By M H Ahssan
When the US Congress passed its US$787 billion stimulus package last week, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.
The latest spending, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for Troubled Assets Relief Program 1, $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration, $200 billion for the Term Auction Facility and some $300 billion for mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just over the past six months, which excludes the initial George W Bush administration stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.
Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.
The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.
Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?
Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator John McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.
While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.
The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just this week, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5% in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.
With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the International Monetary Fun and official "approval" for massive naked short positions to be opened by new "bullion" banks.
Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.
Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the US, to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold, will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Economic catastrophe looms
By M H Ahssan
When the US Congress passed its US$787 billion stimulus package last week, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.
The latest spending, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for Troubled Assets Relief Program 1, $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration, $200 billion for the Term Auction Facility and some $300 billion for mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just over the past six months, which excludes the initial George W Bush administration stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.
Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.
The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.
Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?
Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator John McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.
While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.
The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just this week, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5% in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.
With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the International Monetary Fun and official "approval" for massive naked short positions to be opened by new "bullion" banks.
Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.
Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the US, to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold, will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.
When the US Congress passed its US$787 billion stimulus package last week, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.
The latest spending, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for Troubled Assets Relief Program 1, $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration, $200 billion for the Term Auction Facility and some $300 billion for mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just over the past six months, which excludes the initial George W Bush administration stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.
Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.
The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.
Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?
Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator John McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.
While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.
The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just this week, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5% in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.
With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the International Monetary Fun and official "approval" for massive naked short positions to be opened by new "bullion" banks.
Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.
Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the US, to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold, will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.
Economic catastrophe looms
By M H Ahssan
When the US Congress passed its US$787 billion stimulus package last week, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.
The latest spending, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for Troubled Assets Relief Program 1, $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration, $200 billion for the Term Auction Facility and some $300 billion for mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just over the past six months, which excludes the initial George W Bush administration stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.
Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.
The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.
Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?
Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator John McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.
While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.
The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just this week, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5% in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.
With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the International Monetary Fun and official "approval" for massive naked short positions to be opened by new "bullion" banks.
Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.
Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the US, to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold, will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.
When the US Congress passed its US$787 billion stimulus package last week, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.
The latest spending, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for Troubled Assets Relief Program 1, $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration, $200 billion for the Term Auction Facility and some $300 billion for mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just over the past six months, which excludes the initial George W Bush administration stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.
Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.
The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.
Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?
Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator John McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.
While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.
The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just this week, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5% in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.
With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the International Monetary Fun and official "approval" for massive naked short positions to be opened by new "bullion" banks.
Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.
Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the US, to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold, will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.
India's nuclear submarine plan surfaces
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)