PaRCha - JNU - ABVP - 2007 ID-614
.
AKHIL BHARATIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD (ABVP) oate: os111tos .
.
.
.\ B\'P condemns in the strongest possible words the racist remarks by out going Councilor of SSS (against "11om GSCASIJ is stilJ pending) from SFI-AISF combine against the students hailing from North-Eastern St at rs of l1td in. It expo ·es the true colour & frustration of the SFI-AISF combine toward the fellow citizens of India. These racist SFI Comrades have always regard them as their vote bank but when they began to :t-..scrt themselves agninst the autocratic, racist & intolerant behaviour of SFI & their parent Party CJ>JVJ "ho'le lkahminical Politbureau is devoid of any representation from the SCs/STs. Its high time that st11clertls of .JNU in general and student of North Eastern States should recognize the Real Face of these n tri,ts & sexual harassers from FJ-AJSF. .
ABVP strongly demands that stringent disciplinary actions be taken against him and also request to the CEC that he should be disenfranchised for the interest of the JNU student community in lwr·t ietrl:t r & for the national unity & integrity of India i"l general. .
The Communist & their Ulat Palat Alliance (UPA) .
Joint-Mechanism or Joint Pain? UPA's Foreign Policy will cost India dearly .
.
Friends, .
"Joint Anti-Terror" Mechanism, the much hyped product of short-lived NAM-Havana bonhomie that can succinctly be described as G Parthasarathy, former Ambassador to Pakistan said "its like investigating Mumbai bomb blast by CBI jointly with Dawood Ibrahim, the main accused of it!!". Indian foreign policy got its most ever gncvous blow when PM Manmohan Singh described Pakistan (Mother of Terrorism) as "victim of terrorism". One ·1eccs not be a security expert to know the costs of "sharing sensitive information" with Pakistan which is the hub of JthDdl [Crronsm; that might be used by lSI (with help from its friend China) to the benefit of its ongoing proxy war against lnd1a as :Jcr rures of 1ts favourite handbook "The Quranic Concept of War" written by a Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Mallik. Vvc all know that Pakistan always refuses to co-operate with India whenever India provides it with solid evidence. So, what rs :"'c need for the same now? UPA's Holy Trinity comprising Shivraj Patii-M.K.Narayanan-Pranab Mukherjee can be found n,owtng hot & cold over the important issues pertaining to national security behaving as if it is a thing of Child's play. Pu~llcl!y crazy National Security Adviser (NSA) went on record saying India has "pretty good" evidence of Pakistan's o;volvcment tn recent Mumbai train blast case but refused to share them with Pakistan saying they are not so .
"clinching". The very next day, newly appointed Foreign Mtnrster Pranab Mukherjee said it has "certain" evidence & \vi.l .
:;na"c them wrth Pakistan, caring little for its impact on India's security. .
Major Institutional Problems & Bilateral Contradictions of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism: .
.
.
Terrorism was one of the eight issues under the formulation of the composite dialogue process of 1997, whtch called for setting up a mechanism for bilateral cooperation and exchange of information at the interior and home' secretary level on the subject. So this is not a new mechanism Was the earlier mechanism a failure? If so. w1.::: guarantees are there that the new mechanism would not suffer a similar fate? .
.
.
Dr Singh's statement that Pakistan is also a "VICtim of terror" ltke India overlooked the basic difference betvJCCil the two cases. Pakistan is a victim of terror because of its own Jihadi culture and hobnobbing with fundamenlc..lrst groups over the years. The role of Pakistani madrasas is very crucial in this regards. India is a victim of terrons:11 due to Pakistan's policies. There is no similarity between the two cases. Also, there can be no joint mechantsm which deals with the kind of terrorism Pakistan faces -sectarian and sub-national in nature, and the one wh1ch India confronts --sponsored by Pakistan-based groups. .
.
.
The most important lacunae in the new mechanism is that there is no clear provision for taking to task or handing over the terrorist who are found guilty for terrorist activities. Dawood Ibrahim has been kept out of the purvrew of the new joint mechanism. With such inbuilt riders and lacunae, isn't the new mechanism doomed? .
.
.
And then the BIG question is even if India agrees to share highly sensitive informations with Pakistani Establishment, what is the guarantee that Pakistan will act against them & extradite them to India for justice'> Because in an interview to a private news channel on 21 51 September,2006 Pakistani High Commissioner Azr.!. /\hmad Khan refused to do so and said that it is the prerogative of Pakistan whether to extradite any terrorist leader to India or not to do so. .
.
.
.
.
.
p 7 l " .
.
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - ABVP - 2007 ID-614
.
AKHIL BHARATIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHAD (ABVP) oate: os111tos .
.
.
.\ B\'P condemns in the strongest possible words the racist remarks by out going Councilor of SSS (against "11om GSCASIJ is stilJ pending) from SFI-AISF combine against the students hailing from North-Eastern St at rs of l1td in. It expo ·es the true colour & frustration of the SFI-AISF combine toward the fellow citizens of India. These racist SFI Comrades have always regard them as their vote bank but when they began to :t-..scrt themselves agninst the autocratic, racist & intolerant behaviour of SFI & their parent Party CJ>JVJ "ho'le lkahminical Politbureau is devoid of any representation from the SCs/STs. Its high time that st11clertls of .JNU in general and student of North Eastern States should recognize the Real Face of these n tri,ts & sexual harassers from FJ-AJSF. .
ABVP strongly demands that stringent disciplinary actions be taken against him and also request to the CEC that he should be disenfranchised for the interest of the JNU student community in lwr·t ietrl:t r & for the national unity & integrity of India i"l general. .
The Communist & their Ulat Palat Alliance (UPA) .
Joint-Mechanism or Joint Pain? UPA's Foreign Policy will cost India dearly .
.
Friends, .
"Joint Anti-Terror" Mechanism, the much hyped product of short-lived NAM-Havana bonhomie that can succinctly be described as G Parthasarathy, former Ambassador to Pakistan said "its like investigating Mumbai bomb blast by CBI jointly with Dawood Ibrahim, the main accused of it!!". Indian foreign policy got its most ever gncvous blow when PM Manmohan Singh described Pakistan (Mother of Terrorism) as "victim of terrorism". One ·1eccs not be a security expert to know the costs of "sharing sensitive information" with Pakistan which is the hub of JthDdl [Crronsm; that might be used by lSI (with help from its friend China) to the benefit of its ongoing proxy war against lnd1a as :Jcr rures of 1ts favourite handbook "The Quranic Concept of War" written by a Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Mallik. Vvc all know that Pakistan always refuses to co-operate with India whenever India provides it with solid evidence. So, what rs :"'c need for the same now? UPA's Holy Trinity comprising Shivraj Patii-M.K.Narayanan-Pranab Mukherjee can be found n,owtng hot & cold over the important issues pertaining to national security behaving as if it is a thing of Child's play. Pu~llcl!y crazy National Security Adviser (NSA) went on record saying India has "pretty good" evidence of Pakistan's o;volvcment tn recent Mumbai train blast case but refused to share them with Pakistan saying they are not so .
"clinching". The very next day, newly appointed Foreign Mtnrster Pranab Mukherjee said it has "certain" evidence & \vi.l .
:;na"c them wrth Pakistan, caring little for its impact on India's security. .
Major Institutional Problems & Bilateral Contradictions of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism: .
.
.
Terrorism was one of the eight issues under the formulation of the composite dialogue process of 1997, whtch called for setting up a mechanism for bilateral cooperation and exchange of information at the interior and home' secretary level on the subject. So this is not a new mechanism Was the earlier mechanism a failure? If so. w1.::: guarantees are there that the new mechanism would not suffer a similar fate? .
.
.
Dr Singh's statement that Pakistan is also a "VICtim of terror" ltke India overlooked the basic difference betvJCCil the two cases. Pakistan is a victim of terror because of its own Jihadi culture and hobnobbing with fundamenlc..lrst groups over the years. The role of Pakistani madrasas is very crucial in this regards. India is a victim of terrons:11 due to Pakistan's policies. There is no similarity between the two cases. Also, there can be no joint mechantsm which deals with the kind of terrorism Pakistan faces -sectarian and sub-national in nature, and the one wh1ch India confronts --sponsored by Pakistan-based groups. .
.
.
The most important lacunae in the new mechanism is that there is no clear provision for taking to task or handing over the terrorist who are found guilty for terrorist activities. Dawood Ibrahim has been kept out of the purvrew of the new joint mechanism. With such inbuilt riders and lacunae, isn't the new mechanism doomed? .
.
.
And then the BIG question is even if India agrees to share highly sensitive informations with Pakistani Establishment, what is the guarantee that Pakistan will act against them & extradite them to India for justice'> Because in an interview to a private news channel on 21 51 September,2006 Pakistani High Commissioner Azr.!. /\hmad Khan refused to do so and said that it is the prerogative of Pakistan whether to extradite any terrorist leader to India or not to do so. .
.
.
.
.
.
p 7 l " .
.
.
.
.