Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Updates (October 28, 2010)

1) Does this signal an end to the BSF woes, possibly not? Linky

In line with a major policy decision taken a few months back, Bangladesh and India both have begun construction of structures within 150 yards of the zero line along the international border at designated areas. While this is a deviation from the Indo-Bangladesh Boundary Agreement 1974, on the parts of both countries, it is essentially addressing the needs of both too. The agreement restricts any construction within 150 yards of the zero line. Bangladesh allowed India to erect fences at a dozen places having important establishments including religious installations that could not be dismantled due to the sensitive nature of those. Terrains at some of those places are also difficult for erecting fences beyond the 150 yard zone. India recently began construction of the fences. India also allowed Bangladesh to construct structures within 150 yards of the zero line at 11 points of the country.

The arrangement came following a proposal from India early last year. India had been seeking to erect such fences within 150 yards of the zero line at 46 places since the last BNP regime. Talking to The Daily Star, Director General of Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) Maj Gen Rafiqul Islam said yesterday, "As we have agreed to the Indian proposal, India is also reciprocating by allowing Bangladesh to construct a bridge in Laxmipur, expansion of a wall in Hili, construction of approach roads in Moulvibazar and Bhomra, and several other initiatives. Our mutual agreement has created a very positive environment. Both countries are now willing to resolve long standing minor issues," he said, "This will help boost border trade on both sides."

Following last year's Indian proposal, BDR inspected various border points the same year, and submitted clearance to the Bangladesh home ministry about 12 out of the 46 points. India and Bangladesh conducted combined surveys of these areas as well, the BDR DG said. "We are continuing such surveys to see if accepting the Indian proposal will affect Bangladesh adversely in anyway," he added. As per the understanding, India will erect single channel fences at those 12 areas instead of barbed wired double channel ones like it erected beyond the 150 yard zone within its own territory. He made it clear that both countries are constructing the structures within their own boundaries.

Back in the early 1990s when India began erecting fences within permissible border areas on grounds of preventing smuggling and illegal migration among other reasons, it faced some problems. It identified the 46 points at the total 4,156 kilometres (km) long border, where it could not erect fences beyond 150 yards from the zero line. For now, Bangladesh has accepted the Indian proposal for erecting the fences within the 150 yard zone at 12 of the points. Bangladesh will decide about the remaining 34 places only after a joint verification in Assam and Meghalaya, said Bangladesh official sources.

Bangladesh foreign ministry sources said India told them that the fences will be erected over a period of time, and no timeframe has been fixed for completion of the joint survey. India however requested to expedite the verification process, they said. The officials, quoting Indian sources, said only 248 km of the allowed 571 km of such fencing along the border between Bangladesh and the Indian states of Assam and Meghalaya has been completed. Work is in progress for 123 km more, while for the remaining length (200 km) there are objections either from Meghalaya or Bangladesh, they added.

India has so far fenced 3,300 km of the border beyond the 150 yard zone within its own territory in line with the boundary agreement. According to BDR sources, the Indian authorities started erecting fences within 50 yards of the zero line at Azampur frontier under Akhaura of Brahmanbaria on Saturday. They said the neighbouring country already placed alignment designs for the 12 places. An official of the Bangladesh home ministry said, on condition of anonymity, that the government agreed to allow India to erect the fences within the 150 yard zone because of difficult terrains beyond that point. Citing examples, he said there is a religious establishment within five yards of the zero line at Hili border, and there is a wall at the boundary pillar in Benapole.

2) Faruk Khan's visit to India Linky

The minister said Bangladesh and India came up with some major developments such as establishment of border haats [commodity markets], agreement on movement of trucks between the countries, import of 3 lakh metric tonnes of par-boiled rice and 2 lakh metric tonnes of wheat from India and ensuring cotton-import quota for Bangladesh.

On Saturday, Bangladesh and India signed an MoU for establishing two border haats along the Meghalaya border. These haats will be opened by mid-February next year. Some 20 types of goods -- mainly agri and agro-based -- will be displayed for sale where currencies of the both countries will be accepted. Another major development of the visit, as the commerce minister claimed, was allowing transit for trucks from Nepal to Bangladesh up to Land Customs stations. India committed to do it during the visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in January this year.

India has also agreed to consider Bangladesh's demand of excluding 61 items, including garments, from its sensitive list of 480 items, said Faruk Khan, adding that Bangladesh will get to import 11 lakh bales of cotton from India this year out of its total import demand of 55 lakh bales. The commerce minister termed the cotton deal the biggest success of his visit. So far this year, Bangladesh did not get 1.35 lakh bales of cotton from India despite opening of LCs. Bangladesh imports 30-35 percent of its cotton requirement from India.

India has also made other pledges including accreditation of certification of Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institute (BSTI), reduction of items in its sensitive list, withdrawal of tagging "Made in Bangladesh" label on each jute bag exported to the country, he said. During the visit the business communities of the countries signed four memorandums of understanding (MoU) including setting up of a joint venture packaging industry in Bangladesh by Indian SRS Group and Nitol Group of Bangladesh. The Indian company will invest $50 million in this venture.
...
Khan said the upcoming visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, probably in January next, would help settle issues like allowing duty and quota-free export of apparel products to India. Referring to the non-tariff barrier in export of jute bags from Bangladesh to India, Khan said he discussed it with Indian Textile Secretary Rita Menon who assured him of necessary change in the law. Khan said allowing more garment items and jute bags from Bangladesh will reduce the huge trade imbalance between the two neighbouring countries. Meanwhile, Bangladesh would be able to export duty-free 1.7 million pieces of textile products in the last quarter of this year while a fresh duty-free quota of 8 million pieces would take effect from January 2011, he added.

3) Transit rights and other matters Linky

Bangladesh will hold talks with Nepal and Bhutan soon on allowing them to use Chittagong and Mongla ports, and sign Memorandums of Understanding as per the joint communiqué signed by the prime ministers of Bangladesh and India. Dhaka will also have talks with Delhi on the matter as both Nepal and Bhutan will need Indian land corridor for using the two ports. "We will visit Nepal and Bhutan soon, may be at the end of this month or early next month, to discuss the use of Chittagong and Mongla ports by the two countries. After reaching a decision with them, we will discuss it with India," the adviser told The Daily Star later.
...
He mentioned that the shipping ministry is overseeing setting up of land customs offices at some border points. Procedure of operation has been settled for trucks from Nepal and Bhutan which will cross 200 metres from zero point, he added. The meeting emphasised building power transmission lines immediately for import of 250 MW electricity from India. It also discussed taking up more projects with the $1 billion Indian credit.
...
Asked about sharing of the Teesta water, the adviser said it will take time to estimate the quantity of water the two countries now get.

4) News adds on the MOUs Linky

Four more MOUs were signed between Bangladesh and India during the commerce minister's visit to India. Of them three were signed with the Tata group. "Tata wants to study the feasibility of assembling Tata pickups in Bangladesh and production of retail parts of Tata vehicles used in Bangladesh. It also wants to open driving schools." Indian SRS Group and Bangladeshi Uttara Packing have also signed an MOU on setting up a joint packaging factory in Bangladesh. Both the countries have decided that trucks of both countries can enter 200 meters inside their borders.

----
Elsewhere
5) ULFA talks: Linky

A local court today granted bail to ULFA political adviser and senior leader Bhimkanta Buragohain who served seven years in Tezpur jail. Additional Judge of Sonitpur district and sessions court Hemadevi Phukan Bhuyan granted Buragohain, popularly known as Mama, bail on the submission of surety of Rs 25,000 each for two bail petitions moved by his nephews Anup Phukan and Kula Mohan Barua.

Telegraph adds: Linky

Buragohain will now be taken to Guwahati Central Jail. He is likely to be released in a day or two after his one of relatives submits a bail bond. The court of the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) here had already granted bail to the Ulfa leader regarding one pending case and is awaiting submission of a bail bond. “I feel good as I am free now. I have not been able to meet my people for a long time. I have met a few of my relatives today on the court premises and felt really good,” Burgohain, while talking to The Telegraph today over phone from Tezpur, said. “I am happy that the process of releasing the jailed leaders of the outfit has started. However, our chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa and other key leaders like Chitraban Hazarika and Sasha Choudhury are still inside the jail. I hope they are also released soon as the ongoing peace process can gain momentum only after the release of all the jailed leaders,” he said.

6) India-Burma trade: Linky

While India is almost prepared for the Indo-Myanmar border trade, the Myanmarese government has many works to finish for the same, an official said today. PK Neihsial, Superintendent of Central Land Custom based at Champhai, informed DoNER Secretary Jayati Chandra, who visited the proposed border trade area at Zokhawthar, said the border trade was yet to be commissioned. “While Mizoram almost prepared for the border trade, the Myanmarese government has not executed works as expected. Among others, the road from Tiau (border point) to Tiddim is yet to be made an all-season road,” the official informed the DoNER Secretary.

According to the customs official, border trade was taking place unofficially on one or two items of the 40 trade items listed for the border trade. He said fertilizers, bicycles, vehicle spare parts and medicines were at the top of the list of the items which Myanmar wanted to import from India. Neihsial also said all the departments concerned were ready to occupy their offices at the Land Custom building once the border trade took off.

7) The GJM travails: Linky

The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha has decided to seek the opinion of all its leaders across the country before accepting the proposed set-up for the hills, an indication that the outfit is walking a tightrope and wants to avoid a Sixth Schedule-like fiasco that also brought out Subash Ghisingh’s nemesis. Sources confirmed that Morcha president Bimal Gurung would invite its unit leaders from across the country for deliberations on the interim set-up and Gorkhaland. “The meeting will be held very soon,” a source said. The date could probably be October 30, another source said.

The Morcha has formed units in the seven northeastern states besides Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. It has a unit in Calcutta, too. The Nepali-speaking people from across the country had supported the Morcha agitation for Gorkhaland as they saw in it a solution to the identity issue of the Gorkhas. The new state, it was said, would give the Gorkhas the identity they had been craving for by differentiating between the Nepali-speaking Indians and the citizens of Nepal. Although the party has been insisting that the proposed arrangement is only temporary and the statehood movement will continue, Gurung and his think tank are wary because the initial agitation was for a new state and not a new administrative set-up. Under the circumstances, the Morcha wants a consensus to be reached before the interim set-up deal is inked. Observers said the Morcha did not want a repeat of the Sixth Schedule fiasco, another reason why a consensus is needed.

In the past, the Centre, the state and the Subash Ghisingh-led GNLF had signed a Memorandum of Settlement for conferring the Sixth Schedule status on the three hill sub-divisions of Darjeeling. The status could not be conferred because of a spontaneous opposition in the hills. The delay in amending the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution — the process starting almost one-and-a-half years from when the settlement was inked in 2006 — to include the Darjeeling hills proved to be Ghisingh’s nemesis. “Gurung is aware how Ghisingh, who was then considered the undisputed leader of the hills but had to go because of the mass opposition. The Morcha leadership does not want a repeat and will try to convince its unit leaders that the interim set-up is only for two years and that the party has not set aside the Gorkhaland issue,” said an observer.

The party is likely to firm up its decision on the interim set-up only after receiving feedbacks from its unit leaders. In fact, the Morcha yesterday asked its leaders from the Dooars and Terai to submit their opinions complete with their address and phone numbers. “A similar exercise will be conducted when members of other units are invited for discussion,” the source added. The prospect of settling the interim issue within the next political-level talks seems real as Gurung seems to have worked out a strategy to solve the territorial dispute. He has hinted that the solution is in the formation of a joint verification committee that will survey the Dooars and Terai and submit a report by 2011. “(After that) the government has to agree to include the Nepali-dominated areas in the administrative arrangement that will be in force till 2012,” he said yesterday.

8) On Anthony Shimray: Linky

Immediately after his arrest, the NSCN-IM’s special envoy, V.S. Atem, had written an angry protest letter to the Centre. But sources said the outfit soon realised the harm done to the talks and its chairman Isak Chishi Swu wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — and Muivah to the home ministry — explicitly “withdrawing” that letter.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 22, 2010

Other updates (October 22, 2010)

1) Nepal: Gurkhas in UK army Linky

Britain has officially dismissed reports that it is planning to discontinue the age-old Gorkha soldiers’ brigade. “The British government has no plan at all to discontinue the Gorkha soldier unit of the British Army,” a British Embassy spokesman told PTI. The remarks came in response to media reports quoting a British Parliament member about the possibility of closure of the Gorkha brigade by the British Army as a result of budget cut downs. The parliamentarian also reasoned that the Gorkhas had been expensive due to equal pay, pensions and rights with regular British soldiers. The statement comes in the wake of the British Government making public new security strategy and strategic defence and security review.

At present there are around 3,500 Gorkha soldiers serving in the British Army. Gorkha brigade is regarded as one of the most trusted units of the British Army and the Gorkhas are regarded as very brave and obedient soldiers. The British Army has very old and cordial relations with the Nepal Army. The British Army had expressed commitment to continue its assistance to Nepal during Nepal Army chief Chhatraman Singh’s official visit to UK at the invitation of British Army chief G Peter Wall.

Here is another development: Linky

Nearly a dozen ‘commanders’ of their People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and lawmakers are on a nine-day visit to China. These include two former deputy chiefs of the PLA, Barsha Man Pun Ananta and Janardan Sharma Prabhakar. Both are sitting Maoist MPs while Sharma is also the former Maoist peace and reconstruction minister. Ananta’s wife Onsari Ghartimagar, also a Maoist lawmaker, is member of the team that includes PLA spokesman Chandra Prakash Khanal Baldev. The Nagarik daily, which broke the news on Thursday, said that though the Maoist party said the 11 were on a personal visit, they had met officials of the Communist Party of China as well as Chinese army officials in Beijing and Shanghai. Both Ananta and Prabhakar are members of the special committee that was formed to facilitate the disbanding of the PLA. With the two Maoist MPs on ‘vacation’, the special committee has not met even though time is running out for Nepal.

Nepal News adds this bit: Linky

UCPN (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal left for Shanghai, China, on Friday on a 4-day official visit to participate in the closing ceremony of Shanghai Expo 2010. Speaking to media-persons at the Tribhuvan International Airport before departing for China on a China Air flight, he said his visit is solely focused on participating in the Shanghai Expo 2010 and that he has no such plans as of now to engage in high-level political parleys with Chinese leaders and government officials. He, however, didn't deny the possibility of such meetings taking place.
...
Dahal is accompanied by party's foreign department chief Krishna Bahadur Mahara, and his top aides. Top party leaders including vice vhairmen Mohan Baidya and Dr Baburam Bhattarai and senior leader Ram Bahadur Thapa were at the TIA to bid Dahal farewell. "There will be bilateral talks during the meeting," Maoist politburo member Agni Sapkota, who is also accompanying Dahal during the trip, said without revealing if Dahal will meet Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Dahal is heading to China a day after an eleven-member team of the UCPN (Maoist) party, most of them military commanders, returned from China after a nine-day long "private trip". During their trip, the Maoist commanders are known to have met leaders of the Chinese Communist Party along with those overseeing the military affairs. They went to Beijing via Lhasa.

More unending trips: Linky

Chinese ambassador to Nepal Qiu Gohang called on President Dr Ram Baran Yadav at the latter's office, Shital Niwas, on Thursday. The Chinese ambassador met the President in connection with the latter's China trip later this month.
...
Vice President Paramananda Jha has left for Beijing, China on Thursday to attend the Western China Economic Fair in Chengdu of Sichuan province. Vice President Jha is scheduled to deliver a speech during the inaugural of the Fair on Friday, it is learnt. Jha is accompanied by his wife and six officials from his office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Elsewhere, SATP reports:

Leaders of the three major parties – Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC) and Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) - met President Ram Baran Yadav at Shitwal Niwas in Kathmandu on October 19 (today) to discuss the current political stalemate and its possible solution, reports Nepal News. Caretaker Prime Minister and leader of the CPN-UML Madhav Kumar Nepal, UCPN-M Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda, NC president Sushil Koirala and CPN-UML chairman Jhala Nath Khanal went to Shital Niwas (President’s Office) to meet the President.

Meanwhile, the UCPN-M Standing Committee member Dev Gurung said that the caretaker Government does not have the right to bring in the full budget under any circumstances, warning that if it does so then that will be construed as a violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Speaking at an interaction in Kathmandu on October 18, Gurung also said that if the current Government brings in the budget then such a move will be against the "interim constitution".

Separately, Constituent Assembly (CA) Chairman Subas Nemwang said amendment to the constitution and the CA Regulations might be necessary to elect the new Prime Minister (PM) as the current election process has not produced results despite a dozen rounds of voting in the legislature Parliament. Nemwang mentioned this during his meeting with President Ram Baran Yadav at the latter's office, Shital Niwas, on October 15. The meeting dwelled mainly on the successive failure of the PM election and ways to end the stalemate.

DNA adds this: Linky

During the meeting today, Prachanda and Khanal asked Nepali Congress to withdraw 65-year-old Ram Chandra Poudyal from the prime ministerial race as he has failed to garner a majority even after 12 rounds of election in a row. However, Koirala told the leaders and the president that his party will not withdraw his party's candidate until there is a complete understanding on key political issues, including who will be the next prime minister.

Meanwhile, political parties have managed to find a common ground on nine of 11 contentious issues being discussed by the Constituent Assembly Committee on System of Governance. The meeting has resolved nine of the 11 major disputes on drafting a new Constitution, according to minister for law and justice Prem Bahadur Singh. The taskforce of top political leaders, however, are yet agree on the new electoral system and whether to adopt the presidential or the Westminster model. "We will enter into the issues of system of governance and electoral system in the next meeting," Singh said. Maoists are pitching for an executive presidential system and unicameral parliament while Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML and other parties are for an executive prime ministerial system with ceremonial role for the head-of-state.

And as china builds its rail network to Nepal, this is what happens on the other side: Linky

India has urged Nepal to make necessary security arrangement across the survey portion of ongoing Jayanagar-Bijalpura-Bardibas railway link. Survey work of the longest rail link between the two countries has remained halted since mid-October following protests by Maoist cadres. Nepal and India had signed a memorandum of understanding in February on the development of a railway infrastructure through five border points along Nepal-India border. “We want continue the work but due to the continuous obstruction form Maoists we are forced to halt it,” said an Indian Embassy official requesting anonymity.

Last year, a local group had taken away equipment used in the survey, prompting to halt work. “We have hoped to complete the construction of the railway link by 2015, but reoccurring obstructions will dealt a blow to the targeted timeline,” the official added. The 68-km railway service will link Nepal’s Bardibas with India’s Jayanagar, where almost half (34 km) sketch lies on Nepali side. Indian government has prioritised Jayanagar to Bijalpura Gauge Conversion and its extension up to Bardibas.

2) BD: Border haat agreement Linky

India and Bangladesh are set to sign pacts which would clear the decks for setting up of border haats between Meghalaya and the neighbouring country. Led by Commerce Minister of Bangladesh, Faruk Khan, a 21-member delegation arrived here late in the evening. The two countries are slated to sign an agreement to set up border haats, a traditional commodity market. Initially border haats are going to be started at two places along the international border at Sunamganj and Kurigram districts. The trading will be held once a week in both the sides and an individual will not be able to trade above US $50 at the border haats. New Delhi has agreed not impose local tax on trading at the border. The trading would be conducted in local currencies of the two nations. Farm and home made items produced within 10 Km radius of border haats would be traded at the markets to be set up within five Km of the international border. The commodities to be traded in these haats include locally produced agriculture and horticulture products, spices, and minor forest products excluding timber, fresh and dry fish, dairy, fishery and poultry products, cottage industries items, wooden furniture and cane goods, handloom and handicraft items.

The star adds this: Linky

Bangladesh will demand a separate quota for raw cotton from India to ensure the item's adequate supply for the readymade garment sector, the prime foreign exchange earner. The cotton price has reached its all-time high of $1.19 a pound on the international market this month, which troubles Bangladesh and China -- the two countries that depend on cotton imports for their textile industries. Industry insiders pointed out that crop damage by floods in Pakistan, the world's fourth largest cotton producing country, and a ban India has imposed on cotton exports have led to the price spiral.

"We'll demand a separate quota for raw cotton during the bilateral trade talks with India," said Commerce Minister Faruk Khan yesterday, before leaving for New Delhi to lead a 23-member business delegation. Khan said Bangladesh wants to settle the cotton supply problem with India so that the country remains immune to any Indian ban on the item's export. Delhi enforced the ban in April in an effort to ensure supply to its own textile mills. Apparel makers of the neighbouring country also opposed the export of 5.5 million bales of raw cotton pointing to a possible deficit. Ashish Bagrodia, chairman of North Indian Textile Mills Association, has been quoted by Indian newspapers as saying: "Cotton exports beyond 5.5 million bales should not be allowed at any cost, since domestic industry consumption as per projections by the Cotton Advisory Board is going to be more than 26.6 million bales."

Bangladesh is expected to sign four memoranda of understanding on border haats and standard operating procedures of trucks with India. Primarily, two border haats -- one at Kurigram and the other at Sunamganj -- will be operational as soon as possible, Faruk Khan said. Easing business terms for bilateral trade expansion, zero-tariff for 61 Bangladesh products, removing non-tariff barriers to jute export and duty-free export of RMG products to India will be high on agenda.

India has pruned its list of products that cannot be exported to India from 700 to 480. However, Bangladeshi traders have been complaining that the cuts did not help much as garments and footwear, where Bangladesh could easily gain a market in India, were still on the banned list. In 2008, India had allowed import of eight million pieces of Bangladeshi garments but Dhaka points out that Bangladeshi has already exported 70 percent of its allowed quota in five months of this calendar year and the quota needs to be expanded besides withdrawing duty on 61 product lines.

Meanwhile, BD population is ticking at 16.44 crore

The country's present population is 16.44 crore with a 1.4 percent growth rate and 2.25 total fertility rate, according to the United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) annual report - state of world population 2010. This year report styled 'From Conflict and Crisis to Renewal: Generations of Change' said presently average life expectancy of the country's male is 65.4 years while 68.1 years for the female. Only 18 percent of pregnant mothers of the country get skilled birth attendant while giving birth to a child, the report said. Food and Disaster Management Minister Dr Abdur Razzak spoke as the chief guest while UNFPA's Bangladesh country representative Arthur Erken formally released the report at a city hotel here. UNFPA simultaneously published the report at all capital cities around the globe today.

The arms drop case plods along: Linky

Former NSI chief Rezzaqul Haider has told CID that former state minister for home Lutfozzaman Babar assigned him to handover the 10-truck arms to United Liberation Front of Asom (Ulfa) on Sherpur border. Rezzaqul, however, clamed that he couldn't play any role regarding the 10-truck arms smuggling bid as the arms were caught at the Chittagong port, said CID sources. He made the statements yesterday, the third day of his six-day fresh remand. Rezzaqul added he agreed to carryout the assignment just as a government employee and he was not responsible for the smuggling. Rezzaqul was taken to the CID headquarters on Monday as the department was set to interrogate him in the sensational 10-truck arms haul case in Chittagong.

While GoI's intervention sees Lafarge go through: Linky

The traditional council of Nongtrai village in the Indian state of Meghalaya, where Lafarge's limestone mining project is located, has extended no objection to the French cement giant. In a court affidavit filed at the court on October 5, the head of Nongtrai village Durbar BL Lyngdoh said the arrival of Lafarge in their area has opened up employment opportunities along with many other benefits and assistance, according to a press release. He said some vested groups comprising exporters, whose business interests have been affected by the Lafarge project, filed the application to the Supreme Court opposing Lafarge operations.

The affidavit countered the claims of Shella Action Committee, the organisation whose primal objection spawned the whole affair. The affidavit states that the opposing party consists of limestone exporters who used to export limestone to Bangladesh without sharing any benefits with the locals. Lafarge pays a royalty fee which resulted a total amount of 3.15 crore Indian Rupee for the whole village and 1.4 lakh for each household, till December 2009.

3) Burma: Burma has a new flag

Military-ruled Myanmar unveiled a new national flag yesterday, just two weeks before an election that the government calls a major step in a transition to democracy. Government offices replaced the old standard with the new one at exactly 3 p.m. At a fire station in central Yangon, blue-uniformed officers lined up at attention during the replacement ceremony. The new flag has horizontal stripes of yellow, green and red with a big white star in the middle. The announcement of the new flag was made on state television just prior to the ceremonies, which were supposed to take place simultaneously all over the country. "We received the instruction to bring down the old flag and to fly the new flag at 3 p.m.," said an education officer in Pathein township in Irrawaddy Division, who added that shortly before the ceremony his office still had not received its replacement.

The 2008 constitution pushed through by the military called for fresh national symbols, including a new flag whose colors of yellow, green and red would stand for solidarity, peace and tranquility, and courage and decisiveness. Still, the abrupt release of the new flag came as surprise. A yellow, green and red flag was used during the Japanese occupation in 1943-1945, though the emblem in the center then was a dancing peacock. A fighting peacock is a symbol used by the country's democratic opposition, including Suu Kyi's now-disbanded party.

More from here
4) Maldives: Here is Md. Nasheed's interview to Asian Tribune when he came to India for the CWG Linky
And SAAG's take on it: Linky

There are two other issues which Nasheed pointed that need introspection and deep thought in India. First, he called upon India to drag neighbouring countries in the development efforts as other wise it would give rise to “deep resentment” in the region. Given the present trend of India moving higher and further away economically from other countries in the south Asian region and given the trust deficit in some of the countries, it needs to be examined how other countries in the region could be helped to partake in the prosperity and the economic opportunities which India has.

The second issue about India that President Nasheed has rightly pointed out is in describing the Indian Oceans as India’s “soft belly” posing increasingly serious concern. He favoured a framework agreement with India to take care of the security and other issues. The strategic community in India itself has to change its mind set and think of India not as a regional power alone but as an Indian ocean power. If this is done, India’s relationship not only with Sri Lanka but with other Indian ocean countries will also be have to be suitably restructured to meet the growing security concerns of the region.

It is in this connection that Maldives should be fully supported in its dispute with United Kingdom Foreign office over its claim of 160,000 square kilometers of British Indian Ocean territory (BIOT) that impedes on the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone that UK claims extends from the island of Diego Garcia. Also, connected to that is the declaration of UK of the Chagos Archipelago as a BIOT marine reserve extending over an area bigger than France. Chagos is said to have been bought from the Mauritius Government in the year 1965 by the United Kingdom.

5) More on Koro and the ongoing academic dishonesty: Linky

Having discovered the endangered Koro language in Arunachal Pradesh, a team of linguistic researchers that includes a teacher of Ranchi University is now busy preparing “revitalisation kits” to save the vernacular tongue. The kit, containing audio and video records of Koro with phonetics, will be distributed among people in the region, where a small group currently speaks the language. “We are preparing revitalisation kits for the endangered Koro to popularise the language and ensure its propagation,” said Ganesh Murmu, a teacher and researcher in the tribal and regional language department of Ranchi University (RU).

Murmu was among three members of the linguistic team that recently discovered the endangered tribal language hitherto unknown to the world. The other members were David Harrison of Swarthmore University, UK, and G. Anderson of Oregon University, US. Their discovery was announced on October 6 in National Geographic magazine, which financially supported the research. The team had stumbled upon Koro in 2008.

Labels: , , , ,

The leaders who made (and unmade) Bihar

Linky
As Bihar votes in a six-phase assembly election, we take a look at the men and woman who have, for better or worse, led the state since India became independent, making it what it is today.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Terrorist groups update (October 22, 2010)

1) Niranjan Hojai chargesheet by the NIA Linky

DHD-J commander-in-chief Niranjan Hojai wore a Rolex worth Rs 1 lakh, never mind the fact that the people he “fights for” make do with less than Rs 15,000 a year. One lakh rupees, in fact, is the per capita income of seven persons in the district. The luxury watch is just one of the exorbitant items that tumbled out of the militant leaders’ vanity kits when the National Investigation Agency (NIA) began probing a case of defalcation of funds in North Cachar Hills (now Dima Hasao).

The seizure list attached to the NIA chargesheet, which was submitted to the special judge of the agency last Tuesday, revealed shocking details about the extravagant lifestyle of these militant leaders, who waged a war against the state for “the people of the district”. While Hojai sported a Rolex wristwatch, policemen seized gold chains and rings from other accused persons. The list also contains sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and electronic gadgets. While the gadgets seized include high-end laptops from Sony, Lenovo, Compaq and N82 and E90 handsets of Nokia, the vehicles are mostly Scorpio and Bolero.

The extravagance makes for an ugly contrast to the condition of the district, considered one of the most backward in the state, with a population of 1,86,189 (according to the 2001 census). The district lacks even basic civic amenities like schools, hospitals and roads. While there are only 676 lower primary schools and 175 Middle English schools to cater to more than 55,000 children below 14 years of age, the number of arts and science colleges in the district is an abysmal four.

More: Linky

he NIA chargesheet, in connection with the defalcation of funds available with the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, has revealed that the accused created false and fabricated documents to transfer huge sums of money. The funds were channelised through hawala operators in Guwahati and Calcutta. The chargesheet, which yesterday named 16 people, including DHD (J) top brass Jewel Gorlosa and Niranjan Hojai, was filed based on case no. 02/09 of NIA which was registered on June 5, 2009.

Meanwhile, SATP reports:

The legal cell ‘chief’ of the Black Widow (BW), Maurong Dimasa (35), was shot at and injured by unidentified assailants in a Dimasa-dominated village under Haflong Police Station in North Cachar Hill District on October 18, reports Telegraph. Dimasa and two of his colleagues were attacked by unidentified assailants at Topodisa, 3 kilometres from Haflong town. The assailants managed to escape.

2) ULFA talks Linky

The process for holding formal talks with Ulfa is yet to reach a stage where a timeframe could be set, notwithstanding Dispur’s assertion that the parleys would begin soon. Sources privy to the discussions being held between P.C. Haldar, the Centre’s interlocutor for talks, and the outfit’s leadership, said there were several issues which were yet to be sorted out before formal talks could begin. Right now the “talks” are only in the media although the process appeared to be moving in the right direction, the sources claimed. “We cannot contradict what chief minister Tarun Gogoi has said about talks starting in December but neither can we say with any conviction that it would,” a source said. “There are certain issues which need sorting out...with some luck talks might start soon,” he said.

According to the sources, the Centre was keen that the talks get off the ground at an early date so that the code of conduct for next year’s Assembly election does not come as a roadblock. “The urgency has been conveyed to Ulfa leaders,” the source said. It has also been pointed out to them that things may change after the elections.

The source, however, pointed out that Ulfa would have to come out with a statement/letter stating their intention to hold talks before formal parleys can begin. “They (Ulfa leaders) are saying a lot of things, but they have to make it categorical,” he said, adding that efforts were on to get such an announcement out before/during the next Parliament session that begins early next month. According to him, the draft of such an announcement was under preparation. “One was prepared, but that is being reworked,” the source said. He said the Centre was also keen to have a statement given out by operational commanders that they, too, were in favour of holding talks and not the civil wing of the outfit alone.

According to the source, Ulfa leaders were insisting that general secretary Anup Chetia, who is now in prison in Bangladesh, be brought for a discussion among themselves. The Centre has conveyed to them that a diplomatic demand for handing over Chetia has been made on Bangladesh. At the same time, though, it has also been conveyed to the leaders that even if he were to come to India, Chetia would certainly have to spend some time in jail which would further delay the outfit’s central committee meeting. The jailed leaders have been saying that the meeting could be held only after all were released from jail. “It was keeping in mind such issues that the Centre had offered to shift the jailed leaders to special jails so they could freely discuss matters among themselves, but the leadership had not agreed to it,” the source said. Haldar today met Ulfa leaders in the Central Jail here.

Bail issue: Linky

Two separate courts today rejected the bail plea of Ulfa deputy commander-in-chief Raju Barua alias Jiten Kalita while the same courts granted bail to the outfit’s cultural secretary, Pranati Deka. The bail pleas of both the jailed senior leaders of the outfit came up for hearing today in the court of the chief judicial magistrate (CJM), Kamrup, and at the designated Tada court. There were three cases pending against Barua in the TADA court — 32/01, 43/01 and 350/91. The court has rejected his bail plea in all the three cases. The Tada court, however, granted bail to Pranati Deka against a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh.

On the other hand, the CJM court here granted bail to Deka but rejected the bail plea of Barua as he was shown as an absconder while the special operation unit (SOU) of the Assam police chargesheeted him in case number 3974/95. “This is an initial stage of moving the bail petition and the Tada court has rejected the bail plea of Barua at this stage,” Barua’s counsel Pranab Das said. “On the other hand, the CJM court rejected Barua’s bail as he was shown as absconder in the chargesheet filed by the SOU of the Assam Police. Since the Tada court has not given any specific reason for rejecting the bail, we are going to move fresh bail petition after a few days,” he said. Last week, senior Ulfa leader and the outfit’s ideologue, Bhimkanta Buragohain, was granted bail by the district and session judge at Tezpur. Buragohain, who was granted bail against two bail bonds of Rs 25,000 each, is likely to secure his release on October 26 when his relatives submit the bail bonds.

Sentinel adds this: Linky

Before the first round of talks with the outfit, the government is likely to release ULFA chairman Arabinda Rajkhowa, foreign secretary Sasha Choudhury and deputy ‘commander-in-chief’ Raju Baruah from jail. It will have to also decide whether operations against the ULFA will continue while holding talks with the outfit, the sources said. Haldar, who arrived in the city on Wednesday, today discussed with top jailed ULFA leaders the legal hurdles to setting them free and modalities of the proposed peace talks.
...
Intelligence sources, on the other hand, today claimed that they had “located” Paresh Baruah. Quoting NSCN (I-M) leader Anthony Shimray, who was arrested recently, they said, “Now Paresh Baruah is in the Yunnan province of China.” According to the sources, Shimray said during interrogation that Baruah was in the Philippines till last year, and that the top ULFA leader was involved in illegal arms trade. Meanwhile, the rift between the pro-talk ULFA camp and the Paresh Baruah-led group seems to have widened in recent times. While the jailed ULFA leaders, if their statements are any indication, are willing to hold talks with the government, Paresh Baruah has not budged from his stand that any peace talks must include the issue of “sovereignty”.

3) ANVC ceasefire Linky

In a bid to prevent cadres from deserting the Achik National Volunteers’ Council, the joint monitoring group that monitors the ceasefire agreement between the government and the outfit today decided to implement the standard operation procedure, which will facilitate the introduction of database identity card. The decision is significant especially when some ANVC cadres had, in the past, fled from their respective designated camps in Garo hills to join other outfits.
...
The Union government had earlier expressed concern over the ANVC cadres deserting their camps and joining other militant groups like the Liberation of Achik Elite Force and the Garo National Liberation Army. Former ANVC leader Sohan D. Shira, who had surrendered in 2007 and stayed in designated camps, is now the self-styled commander-in-chief of the GNLA, led by former deputy superintendent of police, Champion R. Sangma.

4) UNLF Linky

Political parties today threw their weight behind Sana Yaima’s family and supported the demand that the Centre inform them about the UNLF leader’s whereabouts. “We believe Sana Yaima is in the custody of the Indian authorities. The government of India should inform the people of Manipur and Sana Yaima’s family the whereabouts of the militant leader and what had happened to him,” Nimai Chand Luwang, the president of the Manipur Peoples’ Party (MPP), the largest Opposition party in the Assembly, said today.
...
Before leaving Imphal for Delhi, home secretary G.K. Pillai today repeated that New Delhi did not have any information about his arrest. “I would contact my counterparts in Bangladesh to find out if the man has been arrested,” the home secretary told reporters at the airport. Pillai, who was here on a four-day visit to attend two development seminars in Imphal East and Ukhrul, had denied any knowledge of Yaima’s arrest. He termed media reports of Yaima’s arrest in Bangladesh and now in India “not correct”.

The Ibobi Singh government has so far been maintaining silence over the issue. Following reports in the media and claim by UNLF’s vice-chairman Kh. Pambei that Sana Yaima, alias R.K. Meghen, was arrested from Dhaka on September 29 and brought to India, Yaima’s wife R.K. Ongbi Ibemnungshi had petitioned the Union home ministry, National Human Rights Commission and the UN High Commission for Human Rights seeking information on the whereabouts of her husband. After petitions to the home secretary and national rights commission drew a blank, R.K. Chinglen, the second son of the militant leader, told the media yesterday that if the Centre failed to inform the family about the whereabouts of his father, the family would seek legal course. Yaima has not been home at Yaiskul Janmasthan in Imphal city for the past 35 years or so. His father, R.K. Madhuryyajit, was a British army officer and was World War II veteran. He also founded SSB in Manipur and Nagaland after retirement.

5) KMSS and dams Linky

The Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) today set a seven-day deadline for the Tarun Gogoi government to ensure a halt to the construction of big dams affecting the state or face a mass movement akin to the Assam Agitation from November 1. The organisation, which has been opposing the construction of large dams in the region, did not spare Arunachal Pradesh either. It threatened to launch an economic blockade against the neighbouring state if it did not give up its pro-dam policy. KMSS general secretary Akhil Gogoi this evening came up with a point-by-point counter to the letter written by Arunachal chief minister Dorjee Khandu to the PMO on the “strategic and national need” for the dams. Khandu’s lobbying, Gogoi said, led to the postponement of the PMO-convened inter-ministerial meeting on the construction of big dams in the region.

Sentinel adds: Linky

Rejecting the allegation made by the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) and All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) that a pro-mega dam lobby is active in New Delhi, State Power and Industries Minister Pradyut Bordoloi has said that the State Government has urged the Centre to look into the concerns raised by the public and the expert committee on the possible downstream effects of the mega dams under construction. Bordoloi today said that the State Government was giving due importance to the opinion of the expert committee on the issue of mega dams, and not to what organizations like the KMSS and AASU were saying. Ruling out the possibility of any pro-dam lobby active in New Delhi, the minister said that the State Government would never take any step that would be detrimental to the interests of the State. Bordoloi accused the AGP of maintaining “double standard”. “Earlier the AGP used to support the construction of dams, but now they have started opposing it. This is nothing but double standard. The reality is that the AGP is just trying to make it a political issue,” Bora said.

Tribune adds: Linky

The All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the Takam Mising Porin Kebang (TMPK) will jointly hold an interactive meet of the members of the expert group that studied the Lower Subansiri Hydroelectric Power Project (LSHEP) and the common people on the mega dam issue at Gerukamukh on October 24. The expert group had submitted its report on June 28 last to the State Government and the NHPC authorities. The expert group was constituted with the experts from Gauhati University, Dibrugarh University and IIT Guwahati, following a decision at a tripartite meeting held by the State Government with the representatives of the NHPC and the AASU on December 8, 2006. In its final report, the group suggested that the construction activities of the LSHEP should be brought to an end. It has also forbidden construction of any mega dam in the seismically sensitive foothill areas of the Himalayas.

6) AIUDF and elections Linky

All India United Democratic Front chief Badruddin Ajmal, who is on a three-day tour of the three Barak valley districts, today more than indicated that the party’s main agenda was to join the government after the Assembly elections next year. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a party workers’ meet held at Gandhi Bhawan in Silchar, Ajmal said, “You cannot push for change unless you have power in your hands.” While revealing that the AIUDF was open to supporting the government that would be formed after the elections, Ajmal threw enough hints that the party would extend support to any formation.

The AIUDF has, at least for now, decided to contest the polls on its own steam. “We will contest the elections alone. We are open to all non-Congress and non-BJP secular parties,” Ajmal said. He, however, contradicted himself by revealing a “soft corner” for the Congress when asked if he would join a Congress-led government. “It’s a question of ideological difference — the Congress has failed to deliver the roads and drains here. This is a testimony that the long Congress rule has given the people nothing. Apart from ideological differences, we have no issues with Gogoi sahib or the Congress. Having said that, we cannot do anything unless we have power in our hands and so the party looks forward to joining the government formed after election,” he said.

With the AGP having severed ties with the BJP, Ajmal said an alliance with the AGP could not be ruled out. “(Prafulla Kumar) Mahanta had called me a few days back and asked ‘We need to sit and talk.’ We are open to any non-Congress, non-BJP secular alliance.” Earlier in the day, the AIUDF got a boost after nearly 500 BJP and Congress members joining the party at a daylong workshop of the party’s Cachar district unit, the Mahila Morcha and the Yuba Morcha. Ajmal encouraged them to work with confidence and dedication to make an impact in the process of the formation of the next government. The party general secretary, K.M. Baharul Islam, said the Assembly polls would be “the voice of the oppressed, suppressed and the downtrodden.” Islam said his party was committed to the empowerment of not only the marginalised religious minorities but also of the linguistic minorities and tribes that have been sidelined by the Congress.

Sentinel adds: Linky

But the final blow came on Thursday when ‘Aamir-e-Shariyat’ of Northeast Nadwatut Tamir Moulana Tayeebur Rahman outrightly rejected Ajmal’s plea to reconsider his decision to scrap ties with the AIUDF. The Moulana in his usual modest tone asked the AIUDF boss not to make any statement involving the Nadwa or blaming the Congress for the Nadwa’s decision to scrap ties with Ajmal’s party. Ajmal who dropped into the Moulana’s Rangauti residence in Hailakandi on Thursday noon and in their 45 minutes reconsider his decision. But no was the final answer from the cleric who had considerable influence on the Muslims in a greater part of the valley. Coming out of the Moulana’s residence, Ajmal tried to pose a brave gesture and even claimed that the meeting was fruitful. But the insiders said the opposite.

Moulana Tayeebur Rahman was the chief advisor of the AIUDF when the party came into being in 2005 following the scrapping of IMDT in the Supreme Court. The Moulana’s campaigning yielded three seats for the AIUDF in Barak Valley. But the relation started to sour when Ajmal decided to contest the Lok Sabha election from Silchar without even caring for discussing his decision with the Moulana who was opposed to Ajmal’s candidature in Silchar apprehending that this would ultimately pave the way for the BJP. The Moulana started to withdraw his physical presence in the AIUDF meeting or rally. The final jolt to their relation came when one Jamiat central leader claimed that Mufti Khainul Islam of the Jamiat was the original Amir-e-Shariyat. That had angered the Nadwa camp and they took it as an insult to the Moulana. Ajmal was the state president of the Jamiat, but preferred to remain as a mute spectator.

Subsequently, the Majlis-e-Shura, the governing body of the Nadwa had recently decided not to side with any political party from now onwards. On the other hand, the Moulana announced his detachment with active politics. Ajmal on Wednesday claimed that there was no hitch in AIUDF’s relation with the Nadwa and all the controversy over Aamir-e-Shariyat was a conspiracy of the Congress. The Moulana today reportedly asked Ajmal not to make any statement blaming the Congress that would unnecessary complicate the issue. The Moulana further said, the Nadwa members could support any political party of their choice expect BJP.

7) NDFB Linky

In a bid to consolidate its position in Assam’s north bank districts of Dhemaji and Lakhimpur, the anti-talks faction of the NDFB has tied up with the little-known Liberation Democratic Council of Mising Land (LDCML). The outfit has even started providing arms training to its cadres in makeshift camps in the hills along the Assam-Arunachal Pradesh border. The development has set alarm bells ringing among security establishments at a time the state is preparing for Assembly elections. Security forces have obtained evidence of cadres of NDFB and LDCML operating jointly in Dhemaji, Lakhimpur and Majuli subdivision in Jorhat district where the Mising community has a sizeable population. “Both organisations have started extorting money from businessmen, contractors and even panchayat representatives in various parts of Dhemaji, Lakhimpur and Majuli. We have evidence that the NDFB has on occasion used LDCML cadres to carry out operations,” a police official said.

Security forces and intelligence agencies came to know about the pact between the two outfits after the October 3 encounter along the Assam-Arunachal Pradesh border in which four NDFB militants were killed. A sheaf of documents, which included a diary, recovered from the site by Dhemaji police later revealed that the two organisations operate closely in the area, as well as their training process, modus operandi, cadre profile and the like. “From the documents recovered, it can be stated that LDCML was formed in October last year with an eye on a ‘free Mising land.’ A month later, Ram Patir, the self-styled commander-in-chief of LDCML, sent the first batch of 12 youths from different parts of Dhemaji district, mainly Gogamukh, for training in an NDFB camp on the Assam-Arunachal border in Sonitpur district,” the official said. “We managed to gather from the documents that a recently surrendered NDFB cadre, Jafunsar Boro, who was also present in the October 3 encounter, said that there were seven NDFB cadres in the camp at the time, along with two LDCML members,” he added. According to available information, there may be 30 to 35 cadres under the leadership of Patir, who hails from Misamora village under Jonai police station in Dhemaji district.

NDFB-Rajbongsi sitting: The NDFB (Progressive) and Koch Rajbongsi United Forum today held a joint session at Amala Bhawan in Kokrajhar, adds our correspondent. While the NDFB seeks the support of the Koch Rajbongsi organisations on the separate Bodoland state demand, the Koch Rajbongsis want the NDFB (P) to support them in the community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe status. They also discussed peaceful co-existence. The meeting was attended by Govindo Basumatary, NDFB general secretary, speaker B. Benga, publicity secretary S. Sanjarang, AKRSU president Biswajit Ray, Niren Ray and Kesab Rajbongsi of Koch Rajbongsi United Forum, among others.

8) Tangkhul Nagas in Manipur Linky

Tangkhul civil society organisations today submitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh through Union home secretary G.K. Pillai to remind the Centre about the Manipur Nagas’ demand for an alternative administrative arrangement for them. “We support and reaffirm the Naga Peoples Convention’s declaration made on July 1, 2010, seeking an alternative arrangement from the government of India in consultation with the Naga people at the earliest possible time,” the memorandum said. Singh was also urged to expedite the process for an alternative arrangement for the Nagas of Manipur.
...
Before the meeting, the people of Ukhrul took out a rally in the town in support of the demand for an alternative arrangement. “Pillai should have visited Ukhrul to discuss about the Nagas’ demand for an alternative arrangement rather than attending a development seminar,” S. Milan, spokesman for the United Naga Council (UNC), the apex body of the Nagas in Manipur, said. Spearheaded by the council, the Naga organisations in Manipur had raised the demand for an alternative administrative arrangement after the Okram Ibobi Singh government conducted elections to six autonomous district councils in five hill districts and prevented NSCN (I-M) general secretary Th. Muivah from entering Manipur in May this year. Efforts by Ibobi Singh to hold talks with the council leaders have not borne fruit. A delegation of the council met representative of Manipur government Rakesh Ranjan, resident commissioner, Delhi, during tripartite talks on their demand in Delhi on September 21.

9) maoists: Linky

Chief minister Arjun Munda today sought waiving of Rs 500 crore the state owes the Centre towards deployment of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in Jharkhand for anti-Naxalite operations since 2007. Munda, who met Union home minister P. Chidambaram in New Delhi today, said the state should not be charged for CRPF deployment as the Naxalite issue was a national one.
...
Munda, who met the home minister for the first time today after assuming charge as chief minister, also urged the Centre to reimburse the Rs 105 crore it had to pay the Railway Board towards Government Railway Police (GRP) expenditure. This cost is shared by the state and railways on a 50:50 basis. Maintaining that he was committed to eliminating Naxalites, the chief minister also sought a one-time grant of Rs 300 crore for strengthening the Special Task Force on the lines of the Grey Hounds in Andhra Pradesh. “The critical component of training, both basic and specialised, need to be addressed urgently,” he said. Munda added that the home minister was positive and assured all central assistance.

Munda also requested the home minister to allow construction of PCC roads in forest areas as a special dispensation for rebel strongholds. “Improvised explosive devices planted on kuccha roads have been a major cause of casualties,” he said. The chief minister’s wish list included the demand for sanctioning 257 companies of central paramilitary forces for the panchayat elections, being held in the state after a gap of 33 years. “The state has requisitioned 257 companies, but only 100 have been sanctioned. In view of the number of booths, all in rural and Naxalite-affected areas, 100 companies of CRPF are inadequate,” the chief minister maintained.

He wanted two helicopters to be made available to the state as soon as possible in view of the panchayat elections and anti-Naxalite operations. He also sought inclusion of six more districts of Santhal Pargana — Dumka, Deoghar, Sahebganj, Godda, Jamtara and Pakur — in the security related expenditure scheme because of the presence of Maoist groups in these districts. Chidambaram was requested to urge the telecommunication ministry to link 840 villages, not covered with mobile connectivity, in view of the panchayat elections.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

India and the Commonwealth: The Coarse Timeline

1867: The foundation of "Dominion" status was the achievement of internal self-rule in the form of "responsible government". Responsible government in British colonies began to emerge in the 1840s - typically with Nova Scotia cited as the first colony to achieve it in early 1848 - and then being granted to most of the major settler colonies - British North America, Australia, and New Zealand - by 1856. The British North America Act was formally promulgated in 1867 and Canada achieved Dominion status.

The British North America Act, 1867 established the Dominion of Canada by fusing the North American British colonies of the Province of Canada, the Province of New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. The two subdivisions of the Province of Canada, Canada West and Canada East, were renamed Ontario and Quebec, respectively, and were given equal footing with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the Parliament of Canada, as representation by population was accepted for the Canadian House of Commons, as was a notion of regional equality in the Canadian Senate, with the Ontario, Quebec and Maritime "regions" receiving an equal number of senators. This creation, or Confederation, was done to counter the claims of manifest destiny made by the United States of America, for the defence of Britain's holdings. American threats were evinced by the invasions of the Canadas during the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Fenian raids.

Prior to the BNA Act, 1867, the British colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island discussed the possibility of a fusion to counter the threat of American annexation and to reduce the costs of governance. The Province of Canada entered these negotiations at the behest of the British government, and led to the ambivalence of the Province of Prince Edward Island, which delayed joining the new Dominion for seven years. The constitutional conference, ironically, was held on Prince Edward Island, in Charlottetown.

1880s: Four colonies of Australia had enjoyed responsible government since 1856: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. Queensland had responsible government soon after its founding in 1859. Because of ongoing financial dependence on Britain, Western Australia became the last Australian colony to attain self-government in 1890. With Federations emerging in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, a serious movement for the Federation of the colonies that make up Australia today arose in the late 1880s. In this period, there was increasing nationalism amongst Australians, the great majority of whom were native born. The idea of being "Australian" began to be celebrated in songs and poems. This was fostered by improvements in transport and communications, such as the establishment of a telegraph system between the colonies in 1872. In 1884, Lord Rosebery is said to have used the term "Commonwealth" for the first time, while assuring an Australian audience that the "fact of your being a nation need not imply any separation from the Empire... There is no need for any nation, however great, leaving the Empire, because the Empire is a commonwealth of nations."

As a result of the long and tortuous (see [1]) Federation process, six separate British self-governing colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia formed a federation and collectively became states of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. It was proclaimed on 1 January 1901 in Centennial Park, Sydney.

1907: The desire for New Zealand to create and maintain a separate national identity is a predominant theme in the country’s history, which was demonstrated clearly at Australia’s federation and not only New Zealand’s decision not to join the Commonwealth of Australia, but the clear indifference of the population and its governing officials to the issue. A growing sense of nationalism has been submitted as one motivation (see [2] for details) for the decision but this theory is not easily measurable. The differences in colonisation influenced decisions on federation by creating a foundation from which concepts of national identity might subsequently emerge. Although both countries were colonised for the similar purpose of settlement, the practical implementations of colonisation were distinct. Similarity of purpose does not equate to the uniformity of process, just as other colonial settlements such as Canada and South Africa experienced variations on the single aim of colonisation.

The decision for national separation in the Antipodes can be traced through each country’s colonial history. Claims of a unique national identity are symptomatic of the myths created through distinct modes of colonisation. Despite sharing numerous similarities, Australia and New Zealand’s colonial disparities caused their national separation and differing national identities in the early twentieth century.

Labelling Australia as terra nullius cleared the path for colonial conquest by ignoring the Indigenous presence and ownership of the land. The island continent’s subsequent colonisation occurred with the definitive purpose of establishing a site to assist in relieving the overcrowded prisons in England. Geoffrey Blainey further suggests that the Australian continent required a greater rationale to justify colonisation other than as a remote prison. According to Blainey, Australia offered an effective location along trade routes to Asia and a supply of flax and timber for shipbuilding. Australia’s geographical location provided the British with an opportunity to further establish the empire’s presence south of Asia and therefore, ‘Australia then was not designed simply as a remote gaol, cut off from the world’s commerce. It was to develop its own export trade’. Despite these purposes and the subsequent passages of free settlers later in the nineteenth century, the convict element gained prominence in perceptions and representations of the Australian population. Interpretations of colonial history influenced how a national identity was formulated and how the Australian population was assessed by their Tasman neighbours. Australia became depicted as a colonial child, separated from its imperial parent, adrift in a foreign sea.

New Zealand’s colonial process was, comparatively, awkward and indecisive. New Zealand, as a geographical space, had been previously overlooked as a site for colonisation. Blainey writes that ‘while the continent of Australia flanked routes to many trading points, New Zealand was too far to the east and south to be prized as a potential port of call’. British ports and penal settlements were already established in Australia, leaving little incentive to annex or colonise New Zealand. As the trade relations between the colonies gained momentum during the first half of the nineteenth century, the European population in New Zealand expanded. By 1840, New Zealand was populated by traders and whalers as well as missionaries who were intent on introducing civility to the ports such as Kororareka and converting the Maori to Christianity. Their demands for law and order and the alarming rate at which settlers and squatters arrived looking for land prompted consideration of annexing the remainder of New Zealand and implementing colonisation. This decision was accompanied by the New Zealand Company’s desire to colonise locations in New Zealand by launching a social experiment to create settlements resembling the homeland both physically and in class stratum. Keith Sinclair writes Edward Wakefield’s version of colonisation meant that ‘the new colonial society would consist of a vertical selection of English society, excluding the lowest stratum. It would form, not a "new people", but an "extension" of an old, retaining its virtues, but eliminating its poverty and overcrowding’. The Treaty of Waitangi was significant in establishing sovereignty and, unlike the Australian colonies, acknowledging the Maori presence upon—although not ownership of—the land. The Pakeha population perceived itself as better than previous colonial settlements, as they were free settlers, some ‘selected’ for the colonies, and these ideas extended to the Maori. The Maori Wars provided historical reference for the colonial concept of the noble Maori warrior and their fighting prowess proved to the colonists the Maori were superior to other Indigenous peoples. The disparate intent of colonisation enabled New Zealand to produce an alternative rendering of identity to Australia.

Despite their separate histories and distinct modes of colonisation, Australia and New Zealand share an enmeshed history. New Zealand’s initial population was acquired through Maori trade with the New South Wales colony, and ‘it was this trade which brought to New Zealand the early Pakeha settlers. They were mostly young men from the Australian colonies’. The subsequent gold rushes in Victoria, then Otago and the Westland produced a trans-Tasman population wandering between both countries. These connections constructed the ‘Australasian’ region and established the grounds for considering New Zealand as a possible seventh state at Australia’s federation. The inclusion of a clause in the Australian Constitution to allow New Zealand (or other states) to join the federation after 1901 demonstrates the two countries’ integration during the nineteenth century.

Captain William Russell submitted to the Australasian Federal Council in 1890 that New Zealand should remain separate to the Australian federation because ‘colonisation had proceeded in an entirely different manner’. His statement implied New Zealanders were not tainted by a history of convictism and were hence, socially and culturally superior. It is not difficult to dismiss Russell’s assertion of a morally superior New Zealand ‘type’. Asserting the moral superiority of New Zealanders forgets South Australia was not a convict colony, but the original Wakefield settlement in the Antipodes. However, the bare facts of immigration were not as powerful as the myth the New Zealand Company had constructed that New Zealand ‘was at least created as nearly in the image of the motherland as could be expected’.

The propaganda of the New Zealand Company offers partial explanation as to how New Zealanders configured themselves differently to the Australian colonial population. The Company desired settlers who were ‘of good character’ and their advertising created the belief settlers were specially selected, not corrupted by convict origins and they would flourish in a climate similar to the British homeland, or at least, more similar than their trans-Tasman neighbour. A sense of identity was crafted ‘from the unholy alliance between formal and informal myths of settlements, from the ideas of the progressive British paradise’. From this perspective, Australia’s population, due to its convict past and lack of rigorous selection, was of poorer physical quality, as was the environment, and ‘it was widely believed that a climate ranging from bracing to temperate produced the strongest physical and moral character’. At the time, it appeared New Zealand’s federation with Australia would compromise the purity of a ‘carefully selected’ population. Australians were the descendents of convicts and ‘it was in 1902 that New Zealanders were famously hailed as not simply "British" but "best British"’.

While the above seems like a popular reason for the lack of a Federation, as Phillipa Mein-Smith notes, "the environment was shaping the politics of identity." A distinct purpose of creating an Australian federation was to implement a White Australia policy, and prevent migration from the Asian north. Rather than accept this measure as a strategy in maintaining the British exclusivity of the colonies, New Zealanders believed ‘that Australia in fact needed coloured labour because white labour was unsuited to the tropics and this put the purity of New Zealand "stock" at risk’. Queensland’s practice of using ‘coloured labour’ in the sugarcane industry fuelled these theories and it was feared the practice would continue after federation, allowing easy entry of Islanders into New Zealand. Chan states, ‘racialism in Australia helped to bring together political opponents in the cause of federation, but in New Zealand it had the opposite effect – it helped in the decision not to join the Australian Commonwealth’.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi caused New Zealand’s colonisation to unfold differently to Australia’s. The Maori Wars and King movement provided the Maori with a visible presence in New Zealand and allowed the incorporation of noble Maori warrior into the myth of superiority of the population. The Treaty offered the colonists proof they possessed greater ethics when handling their country’s indigenous affairs and ‘it was widely assumed that race relations were better in New Zealand, both because white New Zealanders were morally superior, lacking the taint of convictism, and because the Maori were a superior "native" type’. Such assertions overlook the raw facts of the Maori Wars and the loss of Maori land rights. When considering federation, the advancement of the argument to ‘protect Maori rights’ is based upon historical colonial myths. Australia was declared terra nullius and Aboriginal rights to the land, and subsequent land struggles and massacres, were never acknowledged. Colonisation erased the existence of an indigenous people in history. New Zealand colonisation required the acknowledgement of the Maori people to allow settlers access to the land. By federating with the Australian colonies, it was believed the Maori would lose their rights to vote, despite alterations to the First Commonwealth Franchise Act (1902), which prevented Asians, Pacific Islands and Aborigines from voting. The Act was modified, ‘in deference to New Zealand’s concerns and the possibility that it might one day enter the Federation, an exception was made in this Act for the Maori’. These practical measures made by Australian politicians failed to impact upon the historical concept that New Zealand was the more socially just colony. The federating colonies shared a different colonial history, and subsequent perception, of indigenous rights and bloodshed to their smaller Tasman neighbour and these differences could not be reconciled. The disparity in addressing indigeneity was absorbed into the national identity, causing national separation to appear natural and inevitable.

In terms of other factors, the complementary Gold Rushes in Victoria and Otago, the economic depression in New Zealand in the 1880s followed by a depression in Australia in the 1890s, etc. meant that Australia and New Zealand grew too far apart despite the twelve hundred miles of separation between the two countries. With the advent of refrigerated shipping in 1882, the larger British market was a more attractive economic enterprise and ‘refrigeration and the export of frozen meat, butter and cheese reinforced New Zealand’s identity as different from Australia’s, as "Britain’s farm"’. New Zealand established an independent identity through trade relations but this economic reasoning cannot be presented in isolation from historical and other factors in decisions of federation.

The Royal Commission established to investigate the viability of joining the Commonwealth after 1901 found that ‘there was a minor economic advantage in federation but that it was outweighed by all the disadvantages, the chief of which was the loss of independence’. New Zealand chose not to take part in Australian Federation (see [3]) and assumed complete self-government as the Dominion of New Zealand on 26 September 1907.

1910: In 1871, diamonds had been discovered at Kimberley, prompting a diamond rush and a massive influx of foreigners to the borders of the Orange Free State. Then, gold was discovered in the South African Republic in 1886. Gold made the Transvaal the richest and potentially the most powerful nation in southern Africa, however the country had neither the manpower nor the industrial base to develop the resource on its own. As a result, the Transvaal reluctantly acquiesced to the immigration of fresh waves of uitlanders (foreigners), mainly from Britain, who came to the Boer region in search of employment and fortune. This resulted in the number of uitlanders in the Transvaal eventually exceeding the number of Boers, and precipitated confrontations between the old order and the new.

After an uneasy peace in the First Boer War, the Second Boer War was fought from 11 October 1899 until 31 May 1902 between the British Empire and the Dutch-speaking Boer inhabitants of the two independent Boer republics: the South African Republic (Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State. The last of the Boers surrendered in May 1902 and the war ended with the Treaty of Vereeniging signed on 31 May 1902. It ended with the annexation of the region under the British Empire. Thus, for the first time, the four colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange Free State were under a common flag, and the most significant obstacle which had prevented previous plans at unification had been removed. Hence the long-standing desire of many colonial administrators to establish a unified structure became feasible. The Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 from the four colonies.

The Early Ideas of the Commonwealth: Conferences of British and colonial prime ministers had occurred periodically since 1887. Issues of colonial self-government spilled into foreign affairs with the Boer War (1899–1902). The self-governing colonies contributed significantly to British efforts to stem the insurrection, but assured that they set the conditions for participation in these wars. Colonial governments repeatedly acted to assure that they determined the extent of their peoples' participation in imperial wars in the military build-up to the First World War. The assertiveness of the self-governing colonies was recognised in the Colonial Conference of 1907, which implicitly introduced the idea of the Dominion as a self-governing colony by referring to Canada and Australia as Dominions. Followed by this lead, the colonies of New Zealand and Newfoundland became Dominions in 1907, and the Union of South Africa became a Dominion in 1910.

The Colonial Conference of 1907 also retired the name "Colonial Conference" and the term "Imperial Conference" was to be used instead from 1911. It mandated that meetings take place regularly to consult Dominions in the running the foreign affairs of the empire. The idea of the Commonwealth developed from the Imperial Conferences. A specific proposal was presented by Jan Christian Smuts (of the Boer Wars fame) in 1917 when he coined the term "the British Commonwealth of Nations," and envisioned the "future constitutional relations and readjustments in the British Empire." Smuts successfully argued that the Empire should be represented at the all-important Versailles Conference of post-first world war in 1919 by delegates from the dominions as well as Britain.

In the Balfour Declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference (not to be confused with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that sowed the seeds of the Palestine-Israel conflict), Britain and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". With the British King at its head, the Commonwealth was likened to a family, its members - Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland - united by race, culture and language; and family relationships were based on mutual accommodation and understanding, not on contracts, the successful working of which, in any case, required a spirit of compromise. Formal organization would have destroyed the organic unity of the Commonwealth. Within the family, members would attain self-government as they reached political maturity and were capable of exercising independence of judgement and action. Disagreements might prevail within the family, but all members would stand together in time of need.

The substance of the Balfour Declaration of 1926 was incorporated in the 1931 Statute of Westminster, whose purpose was to give effect to the resolutions passed by the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences. The Preamble to the Statute speaks of the Crown as "the symbol of their free association" and of those nations being "united by a common allegiance to the Crown." The Statute of Westminster applied to the six dominions which existed in 1931: the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Irish Free State, the Dominion of Newfoundland (see [4]), the Dominion of New Zealand (see [5]), and the Union of South Africa.

The Course of the Dominions post-Balfour: While the dominions had no wish to dissolve old family ties, through which they might be able to influence Britain's European policy, thereby enhancing their own international status, the dominions had slowly but steadily started disassociated themselves from British policy. This started with the Chanak crisis of 1922 in Canada; the non-endorsement of the Locarno treaties of 1925 and the Anglo-Egyptian treaty in 1936.

But all had rallied behind the British in the second world war. Each dominion government had secured the support of its parliament to support the British; and the dominions had arrived independently at identical decisions, symbolizing the essential unity of the Commonwealth. Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster in 1942; to clarify government war powers, the adoption was backdated to 3 September 1939—the start of World War II. Independent foreign policies and regional interests since 1919 had led the dominions, by the forties, into regional defence pacts to safeguard their security. Australia and New Zealand had signed the Canberra Pact in 1944; Canada and the US had entered into the North American Defence Pact in 1940; and, after the war, Canada sponsored the formation of NATO. So the dominions, like the UK, sought post-war regional agreements with the Americans.

British Foreign and Military Policy in the Aftermath of WWII: The manner in which the Commonwealth family would function after 1945 would depend largely on the situation in which Britain and the dominions found themselves at the time. The British realized that they were no longer the primary global power, and that the USA was the ultimate bulwark of western security against the USSR. With British resources greatly diminished by war, a White Paper admitted, in 1946, that Britain could not revert to its pre-war imperial role and that regional defence arrangements would be necessary in the future. The British knew that their security was now tied up with that of West Europe; at the same time, West Europe was then taking the first steps to economic recovery and could not be relied upon to guarantee western security. Meanwhile, the Soviet threat to the continent loomed large - in February 1948 the communists seized power in Czechoslovakia and in June 1948 began the Berlin blockade.

Could the Commonwealth play a role in this situation? The British had no doubt that it must serve as 'an independent and strong unit' among the world's chief powers. The Commonwealth was the fount of British power; and it gained strength through the united front it presented to the world. The integrity of each member was the common concern of all, so the defence of the UK was the 'vital concern', not only of the British but also of each separate member of the Commonwealth. Equally, the UK alone without the support of the Commonwealth 'would lose much of its effective influence and flexibility of power'. Indeed, the British Chiefs of Staff thought that one of the 'essential measures' required to assure British chances of survival and victory in a war was the maintenance of the united front of the Commonwealth. All dominions shared the British desire to contain the Russians, and none thought it could stand on its own against them. On Europe, British relations were, by mid-1948, closer with the US than with the Commonwealth; but as head of the Commonwealth, Britain could envisage herself as the link between the US, Europe and the Commonwealth. And the dominions would realize that the consolidation of West Europe could only safeguard the Commonwealth by building a barrier against the Russians.

Indian Centrality in the British Empire (see [6] for details): The British Chiefs had no doubt that India (and Pakistan) would be a 'most desirable addition' to Commonwealth defence. India had been the backbone of British power since the nineteenth century, providing four-fifths of the British defence effort east of Suez during the second world war. At a time when Britain was experiencing difficulty in raising sufficient forces to meet its international commitments, the withdrawal of more than 20,000 Indians who were manning most of the administrative sections of the SEAC would leave two alternatives to the British - either to replace them with local men - a task time-consuming and expensive - or to introduce British troops in the SEAC; but only at the cost of abandoning their commitments in the Middle and Far East. One of India's main assets was, in fact, 'an almost inexhaustible supply of manpower'; India could produce 'almost as many soldiers as the Commonwealth could mantain'. In October 1949, the Cabinet Defence Committee admitted:

The effect on Army organisation of the granting of self-government to India and Pakistan is often overlooked. For here was a highly trained expandable reserve on which we could count in time of emergency or war. While the cost of this Army to the United Kingdom in peace was relatively small, it was a definite factor in our potential military strength.


Not surprisingly, any discussion on the transfer of power since the forties was usually accompanied by rumination on the participation of an independent India in the imperial defence system. The offer of dominion status with the right to secede from empire, made in the Cripps plan of March 1942, was qualified by the stipulation that power would be transferred to Indians subject to the signing of a treaty to safeguard British interests - and the war cabinet clearly had military interests on its mind. In March 1946, the Labour government intended to accept the recommendation of an Indian constituent assembly for independence only if 'satisfactory arrangements' were made for the defence of the Indian Ocean area. In May 1947, the imminence of partition did not dissuade Lord Mountbatten, then Viceroy, from suggesting to Nehru that India and Pakistan could establish a joint defence headquarters on the lines of the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1914. The Austrian and Hungarian armies had been separate, but there had been a defence headquarters consisting of representatives of both according to their strength, 'with the Emperor at its head'. Military and foreign policy considerations received top priority in official memos and discussions during the negotiations for the transfer of power in 1946-47; and the India Office affirmed, on 8 November 1946, that the military aspect of a future treaty between India and Britain had received most consideration from the British, although it had never been mentioned to Indian leaders.

The chief advantage of India to Britain was strategic; India was the only base from which the British could sustain large-scale operations in the Far East. If India left the Commonwealth, the British position in the North Indian Ocean would be weakened and oil supplies from the Persian Gulf could not be guaranteed. The British conceived India's participation in a loose organization of Commonwealth defence. The maximum military requirement of India would be that she participate actively in any war in which the Commonwealth might get involved; the minimum was that she accept responsibility for her own frontiers. The British should also try to get Indian assistance in a Middle East war. India should accept only British assistance for maintaining the efficiency of her armed forces, and make available and maintain bases for offence at the required degree of readiness. This conformed with the conclusion of the Commonwealth Defence Conference of 1946 that Commonwealth forces should be standardized and have uniformity of organization and training, and the closest possible liaison should be maintained between officers of dominions, so that collaboration between Commonwealth countries in war would be 'easy and effective'. The British were concerned at Indian approaches to the USA for economic and military assistance; and American diplomats in New Delhi resented British attempts to play off Indians against the US by warning them of the dangers of 'dollar imperialism'.

The March Towards 1947: Political discord and administrative exigency prompted the British to wind up the Raj in August 1947 without achieving any of the conditions that would have guaranteed their military and economic interests in an independent India. Nevertheless, the fact that the British contemplated treaties to safeguard their interests in post-independence India, even while they hoped she would remain in the Commonwealth, suggests an attitude to India quite different from that to the old dominions. India owed her position in the Commonwealth to conquest; the 'natural link' of race, culture, common loyalties and instincts - in the words of the Economist - 'all that is involved when one people regards another as its own kith and kin' - did not exist between her and Britain. The 'old' Commonwealth could be 'an effective unity' without formal organization and treaties; with the membership of the new dominions of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, it would be difficult for the new Commonwealth to ensure that anything was understood 'unless it is put down on paper'.

Thus, a Cabinet Committee on Commonwealth Relations, with an official committee in support, had already been established under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in 1947, as the time of Indian independence approached. In addition to the Commonwealth Relations Secretary, Philip Noel Baker, the membership included Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary; Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and Lord Jowitt, the Lord Chancellor. The Committee’s main concern up to that point had been with finding a formula "to enable the greatest number of independent units to adhere to the Commonwealth without excessive uniformity in their internal constitutions." But their efforts were concentrated on attempts to devise some form of relationship through the Crown. The idea had been aired of distinguishing between acceptance of the King’s jurisdiction in external relations on the one hand, and in internal affairs on the other. Where the latter jurisdiction was not acceptable, continuing Commonwealth membership might nonetheless be feasible on the basis of the former.

Debates in India: On 22 January 1947, the resolution passed by the constituent assembly had declared that India would become a sovereign, independent republic (see [7]). However, in order to facilitate a smooth transfer of power, India agreed to temporary Dominion status in August 1947, although no final decision about continuing membership in the Commonwealth was then taken. A constituent assembly met in Delhi to frame the constitution. The question regarding Britain was what would happen to the position of the Crown when India got her own constitution? The Congress policy on this was clear and had been so for decades. That India would become a republic and while there would be friendly ties with Britain there would be no formal ties with the British Crown. The basic nationalist position had been stated by Subhas Bose (see [8]):

Independence which India aspires after today, is not ‘Dominion Home Rule’ as we find in Canada or Australia – but full national sovereignty as obtained in the United States of America or in France.

Bose was writing in 1933. By 1947 nationalist India was even more determined to have an India totally free of British control in any shape or form.

However, the post-WWII scenario had set in an ambiguous phase with regards to the Commonwealth. This is certainly true as seen from Jawahar lal Nehru's correspondences with Attlee and with his Cabinet colleagues. While the British and Americans' negative role in the Jammu & Kashmir crisis and the subsequent United Nations sponsored ceasefire, and direct association with an overtly racist apartheid-era Pretoria regime and the Australian government with an official "White Australia" policy, and a covertly racist regime in New Zealand were serious causes for doubts on the part of Nehru, Iqbal Singh (see [9]) opines that V.K. Krishna Menon and Nehru were veering to the possibility that India's continued association with the Commonwealth would help India in influencing Commonwealth policies on international politics and thus in shaping world events on the parallel of the main body of the dog wagging the tail rather than the other way around. Besides that, the possibility of gaining technologically and economically from the UK-USA bloc versus non-association with any other bloc also seems to have played its role in the considerations.

Nevertheless, the British intelligence had an almost complete knowledge of the shift in the Indian debate and as a result, Attlee and the last British Governor-General Mountbatten were applying tremendous pressures on India to accede to the idea of the Commonwealth under more and more unacceptable demands. Despite these pressures, Nehru maintained an ambivalent stand citing the constituent assembly process. Upon invitation of Attlee, Nehru had promised to visit Britain to discuss the idea of Commonwealth. However, the departure of Mountbatten and the takeover of C. Rajagopalachari in June 1948 plus a host of other reasons meant that Nehru could not visit Britain to discuss this issue.

1948 Conference (see [10] for details): A plan to discuss the idea of the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting of October 1948 was overtaken by the decision of the Irish Republic in effect to drop out of the Commonwealth by virtue of the repeal of the External Relations Act of 1937 as well as by the Indian decision to become a republic. What was now at issue was thus something very different. It was not whether a distinction could be drawn between the rôle of the Crown in relation to external relations on the one hand and internal affairs on the other; but rather whether, by means of some dilution in the applicability of the principle of allegiance to the Crown, the political advantages of India remaining in the Commonwealth could be secured and the substance of Commonwealth cohesion, which had been so imaginatively conjured up could be safeguarded and developed.

Nehru broached this question during the 1948 Conference, the first such gathering which he had attended. Liaquat Ali Khan and D. S. Senanayake were also attending for the first time as Prime Ministers of Pakistan and Ceylon respectively. At the meeting, Nehru proposed a 'Ten Point Memorandum' drafted largely by G.S. Bajpai and B.N. Rau (and a subsequent 'Eight Point Memorandum') on the settlement between India and the Commonwealth, under which the President of India would act as the representative of the British monarch in India. Among some of the ideas floated by India include the concept of "dormant sovereignty" of the Crown on India (V.K. Krishna Menon), the role of the Crown as "the fountain of honor", etc. The Cabinet Committee on Commonwealth Relations recognised that Nehru's proposals could not constitute a basis for continued Commonwealth membership. The authority to appoint Heads of Missions abroad being vested in the Crown was a further stumbling block. It was generally agreed that a further conference would be required to deal exclusively with the issue at an early date, specifically before the enactment of the new Indian Constitution in July 1949. Consultations indicated that it would be practicable to hold such a meeting in London in late April, or at the beginning of May.

Towards the 1949 Conference: Attlee further decided that, in order to prepare adequately for a meeting of this delicacy and importance, it would be advisable to send personal emissaries to the other Commonwealth capitals to explain to the other Pr ime Ministers both the position reached in the discussions in London and the various considerations which, in the opinion of UK Ministers, must be taken into account in reaching a decision. Attlee put all this to the full Cabinet on 3 March 1949, and secured their full agreement. Lord Listowel, a former Secretary of State for India and Burma, went to Australia and New Zealand; Patrick Gordon-Walker, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations, went to Pakistan and Ceylon, and subsequently to India; Sir Percival Liesching, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Commonwealth Relations Office, went to South Africa and Sir Norman Brook, the Secretary to the Cabinet, went to Canada. It was during Gordon-Walker’s visit to India that the term "Head of the Commonwealth" seems to have been aired. In his book "The Commonwealth," he suggested that the idea originated in a letter he had written to Mountbatten in the previous year. At all events it was not a total novelty when it made its appearance at the Prime Ministers’ Meeting. Among other things proposed by Gordon-Walker would be the power of the King to appoint the President of India and such authority "would be renewable each time a President assumed office." Such preposterous ideas (see [9]) left Nehru insulted, not to mention the insult over lobbying efforts in Pakistan and Ceylon prior to visiting India.

Meanwhile, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was signed and sealed on 4 April 1949 with initial members being the U.S., the U.K., Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Iceland and Portugal (under Salazar). News of the signing led to more opposition in the form of Jayaprakash Narayan, H.V. Kamath and N.G. Ranga. Nehru assured Narayan that "neutrality ultimately depends on the strength of a country and not on any vague association." By predicating India's stand as a self-enlightened one, Nehru was treading on slippery lines. The other claim to the membership in the Commonwealth was that Indian diaspora was spread all over the Commonwealth and this number amounted to 9 1/2 million people (then). The internal debates within the Constituent Assembly and the Congress leaves us with no doubts that the tensions were palpable on this matter.

Squaring the Circle: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers gathered at Downing Street (in London) on the morning of Friday 22 April 1949. The Indian Prime Minister recalled that he had spoken informally to Attlee and other Prime Ministers during the 1948 Meeting about India’s desire to remain in the Commonwealth while becoming a republic. He had no desire to create difficulties for other Commonwealth countries; at the same time he could not accept the idea of two-tier membership. He thought rather that India’s association with the Commonwealth might be based on (i) Commonwealth citizenship, deriving from the British Nationality Act of 1948; (ii) a declaration of India’s continuing membership; and (iii) continued acceptance by India of the status of the King as the symbol of the free association of Commonwealth countries. This should not create difficulties in international law. Commonwealth peoples were not foreign to one another. The strength of the Commonwealth had rested in its power to change and adapt its forms. Nehru hoped that this suggestions would meet the views of other countries. They went as far as India could go to meet those views and to avoid damage to the feelings and sentiments of the other countries of the Commonwealth.

Dr Daniel François Malan, who had recently replaced Smuts as South African Prime Minister and was welcomed by Attlee to his first Prime Ministers’ Meeting, spoke at some length. His statement was subsequently circulated at his request as a Meeting document. He thought it natural that a gradual relaxation of the common allegiance to the Crown should accompany the growing consciousness of separate nationhood. The situation was different in countries with a mixed population. The present strength and cohesion of the Commonwealth derived from factors less tangible but even more potent than the common allegiance to the Crown: tradition; consciousness of a common outlook and way of life; a sense of community of interests covering a wide field. The most important factor was the capacity to adapt: rigidity in the constitution would have disrupted it long ago. A further step in this direction would ensure its continued existence, enhance its prestige and increase its usefulness.

A pre-arranged division of labor between the white countries ensured a tough stance on the matter by Australia and New Zealand. Iqbal Singh (see [9]) opines that Nehru's "scepticism seemed to have mellowed down for some reason." At the conclusion of the discussion the Prime Ministers agreed to meet again after the weekend. Attlee said that he would circulate some proposals for consideration then. There would be separate discussions meanwhile. There ensured four short meetings during the course of Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 April, at which agreement was hammered out on the basis of successive drafts. An initial draft used the word "common security" which was opposed by Nehru. The concept of "Head of the Commonwealth" was introduced, and was disliked by both Malan and Nehru. In answer to objections to be expected to dropping the word "British," Nehru said he would agree to its retention in the first paragraph of the text on the grounds that this was historical. As for the question of whether the designation of the King as Head of the Commonwealth implied any new Crown responsibilities in relation to individual countries, the Meeting agreed that it should be placed on record that this was not the case. Moreover the title did not connote any change in the constitutional relations existing between the members of the Commonwealth.

After jointly presenting the Agreement to the King, the Final Communique was released and presented as the London Declaration on the issue of India's continued membership of the Commonwealth (see [11] for details). The Final Communique found instant favour with the press. The Times said that "the Prime Ministers had met to confront a problem which would have split apart any organization less flexible than the Commonwealth. The upshot of their work had been set out 'with a lucidity which could not be bettered.' 'It is doubtful whether any agreement of such consequence had ever been evolved in so short a time.'" News of the agreement was hailed by all those on the opposition benches in the British House of Commons, including Winston Churchill and Clement Davies. By contrast, Jan Smuts, who had been defeated by Malan in the South African general election the previous year, was bitterly opposed.

The Aftermath: Modulo the lego-diplomatese, the declaration had two main provisions. First, it allowed the Commonwealth to admit and retain members that were not Commonwealth realms, including both republics and indigenous monarchies. Thus, Republicanism, in the past synonymous with secession, was now accepted as compatible with full membership. Second, it renamed the organisation from the 'British Commonwealth' to the 'Commonwealth of Nations', reflecting the first change. The London Declaration also established a Precedent in the sense that, while the discussions in 1949 were concerned with the specific case of India alone, the Prime Ministers agreed that it "should be put on record as the opinion of the Meeting that, while it was not possible to bind future Meetings or Governments, it could be logically assumed that a future Meeting would accord the same treatment to any other member as had been accorded to India at this Meeting."

While the reception accorded to the agreement was naturally of interest in the case of all the participating countries, nowhere was the reaction of more importance than in India. In a broadcast on his return, Nehru emphasized that he had "looked to the interests of India, for that is my first duty." While the draft of the Agreement was informed to Patel (who approved it with his own suggestions), there was much dissension on the "easy acquiescence" of India. In a speech to the Constituent Assembly, Nehru spoke of the need to touch upon the world problems "in a friendly way and with a touch of healing. And the fact that we have begun this new type of association with a touch of healing will be good for us, good for ['certain other countries'] and I think good for the world." Despite the misgivings, the Constituent Assembly ratified the Declaration by an overwhelming majority (as had the Indian National Congress in December 1948). His handling of the issue puts beyond doubt that Nehru was one of the key figures in the making of the modern Commonwealth.

References
[1] Timeline for the Federation of Australia
[2] Joanne Smith, "Twelve hundred reasons why there is no Australasia: How colonisation influenced federation," Australian Cultural History, Vol. 27, No. 1, April 2009, pp. 35–45
[3] Timeline for the Dominion of New Zealand
[4] Newfoundland never adopted the Statute; by request of its government, the United Kingdom resumed direct rule in 1934 and maintained it until Newfoundland became a province of Canada in 1949.
[5] Prime Minister Gordon Coates, who led the New Zealand delegation to the 1926 Conference, called the Balfour Declaration a 'poisonous document' that would weaken the ties of empire. At the 1930 Imperial Conference, the conclusions of the conference were re-stated, and Sir Thomas Sidey obtained a clause exempting New Zealand from the Statute of Westminster until such time as it should be ratified by the New Zealand Parliament. New Zealand adopted the Statute on 25 November 1947 by its Statute of Westminster Adoption Act.
[6] Anita Inder Singh, "Keeping India in the Commonwealth: British Political and Military Aims, 1947-49," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 469-481
[7] Debates of 22 January 1947
[8] Mihir Bose, The Magic of Indian Cricket: Cricket and Society in India, Routledge Press, 2006
[9] Iqbal Singh, Between Two Fires: Towards an Understanding of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Foreign Policy, Volume Two, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 1998
[10] Peter Marshall, "Shaping the 'New Commonwealth', 1949," The Round Table (1999), Vol. 350, pp. 185-197
[11] Statement of The London Declaration, 27 April 1949

The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and owe a common allegiance to the Crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.

The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent Republic. The Government of India have, however, declared and affirmed India’s desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.

The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognize India’s continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration.

Accordingly the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely cooperating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress.

Labels: , , , , , ,