Category Archives: nuke terror testing

Fragile Denuclearization: Russia steps up arsenal build ups

Fragile Denuclearization: Russia steps up arsenal build ups

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

________________________

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Even arms control mechanisms evolved by nuclear powers are in fact meant to get rid of only the outdated or those reached the acutely dangerous level without having used them for too long.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Global Warming and Scientific Warning

 

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!

Russia meets Ukraine amid standoff!


Russia meets Ukraine amid standoff!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

__________________

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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. .

 

 

Kashmir and Denuclearization: India versus Pakistan or together?

Kashmir and Denuclearization: India versus Pakistan or together?

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

____________________________

(Draft)

 

There is one thing common between India and Pakistan: both as nuclear powers appreciate praises and hate any criticism.

Clearly it not just the Kashmir issue that makes them vulnerable to illogical assertions about 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 nukes, like Israel.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Recently, 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 latter’s 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”

Separatist leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Yasin Malik met Pakistan high commissioner Abdul Basit in Delhi on August 19 triggering protests in New Delhi.  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 want the Pakistan high commissioner to be sent back.   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.

When India cancelled the talks between Foreign Secretaries in Islamabad on August 25, telling Pakistan bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue or hobnobbing with the separatists, Pakistani regime just took it casually as it knows India is also not eager to return sovereignty to Kashmiris

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

India and Pakistan obtained nuclear arms thanks to Jammu Kashmir which occupy jointly along with China. Both don’t want to lose nukes

India strongly objected to consultations Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit had with separatist Hurriyat leaders from Indi occupied Kashmir. .

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.

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.  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,” she said replying to Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh telling Basit to not to go ahead with the meeting in New Delhi and to choose between dialogue with India or with the Kashmiri separatists.  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.

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 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.

Pakistan cannot bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue and hobnobbing with the separatists.

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 refuse.

 

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 prolonging NATO- Pakistani war targeting Muslims for clearing energy routes to benefit the prospective customers, 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 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. .

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.

It is strange that while India and Pakistan r 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.

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 less 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.

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.

Kashmiris are also humans deserving dignity and they should be allowed to live in peace.

One gets the impression that there are more security forces and allies than Kashmiris in occupied Kashmir with special law for military brutalities.

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

_______________

Observation: Let them now try trilateral talks

___________

 

Pakistan High Commissioner in India Abdul Basit went ahead and 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. The Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi had this angry response to Pakistan envoy’s actions: “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, the invitation to so-called 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.

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.  Singh had told Basit over the phone that Pakistan needs either to engage with the Indian government or with the Hurriyat, failing which consequences would follow and it followed.

Emphasizing on the need for effective dialogue to find peaceful solutions to the problems, Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit said that they stand committed to improving ties with India and he did not breach any protocol by holding talks with Kashmiri separatist leaders. . “We have good neighborly relations with India. We are convinced in Pakistan that problems with India can only be resolved through peace process and meaningful dialogue” Basit said, Kashmiris are legitimate stakeholders in finding a peaceful solution to the issue. 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. While his move to meet Jammu and Kashmir separatist leaders has drawn immense criticism, the Pakistan envoy defended the meeting. ” Basit also said that he was disappointed that the Foreign Secretary-level talks have been cancelled but added it should not discourage the two countries to find a peaceful solution to the the Kashmir issue. “We understand it is a complex situation. We in Pakistan are very positive and will not allow distractions in normalising ties,” he said.

 

India had called off the talks between Foreign Secretaries, telling Pakistan bluntly to choose between an Indo-Pak dialogue or hobnobbing with the separatists.

The Kashmiri separatists for freedom are themselves unfazed by the talks being called off. Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani said: “Despite this development, we will go to New Delhi and meet the Pakistan high commissioner.” He added that India doesn’t want peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue. The moderate Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq too slammed Delhi over the decision and he too will be meeting the Pakistan envoy today and said that they will put forth their view on Kashmir. They met the Pakistani high commissioner as scheduled. Jammu and Kashmir’s ruling National Conference meanwhile termed the decision to call off the talks “strange” while the opposition Peoples Democratic Party called it “a negative development”.  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

 

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. So we will try our maximum to see as to how this process can be taken forward,” Basit said. 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.

 

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

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.

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.” Commenting further on the peace dialogue, Basit stressed that there is no reason why we should lose hope on building a strong bilateral relationship. “We would not allow this process to be distracted,  Dialogue is not a favour by Pakistan to India or vice-versa. Both countries need to work together,” the envoy stated.

The envoy, meanwhile, informed that no meeting has been finalised between PM Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in New York next month.

True, Kashmiris are legitimate stakeholders in peaceful and viable resolution of the problem. But are Indi and Pakistan serious?

____________

India plans for Narendra Modi-Barrack Obama meeting in Washington!

 


 
India plans for Narendra Modi-Barrack Obama meeting in Washington!
-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL 
_______________
 
According to reports available in the corridors of Indian power, India’s newly sworn in Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who swept to power in a general election last month, will visit Washington to meet President Barack Obama in the last week of September. During his telephonic conversation with Obama, Modi has accepted an invitation from Obama for two-way talks in Washington. Obama had invited Modi to the USA when he called up the PM to congratulate him.
 
Premier Modi is scheduled to attend a UN general assembly meeting as Indian PM in September. The Obama –Modi meeting is being arranged  on the sidelines of the UN meeting. Obama’s meeting with Modi signals a new start in ties with a leader once denied a visa by the United States.
Both countries are keen to boost security and economic ties as. India seeks to reinvigorate its ties with USA while not spoiling its traditional military relations with Russia.
As it is known, the Obama administration, seeking more finances from India to back up US economic meltdown, has set a goal of quintupling annual trade with India to $500 billion. But India’s economy is widely seen as having stagnated throughout the final years of Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh. With a nominal GDP of $1.85 trillion in 2013, according to the IMF, India is only the world’s tenth-largest economy, despite being the world’s second most populous. India’s GDP growth has since stalled, falling to just 4.4% in 2013.
 
India has also been blighted by rising levels of corruption, unemployment and inflation in recent times, with the rupee weakening against the US dollar (it has rebounded to 59 to the dollar since Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) party won the election).  In August 2013, Singh’s administration was forced to introduce limited capital controls to prevent the collapse of the rupee and avert a balance of payments crisis. Generally, his government had come to be seen as one that seemed to have run out of ideas.
It was therefore no surprise that the weakness of the Indian economy and poor governance resulting in rampant corruption, rising prices and unemployment and black money and black markets, etc, were the key themes of the election campaign.
Following his stunning election victory last week, India’s new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, is determined to inject some dynamism into the country’s economy. Seen as a neoliberal, Modi has set his sights on removing inefficiencies, tackling corruption and rolling out free-market policies that can weaken the already shaken poor of India. The flip side will be curbing welfare programs, as per the IMP plans as it is happening in Europe, making common people extremely vulnerable to price shocks.
 
Modi wants to cautiously open up the Indian economy to foreign investment to boost growth and job creation and ahs already announced a full 100% foreign investment in military goods production in India. His government may announce as soon as next month that it will allow foreign online retailers to sell their own products in India, creating a major business opportunity for big transnational players such as Amazon. 

There are also concerns that Modi, who downplayed his Hindu nationalism during the campaign, may end up fanning the flames of religious hatred in India.  In 2002, soon after he became Gujarat’s chief minister, he condoned the massacre of 1,000 Muslims in the anti-Muslim riots of that year. Modi denied complicity and was cleared of wrongdoing by several inquiries but was banned from entering the US (a ban that the administration of President Barack Obama’s lifted when Modi won the election). However, there is a risk that India’s relations with Muslim countries including Pakistan could become more strained, especially if there are any repeats of the 2002 episode.

 

In taking the decision, Modi has acted with alacrity and decisiveness on what many believe is going to be one of the biggest immediate challenges for India’s foreign policy. Modi regime is eager to take steps for mending India-US ties which had tapered off under UPA. Modi’s decision underlines the significance of the US in India’s strategic matrix. There was speculation that Modi could focus more on China and South Korea for economic gains and on an improved security partnership with Japan but these are not likely to come at the expense of Washington.

 
Modi, a former chief minister of Gujarat, had been refused a U.S. visa over sectarian strife in the state in 2002, in which more than 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, were killed. He has denied any wrongdoing and an Indian Supreme Court inquiry found no case to answer. The US ambassador to India met Modi earlier this year, as opinion polls showed his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on course for an election victory. U.S. officials had said a visa and an invitation to meet would probably be forthcoming if Modi won.
 
Can Modi banish unemployment and instill some dynamism back into the economy? Goals of BJP include creating the 10 million new jobs that India needs every year just to absorb young people entering the workforce. It was a positive economic vision which captured the imagination of people.
Modi government wants to see the Modi-Obama summit as one of the foremost international events of the year overshadowing even Modi’s presence at UNGA, if he decides to go to New York too.
Significantly, according to Indian sources, the meeting won’t happen on the sidelines of the United Nations general assembly in New York but, as per Indian request, in the form of a full-fledged bilateral summit in Washington.
The two sides are finalizing the date for the meeting which will be in the last week of September.  Scheduling of Modi visit has still to be finalized, but the summit would represent an upgrade from earlier expectations that Modi would meet Obama on the sidelines of the annual United Nations general assembly in New York.
However, no comment was immediately available from the Indian government press office or from the US embassy about the Modi visit to USA.
 
 
د. عبد راف 
Unfortunately, today there is not even one Muslim nation practicing  truly Islamic faith and life. 
BY DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL has been an Educationist, Prolific writer, Commentator  on world affairs Expert on Mideast Affairs Former university Teacher;  Editor:INTERNATIONAL OPINION; FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES; Author of books;
Dr. Abdul Ruff has published his views globally in  hundreds of   printed as well as online newspapers. including, International Herald Tribune, Global politician,  The Canadian, Turkish Digest, Financial Tines,Frontier Post, Arab News, Al-Jazeera, Economic Weekly, Friday Weekly, The Statesman,Independent, Marwat Post, Middle East Online, Middle East Times, Nepal News,ABC, abc, Nepal news International, Israel  Herald,Muslim News,M Corg, Kuwait Times, Iran Daily, Afghanistan Sun, EMM News,Gulf News, Gulf Daily News, Khaleej Times, Asian Tribune, Asia Times, EI News,Bangladesh Today,Daily Star,New Age,The  Nation,Daily Mirror,The Island, Dawn, Friday Times, Daily News, Daily Times, The Telegraph, New York Times, Deccan Herald, The Pioneer, Indian Express, News from Bangladesh, Kashmir Times,Greater Kashmir, Mirror of Kashmir, Kashmir Affairs, Kashmir Watch, Kashmir Monitor, Kashmir Observer, Kashmir Newsline, Kashmir Awareness, Kashmir Images,Asian Age, Jammu Kashmir Front line, Hindustan times,SL Guardian, Times of India, Central Chronicle, Economic Times, Sahara Times,Maldives Chronicles, International Observer, Palestine Times, Pakistan Observer, Indian Muslim Observer, Foreign Policy Issues, International Opinion,  Tribune International, Wikipedia, etc, website: http://abdulruff.wordpress.com/  Phone: 91-8129081217—(Account: No 62310377429 – CIF No: 78215311481- State Bank of Hyderabad, India) abdulruff@gmail.com

Indian politics: Modi’s secrecy: Boon or tragedy for democracy?

Indian politics: Modi’s secrecy: Boon or tragedy for democracy?

 –DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

 

_______________

 

 

With highest popular mandate in parliamentary polls in recent times, a visibly strong Narendara Modi who strengthened his hold to the power in Gujarat state and pushed his Hindutva agenda across the nation by riding over the anti-corruption tirade of Hazare-Kejriwal, to become first ever fully elected PM of India.

 

Modi has unshielded a 46 member cabinet on 26th May when he assumed power in New Delhi, witnessed by many Indian signatories and SAARC leaders, especially the Nawaz Sharif, the PM of India’s nuke rival Pakistan which wants, more than anything else, joint cricketism exercise with Indian team so that more and more wealthy Pakistanis could visit India on that pretext, making or spending money. . .

 

Saffron secrecy, a major source of BJP in order push its ultra Hindutva agenda into practice, is back to Indian regime practices. With Narendra Modi’s thumping electoral victory the Cabinet formation was totally shrouded in secrecy, signaling what exactly is in store of the RSS for the nation that is likely to be fully saffronized to suit the RSS theological ideology. .

 

Congress is eager to see the Muslims get terrorized by the secret as well as open anti-Muslim agenda of the RSS now ruling Indian democracy so that they come back to Congress fold for speedy “protection”. .
Secrecy reigned very high during the infamous Emergency era under Congress party rule, disallowing even powerful media to know what exactly the regime was doing or contemplating.

 

One wonders if the new BJP regime is repeating that phenomenon by strict secrecy. The case of scam of telecom minister A. Raja under Manmohan Singhwould not have come out had there been complete secrecy The issue brought bad name of the Congress and UPA partners, A Raja himself lost in the poll as other DMK and Congress leaders as well in Tamil Nadu. .

 

Against all predictable political messaging in media, Modi did not give enough or no representation to states like Tamilnadu, Kerala for no performance, and Orissa and West Bengal, Assam where BJP has shown performance for the first time.
As people are looking towards seeing India becoming a developed nation in US standards, there was frenetic speculation on what sort of cabinet would Narendra Modi choose in order to deliver the big promises he has made to the nation. But the media failed badly in knowing what exactly Modi has in mind on the subject.

Modi, for instance, left out LK Advani, Subramanian Swami, among others in cabinet list submitted to the president for approval. Of course there was some certainty that top leaders of BJP such as defeated MP Arun Jaitley, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj would get some important portfolios. It is also obvious that Modi will give a major representation to UP and Bihar where BJP has made a huge dent, especially among dalits and backwards. Muslim antipathy towards Congress made things easy for BJP and allies

 

 

Modi with full majority is in much better position as he is not compelled by any coalition politics now. Normally in a coalition arrangement, as in the case of UPA, the partners were actively consulted and indeed they would make their wish known to the UPA supremo Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister. This routinely leaked to the media and often such likely appointments would be debated in print media and on TV channels. Under UPA coalition partners routinely put their claim on certain important ministries. Mamata Banerjee had specifically asked for Railways, a high visibility portfolio from the perspective of the common man.
Though the media is incessantly speculating on the names of Cabinet ministers, the real surprise will be in terms of the structure of administration that Modi places at the top. A hint of this came from Arun Shourie who has said Modi may have a quasi Presidential style governance structure at the PMO. Arun Shourie, former journalist and Jammu Kashmir governor, is made a cabinet minister.

 

Sanjeev Baliyan, an accused in the Muzaffarnagar riots case which made the Mulayam Singh’s SP party unpopular quickly, has been made a minister by a shrewd Modi who himself is involved in the Gujarat riots.

 

NDA is irrelevant now as BJP has taken over that. There are no claimants from among the coalition partners and only Modi knows what sort of Cabinet ministers he will appoint.

—————–

 

 

India state arrogance: Blast at Kudankulam nuclear plant

India state arrogance: Blast at Kudankulam nuclear plant

-DR. ABDUL RUFF COLACHAL

___________

Indian state and its nuclear agents have endangered the  people of India, the  poor locals who reside in  notorious nuclear  plant attack prone and  nuke attack prone zones. The state arrogance is complicated by  adamancy of political leaders at national and regional levels.  They care a damn aoub the people’s genuine concerns and put  them in  perpetual danger by adding more nuclear projects in their localities

 

A fresh blast has occurred the newly build nuclear power plant at Kudankulam village in Tamil Nadu, India, scarring the people of Kudankulam and entire Tamil Nadu.

Six workers got seriously injured and  they have been admitted to  a private  hospital in nearby Paravthipuram, Nagercoil. As expected the blast s did not harm any big plant officials, ministers, MPs or MLAs, or those Congress-BJP politicians who campaigned for start of the nuclear plant  in Kudankulam at any cost,  Obviously,  all concerned leaders Manmohan Singh, Narayana swamy, J. Jayalalithaaa, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, LK Advani, Karunanidhi, Vajpayee, Modi and  Tody, etc are safe in their respective AC bungalows made out of the resources  from the people. ,

The nuclear plant was put into operation recently and it already produced electrify, not knowing that it would blast any time. .

The nuclear tragedy, which is imminent, occurred at about 2 pm, causing serious doubts about the viability of nuclear plants as a reliable source of electricity generation when there are other safe sources available for the purpose. .

Unfortunately, the Indian government led by nuke agents pushed the Supreme court  to  clear the  operation of the plant saying everything at the plant is safe.

Indian regime, managed by both Congress and BJP have made nukes prediction as India’s major military policy and went ahead with commissioning nuclear plants with complete disregard for the safety of the nuke pants and security of the people living in nuke terror zones. .

Experts say in order to make nuclear energy more palatable for citizens, particularly in light of the accident in Fukushima in Japan earlier this year; the government will need placate the fears of its people over the safety and security of nuclear facilities.

There should a nationwide drive to guarantee that India can power its own economic growth and support a growing population without relying too heavily on nuclear plants.