The Asian Age – MVA in firefighting mode after Rahul’s comment on Congress role in Maharashtra government

The Congress, along with the Shiv Sena and the NCP, is part of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government.

Sreeparna Chakrabarty

Mumbai – Maharashtra – India, 27 May 2020. Amid speculation over attempts to impose President’s rule in Maharashtra, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi further complicated matters on Tuesday when he said that his party was merely supporting the government in Maharashtra and was not a key decision-maker.

The Congress, along with the Shiv Sena and the NCP, is part of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government.

At a virtual press conference on Tuesday, Gandhi was asked about the Covid-19 situation in Maharashtra, to which he said: “I would like to make a differentiation here.

We are supporting the government in Maharashtra, but we are not the key decision-maker… We are decision-makers in Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Puducherry.

There is a difference between running the government and supporting it”. All three alliance partners were, however, quick to say that his comments had been misconstrued.

NCP’s Supriya Sule, who is veteran Sharad Pawar’s daughter, said, “I’ve heard what Rahul Gandhi said. He’s absolutely right. It’s a coalition. Everyone takes a decision together. Uddhav Thackeray takes everyone into confidence. I’ve seen him first hand, he takes everyone along.”

NCP spokesperson and minister Nawab Malik tweeted, “Mr @RahulGandhi is right when he said, Maharashtra does not have a Congress government.

Maharashtra has the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. Those trying to distort his statement must stop, the three parties are happy together and serving the people of Maharashtra.(sic)”

Shiv Sena spokesperson and Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Raut tweeted that the discussion between Pawar and Thackeray on Monday evening went on for around one-and-a-half hours.

“If someone is spreading news about the instability of the government, it should be a mere stomach ache, the government is strong and stable”.

According to sources, MVA legislators have been approached by the BJP in order to destabilise the Thackeray government in Maharashtra. After learning about it, Pawar and Raut decided to inform the chief minister, hence the meeting on Monday evening.

Tags: MVA government, Maha Vikas Aghadi government, Congress-NCP-Shiv Sena alliance, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi

https://www.asianage.com/india/politics/270520/mva-in-firefighting-mode-after-rahuls-comment-on-congress-role-in-maharashtra-government.html

Sikh24.com – Amritsar administration denies permission to hold Ghallughara Remembrance March

Amritsar – Panjab – India, 04 June 2020. The district administration of Amritsar has denied permission to hold Ghallughara Remembrance March on 05 June. Notably, Dal Khalsa takes out this march every year to mark the anniversary of the June-1984 holocaust.

Interacting with media on 03 June, Dal Khalsa’s spokesperson Kanwarpal Singh informed that the administration had sought program details from them, after which they submitted the same.

“Today, we have received a written communication from the district administration in which they have denied permission to hold Ghallughara Remembrance March on June 5,” he told media on 03 June.

Kanwarpal Singh further said that the district administration has cited Indian Home Ministry’s directives of keeping religious shrines closed till
07 June and ban on religious, social and cultural gatherings.

The administration has also cited imposition of Section-144 of CrPC in Amritsar.

“We had ensured the administration to follow proper social distancing measures during the march but still the administration has denied permission as per pre-planned policy,” he said while alleging that the Home Ministry’s directive of keeping religious places closed till 07 June was specially designed keeping in view the Ghallughara Diwas.

Kanwarpal Singh said that now they have decided to send a jatha of only five Singhs to Sri Akal Takht Sahib to symbolically mark the occasion on 05 June.

“This year, we also didn’t give any call to keep Amritsar closed on 06 June 6 as the pandemic has already ruined financial stability of common masses,” said Kanwarpal Singh.

Gentbrugge – Melle – Gentbrugge

Gentbrugge – Melle – Gentbrugge
31 March 2020

John Campbell Younge who gave his life during the liberation of Melle
6 september 1914 – His legacy is a free Belgium

John Youngestraat

Wevershof – Heusdenbaan De Lijn bus 27 to Dendermonde

Woodland to the north of Heusdenbaan

Park/Woodland only open for those living in the area
who stick to the Covid hygiene rules

Sign at the Melle side of the Gentbrugse Meersen

Gentbrugse Meersen, pond near the Heusdenbaan

More Belgian pictures to be published
Harjinder Singh
Man in Blue

The Guardian – Speak that cloaks the murderous truth

Indarjit Singh

During the 1930s and 1940s, Pandit Nehru, first Prime Minister of post-partition India learnt from bitter personal experience of the ease with which a repressive government can label someone an extremist and throw him into gaol.

He was quick to learn the lesson from his British mentors and, within months of becoming Prime Minister in 1947, he in turn incarcerated the more prominent of his political opponents, including the veteran Sikh leader Master Tara Singh.

The latter had dared to remind him of his promise to the Sikh people 12 months earlier, that he saw nothing wrong with an area being set aside in the north of free India “where Sikhs could also experience the glow of freedom.”

“The situation is different now,” was Pandit Nehru’s comment when reminded of this promise. The Sikh leader was branded “an extremist” and duly gaoled for demanding a measure of autonomy for Punjab that was in fact considerably less than that enjoyed by individual states in the US.

Mr Nehru’s daughter, Indira Gandhi, with all the cynicism and double-talk of dictatorial governments posing as democracies, has been quick to improve on both the language and methods of repression.

First in the “emergency”, when all pretence of democracy was dropped, and, more recently, again under the guise of democracy, a cruel feline viciousness has been unleashed on the people of India.

The “emergency” saw the “disappearance” of hundreds of political opponents, the forced sterilisation of the poor, and the destruction of their hovels in the name of progress.

In the last two years thousands of “terrorists” and “political agitators” have been shot in Kashmir, Assam and Maharashtra.

Now it is the turn of Punjab and the Sikhs. The massacre in Amritsar of perhaps as many as 2,000 mostly unarmed and innocent Sikh men, women, and children, “terrorists” easily outdoes in barbarity and outrage the 1919 shooting at Jallianwala Bagh where 379 people were killed by General Dyer.

The killings by General Dyer, were in an open park, the slaughter at the Golden Temple was in the holiest of holy Sikh shrines.

Indira Gandhi’s justification was that it was a base for Sikh terrorists. Let us look at the facts. The one requirement for terrorism is secrecy. One would not advertise and plan terrorism from, say, the concourse of Waterloo Station.

Similarly, the Golden Temple with its famous four doors to emphasise its welcome to pilgrims and visitors from all four corners of the globe, irrespective of race, religion or national origins, had, to say the least, serious limitations that would, religious considerations apart, have precluded its use by any group intent on serious terrorism.

A secret telephone number is a useful asset for organising terrorism. The phones into the Golden Temple were known to, and tapped by the police.

Inside, right up to the time of the government attack, pilgrims and visitors, including the foreign press, were free to go into any part of the Temple complex. Outside, a heavy police presence had existed for more than a year around each entrance to the Golden Temple.

It is true that, as government threats to enter and desecrate the Temple increased over the months, parallel attempts to build up defences to deter such a sacrilegious attack also increased.

The “fortifying” of the Golden Temple was nothing but a response to increasing evidence that Mrs Gandhi was determined to solve the “Sikh question” by striking at the very heart of Sikhism.

Indira Gandhi is right when she says that terrorism must be rooted out. But who are the terrorists? Those perpetrating organised violence, or those that oppose it?

It is not generally known outside Punjab that, over the past two years, thousands of Sikh homes in the Punjab villages have been raided by police and paramilitary forces. Young Sikhs have been dragged away for questioning, never to be seen again.

The sight of murdered Sikhs floating in rivers and waterways has become a common occurrence. The current issue of the journal of Amnesty International cites several harrowing examples of police brutality and torture.

More recently eyewitnesses’ accounts to the Amritsar massacre talk of women and children being shot in cold blood, and Sikh prisoners being tied with their own turbans and then shot in the head. Who then are the terrorists?

The myth of a “terrorist base” borrowed from the vocabulary of more subtle colonial powers, is not the only way in which Mrs Gandhi has allowed truth to be stood on its head.

Lack of space forbids a more detailed analysis but the reader trying to find truth in Mrs Gandhi’s press releases might well find the following glossary helpful.

Sikh extremist: One who believes he should be allowed to practice his religion unmolested and that Sikhs and other Punjabis should not be treated less favourably than their brothers and sisters in other Indian states.

Sikh fundamentalist: a Sikh who believes in the fundamentals of the Sikh religion, namely belief in one God, earning by one’s own efforts, helping the less fortunate, religious tolerance, equality of women and universal human brotherhood.

Sikh fanatic: Alternative for Sikh fundamentalist. I. G. Factor: A “multiplier” of 10. Used by Indira Gandhi and Indian government watchers, and based on experience in Kashmir, Assam and elsewhere, to convert press release figures to something approaching reality.

For example, the initial Indian government figure of 250 deaths in the Golden Temple converts to 2,500. Eyewitness reports fear that this may be an understatement.

Minimum use of force: “We went in with prayers on our lips” says an Indian General. It is now being reported that the Army was given instructions not to take any prisoners. The coldblooded slaughter of men, women and children.

No alternative: The use of any or all the following clichés to justify excessive use of force-discovery of stockpile of sophisticated weapons; arsenals; bomb factory; involvement of a foreign power, CIA, etc. In the interests of national security: In the interests of Indira Gandhi and family.

Democracy: The inalienable right of a majority to crush minorities. Rule by Indira Gandhi and family, for Indira Gandhi and family.

Indarjit Singh is the editor of the Sikh Messenger, and a member of the religious advisory committee of the United Nations Association.

Posted to Sikh News Discussion by:
Hardeep Singh bbinfo108@yahoo.co.uk
Courtesy Guardian, first published, 18 June 1984

Published in: on June 5, 2020 at 6:03 am  Leave a Comment  

Scroll.in – Even as India stands up to Chinese incursions, New Delhi needs a more nuanced diplomatic approach

With regards to Nepal, India must acknowledge that the ‘special relationship’ no longer exists.

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan

Op/Ed, 02 June 2020. India is currently facing two crises along its northern borders, neither of which have anything to do with Covid-19.

In Ladakh, the Indian Army appears to be involved in a stand-off against Chinese troops at several points along the disputed Line of Actual Control.

At the same time, on Sunday, the Nepal government tabled a Constitution Amendment Bill that would alter the map of the country to include hundreds of kilometres of Indian territory.

The Indian Army Chief suggested that both these issues are connected, an insensitive comment that did not help matters in Kathmandu. Yet, they present two distinct problems for New Delhi to tackle.

Nepal map

On Nepal, the Indian government seems to be stuck in the past.

New Delhi seems miffed by Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s tactic of drumming up nationalistic sentiments within the country as a means of putting pressure on its larger neighbour, even though it is an approach India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is fond of using at home.

India would rather Kathmandu settle this friction through diplomatic talks, paying respect to New Delhi’s role as the dominant power in South Asia.

Yet, as Indian Express’ C Raja Mohan writes, “It makes no sense for Delhi to hanker after a ‘special relationship’ that a large section of Kathmandu does not want.”

The Ministry of External Affairs, which is now making last-minute efforts to prevent the map being approved by Nepal’s Parliament, has struggled to handle Kathmandu over the last few years, as China’s influence has grown.

It would be prudent for New Delhi to acknowledge that discomfort at the very idea of Indian hegemony is a major driver of Nepal politics, one that offers Beijing an opening.

India’s ministry of external affairs must instead push for a reset in engagement based on interests that are common to both sides.

China stand-off

The Chinese issue is more complex, though nearly a month after the initial clashes between the two armies in Ladakh, the Indian government has only offered a limited acknowledgment of how serious the issue really is.

Though it may be wise for New Delhi to avoid coming out strongly against Beijing in public statements, giving both sides the political space to de-escalate from the stand-off, the Indian government cannot ignore the fact that the BJP has built up Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s image as being a leader who gives no quarter.

Modi’s party has done little to create the space for a public conversation about the borders that involves anything other than “56-inch rocks” (the purported width of the prime minister’s chest) and “ghar mein ghus ke marenge” (we will come into your house and attack you).

The emergence of a video showing Indian troops challenging Chinese soldiers sparked an alarmed reaction from the Indian Army “We strongly condemn attempts to sensationalise issues impacting national security,” it said in a statement, claiming that any “attempt to link [the video] with the situation on the Northern borders is malafide”.

Chinese social media accounts passed around another photo, showing injured Indian soldiers, some of whom had rope tied around their legs.

Naivety

The authenticity of these leaks may be contested, but their effect, to whip up bellicose sentiment, is uncontested.

Even as it stands firm against Chinese incursions on the Line of Actual Control and India’s right to build infrastructure along the border, New Delhi needs to create the domestic space for a broader set of responses, whether military or diplomatic, without making them seem either as weakness or as a declaration of war.

The government also needs to examine questions around intelligence and operational failures, which some are being compared to Pakistan’s 1999 Kargil intrusions, that led to this situation int the first place.

China’s incursionary actions, even as the world is dealing with a pandemic that Beijing could have done more to contain, are deplorable.

But India’s comments by senior officers like “China stabbed us in the back” seem to betray a naivety about the India-Chinese relationship.

Meanwhile, New Delhi is pushing back against Chinese investments and its Hindutva supporters are pushing for Indians to boycott Chinese goods.

“Unless India is able to find an effective counter-strategy to this pattern of Chinese behaviour,” writes former foreign secretary Shyam Saran, “incidents of the kind we have seen at many points on LAC are not only likely to continue but to intensify.”

https://scroll.in/article/963541/even-as-india-stands-up-to-chinese-incursions-new-delhi-needs-a-more-nuanced-diplomatic-approach