Indian soldiers lauded in Israeli textbooks for freeing city

Press Trust of India | Updated: September 23, 2012 11:01 IST
Haifa, Israel: While remaining largely unknown in their own country, some Indian soldiers will now become household names in Haifa in northern Israel after figuring in the history textbooks taught at schools for their contribution in liberating this city in 1918.
The municipality of Haifa has gone ahead with its decision to immortalise the sacrifices made by Indian soldiers, many of whom are buried in the cemetery here, by including the stories of their valiant efforts in liberating the coastal city during the First World War in the school curricula as part of the history textbooks.
"The move is a part of Haifa municipalities efforts to preserve the city's history and heritage," Hedva Almog, deputy Mayor of Haifa told people gathered to pay respects to Indian soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war to liberate the city.
Haifa Historical Society has done an extensive research on the role of the Indian army in the region.
As per their findings, a large number of Indian soldiers sacrificed their lives in this region during the First World War and nearly 900 are cremated or buried in cemeteries across Israel.
Almog said that the municipality is planning big centenary celebrations to commemorate the event in 2018, calling upon India to join hands in making it a success.
Charge de Affaires at the Indian mission in Tel Aviv, Vani Rao, reacted positively to the request extending support in organising the Centenary celebrations.
The Indian army commemorates September 23rd every year as Haifa Day, to pay its respects to the two brave Indian Cavalry Regiments that helped liberate the city in 1918 following a dashing cavalry action by the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade.
Residents of the Israeli city also celebrate Haifa Day the same day with a series of cultural programmes during the week.
Indian soldiers lauded in Israeli textbooks for freeing city

India's Arab Sprint

The Indian Express
Sanjaya Baru : Wed Feb 22 2012, 03:23 hrs
Riyadh and Delhi are quietly drawing closer, acknowledging their many shared concerns
Amidst last week’s focus in the Indian media about a coming conflict between Iran and Israel, not much attention was paid to a historic visit to Saudi Arabia by the defence minister, A.K. Anthony.

Several interesting facts marked Anthony’s path-breaking travel across the Arabian Sea. First, the visit was the first ever such official visit by an Indian defence minister to the epicentre of the Arab world. Second, it came in response to persistent invitations from the Saudi government. Anthony was unable to make the trip on two earlier occasions when an invitation had been issued, but finally made it after a third call from Riyadh. Third, the defence minister was accompanied not just by diplomats and civilian officials but by three senior defence officials — the vice chief of army staff, the deputy chief of naval staff and an air vice marshal. Fourth, Anthony had one-on-one talks with his counterpart Prince Salman and an extended audience with King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

At the end of what has been described as “wide-ranging” talks, India and Saudi Arabia have agreed to set up a joint panel of officials who will together draft a defence cooperation agreement and a “road map” for defence cooperation that would include joint exercises between the three services of the two nations, training and co-production of defence equipment. The militaries and navies of both countries will undertake joint patrolling of the Arabian Sea, fighting sea piracy and disruption to maritime traffic.

India’s main concern is energy security and the security of the Indian community in the region. Already, rising tensions have pushed the price of oil up. Even if hostilities were not to break out, the persistence of raised risk levels will keep oil prices high. Finally, if Iran were to lay mines in the sea as a pre-emptive or provocative act, this would seriously disrupt the movement of oil tankers. Any sustained rise in the price of oil will hit the Indian economy hard.

King Abdullah has, it is reliably learnt, offered cast-iron assurances to Anthony that Saudi Arabia would step in and help both in making more oil available to India and in assuring the safety and security of Indian expatriates in the region.

An interesting aspect of the bilateral understanding reached between Anthony and Prince Salman is that India and Saudi Arabia would also undertake joint research and projects in the field of hydrography, exchanging information on nautical cartography and hydrographic surveys of coastal areas, ports, harbours and designated sea areas. In the near term this would also facilitate de-mining!

The people of India and Arabia have interacted across the waters between them for thousands of years. Omani and Gujarati seafarers were among the earliest and Arabs reached the Kerala coast as traders and teachers, not conquerors. In fact, among all the Muslim communities of the Middle East and Central Asia it is only the Arabs who never sought to conquer India. The Turks, the Persians, and the Central Asians came by land to plunder or rule. The Arabs came by sea to trade and teach.

While history has its limitations in shaping contemporaneous and forward-looking strategic choices, it does shape popular perceptions. What is, however, driving the India- Saudi relationship today is not this benign history but shared concerns about stability and growth in the Arabian Sea littoral and the Gulf.

Saudi Arabia is as concerned about events in Iran as it is about trends in Pakistan. Riyadh’s outreach to New Delhi is also an indicator that the Saudis are worried about what is happening in Pakistan. In this “arc of instability” Riyadh hopes India would be a reliable and credible guarantor of stability.
The writer is director for geo-economics and strategy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and honorary senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research
India's Arab Sprint: click here to read the full article

How Americans Expose Swiss Secret Accounts and Terror Financing?

Home Minister and Finance Minister need to learn a lesson or two on "War on Terror" from the Americans!

Insider Trading: What Else Did McKinsey Tipster Kumar Tell Rajaratnam?
By AGUSTINO FONTEVECCHIA- Forbes
"Greedy" Rajaratnam had info on AMD, says the prosecution
The first round of wire-taps were played in a Manhattan law court on Thursday, revealing what will be the prosecution’s modus operandi in the mega-trial for insider trading where former Forbes 400 member Raj Rajaratnam is accused of reaping $45 million in illegal profits. Jurors heard recordings of Anil Kumar, former senior partner at McKinsey, giving Rajaratnam tips on deals involving American Micro Systems, a McKinsey client. Considered the prosecution’s star witness by the NYPost, Kumar gave Raj a few other tips, revealed when he plead guilty to insider trading earlier this year. Here’s what he knows.

As a senior partner at McKinsey, Kumar had insider information and a fiduciary duty not to disclose his knowledge. Pressured by Rajaratnam, Kumar finally broke down and accepted an initial $250,000 to act individually as a consultant for Raj, against McKinsey policy. Finally accepting the money, which had to be deposited in a Swiss account under his domestic worker’s name. United States Attorney General for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, estimated Kumar pocketed about $2.6 million, including profits from reinvestments in Galleon itself, and has been charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud.

The tape played on Thursday showed Kumar and Rajaratnam having a friendly conversation on August 15, 2008 about some deals AMD was involved in. More specifically, Kumar claims that “yesterday they agreed on, at least they’ve shaken hands, and said they’re going ahead with the deal.” When Raj asks how much is being invested, Kumar puts the figure in the $6 to $8 billion range.

In his guilty plea, Kumar reveals that he informed Rajaratnam of AMD’s intention to spin-off its loss-making manufacturing arm and enter into agreement with Abu Dhabi investment facility Mubadala Development, which would inject a substantial amount of cash. From the release:

During August, September, and October of 2008, the Galleon Technology Funds invested tens of millions of dollars in AMD securities. On October 7, 2008, AMD publicly announced plans to spin off its manufacturing operations and to receive an investment from another entity in Abu Dhabi. That same day, AMD’s stock opened up approximately 25 percent over the prior day’s closing price.

Paradoxically enough, a bad performance by the tech sector in the coming months erased all of Galleon’s gains, according to Preet Bharara.

The Post stresses that “Kumar’s testimony is central to the government’s case against” and that he will continue to be questioned on Monday. So what else does he know?

Kumar told Rajaratnam confidential information on two other market moving events, apart what was stated above. All in all, these tips helped Galleon make $19.7 million in illegal profits. The first deal Kumar disclosed was AMD’s intention to acquire ATI Technologies. Kumar heard about AMD’s negotiations and informed Raj, whose Galleon fund began accumulating ATI stock over the course of the next several months. When the deal was finalized and publically announced, on July 24, 2006, ATI’s stock “rose significantly on the news,” and, as Galleon sold all of its holdings in ATI, Rajaratnam made a hefty $19.2 million profit.

The other deal the Attorney General’s office disclosed involved lay-offs at eBay. On October 2, 2008, Kumar found out from a client, and eBay subsidiary, that substantial layoffs would be announced that Monday, October 6, at the e-commerce giant. Kumar called Raj the next day, on October 3, and on that same day, Galleon began to short eBay stock. As had been anticipated, eBay announced the layoffs, the stock dropped precipitously, and Raj’s Galleon took in a nice $500,000 in profits, after closing their short positions.

If the post is right, and Kumar is one of the star witnesses, then this will be what comes up next week in the super trial that is shocking Wall Street.
Insider Trading: What Else Did McKinsey Tipster Kumar Tell Rajaratnam?

World Financial Fraudsters
Rajat Gupta takes 'leave of absence' from New Silk Route- sample of corporate governance globally
Former Intel Exec Rajiv Goel Pleads Guilty in Insider Trading Case

In Contrast Sample India
We have Spectrum of Secret Swiss Bank Account Holders- like Hasan Ali- who defy the rule of law!

NPT members agree to take early steps on nuclear- free Mideast

AP, May 29, 2010, 03.47am IST
UNITED NATIONS: The 189 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Friday adopted a detailed plan of small steps down a long road toward nuclear disarmament, including a sharply debated proposal to move toward banning doomsday arms from the Middle East.

The 28-page Final Declaration was approved by consensus on the last day of the monthlong conference, convened every five years to review and advance the objectives of the 40-year-old NPT.

Under its action plan, the five recognized nuclear-weapon states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - commit to speed up arms reductions, take other steps to diminish the importance of atomic weapons, and report back on progress by 2014.

The final document also calls for convening a conference in 2012 "on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction."

This Arab idea of a WMD-free zone is designed to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared nuclear arsenal. Despite the decision here, U.S. officials questioned whether Israel could be persuaded to attend the conference.

Iran and Syria had dissented loudly on various points in the final hours, but no objections were raised in the concluding session. After the declaration's approval, Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh joined with the others in hearty applause beneath the U.N. General Assembly hall's soaring dome.

"All eyes the world over are watching us," the conference president, Libran Cabactulan of the Philippines, said before gaveling the final document into the record.

The decision was "an important step forward towards the realization of the goals and objectives of the treaty," Egypt's Maged Abedelaziz said afterward, speaking for the 118-nation Nonaligned Movement of mainly developing countries.

"The final document this conference adopted today advances President Obama's vision" of a world without nuclear weapons, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher told the assembled delegates.

The conference is convened twice a decade to review and advance the objectives of the 40-year-old NPT, under which nations without nuclear weapons committed not to acquire them; those with them committed to move toward their elimination; and all endorsed everyone's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy.
NPT members agree to take early steps on nuclear- free Mideast

Middle East: Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix

THE ROVING EYE May 22, 2010
Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix By Pepe Escobar
Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is one hell of a dominatrix.
At first the United States Secretary of State said the Brazil-Turkey mediation to get Iran to accept a nuclear fuel swap was destined to fail. Then the US State Department said it was the "last chance" for an agreement without sanctions. And finally, less than 24 hours after a successful agreement in Tehran, Hillary whips the UN Security Council into submission and triumphantly proclaims to the world a draft resolution for a fourth UN round of sanctions against Iran has been reached.
Read more: Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix By Pepe Escobar

National Security: Links to interesting media articles

From sea to shining sea Arun Prakash
Tue May 18 2010,
Jawaharlal Nehru’s gallant endeavour to establish a pan-Asian identity through the Asian Relations Conference in March 1947 proved futile for a number of reasons, of which prime was the firm resolve of Mao Tse Tung to arrogate for China the mantle of Asian leadership. In the six decades since then, India has persevered with other initiatives to create South Asian and Indian Ocean Region (IOR) identities. Unfortunately these initiatives have languished. The Indian Navy (IN) has always fancied itself as a trail blazer in the limited context of maritime diplomacy.
Read more: From sea to shining sea by Arun Prakash former Chief of the Naval Staff, is currently Chairman of the National Maritime Foundation

The larger issue behind Ramesh's outburst in China
May 17, 2010
The case of Jairam Ramesh is particularly curious. He challenged his government's policy on a foreign soil, in essence suggesting that its is the Chinese government that is right when it underscores time and again that India, not China, is responsible for the recent downward spiral in Sino-Indian ties. What a remarkable achievement for a government minister that he ends up giving ammunition to an adversary that has left no stone unturned in challenging India's rise at every possible forum.
Read the full article: The larger issue behind Ramesh's outburst in China by Harsh V Pant

India’s military diplomacy in the Gulf: The importance of Oman by C Raja Mohan
Mon May 17 2010, 15:29 hrs, New Delhi
As Defence Minister A K Antony arrives in Muscat on Monday to review and reinforce the bilateral security partnership, he will hopefully measure up to the challenge of intensifying India’s military engagement in the Gulf. At a time when most major powers - including the older European ones and the new one from China - are deepening their military cooperation with the Gulf, India’s security partnerships in the region remain way below potential.
Read more: India’s military diplomacy in the Gulf: The importance of Oman by C Raja Mohan

Treating China Differently
Since India and China will continue to be potential adversaries so long as the border dispute is not settled, the argument that we should treat the Chinese companies in the same way we treat the Western companies does not hold good.
Read the full article: Treating China Differently by B Raman

1950 Treaty: A Visionary Approach
Guest Column by Hari Bansh Jha- 17 May 2010
In Nepal, there are certain groups of people who hold 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed between Nepal and India on 31st July 1950 as a great asset to Nepal; while others take it as liability. However, the dilemma is that those who take it as an asset have not been able to speak so strongly as to how much the nation benefits from the Treaty. Those who oppose it have also miserably failed to bring out its alternative. And the common mass of the Nepalese population who continue to benefit from the Treaty provisions through its social, cultural, political and economic arrangements are simply the silent spectators.
1950 Treaty: A Visionary Approach by Guest Column by Hari Bansh Jha

Argumentative Chinese step forward
By Sreeram Chaulia
May 18, 2010
BEIJING - This year marks the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the People's Republic of China and India, a momentous occasion that invites reflection on where the two Asian giants are heading in the much-touted "Asian century".
Awareness that this bilateral relationship is critical to the current world order is rising in both countries as they try to position themselves as drivers and pivots of global economic and security structures.
Read full article: Argumentative Chinese step forward By Sreeram Chaulia

Kashmir and the tale of two Faisals
Col (Dr) Anil Athale | 2010-05-18 15:11:30
Breaking news specialists have brought the Indo-Pak peace process back again. This peace process has been frozen and thawed so many times, that an automatic defrost model is called for. The American decision to ‘reward’ Pakistan with weapons to ‘defend’ itself against India is also a repeat of history. Pakistan thereby hopes to counter the threat of an Indian retaliation to a terrorist attack. In Afghanistan the Americans seem to have come to a conclusion that if you can’t beat them, then join them. Even given the dismal US record in South Asia, this seems the acme of short term thinking. The notion that by directing the jihadi’s towards India, the US will be safe had big hole blown into it with the failed car bombing in Times Square.
Read more: Kashmir and the tale of two Faisals by Col (Dr) Anil Athale

Success of war must be examined

© 1996-2009 The Honolulu Star-Bulletin | www.starbulletin.com
Success of war must be examined- Another Perspective by Amarjit Singh

WE'VE BEEN hearing relentlessly during the past few months that the Iraq war is not successful. But have we paused to define what constitutes success? Have we paused to determine whether our objectives have been met? Are we sure we are not changing our definition of success as time goes along, forgetting why we went into Iraq in the first place? Let's take a look at these questions and analyze what's really going on.
Let's not forget that we went into Iraq to topple Saddam to wipe off a cancer from the face of the Earth, ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction, eliminate refuge for terrorists, clamp Iraqi support for terrorists in Palestine and ensure that oil is not used as a weapon by a mad dictator. There is no doubt that all these were accomplished. Nowhere in our mission statement was it anywhere mentioned that we were going into Iraq to quell sectarian hatred that had been simmering for a thousand years.

The United States succeeded in exposing and thwarting numerous plans of the terrorists to attack it. What you didn't get by way of another terrorist attack in the United States was a success of the Iraqi, Afghan and other covert international operations. Think about what could have happened if you had turned your cheek. To think that the war is not a crusade is also naive because the determination and doggedness of the misguided Muslim terrorists gunning for the United States is close to madness. Burying our head in the sand and thinking they won't come after us on our soil is too naive, too unreal. Moreover, the evidence existed after the Afghan operation started in October 2001 that terrorist elements were planning attacks on U.S. soil.

The 2003 exposure of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network irrefutably disclosed that Pakistan supplied uranium enrichment technology to Iraq as far back as 1990. By 1991, Iraq was building a facility for a centrifuge. Also recall that the Iraq war convinced Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to come clean on WMDs, a fantastic intelligence and diplomatic success by all counts. (Of course, Pakistan also supplied centrifuge cascade to North Korea and Iran, which is why we now have the problem with those two countries, as well).

There is also a very high likelihood that Khan sold cascades to al-Qaida, which is known to have tried in 1994 and 1995 through Sudanese individuals to acquire nuclear material. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan places the United States in a better position to intercept terrorist and nuclear traffic in the Mideast that might be eventually directed against it.

Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blitz singularly led the world astray in his tirade against the United States. He had reports in the early 1990s that Pakistan supplied centrifuge cascades to Iraq, and yet refused ever to acknowledge that because he couldn't find them. Try hunting for a needle in a haystack, since chemical weapons and centrifuge cascades can be operated behind chicken sheds and dairy farms, and enriched uranium can be hidden in cow sheds behind heaps of cow dung, not to mention that cascades, drawings and uranium can be taken across to neighboring countries.

The Iraq war influenced Syria to pull out of Lebanon, another success milestone. That sectarian violence erupted in Iraq does not mean that the U.S. mission in Iraq is not successful. We did not go into Iraq to bring peace to them, but to bring peace to us. Let all know this truth -- that those who mess with a hornet's nest must face the consequences. Every nation has an inalienable right to live in peace. The United States is no exception.

Finally, those who believe the purpose of the Iraq war is to halt the sectarian violence are not looking beyond their noses, not to mention that they are shifting from initial objectives. The United States is responsible for itself, not for others. The United States can't and needn't stop that violence. What the United States is doing in Iraq is clearly designed at self-preservation and the future security of the world. Leaving a vacuum there might well encourage rogue powers to gain dominance in the Middle East, and that would make the calculus much too complicated for comfort.

Amarjit Singh is an associate professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Hawaii-Manoa.
Vol. 12, Issue 7 - Sunday, January 7, 2007
Article URL: Success of war must be examined