By M H Ahssan
Expressing fears about cross-border terrorism in the wake of the November 26 Mumbai attack and keeping a close eye on China's military expansion, India announced plans this week to hike its defense budget by 34% to 1.4 trillion rupees (US$30 billion) and last week revealed that its project to build three nuclear-powered submarines is nearing completion.
"Things are in the final stage now in the Advanced Technology Vessel [nuclear-submarines] project. There were [mainly technical] bottlenecks earlier ... they are over now," Defense Minister A K Antony said on February 12.
The Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project is part of India's $3 billion plan to build five submarines and complete what it calls a "triad" of nuclear weapon launch capability - from air, land and sea. India is concurrently developing the K-15 ballistic missile, which can be nuclear-tipped and launched from submarines.
Defense sources have told Asia Times Online that New Delhi has been actively seeking out assistance from France in the implementation of the ATV project, and that Russian engineers are already involved. The sources said that the sea trials of the nuclear-powered submarines should begin this month and that the submarines should be operational within the next three years.
The secretive ATV nuclear backed ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) project began in the late 1970's and is being implemented at a secret dry dock in Visakhapatnam, India's Eastern Naval command base. Observers have said that the submarines are a critical addition to India's weapons capabilities.
In a grim reminder of the possible dangers facing India from the sea, India's Naval chief Admiral Suresh Mehta warned this week that terrorists could smuggle "dirty" nuclear bombs via the nation's ports as they lack adequate security measures. Terrorists also used a sea route to infiltrate Mumbai.
Nuclear-powered submarines with their greater speed, power, range and the length of time they can stay submerged compared to conventional diesel-electric submarines are effective for sudden strikes as well as fast and stealthy protection from attacks.
New Delhi has been concerned about Beijing's strengthening of bilateral ties with Islamabad, particularly given recent tension on sea projects such as at the Gwadar port. China has also been developing ties with Sri Lanka and Myanmar to deepen its control over a complex energy-security conflict being aggressively played out in the region.
Given the ongoing tussle between India and China to control the waters of the Indian Ocean, the New Delhi government has been put under tremendous pressure from the navy to ramp up India's sea power. China has already spoken of creating three ocean-going fleets to patrol the areas of Japan and Korea, the western Pacific, the Malacca Strait and the Indian Ocean.
The ATV project has been in the spotlight as India's other attempt to procure a nuclear submarine this year received a setback when Russia "indefinitely" postponed delivery of the Akula-II class Nerpa nuclear submarine, citing incomplete sea trials and a lack of funds.
Further, the Amur shipyard in Russia's far east, where the sub is being built, is yet to finalize a new team following an accident in November in which 20 members were killed. The accident has led Indian media to describe the submarine as "cursed".
India has been looking at developing underseas capabilities to launch nuclear weapons, after gaining some competence in land-based nuclear delivery platforms for the domestically developed ballistic missiles Prithvi and Agni.
India has already developed a submarine-launched supersonic missile, a modification of the BrahMos cruise missiles, an achievement previously limited to only advanced nations such as the US, France and Russia. Ship and land launched versions of the BrahMos are being introduced in the navy and army.
The state-controlled Defense Research and Development Organization is also undertaking a joint development project with Israel Aerospace Industries to develop a surface-to-air missile which can be launched from land and ships.
Upgrade and renovation of India's navy will be an important aspect of India's US$50 billion defense modernization exercise. Under the plan, the projects code named 75 and 76 entail the production of 24 underwater vessels valued at US$20 billion to meet the challenges across the Indian Ocean.
In 2007, construction of the highly-advanced Scorpene submarine began at the upgraded Mazgon Dock in Mumbai as part of a US$3.5 billion deal for six such French submarines. As the Scorpene deal involves transfer of technology, it should be beneficial for both nations as India gains new technology and French firms gain a possible foothold in the big Indian market.
But significant delays are now expected in India's acquisition of the aircraft carriers Admiral Gorskov from Russia and two that are being developed at home. In early 2007, India purchased the 36-year-old US warship the USS Trenton (re-christened INS Jalashwa) with a gross tonnage of 16,900 tons for US$50 million.
The Trenton is the first ever US warship owned by the Indian Navy and the second largest that India possesses after the INS Viraat aircraft carrier. The Indian Navy plans to add 40 new warships to its fleet and the government plans to invest over 500 billion rupees (over US$12 billion) over the next 10 years on warships.
The government has encouraged the private sector to play a bigger role in the nation's defense, and India's largest engineering and construction firm Larsen & Toubro has announced plans to build defense warships and paramilitary vessels at a proposed facility in Tamil Nadu.
After the rude awakening of the Mumbai terror attacks, others branches of the military are also now pushing for more upgrades and additions.
The Indian Air Force, for example, is seeking 42 fighter squadrons up from the current 32 or 33 squadrons (each with 14 to 18 jets), to offset the phasing out of older Russian planes. The army, which has been allocated a large piece of the military outlay, is seeking more tanks and howitzer field guns.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
GREATER HYDERABAD – ELECTIONS 2009
By HNN Election Desk
ASSEMBLY SEATS – HYD + RR (66,85,377)
HYDERABAD DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1492609 1434467 – 2927553)
57 Musheerabad (112670 103852 – 216524)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.1
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Buta Gopal
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Lakshman
• MIM
58 Malakpet (88257 86817 – 175089)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.16 Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 8 and 9
• INC : Malreddy Rangareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Akbaruddin Owaisi
59 Amberpet (95905 90549 – 186462)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) - Ward No.2 Ward No.3 (Part) Block No. 1 to 4
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Kishan Reddy
• MIM
- Loksatta : C Vinod
60 Khairatabad (109190 102716 – 211906)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.6 Ward No. 3 (Part) Block No. 5 and 6 Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 2. Ward No.5 (Part) Block No. 10
• INC : P Vishnuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : C Ramchandra Reddy
• MIM
61 Jubilee Hills (122950 111993 – 234943)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 1, 3 and 4.
• INC : P Vishuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
62 Sanathnagar (89637 85909 – 175569)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.7, 24 (excluding the area in AC – 46 Kukatpalle) and 25 to 30.
• INC : M Sashidhar Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Padma Rao - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
63 Nampally (112183 109384 – 221613)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 10 to 12.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramulu
• MIM
64 Karwan (110172 104255 – 214543)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 3 to 6.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
65 Goshamahal (103013 95744 – 198797)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 4, 14 and 15 Ward No. 5 (Part) Block No. 1 to 9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 1 and 2.7
• INC : Mukesh Goud
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Prem Signh Rathod
• MIM
66 Charminar (82445 76230 – 158712)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 20 to 23.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
67 Chandrayangutta (80043 82928 – 163009)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
68 Yakutpura (107366 105131 – 212518)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part)- Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 1 to 7 Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 6 and 7
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
69 Bahadurpura (90100 91180 – 181306)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 4 and 5 Ward No.19.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
70 Secunderabad (96422 95820 – 192302)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.33 (Part) Block No. 4 to 7 Ward No. 34 and 35 Osmania University Area.
• INC : Jayasudha
• TDP / TRS : T Srinivas Yadav
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Venkata Ramani
• MIM
71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC) (92256 91959 – 184260)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 31 and 32 Ward No.33 (Part) Block No.1 to 3 Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Saianna - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1941833 1815537 – 3757824)
43 Medchal (143455 136729 – 280222)
Medchal, Shamirpet, Ghatkesar and Keesara (Rural) Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
44 Malkajgiri (163480 158997 – 322483)
Malkajgiri Mandal.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramchander Rao / Ballingam
• MIM
45 Quthbullapur (143996 128442 – 272455)
Quthbullapur Mandal.
• INC : K M Pratap
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
46 Kukatpalle (196297 169541 – 365842)
Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) - Ward No.24 (Part) (Area in Balanagar Mandal) Kukatpalle (M) (Part) Kukatpalle (M) - Ward No. 5 to 16.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
47 Uppal (172156 152804 – 324992)
Uppal Municipality, Kapra Municipality.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : S V V S Prabhakar
• MIM
48 Ibrahimpatnam (98047 92538 – 190597)
Hayathnagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Manchal and Yacharam Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
49 Lal Bahadur Nagar (191857 173835 – 365693)
Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Gaddiannaram (CT) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No. 1 to 10.
• INC : Sudhir Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Bal Reddy
• MIM
50 Maheswaram (140047 133603 – 273658)
Maheswaram and Kandukur Mandals Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Medbowli, Almasguda, Badangpet, Chintalakunta, Jalpalle, Mamidipalle, Kurmalguda and Nadargul (Rural) Mandals. Hyderabad (OG) (Part) Balapur (OG) - Ward No.36 Kothapet (OG) - Ward No.37 Venkatapur (OG) - Ward No.39 Mallapur (OG) - Ward No.40 Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No.11 Nadargul (OG) (Part) - Ward No.12 Jillalguda (OG) - Ward No.15 Meerpet (CT).
• INC : Sabita Indrareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
51 Rajendranagar (130034 123218 – 253364)
Rajendranagar and Shamshabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
52 Serilingampally (194776 172478 – 367258)
Serilingampally Mandal Balanagar Mandal (Part) Kukatpally (M) (Part) Kukatpally (M) - Ward No. 1 to 4.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
53 Chevella (SC) (96291 92745 – 189121)
Nawabpet, Shankarpalle, Moinabad, Chevella and Shabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : K S Ratnam - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
54 Pargi (93644 96103 – 189807)
Doma, Gandeed, Kulkacherla, Pargi and Pudur Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Harishwar Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
55 Vicarabad (SC) (90315 91146 – 181511)
Marpalle, Mominpet, Vikarabad, Dharur and Bantwaram Mandals.
• INC : Prasad
• TDP / TRS : Chandrashekhar - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
56 Tandur (87438 93358 – 180821)
Peddemul, Tandur, Basheerabad and Yalal Mandals.
• INC : M Ramesh
• TDP / TRS : Mahender Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
PARLIAMENTARY SEATS – HYD + RR (65,38,840)
7-MALKAJGIRI (21,15,947)
43 Medchal, 44 Malkajgiri, 45 Qutbullapur, 46 Kukatpalle, 47 Uppal, 49 Lal Bahadur Nagar and 71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC).
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP : T Devender Goud
• BJP : Indrasena Reddy
• MIM
8- SECUNDERABAD (14,83,379)
57 Musheerabad, 59 Amberpet, 60 Khairatabad, 61 Jubilee Hills, 62 Sanathnagar, 63 Nampally and 70 Secunderabad.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Vijayarama Rao
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Bandaru Dattatreya
• MIM
9-HYDERABAD (13,03,974)
58 Malakpet, 64 Karwan, 65 Goshamahal, 66 Charminar, 67 Chandrayangutta, 68 Yakutpura and 69 Bahadurpura.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Zahed ali Khan
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Asaduddin Owaisi
10-CHEVELLA (16,35,540)
50 Maheswaram, 51 Rajendranagar, 52 Serilingampally, 53 Chevella (SC), 54 Pargi, 55 Vicarabad (SC) and 56 Tandur.
• INC : Laxma Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Sunita Mahipal Reddy
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Baddam Balreddy
• MIM
ASSEMBLY SEATS – HYD + RR (66,85,377)
HYDERABAD DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1492609 1434467 – 2927553)
57 Musheerabad (112670 103852 – 216524)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.1
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Buta Gopal
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Lakshman
• MIM
58 Malakpet (88257 86817 – 175089)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.16 Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 8 and 9
• INC : Malreddy Rangareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Akbaruddin Owaisi
59 Amberpet (95905 90549 – 186462)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) - Ward No.2 Ward No.3 (Part) Block No. 1 to 4
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Kishan Reddy
• MIM
- Loksatta : C Vinod
60 Khairatabad (109190 102716 – 211906)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.6 Ward No. 3 (Part) Block No. 5 and 6 Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 2. Ward No.5 (Part) Block No. 10
• INC : P Vishnuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : C Ramchandra Reddy
• MIM
61 Jubilee Hills (122950 111993 – 234943)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 1, 3 and 4.
• INC : P Vishuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
62 Sanathnagar (89637 85909 – 175569)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.7, 24 (excluding the area in AC – 46 Kukatpalle) and 25 to 30.
• INC : M Sashidhar Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Padma Rao - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
63 Nampally (112183 109384 – 221613)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 10 to 12.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramulu
• MIM
64 Karwan (110172 104255 – 214543)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 3 to 6.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
65 Goshamahal (103013 95744 – 198797)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 4, 14 and 15 Ward No. 5 (Part) Block No. 1 to 9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 1 and 2.7
• INC : Mukesh Goud
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Prem Signh Rathod
• MIM
66 Charminar (82445 76230 – 158712)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 20 to 23.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
67 Chandrayangutta (80043 82928 – 163009)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
68 Yakutpura (107366 105131 – 212518)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part)- Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 1 to 7 Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 6 and 7
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
69 Bahadurpura (90100 91180 – 181306)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 4 and 5 Ward No.19.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
70 Secunderabad (96422 95820 – 192302)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.33 (Part) Block No. 4 to 7 Ward No. 34 and 35 Osmania University Area.
• INC : Jayasudha
• TDP / TRS : T Srinivas Yadav
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Venkata Ramani
• MIM
71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC) (92256 91959 – 184260)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 31 and 32 Ward No.33 (Part) Block No.1 to 3 Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Saianna - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1941833 1815537 – 3757824)
43 Medchal (143455 136729 – 280222)
Medchal, Shamirpet, Ghatkesar and Keesara (Rural) Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
44 Malkajgiri (163480 158997 – 322483)
Malkajgiri Mandal.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramchander Rao / Ballingam
• MIM
45 Quthbullapur (143996 128442 – 272455)
Quthbullapur Mandal.
• INC : K M Pratap
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
46 Kukatpalle (196297 169541 – 365842)
Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) - Ward No.24 (Part) (Area in Balanagar Mandal) Kukatpalle (M) (Part) Kukatpalle (M) - Ward No. 5 to 16.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
47 Uppal (172156 152804 – 324992)
Uppal Municipality, Kapra Municipality.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : S V V S Prabhakar
• MIM
48 Ibrahimpatnam (98047 92538 – 190597)
Hayathnagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Manchal and Yacharam Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
49 Lal Bahadur Nagar (191857 173835 – 365693)
Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Gaddiannaram (CT) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No. 1 to 10.
• INC : Sudhir Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Bal Reddy
• MIM
50 Maheswaram (140047 133603 – 273658)
Maheswaram and Kandukur Mandals Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Medbowli, Almasguda, Badangpet, Chintalakunta, Jalpalle, Mamidipalle, Kurmalguda and Nadargul (Rural) Mandals. Hyderabad (OG) (Part) Balapur (OG) - Ward No.36 Kothapet (OG) - Ward No.37 Venkatapur (OG) - Ward No.39 Mallapur (OG) - Ward No.40 Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No.11 Nadargul (OG) (Part) - Ward No.12 Jillalguda (OG) - Ward No.15 Meerpet (CT).
• INC : Sabita Indrareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
51 Rajendranagar (130034 123218 – 253364)
Rajendranagar and Shamshabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
52 Serilingampally (194776 172478 – 367258)
Serilingampally Mandal Balanagar Mandal (Part) Kukatpally (M) (Part) Kukatpally (M) - Ward No. 1 to 4.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
53 Chevella (SC) (96291 92745 – 189121)
Nawabpet, Shankarpalle, Moinabad, Chevella and Shabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : K S Ratnam - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
54 Pargi (93644 96103 – 189807)
Doma, Gandeed, Kulkacherla, Pargi and Pudur Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Harishwar Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
55 Vicarabad (SC) (90315 91146 – 181511)
Marpalle, Mominpet, Vikarabad, Dharur and Bantwaram Mandals.
• INC : Prasad
• TDP / TRS : Chandrashekhar - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
56 Tandur (87438 93358 – 180821)
Peddemul, Tandur, Basheerabad and Yalal Mandals.
• INC : M Ramesh
• TDP / TRS : Mahender Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
PARLIAMENTARY SEATS – HYD + RR (65,38,840)
7-MALKAJGIRI (21,15,947)
43 Medchal, 44 Malkajgiri, 45 Qutbullapur, 46 Kukatpalle, 47 Uppal, 49 Lal Bahadur Nagar and 71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC).
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP : T Devender Goud
• BJP : Indrasena Reddy
• MIM
8- SECUNDERABAD (14,83,379)
57 Musheerabad, 59 Amberpet, 60 Khairatabad, 61 Jubilee Hills, 62 Sanathnagar, 63 Nampally and 70 Secunderabad.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Vijayarama Rao
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Bandaru Dattatreya
• MIM
9-HYDERABAD (13,03,974)
58 Malakpet, 64 Karwan, 65 Goshamahal, 66 Charminar, 67 Chandrayangutta, 68 Yakutpura and 69 Bahadurpura.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Zahed ali Khan
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Asaduddin Owaisi
10-CHEVELLA (16,35,540)
50 Maheswaram, 51 Rajendranagar, 52 Serilingampally, 53 Chevella (SC), 54 Pargi, 55 Vicarabad (SC) and 56 Tandur.
• INC : Laxma Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Sunita Mahipal Reddy
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Baddam Balreddy
• MIM
GREATER HYDERABAD – ELECTIONS 2009
By HNN Election Desk
ASSEMBLY SEATS – HYD + RR (66,85,377)
HYDERABAD DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1492609 1434467 – 2927553)
57 Musheerabad (112670 103852 – 216524)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.1
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Buta Gopal
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Lakshman
• MIM
58 Malakpet (88257 86817 – 175089)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.16 Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 8 and 9
• INC : Malreddy Rangareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Akbaruddin Owaisi
59 Amberpet (95905 90549 – 186462)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) - Ward No.2 Ward No.3 (Part) Block No. 1 to 4
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Kishan Reddy
• MIM
- Loksatta : C Vinod
60 Khairatabad (109190 102716 – 211906)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.6 Ward No. 3 (Part) Block No. 5 and 6 Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 2. Ward No.5 (Part) Block No. 10
• INC : P Vishnuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : C Ramchandra Reddy
• MIM
61 Jubilee Hills (122950 111993 – 234943)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 1, 3 and 4.
• INC : P Vishuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
62 Sanathnagar (89637 85909 – 175569)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.7, 24 (excluding the area in AC – 46 Kukatpalle) and 25 to 30.
• INC : M Sashidhar Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Padma Rao - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
63 Nampally (112183 109384 – 221613)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 10 to 12.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramulu
• MIM
64 Karwan (110172 104255 – 214543)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 3 to 6.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
65 Goshamahal (103013 95744 – 198797)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 4, 14 and 15 Ward No. 5 (Part) Block No. 1 to 9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 1 and 2.7
• INC : Mukesh Goud
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Prem Signh Rathod
• MIM
66 Charminar (82445 76230 – 158712)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 20 to 23.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
67 Chandrayangutta (80043 82928 – 163009)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
68 Yakutpura (107366 105131 – 212518)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part)- Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 1 to 7 Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 6 and 7
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
69 Bahadurpura (90100 91180 – 181306)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 4 and 5 Ward No.19.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
70 Secunderabad (96422 95820 – 192302)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.33 (Part) Block No. 4 to 7 Ward No. 34 and 35 Osmania University Area.
• INC : Jayasudha
• TDP / TRS : T Srinivas Yadav
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Venkata Ramani
• MIM
71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC) (92256 91959 – 184260)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 31 and 32 Ward No.33 (Part) Block No.1 to 3 Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Saianna - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1941833 1815537 – 3757824)
43 Medchal (143455 136729 – 280222)
Medchal, Shamirpet, Ghatkesar and Keesara (Rural) Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
44 Malkajgiri (163480 158997 – 322483)
Malkajgiri Mandal.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramchander Rao / Ballingam
• MIM
45 Quthbullapur (143996 128442 – 272455)
Quthbullapur Mandal.
• INC : K M Pratap
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
46 Kukatpalle (196297 169541 – 365842)
Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) - Ward No.24 (Part) (Area in Balanagar Mandal) Kukatpalle (M) (Part) Kukatpalle (M) - Ward No. 5 to 16.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
47 Uppal (172156 152804 – 324992)
Uppal Municipality, Kapra Municipality.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : S V V S Prabhakar
• MIM
48 Ibrahimpatnam (98047 92538 – 190597)
Hayathnagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Manchal and Yacharam Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
49 Lal Bahadur Nagar (191857 173835 – 365693)
Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Gaddiannaram (CT) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No. 1 to 10.
• INC : Sudhir Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Bal Reddy
• MIM
50 Maheswaram (140047 133603 – 273658)
Maheswaram and Kandukur Mandals Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Medbowli, Almasguda, Badangpet, Chintalakunta, Jalpalle, Mamidipalle, Kurmalguda and Nadargul (Rural) Mandals. Hyderabad (OG) (Part) Balapur (OG) - Ward No.36 Kothapet (OG) - Ward No.37 Venkatapur (OG) - Ward No.39 Mallapur (OG) - Ward No.40 Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No.11 Nadargul (OG) (Part) - Ward No.12 Jillalguda (OG) - Ward No.15 Meerpet (CT).
• INC : Sabita Indrareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
51 Rajendranagar (130034 123218 – 253364)
Rajendranagar and Shamshabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
52 Serilingampally (194776 172478 – 367258)
Serilingampally Mandal Balanagar Mandal (Part) Kukatpally (M) (Part) Kukatpally (M) - Ward No. 1 to 4.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
53 Chevella (SC) (96291 92745 – 189121)
Nawabpet, Shankarpalle, Moinabad, Chevella and Shabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : K S Ratnam - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
54 Pargi (93644 96103 – 189807)
Doma, Gandeed, Kulkacherla, Pargi and Pudur Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Harishwar Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
55 Vicarabad (SC) (90315 91146 – 181511)
Marpalle, Mominpet, Vikarabad, Dharur and Bantwaram Mandals.
• INC : Prasad
• TDP / TRS : Chandrashekhar - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
56 Tandur (87438 93358 – 180821)
Peddemul, Tandur, Basheerabad and Yalal Mandals.
• INC : M Ramesh
• TDP / TRS : Mahender Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
PARLIAMENTARY SEATS – HYD + RR (65,38,840)
7-MALKAJGIRI (21,15,947)
43 Medchal, 44 Malkajgiri, 45 Qutbullapur, 46 Kukatpalle, 47 Uppal, 49 Lal Bahadur Nagar and 71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC).
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP : T Devender Goud
• BJP : Indrasena Reddy
• MIM
8- SECUNDERABAD (14,83,379)
57 Musheerabad, 59 Amberpet, 60 Khairatabad, 61 Jubilee Hills, 62 Sanathnagar, 63 Nampally and 70 Secunderabad.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Vijayarama Rao
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Bandaru Dattatreya
• MIM
9-HYDERABAD (13,03,974)
58 Malakpet, 64 Karwan, 65 Goshamahal, 66 Charminar, 67 Chandrayangutta, 68 Yakutpura and 69 Bahadurpura.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Zahed ali Khan
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Asaduddin Owaisi
10-CHEVELLA (16,35,540)
50 Maheswaram, 51 Rajendranagar, 52 Serilingampally, 53 Chevella (SC), 54 Pargi, 55 Vicarabad (SC) and 56 Tandur.
• INC : Laxma Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Sunita Mahipal Reddy
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Baddam Balreddy
• MIM
ASSEMBLY SEATS – HYD + RR (66,85,377)
HYDERABAD DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1492609 1434467 – 2927553)
57 Musheerabad (112670 103852 – 216524)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.1
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Buta Gopal
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Lakshman
• MIM
58 Malakpet (88257 86817 – 175089)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.16 Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 8 and 9
• INC : Malreddy Rangareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Akbaruddin Owaisi
59 Amberpet (95905 90549 – 186462)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) - Ward No.2 Ward No.3 (Part) Block No. 1 to 4
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Kishan Reddy
• MIM
- Loksatta : C Vinod
60 Khairatabad (109190 102716 – 211906)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.6 Ward No. 3 (Part) Block No. 5 and 6 Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 2. Ward No.5 (Part) Block No. 10
• INC : P Vishnuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : C Ramchandra Reddy
• MIM
61 Jubilee Hills (122950 111993 – 234943)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.8 (Part) Block No. 1, 3 and 4.
• INC : P Vishuvardhan Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
62 Sanathnagar (89637 85909 – 175569)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.7, 24 (excluding the area in AC – 46 Kukatpalle) and 25 to 30.
• INC : M Sashidhar Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Padma Rao - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
63 Nampally (112183 109384 – 221613)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 10 to 12.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramulu
• MIM
64 Karwan (110172 104255 – 214543)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 3 to 6.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
65 Goshamahal (103013 95744 – 198797)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 4, 14 and 15 Ward No. 5 (Part) Block No. 1 to 9 Ward No. 13 (Part) Block No. 1 and 2.7
• INC : Mukesh Goud
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Prem Signh Rathod
• MIM
66 Charminar (82445 76230 – 158712)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 20 to 23.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
67 Chandrayangutta (80043 82928 – 163009)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
68 Yakutpura (107366 105131 – 212518)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part)- Ward No.17 (Part) Block No. 1 to 7 Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 6 and 7
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
69 Bahadurpura (90100 91180 – 181306)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.18 (Part) Block No. 4 and 5 Ward No.19.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
70 Secunderabad (96422 95820 – 192302)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No.33 (Part) Block No. 4 to 7 Ward No. 34 and 35 Osmania University Area.
• INC : Jayasudha
• TDP / TRS : T Srinivas Yadav
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Venkata Ramani
• MIM
71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC) (92256 91959 – 184260)
Hyderabad (M Corp.+OG) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Ward No. 31 and 32 Ward No.33 (Part) Block No.1 to 3 Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Saianna - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT – ASSEMBLY (1941833 1815537 – 3757824)
43 Medchal (143455 136729 – 280222)
Medchal, Shamirpet, Ghatkesar and Keesara (Rural) Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
44 Malkajgiri (163480 158997 – 322483)
Malkajgiri Mandal.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Ramchander Rao / Ballingam
• MIM
45 Quthbullapur (143996 128442 – 272455)
Quthbullapur Mandal.
• INC : K M Pratap
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
46 Kukatpalle (196297 169541 – 365842)
Hyderabad (M Corp.) (Part) Hyderabad (M Corp.) - Ward No.24 (Part) (Area in Balanagar Mandal) Kukatpalle (M) (Part) Kukatpalle (M) - Ward No. 5 to 16.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
47 Uppal (172156 152804 – 324992)
Uppal Municipality, Kapra Municipality.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : S V V S Prabhakar
• MIM
48 Ibrahimpatnam (98047 92538 – 190597)
Hayathnagar, Ibrahimpatnam, Manchal and Yacharam Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
49 Lal Bahadur Nagar (191857 173835 – 365693)
Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Gaddiannaram (CT) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No. 1 to 10.
• INC : Sudhir Reddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : K Bal Reddy
• MIM
50 Maheswaram (140047 133603 – 273658)
Maheswaram and Kandukur Mandals Saroornagar Mandal (Part) Medbowli, Almasguda, Badangpet, Chintalakunta, Jalpalle, Mamidipalle, Kurmalguda and Nadargul (Rural) Mandals. Hyderabad (OG) (Part) Balapur (OG) - Ward No.36 Kothapet (OG) - Ward No.37 Venkatapur (OG) - Ward No.39 Mallapur (OG) - Ward No.40 Lal Bahadur Nagar (M+OG) (Part) Lal Bahadur Nagar (M) - Ward No.11 Nadargul (OG) (Part) - Ward No.12 Jillalguda (OG) - Ward No.15 Meerpet (CT).
• INC : Sabita Indrareddy
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
51 Rajendranagar (130034 123218 – 253364)
Rajendranagar and Shamshabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
52 Serilingampally (194776 172478 – 367258)
Serilingampally Mandal Balanagar Mandal (Part) Kukatpally (M) (Part) Kukatpally (M) - Ward No. 1 to 4.
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
53 Chevella (SC) (96291 92745 – 189121)
Nawabpet, Shankarpalle, Moinabad, Chevella and Shabad Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : K S Ratnam - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
54 Pargi (93644 96103 – 189807)
Doma, Gandeed, Kulkacherla, Pargi and Pudur Mandals.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Harishwar Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
55 Vicarabad (SC) (90315 91146 – 181511)
Marpalle, Mominpet, Vikarabad, Dharur and Bantwaram Mandals.
• INC : Prasad
• TDP / TRS : Chandrashekhar - TRS
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
56 Tandur (87438 93358 – 180821)
Peddemul, Tandur, Basheerabad and Yalal Mandals.
• INC : M Ramesh
• TDP / TRS : Mahender Reddy - TDP
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM
PARLIAMENTARY SEATS – HYD + RR (65,38,840)
7-MALKAJGIRI (21,15,947)
43 Medchal, 44 Malkajgiri, 45 Qutbullapur, 46 Kukatpalle, 47 Uppal, 49 Lal Bahadur Nagar and 71 Secunderabad Cantt. (SC).
• INC
• TDP / TRS
• PRP / NTP : T Devender Goud
• BJP : Indrasena Reddy
• MIM
8- SECUNDERABAD (14,83,379)
57 Musheerabad, 59 Amberpet, 60 Khairatabad, 61 Jubilee Hills, 62 Sanathnagar, 63 Nampally and 70 Secunderabad.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Vijayarama Rao
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Bandaru Dattatreya
• MIM
9-HYDERABAD (13,03,974)
58 Malakpet, 64 Karwan, 65 Goshamahal, 66 Charminar, 67 Chandrayangutta, 68 Yakutpura and 69 Bahadurpura.
• INC
• TDP / TRS : Zahed ali Khan
• PRP / NTP
• BJP
• MIM : Asaduddin Owaisi
10-CHEVELLA (16,35,540)
50 Maheswaram, 51 Rajendranagar, 52 Serilingampally, 53 Chevella (SC), 54 Pargi, 55 Vicarabad (SC) and 56 Tandur.
• INC : Laxma Reddy
• TDP / TRS : Sunita Mahipal Reddy
• PRP / NTP
• BJP : Baddam Balreddy
• MIM
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen – Thriving on the ideology of its pre-Independence parent body
By R Upadhyay
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (All India Council of the Muslims), an incarnation of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) of pre-Independent India claims to be the sole representative body of the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh. With one Lok Sabha seat, which the party has retained since 1984 till 2004 election, five MLAs in Andhra Prdesh Assembly, forty Corporators in Hyderabad city and about one hundred members elected to various municipal bodies, its claim is perhaps justified.
While taking over the command of the pre-Independence MIM in 1957 by prefixing All India to this name, Abdul Wahed Owaisi declared the party’s commitment to Indian constitution but three MLAs led violent assault on Taslima Nasreen, a Muslim woman writer of Bangladesh on August 9 this year proved its tunneled mindset, which is hardly in time negotiates with the spirit of secular democracy in the country. A trusted ally of the ruling Congress, it is known as “an Islamic, fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and political party in India that was founded by radicals among the Muslim population of Hyderabad and Muslim dominated areas of Andhra Pradesh though it has units in some parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia).
To know further about the Islamist character of the party, we may look into the historical background of its parent body as well as its own contribution towards radicalization of the Muslim society. Like August 9 incident this year, the pre-Independence MIM also came in hot news on this eventful day of Indian History sixty five years back in 1942, when it had opposed ‘Quit India’ movement against the colonial British power and mobilized the Muslims of then Hyderabad State for defending the Islamic rule of Nizam. Founded in 1927 by a group of Islamists of Hyderabad initially as a socio-religious organization, its successive presidents particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, a religio-political activist and Qasim Rizvi, a militant Islamist gradually turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and a pro-Nizam political party.
For MIM “the ruler throne (Nizam) is the symbol of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community …. (and) this status must continue for ever”. (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh by Vadakattu Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 163). Under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung, the party “proclaimed Muslims as the monarchs of Deccan with Nizam as only the symbolic expression of their political sovereignty. It demanded the creation of an independent Hyderabad to synchronise with the lapse of British paramountcy” (State Government and Politics – Andhra Pradesh by Reddy & Sharma, 1979, page392).
After the death of Bahadur Yar Jung in early forties of the last century, the command of the MIM was taken over by Kasim Razvi, who enrolled a large number of Muslim youths as Razakars to fight against the freedom fighters of Congress, Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha and emerged as “champion of Muslims and protector of a Muslim State”. The militancy of the party however reached to its peak on the eve of independence, when Nizam was virtually put on hold by the MIM and was not allowed to sign the instrument of accession of Hyderabad State with Indian Union. In fact about 150,000 Razakars led by Razvi created a reign of terror against the non-Muslims and forced the Nizam to buy time under the cover of negotiation. The militant mindset of Razvi could be judged from his threat to Government of India during one of his talks with V.P.Menon, the then Secretary in Ministry of States in Delhi. He said, “if Government of India insisted on a plebiscite, the final arbiter could only be the sword”(Integration of the Indian States by V.P.Menon, page334). Similarly in one of his jehadi speeches as published in press, he asserted: “The day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign”. He further declared that “he would plant the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in Delhi” (Ibid. page 352). Such statements of Razvi suggested that the latter was virtually the ruler of Hyderabad State. However, the sword of Rizvi failed to protect the end of the autocratic rule of Nizam, who surrendered at 1700 hour on September 17, 1948 and integration of Hyderabad State with Indian Union became a reality. MIM was proscribed and Razvi was jailed. He was released only in 1957, when he gave an undertaking to migrate to Pakistan within forty-eight hours of his release.
The story of the over one year delay in the integration of Hyderabad suggests that dependence of Nizam on an Islamist like Razvi was the main reason behind not only for his humiliating surrender before Indian army but also for demoralisation of the Muslim society of Hyderabad. His radio speech on September 23 was in fact a confession of being a prisoner of a group of MIM activists led by Razvi. He said, “In November last, a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitelerite Germany it took possession of the State, spread terror … and rendered me completely helpless.” (From Autocracy to Integration by Lucien D Benichou, Orient Longman 2000, Page 237).
Before his migration to Pakistan Rizvi handed over the command of the MIM to Abdul Wahed Owaisi an advocate and one of the richest Muslims of Hyderabad, who was known for his strong relations with Nizam. Owaisi revived the MIM with a new name of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He re-wrote its constitution and accepted Hyderabad as a part of Indian Union. Re-naming the party just by prefixing All India in it and re-writing its constitution was however, an eye wash as its subsequent behaviour showed.
Although Owaisi was an eye witness to all the misdeeds of Razvi, the Islamist element in him did not allow him to be reconciled with the loss of an independent Islamic State. “In 1957 the MIM was revived in Hyderabad and a decade later was petitioning the Government of India for the foundation of a purely Muslim State on India’s eastern coast” (Encyclopaedia of Islam – Lieden E.J.Brill, Vol. V, Page 1081). For over a decade the MIM maintained a low profile and remained a marginal player in the politics of Hyderabad but gradually Owaisi cashed on the hidden anger of Muslim society against the loss of Islamic power in the state. “Majlis played passion politics by trading on hate-Hindu sentiments and cashed on the angry Muslim electorates” (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh – Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 164).
In 1976 Salahuddin Owaisi, a widely traveled barrister son of Abdul Wahed Owaisi took over the presidentship of the party after the death of his father and launched an aggressive campaign for the cause of his community members. Increasingly aligning the party with the fundamentalist ideology of its parent body the Owaisis carried forward the legacy of parent organization, which was “regarded as remarkably aggressive and a violent face of Muslim militancy as it organized the Razakars to defend the independence of this Muslim State with Indian Union”.
Popularly known as ‘Salar-e-Millat’ (Commander of the community), he criticized the Indian state for allegedly abandoning the Muslims to their fate and replayed the communal and militant politics of Razvi. He reminded his community members of their past glory and “compared the Majlis to the Black Power Movement of America” (www.nowpublic.com). Since 1984 he retained the Communal politics of Nizam days and never made any effort to transform the communalized Muslim masses of Hyderabad into secular and democratic Indians. Instead Owaisi family used this organization only as a platform for serving the communal interest of the Islamists in general and its vested political interest in particular. One fails to understand as to why he retained the name of the party, which had led the Razakars against Indian army? The answer lies with the Nizam-days mindset of Owaisis.
The MIM legislators opposed the motion which AP Assembly had placed for condemning the 9/11 attack on America. This was a reflection of the Islamist mindset of the AIMIM. Just on the eve of 2004 election Salahuddin stepped down in favour of his eldest son Asaduddin, who won this seat with a very big margin. His second son Akbaruddin became the leader of the five-member legislative group of AIMIM in Andhra Assembly. Taking over the presidentship of the party from his father, stepping down from his Lok Sabha seat for his eldest son and making his second son as leader of legislative party in Andhra Pradesh Assembly, the respective three generations of Owaisis have not only converted the AIMIM into a family trust but have also kept the Muslims of Hyderabad under siege. It is a fact that Owaisis have established some educational institutions for the benefit of the Muslim society of Hyderabad but its communal politics on which it is thriving has done more harm to the Muslims.
How does one deal with Owaisi types? What is the remedy? The Remedy lies with the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh themselves. If they want to live a peaceful and dignified life they will have to guard themselves from fundamentalists among them under the patronage of the parties, which are still obsessed to the pre-Independence mindset of All India Muslim League, Nizam of Hyderabad and Razvi, the leader of Razakars, who were opposed to integration of Hyderabad with Indian Union.
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (All India Council of the Muslims), an incarnation of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) of pre-Independent India claims to be the sole representative body of the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh. With one Lok Sabha seat, which the party has retained since 1984 till 2004 election, five MLAs in Andhra Prdesh Assembly, forty Corporators in Hyderabad city and about one hundred members elected to various municipal bodies, its claim is perhaps justified.
While taking over the command of the pre-Independence MIM in 1957 by prefixing All India to this name, Abdul Wahed Owaisi declared the party’s commitment to Indian constitution but three MLAs led violent assault on Taslima Nasreen, a Muslim woman writer of Bangladesh on August 9 this year proved its tunneled mindset, which is hardly in time negotiates with the spirit of secular democracy in the country. A trusted ally of the ruling Congress, it is known as “an Islamic, fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and political party in India that was founded by radicals among the Muslim population of Hyderabad and Muslim dominated areas of Andhra Pradesh though it has units in some parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia).
To know further about the Islamist character of the party, we may look into the historical background of its parent body as well as its own contribution towards radicalization of the Muslim society. Like August 9 incident this year, the pre-Independence MIM also came in hot news on this eventful day of Indian History sixty five years back in 1942, when it had opposed ‘Quit India’ movement against the colonial British power and mobilized the Muslims of then Hyderabad State for defending the Islamic rule of Nizam. Founded in 1927 by a group of Islamists of Hyderabad initially as a socio-religious organization, its successive presidents particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, a religio-political activist and Qasim Rizvi, a militant Islamist gradually turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and a pro-Nizam political party.
For MIM “the ruler throne (Nizam) is the symbol of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community …. (and) this status must continue for ever”. (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh by Vadakattu Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 163). Under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung, the party “proclaimed Muslims as the monarchs of Deccan with Nizam as only the symbolic expression of their political sovereignty. It demanded the creation of an independent Hyderabad to synchronise with the lapse of British paramountcy” (State Government and Politics – Andhra Pradesh by Reddy & Sharma, 1979, page392).
After the death of Bahadur Yar Jung in early forties of the last century, the command of the MIM was taken over by Kasim Razvi, who enrolled a large number of Muslim youths as Razakars to fight against the freedom fighters of Congress, Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha and emerged as “champion of Muslims and protector of a Muslim State”. The militancy of the party however reached to its peak on the eve of independence, when Nizam was virtually put on hold by the MIM and was not allowed to sign the instrument of accession of Hyderabad State with Indian Union. In fact about 150,000 Razakars led by Razvi created a reign of terror against the non-Muslims and forced the Nizam to buy time under the cover of negotiation. The militant mindset of Razvi could be judged from his threat to Government of India during one of his talks with V.P.Menon, the then Secretary in Ministry of States in Delhi. He said, “if Government of India insisted on a plebiscite, the final arbiter could only be the sword”(Integration of the Indian States by V.P.Menon, page334). Similarly in one of his jehadi speeches as published in press, he asserted: “The day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign”. He further declared that “he would plant the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in Delhi” (Ibid. page 352). Such statements of Razvi suggested that the latter was virtually the ruler of Hyderabad State. However, the sword of Rizvi failed to protect the end of the autocratic rule of Nizam, who surrendered at 1700 hour on September 17, 1948 and integration of Hyderabad State with Indian Union became a reality. MIM was proscribed and Razvi was jailed. He was released only in 1957, when he gave an undertaking to migrate to Pakistan within forty-eight hours of his release.
The story of the over one year delay in the integration of Hyderabad suggests that dependence of Nizam on an Islamist like Razvi was the main reason behind not only for his humiliating surrender before Indian army but also for demoralisation of the Muslim society of Hyderabad. His radio speech on September 23 was in fact a confession of being a prisoner of a group of MIM activists led by Razvi. He said, “In November last, a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitelerite Germany it took possession of the State, spread terror … and rendered me completely helpless.” (From Autocracy to Integration by Lucien D Benichou, Orient Longman 2000, Page 237).
Before his migration to Pakistan Rizvi handed over the command of the MIM to Abdul Wahed Owaisi an advocate and one of the richest Muslims of Hyderabad, who was known for his strong relations with Nizam. Owaisi revived the MIM with a new name of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He re-wrote its constitution and accepted Hyderabad as a part of Indian Union. Re-naming the party just by prefixing All India in it and re-writing its constitution was however, an eye wash as its subsequent behaviour showed.
Although Owaisi was an eye witness to all the misdeeds of Razvi, the Islamist element in him did not allow him to be reconciled with the loss of an independent Islamic State. “In 1957 the MIM was revived in Hyderabad and a decade later was petitioning the Government of India for the foundation of a purely Muslim State on India’s eastern coast” (Encyclopaedia of Islam – Lieden E.J.Brill, Vol. V, Page 1081). For over a decade the MIM maintained a low profile and remained a marginal player in the politics of Hyderabad but gradually Owaisi cashed on the hidden anger of Muslim society against the loss of Islamic power in the state. “Majlis played passion politics by trading on hate-Hindu sentiments and cashed on the angry Muslim electorates” (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh – Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 164).
In 1976 Salahuddin Owaisi, a widely traveled barrister son of Abdul Wahed Owaisi took over the presidentship of the party after the death of his father and launched an aggressive campaign for the cause of his community members. Increasingly aligning the party with the fundamentalist ideology of its parent body the Owaisis carried forward the legacy of parent organization, which was “regarded as remarkably aggressive and a violent face of Muslim militancy as it organized the Razakars to defend the independence of this Muslim State with Indian Union”.
Popularly known as ‘Salar-e-Millat’ (Commander of the community), he criticized the Indian state for allegedly abandoning the Muslims to their fate and replayed the communal and militant politics of Razvi. He reminded his community members of their past glory and “compared the Majlis to the Black Power Movement of America” (www.nowpublic.com). Since 1984 he retained the Communal politics of Nizam days and never made any effort to transform the communalized Muslim masses of Hyderabad into secular and democratic Indians. Instead Owaisi family used this organization only as a platform for serving the communal interest of the Islamists in general and its vested political interest in particular. One fails to understand as to why he retained the name of the party, which had led the Razakars against Indian army? The answer lies with the Nizam-days mindset of Owaisis.
The MIM legislators opposed the motion which AP Assembly had placed for condemning the 9/11 attack on America. This was a reflection of the Islamist mindset of the AIMIM. Just on the eve of 2004 election Salahuddin stepped down in favour of his eldest son Asaduddin, who won this seat with a very big margin. His second son Akbaruddin became the leader of the five-member legislative group of AIMIM in Andhra Assembly. Taking over the presidentship of the party from his father, stepping down from his Lok Sabha seat for his eldest son and making his second son as leader of legislative party in Andhra Pradesh Assembly, the respective three generations of Owaisis have not only converted the AIMIM into a family trust but have also kept the Muslims of Hyderabad under siege. It is a fact that Owaisis have established some educational institutions for the benefit of the Muslim society of Hyderabad but its communal politics on which it is thriving has done more harm to the Muslims.
How does one deal with Owaisi types? What is the remedy? The Remedy lies with the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh themselves. If they want to live a peaceful and dignified life they will have to guard themselves from fundamentalists among them under the patronage of the parties, which are still obsessed to the pre-Independence mindset of All India Muslim League, Nizam of Hyderabad and Razvi, the leader of Razakars, who were opposed to integration of Hyderabad with Indian Union.
Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen – Thriving on the ideology of its pre-Independence parent body
By R Upadhyay
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (All India Council of the Muslims), an incarnation of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) of pre-Independent India claims to be the sole representative body of the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh. With one Lok Sabha seat, which the party has retained since 1984 till 2004 election, five MLAs in Andhra Prdesh Assembly, forty Corporators in Hyderabad city and about one hundred members elected to various municipal bodies, its claim is perhaps justified.
While taking over the command of the pre-Independence MIM in 1957 by prefixing All India to this name, Abdul Wahed Owaisi declared the party’s commitment to Indian constitution but three MLAs led violent assault on Taslima Nasreen, a Muslim woman writer of Bangladesh on August 9 this year proved its tunneled mindset, which is hardly in time negotiates with the spirit of secular democracy in the country. A trusted ally of the ruling Congress, it is known as “an Islamic, fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and political party in India that was founded by radicals among the Muslim population of Hyderabad and Muslim dominated areas of Andhra Pradesh though it has units in some parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia).
To know further about the Islamist character of the party, we may look into the historical background of its parent body as well as its own contribution towards radicalization of the Muslim society. Like August 9 incident this year, the pre-Independence MIM also came in hot news on this eventful day of Indian History sixty five years back in 1942, when it had opposed ‘Quit India’ movement against the colonial British power and mobilized the Muslims of then Hyderabad State for defending the Islamic rule of Nizam. Founded in 1927 by a group of Islamists of Hyderabad initially as a socio-religious organization, its successive presidents particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, a religio-political activist and Qasim Rizvi, a militant Islamist gradually turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and a pro-Nizam political party.
For MIM “the ruler throne (Nizam) is the symbol of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community …. (and) this status must continue for ever”. (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh by Vadakattu Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 163). Under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung, the party “proclaimed Muslims as the monarchs of Deccan with Nizam as only the symbolic expression of their political sovereignty. It demanded the creation of an independent Hyderabad to synchronise with the lapse of British paramountcy” (State Government and Politics – Andhra Pradesh by Reddy & Sharma, 1979, page392).
After the death of Bahadur Yar Jung in early forties of the last century, the command of the MIM was taken over by Kasim Razvi, who enrolled a large number of Muslim youths as Razakars to fight against the freedom fighters of Congress, Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha and emerged as “champion of Muslims and protector of a Muslim State”. The militancy of the party however reached to its peak on the eve of independence, when Nizam was virtually put on hold by the MIM and was not allowed to sign the instrument of accession of Hyderabad State with Indian Union. In fact about 150,000 Razakars led by Razvi created a reign of terror against the non-Muslims and forced the Nizam to buy time under the cover of negotiation. The militant mindset of Razvi could be judged from his threat to Government of India during one of his talks with V.P.Menon, the then Secretary in Ministry of States in Delhi. He said, “if Government of India insisted on a plebiscite, the final arbiter could only be the sword”(Integration of the Indian States by V.P.Menon, page334). Similarly in one of his jehadi speeches as published in press, he asserted: “The day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign”. He further declared that “he would plant the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in Delhi” (Ibid. page 352). Such statements of Razvi suggested that the latter was virtually the ruler of Hyderabad State. However, the sword of Rizvi failed to protect the end of the autocratic rule of Nizam, who surrendered at 1700 hour on September 17, 1948 and integration of Hyderabad State with Indian Union became a reality. MIM was proscribed and Razvi was jailed. He was released only in 1957, when he gave an undertaking to migrate to Pakistan within forty-eight hours of his release.
The story of the over one year delay in the integration of Hyderabad suggests that dependence of Nizam on an Islamist like Razvi was the main reason behind not only for his humiliating surrender before Indian army but also for demoralisation of the Muslim society of Hyderabad. His radio speech on September 23 was in fact a confession of being a prisoner of a group of MIM activists led by Razvi. He said, “In November last, a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitelerite Germany it took possession of the State, spread terror … and rendered me completely helpless.” (From Autocracy to Integration by Lucien D Benichou, Orient Longman 2000, Page 237).
Before his migration to Pakistan Rizvi handed over the command of the MIM to Abdul Wahed Owaisi an advocate and one of the richest Muslims of Hyderabad, who was known for his strong relations with Nizam. Owaisi revived the MIM with a new name of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He re-wrote its constitution and accepted Hyderabad as a part of Indian Union. Re-naming the party just by prefixing All India in it and re-writing its constitution was however, an eye wash as its subsequent behaviour showed.
Although Owaisi was an eye witness to all the misdeeds of Razvi, the Islamist element in him did not allow him to be reconciled with the loss of an independent Islamic State. “In 1957 the MIM was revived in Hyderabad and a decade later was petitioning the Government of India for the foundation of a purely Muslim State on India’s eastern coast” (Encyclopaedia of Islam – Lieden E.J.Brill, Vol. V, Page 1081). For over a decade the MIM maintained a low profile and remained a marginal player in the politics of Hyderabad but gradually Owaisi cashed on the hidden anger of Muslim society against the loss of Islamic power in the state. “Majlis played passion politics by trading on hate-Hindu sentiments and cashed on the angry Muslim electorates” (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh – Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 164).
In 1976 Salahuddin Owaisi, a widely traveled barrister son of Abdul Wahed Owaisi took over the presidentship of the party after the death of his father and launched an aggressive campaign for the cause of his community members. Increasingly aligning the party with the fundamentalist ideology of its parent body the Owaisis carried forward the legacy of parent organization, which was “regarded as remarkably aggressive and a violent face of Muslim militancy as it organized the Razakars to defend the independence of this Muslim State with Indian Union”.
Popularly known as ‘Salar-e-Millat’ (Commander of the community), he criticized the Indian state for allegedly abandoning the Muslims to their fate and replayed the communal and militant politics of Razvi. He reminded his community members of their past glory and “compared the Majlis to the Black Power Movement of America” (www.nowpublic.com). Since 1984 he retained the Communal politics of Nizam days and never made any effort to transform the communalized Muslim masses of Hyderabad into secular and democratic Indians. Instead Owaisi family used this organization only as a platform for serving the communal interest of the Islamists in general and its vested political interest in particular. One fails to understand as to why he retained the name of the party, which had led the Razakars against Indian army? The answer lies with the Nizam-days mindset of Owaisis.
The MIM legislators opposed the motion which AP Assembly had placed for condemning the 9/11 attack on America. This was a reflection of the Islamist mindset of the AIMIM. Just on the eve of 2004 election Salahuddin stepped down in favour of his eldest son Asaduddin, who won this seat with a very big margin. His second son Akbaruddin became the leader of the five-member legislative group of AIMIM in Andhra Assembly. Taking over the presidentship of the party from his father, stepping down from his Lok Sabha seat for his eldest son and making his second son as leader of legislative party in Andhra Pradesh Assembly, the respective three generations of Owaisis have not only converted the AIMIM into a family trust but have also kept the Muslims of Hyderabad under siege. It is a fact that Owaisis have established some educational institutions for the benefit of the Muslim society of Hyderabad but its communal politics on which it is thriving has done more harm to the Muslims.
How does one deal with Owaisi types? What is the remedy? The Remedy lies with the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh themselves. If they want to live a peaceful and dignified life they will have to guard themselves from fundamentalists among them under the patronage of the parties, which are still obsessed to the pre-Independence mindset of All India Muslim League, Nizam of Hyderabad and Razvi, the leader of Razakars, who were opposed to integration of Hyderabad with Indian Union.
The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (All India Council of the Muslims), an incarnation of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) of pre-Independent India claims to be the sole representative body of the Muslim society of Andhra Pradesh. With one Lok Sabha seat, which the party has retained since 1984 till 2004 election, five MLAs in Andhra Prdesh Assembly, forty Corporators in Hyderabad city and about one hundred members elected to various municipal bodies, its claim is perhaps justified.
While taking over the command of the pre-Independence MIM in 1957 by prefixing All India to this name, Abdul Wahed Owaisi declared the party’s commitment to Indian constitution but three MLAs led violent assault on Taslima Nasreen, a Muslim woman writer of Bangladesh on August 9 this year proved its tunneled mindset, which is hardly in time negotiates with the spirit of secular democracy in the country. A trusted ally of the ruling Congress, it is known as “an Islamic, fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and political party in India that was founded by radicals among the Muslim population of Hyderabad and Muslim dominated areas of Andhra Pradesh though it has units in some parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra”(Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia).
To know further about the Islamist character of the party, we may look into the historical background of its parent body as well as its own contribution towards radicalization of the Muslim society. Like August 9 incident this year, the pre-Independence MIM also came in hot news on this eventful day of Indian History sixty five years back in 1942, when it had opposed ‘Quit India’ movement against the colonial British power and mobilized the Muslims of then Hyderabad State for defending the Islamic rule of Nizam. Founded in 1927 by a group of Islamists of Hyderabad initially as a socio-religious organization, its successive presidents particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, a religio-political activist and Qasim Rizvi, a militant Islamist gradually turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist, secessionist, communal and a pro-Nizam political party.
For MIM “the ruler throne (Nizam) is the symbol of the political and cultural rights of the Muslim community …. (and) this status must continue for ever”. (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh by Vadakattu Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 163). Under the leadership of Bahadur Yar Jung, the party “proclaimed Muslims as the monarchs of Deccan with Nizam as only the symbolic expression of their political sovereignty. It demanded the creation of an independent Hyderabad to synchronise with the lapse of British paramountcy” (State Government and Politics – Andhra Pradesh by Reddy & Sharma, 1979, page392).
After the death of Bahadur Yar Jung in early forties of the last century, the command of the MIM was taken over by Kasim Razvi, who enrolled a large number of Muslim youths as Razakars to fight against the freedom fighters of Congress, Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha and emerged as “champion of Muslims and protector of a Muslim State”. The militancy of the party however reached to its peak on the eve of independence, when Nizam was virtually put on hold by the MIM and was not allowed to sign the instrument of accession of Hyderabad State with Indian Union. In fact about 150,000 Razakars led by Razvi created a reign of terror against the non-Muslims and forced the Nizam to buy time under the cover of negotiation. The militant mindset of Razvi could be judged from his threat to Government of India during one of his talks with V.P.Menon, the then Secretary in Ministry of States in Delhi. He said, “if Government of India insisted on a plebiscite, the final arbiter could only be the sword”(Integration of the Indian States by V.P.Menon, page334). Similarly in one of his jehadi speeches as published in press, he asserted: “The day is not far off when the waves of the Bay of Bengal will be washing the feet of our sovereign”. He further declared that “he would plant the Asaf Jahi flag on the Red Fort in Delhi” (Ibid. page 352). Such statements of Razvi suggested that the latter was virtually the ruler of Hyderabad State. However, the sword of Rizvi failed to protect the end of the autocratic rule of Nizam, who surrendered at 1700 hour on September 17, 1948 and integration of Hyderabad State with Indian Union became a reality. MIM was proscribed and Razvi was jailed. He was released only in 1957, when he gave an undertaking to migrate to Pakistan within forty-eight hours of his release.
The story of the over one year delay in the integration of Hyderabad suggests that dependence of Nizam on an Islamist like Razvi was the main reason behind not only for his humiliating surrender before Indian army but also for demoralisation of the Muslim society of Hyderabad. His radio speech on September 23 was in fact a confession of being a prisoner of a group of MIM activists led by Razvi. He said, “In November last, a small group which had organized a quasi-military organization surrounded the homes of my Prime Minister, the Nawab of Chhatari, in whose wisdom I had complete confidence, and of Sir Walter Monkton, my constitutional Adviser, by duress compelled the Nawab and other trusted ministers to resign and forced the Laik Ali Ministry on me. This group headed by Kasim Razvi had no stake in the country or any record of service behind it. By methods reminiscent of Hitelerite Germany it took possession of the State, spread terror … and rendered me completely helpless.” (From Autocracy to Integration by Lucien D Benichou, Orient Longman 2000, Page 237).
Before his migration to Pakistan Rizvi handed over the command of the MIM to Abdul Wahed Owaisi an advocate and one of the richest Muslims of Hyderabad, who was known for his strong relations with Nizam. Owaisi revived the MIM with a new name of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. He re-wrote its constitution and accepted Hyderabad as a part of Indian Union. Re-naming the party just by prefixing All India in it and re-writing its constitution was however, an eye wash as its subsequent behaviour showed.
Although Owaisi was an eye witness to all the misdeeds of Razvi, the Islamist element in him did not allow him to be reconciled with the loss of an independent Islamic State. “In 1957 the MIM was revived in Hyderabad and a decade later was petitioning the Government of India for the foundation of a purely Muslim State on India’s eastern coast” (Encyclopaedia of Islam – Lieden E.J.Brill, Vol. V, Page 1081). For over a decade the MIM maintained a low profile and remained a marginal player in the politics of Hyderabad but gradually Owaisi cashed on the hidden anger of Muslim society against the loss of Islamic power in the state. “Majlis played passion politics by trading on hate-Hindu sentiments and cashed on the angry Muslim electorates” (Party Politics in Andhra Pradesh – Hanumantha Rao, 1983, Page 164).
In 1976 Salahuddin Owaisi, a widely traveled barrister son of Abdul Wahed Owaisi took over the presidentship of the party after the death of his father and launched an aggressive campaign for the cause of his community members. Increasingly aligning the party with the fundamentalist ideology of its parent body the Owaisis carried forward the legacy of parent organization, which was “regarded as remarkably aggressive and a violent face of Muslim militancy as it organized the Razakars to defend the independence of this Muslim State with Indian Union”.
Popularly known as ‘Salar-e-Millat’ (Commander of the community), he criticized the Indian state for allegedly abandoning the Muslims to their fate and replayed the communal and militant politics of Razvi. He reminded his community members of their past glory and “compared the Majlis to the Black Power Movement of America” (www.nowpublic.com). Since 1984 he retained the Communal politics of Nizam days and never made any effort to transform the communalized Muslim masses of Hyderabad into secular and democratic Indians. Instead Owaisi family used this organization only as a platform for serving the communal interest of the Islamists in general and its vested political interest in particular. One fails to understand as to why he retained the name of the party, which had led the Razakars against Indian army? The answer lies with the Nizam-days mindset of Owaisis.
The MIM legislators opposed the motion which AP Assembly had placed for condemning the 9/11 attack on America. This was a reflection of the Islamist mindset of the AIMIM. Just on the eve of 2004 election Salahuddin stepped down in favour of his eldest son Asaduddin, who won this seat with a very big margin. His second son Akbaruddin became the leader of the five-member legislative group of AIMIM in Andhra Assembly. Taking over the presidentship of the party from his father, stepping down from his Lok Sabha seat for his eldest son and making his second son as leader of legislative party in Andhra Pradesh Assembly, the respective three generations of Owaisis have not only converted the AIMIM into a family trust but have also kept the Muslims of Hyderabad under siege. It is a fact that Owaisis have established some educational institutions for the benefit of the Muslim society of Hyderabad but its communal politics on which it is thriving has done more harm to the Muslims.
How does one deal with Owaisi types? What is the remedy? The Remedy lies with the Muslims of Andhra Pradesh themselves. If they want to live a peaceful and dignified life they will have to guard themselves from fundamentalists among them under the patronage of the parties, which are still obsessed to the pre-Independence mindset of All India Muslim League, Nizam of Hyderabad and Razvi, the leader of Razakars, who were opposed to integration of Hyderabad with Indian Union.
Opinion: Lure Of The Small Screen
By M H Ahssan
Private television channels have acquired a conspicuous presence in the country. They provide news and information, debate and discussion and a great deal of entertainment. They are rumoured to earn vast advertising revenues some of which they devote to the promotion of good causes. Their owners and managers like to say that their main aim is to serve the public interest. Those who work for them also seem eager to make that known to their viewers. At the same time, they also appear to be very dogged in the pursuit of their own commercial interests.
When a young girl dies under suspicious circumstances or rumours circulate about misconduct in high office, television reporters accompanied by cameramen are among the first to appear on the scene. They serve their viewers by providing information instantaneously and continuously. The information is accompanied by commentary and by speculation about the possible causes of what might be happening and why. The information provided is of value to the public, particularly where interested parties seek to suppress it.
But not all the information provided on television is of significant value. Much of it is trivial and ephemeral. The analysis provided is sometimes acute and incisive, but often it is empty and vacuous. There is a strain towards the presentation of information in a striking and dramatic form. Much of what takes place in our public life is ordinary and humdrum, but with some effort even the most banal happenings can be given a portentous air. Television reporters and anchors habitually adopt a breathless manner, which even the most seasoned newspaper columnist or radio broadcaster cannot easily simulate.
Like the other media, television provides both information and entertainment, but it combines the two in its own distinctive way. When Doordarshan held the field by itself, there was very little entertainment, and the information was bland and stereotyped. This has changed with the entry of private television channels into the field. Even Doordarshan is now less dull and stodgy than it used to be. Our newsreaders do not have to be grim faced as in China or Russia, and the women among them do not have to cover their heads as in Iran and Pakistan. It is good to see greater variety in dress and deportment although, personally, one regrets the passing of the sari.
While the media in general combine information with entertainment, private television channels make a special effort to present information and analysis in an entertaining way. The line between entertainment and
information is in any case never clear and, where there is acute competition to hold the viewer’s attention, it is easily crossed. Leaving aside the embarrassment and anguish caused to individuals and households, matters of public security and institutional propriety tend to be given short shrift. Newsreaders and analysts know how to simulate both grief and concern, but this loses something in credibility when their presentation is regularly interrupted by commercial advertisements that are anything but solemn or sorrowful.
What is worrying about private television is the cut-throat competition between rival channels. The competition affects the manner in which news is presented and, in the end, also its substance. It is natural that when an interesting or important story comes to light each channel should strive to be the first to present it to the public. It is also natural that it should wish to claim that its own story is exclusive. But such a claim serves mainly its own commercial interest rather than any identifiable public purpose.
The urge to stay ahead in the competition for consumer attention finds expression in the frenzy for ‘breaking news’ common among private television channels. When there is a plane hijack, a terrorist attack, a political assassination — or a successful landing on the moon — it is natural for the news editor to wish to break the news early or even to be the first to report it. Here the electronic media have an advantage over the papers and, within limits, competition provides a healthy stimulus for swift and immediate reporting.
What is presented as breaking news is not always very striking or dramatic. It is, in fact, often quite insubstantial. When something has to be shown as breaking news, there is pressure from within to present it in a dramatic way even when the matter is quite ordinary. It is, in any case, very difficult to view an event in perspective when it is unfolding before our eyes, so when there is pressure to present it as breaking news, that is how it will be presented.
I have often wondered what will happen if no momentous event occurs for one whole day or even for two successive days. If there is no breaking news, will it have to be invented? No account of unfolding events can be free from the more or less active use of the reporter’s imagination. Private television channels should not be blamed for seeking to augment their revenues, but they, on their side, should not cut too many corners. Nor should they be blamed for seeking credit for providing a useful service provided they do not make lofty moral claims about being the citizen’s shield against the authorities. It should not be too difficult for the citizen to determine what they do in the public interest and what they do for profit and, further, to see that the two are not always convergent.
Private television channels have acquired a conspicuous presence in the country. They provide news and information, debate and discussion and a great deal of entertainment. They are rumoured to earn vast advertising revenues some of which they devote to the promotion of good causes. Their owners and managers like to say that their main aim is to serve the public interest. Those who work for them also seem eager to make that known to their viewers. At the same time, they also appear to be very dogged in the pursuit of their own commercial interests.
When a young girl dies under suspicious circumstances or rumours circulate about misconduct in high office, television reporters accompanied by cameramen are among the first to appear on the scene. They serve their viewers by providing information instantaneously and continuously. The information is accompanied by commentary and by speculation about the possible causes of what might be happening and why. The information provided is of value to the public, particularly where interested parties seek to suppress it.
But not all the information provided on television is of significant value. Much of it is trivial and ephemeral. The analysis provided is sometimes acute and incisive, but often it is empty and vacuous. There is a strain towards the presentation of information in a striking and dramatic form. Much of what takes place in our public life is ordinary and humdrum, but with some effort even the most banal happenings can be given a portentous air. Television reporters and anchors habitually adopt a breathless manner, which even the most seasoned newspaper columnist or radio broadcaster cannot easily simulate.
Like the other media, television provides both information and entertainment, but it combines the two in its own distinctive way. When Doordarshan held the field by itself, there was very little entertainment, and the information was bland and stereotyped. This has changed with the entry of private television channels into the field. Even Doordarshan is now less dull and stodgy than it used to be. Our newsreaders do not have to be grim faced as in China or Russia, and the women among them do not have to cover their heads as in Iran and Pakistan. It is good to see greater variety in dress and deportment although, personally, one regrets the passing of the sari.
While the media in general combine information with entertainment, private television channels make a special effort to present information and analysis in an entertaining way. The line between entertainment and
information is in any case never clear and, where there is acute competition to hold the viewer’s attention, it is easily crossed. Leaving aside the embarrassment and anguish caused to individuals and households, matters of public security and institutional propriety tend to be given short shrift. Newsreaders and analysts know how to simulate both grief and concern, but this loses something in credibility when their presentation is regularly interrupted by commercial advertisements that are anything but solemn or sorrowful.
What is worrying about private television is the cut-throat competition between rival channels. The competition affects the manner in which news is presented and, in the end, also its substance. It is natural that when an interesting or important story comes to light each channel should strive to be the first to present it to the public. It is also natural that it should wish to claim that its own story is exclusive. But such a claim serves mainly its own commercial interest rather than any identifiable public purpose.
The urge to stay ahead in the competition for consumer attention finds expression in the frenzy for ‘breaking news’ common among private television channels. When there is a plane hijack, a terrorist attack, a political assassination — or a successful landing on the moon — it is natural for the news editor to wish to break the news early or even to be the first to report it. Here the electronic media have an advantage over the papers and, within limits, competition provides a healthy stimulus for swift and immediate reporting.
What is presented as breaking news is not always very striking or dramatic. It is, in fact, often quite insubstantial. When something has to be shown as breaking news, there is pressure from within to present it in a dramatic way even when the matter is quite ordinary. It is, in any case, very difficult to view an event in perspective when it is unfolding before our eyes, so when there is pressure to present it as breaking news, that is how it will be presented.
I have often wondered what will happen if no momentous event occurs for one whole day or even for two successive days. If there is no breaking news, will it have to be invented? No account of unfolding events can be free from the more or less active use of the reporter’s imagination. Private television channels should not be blamed for seeking to augment their revenues, but they, on their side, should not cut too many corners. Nor should they be blamed for seeking credit for providing a useful service provided they do not make lofty moral claims about being the citizen’s shield against the authorities. It should not be too difficult for the citizen to determine what they do in the public interest and what they do for profit and, further, to see that the two are not always convergent.
Stem cell hope for neuro patients
By M H Ahssan
AIIMS Starts Trials For Treatment Of Parkinson’s Disease, Enrols Five Affected People
There may be life beyond dopamine therapy for the six crore-odd Parkinson’s patients in the country. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has recently started stem cell trials for the treatment of Parkinson’s and the neurology department has enrolled five patients for it.
Though in the nascent stage, experts say stem cell treatment is likely to be the preferred treatment mode for neurological disorders like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and the lot in the near future. Stem cell therapy was, in fact, the recurrent theme in the 2nd Asian and Oceanian Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorder Congress and the 7th Asia Pacific Parkinson’s Association organised by AIIMS neurology department some days ago.
Usually extracted from embryos, bone marrow or the umbilical cord, stem cells are primitive, undifferentiated cells that have the ability to grow into any tissue type. They are being hailed as the dream treatment for a wide range of ‘‘incurable’’ diseases. “We have started stem cell trials for the Parkinson’s treatment. It is a long process, where we’ll use bone marrow stem cells harvested from patients. The cells, after being regrown in the lab, will be surgically inserted into the patient’s brain. As we would be using the patient’s own stem cells, there would be no chances of rejection,” said Dr Sumit Singh, associate professor and co-investigator of the stem cell trail at AIIMS. Headed by Dr Madhuri Behari, head of the neurology department, AIIMS, the team started the trial in Jan. “We plan to inject the stem cells back into the patients in the coming month. But it is too early to predict the results,” said Dr Singh.
After Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s is the second most common neuro-degenerative disorder. It is estimated that worldwide 1% people above 65 years and 3% people above the age of 80 are affected by it. “The reason for the disease is not known, but with timely medical intervention, degeneration can be delayed. But factors like genetic composition and environmental toxins are found to be responsible for the disease,” said Dr Behari, the organizing chairperson of the meet. Deliberating on the new trends in the treatment of Parkinson’s, experts cautioned that “hype should be kept aware from hope” as trials are in progress.
Dr Rupam Borgohain, neurologist at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad, who is also experimenting with stem cells in treating Parkinson’s disease, said, “It is definitely the way to go, but it is important to keep hype away from hope. It is in the trial phase and we will have to wait. Stem cell tissues have proved to be beneficial in treating Parkinson’s in a few cases. That us hope to move forward.”
AIIMS Starts Trials For Treatment Of Parkinson’s Disease, Enrols Five Affected People
There may be life beyond dopamine therapy for the six crore-odd Parkinson’s patients in the country. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has recently started stem cell trials for the treatment of Parkinson’s and the neurology department has enrolled five patients for it.
Though in the nascent stage, experts say stem cell treatment is likely to be the preferred treatment mode for neurological disorders like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and the lot in the near future. Stem cell therapy was, in fact, the recurrent theme in the 2nd Asian and Oceanian Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorder Congress and the 7th Asia Pacific Parkinson’s Association organised by AIIMS neurology department some days ago.
Usually extracted from embryos, bone marrow or the umbilical cord, stem cells are primitive, undifferentiated cells that have the ability to grow into any tissue type. They are being hailed as the dream treatment for a wide range of ‘‘incurable’’ diseases. “We have started stem cell trials for the Parkinson’s treatment. It is a long process, where we’ll use bone marrow stem cells harvested from patients. The cells, after being regrown in the lab, will be surgically inserted into the patient’s brain. As we would be using the patient’s own stem cells, there would be no chances of rejection,” said Dr Sumit Singh, associate professor and co-investigator of the stem cell trail at AIIMS. Headed by Dr Madhuri Behari, head of the neurology department, AIIMS, the team started the trial in Jan. “We plan to inject the stem cells back into the patients in the coming month. But it is too early to predict the results,” said Dr Singh.
After Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s is the second most common neuro-degenerative disorder. It is estimated that worldwide 1% people above 65 years and 3% people above the age of 80 are affected by it. “The reason for the disease is not known, but with timely medical intervention, degeneration can be delayed. But factors like genetic composition and environmental toxins are found to be responsible for the disease,” said Dr Behari, the organizing chairperson of the meet. Deliberating on the new trends in the treatment of Parkinson’s, experts cautioned that “hype should be kept aware from hope” as trials are in progress.
Dr Rupam Borgohain, neurologist at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad, who is also experimenting with stem cells in treating Parkinson’s disease, said, “It is definitely the way to go, but it is important to keep hype away from hope. It is in the trial phase and we will have to wait. Stem cell tissues have proved to be beneficial in treating Parkinson’s in a few cases. That us hope to move forward.”
Indian legal regime tough on historical imports
By Kajol Singh
Apart From Customs Duty, Private Collector Has To Get Import Licence For Retrieving National Heritage
The outrage in Parliament over the upcoming auction in New York of Mahatma Gandhi’s spectacles and other personal belongings is ironic. For, the same Parliament that’s indignant now about the Mahatma’s belongings being auctioned off, showed remarkable apathy while allowing an absurd piece of law that has made bringing back anything of “historical interest’’ to the country frustratingly difficult.
According to the rules, if a private collector from India buys any such piece of “historical interest”, the legal regime, far from waiving customs duty for retrieving national heritage, inflicts on him the hassles of obtaining an import licence. Vijay Mallya faced similar hassles when he sought to bring back Tipu Sultan’s sword. So, when the government-appointed expert committee meets this week to discuss the auction of Gandhi’s belongings, it can’t just limit itself to the issue of Gandhi’s scattered heritage. It would do well to find a long-term solution to the recurring problem of import into India of pieces of historical interest or antique value.
There is little awareness of the needless curbs on the import of historical pieces because the thrust of the statutory law, Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972, is to prohibit their export in a bid to end the ageold loot of Indian heritage. The executive slipped while framing the rules and introduced the same curbs on imports of historical or antique items. And our MPs nodded their assent to the subordinate legislation when it came up for Parliament’s ratification. Mridula Mukherjee, a member of the committee and director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, was surprised at this vestige of the licence raj that puts curbs on not just the export but also the import of historical legacy.
“It makes no sense to make it difficult for private collectors to import items of historical value to the nation,” she said, adding, “The committee should examine this anomaly and recommend incentives to those who collect and preserve our heritage.”
Bapu had gifted his glasses to late Nawab Mahabat
Mahatma Gandhi had gifted his round, metal-rimmed glasses, which would come under the hammer along with his other personal belongings at an auction in New York next month, to a British army colonel in the 1930s. Now, a closer look at the auction house Antiquorum Auctioneer’s website reveals that the colonel was none other than the late Junagarh Nawab Mahabat Khan, who had fled to Pakistan after partition. The British used to call him Colonel His Highness Sri Diwan Nawab Sir Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III Rasul Khanji. The auction has provoked outrage across India with Mahatma’s great grandson Tushar Gandhi describing it as “grave insult’’. The auction house recently received a letter of provenance from his great grandson Talat Sahid Khan Babi along with the glasses for auction.
Apart From Customs Duty, Private Collector Has To Get Import Licence For Retrieving National Heritage
The outrage in Parliament over the upcoming auction in New York of Mahatma Gandhi’s spectacles and other personal belongings is ironic. For, the same Parliament that’s indignant now about the Mahatma’s belongings being auctioned off, showed remarkable apathy while allowing an absurd piece of law that has made bringing back anything of “historical interest’’ to the country frustratingly difficult.
According to the rules, if a private collector from India buys any such piece of “historical interest”, the legal regime, far from waiving customs duty for retrieving national heritage, inflicts on him the hassles of obtaining an import licence. Vijay Mallya faced similar hassles when he sought to bring back Tipu Sultan’s sword. So, when the government-appointed expert committee meets this week to discuss the auction of Gandhi’s belongings, it can’t just limit itself to the issue of Gandhi’s scattered heritage. It would do well to find a long-term solution to the recurring problem of import into India of pieces of historical interest or antique value.
There is little awareness of the needless curbs on the import of historical pieces because the thrust of the statutory law, Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972, is to prohibit their export in a bid to end the ageold loot of Indian heritage. The executive slipped while framing the rules and introduced the same curbs on imports of historical or antique items. And our MPs nodded their assent to the subordinate legislation when it came up for Parliament’s ratification. Mridula Mukherjee, a member of the committee and director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, was surprised at this vestige of the licence raj that puts curbs on not just the export but also the import of historical legacy.
“It makes no sense to make it difficult for private collectors to import items of historical value to the nation,” she said, adding, “The committee should examine this anomaly and recommend incentives to those who collect and preserve our heritage.”
Bapu had gifted his glasses to late Nawab Mahabat
Mahatma Gandhi had gifted his round, metal-rimmed glasses, which would come under the hammer along with his other personal belongings at an auction in New York next month, to a British army colonel in the 1930s. Now, a closer look at the auction house Antiquorum Auctioneer’s website reveals that the colonel was none other than the late Junagarh Nawab Mahabat Khan, who had fled to Pakistan after partition. The British used to call him Colonel His Highness Sri Diwan Nawab Sir Muhammad Mahabat Khanji III Rasul Khanji. The auction has provoked outrage across India with Mahatma’s great grandson Tushar Gandhi describing it as “grave insult’’. The auction house recently received a letter of provenance from his great grandson Talat Sahid Khan Babi along with the glasses for auction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)