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

Image


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

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

______________________

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.

___________________________

Advertisements

Fragile Denuclearization: Russia steps up arsenal build ups

Standard

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.

 

Russia meets Ukraine amid standoff!

Standard


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.

 

 

Conflict

 

 

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”.

 

 

Meeting

 

 

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

Standard

 

Global Warming and Scientific Warning

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COALCHAL

____________

 

 

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!

Anti-Islam, Islam and ISIS!

Standard

Anti-Islam, Islam and ISIS!
-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal
_________________

Muslim nations need to usher in an era of Islamic democracy that will
positively replace the deformed corruption based western criminal
democracy in order to illuminate the Holy Quran and fulfill the ideals
of Prophet of Islam – may peace upon Him..

Giving life to or enliving the Holy Quran by practicing what is said
in this Word of God and properly implementing the Islamic law or
Shari’a in a gradual and peaceful manner as part of his duty towards
humanity and Islam is what a Muslim ruler is expected to focus on
rather than crony wealth for themselves by corrupt means.
One major reason for the collapse of Islamic regimes is the inability
of the new rulers
to understand the inner currents of international politics and failure
to make the necessary compromises in the initial stages of
Islamization process. This is necessary to save the newly established
Islamic regime from the conspiratorial attempts of the enemies.  The
success of Islamization of Muslim societies depends heavily on the
flexible approach of the rulers.
As the enemies of Islam are so powerful Muslim youths have been forced
to take arms to achieve the Islamic objectives.
On the contrary, direct imposition of Shari’a even on Muslims in the
modern age would be detrimental to the speedy realization of goals for
Islamic rule as that provides easy access and justification for the
enemies to interfere to destabilize the Islamizing nation.  The best
example is the first ever attempt for establishing an Islamic system
in Afghanistan where the Taliban was very harsh and ruthless that
invited the NATO intervention by engineering the bogus terror attack
called Sept-11 hoax.
US president Obama joined last week in forcing out Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki, who served the US masters with full dedication, though
Obama blamed him for alienating Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds and giving
rise to the Islamist radical militants.  Haider al-Abadi claims he won
the mandatory US endorsement as the new premier, is trying to form a
new government and looking up to Washington for directions.
In defence
Islam and Muslim are misunderstood by anti-Islamic world,
anything associated with them is quickly branded in the USA, Israel
and Europe as terrorism, although the real terrorists who initiated
the terror menace live in Israel and USA but operate globally
through powerful networks.
All anti-Islamic nations and their media lords are determined to
defeat Islam as they consider themselves as the only humans and target
Islam, Muslims and their organizations as terrorists. ISIS is one of
latest expressions of survival of anti-Islamic onslaughts in a world
of hatred for it and obviously it is being targeted by the enemies of
Islam, including modernized Muslims who want all wealth and pleasures
at par with Americans. The problem with ISIS is that it is also linked
to USA that seeks to use it against Islam.
Although global Muslims look forward to seeing a truly Islamic global
organization or a new Islamic sect to bring all Muslims of all
denominations together and defend them against powerful existential
threats from the enemies of Islam led by USA and Israel, they also
know the  anti-Islamic forces are quite capable of stalling all
efforts of Islamic organizations to protect Muslims.  It is quite
natural that one suspects ISIS as a hidden US organization to
discredit Islam and terrorize Muslims as the organization also appears
to leave scope for CIA-Mossad to enter to create confusion.
Muslim nations need to usher in an era of Islamic democracy that will
positively replace the deformed corruption based western criminal
democracy to illuminate the Holy Quran and fulfill the ideals of
Prophet of Islam.
Giving life to or enliving the Holy Quran by practicing what is said
in this Word of God and properly implementing the Islamic law or
Shari’a in a gradual and peaceful manner is what a Muslim ruler is
expected to do for Muslims as part of his duty towards humanity and
Islam.
If a Muslim ruler refuses to seriously approach Shari’a and Islam can
always harm Muslims and Islam, and for which he will be held
accountable.
It has been a positive trend in our times, perhaps as an important
unintended outcome of terrorization of global Muslims by the enemies
of Islam that majority of Muslim youths are increasingly committed to
Islamic or Islamist form of regimes in Islamic world so as to enable
at least the future generations to follow the truly Islamic way of
life.
Failures
In many parts of globe, the Islamic parties have come to power
recently but not all of them could survive the strong pull of
anti-Islamic joint strategy led by USA-Israel twins and their equally
powerful media networks.  One major reason for the collapse of Islamic
regimes is the inability of the new rulers to understand the inner
currents of international politics and failure to make the necessary
compromises in the initial stages of Islamization process. This is
necessary to save the newly established Islamic regime from the
conspiratorial attempts of the enemies.  The success of Islamization
of Muslim societies depends heavily on the flexible approach of the
rulers.
Most of Islamic nations have not been able to or not willing to
implement Shari’a maybe because of pressure tactics from USA and
Europe that give them some weapons as aid. Muslims live with an
Islamic nation but living like non-Muslims.  In fact this kind of
existence is preferred by most Muslims who see Islam a threat to their
freedom to live as freely as drunkards.
As a result, all Muslim nations, not excluding Saudi Arabia, present
Islam as a set of mere rituals while Muslims continue to misbehave.
The Islamic regimes have no clear-cut ideas and agenda for Islamic
rule. Dr. Mohammad Morsi the Muslim Brotherhood leader who assumed
power in Egypt of was ineffective president who by his refusal to
declare emergency or use the military to quell the anti- Muslim
Brotherhood demonstrations, quickly fell into the waiting military
trap and ended up in jail. But his exit for the sake of peace in Cairo
caused serious problems for the Palestinians besieged by Israel and
Egyptian military.  Morsi, though educated, proved to be a fool and
failed to read the military mind. And, USA which makes loud speeches
about democracy and popular government has supported the Egyptian
military instead of standing behind the first ever elected president
of Egypt Morsi who wanted to give democracy and peace a chance.
While similar small scale experiments in Pakistani Swat region failed
because USA forced Pakistani regime to dislodge the Islamic rule in
that region and Islamabad had it dutifully to make USA happy,  the
horrible experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere
is important as it is a well knit party that controlled Egypt in full
after a poll.

ISIS  Philosophy
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an Islamist group fighting
the enemies of Islam spread world over in various guises came into
existence when  many other such  Islam defensive organizations have
failed. .
Like Islam and Muslim are misunderstood by anti-Islamic world,
anything associated with them is quickly branded in the USA, Israel
and Europe as terrorism, although the real terrorists who initiated
the terror menace live in Israel, UK and USA but operate globally
through powerful networks.
When the US led NATO rogue states invaded Islamic nations one by one,
the western word media refused to publish the photos or video horrors
of America in Muslim nations but now they are shamelessly posting all
fictitious photos to defame Islam and insult and undermine ISIS.
In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it wants to protect
Islam, claims religious authority over all Muslims across the world
and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world
under its direct political control, beginning with territory in the
Levant region, which includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon,
Cyprus, and an area in southern Turkey that includes Hatay. The group,
in its original form, was composed of and supported by a variety of
Sunni Arab insurgent groups, including its predecessor organizations

ISIS’s original aim was to establish a caliphate in the Sunni-majority
regions of Iraq. Following its involvement in the Syrian Civil War,
this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A
caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now
known as Amir al-Mu’minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and
the group was renamed the Islamic State
However, in order to weaken and suppress it, the ISIS is widely
regarded as a terrorist organisation. The group has been officially
designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States,
the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and
has been described as a terrorist group by the United Nations and
Western and Middle Eastern media sources.
ISIS is known for its own interpretation of the Islamic faith and
sharia law and its violence, which is directed at Shia Muslims,
indigenous people who oppose it as a terrorist organization.
Generally, ISIS follows the attack strategy and methods of NATO and
Israel that are directed against Muslim populations from Afghanistan
to Syria and Palestine.
The ISIS grew significantly as an organization owing to its participation
in the Syrian Civil War and the strength of its leader, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi. Allegations of economic and political discrimination
against Arab Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein
also helped it to gain support. At the height of the 2003–2011 Iraq
War, its forerunners enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi
governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts
of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.
In the ongoing Syrian Civil War, ISIS has a large presence in the
Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib and Aleppo.

ISIS believes Islamic world and Muslims globally have lost practical
guidance due mainly to the absence of a central leadership, or
Caliphate to  protect and  care for global Muslims and nations and
this lacuna is used by the enemies of Islam to defame Islam, insult
and attack Muslims and their nations, destabilize Islamic nations one
by one. Hence the ISIS is eager to establish the much needed Caliphate
for Muslim world.

Meanwhile, out of his vacation spot, US President Barack Obama vowed
to pursue a long -term strategy to turn the tide against Islam and the
Islamic State (ISIS) and US warplanes began air raids on a Friday on ISIS
targets near the Mosul Dam, Iraq’s largest. The US warplanes have
conducted a total of 68 strikes on IS targets since Aug 8, with 35 of
them in support of Iraqi forces near the Mosul Dam

Many watchful commentators have appreciated the  goals of
ISIS as their legitimate rights to make Muslims Islamic, have vouched
for the possible emergence of ISIS as the powerful regime in the
region to serve the cause of Islam and Sharia’. Quite likely the
Islamic Muslims globally will benefit from the ISIS rule as much as
from the Islamist AKP rule in Turkey which is fast emerging as
effective shield against anti-Islamic tendencies.

Anti-Islam

As usual, the anti-Islamic media in Christian countries in the West
and elsewhere , thriving at the cost of terrorizing Muslims and Islam
and seeking
large scale conversions, have begun a systematically scathing attack
on ISIS by talking filth about it in order to terrorize the
populations. They bluff the usual way of projecting Islam and ISIS as
terrorist things while they, who kill invade Muslim nations and kill
Muslims in millions, themselves claim to be innocent democrats.

It is atrocious and hence unacceptable that the anti-Islamic rogue
states frantically want all Muslims to swear link with Islam and imbibe
anti-Islamic liquor values to be modern and civilized. These nations
hate and hence fear Islam and force Muslims to shed their Islamic
culture and join the deformed western cultural pursuit. Not only
European nations  deny basic  Islamic rights to Muslims in  pursuing
Islam, especially in prayers and dress  code, but also military regime
like in Burma target Islam and Muslims.

Sept-11 hoax launched by USA has made things extremely difficult for
Muslims all over the world, millions of Muslims have been slaughtered
by NATO and allies like Israel, their valuables worth trillions of US
dollars have been looted and destroyed by the rogue militaries
claiming to be democratic and seeking regime change in Islamic world
with huge energy resources.

Unfortunately, imperialist powers and allies consider Islam as the
formidable threat to capitalism and therefore capitalist world targets
Islam, seeking to weaken Islamic economy.  This explains why Saudi
Arabia led semi-capitalist Arab rulers are still at the feet of
anti-Islamic western dollaristic powers, worshiping them as real gods.
.

Non-Islamic as well as anti-Muslim nations need not unnecessarily
worry too much about what kind of society Muslims try to establish for
themselves and they must end their animosity with Islam and Muslims
for the sake of peace on earth.

It is unfair if the forces operating against Islam and Muslims want to
fail Islamic path to God just because all other religions having
utterly failed have become mere socio-cultural and sociopolitical
organizations pursuing spiritual goals.

Non-Muslims are most welcome to join the great journey for discovery
of the truth – Islam.

Success of ISIS will be very useful for the future genuine Islamic
course globally.

Clearly, the ISIS now spearheading an Islamic state has to learn from
the failures of similar attempts by others so that it does not fail in
its efforts to establish an Islamic state to advance Islamic law and
life.

__________________________

Kashmir and denuclearization: India versus Pakistan or together?

Standard

 

 

Kashmir and Denuclearization: India versus Pakistan or together?

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

____________________________

 

 

As nuclear powers there is one thing common between India and Pakistan: both appreciate praises and hate any criticism of their wrong doings.

Clearly, it is not just the Kashmir issue that alone makes them vulnerable to illogical assertions about their respective military postures. But more than that,  their nuclear arsenals  that have given them special terror status along with other  nuke giants in the world, like  all powerful USA, Russia, China, Germany, Briton, France, among others, including those  that still refuse to admit their  stolen illegal nukes, like Israel.

In fact, it is their nuclear status that has given “honorable” position, among big powers to India and Pakistan where, most people are poor and starving for food, clothing and shelter, and both consider this as a great prestige.

Recently, the Indian government called off the foreign secretary-level talks on the August 25, calling Pakistan’s continued engagement with the Kashmiri freedom fighter groups unacceptable. India slammed it as Islamabad’s continued efforts to interfere in its internal affairs.  India strongly objected to consultations Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit had with Hurriyat leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Yasin Malik from India occupied Kashmir on August 19 triggering protests in New Delhi.

 

However, neither India nor Pakistan even mention about the nuclear difficulty in resolving the Kashmir dispute. India lets Pakistan know that it does not appreciate the meeting of Pakistan High Commissioner in India Abdul Basit met Hurriyat leaders despite being specifically asked by New Delhi not to do so.  In order to show its unhappiness, India unilaterally called off the bilateral talks. At a time when serious initiatives were being undertaken by the Government of India to move bilateral ties forward, including towards the resumption of a regular dialogue process for energy route and transit, India felt the invitation leaders of the Hurriyat by Pakistan’s High Commissioner does indeed raise questions about Pakistan’s sincerity, and shows that its negative approaches and attempts to interfere in India’s internal affairs continue unabated.

Angered by the meeting, people protested outside the Pakistan high commission in New Delhi with some protesters being detained. Clashes were also reported between the police and protesters outside the high commission. The protesters wanted the Pakistan high commissioner to be sent back.

A day after India cancelled Foreign Secretary-level talks over Pakistani envoy’s meeting with Kashmiri separatists, Pakistan reacted strongly saying it was “not subservient” to New Delhi and was a “legitimate stakeholder” in the Kashmir dispute.   Arguing that High Commissioner Abdul Basit did not interfere in India’s internal affairs, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam claimed that Kashmir was not part of India. That is just a pretext. It was not the first time that meetings with Hurriyat leaders took place. It is been happening for decades, the High Commissioner of Pakistan did not interfere in India’s internal affairs. Pakistan is not subservient to India. It is a sovereign country, a legitimate stakeholder in the Jammu and Kashmir dispute Aslam, who has previously served in India, asserted that “Kashmir is not part of India”. “It is a disputed territory. There are numerous UN resolutions,” she said.

 

Nukes

 

When India cancelled the planned August 25 talks between Foreign Secretaries in Islamabad, telling Pakistan bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue or hobnobbing with the “separatists” seeking sovereignty back, Pakistani regime just took it casually as it knows India is not eager to return sovereignty to Kashmiris and both want the dialogue cannot go on for another very important reason.

 

Both India and Pakistan do not want to  go denuclear by dismantling all nuke arsenal that they have managed to build up for decades of their  mutual animosity and by misusing the resources meant for  utility by the people, especially common people.

Interestingly, by agreeing for credible friendship and mutual trust based relations, these South Asian nations will have to agree to US controlled IAEA to dismantle the nuclear  installations- a situation both Indi and Pakistan do  not  want.

Already USA has asked India and Pakistan to quit nuclear regimes to make South Asia a peace zone, but they still refuse to denuclearize. .

While it could not send military to Indian soil to make entire India a safe haven for NATO terrorist gangs like in Pakistan, USA has been trying to steal, like Libyan oil, all Pakistani nukes by continuing NATO- Pakistani war and fueling the civil war but have so far failed. .

 

With a peaceful atmosphere in the region, USA would push for denuclearization of entire world, of course minus the veto powers. In order to escape the situation and seeing nukes as its prerogative, New Delhi has been pestering all western powers to make it also a veto power. India thinks if can get the support of many countries it can enter the veto regime comfortably. However, Americans have their own ideas to sustain its superpower status with the terror veto. .

India and Pakistan have obtained nuclear arms thanks to the status of Jammu Kashmir as occupied nation – jointly by India, Pakistan and China.   Both consider the nukes as their real strength, rather than deadly danger to lives. Both don’t want to lose nukes by giving sovereignty to the Kashmiris.

And both want the dialogue cannot go on for another very important reason.

And, like on Palestine, on Kashmir also the UN and Security Council have not take any worthwhile position, thereby leaving the explosive issues to the mercy of global dictator USA and regional military powers to decide.

The role and relevance of UN and UNSC have been denied by the world which remains the target of colonialist imperialist forces like NATO.

And those Kashmir Muslims who sacrifice their valuable lives for freedom should have the right to know the nuclear truth.

In other words, neither India nor Pakistan would return the Kashmiri lands to Kashmiris unless their nuclear arsenals are destroyed or taken away the international nuclear watch dog. Both have set up the necessary additional “safeguards” to prolong the occupation and related crimes. For India, the pundits act as a powerful force to support Indian case, while Pakistan has got many Kashmiris of Azad Kashmir to side the official occupation.

It is strange that while India and Pakistan continue to work to retain their dangerous nuclear arsenals by sustaining the illegal occupation of the then neighboring Jammu Kashmir jointly, the Kashmiris do not seem to know that truth. Of course, those Kashmiris who know or have an idea of the hidden nuclear problem also do not open their mouths to fellow Kashmiris.

 

Defense

 

While underlining that Pakistan had termed the cancellation of talks as a “setback”, the envoy stressed that the time has come for the two countries to move from confrontation to co-operation. Pakistan stands by its commitment to peace and attaches enormous importance to peaceful bilateral relationship, he added. “We are convinced that our problems with India can only be resolved by result-oriented and meaningful dialogue,” Basit said further.

 

While his move to meet Jammu and Kashmir separatist leaders has drawn immense criticism, the Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit defended the meeting.  Emphasizing on the need for effective dialogue to find peaceful solutions to the problems, Pakistan envoy  said that Kashmiris are legitimate stakeholders in finding a peaceful solution to the issue, they stand committed to improving ties with India and he did not breach any protocol by holding talks with Kashmiri separatist leaders. “We are convinced in Pakistan that problems with India can only be resolved through peace process and meaningful dialogue.  We have been reaching out to Kashmiri leaders for the last 20 years. Kashmir is a dispute which needs to be resolved peacefully, both countries committed to resolving it. It is not an ordinary property or other local issue that could be solved by interim arrangement.

Noting that Pakistan wants to improve ties with India, he said there was no need to be “pessimistic” about cancellation of the Foreign Secretary-level talks and that both the countries should move forward. So the setback should not disappoint us, discourage us to finding ways and means as to how to take the process forward in line with our leadership’s visions on both sides of the border. He said Pakistan understands that it was a “complex situation” but added it was positive and will not allow distractions to come in the way of finding solutions to the problems.

The envoy, meanwhile, informed that no meeting has been finalised between PM Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in New York next month. Recalling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that SAARC countries needed to work together in tackling regional challenges, Basit said if Pakistan and India work together and if SAARC is vitalised, the  sky is the limit.” Dialogue is not a favour by Pakistan to India or vice-versa. Both countries need to work together,” the envoy stated.

 

Criticism

 

 

In exercising its diplomatic rhetoric, Pakistan had described the cancellation of next week’s Foreign Secretary-level talks as a “setback” to Indo-Pak ties. Pakistan cannot bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue and hobnobbing with the separatists.

 

Yes, not only Pakistan but some Indian leaders, like senior CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury criticized the government for calling off the Indo-Pak talks after Kashmiri separatists met Pakistan High Commissioner, saying the decision was “inexplicable” as these meetings could be held only after the authorities permitted them.  “Whenever some Pakistani leaders come, the separatists meet them and they do so in our country itself.  And this is not possible without the permission of our government”

Why did it permit the meeting first? And after giving the permission, to call off the (Indo-Pak) talks is inexplicable. It can’t be understood.

 

It looks India cancelled the talks as a usual; gimmick, raising strong objections to consultations held with separatist Hurriyat leaders by Pakistan’s High Commissioner.  Pakistan also criticized India as a usual tactic.

 

Kashmir and Palestine

 

Like in Israel-Palestine peace talks, Indo-Pakistani peace talks also have succeeded owing mainly to the Kashmir flashpoint.

It appears both India and Pakistan play a joint political game with Kashmiris since they jointly occupy major pats of Jammu Kashmir. While Indian regime and media blame Pakistan and its military for failures in talks and deficit of trust between them, Pakistan blames India and ultra fanatic media and thus both continue the mutually blaming game.

Just like in Mideast where Israel and Palestine prolong talks and mutual attacks, India and Pakistan also deliberately prolong the occupation by military -media tactics.

And, like on Palestine, on Kashmir also the UN and Security Council have not take any worthwhile position, thereby leaving the explosive issues to the mercy of global dictator USA and regional military powers to decide.

The role and relevance of UN and UNSC have been denied by the world which remains the target of colonialist imperialist forces like NATO.

Time is overdue to establish a special international court to exclusively decide the freedom related issues, including genocides, destructions, and war crimes!

While Palestine in West Asia is burning with the a series of Israeli terror attacks on Gaza strip to effect holocaust of Palestinians in a step by step and quick phased manner, in down South Asia, Kashmiri Muslims seeking sovereignty back from occupation forces of India, Pakistan and China – thousands of Muslims also have lost their valuable lives in these parts of Asia and face similar existential predicament due to illegal, brutal occupational methods of colonialism.

 

Interference?

True, Kashmiris are legitimate stakeholders in peaceful and viable resolution of the problem. But are India and Pakistan really serious plan for an early withdrawal of forces from both sides of Jammu Kashmir?

Both India and Israel claim ownership of Kashmiris and Palestinians, respectively,  and kill them to quell their freedom movements and silence them.

Since bilateral talks have yielded any fruits so far, it is better India and Pakistan agrees to include a couple of Kashmiri representatives in their talks hereafter so that they could thrash out the illegal occupation issue once for all.

India has called off the foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan talks (between Indian foreign secretary Sujatha Singh and her Pakistani counterpart AA Chowdhury)  after the Pakistani envoy in New Delhi Abdul Basit had invited Kashmiri separatists to the talks.

In doing so, Indian government has given a clear message to Pakistan, stating that they must engage with the official government and not “separatists”

In order to show anger, the Indian government called off the August 25 foreign secretary-level talks, calling Pakistan’s engagement with the Kashmiri separatists unacceptable. India slammed it as continued efforts to interfere in its internal affairs.

All these years the freedom groups Hurriyat have demanded to include representatives of Hurriyat in Indo-Pak talks, but India turned down that plea, saying that Kashmiri representatives are not needed as India represents Kashmiris as well.

A readymade answer and a big full stop!

 

Syed Ali Shah Geelani said that Kashmir is an international issue and not an internal issue of India. He said India is not trying to resolve the issue and suppressing it. Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Shah who had met Pakistan envoy Abdul Basit told reporters after his meeting that there was need for trilateral talks to resolve Kashmir issue. India is not trying to resolve the issue and suppressing it.

It is a fact that Kashmiris in Sri Nagar who fight for freedom from India yoke don’t say anything about  Jammu and Leh regions as if they exist at all,  maybe because these regions  have  lots of  Hindus ad  Buddhists, respectively and Kashmiris perhaps  want to establish an Islamic republic .

Indian foreign secretary conveyed to the Pakistan High Commissioner in clear and unambiguous terms that Pakistan’s continued efforts to interfere in India’s internal affairs were unacceptable.  Pakistan cannot bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue and hobnobbing with the separatists.

 

Observations

 

As a usual; gimmick, India cancelled the talks, raising strong objections to consultations held with separatist Hurriyat leaders by Pakistan’s High Commissioner.  Pakistan also criticized India also as a usual tactic. In exercising its diplomatic rhetoric, Pakistan had described the cancellation of next week’s Foreign Secretary-level talks as a “setback” to Indo-Pak ties.

One gets the impression that there are more security forces and related personnel than Kashmiris in India occupied Kashmir with special law for military brutalities. In Pakistan occupied Azad Kashmir there are  no such heavy militarization or genocides.

Kashmiris are also humans deserving dignity and they should be allowed to live in peace. That is to say there should a credibly comprehensive solution for the Kashmir issue. All three parts of earlier Kashmir should be brought together and returned to Kashmiris.

Yes, it is high time Pakistan should step in to break the ice by declaring its intention to arrange for the peaceful transfer of power of Azad Kashmir to Kashmiris on both sides if India  agrees to  quit military occupation of Jammu Kashmir, enabling  the Kashmiris in JK to rejoin their  brethren in Azad Kashmir on northern  border.

Also, China should also make similar declaration of returning to Kashmiris the part of Kashmir now under their occupation. Musharraf had no authority to hand over a part of Kashmir in Azad Kashmir to China as a friendly gesture in return for the China favors or for any other reason.

That is to say there should a credibly comprehensive solution for the Kashmir issue. All three parts of earlier Kashmir should be brought together and returned to Kashmiris.

It is now clear, unless India as well as Pakistan get rid of their nukes, there is no chance for regional peace, no chance for the resolution of Kashmir issue.

Denuclearizaton would eventually lead to demilitarization of Kashmir as well. Conversely, demilitarization of Kashmir valley could also lead to denuclearize the region.

 

Cricket mentality should not be extended to politics

Standard


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
fielders

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
board.

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.