Saturday, March 04, 2006
Axom Muslims cultural event held in Guwahati .
GUWAHATI, March 3: A Jikir and Jarri musical programme at Ravindra bhavan in the guwahati recently.The programme was organized in collaboration with the Directorate of Cultural Affairs, Asom. The director of the programme was Eli Ahmed while the artistes coming from different parts of the State were led by Samsuddin Ahmed. It was for the first time in Axom in organizing such a programme by the Government of Axom , though long time the Muslims of Axom / NE use to organised such programe without the participation of Government but with the hindus the opposite is . During her speech, Eli Ahmed said that she tried to bring out the hidden talents in a number of persons in the backward areas of the State.She said that the development of Axom would gain momentum, when there would be perfect harmony among the people of the different communities living in the State. She expressed her gratefulness to Pritam Saikia, Director, Cultural Affairs and other people of the office for their active cooperation in organizing the programme.The performance which was organized with the help of light, sound and shadow kept the audience present spellbound .
India: The Real Reason for Bush's Warm Embrace
By Randeep Ramesh
The Guardian, 4 March 2006
A world away from its self-declared international war on terror, Washington has spied greater and more potent threats on the horizon. India’s nuclear program — built in isolation, from scratch, after American-imposed sanctions in the 1970s — is such a threat.
Not only has a poverty-stricken country, without outside help, built a nuclear industry, but its scientific community has also mastered the technically difficult reprocessing cycle and achieved a series of unique breakthroughs in nuclear technology. India might one day be “free” to assemble as large an atomic arsenal as possible and, even more problematic for Washington, end up with a monopoly on an energy source of the future.
By comparison America has not built a nuclear reactor for three decades, since the Three Mile Island scare of the late 1970s. Conscious of being dependent on oil in a time of rising prices, George Bush decided to reactivate the country’s nuclear program and capture the benefits of the labor of others. It is this that informs American thinking on how to deal with incipient risks to its global dominance, not some fuzzy talk of a special relationship with India built on a sense of shared values.
Yet US propaganda continues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice neatly encapsulated the Bush policy as a “balance of power that favors freedom”, which also appeals to Indians’ view of their country as a moral force in the world. Casting India as a friend and Iran as a foe can also be conveniently justified on such terms. However, American bullying of smaller states undermines this moral consensus around democracy and freedom. India’s size, geography and economic clout mean it is less susceptible to the kind of tactics used to intimidate Tehran.
But India’s energy policy has already come under serious pressure from America; the last petroleum minister had ambitious plans to build an Asian grid of oil and gas pipelines stretching from Ukraine to Japan. This plan, to be kickstarted by a pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan, ran counter to Washington’s interests. Last month the minister lost the oil portfolio.
America is determined to ensure that the rise of India, and its larger neighbor China, will not mean the decline of the US. Washington may be prepared to concede that there might be bigger economies in the world, but aims to remain pre-eminent in industrial power.
To do so Washington is willing to restrict access to capital markets and technology, promoting its national interest under the guise of a moral foreign policy. The blocking of a Chinese oil company’s bid for a US rival last year is just one example of this new policy, and Indian potential could be restrained by similar means. As Bush’s own nuclear negotiating team has made clear in testimony to Congress, the administration wants to “lock in” India to a deal before moving to tie down and restrain the country’s nuclear potential in nonproliferation discussions.
The dressing up of hard-nosed realism as high-minded altruism lies at the heart of Bush’s nuclear diplomacy in the subcontinent. How history unfolds is often decided long in advance. Leadership matters, but if an opponent has been weakened by policy, intrigue and opportunism, victory becomes easier.
Unlike the Cold War, where America shut out its rivals from the world market and refused to trade with them, its policy in the coming decades is to entangle rising powers in a web of rules designed to favor itself. As India may find to its cost, getting into a hot embrace with Washington is easy; getting out may be much harder.
The Guardian, 4 March 2006
A world away from its self-declared international war on terror, Washington has spied greater and more potent threats on the horizon. India’s nuclear program — built in isolation, from scratch, after American-imposed sanctions in the 1970s — is such a threat.
Not only has a poverty-stricken country, without outside help, built a nuclear industry, but its scientific community has also mastered the technically difficult reprocessing cycle and achieved a series of unique breakthroughs in nuclear technology. India might one day be “free” to assemble as large an atomic arsenal as possible and, even more problematic for Washington, end up with a monopoly on an energy source of the future.
By comparison America has not built a nuclear reactor for three decades, since the Three Mile Island scare of the late 1970s. Conscious of being dependent on oil in a time of rising prices, George Bush decided to reactivate the country’s nuclear program and capture the benefits of the labor of others. It is this that informs American thinking on how to deal with incipient risks to its global dominance, not some fuzzy talk of a special relationship with India built on a sense of shared values.
Yet US propaganda continues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice neatly encapsulated the Bush policy as a “balance of power that favors freedom”, which also appeals to Indians’ view of their country as a moral force in the world. Casting India as a friend and Iran as a foe can also be conveniently justified on such terms. However, American bullying of smaller states undermines this moral consensus around democracy and freedom. India’s size, geography and economic clout mean it is less susceptible to the kind of tactics used to intimidate Tehran.
But India’s energy policy has already come under serious pressure from America; the last petroleum minister had ambitious plans to build an Asian grid of oil and gas pipelines stretching from Ukraine to Japan. This plan, to be kickstarted by a pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan, ran counter to Washington’s interests. Last month the minister lost the oil portfolio.
America is determined to ensure that the rise of India, and its larger neighbor China, will not mean the decline of the US. Washington may be prepared to concede that there might be bigger economies in the world, but aims to remain pre-eminent in industrial power.
To do so Washington is willing to restrict access to capital markets and technology, promoting its national interest under the guise of a moral foreign policy. The blocking of a Chinese oil company’s bid for a US rival last year is just one example of this new policy, and Indian potential could be restrained by similar means. As Bush’s own nuclear negotiating team has made clear in testimony to Congress, the administration wants to “lock in” India to a deal before moving to tie down and restrain the country’s nuclear potential in nonproliferation discussions.
The dressing up of hard-nosed realism as high-minded altruism lies at the heart of Bush’s nuclear diplomacy in the subcontinent. How history unfolds is often decided long in advance. Leadership matters, but if an opponent has been weakened by policy, intrigue and opportunism, victory becomes easier.
Unlike the Cold War, where America shut out its rivals from the world market and refused to trade with them, its policy in the coming decades is to entangle rising powers in a web of rules designed to favor itself. As India may find to its cost, getting into a hot embrace with Washington is easy; getting out may be much harder.
Indian Muslims and the Bush Visit
By Ghulam Muhammed
Al-Jazeerah, March 1, 2006
While on the occasion of US President Bush's ! visit to India, the media here has gone to town, putting out reams of papers and hours and hours of saturation TV coverage of the issues and opportunities that are supposed to translate into a big windfall for India; in the streets of cities and towns big protest marches are planned, to give, in the words of Communist leader, Sitaram Yachury, a 'warm wlecome'.
On the one hand, there is tremendous built-up of heady euphoria about the future of India-US 'strategic relationship'; on ! the other hand, screaming banners and shouting crowds want Bush to go home, even before he is in India.
To a pointed question, BBC's Shrivasta did admit that Left and Muslims are in the forefront of the protests, though it will appear that both Bush-haters have completely different stakes in opposing Bush visit to India.
For Muslims, emotions have been on the boil, when Bush invaded Iraq on dubious pretext of Saddam's piling up of Weapons of Mass Destruction without any! United Nations sanction and in fact, blatantly violating international law after unleashing most brutal bombings in Afghanistan, another Muslim country, whose people at a crucial moment in history fought with American forces and helped America's cause to drive the infidel Communist Russians from their land. In Iraq too, hundreds of thousands civilians died.
The city of Baghdad with its holy sites and historical role in the glorious Muslim past, was reduced to rubble in the same manner as long back in history! , the Mongols destroyed the citadel of Islam that signified Baghdad.
Indian Muslims joined hands with the Leftists to publicly and vigorously oppose any dispatch of Indian troops to Iraq, which L. K. Advani, the traditional bête noire of Indian Muslims, had unwisely and unilaterally committed to, while on a visit to White House, where Bush strategically walked in to meet him and grant him the 'rarest of rare' diplomatic honour; he being only a Home Minister and by protocol norms, not supposed to be meeting the US President. Puffed up by such presidential pumping, a small man, with big ambitions, Advani instantly agreed to send Indian troops into Iraq. Advani and India will have to thank Muslims and the Leftists, who saved India from a monumental disaster that is still bedeviling America and its allied forces in Iraq. Muslim firmly believe US invaded Iraq at the instigation of Israel and the American Jewish neo-cons. ! Whatever the demerits of Saddam as a ruler, the Israeli/American move was considered to be against the Muslim world.
The second event that had raised Muslim anger to its highest pitch was India's vote against Iran in IAEA, under direct and blatant blackmailing pressure campaign by the United States. T! he whole process appeared to enforce the notion, that even in their own country, while the Indian government has been in power in a great measure with the direct and block support of Indian Muslims; it has been most insensitive and uncaring to their sentiments.
Once again, another servile Indian minister, used to 'yes sir'-ing' all his life, was wrapped by Bush under his far-flung arms of strangulation, and India was on its way to hand over all its independence and freedom, even in the field of its nuclear security, in a hastily drawn up 'strategic partnership', much in the manner Indian Police in local thana force their hapless victims to sign on blank sheets to be filled up them as and when they desire.
Once again interests of Muslims and Leftists converged. The communists could not imagine their own coalition partner in the Central Government had prepared for a virtual sell-out to their ideological bugbear without so much as any prior consultations from either their coalition partner, or the Parliament or the general public.
To compound open humiliation of India, US threats materialized, rendered not only by Bush and Rice, but even the lowly US ambassador stationed in India and posing as virtual viceroy of the imperial America, threatening the dire consequences for India not voting against Iran, as desired by the US.
The chorus of public outrage in fact, worked against US plans of browbeating India into signing on the dotted line. Details of US demands on India's own indigenous nuclear fast breeder facilities filtered through to the scientific community, who were proud to have ushered India into nuclear age. The matters were raised in parliament and Prime Minister had to give assurance to the nation, that India's freedom and independence in its nuclear security field will not be compromised.
Résistance to Bush came out from the convergence of opposition from Leftists and Muslims, both vocalizing their rage against Congress government and the US, who were railroading their own exclusive agenda on India, with hardly a chance for the people to react to this highway robbery. The US became the common enemy of the Muslims and Leftists. Iran became to common friend of Muslims and Leftists.
Another concurrent issue for Indian Muslims was the continuous and persistence demonizing of Muslims as terrorists all around the world. The barrage of Bush threats against imaginary and concocted terrorist Muslim organisations, left no doubt with the Indian Muslim masses, that US is prepared to unleash a global crusade against Islam and now courting India, to enlist and exploit its military and strategic resources, to use against them in India as well as against Muslim countries around the world. No day passed without Bush and his administration, with Jewish controlled media ! within the US and through its proxies around the world and even in India, coming out with vicious propaganda against Muslims and Islam.
The last straw on the camel's back was the publishing of Danish cartoons blaspheming Prophet Mohammad. Though Bush visit was planned month in advance, the outrage around the world felt by Muslims is still drawing tens of thousands of angry Indian Muslims gathering in cities and towns in India, and formed the basis to combine the pent up hatred of US hegemony, to characterize Cartoon protests, as essentially anti-Bush and anti-American show of anger.
Left, facing elections in both states of West Bengal and Kerala where Muslim votes are sizable, had been forced to join Muslims, though only symbolically, in organizing and co-sponsoring street protests.&n! bsp;
With so much anti-Bush feelings around in Muslim India, it is surprising that Bush personally misses no opportunity to highlight the fact ---- even to the visiting Indian Prime Minister, that not a single Indian Muslim has joined Al Qaida, even though India has world's second largest population of 150 million Muslims that is fully supporting India's robust democratic institutions.
In fact, without Muslim voters supporting the so-called 'secular' Indian National Congress, Congress would not have been able to rule India for its first 40 years, with such stable and loyal electoral majority.
Indian Muslims, therefore, fill both of Bush criteria of democracy and anti-terror ethos to be treated as preferred partners in his own designs of the New American Century.
Apparently Indian Muslim's internal concerns do not form the real basis of their anti-Bush reaction. It is Indian Muslims' concern for their international brotherhood and their commitment to Islam and its identity that translate their image of the US in general and US President as sworn enemies and thus encourages them to mobilize and forge unity among their own fractured polity.
They are fully cognizant of India's important role in the future shaping of the world and would like India to be in their corner. After all it is their country.
GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI, INDIA,
Al-Jazeerah, March 1, 2006
While on the occasion of US President Bush's ! visit to India, the media here has gone to town, putting out reams of papers and hours and hours of saturation TV coverage of the issues and opportunities that are supposed to translate into a big windfall for India; in the streets of cities and towns big protest marches are planned, to give, in the words of Communist leader, Sitaram Yachury, a 'warm wlecome'.
On the one hand, there is tremendous built-up of heady euphoria about the future of India-US 'strategic relationship'; on ! the other hand, screaming banners and shouting crowds want Bush to go home, even before he is in India.
To a pointed question, BBC's Shrivasta did admit that Left and Muslims are in the forefront of the protests, though it will appear that both Bush-haters have completely different stakes in opposing Bush visit to India.
For Muslims, emotions have been on the boil, when Bush invaded Iraq on dubious pretext of Saddam's piling up of Weapons of Mass Destruction without any! United Nations sanction and in fact, blatantly violating international law after unleashing most brutal bombings in Afghanistan, another Muslim country, whose people at a crucial moment in history fought with American forces and helped America's cause to drive the infidel Communist Russians from their land. In Iraq too, hundreds of thousands civilians died.
The city of Baghdad with its holy sites and historical role in the glorious Muslim past, was reduced to rubble in the same manner as long back in history! , the Mongols destroyed the citadel of Islam that signified Baghdad.
Indian Muslims joined hands with the Leftists to publicly and vigorously oppose any dispatch of Indian troops to Iraq, which L. K. Advani, the traditional bête noire of Indian Muslims, had unwisely and unilaterally committed to, while on a visit to White House, where Bush strategically walked in to meet him and grant him the 'rarest of rare' diplomatic honour; he being only a Home Minister and by protocol norms, not supposed to be meeting the US President. Puffed up by such presidential pumping, a small man, with big ambitions, Advani instantly agreed to send Indian troops into Iraq. Advani and India will have to thank Muslims and the Leftists, who saved India from a monumental disaster that is still bedeviling America and its allied forces in Iraq. Muslim firmly believe US invaded Iraq at the instigation of Israel and the American Jewish neo-cons. ! Whatever the demerits of Saddam as a ruler, the Israeli/American move was considered to be against the Muslim world.
The second event that had raised Muslim anger to its highest pitch was India's vote against Iran in IAEA, under direct and blatant blackmailing pressure campaign by the United States. T! he whole process appeared to enforce the notion, that even in their own country, while the Indian government has been in power in a great measure with the direct and block support of Indian Muslims; it has been most insensitive and uncaring to their sentiments.
Once again, another servile Indian minister, used to 'yes sir'-ing' all his life, was wrapped by Bush under his far-flung arms of strangulation, and India was on its way to hand over all its independence and freedom, even in the field of its nuclear security, in a hastily drawn up 'strategic partnership', much in the manner Indian Police in local thana force their hapless victims to sign on blank sheets to be filled up them as and when they desire.
Once again interests of Muslims and Leftists converged. The communists could not imagine their own coalition partner in the Central Government had prepared for a virtual sell-out to their ideological bugbear without so much as any prior consultations from either their coalition partner, or the Parliament or the general public.
To compound open humiliation of India, US threats materialized, rendered not only by Bush and Rice, but even the lowly US ambassador stationed in India and posing as virtual viceroy of the imperial America, threatening the dire consequences for India not voting against Iran, as desired by the US.
The chorus of public outrage in fact, worked against US plans of browbeating India into signing on the dotted line. Details of US demands on India's own indigenous nuclear fast breeder facilities filtered through to the scientific community, who were proud to have ushered India into nuclear age. The matters were raised in parliament and Prime Minister had to give assurance to the nation, that India's freedom and independence in its nuclear security field will not be compromised.
Résistance to Bush came out from the convergence of opposition from Leftists and Muslims, both vocalizing their rage against Congress government and the US, who were railroading their own exclusive agenda on India, with hardly a chance for the people to react to this highway robbery. The US became the common enemy of the Muslims and Leftists. Iran became to common friend of Muslims and Leftists.
Another concurrent issue for Indian Muslims was the continuous and persistence demonizing of Muslims as terrorists all around the world. The barrage of Bush threats against imaginary and concocted terrorist Muslim organisations, left no doubt with the Indian Muslim masses, that US is prepared to unleash a global crusade against Islam and now courting India, to enlist and exploit its military and strategic resources, to use against them in India as well as against Muslim countries around the world. No day passed without Bush and his administration, with Jewish controlled media ! within the US and through its proxies around the world and even in India, coming out with vicious propaganda against Muslims and Islam.
The last straw on the camel's back was the publishing of Danish cartoons blaspheming Prophet Mohammad. Though Bush visit was planned month in advance, the outrage around the world felt by Muslims is still drawing tens of thousands of angry Indian Muslims gathering in cities and towns in India, and formed the basis to combine the pent up hatred of US hegemony, to characterize Cartoon protests, as essentially anti-Bush and anti-American show of anger.
Left, facing elections in both states of West Bengal and Kerala where Muslim votes are sizable, had been forced to join Muslims, though only symbolically, in organizing and co-sponsoring street protests.&n! bsp;
With so much anti-Bush feelings around in Muslim India, it is surprising that Bush personally misses no opportunity to highlight the fact ---- even to the visiting Indian Prime Minister, that not a single Indian Muslim has joined Al Qaida, even though India has world's second largest population of 150 million Muslims that is fully supporting India's robust democratic institutions.
In fact, without Muslim voters supporting the so-called 'secular' Indian National Congress, Congress would not have been able to rule India for its first 40 years, with such stable and loyal electoral majority.
Indian Muslims, therefore, fill both of Bush criteria of democracy and anti-terror ethos to be treated as preferred partners in his own designs of the New American Century.
Apparently Indian Muslim's internal concerns do not form the real basis of their anti-Bush reaction. It is Indian Muslims' concern for their international brotherhood and their commitment to Islam and its identity that translate their image of the US in general and US President as sworn enemies and thus encourages them to mobilize and forge unity among their own fractured polity.
They are fully cognizant of India's important role in the future shaping of the world and would like India to be in their corner. After all it is their country.
GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI, INDIA,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)