.N. Russian Defense Ministry as saying the soldiers were patrolling the border and probably crossed the border inadvertently. Russia reportedly has tens of thousands of troops positioned in areas near the Ukrainian border, leading to persistent concerns that Moscow could be preparing an invasion.


Putin has so far ignored requests from the rebels to be annexed by Russia — unlike in March, when he annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. But Associated Press journalists on the border have seen the rebels with a wide range of unmarked military equipment — including tanks, Buk missile launchers and armored personnel carriers — and have run into many Russians among the rebel fighters. It was the second straight day that attacks were reported in the vicinity of Novoazovsk, which is in eastern Ukraine’s separatist Donetsk region but previously had seen little fighting. Novoazovsk lies on the Azov Sea on the road that runs from Russia to the major Ukrainian port of Mariupol and west to Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula annexed by Russia.


Now after the war conflict in east Ukraine, when the leaders of Russian Ukraine met an impression was  created that  they want to sort out differences. Even as tensions have ramped up after Russia for the first time admitted that its troops had crossed onto Ukrainian soil after Kiev released footage purporting to show 10 Russian soldiers captured on its territory, the presidents of Russia and Ukraine (Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko) shook hands ahead of key talks in Minsk on 26 August, though with little hope for a breakthrough to end the raging conflict pitting Kiev against pro-Moscow separatist rebels..

The soldiers from a Russian paratrooper division were captured around Amvrosiivka, a town near the Russian border. Towering columns of smoke rose Tuesday from outside a city in Ukraine’s far southeast after what residents said was a heavy artillery barrage. Ukraine accused separatists and their Russian backers of trying to expand the conflict. It was the second straight day that attacks were reported in the vicinity of Novoazovsk, which is in eastern Ukraine’s separatist Donetsk region but previously had seen little fighting.


Ukraine’s forces accused Russian troops of trying to open a “new front” after an armoured convoy crossed onto government-held territory Monday in the south of Donetsk region. Ukrainian officials said artillery was fired from the Russian side of the border. A Ukrainian soldier who declined to give his name suggested that the shelling could have come from rebels aiming to take out a Ukrainian rocket launcher. In Kiev, Col. Andriy Lysenko blamed the shelling on “Russian mercenaries.” Novoazovsk lies on the Azov Sea on the road that runs from Russia to the major Ukrainian port of Mariupol. That same road goes west to Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula annexed by Russia in March.


Ukraine also accused Russian army helicopters of launching a ferocious missile attack on a Ukrainian border position further to the north, killing four border guards and bringing the death toll to 12 soldiers in the past 24 hours. Local authorities in the main rebel bastion of Donetsk said three civilians were killed in shelling overnight as the army pummels insurgent fighters.

The rebels previously announced the launch of a counter-offensive after losing swathes of territory to a push by government forces. Officials from the EU and Russian-led Customs Union were set to discuss the crisis and trade issues after Ukraine’s new pro-Western leaders signed a landmark deal with the European Union in June that riled Russia.

Russia unilaterally sent about 230 lorries carrying what it claimed was 1,800 tonnes of humanitarian aid to the rebel-held city of Lugansk on Friday after accusing Kiev of intentionally delaying the mission. Kiev condemned the move as a “direct invasion”. Some 400,000 people have fled their homes since April in fighting that has left residents in some besieged rebel-held cities without water or power for weeks.

Ukraine said a small column of Russian tanks and armored vehicles crossed into Ukraine north of Novoazovsk, raising the possibility that pro-Russia separatists were aiming to take control of a strip of land that would link up Russia with Crimea. “Russia is trying from its side to open a new front. The new columns of Russian tanks and armor crossing into Ukraine indicates a Russian-directed counteroffensive may be underway,” U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt said there were enough forces and equipment in Mariupol to defend the city of more than 450,000. An AP reporter saw excavators digging deep trenches on the eastern edge of the city.

Ukrainian media aired footage purporting to show captured Russian soldiers confessing to crossing into Ukraine in armoured convoys.  Kiev has long accused Moscow of stoking the separatist insurgency raging in its east — charges the Kremlin has repeatedly denied — but this is the first time it has claimed to have captured Russian soldiers on Ukrainian soil.”Officially, they are at exercises in various corners of Russia. In reality, they are participating in military aggression against Ukraine”, Defence Minister Valeriy Geletey said  A Russian defence ministry source on Tuesday said the captured soldiers had crossed into Ukraine accidentally. The soldiers had been “taking part in patrolling a section of the Russian-Ukrainian border. They crossed it most likely by accident, on an unequipped, unmarked section”.






The presidents of Russia and Ukraine met face-to-face on 26th August for the first time since June to talk about the fighting that has engulfed Ukraine’s separatist east. From their opening remarks, it appeared unlikely that Vladimir Putin and Petro Poroshenko would find common ground. Meanwhile, a Moscow military source claimed they had crossed into Ukraine “by accident”. Pressure soared after Kiev’s security service said that paratroopers from Russia’s 98th airborne division had been captured by Ukrainian forces about 50 kilometres (30 miles) southeast of the main rebel stronghold of Donetsk.

The two leaders sat on opposite sides of a large round table and were joined by the presidents of Belarus and Kazakhstan and three senior officials from the European Union. Contrary to some expectations, they did not meet one-on-one ahead of the talks. They did stage a handshake for the cameras.

The presidents of Russia and Ukraine who arrived to attend a conference in the Belarusian capital about the development of the Eurasian Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, representatives of the European Commission and the Russian Federation, met face-to-face for the first time since June on the fighting that has engulfed Ukraine’s separatist east. They were joined by the presidents of Belarus and Kazakhstan and three senior officials from the European Union in the Belarusian capital of Minsk.

The meeting came as Ukraine said its forces had captured 10 Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine and the shelling spread to a new front in the far southeast. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Russia of supporting and arming the rebels, which Russia denies daily. “The fate of peace and the fate of Europe are being decided in Minsk today,” Poroshenko said as the talks began.

The leaders spent two hours discussing bilateral concerns after a regional economic summit in Minsk, Belarus, in which Putin said there is no military solution to the crisis in Ukraine. It was their first formal meeting since a chilly encounter in June during D-Day commemorations in Normandy, France.  Poroshenko said in a statement afterward that a “road map” for a possible cease-fire in eastern Ukraine would be prepared as soon as possible. He and Putin agreed to begin consultations about border guards.

The meeting in the Belarusian capital of Minsk came as Ukraine said it had captured 10 Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine and shelling spread to a new front in the country’s southeast. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Russia of supporting and arming the pro-Russian rebels fighting government troops, which Russia always denies. “The fate of peace and the fate of Europe are being decided in Minsk today,” Poroshenko, a billionaire chocolate magnate, said as the talks began, his manner unusually restrained. Poroshenko told the gathering in Minsk that “the fate of the world and Europe” is being decided there. 10 soldiers from a Russian paratrooper division were captured Monday in the area of Amvrosiivka, near the Russian border in the Donetsk region. Russian Defense Ministry said that the servicemen were patrolling the Russian-Ukrainian border area and probably crossed the border by accident. Ukraine rejected any claims of an accident.

Putin devoted most of his opening remarks to trade, arguing that Ukraine’s decision to sign an association agreement with the 28-nation EU would lead to huge losses for Russia, which would then be forced to protect its economy. Russia had been counting on Ukraine joining a rival economic union it is forming with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Ukraine is set to ratify the EU association agreement in September. On the fighting, Putin said he was certain the conflict “could not be solved by further escalation of the military scenario without taking into account the vital interests of the southeast of the country and without a peaceful dialogue of its representatives.”


Poroshenko said the purpose of his visit was to start searching for a political compromise and promised that the interests of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine would be taken into account. Ukraine wants the rebels to hand back the territory they have captured in eastern Ukraine, while Putin wants to retain some sort of leverage over the mostly Russian-speaking region so Ukraine does not join NATO or the European Union.


Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko urged both sides to “discard political ambitions and not to seek political dividend.”


No compromise

The refusal by Kiev’s former president Viktor Yanukovych to ink the EU deal last year in favour of Moscow’s economic bloc sparked the protests that eventually led to his ouster and sparked a chain of events that saw Russia annex Ukraine’s Crimea region and sparked the pro-Moscow insurgency.


On the ground there appeared no end in sight to the four months of conflict that has already claimed some 2,200 lives and has plunged relations between Russia and the West to levels not seen since the end of the Cold War in 1991.


Ukraine wants the rebels to hand back the territory they have captured in eastern Ukraine, while Putin wants to retain some sort of leverage over the mostly Russian-speaking region so Ukraine does not join NATO or the European Union.


Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin met in Belarus with top EU officials and the leaders of Kazakhstan and Belarus in a bid to defuse the conflict some fear could trigger all-out war between Kiev and its former Soviet master Moscow. Poroshenko told Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that “peace is the priority” ahead of the group meeting.

Putin called their discussions “positive” and said Russia would do everything it could to help achieve peace between Kiev and pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. He said a cease-fire was never discussed with Poroshenko. Putin devoted most of his opening remarks to trade, arguing that Ukraine’s decision to sign an association agreement with the EU would lead to huge losses for Russia, which would then be forced to protect its economy.


Putin has so far ignored requests from the rebels to be annexed by Russia — unlike in March, when he annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. But the rebels are seen with a wide range of unmarked military equipment — including tanks, Buk missile launchers and armored personnel carriers — and have run into many Russians among the rebel fighters.



Russia had been counting on Ukraine joining a rival economic union that it is forming with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Ukraine is set to ratify the EU association agreement in September. On the fighting, Putin said he was certain the conflict could not be solved by further escalation of the military scenario without taking into account the vital interests of the southeast of the country and without a peaceful dialogue of its representatives.


Ukraine said a small column of Russian tanks and armored vehicles crossed into Ukraine north of Novoazovsk, raising the possibility that pro-Russia separatists were aiming to take control of a strip of land that would link up Russia with Crimea. Ukraine accused the separatists and Russia of trying to expand the conflict. Towering columns of smoke rose from outside a city in Ukraine’s far southeast after what residents said was a heavy artillery barrage.


Poroshenko would be unlikely to agree to Russia’s frequent call for federalization — devolving wide powers to the regions from the central government — but could agree to allow them to have some expanded powers. He also has spoken against holding a referendum on Ukraine’s joining NATO; Russia’s desire to keep Ukraine out of the military alliance is seen as one of Moscow’s key concerns.


Moscow also said it seeks a negotiated settlement and not a military victory. Poroshenko would be unlikely to agree to Russia’s frequent call for Ukraine to federalize — devolving wide powers to the regions from the central government in Kiev — but could agree to give the regions some expanded powers. Poroshenko also has spoken against holding a referendum on Ukraine’s joining NATO.


Meanwhile, Washington claims Russian-directed counteroffensive may be underway and Russia is trying from its side to open a new front. Russia reportedly has tens of thousands of troops positioned in areas near the Ukrainian border, leading to persistent concerns that Moscow could be preparing an invasion. Ukrainian officials said artillery in the region was fired from the Russian side of the border. Later in the day, reporters saw Ukrainian troops and equipment moving on the road west of Novoazovsk, and heard the rumbling of what sounded like artillery fire in the distance.

As Ukraine’s political transition continues, Poroshenko announced long-awaited early parliamentary elections for October 26. The Kremlin also ratcheted up the pressure by announcing plans to send another aid convoy into eastern Ukraine “this week”.



Of course, there wasn’t any peace talk between Putin and Poroshenko and hence real peace in Ukraine is far away. .



Global Warming and Scientific Warning


Global Warming and Scientific Warning





If the world powers are bent upon destroying the world and all living beings along with it, it seems, nothing can stop them. They can achieve the devastating objective but would not be existing to recount the tragedies impact on them.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis report on the global scientific community’s assessment of human-caused global warming offers the starkest and most strongly-worded warning yet of the dangers ahead for the earth and humanity.

Aspects of future climate shifts are probably already irreversible but, however, Climate change will be significantly more dangerous, deadly, and expensive if nothing is done to correct humanity’s course

Climate change is the most important environmental threat at par with nuclear weapons. Climate change is real and around us. The IPCC assessment seeks to tie together previous reports the panel has released over the last year and offers a stark assessment of the perilous future the planet and humanity face due to global warming and climate change.

The world’s leading scientists have reached a clear and overwhelming consensus that the failure to adequately acknowledge and act on previous warnings has put the planet on a path where “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” of human-caused climate change will surely be felt in the decades to come. Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann wrote: “The report tells us once again what we know with a greater degree of certainty: that climate change is real, it is caused by us, and it is already causing substantial damage to us and our environment. If there is one take home point of this report it is this: We have to act now.”

Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks that are likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

It cited rising political efforts around the world on climate change, including efforts to limit emissions as well as to adapt to changes that have become inevitable. But the report found that these efforts were being overwhelmed by construction of facilities like new coal-burning power plants that will lock in high emissions for decades.

From 1970 to 2000, global emissions of greenhouse gases grew at 1.3 percent a year. But from 2000 to 2010, that rate jumped to 2.2 percent a year, the report found, and the pace seems to be accelerating further in this decade.


Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems The IPCC draft paints a harsh warning of what’s causing global warming and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.

The IPCC report  is designed to integrate the findings of the three working group contributions to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and two special reports” and provide policymakers with a scientific foundation to tackle the challenge of climate change. Taken together, the IPCC reports and their recommendations are designed to help governments and other stakeholders work together at various levels, including a new international agreement to limit climate change.

It mentions extreme weather and rising sea levels, such as heat waves, flooding and droughts. It even raises, as an earlier report did, the idea that climate change will worsen violent conflicts and refugee problems and could hinder efforts to grow more food. And ocean acidification, which comes from the added carbon absorbed by oceans, will harm marine life, it says.

Without changes in greenhouse gas emissions, “climate change risks are likely to be high or very high by the end of the 21st century


The risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases. The draft includes not new information per se, but employs stronger language and contains a more urgent warning than the previous reports from the IPCC which it attempts to synthesize and summarize.

The report found that companies and governments had identified reserves of these fuels at least four times larger than could safely be burned if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level. That means if society wants to limit the risks to future generations, it must find the discipline to leave a vast majority of these valuable fuels in the ground

The final report, rather final warning will be issued after governments and scientists go over the draft line by line in an October conference in Copenhagen late October. In September, the United Nations is hosting its next international climate summit in New York City and climate campaigners are hoping to capitalize on the meeting by planning what they are calling the “People’s Climate March” during the same week as a way to apply pressure on world governments to finally act on the issue.

Politicians have come together too many times with nothing more than rhetoric and empty promises in tow. Next month, thousands of true leaders will be marching on the streets of New York demanding real action. The question is, will our elected leaders follow.

The IPCC draft report should serve to galvanize and add weight to the climate justice movement, which has consistently demanded that world leaders respond to the crisis with action—not words.

Save climate!

Save world!

Save humanity!

Cricket mentality should not be extended to politics

Cricket mentality should not be extended to politics

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

India needs to overcome its falsehood one by one for the good health of the nation and people.

Indian false cricket mindset needs corrective measures so that it doesn’t affect politics and lives of people.

There are three Muslim nations in South Asia: Maldives, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Maldives legally prohibits liquor but other two m Muslim nations promote it, because it provides revenues to the government.  They also promote cricket for making money. But cricket is fake, because cricket mafia mint money and batboys also make merry at the crease by using the bowlers. .

In fact, Pakistan and Bangladesh are eager to promote cricket regimes rather than Islamic societies.

One gets the impression, India exists only to promote joint cricketism exercises plus mafias and link cricket with politics.

All these cricket playing countries cannot tolerate if cricket gets exposed as a fake sport. The corporate media cannot afford to give vent to unbiased opinion about farce things in cricket.

If you condemn or insult Islam the Muslim media people readily publish, but any cricketism of the nature of cricket as a real expose is not digested and not allowed.

Time will come cricket itself will stand guilty in public.

Today cricket is given more importance than governance or politics.  The parasitic media lords are dying to project cricket as the only thing on earth.

Even the elected government and parliament are not sure if they could
complete their legitimate 5 year term as the constitutionally provided
period, but cricket skipper and members of the team are sure that they
will represent India abroad for life and they would retire only when
they please.

Indian corporate lords shield the cricketers as their favorite
bosses. That many ministers and top leaders protect cricketers has
made the cricketers claim a place above government and president that
offered the post of Bharatratna to a fake sport boy, Sachin, a
pampered cricketer who was allowed to stay at the crease for many
years to create fake records with help from mafia run bowlers and

Indian parliament must set a maximum of 3 years for a cricketer to
play for the nation as many youngsters are in queue to play for India.

The Parliament also should stipulate rules like only cricketer be on
BCCI and non-interference of politicians and businessmen in cricket

The false practice of 4s and 6s for quick runs should be abandoned and
these be made negative shots bypassing the field and thus  counted for
penalty for the team like minus 4 runs and minus 6 runs, respectively, or at least 1 and 2 runs  respectively.

This minor reform in cricketism would go a long way in making cricket
a worthy entertainment eligible to claim a part of sports.

The unnecessary importance offered to joint cricket exercises has
made dangerous impact on Indian politics, too. . .

However, if the parliament and government think cricketers are above
them then do whatever they please.

After all, it is said, a fanatic mentality cannot be reformed.

But India must make committed efforts to overcome fanaticism and
falsehood, nonetheless!

There has been the nasty practice in the cricket matches when the team going to bat first quotes the score they expect by citing the pitch, etc, and the bowling team obediently obliges the bating team by offering that quoted score if not more.  This is deception on their part because only bowlers can decide how many runs they could offer to the batboys. It is funny that bating team captain after getting the toss or asked to bat just bluffs about the final score they would get.

Then, toss is another farce in cricket. Generally the teams decide a who will bat first, among other details. They come to toss cite and someone throws the coin far away so that none can see it and goes to it to declare the winner.  Even when the toss happens to be real,  the “winner”  will do exactly what was decided by both teams before. Supposing the other team is suppose to bat, the winner would choose to bowl first

All faces look fake. Everything is farce in cricket.