Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Meeting Pres Zia-ul Haq in Romania and Brig. Zia's Stay in Jordan.

Meeting Pres Zia-ul Haq in Romania and Brig. Zia's Stay in Jordan.


After retiring as the ambassador of India in Ankara in 1996, I decided to become a journalist, rather a commentator on international affairs, having started my diplomatic  career in Cairo as assistant press attaché in early 1960s. To enable me to work and function as an accredited journalist, Kuldip Nayar's Mandira publications appointed me as its roving correspondent for the region.


I have known Kuldip since 1964,, when along with many other senior Indian journalists he had come to Cairo for the nonaligned summit .Kuldip was the managing director of  recently minted ,with shoestring budget the United News of India, a rival news agency to PTI. He has always been very affectionate like an elder brother and very hospitable.


Kuldip is the first successful journalist to establish a Syndicate in India, Mandira publications, which has done very well since decades .He had syndicated my articles to nearly a score of major Indian regional newspapers from 1996. At the same time I had begun writing articles for Turkish daily News, Ankara, Khaleej times is Dubai, Pioneer New Delhi and other English language publications in India.


In spite of requests from friends and editors to write short pieces of 1300 words for newspapers in Turkey, Lebanon and other places, my experience and background of 35 years as the diplomat half of it as an Ambassador gives me greater facility to write in-depth articles. Since 2002, I have written over 500 online in-depth articles for major newspapers, websites, and blogs etc all over the world, which have been translated into a dozen major languages of the world.


However, I felt that I should share my experience as a diplomat and a journalist with Indians, who mostly read newspapers and magazines in India's regional languages.  Mandira Publications has provided me that opportunity.


Meeting with Gen Zia-ul Haq in Bucharest

(From the Ambassador’s Journal)


“Why do not you come to Islamabad? Natwar is leaving Pakistan shortly”.” Excellency, all my teeth are still intact and I am somewhat junior diplomat to come to Pakistan,” I replied to the visiting Pres of Pakistan Gen Zia ul Haq to whom I was introduced. During my post in early 1980s in Bucharest, Romania, then under the communist rule of Nicolai Ceausescu, all heads of mission were summoned to the presidency and in order of precedence introduced to the visiting head of state or government.


Apart from exchange of pleasantries with the Pakistani president and to meet with him in person, some of us are very curious because prior to his visit there were some media reports that the Pres had instructed that the women of Pakistan should wear only Salwar and Kameez and not sari, since some extremists in Pakistan considered sari to be a Hindu costume. So we were pleasantly surprised and reassured that almost all the ladies accompanying him were dressed in saris. At the end of the introductions, the president and his party mingled with the invited guests and the president was quickly surrounded.


 I sauntered over to a group which had three well dressed and articulate ladies from Pakistan delegation. We talked about India and Pakistan. The wife of the Minister of industry, if I remember correctly, who was connected with Karachi, was full of praise for our previous consul general Mani Shankar Aiyar, a very bright younger colleague, who was born in Lahore.


I casually remarked how was it to travel with the Pres. Of course, she praised the president and added that although he was not trained to be a politician or Pres he was doing splendidly. I could not resist myself and said, “But of course any young cadet joining the Pakistani military Academy always aspires to occupy the presidential Palace.” After this, I quickly left the group.


Later while posted to Amman, I heard much more about Gen Zia, who as a brigadier was deputed to train Jordan’s military (1967-70). In the beginning, there used to be British military officers  seconded to Jordan , created by Winston Churchill after WWI at a dinner table in Jerusalem when on a napkin he mapped the Emirate of Trans-Jordan East of river Jordan , to pacify Prince Abdullah , son of Sharif Hussain of Hejaz and the keeper of Mecca and Medina .The Sharif was fooled into aiding  the British against the Ottoman Caliph and Sultan in Istanbul on assurance by Lawrence of Arabia of freeing the Caliph’s Arab subjects after WWI .But nothing of the sort happened  .The perfidious British and Gallic French divided the Arab territories , created Israel and put new Arab kingdoms under their control  .


King Hussain, a direct descendent of Prophet Mohammad, the ruler during my tenure (1989-92) had himself done a shortened course at the British Military Academy at Sandhurst. In fact, King Hussain married Antoinette Avril Gardiner, the daughter of a British military head of a training mission .Their son; King Abdullah also trained at Sandhurst, now sits on the Hashemite throne in Amman.


Brigadier Zia left an abiding impression among the population of Jordan about his religious proclivities. Some of them said that there was no Mosque in Jordan, where Brig Zia did not pray .But he was heartily detested by Jordanians of Palestinian origin who were expelled from Palestine after the creation of Israel and now form majority in the Kingdom. Brig Zia was the brain and strategician behind the defence and counter attack when the Palestinian guerrilla fighters organized the Black September insurgency  against King Hussain. Jordan troops under Brig Zia crushed it and expelled the insurgents into Syria. Later for this Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto promoted him 4 Star superseding seven Lt Generals.


A source told me that after the whole operation was over there were big celebrations at the Hashemite Palace. The King himself sent a message to Pakistan that Brig Zia had saved a kingdom. At the party, naturally, Brig Zia was the cynosure of all eyes specially charming and enchanting ladies. A few of them with wine glasses in their hands came enthusiastically and enticingly to Zia and requested that he drink a toast with them for the success, hinting that he deserved whatever he wished or commanded .Brig Zia was a complete  teetotaler, so in spite of repeated requests and entreaties by the ladies ,he continued to refuse politely . Finally, he said that did they desire he give up his lifelong absentension. At this the ladies desisted and Zia remained a teetotaler.


During his presidency Gen Zia hoodwinked many foreign leaders and took full advantage of the geopolitical location of Pakistan after the ingress of the Soviet troops into Afghanistan invited by the leftist rulers in Kabul. He wholeheartedly joined with US led West and Muslim counties in the Jihad against USSR in Afghanistan   I would not repeat the adverse external and internal consequences of this decision and Islamizing the state of Pakistan, .He also fooled Indian leadership while planning rebellion in Indian Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir .As always, India’s RAW remained generally clueless .Zia would visit India for Pakistani cricket team's tour or to visit a Muslim holy centre. One Pakistani diplomat said the Gen Zia kept his mustaches lowered but was very successful in achieving his internal and foreign policy objectives.


Gen Zia originated from peasantry class called Rain, mostly involved in horticulture, but his father was clerk, a good position in pr-partition days. Born in Jullundur, after graduating from St Stephens College, Delhi, he joined the army .In 1947 he opted for Pakistan. He was able to fool PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and finally had his benefactor hanged a very common thing in the history of Islam. Three of the first four Arab Caliphs died of violence. Among Mongols and Turks the sovereignty resided in the family and the fittest could take over the throne after the death of the ruler.


To counter the old established elites of Pakistan comprising of feudal landlords and the rich bourgeoisie, who looked down upon Gen Zia, he promoted another refugee family, of Nawaz Sharif from in Amritsar district in India, where his family had grown out of a flourishing blacksmithy business. He joined politics when the family’s steel business was nationalized by Bhutto. It was therefore funny of him to take potshots at Indian PM Manmohan Singh for old rustic women talk as if he belonged to the genteel aristocracy.


Amb Retd K.Gajendra Singh,  Jan 2014, Mayur Vihar, Delhi


More on Zia and Pakistan

Unlike India, Pakistan began with weak grassroots political organizations, with the British-era civil servants strengthening the bureaucracy's control over the polity and decision-making in the country. Subsequently, the bureaucracy called for the military's help, but soon the tail was wagging the dog.  In the first seven years of Pakistan's existence, nine provincial governments were dismissed.  From 1951 to 1958 there was only one army commander in chief, two governor generals, but seven prime ministers.

While the politicians had wanted to further strengthen relations with the British, the erstwhile rulers, General Ayub Khan -encouraged by the US military - formed closer cooperation with the Pentagon.  And in 1958 the military took over power, with Ayub Khan exiling the governor general, Iskender Mirza, to London. A mere colonel at partition in 1947, with experience mostly of staff jobs, Ayub Khan became a general after only four years.  Later, he promoted himself to field marshal.  He eased out officers who did not fit into the Anglo-Saxon scheme of using Pakistan's strategic position against the evolving Cold War confrontation with the communist bloc.  

General Zia ul-Haq, meanwhile, was a cunning schemer, veritably a mullah in uniform who, while posted in Amman, helped plan the military operation, which expelled Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization from Jordan in the 1970s.  But he is more remembered for having prayed at all the mosques of Amman, if not in the whole of Jordan.  He seduced the north Indian media with lavish praise and chicken and tikka kebabs meals.  He planned Operation Topaz, which in 1989 fueled insurgency in Kashmir, while hoodwinking Indians with his goodwill visits to promote cricket contacts between the countries. His Islamisation of the country made the situation for women and minorities untenable, while the judicial killing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 turned General Zia into a pariah. 

But the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made him a US darling, restoring and fatally strengthening the Pakistan military's links with the Pentagon. This made the Pakistani military and the ISI's hold pervasive, omnipotent, omniscient and ominous in Pakistan. This defense alliance, the seeds of which were planted by Ayub Khan, and the symbiotic relationship between the ISI and the CIA bolstered under General Zia, was never really dismantled and is unlikely to be fully disentangled.  

The form of government in a country has seldom bothered the US in the pursuit of its national interests.  Otherwise, why would it embrace Pakistan, or say Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or any of the other kingdoms and sheikhdoms and repressive regimes around the world, and shun democratic India.  Beginning with Ayub Khan's unofficial visit to the US, the foundations for bilateral cooperation in the military field were laid.  These have survived through thick and thin, like a bad marriage where neither side can let go, and despite bad patches, such as the takeovers by Zia ul-Haq and Musharraf.  In fact US finds military or other dictators easier to handle. 

Like the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, September 11 revived the necessity, if not the passion of the 1980s, for Pakistan and the US to come close to each another once again.  A divorce now, as naive Indian policymakers and media propose, is wishful thinking. The US needed Pakistan to protect itself from a backlash of its earlier Afghan policies of creating the mujahidin and supporting the jihad in Afghanistan and then Talebans, After 11 September, Washington desperately needed to stop Pakistan's nuclear bombs or material from falling into jihadi hands, and to eliminate, or at least curtail, further damage to US interests.  The US and others in the West will keep on making pro forma noises in favor of more democracy  



Ukraine Situation ;Background

The current turmoil in Ukraine ,a somewhat fragile key stone ,in the wake of Soviet Union collapse instigated by rampaging US led West and now an awakened Russia , central Asia and beyond in East ,is a clash of strategic historic templates.

After US led West's slunking away in Syria last September , the West is now trying other means to encroach on USSR's near abroad , which I had exposed in 2005 to 2010 in a series of articles URLs given at the end of this piece ,when the current ruler of Ukraine was elected in 2010.

This piece will provide the necessary background .I shall write an update soon . 

                   FOUNDATION FOR INDO-TURKIC STUDIES                     

                                           Mayur Vihar –Phase 1,Delhi 91, India                                                                

                                                                                                          13 February, 2010.

Ukraine Elections Confirm Rollback of US Hegemony
The Eurasian Great game; West Loses a Big Piece
by K. Gajendra Singh etc

The final round results from Ukraine's bitterly fought presidential elections on 7 February gave Victor Yanukovich , a pro-Russian former prime minister, a close win but the opponent, maverick prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko refuses to concede defeat and demanded a recount. The Central Election Commission gave Yanukovich 48.95 percent of the vote, with 45.47 percent for Tymoshenko. Nearly 70% of the registered voters exercised their right in this critically important election in an ongoing strategic battle between the West and the East. The official results will be announced by February 17.

In an exclusive 9 February interview with CNN (which indicates that Washington has acquiesced), Yanukovich called on Tymoshenko to accept defeat. Recalling the US franchised “Orange Revolution” in 2005 he said;

"This country has been democratic for five years, and that's been proven again by this election," taking a dig he added that "Yulia Tymoshenko is betraying the principles of her Orange Revolution" by failing to acknowledge defeat.”

A Yanukovich win is a remarkable comeback five years after he was ousted in a populist uprising, added CNN. (Except that the protests and December 2004 elections were financed and organized by US led west and their organizations and foundations and puppets in Eurasia.) The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which sent observers this time too hailed the process as "professional, transparent and honest," which should "serve as a solid foundation for a peaceful transition of power."

In a Kremlin statement of 9 February Russian President Dmitry Medvedev congratulated Yanukovich on the completion of the election campaign, which was highly rated by international observers, and the success achieved at the presidential election.

New York Times sarcastically commented that such an election has not been held in Russia since Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and consolidated power. European election monitors praising the election as highly competitive, unpredictable and relatively fair called it an “impressive display” of democracy. “Ukraine “election, in other words, did not follow the Kremlin blueprint and, if anything, seemed to highlight the flaws in the system in Russia. As such, it presented a kind of alternative model for the former Soviet Union. (What about George Bush election in 2000!)

“Tymoshenko helped spearhead the Orange Revolution, which first brought Western-style democracy to Ukraine. (Really –more later) While her defeat might indicate a rejection of the revolution, the fact that the country carried out a contentious presidential election that was widely considered fair suggested that the Orange legacy had endured.”

Olexiy Haran, professor of comparative politics at Kiev Mohyla University, said that many Ukrainians were disappointed in the Orange Revolution, “Ukrainians did not gain much of what they were promised in the social or economic spheres in 2004, but at the same time, they are enjoying democracy,” Haran said. “They can criticize; they can watch television political talk shows with enthusiasm. They have real choices.”
“They would like order and stability, and they want strong leaders,” he said. “But that does not mean that they are going to sacrifice their democratic freedoms for that. This is the difference with Russia.”

Kiev was calm after the poll (unlike end 2004) and there was no indication that the kind of mass street protests that broke out with the Orange Revolution would occur now.

US President Barack Obama also congratulated Yanukovich. A White House statement described a “peaceful expression of the political will of Ukrainian voters as another positive step in strengthening democracy in Ukraine." It said that the two leaders agreed on the need to continue cooperation which "include expanding democracy and prosperity, protecting security and territorial integrity, strengthening the rule of law, promoting non-proliferation, and supporting reform in Ukraine’s economic and energy sectors.” "The strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is based on shared interests and values," it concluded.

Outgoing President Yushchenko’s bid to join NATO was strongly supported by the George Bush administration. But it was turned down at a 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest due to pressure from Germany and France, who did not want to antagonize Russia. NATO had expressed pious hope that Ukraine, along with fellow former Soviet republic Georgia, would join the alliance sometimes in the future.

"There is no question of Ukraine joining NATO," Yanukovich clarified in an interview with Russia's Channel One.

"Ukraine is interested today in the development of a project to create a system of collective European security. We are ready to take part in this and support the initiative of Russia President Dmitry Medvedev," he went on, in a clear indication that he was keen to restore ties with Russia, soured since 2004 over Yushchenko’s pro-West policies.

Tymoshenko a politician with a steely ambition with little experience of coming second and described by the west the heroine of the so called ‘Orange Revolution’ remained in a state of denial and refused to concede defeat. She is perhaps trying to prove to her supporters that she remains a formidable force and persuade them to back her in waging future battles against Yanukovich.

"Tymoshenko is more of a revolutionary than a democrat," said Volodymr Fesenko, director of the Penta centre of political studies. She has "always shown bad habits. Like not being able to let go of power". In Ukraine's parliament, she could make life very difficult for Yanukovich whose Regions Party does not have a majority. But deputies from her Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) are already reported to be in talks to switch to the Regions Party after her loss which could weaken her hand.

Yanukovych could dissolve the parliament and call elections but that would give a chance for Tymoshenko to launch an immediate comeback.

"For the moment, the most important thing for her is to be the person who fights Yanukovych in the eyes of the voters," said Fesenko.

"It's a long time since Tymoshenko lost. She is in shock," said Kost Bondarenko, Ukrainian political analyst.

"In Europe, recognizing the victory of the opponent is a sign of civilized behavior. For Tymoshenko, legitimizing Yanukovych would be a sign of weakness in the eyes of the voters," wrote Sergey Leshchenko, a journalist.

"She is going to try and get on Yanukovich's nerves and prevent him from enjoying his victory," said Dmytro Vydrin, political analyst and a former advisor to Tymoshenko.  But challenging the results and creating a new political crisis is hardly likely to go down well with the European Union, where she has been such a favourite.

"Tymoshenko tells Brussels that Ukraine is a European country but at home she behaves like a Byzantine," Vydrin said.

"If the Russians have 'sovereign democracy' then the Ukrainians have a kind of carnival where spectacle is more appreciated than substance," he added.

In end 2003 Yanukovych was blamed for the vote-rigging that provoked the Orange Revolution and swept pro-Western politician Yushchenko to power in a repoll.

But now it is Yanukovych who is calling on Tymoshenko to respect democracy by conceding after players like OSCE, EU and the USA all praised the conduct of the elections.

Following Yanukovich's defeat five years ago, Yushchenko went in for a confrontationist policy with Moscow to please his backers, USA, UK and others at great harm and loss loss to the people. There were regular disputes with Moscow over price and supply of gas to central and west Europe from which Ukrainian people gained little. It provided Western propaganda organs like BBC and CNN handle to badmouth Russia, when Moscow wanted to charge market price to the gas sold to Ukraine, which stole gas or throttled gas supplies westwards.

Germany wants to have stable and beneficial economic relations with Russia to get the arrogant Washington off its back. Berlin even guaranteed a cover 1 billion euros of the Nord Stream project cost for the laying of a gas pipeline under the Baltic to avoid traversing Ukraine and other territories, with former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepting Gazprom's nomination for the post of the Chairman of the Board. The change in Kiev augurs well for the Ukrainians, who became a pawn in West East strategic game.

Soon after the Yushchenko victory 5 years ago, American marines even turned up for naval exercises in Crimea (a Russian territory which was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev of Ukrainian origin) where the Russian Black Sea Fleet remains anchored. The Russian speaking population protested and hounded out the Yanks to force a quick exit.

Ukraine Nov –Dec, 2004 Presidential Elections & the “Orange Revolution”

Do you remember the Ukraine presidential elections held on 21 November, 2004 and the aftermath. It was something like this;

“In scenes reminiscent of the overthrow of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in November last year (see Georgia in the melting pot, in Dec 2003) and Slobodan Milosevich of Serbia in 2000, crowds opposing Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, the official winner of Ukraine's presidential polls on November 21, massed at the main door to parliament in support of his rival Viktor Yushchenko, a former premier too, who claimed that the polls were rigged.

“Parliament on Sunday annulled the results, which had given pro-Russian Yanukovich 49.46% of the votes against 46.61% for pro-West Yushchenko. But Roman Zvarych, a deputy and one of Yushchenko's close aides, said: "We are in legal limbo. Much of this we are making up as we go along." The Supreme Court, as of late seen as a neutral body, was due to sit for a third day Wednesday to examine allegations of systematic electoral fraud.

“These events are part of a major geopolitical battle being fought in Ukraine, with the United States and Europe trying to encroach on Russia's traditional strategic turf. With the latter resisting it, the situation is reminiscent of the Cold War era. Ukraine, despite so far evolving peacefully, is now teetering on the edge of an abyss, with the possibility of serious turmoil looming, which could have ramifications that affect post-Cold War equations.”

From In Ukraine, A Franchised Revolution 2 December, 2004
By K Gajendra Singh

On an appeal citing irregularities by Yushchenko, the Ukrainian Supreme Court declared the result null and void. The legal action was reinforced by incredibly well organized sit ins and demonstrations in Ukrainian capital Kiev, which was called the “Orange revolution’ with large scale financing by the West and help in training of thousands of Yushchenko supporters. Yushchenko was joined by Yulia Tymoshenko, who was to become prime minister. The re-poll held on 26 December gave pro-West Victor Yushchenko, 52% against 44% for Yanukovich, who also filed an appeal charging of irregularities running into 57 volumes. But finally Yanukovich threw in the towel.

The Parliament had also joined in the fray and set aside the 21 November elections. It dismissed Yanukovich as Prime Minister, which the in situ President Leonid Kuchma did not ratify. The Parliament also changed the constitution to reduce incoming President’s power and unanimously voted for the return of Ukrainian soldiers from Iraq (but the soldiers were not withdrawn). Yushchenko supporters did not allow Yanukovich to hold a cabinet meeting and occupied government buildings in Kiev barring the latter‘s supporters from discharging their duties.

US Franchised Revolutions

in November 2004 Ukraine poll outside supporters were vocal in support of their favored candidate, but after the December re-poll the major powers with strategic interests ie, Russia, USA and EU were cautious. Adam Ereli of the US Department of State said “that the US administration had not rendered support to any of the candidates.” Putin, who had hastily congratulated Yanukovich in November, said that he would work with Yushchenko, if he were elected.

Ukraine is not like Czech Republic or even Ukraine’s neighbour Poland, which are now firmly in the European orbit. Ukraine was generally an integral part of the historical East and strategically vital for Russia in East West rivalry. The first seeds of Russian identity and nationalism had sprouted in Kiev, but the Ukrainian perception of its own national identity has been some what ambivalent. After the collapse of atheistic communism, Russia has reverted to orthodox Christianity and wants to be partner of European and western political and economic system, but still remains on the other side strategically. So the reactions from US led west and Russia mimicked the cold war utterances.

Soon after 26 December re-poll, Mikhail Saakashvili, West’s poster boy of the “Rose revolution” of Georgia, who studied in Kiev, and is thus fluent in Ukrainian, turned up to address a meeting of hundred thousand Yushchenko supporters in Kiev and proclaimed,” This is the triumph of good over evil.”
After Kiev, Saakashvili studied law in USA, worked in a US law firm and has a Dutch wife. Yushchenko, is married to an American, who reportedly worked for US state department.

“Rose revolution” in Georgia

On November 22, 2003, Saakashvili supporters had charged through the portals of the Georgian parliamentary building in Tbilisi, forced Shevardnadze, a fixture on the Georgian scene, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, who along with Gorbachev dismantled the USSR , to resign. Saakashvili then won the new poll by 90%, which looked suspiciously like Communist era results.

Many publications in the West like the Economist of London called the events in Georgia a "velvet" or "rose" revolution. "Proud Georgians will point to this non-violence to argue that their country is fundamentally different to its Caucasian neighbors, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both of these held flawed elections earlier this year too.” That things in Georgia happened differently was “a tribute partly to the vibrancy of the democratic opposition there, and partly to the fact that the West's involvement - both in monitoring the elections and in speaking out about fraud afterwards - was much greater." The reality was that elections in Azerbaijan and even Armenia ensured pro west leadership.

US had put up with Shevardnadze misrule and provided aid worth $1 billion, and other help to build Georgia as a bulwark against Russian interests in the region. Most of the money went into pockets of the ruling elite but in return, under Shevardnadze, Georgia fully toed the US line. Russian President Putin turned hostile to Shevardnadze because of his conviction that the latter was less than helpful in the war in Chechnya, across Georgia's northern border.

In 1999, outgoing president Boris Yeltsin phoned Shevardnadze and requested use of Georgian territory for a Russian attack on Chechnya rebels. US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott advised Shevardnadze to say no. With little heed for long-term consequences, as earlier in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, the US perhaps let Georgia overlook Chechens using its territory to establish international links, which were possibly behind the end 2003 Istanbul bombings against two synagogues, the British Consulate and HSBC Bank.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell who urged Shevardnadze for a bloodless departure, said in an interview: "An unstable Georgia automatically results in an unstable Caucasus." Shevardnadze was a good man. It was nice to cooperate with him, but his time was up. Reportedly Powell hinted that US ambassador Richard Miles was part of a plan to depose Shevardnadze. On November 29, an angry Shevardnadze told the Russian television that US multibillionaire George Soros was one of the major malefactors who led to the change of leadership in Georgia. Ambassador Miles was known to have been active in grooming Saakashvili. A series of senior US figures passed through Tbilisi earlier in 2003 to warn Shevardnadze that his days were numbered, including his old friend Jim Baker. "We would like to see stronger leadership," Miles told the Washington Post before Georgia elections.

Post ‘Rose Revolution”:

Writing in International Herald Tribune soon after, Tinatin Khidasheli, Chairwoman of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, a human rights group, and a fellow at the Yale University and who was an enthusiastic participant in the “Rose revolution” wrote that Saakashvili consolidated his power, initiating constitutional amendments which reduced the Parliament’s powers, and granted him more powers than any elected president in any democratic state. As for freedom of speech in Georgia, “dozens of media outlets were shut down, including three television stations. Even the more popular political talk shows were discontinued and replaced” and others labeled as traitors. Several critics have fared worse the editor of an independent newspaper, with no history of drug use, was arrested in the street for drug possession after criticizing a Saakashvili appointed regional governor. The home of a member of parliament was raided without warrant, “where police claimed to find a stockpile of arms in his children's wardrobe.” So much for freedoms in Georgia.

West’s Franchised Revolutions:

“Elections are a moment of triumph,” gloated USA Today. It added that “ the potential is clear: Ukraine's Orange Revolution was fueled by young voters in Kiev, who created Web sites and wrote rap songs to inspire voters. They ate at the McDonald's off Independence Square and lined up at Coca-Cola kiosks for drinks. The Orange Revolution is the latest in what appears to be a slow trend toward more democracy among the former Soviet republics and satellite states, including Georgia in 2003, Serbia in 2000 and years earlier in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Yes, the same tactics were applied by the US triumphantly in Serbia in 2000 to topple Slobodan Milosevic. Michael Kozak, the US ambassador in Minsk, then sought to emulate the success in elections in Belarus against the authoritarian Alexander Lukashenko, but failed.

There were many write ups in Guardian, Globalsearch and other websites which have documented western agencies’ support to Yushchenko. According to New Statesman Yushchenko was supported covertly by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Freedom House and George Soros' Open Society Institute, the very entities, which had helped oust Shevardnadze last year. The NED has four affiliate institutes: The International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS). They” provide technical assistance to aspiring democrats worldwide."

“In Ukraine, the NED and its constituent organizations funded Yushchenko's party Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine), as well as the Kiev Press Club. Freedom House, along with “The Independent Republican Institute (IRI) “were involved in assessing the "fairness of elections and their results". IRI had its staff in "poll watching" in 9 districts, and local staff in all 25 districts. "There are professionals outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups. ... They also organised exit polls which gave Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed."

Of course, western media and governments are committed to the "Freedom of the Press". They organize exit polls and then feed disinformation into the Western news chain, create and fund "pro-Western", "pro-reform" student groups, who then organize mass displays of civil disobedience. (Read Traynor, in Guardian) “In the Ukraine, the Pora Youth movement ("Its Time") funded by the Soros Open Society Institute is part of that process with more than 10,000 activists. Supported by the Freedom of Choice Coalition of Ukrainian NGOs, Pora is modeled on Serbia's Otpor and Georgia's Kmara. The Freedom of Choice Coalition acts as an Umbrella organization. It is directly supported by the US and British embassies in Kiev as well as by Germany, through the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (a foundation linked to the ruling Social Democrats).

Victor Yushchenko

The outgoing president Yushchenko as the head of the newly-formed National Bank of Ukraine enforced in 1993 IMF's usual shock therapy economic medicine which only impoverished its economy. As it had all over the world. He created a new Ukrainian national currency, which resulted in a dramatic plunge in real wages, with bread, electricity and transportation prices increasing by three, six and nine times respectively. The standard of living tumbled.

Yushchenko was appointed Prime Minister in 1999 because of loans which IMF had promised. In the now discredited IMF programmes, it closed down part of the country’s manufacturing base. Yushchenko also tried to undermine bilateral trade in oil and natural gas with Russia and demanded that this trade be conducted in US dollars rather than in terms of commodity barter. In 2001, he was dismissed following a non-confidence vote in the parliament-"Viktor Yushchenko has fulfilled obligations to the IMF better and more accurately than his duties to citizens of his our country, Olena Markosyan, a Kharkiv-based analyst, opined in Ukrainian centrist daily Den" (BBC Monitoring, 16 Nov 2004)

Energy Pipe Lines and Strategic Games

Georgia is being built up as a bulwark against Russia and would protect the $2.9 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipe line that runs from Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia to a new terminal at Ceyhan on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. It was financed by Western oil companies and would counter the present Russia monopoly of oil transport from the Caspian basin to the West. Similarly Western control over Ukraine throttled Russian plans to export its oil to Europe. Loss of control over Crimea, populated by ethnic Russians and Tatars would have made Russia’s coastline restricted like Iraq’s in the Gulf .Of course, Russia is selling oil to energy hungry China and Japan as are many central Asian republics, who also oppose US led western regime changes and closed ranks with Russia. It appears that EU has no clear policy and would suffer the most. Even tiny countries in EU talk of glory and influence, and harangue defiantly against Russia.

It is a crazy situation .Washington does not want Europe to take Russian gas or for that matter from Iran either .From where else they should get it. Europeans along with Turkey as transit point are ignoring alternate US plans which are unlikely to take off and are making their own arrangements.

Unfortunately in India, decision makers on pensions from Washington Consensus outfits have done little to make alternate arrangements and have even annoyed Iran, a likely source for oil and gas.

Ukraine made several military agreements with NATO and Washington after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ukraine joined GUUAM, a military alliance between five former Soviet republics (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova). Its objective was to undermine the alliance between Russia and Belarus, signed between Moscow and Minsk in 1996.

Members of GUUAM lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas reserves "with Moldova and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West" and thus excluding Russia from the Black Sea, and protect the Anglo-American pipeline routes out of Central Asia and the Caspian sea.


The East West rivalry is as old as history itself, beginning with the Indo-Europeans, Trojan and Greek-Persian and other wars; Turks, Mongols, and later Russian Czars and Communists from the East moving on to the European heartland. The other points of East-West tectonic clash are now secular but 99% Muslim Turkey, which is reorienting itself eastwards .It, is unlikely to enter an almost openly proclaimed Christian EU club. Cyprus remains divided among Christians and Muslims, and the Western implant Israel in the Arab heartland remains a keg of Uranium ready to explode.

Russia was invaded by French Emperor Napoleon and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, making Ukraine a major battle field. Both failed miserably but Russian sufferings and destruction were immense. USA was not prepared to pay the price and open a front through Greece, to keep East Europe out of USSR orbit. The Nazi war machine was 80% destroyed by Russia, but Western propaganda and films paint a different picture. Escape from Dunkirk was perhaps the only remarkable British operation in WWII. American contempt for Field Marshal Montgomery and the British is made amply clear in Hollywood film on Gen Patton. Even in the 2003 invasion, of Iraq, a few days before the D-Day US defense secretary Don Rumsfeld even asked UK not to bother joining but the poodle did tag along for scraps from the loot.

The power struggle in Eurasia and elsewhere is for strategic control, influence, and raw materials, the so called promotion of democracy and people’s welfare by US led west is a sick joke. In Ukraine ,following implementation of IMF programs in Ukraine, trade liberalization (which was part of the economic package), allowed US grain surpluses and "food aid" to be dumped on the domestic market, contributing to destabilizing one of the World's largest and most productive wheat economies. By 1998, the deregulation of the grain market had resulted in a decline in the production of grain by 45 percent in relation to its 1986-90 level. The collapse in livestock production, poultry and dairy products was even more dramatic. The cumulative decline in Ukraine’s GDP resulting from the IMF sponsored reforms was in excess of 60 percent (from 1992 to 1995). India knows too well the impact of IMF programs and wants rich nations like USA and EU to remove agriculture subsidies for free trade.

There is a similar pattern developing elsewhere in Eastern Europe with the nationalist card (against Communism) being used by corrupt politicians to cover up their own misdeeds and corruption. The events in Serbia, Georgia and now Ukraine were an expression of people's frustration and helplessness. However, pro-West leadership is unlikely to deliver the goods either. Romania's GDP now equals what it was in 1989, when the communist regime was overthrown. Most of the GDP is now cornered by 10-15% of the top political and bureaucratic elite.

The masses - especially the older generation - suffer from daily privations and are withering away. The populations in most of the former communist states are declining fast. A study indicated that in the wake of capitalism and globalization, a million extra deaths took place in Russia .Up to a trillion dollars worth of Russian wealth or even more was transferred to the West by the charade of globalization creating seven oligarchs in Russia, six out of whom are Jews, some out of country on criminal charges and one who wanted to take over the Kremlin itself for the West is now languishing in a Siberian jail. But the Western media rarely write about the terrible impact of this so-called neo-liberal democracy, capitalism and globalization. Nor does west enslave corporate media of India.

After the Fall of the Berlin wall, western media joked that communism was the longest and the most tortuous way from capitalism to capitalism. (In the Mecca of Capitalism, US, the banks are now owned by public funds and ought to be nationalized but are managed by banksters, who control the administration and the Congress). The route unfortunately first falls under mafia style authoritarian rulers and can be seen allover Eastern Europe, central Asia, Russia and elsewhere. It is no different in the US led West, where they control everything including the military-industry complex, the engine of western power and industry. The joke in Moscow in 1990s was that what the Communists said about Communism was all wrong but what they said about Capitalism was all correct.

The enforced collapse of the Berlin Wall failed to bring prosperity or lay foundations for European security. Hopes of millions of Europeans to see a better world order did not fructify. The wars and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Macedonia, in former Yugoslavia, Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia in the Caucasus demonstrate that in a world without the stability, even armed one, sustained by the bipolar system there is no legally binding respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of countries. Without the basic principles, force by the West became the main arbiter in international relations.

However when US tried testing Russian resolve and inspired its puppet ruler in Georgia to invade disputed south Ossetia, Moscow gave a bloody thrashing and grabbed south Ossetia and Abkhazia in a riposte to US detaching Kosovo from Serbia and recognizing its independence. Georgia is unlikely to try again .Its ruler remains unpopular. It sent around a signal. So Azerbaijan is trying to somewhat distance itself away from USA.

After the collapse of USSR, USA went about methodically dismantling Russia further i.e. Chechnya and it’s near abroad. Contrary to the self proclaimed congratulatory triumphalism of neo-liberals after the collapse of Communism and Socialism in end 1980s, celebrated from the house tops by the so called philosophers, think tanks and analysts with delusions of permanent world domination of Western financiers and corporate houses based on dubious theories like 'the Clash of Civilizations' and 'the End of History ' or even claims of Washington - the New Rome with absolute control planned via the 'Project for American Century ' by arrogant and historically ignorant Straussian neo-cons, Zeo-cons and their supporters , the situation on the ground has turned out to be quite adverse.

"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they render mad first"

The 9/11 assaults on US symbols of power were exploited by the Bush administration to spread its tentacles to Afghanistan and beyond in central Asia. For USA the Cold War never really ended and all means were employed to push Western military arm NATO to encroach into and encircle and even enter Russian strategic space. In central Europe it was carried out by dismantling Yugoslavia, an Orthodox Christian Slav nation close to Russia and by aligning Georgia and Azerbaijan to Washington. US franchised street revolutions failed in Belarus but succeeded in Serbia and Georgia and partially in Ukraine. When USA tried the same in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Uzbek ruler Islam Karimov expelled the Americans from the air base and Kyrgyzstan placed new restrictions. The eastward movement of NATO has resulted in the upgrading of Shanghai Corporation Organization which now promotes military coordination and collaboration among its members to counter NATO.

The author has covered the US Franchised (like McDonalds and KFCs) street revolutions in Eurasia in the following articles, which can be accessed for more info

Georgia in Turmoil; A gambit in Eurasian Great game

In Ukraine, a franchised revolution   


After Non – Franchised Andijan Uprising East Closes Ranks

Central Asian Backlash against US Franchised Revolutions


Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia

BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE: Another West-East Fault Line

·        Georgia in Turmoil; A gambit in Eurasian Great game   

·        In Ukraine, A Franchised Revolution

·        After Non – Franchised Andijan Uprising East Closes Ranks 

·        Central Asian Backlash Against US Franchised Revolutions 

·        Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia  

·        BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE: Another West-East Fault Line  

K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author .

February 14, 2010





Friday, January 24, 2014

BJP propaganda model; US franchised revolutions in post Soviet Union space.

BJP propaganda model; US franchised revolutions in post Soviet Union space.



The author receives unsolicited e-mails , despite my protests , full of crass BJP propaganda promoting its PM candidate Namo ( short for Guantánamo )on a regular basis.. Like Gujarat for Muslims, Modi would transform our country into Guantánamo, a US created Gulag on the island of Cuba, where Muslims, many totally innocent , have been held under terrible conditions since 911, with little chance of escape or being free.


I had written a number of articles when after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the so called US democracy  promoting outfits, many supported by CIA, helped USA to organise street revolutions, beginning with Serbia than in Georgia, failed in Belarus, but when attempt was made in Uzbekistan, its president Islam Karimov threw out the Americans based on its airbase.US outfits succeeded in Ukraine, but with open some support from EU and American government officials, clashes are now going on in the between those who want to be close to Russia and those who want to join EU. In Georgia, the US supported President has been weakened after the last parliamentary elections .


Some extracts from;

In Ukraine, a franchised revolution
By K Gajendra Singh


One of the most active "pro-democracy" groups in Ukraine's democratic opposition is Pora, which means "it's time". The student activists of Pora received personal tutorials in non-violent resistance from Serbian students of the Otpor ("resistance") group, which was in the forefront of toppling Milosevich in Belgrade. Then the Serbs helped the Georgian vanguard movement Kmara ("enough is enough"). So a Georgian flag was also being waved in Kiev's Independence Square. In Tbilisi, the rose-revolutionary Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili interrupted his first anniversary address to offer a few words of encouragement in Ukrainian to his "sisters and brothers" in Kiev. The reawakened cold warriors link the "chain of Europe's velvet revolutions" in this peaceful march of democracy to what the crowds first chanted on Wenceslas Square in Prague in November 1989. So a jaded pro-democracy Lech Walesa was there too in Kiev, just as he had been in Prague. 

Pora's posters plastered all over Ukraine depict a jackboot crushing a beetle, an allegory of what Pora wants to do to its opponents. It was like this during Nazi-occupied Ukraine, when pre-emptive war was waged against the Red Plague spreading out from Moscow. Nobody in the West has said anything against these posters. Pora continues to be presented as an innocent band of students having fun. But it is an organization created and financed by Washington, as were sister organizations in Serbia and Georgia, Otpor and Kmara.


But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable to the US in planning the operation in Kiev. It is thus easy to understand such slickly organized spontaneity. The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience, which would be the envy of even a Gandhian - is now so smooth that methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections. Located in the center of Belgrade, the Center for Non-violent Resistance, staffed by computer-literate youngsters, is ready for hire and will carry out operations to beat even a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations. 

The Belgrade group had on-the-job training in the anti-Milosevich student movement, Otpor. Catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words
 gotov je, meaning "he's finished", a reference to Milosevich. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing. In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signaling that the Kuchma regime's days are numbered. Stickers spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful. 


It is claimed that officially the US government spent US$41 million to fund the year-long operation to get rid of Milosevich from October 1999. In Ukraine, the figure is said to be about $14 million so far. ---


Promotion of democracy around the world is a bipartisan US effort; the Democratic Party's National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Republican Party's International Republican Institute, the US State Department and USAID (US Agency for International Development) are the main agencies. They are all involved in these campaigns and are further helped by the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute. US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organize focus groups and use psychological data to plot strategies.


Bharat Ratna Dr. CNR Rao on politicians & 'Indians' nationalism'


Bharat Ratna scientist CNR Rao called politicians idiots and added "Indians, don't work hard, like Chinese. We are not as much nationalists... If we get some more money we are ready to go abroad."


This is quite true that Indians are not patriotic and very selfish. Americans of Indian origin have even less that and are sold on the American's worse kind of philosophy and policies, barring some exceptions. It is no-brainer that the Indo- American nuclear treaty was signed to strengthen Washington hands to corner and browbeat Iran on its nuclear fuel enrichment for which it is entitled under the NPT. It was one of the most stupid mistakes made by the Indian government and India has and will pay the price sooner or later. The support from Americans of Indian origin came because many of them had hoped to benefit materially by sale of third-grade American nuclear generators without any safety safeguards and escape as after Bhopal's 1984 Gas catastrophe.  When this did not materialize, the current American ruler, Obama was even reluctant to give a photo opportunity to him American presidents loving and IMF pensioner, MM Singh Kohli.


Americans of Indian origin are doing well , with many with Hindutva tendencies .Many believe like BJP extremist in India, that New Delhi should deal with Pakistan as Israel does with poor Palestinians and its Arab neighbours. It is easily said than done, because Tel Aviv has at least 200 nukes, while Arabs have none, not yet even Iran. Let that pass.


Indians with Hindutva tendencies in USA are particularly well established in the information sector and are suggesting and have in fact tied up with their counterparts in India in bombarding Indian citizens praising the quality of Narendra Modi, under whose rule thousands of Muslim were massacred in Gujarat in 2002 . As a recently retired Supreme Court Justice Singhvi had bemoaned at a seminar in Chandigarh some years ago that there was very little justice in India .The courts are used for litigation by the powerful and the rich. Especially politicians, who have all means to delay and escape justice .Himachal Pradesh leader Sukhram and Laloo Yadav are some of the examples .It is very easy to coerce and bribe police officials, especially those who have retired. When a change of government in New Delhi could bring about tens of thousands of crores of rupees in bribes, it is a petty sum, even tens of crores, which can u-turn the honesty, integrity of retired and even serving police officers. So the BJP and its media and its supporters take the line that Namo has not been convicted. Like in case of Yadav and others where cases keep on dragging for years.


Following are some extracts from an article indicating how and what type of Digital technicians are combining from India and USA to promote Narendra Modi's cause in India.


Before Bhoopalam Gopalakrishna Mahesh, 46, became one of the technology brains behind the digital branch of the Narendra Modi campaign; before he started Oneindia, a news portal that provides news in seven languages to around 18 million people a month; and before he became a poster-boy of sorts of the short-lived Indian dotcom boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, he was, quite simply, the man behind


Non-resident Indians (NRIs), especially those with a long memory— rare in these attention-deficit times—still speak fondly of, a website launched in 1995, that was among the first to offer India-specific news to NRIs.---


According to comScore, Oneindia attracts close to 7.5 million unique visitors in India and the total number of page views is 159 million.


Apart from the six news sites, Oneindia runs tech and lifestyle portals, and, both of which are also available in six languages.


In 2010, Jain's netCORE Solutions Pvt. Ltd acquired Greynium. "Rajesh Jain and I knew each other since 1997, given the fact that the (number of) online entrepreneurs was so small that everyone knew everyone else," says Mahesh.


It was Jain who convinced Mahesh to work with Modi.


Modi and Mahesh

Mahesh found himself in the headlines after The Times of India newspaper reported on 3 July 2013 that Modi had identified him and Jain to run his digital campaign.

Several urban legends have sprung up around Mahesh—some paint him as a digital mastermind controlling the entire digital Modi-for-Prime Minister campaign. Others see him as the man behind the BJP's aggressive social media presence. The reality is much more prosaic, says Mahesh.


Niti Digital is promoted by Jain "to transform India", and has teams across cities running, and Mahesh's job is to mentor this team, he says. Mahesh is also the man behind the vernacularization of the Modi campaign, say three people familiar with the matter, all declining to be identified.


Mahesh himself is reluctant to provide more details of his involvement in the Modi campaign. He signed up, he says, because the Modi campaign was the first to reach out to him, although he says he is convinced "Modi will deliver and 2014 will be a unique election". He has never met the Gujarat chief minister.


Mahesh points to a recent Google survey on the significant role the digital medium will play in this election as proof that the Internet will play an important role in attracting young voters this election year.


"You must also have seen the recent census data," Mahesh says, referring to the number of young and first-time voters. According to the census, there are close to 150 million first-time voters between the ages of 18 and 22. "Getting them registered is the biggest challenge in this election. Technology will play an instrumental role (in doing this)," he adds.

"From my part, there are no expectations. I don't want to be acknowledged or something, I just feel Modi can deliver good governance and if I can help in that, I am happy to do so," Mahesh says.


One of the interesting articles which is being circulated, its title and some extracts given below, suggests that the recently triumphant Aap party is being financed by American organisations similar to the ones which had supported the pro-US upstarts against pro-Russian rulers in East Europe and Central Asia.

CIA's Trojan Horse enters the Heart of India
Shelley Kasli

The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA's intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA. The CIA considers foundations such as Ford "The best and most plausible kind of funding cover". The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund "a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions". The latter included "human rights" groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important "private foundations" collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.

By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington's post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes:


"At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects". This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a "mutual search" for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954. Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the "vanguard of Cold War thinking".


US Policies and India and AAP;


On December 4, 2013, the day of Assembly elections,  Sheila Dished, 3 times Congress Chief Minister was asked about the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led by Arvind Kejriwal .She retorted "Who is Arvind Kejriwal? What is AAP?—"


Talking to media on Delhi Assembly polling BJP leader of Opposition in Upper House Arun Jailtley said pompously that AAP will not get even one seat. If it gets more than 6 he will leave BJP  


US policies have always been anti India aka our national interests donot coincide with those of Washington. To hell with Indian interests. Right from our freedom ,in 1948, 1962, 1965 and 1971 , when uncivilized Nixon and war criminal Kissinger even sent its 7th fleet to the Bay of Bengal, India has suffered .They are always dividing nations ie Afghanistan , USSR, Yugoslavia ,Iraq, Libya, tried Syria and Pakistan is broken. I am sure Russia and China and even Iran would not like India to be divided. One Pakistan and long smoldering Afghanistan is bad enough for the region and Asia.


US was perhaps hoping and till 8 December 2014 , it looked BJP under Modi will have a walkover , who you know is very popular among Robber Barons of India .He has granted hundreds of thousands of crores of subsidies from peoples wealth to them. Such articles are perhaps a way to discredit AAP and Arvind Kejriwal. Let us wait what more comes out. India's corporate media whores and pressitutes are so nervous .Just watch the panic and rubbish they dish out daily.


Presstitute; Short for press and prostitute coined by trend forecaster Gerald Celente for journalists and talking heads who give biased and predetermined views in favor of corporations & the government .


Whore: (verb) to debase one by doing something for unworthy motives, typically to make money. -The New Oxford American Dictionary


The new party has scared the hell out of BJP, which was hoping to become the new ruler under a 'merchant of death' Namo as Congress called him. The Congress party knew all along that after the total misrule in the last 10 years, the public will throw it out. BJP was cocksure of replacing them. So the outcome of the Delhi assembly results have come as a shock, not only to Congress, but even the BJP, who did not take the new party seriously. You can see various BJP spokesmen or equally empty talking heads who till 4 December were very confident of replacing the Congress and becoming ministers of information and broadcasting and have other such important jobs. They are now very frustrated that the emergence of Aap party ( latest survey suggest that today Aap will garner 48% votes and perhaps win 5 or 6 out of 7 from Delhi of the Parliament seats)It has completely upset their electoral calculations. Many people believe that Aap can get as many as hundred seats in the next Parliament. It is said that Rahul Gandhi with his band of young leaders has almost decided to sit in the opposition at the centre .With Aap spreading its wings, it is possible that like in New Delhi where it is functioning with the unsolicited support of Congress party, a non-BJP government may be formed in New Delhi after the 2014 general elections for the Indian Parliament and keep and his baggage of sins out.


The new our party is having teething troubles as any new organization would have, but it is a hopeful and refreshing change on the Indian political scene where the polity has degenerated and reverted back to end Moghul era, totally corrupt, degenerated, cancerous when everything was for sale and had a prize.


This author has maintained that if Aap fails, which is still quite likely still ,because the political parties across the board have created a mafia style mention of corruption brick by brick over 60 years . It can not be easily dismantled .There can be a total disregard for any political constitutional form, and then chaos will follow. If Aap had not emerged chaos would have followed in any case. People are fed up with political parties and the system.


Necessity for change in the constitution of India and at least the electoral system


Day in and day out there are interminable discussions (by frogs in a well) o n the political situation and the political parties and elections on India's corporate channels which according to many belong to one major fat cat family .According to Radiia tapes ,it controls most ministers of the government of India, but none of these ill informed frogs and empty heads ever discuss that because the Constitution given to India by our so-called wise men is very flawed specially its electoral system. They had no idea except of the British constitutional system and they wanted to tell the British that they can replicate it .So they borrowed mostly the British system, which was suited only for  2 political parties system as it emerged in the political history of the United Kingdom .It is suitable only for an island and not for country like India with its diversities and problems it doesn't suit India. .But Britain had a Cromwell. .


It has been the author's case since long time that prime ministers and state chief ministers should be elected directly by the people on the basis of majority that is 50% plus one vote. India can change very easily to the electoral system of either two rounds or preference voting system by which the choice of candidates can be determined by 50% plus one vote. At the moment in India's massive state of Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 170 million, a regional OBC party with partial support of Muslims got a majority with only 29% of votes cast. I have no hesitation in saying that India does not have even a representative democracy. Forget about other its faults and shortcomings.


K.Gajendra Singh 24 January, 2014. A-44 IFS Apartments. Mayur Vihar,Delhi-91


Sunday, January 19, 2014

Russia to Resolve Constraints on Iran oil Exports ;Ease Indian imports.

Russia to Resolve Constraints on Iran oil Exports
Whether under the current Congress led government or BJP led government earlier, India has allowed it to be arm twisted by Washington at the cost of India's political and economic interests. Mercifully, the pot of resentment finally overflowed and taking advantage of the decline of till recent superpower, India said, enough is enough, led by the Foreign service officers. The Ministry of external affairs has shown Washington its place after US arrested and strip-searched Indian Acting Consul General in New York. The number of concessions unilaterally extended to American diplomats and non-diplomats for decades have now been revealed. It shows how slavish India has been.
Of course US and its dalals aka pimps and pressitutes are crying foul in India. It will affect India-US strategic relations .Between India and US there are only Washington's strategic interests ,mostly at India's cost all the time since the Kashmir problem was created by the British .Then in 1962, 1965 and most importantly in 1971 , when Washington sent its 6th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal .India has gained little from the India-US Nuclear Treaty , when clueless Indians and US pressitutes led by Shekhar Gupta said that Indian laws will prevail over US laws .How absurd .The efforts were  led by Indian diplomats who had worked in US.
Pray let these persons list what India has gained and lost by this Treaty .Obama was reluctant to even grant a photo opp to Indian PM who loves all US presidents white or brown. Because India did not order arms and nuclear power plants as wished by Washington .Indians in US are even less patriotic than those in India.
One of the areas affected has been India's energy security. The oil minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, with a penchant for controversy, tried his best to tie up energy imports, but publicly the US ambassador had the audacity that he be dismissed and George Bush loving Prime Minister agreed.
In this Endeavour, oil and gas from Iran form an important source. India continued to import oil in reduced quantities from Iran as there was little choice because of UN and non-UN sanctions against Iran.
After Putin saw off Obama in the show of force in eastern Mediterranean last year, Moscow now wants to stabilize its influence in the region and build up a peaceful, stable Middle East, Central Asia and South West Asia .Thus U.S.-led Western sanctions which have been breached, should be rolled back.
In this context it is interesting that Russia, which is a major oil exporter will buy almost half a million barrels of Iran oil per day, almost 50% of what it now exports and in exchange, provide Iran, with goods and money .Quite obviously, Moscow does not need the oil, but it will be sold as Russian oil to energy deficient countries like India, China and many other Asian countries.
An article on this subject is reproduced below.
K.Gajendra Singh 19 January, 2014.
Russia Is Prepared to Sell Iranian Oil as Its Own
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 11 Issue: 9
January 16, 2014 03:11 PM Age: 1 day


The Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem have flown to Moscow on the same plane this week to meet their Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to discuss the situation in Syria and the Geneva II peace conference due later this month. Zarif also met with President Vladimir Putin to reportedly discuss an unprecedented deal to barter Iranian oil for Russian goods. Informed sources in the Russian government have confirmed that Moscow is in the process of finalizing an agreement to buy half a million barrels of Iranian crude a day, while Iran will buy Russian goods in exchange. At present, Iran exports only a million barrels a day as a result of United States and European Union sanctions aimed to curtail its nuclear program. Western-imposed banking restrictions have also severely hampered Iran's ability to freely use its oil revenue. China is currently Iran's biggest oil buyer, taking in some 420,000 barrels of crude a day in exchange for other goods. If the oil deal with Russia goes ahead, Iran may extend its shrunken oil exports by 50 percent and collect some $1.5 billion in extra revenue a month. This may undermine Western sanctions, which may have forced Iran to consider permanently constraining its nuclear program in the first place; while Russia may become Iran's main oil buyer (

Of course, unlike China, Korea and India, which have traditionally imported Iranian oil for domestic consumption, Russia is one of the world's biggest oil producers and exporters. Russia does not need Iranian crude, its refineries are not designed to use it, and Russia does not have import facilities to handle Iranian crude from the Gulf—its oil ports are exclusively exporting facilities. Moreover, it is hardly feasible for Russia to offer Iran some $18 billion worth of needed goods a year to barter the oil, since Russia mostly exports oil, natural gas and metals itself. A Russia government source has explained: "The deal with Iran will not be simple barter—it will involve money—and since Russia did not undersign Western anti-Iranian sanctions, we are not obliged to wait for them to be removed." Russia may sell the Iranian crude in the Asia-Pacific region to "increase its presence and influence in this growing market." (

Moscow has performed similar deals in the past: During the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Russia was sending the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein massive amounts of weaponry and receiving large amounts of Iraqi crude in exchange. The Soviet Union did not need this crude and could not physically import it (same as Russia today), so the oil was sold to other customers, primarily India—a Cold War ally. Today, Russia may again take Iranian crude, rename it "Russian" and sell it as its own. Tehran will receive part of the proceeds in cash and part in Russian goods. This could effectively breach the US-led trade and financial blockade and make Tehran less inclined to make serious concessions on its nuclear program. The US administration has expressed concern about Russian plans to "buy Iranian crude," but Russian foreign ministry officials told journalists: "We told the Americans it is none of their business; we may buy any amount of Iranian oil and sell Iran any goods we choose." Russia it not breaching any mandatory United Nations sanctions by buying Iranian crude and selling Iran goods, the officials noted, while the unilateral Western oil and financial sanctions against Iran "are illegitimate" (

Furthermore, Moscow is insisting that Tehran must take part in the Geneva II talks on Syria without any preconditions and that Washington does not have veto power to prevent Iran from participating. During a joint press conference in Moscow with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif, Lavrov insisted, "The UN Secretary General is solely responsible for inviting participants to Geneva II, and Iran will inevitably have a leading role in settling the Syrian crisis"


( Russia and Iran are the two major backers of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and seem to be closely coordinating their positions with Damascus. The possible deal to buy Iranian crude in exchange for Russian goods was reportedly reached in principle during talks between Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani last September in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit ( While meeting Putin this week in Moscow, Zarif announced that Iran hopes Putin will visit Tehran "very soon," confirmed that Rouhani is very pleased with talks on the phone with Putin "several days ago," and that "we [Iranian authorities] are ready to fulfill all that has been agreed with you [Russia]" ( 

The Russian companies that will handle the oil bypassing Western sanctions and the banks that will handle the revenue and channel it back to Tehran may expect hefty discounts and under-the-table kickbacks. Most likely, those involved will be not Russian oil majors, since there is a threat that the US may slap sanctions in revenge, but smaller entities closely connected to Kremlin insiders and the Russian security services (the "siloviki"). In fact, a dramatic increase in Iranian oil exports may sway the world price of oil lower—to the overall disadvantage of Russia's oil majors and the national budget. But when special Kremlin-connected interests are involved, overall national interests take a backseat.

Anatoly Chubais, former deputy prime minister, privatization tsar in the 1990s and liberal politician also known to be well connected to Putin, commented that he did not know the particulars of the possible oil deal with Iran, but that "this is a political, rather than an economic decision." According to Chubais, "Iran and Syria are the greatest Russian geopolitical triumphs in the last 10–15 years" and "victory may come with a price." Russia forced the Barack Obama administration to abandon plans to militarily punish the al-Assad regime for using chemical weapons against the opposition and imposed on the West its opinion that Tehran must be appeased to make progress on its nuclear issue—a view shared by many in Moscow


( Apparently the Obama administration is increasingly seen in Moscow as an easy pushover. The White House may fret and protest if Russia acts as a semi-criminal "fence" (a buyer and seller of stolen goods) of sorts that pushes Iranian crude on the world market, but is not inclined to do anything drastic because it badly needs the support of Putin—the victorious and dominant world politician who has seemingly triumphed over Obama time and again.