One farmer's suicide every 30 minutes!

Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Battle for supremacy leaves Nandigram scarred
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14561792&vsv=SHGTslot2
Nandigram: "Recaptured" by Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM) men after days of armed clashes with the Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC), several areas in the interior town still remain deserted.
A spell of disturbing calm in desolate villages is accentuated by triumphant CPM cadres moving around in motorbikes with the party's hammer-and-sickle flags.
Villagers, who fled in the aftermath of the clashes, know little about the presence of a team from the National Human Rights Commission. And they also don't know when they will return to their homes.
At the Nandigram Bazar relief camp, children were begging for money. Asked whether they were not being fed, a boy said, "We will be given food only in the afternoon. We have had nothing to eat since morning. We are hungry."
And there are tales of horror. "We were beaten up and our women molested. The State administration acted in a partisan manner. How can we go back?" said Pijush Kanti Dasadhikary from Golunagar Adhikaripara. His family has been staying in a camp for the last eight days.
Dasadhikary said he owned ten bighas of land, but he did not know what would happen to the standing paddy crop.
The NHRC team is due to visit the areas on Friday. The team's primary objective is to find out whether there had been any lapse on the part of the local police and administration.
Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) S P Singh, leading the team, told PTI that the team would visit troubled areas on Friday and talk to a cross-section of people as well as the administration in the next two-three days.
Administration sources said that the NHRC team met East Midnapore District Magistrate Anup Agarwal. However, Agarwal refused to share information about the meeting.
Over 1,500 refugees are sheltered in relief camps at Nandigram Bazar, patrolled by Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) personnel. "We are taking a little time to settle down," a CRPF officer said.
He was talking to a group of women who were too scared to return to their villages. "We will do everything possible for your safety," the officer told the women.
Azanur Islam, a BUPC supporter, said, "I was a neighbour of a CPM local leader, but had to flee to Haldia for a few days during the recent violence."
He said the CPM was now in total control of Nandigram Bazar area, which was the last BUPC stronghold to fall after the CPM men "overran" Nandigram.
Local CPM leaders have their task cut out: that of convincing the refugees that it was the BUPC that "misled" them and it was now CPM's duty to give protection.
Said local CPM leader Himanshu Dey, "We are assuring them (the refugees) that our men will not trouble them. We have told our people not to consider anyone an enemy. Those in camps were forced to follow the diktats of BUPC leaders and were misled," he said.
"Now there is peace everywhere," he claimed.

One farmer's suicide every 30 minutes
P. Sainath
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have
together seen 89,362 farmers' suicides between 1997 and 2005.
On average, one Indian farmer committed suicide every 32 minutes
between 1997 and 2005. Since 2002, that has become one suicide every
30 minutes. However, the frequency at which farmers take their lives
in any region smaller than the country — say a single State or group
of States — has to be lower. Because the number of suicides in any
such region would be less than the total for the country as a whole in
any year. Yet, the frequency at which farmers are killing themselves
in many regions is appalling.
On average, one farmer took his or her life every 53 minutes between
1997 and 2005 in just the States of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh) . In Maharashtra
alone, that was one suicide every three hours. It got even worse after
2001. It rose to one farm suicide every 48 minutes in these Big Four
States, and one every two and a quarter hours in Maharashtra alone.
The Big Four have together seen 89,362 farmers' suicides between 1997
and 2005, or 44,102 between 2002 and 2005.
K. Nagaraj of the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS), who
has studied farmers' suicides between 1997-2005 based on the National
Crime Records Bureau (NCR data, divides the States into four groups.
The worst of these is Group II which includes, besides the Big Four,
the State of Goa which shows a high farmers' suicide rate (FSR) — that
is, suicides per 1,00,000 farmers. However, Goa's rate is based on
tiny absolute numbers. All Group II States have high general suicide
rates (GSR) — suicides per 1,00,000 population — and have seen large
numbers of farm suicides.
Of these, Andhra Pradesh shows some decline in 2005. And the
government claims the numbers have fallen further in 2006. But there
is no NCRB data to support this as yet. In all, if the NCRB data are
valid, then Andhra Pradesh saw 16,770 suicides between 1997 and 2005.
Decline in Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh was the first State after the 2004 polls to appoint a
commission to go into the agrarian crisis. Based on the commission's
advice, it also took some steps towards handling that crisis. It
restored compensation for the suicides that had been stopped by the
previous regime in 1998. It persuaded creditors to accept a one-time
settlement of debt in several cases. This possibly helped see a
decline after the terrible years of 2002-04. However, Andhra Pradesh
has begun to mimic Maharashtra in one unhappy aspect. The number of
"non-genuine" cases — those the government does not accept as
distress-linked — keeps mounting each month while the "genuine"
suicides decline.
There are other problems too. Several States, notably Maharashtra,
have made identification of farmers' suicides extremely difficult by
using indicators that rule out vast numbers from being categorised as
such. One problem with such corruption of data is that it will
eventually reflect in and distort future NCRB reports as well.
Karnataka too records some decline in 2004 and 2005, after a
disastrous five-year period. And the State's 15 per cent increase in
non-farmers committing suicide in the 1997-2005 period is five times
higher than the rise in farmers' suicides (3 per cent). But the damage
of those earlier years was huge. Karnataka saw as many as 20,093 farm
suicides in the period. Again, it is unclear whether the lower numbers
for 2004-05 were largely due to policy measures or whether there have
been new and creative accounting techniques.
"Madhya Pradesh appears to have long been a problem State for farmers,
though this has not been so far acknowledged, " says Professor Nagaraj.
"The increase in farm suicides over the nine-year period 1997-2005 is
not so high, at 11 per cent, but the absolute numbers have been very
high for a long period. Much higher than in many other States.
However, here too, the rise in non-farmer suicides, at 48 per cent, is
more than four times the increase in farmers' suicides." Madhya
Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh) saw 23,588 farm suicides in the
1997-2005 period. However, Madhya Pradesh has mostly escaped the media
radar as a farm crisis State. In Group II States, farm suicides as a
percentage of total suicides reached 21.9 in 2005 against a national
average of 15.5. In short, more than one of every five persons taking
his or her life in these States that year was a farmer. Also, one in
every four suicides in this group was committed using pesticide.
One State outside the Big Four that has seen high numbers of farmers'
suicides is Kerala. It saw a total of 11,516 in 1997-2005. Worse, many
of these occurred in small districts such as Wayanad. Kerala shows a
fluctuating but declining trend over the nine-year period. The years
1998 to 2003 were clearly its worst period. More than 70 per cent of
its farm suicides occurred in those years. From 2004, the numbers
begin to drop. So much so that unlike the Big Four, it shows no
increases in farm suicides for the whole period. The post-2003 fall,
in fact, makes its overall figure minus 7 per cent.
Kerala created a "Debt Relief Commission" soon after the change in
government there in 2005. The Commission held a case by case scrutiny
of the debt problem, while the government halted aggressive loan
recovery measures by banks and money lenders. On the Commission's
advice, the government also decided to declare the entire Wayanad
revenue district distress-affected.
Kerala still vulnerable
The improvement is quite fragile and could easily see a downturn.
Kerala's farm suicide rate for the period is very high, and the State
remains vulnerable to volatility in the prices of, for instance,
coffee, pepper, cardamom or vanilla. A fragility enhanced by the fact
that major relief on the debt front requires Central help. Besides,
State bureaucracies are extremely hostile to debt relief for farmers.
Also, India's free trade agreements with nations and neighbours that
produce the same cash crops as Kerala hurts badly. The State's balance
on the farm suicides front is very delicate. Complacence would be,
literally, fatal.
Group I States are those which have very high general suicide rates.
That includes Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, West Bengal, and
Tripura. "However, Group I's share of both total suicides and of
farmers' suicides declined between 1997 and 2005, even as that of
Group II steadily rose," points out Professor Nagaraj.
Group III States (Assam, Orissa, Gujarat, and Haryana) are those which
have "moderate general and farm suicide rates," while Group IV States
(Bihar including Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh including Uttaranchal,
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Rajasthan) report "low
general and farmers' suicides rates."
Generally speaking, the Gangetic plain region and eastern India have
seen fewer farm suicides. States such as Uttar Pradesh (including
Uttaranchal) , Bihar (including Jharkhand) and Orissa report very few
suicides of this kind. These States are in many respects the opposite
of the Group II or `Suicide SEZ' States. These are overwhelmingly food
crop regions. They are not intensive input zones, and their costs of
cultivation are much lower. Use of chemicals is not anywhere at the
levels it is in the Group II States. Government support prices for
food crop provide some minimal stability. And there is obviously a
better water situation.
States such as Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat also report few
farm suicides but their data have been challenged. Haryana, for
instance, reports fewer suicides but its increase over the nine-year
period was 211 per cent. This springs not from the recording of huge
increases in recent years, but because the base year data appear
highly flawed. For 1997, Haryana reports a spectacularly low 45
suicides. Which distorts the figure of increase in farm suicides
across the period, pushing it upwards. "It could just have been that
the counting operation was really shoddy or that it collapsed or was
incomplete when data were sent in 1997," says Professor Nagaraj. The
numbers after the low 1997 figure remain roughly within a 170-210
range each year. Which again is strongly contested by farm unions and
activists.
There are peculiar indications in Gujarat. Pesticide suicides — a
common tool in farm suicides — are 84 per cent higher here than farm
suicides. At the national level, they are just 28 per cent higher. Why
is the gap three times bigger for Gujarat? Even for Group II States,
pesticide suicides are only 21 per cent higher than farm suicides.
Which raises the question whether several deaths in Gujarat ended up
being recorded as just "pesticide suicides" without being acknowledged
as suicides by farmers.
http://www.hindu. com/2007/ 11/15/stories/ 2007111554771300 .htm

Deal Delay Prolongs as BJP Remains Reluctant
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has failed to garner the support of BJP on the Indo-US nuclear deal with the Opposition party maintaining that it could not accept the agreement in its present form.The winter session Parliament which began this morning saw both houses adjourned after obituary references. The big debate in the coming days will be the Indo-Us Nuclear Deal, but the UPA is trying its best to avoid any debate at all, reports CNBC-TV18.Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a last-ditch attempt last night to get some support from the opposition. In a meeting with the BJP'S Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani, PM said that since there was no visible change in the stated positions of all the parties concerned, a debate on the deal would not serve any purpose. This demand has not been accepted by the BJP yet, as it has already given notices for a debate. Opposition leader LK Advani is believed to have told the PM that the BJP had strong reservations against certain clauses of the Hyde Act. He reiterated that in its present form, the deal would not be supported by the BJP.
On the eve of the crucial United Progressive Alliance-Left meeting on the India-United States civil nuclear deal, the government on Thursday indicated it would approach the International Atomic Energy Agency for negotiations on safeguards agreement.The indication came from a senior minister after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi .Dr Singh also held consultations with some of his senior cabinet colleagues including External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Defence Minister A K Antony and Home Minister Shivraj Patil.The minister said the government was contemplating approaching the IAEA and that Friday's meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal was important in this regard.
The Lok Sabha will have the much-delayed discussion on the Indo-US nuclear deal on November 27.Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said the government has also proposed discussion in the Rajya Sabha on November 28. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] would be away on a foreign tour, the opposition did not want a discussion on the crucial issue in his absence. Singh would return on November 25.Earlier, the government proposed to take up the discussion on November 16 in the Lok Sabha and November 19 in the Rajya Sabha to which main opposition BJP said it wanted a two-day discussion on the important issue.
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam wanted a discussion in the Rajya Sabha under a rule which entails voting on the issue. While the BJP has said that it favoured a discussion under a rule which entails voting, but could settle for a general discussion if it was not possible.
At Friday's meeting, a formal view on this is expected to be consolidated as the Left parties have hinted at softening their opposition to the government's desire to approach the IAEA.
The development assumes significance as it comes a day after the prime minister met senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader A B Vajpayee in an apparent attempt to seek the opposition's support to the nuclear deal.
Lok Sabha will discuss the nuclear deal on November 27 after the return of the prime minister from a two-nation tour of Singapore and Uganda, and the government has offered the debate in the Rajya Sabha on November 28.
The prime minister also held separate consultations with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi and also floor managers of the ruling side on the day of the start of the winter session of Parliament, which is expected to be a stormy one.
No BJP support to government on N-deal
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] has failed to garner the support of the Bharatiya Janata Party on the India-United States nuclear agreement. The Opposition party has said that it cannot accept the agreement in its present form.
The BJP's stand was made clear by senior leaders Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani when Singh met them in New Delhi on Wednesday night to seek the party's support during the debate on the deal in Parliament.
Advani told the Prime Minister that the party's concerns on the nuclear deal have not been addressed, senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj told reporters in New Delhi on Thursday.
Advani asked Singh whether he can assure that India will be able to conduct nuclear tests after operationalising the deal, Swaraj said, adding that the Prime Minister could not make any commitments.
Advani had earlier this week said that the government approached the Opposition party on the deal when it was on the verge of falling and it was too late to support the government on the issue.
Kissinger, China, and Indian amnesia
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14559095

Claude Arpi is an expert on the history of Tibet, China and the subcontinent. He was born in Angoulême, France. After graduating from Bordeaux University in 1974, he decided to live in India and settled in the South where he is still staying with his Indian wife and young daughter. He is the author of numerous English and French books including ‘The Fate of Tibet,’ ‘La Politique Française de Nehru: 1947-1954,’ ‘Born in Sin: the Panchsheel Agreement’ and ‘India and Her Neighbourhood.’ He writes regularly on Tibet, China, India and Indo-French relations. In the present article, he says India needs to act as a friend of China.
The Indians are bastards anyway.’
So declared Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to US President Richard M Nixon, on November 5, 1971.
This followed a meeting a day before with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had met Nixon and Kissinger in Washington and apprised them about the grim situation in East Pakistan.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjeee during his visit to India recently.
Nixon told Indira Gandhi that a new war in the subcontinent was out of question, but Indira remained firm, saying the humanitarian problem could not remain on India’s shoulders. The next day, when Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation, Nixon declared: "We really slobbered over the old witch."
"The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war," replied Kissinger. However, "while she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too," he said. "She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war."
Earlier, in May that year, Gandhi had written to the US President about the influx of refugees burdening India. When the Indian Ambassador to US L K Jha warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas, Nixon warned: “By God, we will cut off economic aid [to India]."
A few days later, when Nixon declared that "the goddamn Indians" were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted, "they are the most aggressive goddamn people around."
Also Read: Burma's freedom cry | India-China: Imperfect harmony | Uncle Sam’s nuclear hardsell
Thirty-five years later, the Historian of the State Department analysed the US position thus: “When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration ‘tilted’ toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India, and the crisis on the subcontinent ended without a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.” The Nixon-Kissinger duo would have been happy to have "scared the pants off the Russians".
One cannot understand the context of the 1971 War without taking the Chinese factor into account. In a tightly guarded secret, Nixon had started contacting Beijing in 1970. The ‘postman’ was Pakistan’s self-appointed Field Marshal and President, Yahya Khan. During the first few months, the clever Kissinger even refused to bring the US ambassador to Pakistan Joseph Farland into the picture.
When on April 28, 1971, Kissinger sent a note defining US policy options on Pakistan, Nixon replied in a handwritten note: "To all hands. Don't squeeze Yahya at this time." The Pakistan President was not to be squeezed because he was in the process of arranging Kissinger’s first secret meeting to China.
A week later Farland was finally told the secret: Kissinger had to ‘disappear’ for two days during an official visit to Pakistan and flown secretly to Beijing. The attempts to mend fences with the Chinese was thus a major factor in the US tilt towards Pakistan.
When Kissinger went to Beijing during the second week of July, he was told by Zhou Enlai that: “We support the stand of Pakistan. If they (the Indians) are bent on provoking such a situation [a war], then we cannot sit idly by.” Kissinger replied that Zhou should know that the US sympathies too lay with Pakistan.
On his return, during a meeting of the National Security Council, Kissinger continued his India bashing: the Indians are "a slippery, treacherous people," he said.
In some ways, it is nice that India is a nation without memory. Nobody seems to remember these incidents or dares remind Kissinger about them. Had the same thing happened to China, the former NSA (and later Secretary of State) would have been asked to apologise before applying for his visa.
But magnanimous India received Kissinger late last month without fuss. Among others, he met the Leader of the Opposition L K Advani as well as the West Bengal Communist Chief Minister.
And though he was ostensibly in India to discuss foreign policy with various economic and political groups, his intentions became obvious when he dared to declare that India’s failure to implement the civil nuclear deal with the US could lead to questions over its ‘trustworthiness’ and may impact upon New Delhi’s quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
Of course, he insisted that his visit had nothing to do with the deal, he just happened to be visiting India while the subject was under hot debate between the government and its coalition partners. In any case, he half threateningly pointed out: “it was a very good deal for India and in case it gets nixed now, it won't be easy to salvage it.”
About his meeting with BJP leader L K Advani, he admitted, "Inevitably, this issue figured in our discussions. He (Advani) explained his perception of India's necessities".
But, Kissinger emphasised again, he “was not here to push the deal”.
Is it also a coincidence, that the US Ambassador Mulford is frantically meeting Indian leaders, both left and right? Or that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the phone with her Indian counterpart, and Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary took up the issue with the Communist leaders during a visit to West Bengal. All this in a week?
Why is Washington suddenly so interested to shield India’s interests? Is it possible that that it is their own interest that they are so vociferously defending?
It would indeed be wrong to believe that the US is doing India a favour by signing a deal which will open huge business opportunities for Washington (as well as other Western nations and Australia). Let us not forget that the US suffered a great deal from the post-test ban, as several less strict nations jumped to the opportunity to do business with India.
The deal is also probably a way for Washington to play the India card against China. A stronger nuclear India could help the US Administration balance the rise of China in Asia. As during the Cold War, the US prefers to fight proxy wars rather than direct ones. One easily understands the advantages of such a policy.
The China factor remains nevertheless crucial. Let us remember Vajpayee’s letter to Clinton after the 1998 test. “We have an overt nuclear weapon state on our borders, a state which committed armed aggression against India in 1962,” the Indian Prime Minister wrote. ”Although our relations with that country have improved in the last decade or so, an atmosphere of distrust persists mainly due to the unresolved border problem.”
The CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat says he opposes the nuclear deal on the ground that the US strategy is to encircle China. While it is true that Kissinger and his colleagues are not coming to do good to the ‘slippery’ Indians (they signed a deal and later refuse to operationalise it!), why should India try to encircle China? It is simply not in the Indian mentality and tradition to do so.
In another development, the BJP President has accused Karat and his comrades of putting pressure on the Cabinet Secretary to circulate a letter warning the members of the Cabinet that a function organised to felicitate the Dalai Lama for receiving the US Congressional Gold Medal was 'not in conformity with the country's foreign policy'.
This clearly shows Karat’s imperialist attitude. When Tibet was an independent nation, there was no question of encirclement and there was certainly no border dispute. Today the Roof of the World is colonised and therefore the problem.
To come back to Kissinger, as he was landing in Delhi some newly declassified documents from the Russian archives came to light which clearly show how ‘slippery and treacherous’ the former secretary of state can be.
A particular document narrates a meeting between the Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and Kissinger in February 1972. Dobrynin was called to the White House as Kissinger wanted to speak on a very sensitive issue.
The Ambassador noted: “[Kissinger] would like to bring me up to date, on a strictly confidential basis, about what specifically the Secretary of State knows concerning the state of Soviet-US relations, which have been discussed with me at the White House level (by the President and Kissinger), since the Secretary of State does not know everything. In this connection, he requests that I, the Soviet Ambassador, keep in mind during the upcoming conversation with the Secretary of State the special circumstances mentioned above and not touch on issues he knows nothing about.”
In other words, Kissinger, then the national security advisor, was negotiating behind the back of his own Secretary of State.
For those who had doubts about the Indo-US nuclear deal, Kissinger’s visit makes it even more suspicious.
The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not of Sify.com.

Deal Delay Prolongs as BJP Remains Reluctant

Palash Biswas

Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has failed to garner the support of BJP on the Indo-US nuclear deal with the Opposition party maintaining that it could not accept the agreement in its present form.The winter session Parliament which began this morning saw both houses adjourned after obituary references. The big debate in the coming days will be the Indo-Us Nuclear Deal, but the UPA is trying its best to avoid any debate at all, reports CNBC-TV18.Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a last-ditch attempt last night to get some support from the opposition. In a meeting with the BJP'S Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani, PM said that since there was no visible change in the stated positions of all the parties concerned, a debate on the deal would not serve any purpose. This demand has not been accepted by the BJP yet, as it has already given notices for a debate. Opposition leader LK Advani is believed to have told the PM that the BJP had strong reservations against certain clauses of the Hyde Act. He reiterated that in its present form, the deal would not be supported by the BJP.

On the eve of the crucial United Progressive Alliance-Left meeting on the India-United States civil nuclear deal, the government on Thursday indicated it would approach the International Atomic Energy Agency for negotiations on safeguards agreement.The indication came from a senior minister after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi .Dr Singh also held consultations with some of his senior cabinet colleagues including External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Defence Minister A K Antony and Home Minister Shivraj Patil.The minister said the government was contemplating approaching the IAEA and that Friday's meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal was important in this regard.

The Lok Sabha will have the much-delayed discussion on the Indo-US nuclear deal on November 27.Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said the government has also proposed discussion in the Rajya Sabha on November 28. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] would be away on a foreign tour, the opposition did not want a discussion on the crucial issue in his absence. Singh would return on November 25.Earlier, the government proposed to take up the discussion on November 16 in the Lok Sabha and November 19 in the Rajya Sabha to which main opposition BJP said it wanted a two-day discussion on the important issue.

The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam wanted a discussion in the Rajya Sabha under a rule which entails voting on the issue. While the BJP has said that it favoured a discussion under a rule which entails voting, but could settle for a general discussion if it was not possible.

At Friday's meeting, a formal view on this is expected to be consolidated as the Left parties have hinted at softening their opposition to the government's desire to approach the IAEA.

The development assumes significance as it comes a day after the prime minister met senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader A B Vajpayee in an apparent attempt to seek the opposition's support to the nuclear deal.

Lok Sabha will discuss the nuclear deal on November 27 after the return of the prime minister from a two-nation tour of Singapore and Uganda, and the government has offered the debate in the Rajya Sabha on November 28.

The prime minister also held separate consultations with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi and also floor managers of the ruling side on the day of the start of the winter session of Parliament, which is expected to be a stormy one.

No BJP support to government on N-deal

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] has failed to garner the support of the Bharatiya Janata Party on the India-United States nuclear agreement. The Opposition party has said that it cannot accept the agreement in its present form.

The BJP's stand was made clear by senior leaders Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani when Singh met them in New Delhi on Wednesday night to seek the party's support during the debate on the deal in Parliament.

Advani told the Prime Minister that the party's concerns on the nuclear deal have not been addressed, senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj told reporters in New Delhi on Thursday.

Advani asked Singh whether he can assure that India will be able to conduct nuclear tests after operationalising the deal, Swaraj said, adding that the Prime Minister could not make any commitments.

Advani had earlier this week said that the government approached the Opposition party on the deal when it was on the verge of falling and it was too late to support the government on the issue.

Kissinger, China, and Indian amnesia
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14559095

Claude Arpi is an expert on the history of Tibet, China and the subcontinent. He was born in Angoulême, France. After graduating from Bordeaux University in 1974, he decided to live in India and settled in the South where he is still staying with his Indian wife and young daughter. He is the author of numerous English and French books including ‘The Fate of Tibet,’ ‘La Politique Française de Nehru: 1947-1954,’ ‘Born in Sin: the Panchsheel Agreement’ and ‘India and Her Neighbourhood.’ He writes regularly on Tibet, China, India and Indo-French relations. In the present article, he says India needs to act as a friend of China.

The Indians are bastards anyway.’

So declared Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to US President Richard M Nixon, on November 5, 1971.
This followed a meeting a day before with Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who had met Nixon and Kissinger in Washington and apprised them about the grim situation in East Pakistan.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjeee during his visit to India recently.

Nixon told Indira Gandhi that a new war in the subcontinent was out of question, but Indira remained firm, saying the humanitarian problem could not remain on India’s shoulders. The next day, when Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation, Nixon declared: "We really slobbered over the old witch."

"The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war," replied Kissinger. However, "while she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too," he said. "She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war."

Earlier, in May that year, Gandhi had written to the US President about the influx of refugees burdening India. When the Indian Ambassador to US L K Jha warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerrillas, Nixon warned: “By God, we will cut off economic aid [to India]."

A few days later, when Nixon declared that "the goddamn Indians" were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted, "they are the most aggressive goddamn people around."

Also Read: Burma's freedom cry | India-China: Imperfect harmony | Uncle Sam’s nuclear hardsell

Thirty-five years later, the Historian of the State Department analysed the US position thus: “When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration ‘tilted’ toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian Government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India, and the crisis on the subcontinent ended without a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.” The Nixon-Kissinger duo would have been happy to have "scared the pants off the Russians".

One cannot understand the context of the 1971 War without taking the Chinese factor into account. In a tightly guarded secret, Nixon had started contacting Beijing in 1970. The ‘postman’ was Pakistan’s self-appointed Field Marshal and President, Yahya Khan. During the first few months, the clever Kissinger even refused to bring the US ambassador to Pakistan Joseph Farland into the picture.

When on April 28, 1971, Kissinger sent a note defining US policy options on Pakistan, Nixon replied in a handwritten note: "To all hands. Don't squeeze Yahya at this time." The Pakistan President was not to be squeezed because he was in the process of arranging Kissinger’s first secret meeting to China.

A week later Farland was finally told the secret: Kissinger had to ‘disappear’ for two days during an official visit to Pakistan and flown secretly to Beijing. The attempts to mend fences with the Chinese was thus a major factor in the US tilt towards Pakistan.

When Kissinger went to Beijing during the second week of July, he was told by Zhou Enlai that: “We support the stand of Pakistan. If they (the Indians) are bent on provoking such a situation [a war], then we cannot sit idly by.” Kissinger replied that Zhou should know that the US sympathies too lay with Pakistan.

On his return, during a meeting of the National Security Council, Kissinger continued his India bashing: the Indians are "a slippery, treacherous people," he said.

In some ways, it is nice that India is a nation without memory. Nobody seems to remember these incidents or dares remind Kissinger about them. Had the same thing happened to China, the former NSA (and later Secretary of State) would have been asked to apologise before applying for his visa.

But magnanimous India received Kissinger late last month without fuss. Among others, he met the Leader of the Opposition L K Advani as well as the West Bengal Communist Chief Minister.

And though he was ostensibly in India to discuss foreign policy with various economic and political groups, his intentions became obvious when he dared to declare that India’s failure to implement the civil nuclear deal with the US could lead to questions over its ‘trustworthiness’ and may impact upon New Delhi’s quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Of course, he insisted that his visit had nothing to do with the deal, he just happened to be visiting India while the subject was under hot debate between the government and its coalition partners. In any case, he half threateningly pointed out: “it was a very good deal for India and in case it gets nixed now, it won't be easy to salvage it.”

About his meeting with BJP leader L K Advani, he admitted, "Inevitably, this issue figured in our discussions. He (Advani) explained his perception of India's necessities".

But, Kissinger emphasised again, he “was not here to push the deal”.

Is it also a coincidence, that the US Ambassador Mulford is frantically meeting Indian leaders, both left and right? Or that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the phone with her Indian counterpart, and Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary took up the issue with the Communist leaders during a visit to West Bengal. All this in a week?

Why is Washington suddenly so interested to shield India’s interests? Is it possible that that it is their own interest that they are so vociferously defending?

It would indeed be wrong to believe that the US is doing India a favour by signing a deal which will open huge business opportunities for Washington (as well as other Western nations and Australia). Let us not forget that the US suffered a great deal from the post-test ban, as several less strict nations jumped to the opportunity to do business with India.

The deal is also probably a way for Washington to play the India card against China. A stronger nuclear India could help the US Administration balance the rise of China in Asia. As during the Cold War, the US prefers to fight proxy wars rather than direct ones. One easily understands the advantages of such a policy.

The China factor remains nevertheless crucial. Let us remember Vajpayee’s letter to Clinton after the 1998 test. “We have an overt nuclear weapon state on our borders, a state which committed armed aggression against India in 1962,” the Indian Prime Minister wrote. ”Although our relations with that country have improved in the last decade or so, an atmosphere of distrust persists mainly due to the unresolved border problem.”

The CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat says he opposes the nuclear deal on the ground that the US strategy is to encircle China. While it is true that Kissinger and his colleagues are not coming to do good to the ‘slippery’ Indians (they signed a deal and later refuse to operationalise it!), why should India try to encircle China? It is simply not in the Indian mentality and tradition to do so.

In another development, the BJP President has accused Karat and his comrades of putting pressure on the Cabinet Secretary to circulate a letter warning the members of the Cabinet that a function organised to felicitate the Dalai Lama for receiving the US Congressional Gold Medal was 'not in conformity with the country's foreign policy'.

This clearly shows Karat’s imperialist attitude. When Tibet was an independent nation, there was no question of encirclement and there was certainly no border dispute. Today the Roof of the World is colonised and therefore the problem.

To come back to Kissinger, as he was landing in Delhi some newly declassified documents from the Russian archives came to light which clearly show how ‘slippery and treacherous’ the former secretary of state can be.

A particular document narrates a meeting between the Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and Kissinger in February 1972. Dobrynin was called to the White House as Kissinger wanted to speak on a very sensitive issue.

The Ambassador noted: “[Kissinger] would like to bring me up to date, on a strictly confidential basis, about what specifically the Secretary of State knows concerning the state of Soviet-US relations, which have been discussed with me at the White House level (by the President and Kissinger), since the Secretary of State does not know everything. In this connection, he requests that I, the Soviet Ambassador, keep in mind during the upcoming conversation with the Secretary of State the special circumstances mentioned above and not touch on issues he knows nothing about.”

In other words, Kissinger, then the national security advisor, was negotiating behind the back of his own Secretary of State.

For those who had doubts about the Indo-US nuclear deal, Kissinger’s visit makes it even more suspicious.

The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not of Sify.com.

Iran opens up to U.N., escalates nuclear drive: IAEA
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Iran has made important strides toward transparency about its nuclear activities but key questions remain unresolved and it has significantly increased uranium enrichment, a U.N. report said on Thursday.
The findings, and Iran's continued lack of full disclosure, may open Tehran to a third round of sanctions due to suspicions in the West it is secretly working towards making atom bombs.
Tehran says it seeks only nuclear-generated electricity.
Iran has further expanded uranium enrichment despite U.N. demands to stop, raising the number of centrifuge machines to 3,000, the IAEA report said. This number is enough to start industrial production of nuclear fuel.
"... its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive," the report said. "Iran's active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan."
In Tehran a senior Iranian nuclear official said the IAEA report showed Tehran was keeping its promise to cooperate in allaying suspicions about its nuclear plans.
"It (the report) ... shows that Iran has cooperated with the IAEA as promised," the official told Reuters when asked about the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Six world powers agreed in September they would have the U.N. Security Council vote on wider sanctions unless reports by the IAEA and the EU's top diplomat, Javier Solana, showed Iran had come clean on its program and was moving to suspend it.

Iran capable of industrial nuclear fuel production
Guardian Unlimited - 45 minutes ago
A satellite image of a suspected nuclear research facility at the Parchin military site near Tehran. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images Iran's nuclear enrichment programme is now capable of beginning the industrial production of nuclear fuel, a report by the ...
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations agency responsible for monitoring nuclear activities around the world, is just out with a new report on Iran, focusing on whether the country is living up to its agreements and complying with Security Council resolutions.
UN mixed on Iran nuclear report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096883.stm
Mr ElBaradei has said Iran is years away from making a nuclear bomb
The UN nuclear watchdog has said Iran has provided it with information about its past nuclear activities as agreed under a work plan made in August.
But a new IAEA report also said Iran had not suspended uranium enrichment work as demanded by the UN Security Council and had 3,000 centrifuges.
The US said it proved Tehran continued to defy UN calls to suspend enrichment and should face further sanctions.
Iran said the report showed it had been transparent and UN pressure invalid.
IAEA REPORT

Report to IAEA Board of Governors on Iranian nuclear programme
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report will form the basis for deliberations when representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, meet on Monday in Brussels.
On Tuesday, diplomats said Iran had given the IAEA a document containing design information that could be used for parts of a nuclear weapon. The IAEA had been asking Iran for the document since 2005.
'Reactive' co-operation
The confidential report by IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, a copy of which was obtained by the BBC, said Iran had made progress in responding to questions about its past nuclear activities.
"Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan," the report said.

Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes

It also said the answers Iran had given about the history of its centrifuge programme, the machines used to enrich uranium, were consistent with the IAEA's own findings.
A senior UN official said this is a significant step forward.
However, the report said Iran's co-operation with the IAEA had been "reactive" rather than "pro-active" and that the IAEA was continuing to check whether Iran's declarations were complete.
The BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna says that while a number of questions about Iran's past nuclear work have been answered, the report says the IAEA's knowledge about Tehran's current nuclear programme is diminishing.
It said Iran was still continuing its uranium enrichment work in defiance of the UN Security Council and had been operating 3,000 centrifuges at its plant at Natanz.
Western powers are concerned because, while enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, highly enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.
Tehran has argued that it needs nuclear power and insists its intentions are entirely peaceful.
Sanctions threat
At a news conference held after the report was given to the IAEA board and the Security Council, Iran's new chief nuclear negotiator said it would be "quite enlightening for all those who had any ambiguities. This report sadly makes clear that Iran seems uninterested in working with the rest of the world

"It clarifies that many of those ambiguities that were raised and accordingly certain measures were taken, such as referring Iran's case to the UN Security Council, are no longer valid," Saeed Jalili said.
However, the US said the IAEA confirmation of Iran's expanding uranium enrichment programme showed that Iran was continuing to defy world demands.
"This report sadly makes clear that Iran seems uninterested in working with the rest of the world," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
"The United States will work with our partners on the UN Security Council and Germany as we move towards a third set of Security Council sanctions," she added.

TIMELINE: Iran's nuclear program
Reuters) - A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday that Iran has made important strides toward transparency about its nuclear activity but has yet to resolve key outstanding questions.
Here is a chronology since it emerged that Iran was carrying out sensitive work that it could use to make atomic bombs. Tehran insists its activities are peaceful:
August 2002 - The exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran reports the existence of uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and heavy water plant at Arak.
December 2002 - The United States accuses Iran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".
June 2003 - An IAEA report, after February inspection of Natanz and Arak, says Iran has failed to comply with nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of nuclear facilities.
November 2004 - Iran promises EU negotiators it will suspend all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work.
September 2, 2005 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.
Reuters) - A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Thursday that Iran has made important strides toward transparency about its nuclear activity but has yet to resolve key outstanding questions.
Here is a chronology since it emerged that Iran was carrying out sensitive work that it could use to make atomic bombs. Tehran insists its activities are peaceful:
August 2002 - The exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran reports the existence of uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and heavy water plant at Arak.
December 2002 - The United States accuses Iran of "across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".
June 2003 - An IAEA report, after February inspection of Natanz and Arak, says Iran has failed to comply with nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of nuclear facilities.
November 2004 - Iran promises EU negotiators it will suspend all nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing work.
September 2, 2005 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.
May 23 - A confidential IAEA report says Iran has not suspended enrichment-related work.
Aug 21 - Iran and the IAEA say they agreed a timeline for answering outstanding questions about Iran's nuclear program.
Oct 20 - Saeed Jalili is named to replace chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, who resigned.
Oct 24 - The U.S. imposes new sanctions on Iran and accuses Revolutionary Guard of spreading weapons of mass destruction.
Nov 2 - Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., Russia and China agree to push ahead with a third round of tougher sanctions.
Nov 15 - IAEA says Iran has made important strides towards transparency but it remains unable to ascertain Iran does not have a secret, parallel military enrichment program.
(Writing by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit)

Pakistan Beyond Busharraf!
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Pakistan appoints caretaker PM for polls
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf appointed on Thursday the chairman of the upper house Senate as caretaker prime minister to oversee general elections the opposition says it doubts can be free and fair.
As expected, Senate chairman and ruling party member Mohammadmian Soomro will head a caretaker line-up that will be sworn in on Friday, said Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, a close Musharraf ally.
But opposition party officials said no matter who heads the caretaker administration, elections that army chief Musharraf has promised for early January won't be free and fair under emergency rule he imposed on November 3.
Struggling to secure another term of office in the face of legal challenges, he suspended the constitution, fired judges seen as hostile to his rule, rounded up thousands of opposition politicians and rights activists and curbed the media.
"We totally reject it. This appointment, in fact, is part of General Musharraf's scheme to perpetuate his rule," said Mushahidullah Khan, vice president of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's party.
The National Assembly -- which critics say is a pro-Musharraf rubber stamp convened after what they say were rigged polls in 2002 -- completes its term on Thursday.
Another former prime minister and opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, has said the possibility of a vote boycott would be discussed at an opposition meeting next week.

Young Pakistanis turn to Web for protest
By ROBIN McDOWELL, Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Angry over emergency rule, Pakistani students are starting to demonstrate against their military ruler. And they are using the Web as well as the street to make their point.
Samad Khurram said updating his online newsletter, the Emergency Telegraph, has practically become a full-time job. Offering advice on everything from avoiding arrest to staging "flash" rallies and organizing petitions, it is e-mailed to some 6,000 people.
With independent TV news off the air, the Emergency Telegraph also provides links to Web sites with streaming video, as well as media contacts, inspirational references to figures like Che Guevara and messages from detained human rights activists and judges.
"If my family knew what I was doing they would put me under house arrest," joked the 21-year-old, who is taking a semester off from Harvard. "And they would definitely take away my computer."
Lawyers have been the standard-bearers for dissent since Nov. 3, when President Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, saying it was needed to address Islamic militancy and stabilize the country.
Critics say the general is trying to maintain his hold on power, noting that one of his first steps was to oust all Supreme Court judges who could have disqualified his re-election as president in a vote last month by national and provincial legislators.
Most rallies this month have been quickly and often violently stamped out, and thousands of people have been jailed, including cricket star-turned-politician Imran Khan, considered by many a symbol of the youth movement.
Muhammad Naveed, a student from Punjab University in the eastern city of Lahore, said many young people worry about what will happen to those detained.
"We are afraid the government will register cases against the students under the amended army act," he said, referring to measures that allow military courts to try civilians accused of committing treason or sedition or "giving statements conducive to public mischief."
In the worst-case scenario, they could be sentenced to death, though jail time or fines would be more likely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_students

The United States is losing faith that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf can survive in office, a report has said.Senior US officials said the Bush Administration has begun discussing what might come next, a detailed report in the New York Times said. If Musharraf is forced from power, the report said, it would most likely be in a gentle push by fellow officers, who would try to install a civilian president and push for parliamentary elections to produce the next prime minister, perhaps even Bhutto, despite past strains between her and the military.But removing the general might not be that easy, the report quoted diplomats as saying.On the other hand,According to reliable ex-military sources in Pakistan, at the meeting of the Corps Commanders of the Pakistani Army convened by President General Pervez Musharraf on November 10, there was an unanimous endorsement of his decision to impose emergency, suspend the Constitution and sack Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury. However, the majority of the commanders expressed their reservations over the wisdom of his attempts, under US pressure, to reach a power-sharing agreement with Benazir Bhutto. Their reservations were based on the following grounds: (http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/nov/13raman.htm):
Before 1988, Al Zulfiquar, the organisation headed by her brother, the late Murtaza Bhutto, was responsible for the killing of Punjabi political leaders perceived by it as close to the army. They recalled in particular its alleged role in the assassination of Chaudhury Zehur Elahi, who was very close to General Zia-ul-Haq and related to Chaudhury Shujjat Hussain, the leader of the pro-army Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid-e-Azam) and Pervez Elahi, the chief minister of Punjab.
The PML (QA) has remained loyal to Musharraf and the army for the last five years and supported him in all his actions -- whether it be against Chaudhury or for the imposition of the emergency. To succumb to US pressure to facilitate the return of Benazir to power would be extremely unfair to the PML (QA) and Musharraf might end up by losing the support of the Punjabi political class, the religious fundamentalist parties and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement of Altaf Hussain.
The dissenting commanders expressed their resentment over what they projected as the US attempts to interfere in the internal political affairs of Pakistan by backing Benazir. They said that while Pakistan should continue to co-operate with the US in the operations against Al Qaeda [Images] and pro-Al Qaeda terrorist groups, it should resist US pressure to reach a power-sharing agreement with her.
They also expressed resentment over the kind of allegations she has been making against the Inter-Services Intelligence and serving and retired officers in the intelligence community ever since she returned to Pakistan on October 18.
They were of the view that at a time when the fundamentalist political parties and jihadi organisations were expressing their opposition to Benazir becoming the prime minister again, to give her share of the power under US pressure would aggravate the difficulties already being faced by the security forces in countering the upsurge in terrorism since the raid on the Lal Masjid in July.
They were also of the view that Musharraf should not be in a hurry to lift emergency. They wanted it to continue till the elections were over and a new government was in position. They were afraid that in the absence of the emergency, she and her followers in the Pakistan People's Party might use their considerable money and street power to create political instability if her party did not do well in the elections.
Following this, Musharraf has been evasive on the question of an early end to the emergency. He has started projecting Benazir as one among the many political leaders of Pakistan instead of the first among the political leaders as she is fond of projecting herself. The corps commanders wanted her to be cut down to size.

Army generals are unlikely to move against General Musharraf unless certain "red lines" are crossed, such as countrywide political protests or a real threat of a cutoff of American military aid to Pakistan. Citing that Pakistan's cadre of elite generals, called the corps commanders, have long been kingmakers inside the country, the report said General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, General Musharraf's designated successor as army chief, a moderate, pro-American infantry commander, is widely seen as commanding respect within the army and, within Western circles, as a potential alternative to General Musharraf.
The report also said the administration officials said they were also dismayed that General Musharraf last week released 25 militants in exchange for 211 soldiers captured by militants in August.
In meetings on Wednesday, officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon huddled to decide what message Deputy Secretary of State John D Negroponte would deliver to Musharraf -- and perhaps more important, to Pakistan's generals -- when he arrives in Islamabad on Friday.
The report said the administration hopes to salvage the fractured relations between General Musharraf and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto [Images].
But in Pakistan, foreign diplomats and aides to both leaders said the chances of a deal between the leaders were evaporating 11 days after General Musharraf imposed a state of emergency.
Several senior administration officials said that with each day that passed, more administration officials were coming around to the belief that General Musharraf's days in power were numbered and that the United States should begin considering contingency plans, including reaching out to Pakistan's generals.
The report said officials involved in the discussions in Washington said the Bush administration remained wary of the perception that the United States was cutting back-room deals to install the next leader of Pakistan.
PRITAM KUMAR ROHILA, PH. D
4410 Verda Lane NE, Keizer, OR 97303, USA
503.393.6944
pritamrohila@yahoo.com
November 14, 2007
Turmoil in Pakistan
Pritam K. Rohila, Ph.D.
Pakistan today stands on the brink of anarchy. Government security forces seem to be helpless against the resurgent Taliban and extremist elements in Waziristan and parts of the Northwest Frontier.
Suicide attacks have spread even to Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Their number has increased from about four a year in the preceding five years to 44 so far this year. Militant violence has claimed about 2,500 lives in the current year.
The grip of the army on political, civil and economic life continues to become tighter, while the living conditions of people, especially in rural areas goes on spiraling downward.
After eight years of three-steps-back for each progressive-looking-pronouncement, President Musharraf has staged a coup against himself. He has declared Emergency, suspended the Constitution, fired Supreme Court justices, blackmailed some justices into submitting to his agenda, gagged the media, and arrested a large number of opponents.
These political maneuvers to cling to power have pushed the country further toward the edge. And to add insult to injury, on November 10, President Musharraf amended the Pakistan Army Act 1952 to empower the army to arrest, investigate and try civilians in military courts.
The situation has attracted widespread condemnation. In spite of the heavy crackdown there have been protests throughout Pakistan. Marches and demonstrations have been organized in many foreign countries as well.
Foreign governments as well as many international organizations including the United Nations have expressed their displeasure. The Commonwealth has given a 10-day deadline to Pakistan to restore its constitution and lift other emergency measures or face suspension from the 53-nation grouping.
International investors withdrew as much as 20 percent of their equity investments from Karachi Stock Exchange in just first four trading days after the declaration of Emergency. Also the Moody

Our killing fields by Mahasveta Devi
Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Our killing fields
Mahasveta Devi
November 15, 2007
First Published: 21:06 IST(15/11/2007)
Last Updated: 21:10 IST(15/11/2007)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2c81ff70-681f-47ef-88cb-ea39b7e44106&&Headline=Our+killing+fields

Today is November 15, 2007. Yesterday, in Kolkata, nearly 100,000 people walked on the streets in support of Nandigram. Their slogan was “Tomar nam, amar nam, Nandigram, Nandigram.” (Your name, my name, Nandigram, Nandigram.) Nandigram is a place in East Midnapore district of West Bengal. Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has joined the multinational corporate giants and started acquiring agricultural land in West Bengal in the name of industrialisation. Singur in Hooghly went to the Tatas. Nandigram was earmarked for a chemical hub for the Salim Group. Lakshman Seth, the supremo of the Haldia Metropolitan Development Authority, issued notices to Nandigram in December 2006. This notice — till date not officially withdrawn by the West Bengal government — triggered the mass killings in Nandigram in January and March 2007.
In Nandigram, men, women and children have been — and are being — killed. Women are being raped, and there has been no redressal steps taken by the state government. On the other hand, CPI(M) cadres and hired killers — recruited from adjacent districts, Jharkhand and other places — are killing people with great regularity. Hindus and Muslims are facing and fighting the enemy together. The CPI(M) has ultimately managed to enter Nandigram. Hundreds of houses have been demolished; rice, clothes and utensils have been looted; ponds and other water resources have been poisoned. And women were raped. Rape is a tactic that the CPI(M) uses.
Yesterday, the people just walked on the streets of Kolkata wearing black badges. I have seldom seen a more dignified and solemn procession. The presence of the young generation was also very impressive. Our writers, painters, singers, cultural workers from the theatre, the cinema and other media joined in. Most impressive was the huge assemblage of the common people. They are the essence of Kolkata. Donations were being collected.
I was so proud of Kolkata.
Today, the state government has organised another procession to counter yesterday’s protest. My small flat is packed with rice, clothes and blankets. These are being carried to Nandigram by trucks by local volunteers. The sky is dark. The weather forecast says a cyclone is in the offing. Nandigram needs tarpaulins, blankets and rice. Nandigram needs active doctors, selfless workers, especially young people who will show us the way to serve people. More later, when I can.
Mahasveta Devi is a writer and activist. She was awarded the Jnanpith in 1996 and received the Magsaysay Award in 1997.
Rights panel team visits Nandigram
A six-member team of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Thursday visited Nandigram in West Bengal to assess the situation there after last week's violence, and to suggest remedial measures.
The team headed by Senior Superintendent of Police SP Singh went around the violence-racked villages in East Midnapore district and talked to affected people.
Later, the team held a meeting with senior police and district officials.
"The NHRC team went to the affected areas and talked to the people. They also went to the relief camps and inquired after their problems," East Midnapore Superintendent of Police SS Panda told IANS.
The team was also looking into the role of police and the local administration to ascertain whether there had been any lapse on their part.
Earlier, the NHRC issued a notice to the West Bengal government, directing it to submit within 10 days a factual report on the condition prevailing in Nandigram.
It had also asked the union home ministry to take all necessary steps to restore peace in the area and submit an action-taken report within two weeks.
The move by the commission comes even as the situation in Nandigram remained tense with sporadic incidents of violence reported almost daily.
The commission had received messages from social activists, including Medha Patkar who was allegedly attacked by cadres of the ruling Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) when she tried to enter Nandigram.
Violence in Nandigram has claimed 34 lives since January, when the region flared up over proposed land acquisition for industry. The plan was scrapped later in the face of stiff resistance by villagers.
Since then a turf war between the CPI-M and a Trinamool Congress-backed group has broken out repeatedly.

Bengal govt has dented Left image, says CPI
Sutirtho Patranobis, Hindustan Times
The CPI has said it did not agree with the Bengal government’s methods of violent entry into the villages in Nandigram.
Senior party leaders termed the bloodshed in the region as “most unfortunate” and said the Left’s image has suffered.
Addressing a press conference on Wednesday, CPI Lok Sabha MP Gurudas Das Gupta said: “We do not agree to the methods adopted to enter Nandigram.”
Das Gupta, however, downplayed the fact that the incidents in Nandigram had triggered a rift within the Left Front.
“There might be differences of opinion but cracks in the Left are a different matter,” Das Gupta said.
Other Left parties, the RSP and the Forward Bloc, also criticised the CPM for its role in the clashes.
The CPI leader criticised the Bhumi Uchched Pratirodh Committee’ (BUPC) for their siege of Nandigram though the “basis of confrontation” had been resolved.
The state government had announced in the middle of the year that land in Nandigram would not be acquired for the proposed chemical hub or any special economic zone (SEZ).
“Where was the need of the BUPC to deploy armed groups in the area?” he asked.

Tens of Thousands Evacuated, Cyclone Sidr Moves On
Sidr on Collision Course with Bangladesh and Kolkata

Palash Biswas
Contact: Palash C Biswas, C/O Mrs Arati Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 91-033-25659551
Email: palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com
Strong aftershocks from a powerful earthquake hit northern Chile on Thursday as the government erected a working military hospital and promised hundreds of other portable dwellings for 15,000 left homeless by the quake.
A disaster of epic proportions is shaping up in the Bay of Bengal-but you wouldn'’t know it from following most mainstream news outlets. Tropical Cyclone Sidr, which has been rated a Category 4 storm (verging on Category 5, by some estimates), is headed towards Kolkata, India, and the west coast of Bangladesh.
The storm, whose winds had strengthened to 150 mph (241 km/h) yesterday night, is expected to make landfall later today. Meteorologists believe it will lose some of its steam before reaching Bangladesh and Kolkata; however, as Chris Mooney points out, those predictions have so far proven unfounded and, with little time remaining-having already left 40 ft high waves in its wake-Sidr is still likely to bring a massive wave of death and destruction.
As a point of comparison, it helps to recall that a cyclone that hit the region in 1991 resulted in the deaths of 138,000 people. Cyclone Sidr will become the sixth storm of the north Indian Ocean cyclone season; it is only the second major one (Category 3 or above) to make landfall this decade since Tropical Cyclone Mala struck Myanmar on April 28, 2006, leaving 22 casualties in its wake.
Via ::The Intersection: Time To Panic Over Cyclone Sidr (blog), ::Bloomberg: Tropical Cyclone Sidr Strengthens on Way to India, Bangladesh (news website)
See also: ::Heavy Rain Kills in UK, Pakistan and Bangladesh, ::Wunder Blog: Extremely dangerous Cyclone Sidr bears down on Bangladesh and India (blog), ::Higher Number of Atlantic Storms Linked to Global Warming

A powerful cyclone packing 149 mph winds slammed into Bangladesh on Thursday night, tearing down flimsy houses, toppling trees and power poles, and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee their homes in the low-lying nation.With maximum sustained winds of 149 mph (240 kilometers per hour), Tropical Cyclone Sidr swept in from the Bay of Bengal, buffeting southwestern coastal areas within a 155-mile (250-kilometer) radius of the storm's eye.No damage or casualties were immediately reported, but rescue teams were on standby at a nearby forest office, forest official Mozharul Islam said in Khulna.
Authorities in West Bengal and Orissa raced today to evacuate tens of thousands of people from vulnerable coastal areas as a powerful cyclone producing winds up to a speed of 280 km per hour closed in. The West Bengal government has alerted the army to remain on stand by, Finance minister Ashim Dasgupta said. The coastal ares in the two states are expected to be hit by six to seven metre high tidal waves. Dasgupta said at least 10 lakh people in West Bengal may have to be evacuated to safer places. Cyclone Sidr, currently moving north over the Bay of Bengal and packing ferocious winds and torrential rains, is expected to hit land run around midnight with six coastal districts in Orissa and five districts in West Bengal likely to face its fury. Kolkata city is also likely to be affected. The first area to be lashed will be around the Sunderbans, a vast mangrove forest straddling the India-Bangladesh border. The coastal area is also home to many poor fishing communities, as well as the endangered Royal Bengal tigers. Though the cyclone skipped Orissa and moved towards the West Bengal-Bangladesh region, the Cyclonic Warning Centre(CWC) in Bhubaneswar warned that the cyclone was set to unleash tidal waves of five to six metres in coastal areas of Balasore, Bhadrak, Kendrapara and Jagatsinghpur districts. Pune and Ganjam districts are the other two districts which have been put on high alert.
The Union Home Ministry on Thursday issued alert advisories to West Bengal and Orissa in view of a very strong cyclone moving rapidly towards the West Bengal-Bangladesh coast.
With possibilities of six-metre high tides, the MHA asked the authorities to evacuate people from the low-lying areas and advised fishermen not to venture out into the seas, a senior official said. The alert has been especially marked for two coastal districts in West Bengal -- Midnapore and South 24-Parganas, and for four coastal districts in Orissa -- Balasore, Bhadrak, Kendrapara and Jagatsinghpur, he said. The storm was currently lying 500 kms off Kolkata and racing fast towards West Bengal and gathering momentum. The state administration has been alerted about the possibility of severe damage to buildings in the coastal areas.
The four coastal districts in West Bengal which are in the eye of the cyclone are South and North 24 Parganas and East and West Midnapur. Large-scale damage to power and communication lines was also expected, Orissa CWC Director Sarat Sahu said, adding that the speed of the cyclone may intensify as it races towards the coast. Sahu also cautioned that extensive damage was likely to kutchha houses and there will be a minor disruption of rail and road traffic. He said there was a potential threat from flying debris.
Fishermen have been alerted not to venture into the sea or rivers. Tourists at the sea resort of Digha in East Midnapur district have been asked to move to safer places. The West Bengal government has allocated Rs 15 crore to meet all exigencies.
West Bengal Regional Met office Director G C Debnath said that the cyclone was intensifying and moving fast towards the state coast gathering momentum.
The weather office has alerted the state administration to the possibility of severe damages in the coastal areas.
"The state administration had been asked to shift the people of the coastal areas to safer locations," Debnath said.
Port authorities have been asked to hoist danger signal No: 10, signalling higher danger levels.
The civic authorities have set up a crisis management group, West Bengal Chief Secretary P R Ray said ,adding that alert had already been issued.
Debnath said alert warning to Sagar Island had already been issued. Fishermen have been advised not to venture into the sea for fishing and to stay alert.
The Tropical Storm Risk Centre has put the cyclone in Category 4 with windspeeds reaching upto 225-280 km per hour, a US consulate communique said in Kolkata.
"Tidal surge might be experienced at the time of the storm crossing the coast," said Sahu, adding that a gale with wind speed of 90-120 kmph was also likely to appear very soon.
As the system approacheed the coast, the gale wind speed reaching 120-150 kmph was likely along and off north Orissa coast, while gale wind speed reaching 90-120 kmph along and off south Orissa by tomorrow, Sahu said and warned that "sea condition will be very high and phenomenal - over 14 metres."
Special Relief Commissioner (SRC) N K Sunaday said that directions were already given for evacuation of people living in sea side villages in six districts. "Evacuation has already begun in Balasore, Bhadrak, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri and Ganjam districts," he said.
The government machinery had geared up to evacuate people from nearly 500 villages living on the 480 km strech of Orissa coast, official sources said.
While people living within 10 km from the coast in Balasore district were asked to shift to safety, the distance from coast for Bhadrak district was nine km. People in Kendrapara and Jagatsinghpur districts were asked to move at least eight km and seven km from the sea when the system crosses Sagar island.
He said a number of villages within six and five km from sea in Puri and Ganjam districts were also being evacuated at least for tonight.
Public announcement system was being used to ask the people to move to safer places like cyclone shelters or nearby educational institutions for taking shelter.
Dasgupta said leave of staff of the state government departments concerned have been cancelled till further notice.
He said there was a stock of one lakh tarpulin in the five districts and speedboats were being kept ready.
A powerful cyclone has hit the coast of Bangladesh, with winds reported to be up to 240 kilometres (155 miles) per hour. Cyclones are not new to Bangladesh, but if the authorities are to be believed, they are now far less deadly. BBC reports.
In the 1970s thousands were killed during bad storms. The difference today - according to the government - is that the country is far better prepared for them.
"A most terrible cyclone is rushing towards the Bangladesh coast, but we are all set to deal with it," interim prime minister Fakhruddin Ahmed, said earlier on Thursday.
Over the last two decades, Bangladesh has embarked on a comprehensive programme to build cyclone shelters.
In addition thousands of volunteers have been trained to alert people to impending cyclones.
Boats plying rivers in the south of the country have been warned to keep off the water, and fishermen in the Bay of Bengal have received constant radio, newspaper and online warnings about the storm.
Huge task
At least two days before the cyclone struck, volunteers and government officials toured villages in coastal areas of Bangladesh to warn people of the impending storm.
But the authorities face a huge task if they are to prevent a major loss of life.

Fishermen have been asked to stay away from the sea
There are several reasons for this apart from the severity of the storm itself, believed to be the worst in over 10 years.
Firstly, there is reluctance among people in rural areas of the country to abandon their homes, crops and livestock and take refuge in a cyclone shelter.
Many people refuse the advice of the authorities and choose to rough it out.
What is true on the land is also true on the sea.
Bigger catch
Every time there has been a storm in recent years, fishermen always figure prominently in the casualty lists. That is because many choose to ignore cyclone warnings.
Officials remain confident that the human cost will be far lower than before
The reasons why they do have been attributed to the desire to get a bigger catch in the absence of competition from other boats and to a lack of education: they do not understand just how severe the storm is.
Secondly there are concerns that in a bad storm, there are not enough shelters for the number of people affected.
An estimated 10 million people live in Bangladesh's coastal areas and there is simply not enough room for all of them in the country's 500 or more shelters.
Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world: nearly all the country is low lying and vulnerable to flooding.
The huge logistical exercise of dealing with such a large scale natural calamity is certain to stretch the resources of the authorities.
Swept away
In the last big cyclone of 1991 winds of around 250kmh (155 mph) battered the south.
On that occasion, there was a six metre (20 foot) storm surge inland over a wide area, killing an estimated 138,000 people and leaving as many as 10 million homeless and sweeping away entire villages.

There are fears that there are not enough shelters

Water saturated the land several weeks after the storm had passed, and land erosion - always a problem in Bangladesh - resulted in many farmers losing everything.
Sixteen years ago most people died from drowning, with the highest mortality rates among children and the elderly.
A similar surge has been predicted for the current cyclone, along with equally powerful winds. That makes the role of cyclone shelters crucial.
But there are concerns that some of them are not in a good condition.
Run-down
Often the biggest and strongest building in a rural area, some end up being used for community purposes which they were not originally designed for.

The older shelters in particular have become run-down. One seen recently by a team of journalists on board a BBC boat - which over the last 10 days has been chronicling the course of climate change in Bangladesh - had part of its roof missing.
But regardless of such lapses, officials remain confident that while the storm of 2007 may be of equal ferocity to its predecessors, the human cost will be far lower.
Over the next few days we will see whether those predictions are accurate.
Alastair Lawson was evacuated form the BBC boat currently engaged in charting the course of climate change in Bangladesh after it run aground in bad weather related to the cyclone.

Tigers and tribals (By Sunita Narain)
=============================
Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on the tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to correct a historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these homes of the poorest also house the country’s magnificent wild animals, like tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future safeguarded. This is also quite right.
Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two competing groups?
Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was being worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it was discovered—to everyone’s horror—that all tigers from what was supposed to be a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached. Opposition to the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this “populist” measure would be the last nail in the tiger’s coffin.
I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be safeguarded. Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important to reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate areas—exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would have to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people ownership over these lands it would be disastrous.
I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also knew from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless local people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger’s territory.
The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country’s most powerful, we had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return to the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done just about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything to turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we concluded.
Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic. We suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those villages that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would have to live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain—sharing benefits of conservation with local communities—from preferential