Friday, July 17, 2015

INDIA - PAK : FAILURE OF FOREIGN POLICY BACK TO SQUARE ONE

SOURCE:
http://www.indiaeveryday.in/news-pakistan-provocations-are-proof-that-the-modi-doval-dual-1001-771459.htm




     FAILURE OF FOREIGN POLICY  BACK TO
                          SQUARE ONE










https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpVktmYHcs4

 
 
 





Published on Jul 10, 2015
 
Watch Hassan Nisar Blasting On Nawaz Sharif After Meeting With Narendra Modi 10 July 2015
Aaj Rana Mubashir Kay Sath 10 July 2015 - Hassan Nisar Special Talk On Nawaz & Modi
We Upload All Pakistani Talk Shows Daily Discussion On Pakistan Current Situation. Pakistani Media Reaction On Pak India Relations And Nawaz Sharif Meetinf With Narendra Modi In Ufa Russia 10th July 2015
Nawaz Sharif Meeting with PM Narendra Modi on 10 July 2015 in Russia.
Both Leaders will talk about peace and good relation between these two country .
Pakistan and Indian prime minister meeting is one of the biggest news for the world .
Narendra Modi Nawaz Sharif Meeting , Mumbai Terror Trial to be Expedited 10/07/2015.

Both sides also agreed to hold early meetings of DG BSF and DG Pakistan Rangers followed by that of Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs).

It was decided to release fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days.
A mechanism for facilitating religious tourism will also be worked out, as per the five-point “steps” to be taken by the two sides.
The two leaders warmly shook hands and posed for the shutterbugs before settling down for the talks.


Aapas Ki Baat 10th July 2015 - Inside Story Of Nawaz Sharif & Narendra Modi Meeting  




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMK0LwPq06w




Pak provocations are proof that Modi-Doval dual strategy is working – Firstpost




     

India-Pakistan ties are back to normal – that is, the usual state of semi-peace and semi-war. That this is being interpreted in political and media circles as a defeat for Narendra Modi‘s recalibration of Pakistan policy to resume talks shows how little people understand strategy.

The correct Indian strategy against Pakistan will always have to be multi-faceted – realistic dialogue, backed by tough action and aggressive retaliation on the ground, when required. Both peace talk and war-like actions are critical to strategy. We do not seem to understand that war and peace go together, not separately. The readiness to wage peace, when the time is opportune, and the readiness to wage war, when required, is what makes for successful strategy. One without the other will lead to failure.


Indian policymakers, unfortunately, have never understood the importance of the iron fist in a velvet glove. We have let strategy be decided by public emotion or political peace fantasies, leading to regular failure. This is why we have lurched from extraordinary optimism when peace talks appear to be heading somewhere (Shimla, Lahore, and last May), and undiluted anger when Pakistani perfidy becomes visible (this usually follows the first).


To those who think that India’s strategy should only focus on Pakistan’s perfidy and nothing else, the simple point is this: this response, too, is driven by anger. It is not effective. Those who say we should not engage Pakistan at all, should ask themselves this: if this policy is right for Pakistan, why don’t they apply this logic to China, India’s bigger enemy and more potent threat to our long-term territorial and strategic interests? But all analysts steadfastly, without any fear of contradiction, maintain that we should both engage China and be prepared to defend our borders with it.


The logic of engagement and tough ground postures on the border with Pakistan is stronger for another reason: we cannot have a Pakistan strategy that is separate from our China strategy. What we are up against is a Sino-Pak joint strategic gameplan where Pakistan will take on India from the west while China will start pressuring us from the east (Myanmar, Arunachal).



 
PM Modi and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. Firstpost
 
 
 
PM Modi and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. Firstpost
 
 
 
There is huge strategic convergence between Pakistan’s and China’s postures towards India right now because both are “greedy” powers that want the territorial status quo with India altered without any concessions on their part. Pakistan wants to keep PoK and wrest a bit of Muslim Kashmir, and China wants to keep China-occupied Kashmir and grab a piece of Arunachal, especially Tawang. These are problems left behind by our mistakes in 1948, and China’s in 1962. In 1948, we failed to keep the war going in Kashmir long enough to recapture PoK (we possibly needed another month or two to finish the job), and China made the mistake of retreating from large parts of our north-east due to the onset of winter and its own doubts about its ability to hold on. It now wants to make up for that lapse, now that it has the military and economic capacity to do so. Tawang is key to final Chinese control of Tibet.


This convergence of Sino-Pak territorial interests makes it vital for us to work both prongs of dialogue and defence capability simultaneously. We need to carry this strategy forward till we are in a position to deter both our enemies with the development of economic and military strength.

The Chinese are trying to do exactly that with Pakistan. They are planning to build a $40 billion economic corridor to ensure that Pakistan is strengthened economically and strategically to counter India – and to slow down our economic and military renewal process. This is an economic-cum-military race we cannot afford to lose.


So, the Modi government is right to work on both axes – dialogue and determined military responses to cross-border provocations. That Pakistan is busy testing our determination so soon after Ufa should come as no surprise. It was to happen and has happened.


The difference between Pakistan and India is this: Pakistani strategy is decided by the army, which uses civilian governments to send out dovish messages even while deciding the stance on the border without civilian intervention. In India, civilian government is deciding strategy (no doubt, with military inputs) both on the diplomatic front and on the border. Till recently we had a half-baked non-strategy decided by hope or anger or despair with Pakistan.


Manmohan Singh had the right idea on engaging Pakistan, but the wrong one on not ever responding to border provocations. Under Modi and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, the ground response is being made robust – and as long as talk and military action below the threshold of war continue consistently, Pakistan will get the message. The only danger is this government too will behave emotionally to Pakistani provocations by suspending talks – as we did last year. We cannot afford to again be so inconsistent.

 Then we are back to square one – that is, a situation of zero strategy, where our enemies have the initiative and we are only reactive.



The fact that Pakistan has felt it necessary to demolish the Ufa goodwill so quickly is proof that the dual-strategy of dialogue-plus-military response is working. We need to stay the course.
Pak provocations are proof that Modi-Doval dual strategy is working – Firstpost






















 

Thursday, July 16, 2015

GENOCIDE HINDUS - HINDUSKUSH SHAME OF HINDUS :Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter

SOURCE: 
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html







       HINDUSKUSH  SHAME OF HINDUS

Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter

By Shrinandan Vyas




All the Encyclopedias and National Geographic agree that Hindu Kush region is a place of Hindu genocide (similar to Dakau and Auschwitz). All the references are given. Please feel free to verify them.


ABSTRACT
All Standard reference books agree that the name 'Hindu Kush' of the mountain range in Eastern Afganistan means 'Hindu Slaughter' or 'Hindu Killer'. History also reveals that until 1000 A.D. the area of Hindu Kush was a full part of Hindu cradle. More likely, the mountain range was deliberately named as 'Hindu Slaughter' by the Moslem conquerors, as a lesson to the future generations of Indians. However Indians in general, and Hindus in particular are completely oblivious to this tragic genocide. This article also looks into the reasons behind this ignorance.


21 References - (Mainly Encyclopedia Britannica & other reference books, National Geographic Magazines and standard history books).


INTRODUCTION

 
The Hindu Kush is a mountain system nearly 1000 miles long and 200 miles wide, running northeast to southwest, and dividing the Amu Darya River Valley and Indus River Valley. It stretches from the Pamir Plateau near Gilgit, to Iran. The Hindu Kush ranges mainly run thru Afganistan and Pakistan. It has over two dozen summits of more than 23,000 ft in height. Below the snowy peaks the mountains of Hindu Kush appear bare, stony and poor in vegetation.

Historically, the passes across the Hindu Kush have been of great military significance, providing access to the northern plains of India.

The Khyber Pass constitutes an important strategic gateway and offers a comparatively easy route to the plains of Punjab. Most foreign invaders, starting from Alexander the Great in 327 BC, to Timur Lane in 1398 AD, and from Mahmud of Ghazni, in 1001 AD, to Nader Shah in 1739 AD attacked Hindustan via the Khyber Pass and other passes in the Hindu Kush (1,2,3). The Greek chroniclers of Alexander the Great called Hindu Kush as Parapamisos or Paropanisos (4).



The Hindu name of the Hindu Kush mountains                                   was


                                'Paariyaatra Parvat'(5).






EARLY HISTORY OF HINDU KUSH REGION (UP TO 1000 AD)

 
History of Hindu Kush and Punjab shows that two major kingdoms of Gandhaar& Vaahic Pradesh (Balkh of Bactria) had their borders extending far beyond the Hindu Kush. Legend has it that the kingdom of Gandhaar was established by Taksha, grandson of Bharat of Ayodhya (6). Gandhaar's borders extended from Takshashila to Tashkent (corruption of 'Taksha Khand') in the present day Uzbekistan. In the later period, Mahabharat relates Gaandhaari as a princess of Gandhaar and her brother, Shakuni as a prince and later as Gandhaar's ruler.


In the well documented history, Emperor Chandragupt Maurya took charge of Vaahic Pradesh around 325 BC and then took over Magadh. Emperor Ashok's stone tablets with inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic are still found at Qandahar (corruption of Gandhaar?) and Laghman in eastern Afganistan(3). One such stone tablet, is shown in the PBS TV series 'Legacy with Mark Woods' in episode 3 titled 'India: The Spiritual Empire'. After the fall of Mauryan empire, Gandhaar was ruled by Greeks. However some of these Greek rulers had converted to Buddhism, such as Menander, known to Indian historians as Milinda, while some other Greeks became followers of Vishnav sects (Hinduism)(7). Recent excavations in Bactria have revealed a golden hoard which has among other things a figurine of a Greek goddess with a Hindu mark on its forehead (Bindi) showing the confluence of Hindu-Greek art (8). Later Shaka and KushaaN ruled Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh. KushaaN emperor Kanishka's empire stretched from Mathura to the Aral Sea (beyond the present day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Krygzystan)(9).


Kanishaka was a Buddhist and under KushaaN influence Buddhism flourished in Gandhaar. Two giant sandstone Buddhas carved into the cliffs of Bamian (west of Kabul) date from the Kushan period. The larger Buddha (although defaced in later centuries by Moslem invaders) is about 175 ft tall (10,11). The Kushan empire declined by 450 AD. The Chinese traveller Hsuan-Tsang (Xuan-zang) travelled thru the region in 7 th century AD and visited many Buddhist religious centers (3) including Hadda, Ghazni, Qonduz, Bamian (3,10,11), Shotorak and Bagram. From the 5 th thru 9 th cenury AD Persian Sasanians and Hepthalites ruled Gandhaar. During their rule Gandhaar region was again influenced by Hinduism. The Hindu kings (Shahiya) were concentrated in the Kabul and Ghazni areas. The last Hindu Shahiya king of Kabul, Bhimapal was killed in 1026 AD. The heroic efforts of the Hindu Shahiya Kings to defend the northwestern gates of India against the invaders are described by even al-Biruni, the court historian of Mahmud of Ghazni (12). Some excavated sites of the period include a major Hindu Shahiya temple north of Kabul and a chapel that contains both Buddhist and Hindu images, indicating that there was a mingling of two religions (3).


Islamic invasions on Afganistan started in 642 AD, but over the next several centuries their effect was marginal and lasted only a short time after each raid. Cities surrendered only to rise in revolt and the hastily converted returned to their old religion (Hinduism or Buddhism) once the Moslem armies had passed (3).



      THUS TILL THE YEAR 1000 AD                                                AFGHANISTAN WAS A FULL PART
                                OF
                HINDU CRADLE.


HINDU KUSH AND THE HINDU GENOCIDE

 
Now Afganistan is a Moslem country. Logically, this means either one or more of the following must have happened:

a) original residents of Hindu Kush converted to Islam, or

 b) they were slaughtered and the conquerors took over, or

 c) they were driven out.

Encyclopedia Britannica (3) already informs us above about the resistance to conversion and frequent revolt against to the Moslem conqueror's rule from 8 th thru 11 th Century AD. The name 'Hindu Kush' itself tells us about the fate of the original residents of Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh during the later period of Moslem conquests, because HINDU KUSH in Persian MEANS HINDU SLAUGHTER (13) (as per Koenraad Elst in his book 'Ayodhya and After'). Let us look into what other standard references say about Hindu Kush.



Persian-English dictionary (14) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush is probably also related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Encyclopedia Americana comments on the Hindu Kush as follows:

 The name Hindu Kush means literally 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when (Hindu) SLAVES from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afgan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia (15).


The National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' informs that 'Generations of raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(10). The World Book Encyclopedia informs that the name Kush, .. means Death ..(16).
While Encyclopedia Britannica says 'The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afgan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)(2).

However, later the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a negationist twist by adding that 'more likely the name is a corruption of Hindu-Koh meaning Hindu mountains'. This is unlikely, since the term Koh is used in its proper, uncorrupted form for the western portion of Hindu Kush, viz. Koh-i-Baba, for the region Swat Kohistan, and in the names of the three peaks of this range, viz. Koh-i-Langer, Koh-i-Bandakor, and Koh-i-Mondi.


Thus to say that corruption of term Koh to Kush occurred only in case of Hindu Kush is merely an effort to fit in a deviant observation to a theory already proposed. In science, a theory is rejected if it does not agree with the observations, and not the other way around. Hence the latter negationist statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica must be rejected.



IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ONE OF THE FEW PLACE NAMES ON EARTH THAT REMINDS US NOT OF THE VICTORY OF THE WINNERS BUT RATHER THE SLAUGHTER OF THE LOSERS, CONCERNS A GENOCIDE OF HINDUS BY THE MOSLEMS (13).



Unlike the Jewish holocaust, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. However the number is easily likely to be in millions. Few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. Encyclopedia Britannica informs that in December 1398 AD, Timur Lane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi, .. and after the battle those inhabitants (of Delhi) not killed were removed (as slaves) (17), while other reference says that the number of captives butchered by Timur Lane's army was about 100,000 (18). Later on Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the (secular?) Mughal emperor Akbar 'ordered the massacre of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod' (19). Another reference indicates that this massacre of 30,000 Hindu peasants at Chitod is recorded by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian himself (20). These two 'one day' massacres are sufficient to provide a reference point for estimating the scale of Hindu genocide. The Afgan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan, 1,500,000 residents perished (11).


Since some of the Moslem conquerors took Indian plainsmen as slaves, a question comes : what happened to this slave population? The startling answer comes from New York Times (May-June 1993 issues). The Gypsies are wandering peoples in Europe. They have been persecuted in almost every country. Nazis killed 300,000 gypsies in the gas chambers. These Gypsies have been wandering around Central Asia and Europe since around the 12 th Century AD. Until now their country of origin could not be identified. Also their Language has had very little in common with the other European languages. Recent studies however show that their language is similar to Punjabi and to a lesser degree to Sanskrit.

Thus the Gypsies most likely originated from the greater Punjab. The time frame of Gypsy wanderings also coincides early Islamic conquests hence most likely their ancestors were driven out of their homes in Punjab and taken as slaves over the Hindu Kush.

The theory of Gypsie origins in India was first proposed over two centuries ago. It is only recently that a linguistic and other proofs have been verified. Even the Gypsie leadership now accepts India as the country of their origin.


Thus it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.




DELIBERATE IGNORANCE ABOUT HINDU KUSH


 
If the name Hindu Kush relates such a horrible genocide of Hindus, why are Hindus ignorant about it? and why the Government of India does not teach them about Hindu Kush? The history and geography curriculums in Indian Schools barely even mention Hindu Kush. The horrors of the Jewish holocaust are taught not only in schools in Israel and USA, but also in Germany. Because both Germany and Israel consider the Jewish holocaust a 'dark chapter' in the history. The Indian Government instead of giving details of this 'dark chapter' in Indian history is busy in whitewash of Moslem atrocities and the Hindu holocaust. In 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts. Among other things it stipulated that:

'Characterization of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Moslems is forbidden'.

 Thus denial of history or Negationism has become India's official 'educational' policy (21).



Often the official governmental historians brush aside questions such as those that Hindu Kush raises. They argue that the British version is the product of their 'divide and rule' policy' hence their version is not necessarily true. However it must be remembered that the earliest reference of the name Hindu Kush and its literal meaning 'Hindu Killer' comes from Ibn Battutah in 1333 AD, and at that time British were nowhere on the Indian scene. Secondly, if the name indeed was a misnomer then the Afgans should have protested against such a barbaric name and the last 660 plus years should have been adequate for a change of name to a more 'civil' name. There has been no effort for such a change of name by the Afgans. On the contrary, when the Islamic fundamentalist regime of the Mujahadeens came to power in 1992, tens of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs from Kabul, became refugees, and had to pay steep ransom to enter into Pakistan without a visa.


In the last 46 years the Indian Government also has not even once demanded that the Afgan Government change such an insulting and barbaric name.

But in July 1993, the Government of India asked the visiting Jerusalem Symphony Orchestra to change its name because the word Jerusalem in its name is offensive to Moslem Fundamentalists.




CONCLUSION
 
It is evident that Hindus from ancient India's (Hindustan's) border states such as Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh were massacred or taken as slaves by the Moslem invaders who named the region as Hindu Kush (or Hindu Slaughter,or Hindu Killer) to teach a lesson to the future Hindu generations of India. Unfortunately Hindus are not aware of this tragic history. The Indian government does not want the true history of Hindu Moslem conflicts during the medieval ages to be taught in schools. This policy of negationism is the cause behind the ignorance of Hindus about the Hindu Kush and the Hindu genocide.


COMMENTS & FUTURE WORK
 
Although in this article Hindu Kush has been referred to as Hindu slaughter, it is quite possible that it was really a Hindu and Buddhist slaughter. Since prior to Moslem invasions influence of Buddhism in Gandhaar and Vaahic Pradesh was considerable. Also as the huge 175 ft stone Buddhas of Bamian show, Buddhists were idol worshipers par excellence. Hence for Moslem invaders the Buddhists idol worshipers were equally deserving of punishment. It is also likely that Buddhism was considered an integral part of the Hindu pantheon and hence was not identified separately.


This article barely scratches the surface of the Hindu genocide, the true depth of which is as yet unknown. Readers are encouraged to find out the truth for themselves . Only when many readers search for the truth, the real magnitude of the Hindu genocide will be discovered.


REFERENCES
  1. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.5, p.935, 1987

  2. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.14, pp.238-240, 1987

  3. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.13, pp.35-36, 1987

  4. The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great (as described by Arrian, Q.Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch & Justin), By J.W.McCrindle, Methuen & Co., London, p.38, 1969

  5. Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, by Veer Savarkar, Savarkar Prakashan, Bombay, 2nd Ed, p.206, 1985

  6. Chanakya - a TV series by Doordarshan, India

  7. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, pp.36-41, 1987

  8. V.Sarianidi, National Geographic Magazine, Vol.177, No.3, p.57, March 1990

  9. Hammond Historical Atlas of the World, pp. H4 & H10, 1993

  10. W.O.Douglas, National Geographic Magazine, vol.114, No.1, pp.13-23, July 1958

  11. T.J.Abercrombie, National Geographic Magazine, Vol.134, No.3, pp.318-325, Sept.1968

  12. An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.182-83, 1965

  13. Ayodhya and After, By Koenraad Elst, Voice of India Publication, p.278, 1991

  14. A Practical Dictionary of the Persian Language, by J.A.Boyle, Luzac & Co., p.129, 1949

  15. Encyclopedia Americana, Vol.14, p.206, 1993

  16. The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.19, p.237, 1990

  17. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, pp. 54-55, 1987

  18. An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri, K.Datta, 2nd Ed., MacMillan and Co, London, pp.336-37, 1965

  19. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, p.65, 1987

  20. The Cambridge History of India, Vol.IV - The Mughul Period, by W.Haig & R.Burn, S.Chand & Co., New Delhi, pp. 98-99, 1963

  21. Negationism in India, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India Publ, 2nd Ed, pp.57-58, 1993


Back To Islamic Ages

Back To Modern Hindu History

Back To Library Of Hindu History























































 

OROP : THE SIMMERING BUSH FIRE OF OROP





Dear Sir,

OROP: Hazare to join ex-servicemen protest on 'Vijay Diwas'

 Updated: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 18:49 [IST] 


 Mail New Delhi, July 15: Social activist Anna Hazare on Wednesday said he would join ex-servicemen in their protest against delay in implementation of One Rank One pension (OROP) at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on the occasion of 'Vijay Diwas' on July 26. Hazare, who has served in the Indian Army, in an audio message sent to the protesting ex-servicemen on Wednesay, said a rally would be taken out on "Vijay Diwas". The day on July 26 commemorates the 1999 Kargil war victory.


 "On 26th July, 2015, Vijay Diwas is being celebrated... We won the war because of those who were martyred at Kargil," Hazare said in the audio message. Also read: Hazare meets ex-Defence officers on OROP issue "On this occasion, taking up the issue of One Rank One Pension, I will come to Jantar Mantar in Delhi for a 'Sena Samman' rally," he said, giving a call to all former soldiers and farmers to attend the rally.


 
"Former soldiers and farmers should participate in the rally in huge numbers," he said.

Hazare earlier wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to implement the OROP scheme at the earliest, failing which he said he would launch a countrywide agitation for it.
In his letter, Anna said the country must take care of its farmers and soldiers. However, he clarified his protest was not political. IANS
---------------------------------------------------------------------

TMC pledges support to ex-servicemen over OROP demand

By ANI | ANI –  12 hours ago
New Delhi, July 15 (ANI): The Trinamool Congress (TMC) on Wednesday said that it will support ex-servicemen's demand of One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy, adding that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee may even come to Delhi to show her support.
 
 
"Mamata di was approached and as per her advice I came here, they have handed over the letter to implement One Rank One Pension. We told them that we are with them and we will do all it takes in Parliament and outside Parliament to have One Rank One Pension. This letter will reach Mamata di, and after that if need be, she will come to Delhi to show her support," TMC leader Derek O'Brien told ANI at ex-servicemen protest over OROP here.
 
 
"The last government tried, this government promised, but did not deliver, we want this OROP to be delivered," he added.
Earlier, social activist Anna Hazare had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to implement the OROP scheme at the earliest, failing which, he would launch a countrywide agitation for the same.
 
 
The OROP scheme has been a long-standing demand of ex-servicemen's associations and relates to payment of uniform pension to defence forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement. (ANI)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex-servicemen to step up protest for OROP



NEW DELHI, 14/07/2015: Ex-Servicemen sitting on a relay hunger strike at Jantar Mantar for almost a month, demanding implementation of one rank one pension (OROP) scheme, in New Delhi on July 14, 2015. Photo: Sandeep Saxena
The Hindu
 
 
NEW DELHI, 14/07/2015: Ex-Servicemen sitting on a relay hunger strike at Jantar Mantar for almost a month,
demanding implementation of one rank one pension (OROP) scheme, in New Delhi on July 14, 2015. Photo: Sandeep
New Delhi: Having failed to get their demand for 'One Rank One Pension' implemented despite 30 days of agitation, the ex-servicemen community on Tuesday announced that they will "regretfully heighten" their agitation and hold a major rally in poll-bound Bihar in August.
 
 
The United Front of Ex-Servicemen (UFESM) has given the government a seven-day notice before they intensify the ongoing agitation.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neglect of Ex-servicemen: Political Irrelevance is the Root Cause

(Fauji Magazine July 2015)

Major General Mrinal Suman



Soldiers’ dedication to duty, loyalty to the nation and willingness for the supreme sacrifice are driven less by material considerations and more by an overwhelming urge to earn love and respect of their countrymen. A grateful nation’s recognition of their contribution to national security acts as the strongest motivator.

Compassion for soldiers and ex-servicemen is the hallmark of all great nations. Any nation that does not care for its soldiers loses moral right to expect them to die for its security. The British recognized this fact better than any other nation and went on to rule half the world. The nation never forgets its war heroes. Every major landmark in London is named after distinguished soldiers and not politicians.

While addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention at the Phoenix Convention Center on 17 August 2009, President Obama declared, “You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. And so long as I am President of the United States, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you”. He termed America's commitment to its veterans as sacred bonds and a sacred trust Americans are honour-bound to uphold.

Unfortunately, India does not have a culture of respecting its soldiers. Although the public at large holds the military in high esteem, the same cannot be said of India’s ruling dispensations. Since Independence, exploiting the inexperience and gullibility of the military leadership, there has been a continuous flow of policy changes which have reduced the status of the services.

Worse, the government has adopted a negative attitude towards the ex-servicemen.  No effort is made to redress their genuine grievances. Neglect of ex-servicemen affects the morale of the serving soldiers adversely as they see themselves as ex-serviceman of the future. They start entertaining doubts about the government’s sincerity in fulfilling its commitments to them after superannuation.

Worrisome Adversarial Relationship

The growing adversarial relationship between the government and the ex-servicemen is a matter of grave concern. For the last few years, an impression is gaining ground that the government is becoming increasingly intolerant and biased against the ex-servicemen. The vindictiveness and wickedness with which the government is contesting court orders given in favour of the ex-servicemen has shocked even the die-hard supporters of the government.

The 4th Pay Commission had granted Rank Pay in addition to basic pay for officers up to the rank of Brigadier. However, while fixing pay in the integrated scale, an amount equal to the Rank Pay was deceitfully deducted from the total dues, thereby causing heavy financial loss to the officers.

The case of C S Sidhu, a Short Service Commissioned Officer whose right arm had to be amputated due to an accident while serving on the border in high altitude area in November 1970, is symptomatic of the disdain and viciousness with which an apathetic Government treats its brave soldiers. His pension was fixed at a pittance (about Rs 1000) per month.

In the recent past, India was witness to the most unfortunate sight of numerous military veterans returning their medals to the President to register their protest against government’s indifference to their pleas for the grant of much promised One Rank One Pay (OROP). Medals earned during active service are the proudest possession of soldiers and their being driven to surrender them should have made the government sit up and take note. But true to its wont, the government remained totally unconcerned and unmoved. In addition, nearly 6,000 ex-servicemen signed in blood to express their frustration. This episode will certainly go down as a dark chapter in the history of Independent India.

During 2014 general elections, sensing an opportunity to garner additional votes, the principal opposition party publicly promised to implement OROP, if voted to power. It also included the same in its manifesto. Trusting the solemn undertaking given by the top leadership of the party, the ex-servicemen voted overwhelmingly in its favour. Most disappointingly, even after being in power for more than a year, the current government is still vacillating, forcing the ex-servicemen to resort to hunger strikes. Worse, the ruling party appears least concerned.   

Incorrect to Blame Bureaucracy

The services consider bureaucrats to be their biggest adversary. They are painted as the incorrigible villains who doggedly impede implementation of all pro-services measures – endless litigations, rank pay, OROP imbroglio, equipment deficiencies and so on. The bureaucracy is certainly culpable for many of the ills that dog the Indian governance. However, it is unfair to put the entire blame on it. Bureaucracy does not function in a vacuum. It has to obey the dictats of its political masters.

Indian bureaucracy suffers from dissociative identity disorder – a split-personality syndrome. While dealing with the public, a bureaucrat is an arrogant ruler who considers himself to be the dispenser of largesse and behaves in a haughty, pretentious, condescending, pompous and supercilious manner.

However, his other personality manifests itself when he interacts with his political master. He becomes the most servile, timid, gutless and spineless creature on the earth. As it takes no time for a minister to remove a recalcitrant bureaucrat, no bureaucrat ever opposes or questions his minister. Bureaucrats are ‘survivors’ by nature and swim with the tide. No bureaucrat stopped scams related to 2G spectrum, coal mines and the Commonwealth games.

Rahul Gandhi’s demand for an increase in the number of subsidized gas cylinders from 9 to 12 per month at a Congress rally at Delhi on 17 January 2014 meant additional financial burden of Rs 5,000 crore per year.  The Revenue Secretary did not object to the huge fiscal penalty. He knew what was good for him. Fading away gracefully is not a trait that most bureaucrats can be accused of suffering from. They dread retirement, and for reemployment, they need to cultivate their political mentors and stay on their right side.

Therefore, it is grossly unfair for the ex-servicemen to blame the bureaucrats for the OROP logjam. No bureaucrat can dare to stall it unless so instructed by his ministers. Undoubtedly, it is the political leadership that is asking the bureaucrats to keep raising infructuous and irrelevant queries. Bureaucrats are simply following the orders. It brings one to the crux issue. Why is the political leadership of the country so indifferent towards the soldiers and the ex-servicemen?

The answer is obvious: soldiers do not count as a worthwhile vote bank and hence do not need to be cultivated. Vote bank politics is one of the indisputable characteristics of democracy. Unless the ex-servicemen acquire political relevance, they will continue to be ignored. They must make themselves get counted as a worthwhile vote bank. It is only then that they can acquire political leverage.

Fear of Politicisation of the Military is Misplaced
An advisory issued by the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement (IESM) before the last general elections supporting the opposition party that promised OROP raised hackles of many purist veterans who considered such an act to be sacrilege of the worst kind and a step towards politicisation of the services.

Politicisation as a phenomenon is generally applied to an organisation or a group. In other words, it implies collective disposition and not individual inclination. Social scientists have not been able to agree on a standard definition of politicisation as regards the military. It covers a huge spectrum. On the upper extreme is military’s demand for a formal and institutionalised role in national affairs. On the lower extreme lies military’s open display of political preference. Most of the middle ground is occupied by groups harbouring political ambitions to meddle in state’s functioning, albeit to varying degree.   

As regards apolitical deportment, it can be collective as well as individual. It reflects a policy of scrupulously avoiding involvement in political matters and affairs. Apolitical demeanour neither means apathy towards political matters nor lack of political opinion. Every soldier has been granted a right to vote for the candidate and party he deems worthy of his confidence. That implies that he has to be politically aware to make a well considered decision.

Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that a soldier should have no political preference. However, he can neither do canvassing for any political outfit nor display his leanings publicly. In other words, he does not participate in political activities, affairs and public debates. 

Once a soldier retires, he becomes a common citizen with no restrictions on his fundamental rights. He has the right to participate in political activities and even stand for elections. A number of ex-servicemen have acquitted themselves creditably in the political appointments assigned to them. Major General Khanduri excelled both as union cabinet minister and chief minister of his state.

As the constitution grants all rights to retired soldiers, no one can fault them for developing political ambitions and affiliations. In the US and other European countries, ex-servicemen have risen to be the head of their state and led their countries commendably.

The Way Forward

Undoubtedly, the military as an organisation must not get politicised. Its members should be politically aware but stay apolitical. While 'committed' bureaucracy and police have done immense damage to the body-politic of the country, consequences of ‘committed’ military can be far worse. India is proud of its apolitical military. Nothing should ever be done to dent it.

However, it is a misplaced notion that ex-servicemen should also continue to remain apolitical. Like other citizens, they are at liberty to form a group and seek furtherance of their interests through political means. Many ex-servicemen have fought elections on various party tickets and have won them as well. However, their influence in decision making has been non-existent. All political parties evolve policies and undertake programmes to promote the interests of their support bases to get continued support. For them, interests of ex-servicemen are of no electoral value.

Some well-wishers suggest that ex-servicemen should form a political party and participate in elections. It is an impractical proposition for a number of reasons. One, ex-servicemen are spread across the whole country and do not form enough mass to influence electoral result in any constituency. Two, political parties thrive through cadres which take decades to create. Three, enormous funds are needed to fight elections, both for electioneering and buying votes – ‘vote for note’ is a shameful but factual facet of the Indian democratic system. Can ex-servicemen distribute liquor in shanties and transport hordes of slum-dwellers to voting booths?  

To become politically relevant, ex-servicemen should form a ‘pressure group’. They are variously described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby groups’ or ‘protest groups’. All democracies have them. A pressure group is a voluntary non-profit organisation that does not put up candidates for election; but whose members have a common cause for which they seek to influence public opinion and political decision makers to achieve a declared objective.

Ideally, a pressure group should function both at formal and informal levels. The formal component should consist of organized lobby groupspolitical action committeesthink tanks and media watchdog groups. The informal component should attempt to influence the public opinion makers through regular interaction, press notes, articles and group discussions, both on TV and in seminars.

Lessons can be drawn from the functioning of the highly successful Jew pressure groups in the US. Prior to 1967, the US government was totally hostile towards Israel but since 1979, Israel has received the maximum foreign aid from the US. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with close to 100,000 members, is the leading pro-Israel lobby. It has succeeded in influencing public opinion in such an effective manner that even the lawmakers get encouraged to support AIPAC policies.  

However, to replicate the success of AIPAC, unity amongst all ex-servicemen is an inescapable prerequisite. The current fractured state of tens of associations and leagues must end. It has to be a single front with a single voice representing every ex-serviceman. It is only then that the ex-servicemen will be taken seriously.      

Visual media has become a very powerful tool. A large number of leading anchors belong to service families and are sympathetic towards the ex-servicemen. Their help should be sought to educate the masses and the decision makers. Additionally, ex-servicemen appearing in TV debates must be fully briefed and armed with facts and figures. They should be able to argue intelligently and coherently like Colonel Kaul. An ill-prepared ex-serviceman does considerable harm to their cause. 

The front should explore all avenues to highlight the deliberate injustice being done to the ex-servicemen. Bold opinion makers like Justice Katju and Arun Shorey should be convinced to support the cause. Social media should be intelligently exploited to enlist support of the country’s intelligentsia. It will not be inappropriate to take help from professional agencies.

Finally, the ex-servicemen will do well to remember Clausewitz’s counsel ‘make the best use of all the means available at our disposal for achieving the aim’.
-----------------------------------------------

2.अनिश्चितकाल धरने पर बैठे


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBK1U0N8UJ4


3.Is the One Rank One Pension stuck in red tape or political apathy? Why has the Congress, and now the BJP, dragged their feet on the issue?


http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/one-rank-one-pension-soldiers-war-cry/372281     ( OROP video
Duration: 48 min, 19 sec 22 June 2015 

============================

Prime Minister's promise on OROP was another 'jumla' ---Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar

With Narendra Modi seeking time from ex-servicemen to address the vexed issue of one-rank, one pension, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar on Monday said Prime Minister's promise on OROP was another 'jumla' as the one on black money even as he favoured inclusion of paramilitary personnel in the scheme.
=============================
Govt.planning to give LOLLYPOP instead of ''OROP -- DELAY,DENY,DILUTE!
Bureaucrats in Finance Ministry are inventing their own definition of ''OROP''
TO DELAY,DENY,DILUTE ''OROP''. They are not interested in hounouring
Koshiyari Committee definition.Passing the OROP buck to 7th cpc,FM asking
veterans to accept the definition invented by secretary finance expenditure
are all indicating-DELAY,DENY,DILUTE ''OROP''


-----------------------------

LOLLYPOP

                                                                     EX-SERVICEMEN MAHA SANGRAM RALLY
FROM 1000H TO 1430H ON 14 JUNE 15/HUNGER STRIKE FROM 15 JUNE 2015 
 AT JANTAR MANTAR NEW DELHI
 
                                               EXSERVICMEN ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH NDA GOVERNMENT.
OH ! - YOU SAID ''OROP''
1.MANY PROMISES ARE MADE DURING ELECTIONS, EVERY PROMISE CAN NOT BE FULFILLED, SCALE DOWN YOUR EXPECTATIONS--- JAITLY ON OROP

2.I AM PERSONALLY IN FAVOUR OF OROP BUT BUREAUCRATS DON'T WANT OROP TO BE GIVEN TO THE DEFENCE SERVICES....MMS AS PM

3.OROP-WE ARE HERE FOR 5 YEARS- MODI AS PM (IT MEANS IT MAY TAKE UPTO 4 YEARS MORE TO IMPLEMENT OROP I.E. APRIL 2019)

4.
''....Finance Minister finds the cost of implementation of OROP not commensurate to the political  benefits therefrom.”--------Congress


=================================================


Regards,


 

Peace With India Not In The Interest of Pakistan Military and Gentry

SOURCE:
http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/peace-with-india-not-in-the-interest-of-pakistan-military-and-gentry/ar-AAd1Zoe?ocid=onepro :







            Peace With India Not In The Interest
                                   of  
           Pakistan Military and Gentry


         भारत  के  साथ  शांति  पाकिस्तान  की  फ़ौज  
                                 और
          पाकिस्तानी  सज्जन  पुररुषो  के  हित  में  नहीं 








After news of a scheduled dialogue between India and Pakistan became public, the dreaded Pakistani military has become over active once again. Every time any Pakistani leader tried to make peace with India, the military and intelligence establishment of the country has hit back. Throughout history, from Kargil to Parliament attack to 26/11 to the recent border firing, it's a retaliation by the hawks in the military industrial complex to their civilian leaders not to seek peace with India. All the dialogues agreed to in Ufa in Russia, whether it's NSA or DG BSF or DGMOs will happen. Neither side can afford to be seen walking back from a joint commitment.


Immediately after the then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee’s bus ride to Pakistan, military led by General Parvez Musharraf hit back with Kargil war in 1999. The Pakistan military has time and again proved that it will not tolerate peace between both the nations. Because the entire edifice of Pakistani military is based on anti-India propaganda and sentiments. The peace with India will end dominance of the military in Pakistani life. The military does not want to lose its firm hold over the government and public life.


The same is happening once again. Some pressure groups and Army including the external intelligence agency ISI are putting pressure on the Nawaz Sharif government to not go ahead with talks between the National Security Advisor of India Ajit Doval and other establishments. The incidents of Pakistan allegedly shooting down an Indian Drone and allegations of cross border firing are not mere coincidences, but a deliberate attempt to derail the peace process. Our border forces are firing only in retaliation. It is a fact that Pakistani military is killing our civilians to derail the peace process. Both Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif have spoken and committed to restart the peace talks and the NSA level talks will happen despite everything going on against it.


Unlike the Khans and Bhuttos, Nawaz Sharif may have more money, but is not the Pakistani ‘Gentry’ whose philosophy is embodied in the Pakistani military and political establishment. Nawaz Sharif that way is, as they say in Lahore, a "chichora"! The gentry which has ruled Pakistan since its independence has wedded its continued relevance and prosperity to an anti-India stance which is the only, repeat, only common meeting ground between the Pakistani elite and the bottom. As long as this stance echoes in everything that the establishment does whether in budgeting, allocations, policies or growth projects , there is a semblance of "democratic order".


Whenever there is a shism, the country has wound itself up in inner turmoils of class, land wars, militancy, unrest, etc. If you remove the anti-India element from Pakistani affairs, what is left? Zero. How will the establishment justify expansion of defence budgets, military embellishments, procurements, foreign aid, what not? The western or, as is now, eastern, powers which want a foothold in south Asia have always been aware of Pakistan's forced alacrity to tow their line if only to keep up their internal pretence alive.


As to the border firing and killing of Indian soldiers, how can we even believe, and how we will continue to believe, our own foreign or Army chaps giving us the spiel that we are innocent? There is as much a history of veritable subversion on Pakistani soil planned by Indian intelligence agencies as is on the Pakistani side. Coming back to the present, it suffices to say, both India and Pakistan continue to keep up the pretence of talks. They owe it to their own domestic interests to keep the charade of talks going on as that is the most effective way of warding off any external intervention.