Harish Palaniappan's

China is expanding not just by trade connections, population, and infrastructure, but also by its geographical size. They got HonKong instead of making it an independent country, and they are trying to acquire Taiwan, Tibet and some portions of the far east of India. They hold all these positions unofficially now anyways, and are overwhelming the rulers or governments of these territories to take them over officially.

Chinese are menacing and warning every other neighbouring country that they adjust to their interests and keep quiet... taking advantage of their position as being Asia's largest country.

Their current project is to acquire Tibet wholly, and they have already done that by pushing an overwhelming number of troops into every part of Tibet and destroying protests by the Tibetan people.

Being a veto power in the United Nations, China made sure Tibet never got its membership to UN. Because if it does, its like all UN countries have accepted Tibet as a country..and any reaction to threats to a UN member country will be supported by the UN, which would then spoil the Chinese dream.

Also, Chinese pressure forced the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet to leave China and come to Dharmasala, India on exile. Tibet is self-ruled and its parliament-on-exile is run from India even today. This is the only instance I know where a government of a state is in another country on exile.

All this Chinese have been doing for years.. but recently the Chinese expansion project is very aggressive.

Now, while entire Tibet is protesting the takeover by china, none of the UN veto countries are talking anything about it, for china itself is a veto power.. and all veto power countries use their power to get away with all these nasty jobs, as much as the US is getting away with Afganisthan, Iraq and Iran.

India is the latest now, who is listening to everything Chinese say. Poor India is unable to help Tibetans, India having had such weak-hearted, not-so-bold prime ministers like Atal behari vajpayee, and now Dr. Manmohan sign.

China even condemned the visit by Indian prime minister to an Indian state 'Arunachal pradesh', saying Arunachal pradesh is Chinese territory.

All these territories are considered disputed territories and have a history wherein the Chinese never signed or agreed to any border agreements and Chinese say they have 'Suzerainty' over all these territories...simply meaning that the territories as autonomous territories within China.

Below links have details on the border disputes/resolutions Chinese have/had with their neighbours on the territories
Tibet, Arunachal Pradesh, Hongkong, Taiwan

Posted by Harish at 2:27 PM | Permalink

Was shocked reading this in a mail forwarded by a friend. Though I think nobody can vouch for the validity of the below piece.. the idea that british ruined and looted a good country for their interests is a well known fact... and it is called 'invasion' by the books.. and 'trade' by the british...what stupidity

*Note - by British.. I mean the british until 1940's.. we know that today's britain and its people are much different and trustable.

Posted by Harish at 3:47 PM | Permalink

Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto is assasinated at the prime of her attempts to bring back democracy in Pakistan. Some fingers point to the Pakistan president, some point to other villains, and as usual one or more terrorist organizations make claims.

At the end of the day, there are a million questions in everyone's mind... that which news channels immediately take over and try to poll their viewers with.. has all the political attempts made so far, to be gone in pieces now, should all people's hopes be re-lifted back again, and what's left of Pakistan.. is it democracy or terrorism, etc.,

Like they say, destruction is easy.. while construction is difficult. Stopping a democracy from happening is easy, but constructing it from blood and sacrifice.. with normal people.. trying to make them courageous .. and all is a lot of work.

It takes a lot of courage to be in Politics.. a little more courage to be a good politician... and much much more to be a politician who is trying to usher in change for the sake of the people.

But, like in cocktails, like in cooking, like in scientific decisions like "optimal" temperature .. and things like that... there should be a proper mix of courage and politics. Too little of either is unpleasant, too much of either is disastrous.

Like film stars get carried away at the prime of their success sometimes, and start doing/saying stupid things... politicians also start discounting important stuff like security, trusting the proper aides, etc., at the prime of their political campaigns.

Nothing big can happen fast if there are no risks taken or sacrifices made.. but some sacrifices can be avoided if people can share their responsibilities with the highest importance, when they are working together.

Terrorists or hard-core assassins don't fear death.
Some politicians too don't..

Politicians have a commitment.. their courage is tied to, and holds up the people's strength and the democracy's courage in their acts, speeches and decisions. So, When a politician goes over-board in being courageous without the neccessary security wrap around him/her, the assassins who see a target, take down the courageous politician.

For the bombs and bullets, its just flesh to push through, not the courage.
For the assassins, its a soft target without proper security wrapper to push through, not the huge collective strength of people around.

And so the politician however strong and courageous, goes down, just as flesh and blood vessels give up.. and just as some blasts cut through their muscles dis-membering them.

For the people around, its all their courage coming down, its a majority of their democracy's hopes going down, and not just another politician or their flesh and blood giving away.

It is disturbing to regroup all people and their courage after such killings. Some people run for life not ever to return, some shift loyalties to safer but lesser commitments for the fear of death, and the rest who are left.. just feel like they are back in square one.

"Benazir Bhutto has become a victim of her own courage", aptly says one of her family members. Now that she has passed away leaving many open questions and a million new questions for the others to answer.. and for the TV channels to poll viewers with... Pakistan has to move on.

And, may in the future, people who take such important committments, who are trusted for their decisions by a large number of people, take more precautions about their existence to move things forward, and remember that even great warriors of the past, wore armours or had a security wrap around them however good they were in fighting enemies and making decisions.

Related Links:
Daily mail: Benazir bhutto assasinated
Wikipedia: Benazir Bhutto

Posted by Harish at 5:12 PM | Permalink

I should say.. karan thapar and cyrus broacha are doing a big favour to Indians. For, they make fun of, pull down the respect of, bring to open shame, criticize with the harshest but still diplomatic words.. India's stupid politicians, in front of the people on TV.

Karan wins the vote here, in comparison to cyrus, because karan does it right in front of the politicians he is questioning, in his interview 'Devil's Advocate' on CNN IBN.

Recently, Karan thapar pulled this murderer Narendra Modi, *still* the Gujarat chief minister, asking him again and again to answer the question on whether he wanted to at least accept that there were problems with his government's attitude towards the Godhra riots, and much more should have been done on it..
and this fellow didn't have anything to answer, had no face to even continue sitting in the interview, just got up and left the interview half-way.

I always wonder, how different is India from pakistan which is now with a state of emergency, because whatever is happening in India today, be it the politics in Karnataka over power, be it the politics on the Nuke deal, be it the strange feeling that Narendra modi might indeed come back to power in Gujarat in this elections also.. nothing of all this is democratic or progressive, and is total nonsense to people of the country who don't understand why culprits always win elections.
No wonder, the people in the stock market have started ignoring politicians these days, and the economy is booming no matter what these idiots have got to do with their stupid politics.

Today, just few minutes back, I had a hearty-hearty-laugh, at the stupid faces of Mr.Yashwanth sinha, and the tight corners Karan thapar was putting him into, on each question in the intereview on Devil's advocate.

One of the questions karan asked was like this..

> 3 weeks back Mr.Sinha says that JD(s) has betrayed the BJP and that the moral of the story is everybody has to be careful with this party JD(s) in future. Now, BJP is happy to tie up with JD(s) again to exercise power.
Doesn't BJP have any shame or pride? ....You said you should be careful with this party, now actually aren't you being FoolHardy? ... You said some moral of the story there.. what is BJP's morale looking like with tying up again with a partner like JD(s)?

You should have seen that sinha's face.. he stupidly tried to mis-answer the question by stating something about DMK's betrayal to BJP long back.. and that and this.. and finally said.. "in the art of politics, when power comes knocking on the door, you accept it." .. I liked the part where this guy said "art of politics".. they still don't realize.. it is actually "mess of politics" :o)

To Yashwant sinha's comparisons of BJP's foolhardiness with other Indian party's foolhardiness, karan asked.. "you keep saying DMK also did something like this, Congress also did something there, and all that.. but on the outskirts you campaign that BJP is a party with a difference, so why are you also doing the same stupid things other parties are doing.. and if so, why do you still say.. BJP is a party with a difference.. where and what is the difference".

and so..

So the world's largest democracy lives happily ever after.. even if need be that all people don't have time to protest or question but tolerate all nonsense with politics and everything internally, and live aside with a happy face.

Thanks to the media.. at least... it is doing its best in tearing up politicians all sides .. though unfortunately the indian population has not even grown up to not vote for these politicians further...let alone people growing up to questioning the politicians for their doings.

Posted by Harish at 7:56 PM | Permalink

All indian politicians today, be it the ruling lot, or opposition, or the alliance partners of the ruling lot, seem to have real bad communication skills.

Not to mention our current indian prime minister Dr.Manmohan singh who never ever speaks one full sentence looking at the people he is taking to.. he just reads a story from his write up head down. So is the leader of the ruling coalition Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (difference being she looks at the people speaks it and then ducks).

Recent problems because of the lack of communication skills: Miscommunication or lack of any clarity on the Indo - US nuclear agreement simply called 1-2-3...

Read these interesting blog posts at 6amPacific which goes on to highlight this.
http://6ampacific.com/2007/08/19/sound-and-fury-the-123-agreement/
http://6ampacific.com/2007/06/10/leadership-challenges-the-fog-of-economics/

Posted by Harish at 12:06 AM | Permalink

Going through newspapers searching for good news might get to become a good business model for a search engine company. That is the status of things in the world. Especially with the world politics and terrorism, and the war that they exchange.

With "dont-know-how-many" DKHM, number of people being killed in war and terror attacks everyday, all we have in the developed world is guilt whether we are living at the cost of the poor world. And what the developing world has is advice.

There are many people,
who pity the consequences of war,
who try-to-do something to put right the mess soldiers create while cooking war,
many kind hearted who make sure they donate,
many who care to get the donations to the needy...

and those few brave hearted, politicians, who take up distant 3rd world problems in their country's parliament and brave odds to allocate funds and resources for them.

In that sense, there has been a strange but brave link between the British and the African continent.

The britons seem to consider problems in Africa nothing less important, though the britons are not the people who most benefit out of african outsourcing or resources, and though they don't seem to have any strategic interests in defence, or resources, or oil, or any men and material..(neither british or americans will fall short of any of that for the kind of number of immigrants they have even with such stricter immigrant laws compared to the rest of the world).

From my observations of news, I always have a feeling that the british are the first who voice African problems in world stage. BBC seems to have a committment with Africa, in doing special programs on African issues, their lifestyles, their infrastructure, etc., braving commercial pressure. Being one of the top 5 news channels on air, BBC World never seems to close a day without news on Africa.

There are many channels who are talking Africa.. newspapers and magazines writing Africa... but, nothing close to the air time, value and the impact that BBC World has created for African issues.

I even have wondered whether BBC World have a committment with the United Nations to have Africa on air so many hours a week.

Investments of troops, and resources by British government in different locations in Africa have been praised by Africans nothing less of a god's gift to them for surviving longer.

Recently, yesterday, Tony Blair the british premier who has announced his retirement in June 07, has been given a very warm welcome in Sierra Leone in West Africa. The people of Sierra Leone have all hands up in praise for Tony Blair's actions in deploying troops there to check civil problems, and to ensure release of 100's of UN soldiers who where held hostage.

This one exercise, the people of Sierra Leone claim, overturned the climate of the country overnight changing it from a disturbed civil war-torn country to a nation building-up gradually.

Like they say in proverbs, "you never know.. small actions of yours might make big differences to someone". Of all the troop deployments, UN committments, and committments in Iraq and Afganisthan, this act of a comparatively small deployment of troops of british soldiers in sierra leone have had a big impact in that country as a whole... which the british even wouldn't have understood immediately. Read about it here.

Tony Blair didn't stop there: On his visit there yesterday, he has suggested a model of working together with people of sierra leone, to strengthen the African Union that is trying hard to make itself credible enough to solve problems in Africa by itself. This, Tony Blair has said, can be done by trianing and equipping more soldiers for them and enabling them to defending themselves and securing their future.

By this model, the African union will have to make available more troops, and britain will train them and equip them for warfare and defence. Collectively, Tony Blair hints, the African union should be made strong enough to help themselves in solving all problems in Africa, without running behind the UN or any other foriegn nation for help with troops and other resources.

That soungs a good plan, and having that committment from Tony Blair should itself start the Africa Dream slowly.

And such suggestions, like what Tony Blair has given, from his position as a British Premier, can come only from hearts that really have some interest in caring for the issues in Africa.

For that, the Africa continent is probably the Briton's own country.

While all this stays my opinion, you sure should find your perceptions based on the following articles, some of which suggest indirect strategic interests or reasons for british committments in Africa.

1. Britain and the scramble for Africa
2. Imperialism in Africa: Britain
3. Britain and Africa: The new propaganda
4. CNN: Africa losing nurses to Britain
5. The Anti-Apartheid Movement, Britain and South Africa
6. Guardian unlimited: If Britain wants to help Africa's poor, it must stop acting like an emperor

Posted by Harish at 7:35 AM | Permalink

First, The Facts:

Who is a President?
> The President (of the Republic Of India.. discussed in this post) - is the highest position in the polity of Indian democracy - and hence the Indian president called the 'First citizen'

The President's powers?
> The President appoints the Government under him, i.e., the prime minister, and all the central ministers. Unlike many developed countries, and unfortunate for Indians, the President is elected by the members of the lok Sabha, and not directly by the people. This one simple reason is what makes a president less brave in India, though his/her powers support lot of possibilities to streamline the Indian political system itself.

Its like, the members of parliament vote in the Presidential election.. and the President elects a set of these members (who are elected by people of India) to form the Government of India. Other than that, the president recognizes the leaders of both ruling and opposition party.

It is actually the President's government and not the Prime minister's government actually. But then the weak link that the president is itself elected only by the politicians allows the president's powers to look lesser than that of politicians.

All ministers including the Prime Minister report directly to the President, and the President has all authority to disqualify, suspend, question, appoint the ministers and the prime minister who are part of the government. Possibly if I am right, he can't directly disqualify or suspend members of lok sabha or rajya sabha who are not part of the government.

> The President appoints the Chief Justices of the Supreme court of India, the tallest legal body in the Country. The President, and only the President, has authority to suspend, disqualify, transfer, or appoint justices to the supreme court. Also the President has the final say or the authority of approving appointments, transfers, suspensions, for all High court judges as well.

This means, the justices in the country are only to fear the President, if at all. And unless the President transfers a supreme court judge, the politicians in the country cannot try to replace or remove unfavourable judges.

What has Abdul Kalam done as President?
As President of the Republic of India, Abdul Kalam,
> Gave strength to Supreme court judges in not firing or transfering them when the judges boldly practiced judicial activism, bringing to justice many influencial politicians and the rich who were guilty of their criminal or civil crimes.
> Made an impression with his counterparts in other countries, on the image of the India. His audience at presentations always praised his excitement, his knowledge, and among many other things, his technologically updated government executive image.
> Helped setup or continue good programmes of get-togetherness for non-residential indians.
> Awarded deserving Indians with Indias prestigious awards like padma bushan, padma vibushan, etc., There was no known controversy of a candidate's eligibility for the award, unlike there was in previous presidents tenures.

> And, last but always the first on his mind, was education and children.
He held high the importance of education in a country where more than 60% of people are reportedly illeterate.

This indirectly,
1. Induced interests in the Finance ministry allocating more budget for upgradation of educational institutes and projects,
2. All india organizations and associations of colleges and institutes became more careful and strict on their policies in providing better education in all member institutes.
3. Started a shift in whole, helping the people of India move towards giving more importance to education to all children.
4. Boosted non profit organizations and educational organizations alike, to aggressively campaign and promote education. Examples include CRY.org which had their highest number of educational campaigns during Abdul Kalam's rule.
5. and many more..

Why current politicians won't give this 'Peoples president' another tenure as President of India?
How Indians can't and may not have an intelligent president like Abdul kalam again?

1. The ruling politicians are very disturbed with kalam's interest in things:

All past, present and probably future politicians of india, like to hold the authority to do anything with the country, and if the president (their employer) asks questions, they don't like it.

Kalam questioned the breach of code by many members of parliament who had other source of income. Members of parliament including opposition members, prime minister, and ministers, are not supposed to hold any non-governmental positions, and should not have any other sources of income.

He refused mercy to a terrorist from kashmir, which was claimed by the ruling government for political gains in kashmir.

He questioned politicians on what actions they were taking to the bigger issues like tsunami relief, or for stopping child labour, or for avoiding the bird flu, etc.,

Importantly, kalam did not react to any pressures on transferring chief justices of any court, and did not do anything to stop judicial activism by supreme court justices.

These issues has affected politicians from exercising thier power "Freely", without any limitations. Because of the grudge, the politicians are not interested in giving kalam a second as president in the forthcoming elections in June 2007.

And so, kalam will not be president again.

Based on the above issues they faced, politicians will be more careful in electing "only" dummy presidents hereafter... best chosen from dummy politicians they already have in their pack instead of making the mistake of choosing an outsider to politics like kalam. so that the dummy president so elected won't take bold decisions, nor interfere in the "functioning" of the government under them, and transfer judges as per the ruling party's recommendations, and be faithful to them "happily ever after" for electing him/her as president.

Hence, I say, India will not have another president like Abdul kalam hereafter. The good days are numbered till June this year.

But, thanks to APJ Kalam for his doings.

Posted by Harish at 10:02 PM | Permalink