By Swati Reddy
Offers Market Price For The Same Land Taken Over By Govt
With the Ranga Reddy district administration resuming 10.24 acres of land from Dr Reddy’s Laboratories at Bachupally as it is an assigned land, the company is now seeking to buy the same piece of land at market rate. The request, however, has been kept pending by the state government.
Dr Reddy’s had purchased the land in survey no 44 of Bachupally village in Qutubullapur mandal from assignees a few years ago. After the district administration found out that it was assigned land, proceedings to resume the land were initiated in 2005. Dr Reddy’s challenged it in court but after the matter went up to the High Court, eventually the district administration resumed it as per rules.
However, the company management has urged the state government to alienate the same land at prevailing market rate — Rs 66 lakh per acre.
The pharmaceutical company had set up its biotech park’s manufacturing facilities at survey nos 41 to 47, 53 and 83 covering about 140 acres at Bachupally a decade ago. The 10.24 acres assigned land in survey no 44 is in the middle of its facilities.
Three months ago, managing director of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Satish Reddy wrote to the Ranga Reddy district collector seeking alienation of the same land as the firm does not want any further fight with the state government over the issue. This after initially the company had challenged the decision before the revenue divisional officer of Chevella division. An appeal was also made to the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district and later the fight was taken to the high court.
“The land can be alienated in public interest. By exporting its products to the US and other European countries and earning about Rs 100 crore worth of foreign exchange every year, the company is acting in public interest. A positive decision also directly helps 350 people working in the unit,’’ Satish Reddy said in his letter.
The revenue department, however, has not taken any decision on the plea.
The land was originally ‘patta’ land which was declared as ‘ceiling surplus land’ after one Pannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad had handed over 51.76 acres to the state government in 1977. It was described as ‘Khariz Khata’ and mentioned in revenue records through ‘Failsal patti’ of the year 1980-81 and pahani for the same year.
Later the land was assigned to 11 landless poor families including one Chakali Sathemma and 10 others. The assignees names were also mentioned in revenue records as ‘Laoni pattedars’ in 1991-92 through ‘Faisal patti’ of the same year.
When contacted, joint collector of RR district M Jagan Mohan said a report was sent to principal secretary of revenue department to take a decision on the request of Satish Reddy.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Dr Reddy’s stuck on assigned land
By Swati Reddy
Offers Market Price For The Same Land Taken Over By Govt
With the Ranga Reddy district administration resuming 10.24 acres of land from Dr Reddy’s Laboratories at Bachupally as it is an assigned land, the company is now seeking to buy the same piece of land at market rate. The request, however, has been kept pending by the state government.
Dr Reddy’s had purchased the land in survey no 44 of Bachupally village in Qutubullapur mandal from assignees a few years ago. After the district administration found out that it was assigned land, proceedings to resume the land were initiated in 2005. Dr Reddy’s challenged it in court but after the matter went up to the High Court, eventually the district administration resumed it as per rules.
However, the company management has urged the state government to alienate the same land at prevailing market rate — Rs 66 lakh per acre.
The pharmaceutical company had set up its biotech park’s manufacturing facilities at survey nos 41 to 47, 53 and 83 covering about 140 acres at Bachupally a decade ago. The 10.24 acres assigned land in survey no 44 is in the middle of its facilities.
Three months ago, managing director of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Satish Reddy wrote to the Ranga Reddy district collector seeking alienation of the same land as the firm does not want any further fight with the state government over the issue. This after initially the company had challenged the decision before the revenue divisional officer of Chevella division. An appeal was also made to the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district and later the fight was taken to the high court.
“The land can be alienated in public interest. By exporting its products to the US and other European countries and earning about Rs 100 crore worth of foreign exchange every year, the company is acting in public interest. A positive decision also directly helps 350 people working in the unit,’’ Satish Reddy said in his letter.
The revenue department, however, has not taken any decision on the plea.
The land was originally ‘patta’ land which was declared as ‘ceiling surplus land’ after one Pannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad had handed over 51.76 acres to the state government in 1977. It was described as ‘Khariz Khata’ and mentioned in revenue records through ‘Failsal patti’ of the year 1980-81 and pahani for the same year.
Later the land was assigned to 11 landless poor families including one Chakali Sathemma and 10 others. The assignees names were also mentioned in revenue records as ‘Laoni pattedars’ in 1991-92 through ‘Faisal patti’ of the same year.
When contacted, joint collector of RR district M Jagan Mohan said a report was sent to principal secretary of revenue department to take a decision on the request of Satish Reddy.
Offers Market Price For The Same Land Taken Over By Govt
With the Ranga Reddy district administration resuming 10.24 acres of land from Dr Reddy’s Laboratories at Bachupally as it is an assigned land, the company is now seeking to buy the same piece of land at market rate. The request, however, has been kept pending by the state government.
Dr Reddy’s had purchased the land in survey no 44 of Bachupally village in Qutubullapur mandal from assignees a few years ago. After the district administration found out that it was assigned land, proceedings to resume the land were initiated in 2005. Dr Reddy’s challenged it in court but after the matter went up to the High Court, eventually the district administration resumed it as per rules.
However, the company management has urged the state government to alienate the same land at prevailing market rate — Rs 66 lakh per acre.
The pharmaceutical company had set up its biotech park’s manufacturing facilities at survey nos 41 to 47, 53 and 83 covering about 140 acres at Bachupally a decade ago. The 10.24 acres assigned land in survey no 44 is in the middle of its facilities.
Three months ago, managing director of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Satish Reddy wrote to the Ranga Reddy district collector seeking alienation of the same land as the firm does not want any further fight with the state government over the issue. This after initially the company had challenged the decision before the revenue divisional officer of Chevella division. An appeal was also made to the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district and later the fight was taken to the high court.
“The land can be alienated in public interest. By exporting its products to the US and other European countries and earning about Rs 100 crore worth of foreign exchange every year, the company is acting in public interest. A positive decision also directly helps 350 people working in the unit,’’ Satish Reddy said in his letter.
The revenue department, however, has not taken any decision on the plea.
The land was originally ‘patta’ land which was declared as ‘ceiling surplus land’ after one Pannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad had handed over 51.76 acres to the state government in 1977. It was described as ‘Khariz Khata’ and mentioned in revenue records through ‘Failsal patti’ of the year 1980-81 and pahani for the same year.
Later the land was assigned to 11 landless poor families including one Chakali Sathemma and 10 others. The assignees names were also mentioned in revenue records as ‘Laoni pattedars’ in 1991-92 through ‘Faisal patti’ of the same year.
When contacted, joint collector of RR district M Jagan Mohan said a report was sent to principal secretary of revenue department to take a decision on the request of Satish Reddy.
Dr Reddy’s stuck on assigned land
By Swati Reddy
Offers Market Price For The Same Land Taken Over By Govt
With the Ranga Reddy district administration resuming 10.24 acres of land from Dr Reddy’s Laboratories at Bachupally as it is an assigned land, the company is now seeking to buy the same piece of land at market rate. The request, however, has been kept pending by the state government.
Dr Reddy’s had purchased the land in survey no 44 of Bachupally village in Qutubullapur mandal from assignees a few years ago. After the district administration found out that it was assigned land, proceedings to resume the land were initiated in 2005. Dr Reddy’s challenged it in court but after the matter went up to the High Court, eventually the district administration resumed it as per rules.
However, the company management has urged the state government to alienate the same land at prevailing market rate — Rs 66 lakh per acre.
The pharmaceutical company had set up its biotech park’s manufacturing facilities at survey nos 41 to 47, 53 and 83 covering about 140 acres at Bachupally a decade ago. The 10.24 acres assigned land in survey no 44 is in the middle of its facilities.
Three months ago, managing director of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Satish Reddy wrote to the Ranga Reddy district collector seeking alienation of the same land as the firm does not want any further fight with the state government over the issue. This after initially the company had challenged the decision before the revenue divisional officer of Chevella division. An appeal was also made to the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district and later the fight was taken to the high court.
“The land can be alienated in public interest. By exporting its products to the US and other European countries and earning about Rs 100 crore worth of foreign exchange every year, the company is acting in public interest. A positive decision also directly helps 350 people working in the unit,’’ Satish Reddy said in his letter.
The revenue department, however, has not taken any decision on the plea.
The land was originally ‘patta’ land which was declared as ‘ceiling surplus land’ after one Pannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad had handed over 51.76 acres to the state government in 1977. It was described as ‘Khariz Khata’ and mentioned in revenue records through ‘Failsal patti’ of the year 1980-81 and pahani for the same year.
Later the land was assigned to 11 landless poor families including one Chakali Sathemma and 10 others. The assignees names were also mentioned in revenue records as ‘Laoni pattedars’ in 1991-92 through ‘Faisal patti’ of the same year.
When contacted, joint collector of RR district M Jagan Mohan said a report was sent to principal secretary of revenue department to take a decision on the request of Satish Reddy.
Offers Market Price For The Same Land Taken Over By Govt
With the Ranga Reddy district administration resuming 10.24 acres of land from Dr Reddy’s Laboratories at Bachupally as it is an assigned land, the company is now seeking to buy the same piece of land at market rate. The request, however, has been kept pending by the state government.
Dr Reddy’s had purchased the land in survey no 44 of Bachupally village in Qutubullapur mandal from assignees a few years ago. After the district administration found out that it was assigned land, proceedings to resume the land were initiated in 2005. Dr Reddy’s challenged it in court but after the matter went up to the High Court, eventually the district administration resumed it as per rules.
However, the company management has urged the state government to alienate the same land at prevailing market rate — Rs 66 lakh per acre.
The pharmaceutical company had set up its biotech park’s manufacturing facilities at survey nos 41 to 47, 53 and 83 covering about 140 acres at Bachupally a decade ago. The 10.24 acres assigned land in survey no 44 is in the middle of its facilities.
Three months ago, managing director of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Satish Reddy wrote to the Ranga Reddy district collector seeking alienation of the same land as the firm does not want any further fight with the state government over the issue. This after initially the company had challenged the decision before the revenue divisional officer of Chevella division. An appeal was also made to the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district and later the fight was taken to the high court.
“The land can be alienated in public interest. By exporting its products to the US and other European countries and earning about Rs 100 crore worth of foreign exchange every year, the company is acting in public interest. A positive decision also directly helps 350 people working in the unit,’’ Satish Reddy said in his letter.
The revenue department, however, has not taken any decision on the plea.
The land was originally ‘patta’ land which was declared as ‘ceiling surplus land’ after one Pannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad had handed over 51.76 acres to the state government in 1977. It was described as ‘Khariz Khata’ and mentioned in revenue records through ‘Failsal patti’ of the year 1980-81 and pahani for the same year.
Later the land was assigned to 11 landless poor families including one Chakali Sathemma and 10 others. The assignees names were also mentioned in revenue records as ‘Laoni pattedars’ in 1991-92 through ‘Faisal patti’ of the same year.
When contacted, joint collector of RR district M Jagan Mohan said a report was sent to principal secretary of revenue department to take a decision on the request of Satish Reddy.
Politics to scorch Tollywood screen
By M H Ahssan
Tollywood stars may have taken to politics and hit the road, but they have not abandoned the silver screen to further political goals. As the momentum picks up for the 2009 elections, former celluloid rivals and now political foes have lined up at least six films to turn political debuts into box-office successes.
Leading the pack is a man whom everyone is familiar as more being behind the scene rather than in front of it. Congress leader, former Union minister and Tollywood director Dasari Narayana Rao, a Kapu, is producing a film titled ‘Mestri’ (labour supervisor) in which he would play the lead role and take on his fellow community superstar and political novice Chiranjeevi.
However, not to be left behind, Chiranjeevi family member Pavan Kalyan is producing ‘Yuvarajyam’ to counter Dasari. Pavan, who is the president of the youth wing of Prajarajyam, will play the lead role and to portray his rivals as corrupt and indifferent to social justice.
To take on chief minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, Prajarajyam has lined up Posani Murali Krishna, who is producing a film titled ‘Rajavari Chepala Cheruvu’ (royal fish pond). The film intends to project corruption in the YSR regime. But with several thespians under its belt, can the Congress be expected to keep quiet. Sources said veteran actor G Krishna and his wife Vijayanirmala are readying a film which will speak of the glorious years of development of the state under Rajasekhara Reddy.
Another hero Srikant, who acted with Chiranjeevi in the hit ‘Shankardada MBBS,’ is to make a film titled ‘Mahatma’ in which the virtues of the hero (read Chiranjeevi) would be glorified. Another actor Jagapathibabu is giving indications that he too might not be averse to joining politics. His film ‘Adhineta’is scheduled to convey the message that even a common man can become chief minister.
The only family which appears to be immersed in political roadshows and taken a break from Tollywood is the NTR clan. For the electorate though, it is going to be politics on the screen and Tollywood on the streets.
Tollywood stars may have taken to politics and hit the road, but they have not abandoned the silver screen to further political goals. As the momentum picks up for the 2009 elections, former celluloid rivals and now political foes have lined up at least six films to turn political debuts into box-office successes.
Leading the pack is a man whom everyone is familiar as more being behind the scene rather than in front of it. Congress leader, former Union minister and Tollywood director Dasari Narayana Rao, a Kapu, is producing a film titled ‘Mestri’ (labour supervisor) in which he would play the lead role and take on his fellow community superstar and political novice Chiranjeevi.
However, not to be left behind, Chiranjeevi family member Pavan Kalyan is producing ‘Yuvarajyam’ to counter Dasari. Pavan, who is the president of the youth wing of Prajarajyam, will play the lead role and to portray his rivals as corrupt and indifferent to social justice.
To take on chief minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, Prajarajyam has lined up Posani Murali Krishna, who is producing a film titled ‘Rajavari Chepala Cheruvu’ (royal fish pond). The film intends to project corruption in the YSR regime. But with several thespians under its belt, can the Congress be expected to keep quiet. Sources said veteran actor G Krishna and his wife Vijayanirmala are readying a film which will speak of the glorious years of development of the state under Rajasekhara Reddy.
Another hero Srikant, who acted with Chiranjeevi in the hit ‘Shankardada MBBS,’ is to make a film titled ‘Mahatma’ in which the virtues of the hero (read Chiranjeevi) would be glorified. Another actor Jagapathibabu is giving indications that he too might not be averse to joining politics. His film ‘Adhineta’is scheduled to convey the message that even a common man can become chief minister.
The only family which appears to be immersed in political roadshows and taken a break from Tollywood is the NTR clan. For the electorate though, it is going to be politics on the screen and Tollywood on the streets.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama, Osama and Medvedev
By M H Ahssan & Sarah Williams
For those who harbored any doubts, the Barack Obama administration's adoption of the George W Bush framework of the "war on terror" - it does feel like a back-to-the-future "continuity" - here are two key facts on the ground.
Obama has officially started his much-touted Afghanistan surge, authorizing the deployment of 17,000 US troops (8,000 marines, 4,000 army and 5,000 support) mostly to the Pashtun-dominated, southern Helmand province. Justification: "The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention." The marines start arriving in Afghanistan in May. Their mission is as hazy as it is hazardous: eradication of the poppy culture, the source of heroin (which accounts for almost 40% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product). There are already 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus 18,000 as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 50,000 contingent.
Obama administration nominees, in confirmation testimony that seemed to have disappeared in a black hole, stressed they are in favor of continuing the Central Intelligence Agency's extraordinary rendition practices and detaining - ad infinitum - "terror" suspects without trial, even if they were captured far, far away from a war zone. (Considering the Pentagon's elastic definition of an "arc of instability", this means anywhere from Somalia to Xinjiang.) That has prompted New York Times writers to come up with a delightful headline: "Obama's War on Terror May resemble Bush's in some Areas."
When in doubt, bomb 'em
Basically, the Obama administration's strategy - for now - boils down to turbo-charging a war against Pashtun farmers and peasants. Poppy cultivation has been part of Afghan culture for centuries. A high-tech aerial war on destitute peasants will have only one certified result: more of them increasing their support for, or outright migration to, the multi-faceted fight against foreign occupation which the Pentagon insists on defining as an "insurgency".
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama defined the key goal of the "mission" in Afghanistan (promoted to "the central front in the war on terror") as capturing Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership. There's no evidence whatsoever that Osama is involved in the heroin trade. There's also scant evidence the sprawling, sophisticated US surveillance system is interested in actually finding Osama. After all, that would remove the only "war on terror" rationale for the US to be semi-occupying Afghanistan.
Plus there's no evidence these extra 17,000 troops are going after Osama in Helmand province. Assuming he has not gone to meet his 72 virgins in eternal bliss, Osama is supposed to be holed up in Parachinar, in Kurram province, at least according to the latest guess circulating among the vast legion of Osama watchers; this one is by University of California Los Angeles' Thomas Gillespie in the magazine Foreign Policy.
Before the legion starts swamping Google Earth with frantic searches, it's worth noting that by a quirky twist of history, Parachinar happens to be the same dusty village Osama and a few al-Qaeda operatives escaped to from a B-52-bombed Tora Bora in early December 2001 - when the neo-cons were already salivating with the prospect of bombing not empty mountains but "target-rich" Iraq.
In fact, since the fabled escape to Parachinar in late 2001 there has been absolutely no credible intelligence on Osama. Obama's new poppy gambit does bypass Osama. So it's fair to assume Obama has not been presented by the US national security apparatus with any new intelligence breakthrough - not to mention pure and simple on-the-ground basic intelligence, as bombing peasants and farmers to oblivion with Predator drones in Helmand is not exactly the best strategy to seduce them into collaborating with the US in finding those al-Qaeda ghosts, as it has been amply demonstrated in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Of course, in all this charade there's never a slight mention in the US - even in passing - of why Afghanistan matters: as a transit node of Pipelineistan - that is, the key Caspian oil and gas branch of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Compared to the real game, the monochromatic Washington rhetoric of "winning Afghanistan for democracy" does not even qualify as a joke.
Moscow to the rescue
The 1,600-kilometer Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line envisioned by the US and NATO is for all practical purposes dead - thanks to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics of neo-Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas, and not Osama and his al-Qaeda ghosts.
Last week, Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke was duly welcomed in Kabul - the day before he arrived - with a group of suicide bombers and gunmen raising hell in the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57 and paralyzing the capital. This came after Kyrgyzstan had given Washington a six-month notice to pack up and leave the Manas air base contiguous to Bishkek's civilian airport. Yet more evidence that Central Asia now listens primarily to Moscow, not Washington.
What was not reported was how General David "Iraq surge" Petraeus - a man who calculates his each and every move in terms of ideal positioning for a 2012 presidential run - had rings run around him by those wily Russians. Petraeus told Obama in person on January 21, the day after the inauguration, that the US supply lines in Central Asia were totally secure. Obviously, he forgot to factor in a subsequent regional charm offensive by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, which established exactly the opposite.
In the end, transit salvation for the US and NATO is indeed coming from no one else but Russia - but on Moscow's terms: this means Russia possibly using its own military planes to airlift the supplies. A deceptively charming Medvedev has been on the record identifying "very positive signs" in the new US-Russia chess match. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been on the record saying transit of US and NATO non-military supplies through Russia begins in effect only a few days after the 20th anniversary of the Soviets leaving Kabul.
Obama for his part would have little to lose by listening to the man who was in command at the time - retired Lieutenant General Boris Gromov. Gromov - speaking from personal experience - has said Obama's surge is doomed to fail: "One can increase the forces or not - it won't lead to anything but a negative result."
The price for the US and NATO to have their Afghan supplies arrive via Russia is clear: no more encirclement, no more NATO extension, no more anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland for protection against non-existent Iranian missiles. All this has to be negotiated in detail. Russian media have reported Medvedev wants a summit with Obama in Moscow - with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obviously at the table. But that still seems far-fetched; what will happen in Geneva in March is a meeting between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Assuming Medvedev has indeed given Obama a tremendous success story - in terms of a new transit route to Afghanistan - a pesky question remains; what is, after all, the US mission? It can't be nation-building; successive US administrations never cared about Afghanistan except as a sideshow. It can't be to "secure" the country and prevent it from becoming a base for attacks on the US because - as much as Russia, alongside the US, doesn't want a Talibanized Afghanistan - if there ever was a "base" it's now in the Pakistani tribal areas.
The best of it all - as usual - is left unsaid. Washington cannot admit that its only real interest in Afghanistan is as a transit corridor for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (the TAPI pipeline). Moscow cannot admit that the opportunity of helping the US to be bogged down in Afghanistan for a few more years is too good to pass.
And it gets better.
In the unlikely event Obama and Medvedev decide not to tango, the only other realistic possibility for the US/NATO to have a new supply route would be by courting Iran. Practically, that would mean a very long route from Turkey through Turkish/Iranian Kurdistan, Iran and then Kabul. A very convenient, shorter route would be from an Iranian port, say Bandar Abbas, and then into Afghanistan.
It's obvious that to play chess with Russia is much easier for the Obama administration than to play with Iran. In this case, to get what it needs, the US would have to forcefully end once and for all the three-decades-long "wall of mistrust" between Washington and Tehran; it would have to terminate the sanctions and the embargo; it would have to renounce regime change in Tehran; and it would even have to allow Iran to develop its civilian nuclear program, to which it has a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
The Obama administration also would have to face unimaginable pressure from the Israeli hard right - from Likud supremo Bibi Netanyahu to the hardline, former Moldova bouncer Avigdor Lieberman - and their minions operating in the Israel lobby in Washington.
Iran is getting closer and closer to Russia. Russia currently holds the presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - the Eurasian answer to NATO not only in terms of security but also in the economic and energy spheres. The SCO unites Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran and Pakistan as observers. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran has officially addressed SCO members and expects its observer status to be finally upgraded to full membership during Russia's chairmanship period."
This is what it's all about in Eurasia - the inexorable march of Asian integration, via the Asian Energy Security Grid and, in security terms, via the SCO. Both China and Russia are deeply connected with Iran. China has signed mega-multibillion dollar deals to be supplied by Iranian oil and gas while selling weapons and myriad goods; and Russia is bound to sell more weapons and is already selling nuclear energy technology. All this while Washington is focused on bombing Pashtun peasants and chasing the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
For those who harbored any doubts, the Barack Obama administration's adoption of the George W Bush framework of the "war on terror" - it does feel like a back-to-the-future "continuity" - here are two key facts on the ground.
Obama has officially started his much-touted Afghanistan surge, authorizing the deployment of 17,000 US troops (8,000 marines, 4,000 army and 5,000 support) mostly to the Pashtun-dominated, southern Helmand province. Justification: "The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention." The marines start arriving in Afghanistan in May. Their mission is as hazy as it is hazardous: eradication of the poppy culture, the source of heroin (which accounts for almost 40% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product). There are already 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus 18,000 as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 50,000 contingent.
Obama administration nominees, in confirmation testimony that seemed to have disappeared in a black hole, stressed they are in favor of continuing the Central Intelligence Agency's extraordinary rendition practices and detaining - ad infinitum - "terror" suspects without trial, even if they were captured far, far away from a war zone. (Considering the Pentagon's elastic definition of an "arc of instability", this means anywhere from Somalia to Xinjiang.) That has prompted New York Times writers to come up with a delightful headline: "Obama's War on Terror May resemble Bush's in some Areas."
When in doubt, bomb 'em
Basically, the Obama administration's strategy - for now - boils down to turbo-charging a war against Pashtun farmers and peasants. Poppy cultivation has been part of Afghan culture for centuries. A high-tech aerial war on destitute peasants will have only one certified result: more of them increasing their support for, or outright migration to, the multi-faceted fight against foreign occupation which the Pentagon insists on defining as an "insurgency".
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama defined the key goal of the "mission" in Afghanistan (promoted to "the central front in the war on terror") as capturing Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership. There's no evidence whatsoever that Osama is involved in the heroin trade. There's also scant evidence the sprawling, sophisticated US surveillance system is interested in actually finding Osama. After all, that would remove the only "war on terror" rationale for the US to be semi-occupying Afghanistan.
Plus there's no evidence these extra 17,000 troops are going after Osama in Helmand province. Assuming he has not gone to meet his 72 virgins in eternal bliss, Osama is supposed to be holed up in Parachinar, in Kurram province, at least according to the latest guess circulating among the vast legion of Osama watchers; this one is by University of California Los Angeles' Thomas Gillespie in the magazine Foreign Policy.
Before the legion starts swamping Google Earth with frantic searches, it's worth noting that by a quirky twist of history, Parachinar happens to be the same dusty village Osama and a few al-Qaeda operatives escaped to from a B-52-bombed Tora Bora in early December 2001 - when the neo-cons were already salivating with the prospect of bombing not empty mountains but "target-rich" Iraq.
In fact, since the fabled escape to Parachinar in late 2001 there has been absolutely no credible intelligence on Osama. Obama's new poppy gambit does bypass Osama. So it's fair to assume Obama has not been presented by the US national security apparatus with any new intelligence breakthrough - not to mention pure and simple on-the-ground basic intelligence, as bombing peasants and farmers to oblivion with Predator drones in Helmand is not exactly the best strategy to seduce them into collaborating with the US in finding those al-Qaeda ghosts, as it has been amply demonstrated in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Of course, in all this charade there's never a slight mention in the US - even in passing - of why Afghanistan matters: as a transit node of Pipelineistan - that is, the key Caspian oil and gas branch of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Compared to the real game, the monochromatic Washington rhetoric of "winning Afghanistan for democracy" does not even qualify as a joke.
Moscow to the rescue
The 1,600-kilometer Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line envisioned by the US and NATO is for all practical purposes dead - thanks to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics of neo-Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas, and not Osama and his al-Qaeda ghosts.
Last week, Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke was duly welcomed in Kabul - the day before he arrived - with a group of suicide bombers and gunmen raising hell in the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57 and paralyzing the capital. This came after Kyrgyzstan had given Washington a six-month notice to pack up and leave the Manas air base contiguous to Bishkek's civilian airport. Yet more evidence that Central Asia now listens primarily to Moscow, not Washington.
What was not reported was how General David "Iraq surge" Petraeus - a man who calculates his each and every move in terms of ideal positioning for a 2012 presidential run - had rings run around him by those wily Russians. Petraeus told Obama in person on January 21, the day after the inauguration, that the US supply lines in Central Asia were totally secure. Obviously, he forgot to factor in a subsequent regional charm offensive by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, which established exactly the opposite.
In the end, transit salvation for the US and NATO is indeed coming from no one else but Russia - but on Moscow's terms: this means Russia possibly using its own military planes to airlift the supplies. A deceptively charming Medvedev has been on the record identifying "very positive signs" in the new US-Russia chess match. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been on the record saying transit of US and NATO non-military supplies through Russia begins in effect only a few days after the 20th anniversary of the Soviets leaving Kabul.
Obama for his part would have little to lose by listening to the man who was in command at the time - retired Lieutenant General Boris Gromov. Gromov - speaking from personal experience - has said Obama's surge is doomed to fail: "One can increase the forces or not - it won't lead to anything but a negative result."
The price for the US and NATO to have their Afghan supplies arrive via Russia is clear: no more encirclement, no more NATO extension, no more anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland for protection against non-existent Iranian missiles. All this has to be negotiated in detail. Russian media have reported Medvedev wants a summit with Obama in Moscow - with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obviously at the table. But that still seems far-fetched; what will happen in Geneva in March is a meeting between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Assuming Medvedev has indeed given Obama a tremendous success story - in terms of a new transit route to Afghanistan - a pesky question remains; what is, after all, the US mission? It can't be nation-building; successive US administrations never cared about Afghanistan except as a sideshow. It can't be to "secure" the country and prevent it from becoming a base for attacks on the US because - as much as Russia, alongside the US, doesn't want a Talibanized Afghanistan - if there ever was a "base" it's now in the Pakistani tribal areas.
The best of it all - as usual - is left unsaid. Washington cannot admit that its only real interest in Afghanistan is as a transit corridor for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (the TAPI pipeline). Moscow cannot admit that the opportunity of helping the US to be bogged down in Afghanistan for a few more years is too good to pass.
And it gets better.
In the unlikely event Obama and Medvedev decide not to tango, the only other realistic possibility for the US/NATO to have a new supply route would be by courting Iran. Practically, that would mean a very long route from Turkey through Turkish/Iranian Kurdistan, Iran and then Kabul. A very convenient, shorter route would be from an Iranian port, say Bandar Abbas, and then into Afghanistan.
It's obvious that to play chess with Russia is much easier for the Obama administration than to play with Iran. In this case, to get what it needs, the US would have to forcefully end once and for all the three-decades-long "wall of mistrust" between Washington and Tehran; it would have to terminate the sanctions and the embargo; it would have to renounce regime change in Tehran; and it would even have to allow Iran to develop its civilian nuclear program, to which it has a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
The Obama administration also would have to face unimaginable pressure from the Israeli hard right - from Likud supremo Bibi Netanyahu to the hardline, former Moldova bouncer Avigdor Lieberman - and their minions operating in the Israel lobby in Washington.
Iran is getting closer and closer to Russia. Russia currently holds the presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - the Eurasian answer to NATO not only in terms of security but also in the economic and energy spheres. The SCO unites Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran and Pakistan as observers. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran has officially addressed SCO members and expects its observer status to be finally upgraded to full membership during Russia's chairmanship period."
This is what it's all about in Eurasia - the inexorable march of Asian integration, via the Asian Energy Security Grid and, in security terms, via the SCO. Both China and Russia are deeply connected with Iran. China has signed mega-multibillion dollar deals to be supplied by Iranian oil and gas while selling weapons and myriad goods; and Russia is bound to sell more weapons and is already selling nuclear energy technology. All this while Washington is focused on bombing Pashtun peasants and chasing the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
Obama, Osama and Medvedev
By M H Ahssan & Sarah Williams
For those who harbored any doubts, the Barack Obama administration's adoption of the George W Bush framework of the "war on terror" - it does feel like a back-to-the-future "continuity" - here are two key facts on the ground.
Obama has officially started his much-touted Afghanistan surge, authorizing the deployment of 17,000 US troops (8,000 marines, 4,000 army and 5,000 support) mostly to the Pashtun-dominated, southern Helmand province. Justification: "The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention." The marines start arriving in Afghanistan in May. Their mission is as hazy as it is hazardous: eradication of the poppy culture, the source of heroin (which accounts for almost 40% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product). There are already 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus 18,000 as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 50,000 contingent.
Obama administration nominees, in confirmation testimony that seemed to have disappeared in a black hole, stressed they are in favor of continuing the Central Intelligence Agency's extraordinary rendition practices and detaining - ad infinitum - "terror" suspects without trial, even if they were captured far, far away from a war zone. (Considering the Pentagon's elastic definition of an "arc of instability", this means anywhere from Somalia to Xinjiang.) That has prompted New York Times writers to come up with a delightful headline: "Obama's War on Terror May resemble Bush's in some Areas."
When in doubt, bomb 'em
Basically, the Obama administration's strategy - for now - boils down to turbo-charging a war against Pashtun farmers and peasants. Poppy cultivation has been part of Afghan culture for centuries. A high-tech aerial war on destitute peasants will have only one certified result: more of them increasing their support for, or outright migration to, the multi-faceted fight against foreign occupation which the Pentagon insists on defining as an "insurgency".
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama defined the key goal of the "mission" in Afghanistan (promoted to "the central front in the war on terror") as capturing Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership. There's no evidence whatsoever that Osama is involved in the heroin trade. There's also scant evidence the sprawling, sophisticated US surveillance system is interested in actually finding Osama. After all, that would remove the only "war on terror" rationale for the US to be semi-occupying Afghanistan.
Plus there's no evidence these extra 17,000 troops are going after Osama in Helmand province. Assuming he has not gone to meet his 72 virgins in eternal bliss, Osama is supposed to be holed up in Parachinar, in Kurram province, at least according to the latest guess circulating among the vast legion of Osama watchers; this one is by University of California Los Angeles' Thomas Gillespie in the magazine Foreign Policy.
Before the legion starts swamping Google Earth with frantic searches, it's worth noting that by a quirky twist of history, Parachinar happens to be the same dusty village Osama and a few al-Qaeda operatives escaped to from a B-52-bombed Tora Bora in early December 2001 - when the neo-cons were already salivating with the prospect of bombing not empty mountains but "target-rich" Iraq.
In fact, since the fabled escape to Parachinar in late 2001 there has been absolutely no credible intelligence on Osama. Obama's new poppy gambit does bypass Osama. So it's fair to assume Obama has not been presented by the US national security apparatus with any new intelligence breakthrough - not to mention pure and simple on-the-ground basic intelligence, as bombing peasants and farmers to oblivion with Predator drones in Helmand is not exactly the best strategy to seduce them into collaborating with the US in finding those al-Qaeda ghosts, as it has been amply demonstrated in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Of course, in all this charade there's never a slight mention in the US - even in passing - of why Afghanistan matters: as a transit node of Pipelineistan - that is, the key Caspian oil and gas branch of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Compared to the real game, the monochromatic Washington rhetoric of "winning Afghanistan for democracy" does not even qualify as a joke.
Moscow to the rescue
The 1,600-kilometer Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line envisioned by the US and NATO is for all practical purposes dead - thanks to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics of neo-Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas, and not Osama and his al-Qaeda ghosts.
Last week, Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke was duly welcomed in Kabul - the day before he arrived - with a group of suicide bombers and gunmen raising hell in the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57 and paralyzing the capital. This came after Kyrgyzstan had given Washington a six-month notice to pack up and leave the Manas air base contiguous to Bishkek's civilian airport. Yet more evidence that Central Asia now listens primarily to Moscow, not Washington.
What was not reported was how General David "Iraq surge" Petraeus - a man who calculates his each and every move in terms of ideal positioning for a 2012 presidential run - had rings run around him by those wily Russians. Petraeus told Obama in person on January 21, the day after the inauguration, that the US supply lines in Central Asia were totally secure. Obviously, he forgot to factor in a subsequent regional charm offensive by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, which established exactly the opposite.
In the end, transit salvation for the US and NATO is indeed coming from no one else but Russia - but on Moscow's terms: this means Russia possibly using its own military planes to airlift the supplies. A deceptively charming Medvedev has been on the record identifying "very positive signs" in the new US-Russia chess match. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been on the record saying transit of US and NATO non-military supplies through Russia begins in effect only a few days after the 20th anniversary of the Soviets leaving Kabul.
Obama for his part would have little to lose by listening to the man who was in command at the time - retired Lieutenant General Boris Gromov. Gromov - speaking from personal experience - has said Obama's surge is doomed to fail: "One can increase the forces or not - it won't lead to anything but a negative result."
The price for the US and NATO to have their Afghan supplies arrive via Russia is clear: no more encirclement, no more NATO extension, no more anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland for protection against non-existent Iranian missiles. All this has to be negotiated in detail. Russian media have reported Medvedev wants a summit with Obama in Moscow - with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obviously at the table. But that still seems far-fetched; what will happen in Geneva in March is a meeting between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Assuming Medvedev has indeed given Obama a tremendous success story - in terms of a new transit route to Afghanistan - a pesky question remains; what is, after all, the US mission? It can't be nation-building; successive US administrations never cared about Afghanistan except as a sideshow. It can't be to "secure" the country and prevent it from becoming a base for attacks on the US because - as much as Russia, alongside the US, doesn't want a Talibanized Afghanistan - if there ever was a "base" it's now in the Pakistani tribal areas.
The best of it all - as usual - is left unsaid. Washington cannot admit that its only real interest in Afghanistan is as a transit corridor for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (the TAPI pipeline). Moscow cannot admit that the opportunity of helping the US to be bogged down in Afghanistan for a few more years is too good to pass.
And it gets better.
In the unlikely event Obama and Medvedev decide not to tango, the only other realistic possibility for the US/NATO to have a new supply route would be by courting Iran. Practically, that would mean a very long route from Turkey through Turkish/Iranian Kurdistan, Iran and then Kabul. A very convenient, shorter route would be from an Iranian port, say Bandar Abbas, and then into Afghanistan.
It's obvious that to play chess with Russia is much easier for the Obama administration than to play with Iran. In this case, to get what it needs, the US would have to forcefully end once and for all the three-decades-long "wall of mistrust" between Washington and Tehran; it would have to terminate the sanctions and the embargo; it would have to renounce regime change in Tehran; and it would even have to allow Iran to develop its civilian nuclear program, to which it has a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
The Obama administration also would have to face unimaginable pressure from the Israeli hard right - from Likud supremo Bibi Netanyahu to the hardline, former Moldova bouncer Avigdor Lieberman - and their minions operating in the Israel lobby in Washington.
Iran is getting closer and closer to Russia. Russia currently holds the presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - the Eurasian answer to NATO not only in terms of security but also in the economic and energy spheres. The SCO unites Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran and Pakistan as observers. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran has officially addressed SCO members and expects its observer status to be finally upgraded to full membership during Russia's chairmanship period."
This is what it's all about in Eurasia - the inexorable march of Asian integration, via the Asian Energy Security Grid and, in security terms, via the SCO. Both China and Russia are deeply connected with Iran. China has signed mega-multibillion dollar deals to be supplied by Iranian oil and gas while selling weapons and myriad goods; and Russia is bound to sell more weapons and is already selling nuclear energy technology. All this while Washington is focused on bombing Pashtun peasants and chasing the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
For those who harbored any doubts, the Barack Obama administration's adoption of the George W Bush framework of the "war on terror" - it does feel like a back-to-the-future "continuity" - here are two key facts on the ground.
Obama has officially started his much-touted Afghanistan surge, authorizing the deployment of 17,000 US troops (8,000 marines, 4,000 army and 5,000 support) mostly to the Pashtun-dominated, southern Helmand province. Justification: "The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention." The marines start arriving in Afghanistan in May. Their mission is as hazy as it is hazardous: eradication of the poppy culture, the source of heroin (which accounts for almost 40% of Afghanistan's gross domestic product). There are already 38,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus 18,000 as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 50,000 contingent.
Obama administration nominees, in confirmation testimony that seemed to have disappeared in a black hole, stressed they are in favor of continuing the Central Intelligence Agency's extraordinary rendition practices and detaining - ad infinitum - "terror" suspects without trial, even if they were captured far, far away from a war zone. (Considering the Pentagon's elastic definition of an "arc of instability", this means anywhere from Somalia to Xinjiang.) That has prompted New York Times writers to come up with a delightful headline: "Obama's War on Terror May resemble Bush's in some Areas."
When in doubt, bomb 'em
Basically, the Obama administration's strategy - for now - boils down to turbo-charging a war against Pashtun farmers and peasants. Poppy cultivation has been part of Afghan culture for centuries. A high-tech aerial war on destitute peasants will have only one certified result: more of them increasing their support for, or outright migration to, the multi-faceted fight against foreign occupation which the Pentagon insists on defining as an "insurgency".
Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama defined the key goal of the "mission" in Afghanistan (promoted to "the central front in the war on terror") as capturing Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership. There's no evidence whatsoever that Osama is involved in the heroin trade. There's also scant evidence the sprawling, sophisticated US surveillance system is interested in actually finding Osama. After all, that would remove the only "war on terror" rationale for the US to be semi-occupying Afghanistan.
Plus there's no evidence these extra 17,000 troops are going after Osama in Helmand province. Assuming he has not gone to meet his 72 virgins in eternal bliss, Osama is supposed to be holed up in Parachinar, in Kurram province, at least according to the latest guess circulating among the vast legion of Osama watchers; this one is by University of California Los Angeles' Thomas Gillespie in the magazine Foreign Policy.
Before the legion starts swamping Google Earth with frantic searches, it's worth noting that by a quirky twist of history, Parachinar happens to be the same dusty village Osama and a few al-Qaeda operatives escaped to from a B-52-bombed Tora Bora in early December 2001 - when the neo-cons were already salivating with the prospect of bombing not empty mountains but "target-rich" Iraq.
In fact, since the fabled escape to Parachinar in late 2001 there has been absolutely no credible intelligence on Osama. Obama's new poppy gambit does bypass Osama. So it's fair to assume Obama has not been presented by the US national security apparatus with any new intelligence breakthrough - not to mention pure and simple on-the-ground basic intelligence, as bombing peasants and farmers to oblivion with Predator drones in Helmand is not exactly the best strategy to seduce them into collaborating with the US in finding those al-Qaeda ghosts, as it has been amply demonstrated in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Of course, in all this charade there's never a slight mention in the US - even in passing - of why Afghanistan matters: as a transit node of Pipelineistan - that is, the key Caspian oil and gas branch of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Compared to the real game, the monochromatic Washington rhetoric of "winning Afghanistan for democracy" does not even qualify as a joke.
Moscow to the rescue
The 1,600-kilometer Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line envisioned by the US and NATO is for all practical purposes dead - thanks to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics of neo-Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas, and not Osama and his al-Qaeda ghosts.
Last week, Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke was duly welcomed in Kabul - the day before he arrived - with a group of suicide bombers and gunmen raising hell in the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57 and paralyzing the capital. This came after Kyrgyzstan had given Washington a six-month notice to pack up and leave the Manas air base contiguous to Bishkek's civilian airport. Yet more evidence that Central Asia now listens primarily to Moscow, not Washington.
What was not reported was how General David "Iraq surge" Petraeus - a man who calculates his each and every move in terms of ideal positioning for a 2012 presidential run - had rings run around him by those wily Russians. Petraeus told Obama in person on January 21, the day after the inauguration, that the US supply lines in Central Asia were totally secure. Obviously, he forgot to factor in a subsequent regional charm offensive by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, which established exactly the opposite.
In the end, transit salvation for the US and NATO is indeed coming from no one else but Russia - but on Moscow's terms: this means Russia possibly using its own military planes to airlift the supplies. A deceptively charming Medvedev has been on the record identifying "very positive signs" in the new US-Russia chess match. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been on the record saying transit of US and NATO non-military supplies through Russia begins in effect only a few days after the 20th anniversary of the Soviets leaving Kabul.
Obama for his part would have little to lose by listening to the man who was in command at the time - retired Lieutenant General Boris Gromov. Gromov - speaking from personal experience - has said Obama's surge is doomed to fail: "One can increase the forces or not - it won't lead to anything but a negative result."
The price for the US and NATO to have their Afghan supplies arrive via Russia is clear: no more encirclement, no more NATO extension, no more anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland for protection against non-existent Iranian missiles. All this has to be negotiated in detail. Russian media have reported Medvedev wants a summit with Obama in Moscow - with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obviously at the table. But that still seems far-fetched; what will happen in Geneva in March is a meeting between Lavrov and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Assuming Medvedev has indeed given Obama a tremendous success story - in terms of a new transit route to Afghanistan - a pesky question remains; what is, after all, the US mission? It can't be nation-building; successive US administrations never cared about Afghanistan except as a sideshow. It can't be to "secure" the country and prevent it from becoming a base for attacks on the US because - as much as Russia, alongside the US, doesn't want a Talibanized Afghanistan - if there ever was a "base" it's now in the Pakistani tribal areas.
The best of it all - as usual - is left unsaid. Washington cannot admit that its only real interest in Afghanistan is as a transit corridor for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (the TAPI pipeline). Moscow cannot admit that the opportunity of helping the US to be bogged down in Afghanistan for a few more years is too good to pass.
And it gets better.
In the unlikely event Obama and Medvedev decide not to tango, the only other realistic possibility for the US/NATO to have a new supply route would be by courting Iran. Practically, that would mean a very long route from Turkey through Turkish/Iranian Kurdistan, Iran and then Kabul. A very convenient, shorter route would be from an Iranian port, say Bandar Abbas, and then into Afghanistan.
It's obvious that to play chess with Russia is much easier for the Obama administration than to play with Iran. In this case, to get what it needs, the US would have to forcefully end once and for all the three-decades-long "wall of mistrust" between Washington and Tehran; it would have to terminate the sanctions and the embargo; it would have to renounce regime change in Tehran; and it would even have to allow Iran to develop its civilian nuclear program, to which it has a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory.
The Obama administration also would have to face unimaginable pressure from the Israeli hard right - from Likud supremo Bibi Netanyahu to the hardline, former Moldova bouncer Avigdor Lieberman - and their minions operating in the Israel lobby in Washington.
Iran is getting closer and closer to Russia. Russia currently holds the presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - the Eurasian answer to NATO not only in terms of security but also in the economic and energy spheres. The SCO unites Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, with Iran and Pakistan as observers. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran has officially addressed SCO members and expects its observer status to be finally upgraded to full membership during Russia's chairmanship period."
This is what it's all about in Eurasia - the inexorable march of Asian integration, via the Asian Energy Security Grid and, in security terms, via the SCO. Both China and Russia are deeply connected with Iran. China has signed mega-multibillion dollar deals to be supplied by Iranian oil and gas while selling weapons and myriad goods; and Russia is bound to sell more weapons and is already selling nuclear energy technology. All this while Washington is focused on bombing Pashtun peasants and chasing the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
Succession worries unsettle Tibetans
By M H Ahssan
Living in exile for nearly half a century, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is now 73. Tibetans in exile are becoming increasingly concerned with the issue of his succession and their future after the passage of the spiritual leader.
Hospitalized recently, living in semi-retirement from the Tibetan movement to let the elected Tibetan government control daily affairs, the health and future of the Dalai Lama is fodder for speculation. Many, especially those from older generations, are afraid that once the Dalai Lama passes away the Tibetan movement will lose steam and gradually fade from the international spotlight.
The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile here since fleeing Tibet after a failed armed rebellion against Chinese rule in March 1959, says he feels attached to the northern India state where he lives. "I have spent most of my life in this hill station. Now I feel like a citizen of Himachal Pradesh," the Dalai Lama said.
The spiritual leader of Tibetans in exile and at home who also leads the Tibetan government in exile is highly respected internationally. A Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama was also listed as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world by Newsweek. During his recent tour of Europe, the Dalai Lama was presented with honorary citizenship in Rome and granted the German Media Prize.
The Dalai Lama's fame, charm and high-profile international activities have helped make the Tibetan movement known to the world and win wide international support. Many Tibetans in exile also believe that it is the Dalai Lama who spiritually sustains their dream of returning to their homeland one day.
Therefore, many Tibetans in exile are worried that without him, the Tibet movement may gradually become forgotten by the world as his successor, if there is one, might not be able to make the same strides.
Older generations believe that following tradition, the Dalai Lama's successor must be a boy, the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. So it will take time for the next Dalai Lama to take up leadership and engage in international activities. But this is a topic too sacred for older Tibetans to talk about, and they are afraid of making any comment when asked.
Tibetan elders in exile simply believe that “His Holiness will make the right decision on choosing his successor which will benefit the future of Tibetans in exile and in Tibet".
But some young Tibetans in exile, who seek "full Tibet independence" and increasingly see the Dalai Lama's "middle way" as a constraint on their radical thinking and action, may feel freer to pursue their goal through more drastic means once the Dalai Lama passes away. These young radical Tibetans in exile, represented by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), have become increasingly discontent with the Dalai Lama's approach to seeking autonomy instead of independence for the Himalayan region, though spiritually they still hold the Dalai Lama in esteem.
Although the Chinese government has labeled the Dalai Lama a traitor intent on fomenting violent unrest in Tibet with the ambition of achieving independence, the Dalai Lama has not given up his middle-way approach and has made every attempt to hold a dialogue. Although he has admitted that his faith in the Chinese government is becoming thinner and thinner.
Compared with other active Tibetan organizations in exile, TYC has a clearcut goal - rangzen (full independence) - on its agenda. Thus it states that while its members will feel sad about the passage of the Dalai Lama, they will continue to fight for their freedom.
"No doubt, no one will be able to replace the Dalai Lama and we Tibetans won't be able to repay him. But we are struggling for an independent nation and our struggle will continue," said TYC president Twesang Rigzin.
Therefore some analysts are increasingly concerned that once their spiritual leader is gone, the Tibetan movement, now united under the Dalai Lama, is very likely to split, given the differing views on how to achieve its goals.
Many have questions on how the Tibetan movement will proceed. Some have deep worries that the current Tibetan religious and government structure will change after his holiness passes. Others say the Tibetan movement will lose its direction and steam, as there will be growing frustration among exiles with the loss of a leader to guide them and to help them gain international support.
This is despite some of the Dalai Lama's staunch followers who believe that international support for the Tibetan movement is growing even though the Dalai Lama has already taken up semi-retirement to secure the future for the Tibetan movement by allowing the democratically-elected government in exile to play a more active role in deciding the course of the Tibetan movement.
Tibetans in exile are also concerned with who will become the next Dalai Lama and how the successor will be chosen. The Dalai Lama himself has not avoided talking about the issue of his succession in recent years. He seems to leave the question open. He once said whether Tibetans need the next Dalai Lama is an issue to be "democratically" decided by them.
On another occasion he did not rule out the possibility of his successor being female if Tibetans agreed on the issue, though according to Tibetan tradition a Dalai Lama must be male. And recently, the Dalai Lama described himself as "a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less" and spoke of his "retirement", though according to Tibetan tradition the Dalai Lama is a lifetime god-king.
"If people feel that the institution of the Dalai Lama is still necessary, then this will continue," he said. "There are various ways of [choosing a successor]. The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not."
But Tibetans in exile widely believe that when their spiritual leader is gone the Chinese government will step in to choose its own reincarnation, as it did in case of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest-ranking religious figure.
In 1995, the Chinese government forced Tibetan monks to appoint Gyancain Norbu rather than the Dalai Lama's chosen candidate - Gedhun Choekyi Nyima - in an attempt to further exert its authority over Tibet. And Tibetans in exile claim the Dalai Lama's designated candidate for the Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner in the world, held by the Chinese government.
Most Tibetans believe Beijing is not sincere in its desire to talk with the aging Dalai Lama on the Tibet issue, saying China is just buying time, which is not on the Dalai Lama's side as he is 73. Analysts believe that even if Beijing does not intervene in the Dalai Lama's reincarnation (which is very unlikely), once the Tibetan god-king is gone his successor will be a small boy and decades may pass before the new Dalai Lama is ready to assume religious and political leadership, making a much longer wait for Tibetans in exile. And during that long wait, anything can happen.
Yet it may be too early to depict any true image of a post-Dalai Lama era. As long as the Dalai Lama lives, he will continue to do his very best to try and lead his people back to their homeland. As the spiritual leader said, "It is my moral responsibility until my death to work for the Tibetan cause. My body and flesh is all Tibetan. I remain committed to the Tibetan cause."
Living in exile for nearly half a century, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is now 73. Tibetans in exile are becoming increasingly concerned with the issue of his succession and their future after the passage of the spiritual leader.
Hospitalized recently, living in semi-retirement from the Tibetan movement to let the elected Tibetan government control daily affairs, the health and future of the Dalai Lama is fodder for speculation. Many, especially those from older generations, are afraid that once the Dalai Lama passes away the Tibetan movement will lose steam and gradually fade from the international spotlight.
The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile here since fleeing Tibet after a failed armed rebellion against Chinese rule in March 1959, says he feels attached to the northern India state where he lives. "I have spent most of my life in this hill station. Now I feel like a citizen of Himachal Pradesh," the Dalai Lama said.
The spiritual leader of Tibetans in exile and at home who also leads the Tibetan government in exile is highly respected internationally. A Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama was also listed as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world by Newsweek. During his recent tour of Europe, the Dalai Lama was presented with honorary citizenship in Rome and granted the German Media Prize.
The Dalai Lama's fame, charm and high-profile international activities have helped make the Tibetan movement known to the world and win wide international support. Many Tibetans in exile also believe that it is the Dalai Lama who spiritually sustains their dream of returning to their homeland one day.
Therefore, many Tibetans in exile are worried that without him, the Tibet movement may gradually become forgotten by the world as his successor, if there is one, might not be able to make the same strides.
Older generations believe that following tradition, the Dalai Lama's successor must be a boy, the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. So it will take time for the next Dalai Lama to take up leadership and engage in international activities. But this is a topic too sacred for older Tibetans to talk about, and they are afraid of making any comment when asked.
Tibetan elders in exile simply believe that “His Holiness will make the right decision on choosing his successor which will benefit the future of Tibetans in exile and in Tibet".
But some young Tibetans in exile, who seek "full Tibet independence" and increasingly see the Dalai Lama's "middle way" as a constraint on their radical thinking and action, may feel freer to pursue their goal through more drastic means once the Dalai Lama passes away. These young radical Tibetans in exile, represented by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), have become increasingly discontent with the Dalai Lama's approach to seeking autonomy instead of independence for the Himalayan region, though spiritually they still hold the Dalai Lama in esteem.
Although the Chinese government has labeled the Dalai Lama a traitor intent on fomenting violent unrest in Tibet with the ambition of achieving independence, the Dalai Lama has not given up his middle-way approach and has made every attempt to hold a dialogue. Although he has admitted that his faith in the Chinese government is becoming thinner and thinner.
Compared with other active Tibetan organizations in exile, TYC has a clearcut goal - rangzen (full independence) - on its agenda. Thus it states that while its members will feel sad about the passage of the Dalai Lama, they will continue to fight for their freedom.
"No doubt, no one will be able to replace the Dalai Lama and we Tibetans won't be able to repay him. But we are struggling for an independent nation and our struggle will continue," said TYC president Twesang Rigzin.
Therefore some analysts are increasingly concerned that once their spiritual leader is gone, the Tibetan movement, now united under the Dalai Lama, is very likely to split, given the differing views on how to achieve its goals.
Many have questions on how the Tibetan movement will proceed. Some have deep worries that the current Tibetan religious and government structure will change after his holiness passes. Others say the Tibetan movement will lose its direction and steam, as there will be growing frustration among exiles with the loss of a leader to guide them and to help them gain international support.
This is despite some of the Dalai Lama's staunch followers who believe that international support for the Tibetan movement is growing even though the Dalai Lama has already taken up semi-retirement to secure the future for the Tibetan movement by allowing the democratically-elected government in exile to play a more active role in deciding the course of the Tibetan movement.
Tibetans in exile are also concerned with who will become the next Dalai Lama and how the successor will be chosen. The Dalai Lama himself has not avoided talking about the issue of his succession in recent years. He seems to leave the question open. He once said whether Tibetans need the next Dalai Lama is an issue to be "democratically" decided by them.
On another occasion he did not rule out the possibility of his successor being female if Tibetans agreed on the issue, though according to Tibetan tradition a Dalai Lama must be male. And recently, the Dalai Lama described himself as "a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less" and spoke of his "retirement", though according to Tibetan tradition the Dalai Lama is a lifetime god-king.
"If people feel that the institution of the Dalai Lama is still necessary, then this will continue," he said. "There are various ways of [choosing a successor]. The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not."
But Tibetans in exile widely believe that when their spiritual leader is gone the Chinese government will step in to choose its own reincarnation, as it did in case of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest-ranking religious figure.
In 1995, the Chinese government forced Tibetan monks to appoint Gyancain Norbu rather than the Dalai Lama's chosen candidate - Gedhun Choekyi Nyima - in an attempt to further exert its authority over Tibet. And Tibetans in exile claim the Dalai Lama's designated candidate for the Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner in the world, held by the Chinese government.
Most Tibetans believe Beijing is not sincere in its desire to talk with the aging Dalai Lama on the Tibet issue, saying China is just buying time, which is not on the Dalai Lama's side as he is 73. Analysts believe that even if Beijing does not intervene in the Dalai Lama's reincarnation (which is very unlikely), once the Tibetan god-king is gone his successor will be a small boy and decades may pass before the new Dalai Lama is ready to assume religious and political leadership, making a much longer wait for Tibetans in exile. And during that long wait, anything can happen.
Yet it may be too early to depict any true image of a post-Dalai Lama era. As long as the Dalai Lama lives, he will continue to do his very best to try and lead his people back to their homeland. As the spiritual leader said, "It is my moral responsibility until my death to work for the Tibetan cause. My body and flesh is all Tibetan. I remain committed to the Tibetan cause."
Succession worries unsettle Tibetans
By M H Ahssan
Living in exile for nearly half a century, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is now 73. Tibetans in exile are becoming increasingly concerned with the issue of his succession and their future after the passage of the spiritual leader.
Hospitalized recently, living in semi-retirement from the Tibetan movement to let the elected Tibetan government control daily affairs, the health and future of the Dalai Lama is fodder for speculation. Many, especially those from older generations, are afraid that once the Dalai Lama passes away the Tibetan movement will lose steam and gradually fade from the international spotlight.
The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile here since fleeing Tibet after a failed armed rebellion against Chinese rule in March 1959, says he feels attached to the northern India state where he lives. "I have spent most of my life in this hill station. Now I feel like a citizen of Himachal Pradesh," the Dalai Lama said.
The spiritual leader of Tibetans in exile and at home who also leads the Tibetan government in exile is highly respected internationally. A Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama was also listed as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world by Newsweek. During his recent tour of Europe, the Dalai Lama was presented with honorary citizenship in Rome and granted the German Media Prize.
The Dalai Lama's fame, charm and high-profile international activities have helped make the Tibetan movement known to the world and win wide international support. Many Tibetans in exile also believe that it is the Dalai Lama who spiritually sustains their dream of returning to their homeland one day.
Therefore, many Tibetans in exile are worried that without him, the Tibet movement may gradually become forgotten by the world as his successor, if there is one, might not be able to make the same strides.
Older generations believe that following tradition, the Dalai Lama's successor must be a boy, the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. So it will take time for the next Dalai Lama to take up leadership and engage in international activities. But this is a topic too sacred for older Tibetans to talk about, and they are afraid of making any comment when asked.
Tibetan elders in exile simply believe that “His Holiness will make the right decision on choosing his successor which will benefit the future of Tibetans in exile and in Tibet".
But some young Tibetans in exile, who seek "full Tibet independence" and increasingly see the Dalai Lama's "middle way" as a constraint on their radical thinking and action, may feel freer to pursue their goal through more drastic means once the Dalai Lama passes away. These young radical Tibetans in exile, represented by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), have become increasingly discontent with the Dalai Lama's approach to seeking autonomy instead of independence for the Himalayan region, though spiritually they still hold the Dalai Lama in esteem.
Although the Chinese government has labeled the Dalai Lama a traitor intent on fomenting violent unrest in Tibet with the ambition of achieving independence, the Dalai Lama has not given up his middle-way approach and has made every attempt to hold a dialogue. Although he has admitted that his faith in the Chinese government is becoming thinner and thinner.
Compared with other active Tibetan organizations in exile, TYC has a clearcut goal - rangzen (full independence) - on its agenda. Thus it states that while its members will feel sad about the passage of the Dalai Lama, they will continue to fight for their freedom.
"No doubt, no one will be able to replace the Dalai Lama and we Tibetans won't be able to repay him. But we are struggling for an independent nation and our struggle will continue," said TYC president Twesang Rigzin.
Therefore some analysts are increasingly concerned that once their spiritual leader is gone, the Tibetan movement, now united under the Dalai Lama, is very likely to split, given the differing views on how to achieve its goals.
Many have questions on how the Tibetan movement will proceed. Some have deep worries that the current Tibetan religious and government structure will change after his holiness passes. Others say the Tibetan movement will lose its direction and steam, as there will be growing frustration among exiles with the loss of a leader to guide them and to help them gain international support.
This is despite some of the Dalai Lama's staunch followers who believe that international support for the Tibetan movement is growing even though the Dalai Lama has already taken up semi-retirement to secure the future for the Tibetan movement by allowing the democratically-elected government in exile to play a more active role in deciding the course of the Tibetan movement.
Tibetans in exile are also concerned with who will become the next Dalai Lama and how the successor will be chosen. The Dalai Lama himself has not avoided talking about the issue of his succession in recent years. He seems to leave the question open. He once said whether Tibetans need the next Dalai Lama is an issue to be "democratically" decided by them.
On another occasion he did not rule out the possibility of his successor being female if Tibetans agreed on the issue, though according to Tibetan tradition a Dalai Lama must be male. And recently, the Dalai Lama described himself as "a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less" and spoke of his "retirement", though according to Tibetan tradition the Dalai Lama is a lifetime god-king.
"If people feel that the institution of the Dalai Lama is still necessary, then this will continue," he said. "There are various ways of [choosing a successor]. The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not."
But Tibetans in exile widely believe that when their spiritual leader is gone the Chinese government will step in to choose its own reincarnation, as it did in case of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest-ranking religious figure.
In 1995, the Chinese government forced Tibetan monks to appoint Gyancain Norbu rather than the Dalai Lama's chosen candidate - Gedhun Choekyi Nyima - in an attempt to further exert its authority over Tibet. And Tibetans in exile claim the Dalai Lama's designated candidate for the Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner in the world, held by the Chinese government.
Most Tibetans believe Beijing is not sincere in its desire to talk with the aging Dalai Lama on the Tibet issue, saying China is just buying time, which is not on the Dalai Lama's side as he is 73. Analysts believe that even if Beijing does not intervene in the Dalai Lama's reincarnation (which is very unlikely), once the Tibetan god-king is gone his successor will be a small boy and decades may pass before the new Dalai Lama is ready to assume religious and political leadership, making a much longer wait for Tibetans in exile. And during that long wait, anything can happen.
Yet it may be too early to depict any true image of a post-Dalai Lama era. As long as the Dalai Lama lives, he will continue to do his very best to try and lead his people back to their homeland. As the spiritual leader said, "It is my moral responsibility until my death to work for the Tibetan cause. My body and flesh is all Tibetan. I remain committed to the Tibetan cause."
Living in exile for nearly half a century, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is now 73. Tibetans in exile are becoming increasingly concerned with the issue of his succession and their future after the passage of the spiritual leader.
Hospitalized recently, living in semi-retirement from the Tibetan movement to let the elected Tibetan government control daily affairs, the health and future of the Dalai Lama is fodder for speculation. Many, especially those from older generations, are afraid that once the Dalai Lama passes away the Tibetan movement will lose steam and gradually fade from the international spotlight.
The Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile here since fleeing Tibet after a failed armed rebellion against Chinese rule in March 1959, says he feels attached to the northern India state where he lives. "I have spent most of my life in this hill station. Now I feel like a citizen of Himachal Pradesh," the Dalai Lama said.
The spiritual leader of Tibetans in exile and at home who also leads the Tibetan government in exile is highly respected internationally. A Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama was also listed as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world by Newsweek. During his recent tour of Europe, the Dalai Lama was presented with honorary citizenship in Rome and granted the German Media Prize.
The Dalai Lama's fame, charm and high-profile international activities have helped make the Tibetan movement known to the world and win wide international support. Many Tibetans in exile also believe that it is the Dalai Lama who spiritually sustains their dream of returning to their homeland one day.
Therefore, many Tibetans in exile are worried that without him, the Tibet movement may gradually become forgotten by the world as his successor, if there is one, might not be able to make the same strides.
Older generations believe that following tradition, the Dalai Lama's successor must be a boy, the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. So it will take time for the next Dalai Lama to take up leadership and engage in international activities. But this is a topic too sacred for older Tibetans to talk about, and they are afraid of making any comment when asked.
Tibetan elders in exile simply believe that “His Holiness will make the right decision on choosing his successor which will benefit the future of Tibetans in exile and in Tibet".
But some young Tibetans in exile, who seek "full Tibet independence" and increasingly see the Dalai Lama's "middle way" as a constraint on their radical thinking and action, may feel freer to pursue their goal through more drastic means once the Dalai Lama passes away. These young radical Tibetans in exile, represented by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), have become increasingly discontent with the Dalai Lama's approach to seeking autonomy instead of independence for the Himalayan region, though spiritually they still hold the Dalai Lama in esteem.
Although the Chinese government has labeled the Dalai Lama a traitor intent on fomenting violent unrest in Tibet with the ambition of achieving independence, the Dalai Lama has not given up his middle-way approach and has made every attempt to hold a dialogue. Although he has admitted that his faith in the Chinese government is becoming thinner and thinner.
Compared with other active Tibetan organizations in exile, TYC has a clearcut goal - rangzen (full independence) - on its agenda. Thus it states that while its members will feel sad about the passage of the Dalai Lama, they will continue to fight for their freedom.
"No doubt, no one will be able to replace the Dalai Lama and we Tibetans won't be able to repay him. But we are struggling for an independent nation and our struggle will continue," said TYC president Twesang Rigzin.
Therefore some analysts are increasingly concerned that once their spiritual leader is gone, the Tibetan movement, now united under the Dalai Lama, is very likely to split, given the differing views on how to achieve its goals.
Many have questions on how the Tibetan movement will proceed. Some have deep worries that the current Tibetan religious and government structure will change after his holiness passes. Others say the Tibetan movement will lose its direction and steam, as there will be growing frustration among exiles with the loss of a leader to guide them and to help them gain international support.
This is despite some of the Dalai Lama's staunch followers who believe that international support for the Tibetan movement is growing even though the Dalai Lama has already taken up semi-retirement to secure the future for the Tibetan movement by allowing the democratically-elected government in exile to play a more active role in deciding the course of the Tibetan movement.
Tibetans in exile are also concerned with who will become the next Dalai Lama and how the successor will be chosen. The Dalai Lama himself has not avoided talking about the issue of his succession in recent years. He seems to leave the question open. He once said whether Tibetans need the next Dalai Lama is an issue to be "democratically" decided by them.
On another occasion he did not rule out the possibility of his successor being female if Tibetans agreed on the issue, though according to Tibetan tradition a Dalai Lama must be male. And recently, the Dalai Lama described himself as "a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less" and spoke of his "retirement", though according to Tibetan tradition the Dalai Lama is a lifetime god-king.
"If people feel that the institution of the Dalai Lama is still necessary, then this will continue," he said. "There are various ways of [choosing a successor]. The point is whether to continue with the institution of the Dalai Lama or not. After my death, Tibetan religious leaders can debate whether to have a Dalai Lama or not."
But Tibetans in exile widely believe that when their spiritual leader is gone the Chinese government will step in to choose its own reincarnation, as it did in case of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest-ranking religious figure.
In 1995, the Chinese government forced Tibetan monks to appoint Gyancain Norbu rather than the Dalai Lama's chosen candidate - Gedhun Choekyi Nyima - in an attempt to further exert its authority over Tibet. And Tibetans in exile claim the Dalai Lama's designated candidate for the Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner in the world, held by the Chinese government.
Most Tibetans believe Beijing is not sincere in its desire to talk with the aging Dalai Lama on the Tibet issue, saying China is just buying time, which is not on the Dalai Lama's side as he is 73. Analysts believe that even if Beijing does not intervene in the Dalai Lama's reincarnation (which is very unlikely), once the Tibetan god-king is gone his successor will be a small boy and decades may pass before the new Dalai Lama is ready to assume religious and political leadership, making a much longer wait for Tibetans in exile. And during that long wait, anything can happen.
Yet it may be too early to depict any true image of a post-Dalai Lama era. As long as the Dalai Lama lives, he will continue to do his very best to try and lead his people back to their homeland. As the spiritual leader said, "It is my moral responsibility until my death to work for the Tibetan cause. My body and flesh is all Tibetan. I remain committed to the Tibetan cause."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)